# Should Fantasy and Sci/Fi really intertwine?



## Sharukem (Dec 8, 2006)

People have been arguing this point for many a century, and have had many a conflict with each other. But I think that it is about time that we discuss this point amongst us.


----------



## Pointfinder (Dec 8, 2006)

Yes, its all speculative fiction and in general I think people who read SF are also likely to read F and vice versa, so what's the harm in it?


----------



## aarti (Dec 8, 2006)

I have been a fantasy buff for ages but never really read sci fi.  I don't actually know why I don't- I just never found the outer space or science components that interesting.  Maybe because in fantasy, I usually lean towards the epic or historical variety.  I don't really ever read "urban" fantasy, or fantasy that takes place in the current day.

As for fantasy and sci fi intertwining- I think most people think they're the same, anyway!  At least, when I go to the bookstore, they are all together in a very hodgepodge way.  However, I guess I don't really know what you mean by intertwining.  Do you mean, writing a book that has both fantastical and science fictional elements?  I'm sure there are books out there that do that (though I admit I don't know what they are).  Being a fantasy fan, I find sci fi a bit more intimidating, but eventually, I'm sure I'll dip my feet in!


----------



## Pyan (Dec 8, 2006)

I started off my addiction to both genres with hard sf - the first book I remember reading was by Isaac Asimov- but find myself tending these days to Fantasy. But it really makes no difference: the last few books I have read include _Wintersmith_, by Terry Pratchett (F), _Consider Phlebas_, by Iain M Banks (SF), _Deed of Paksenarrion_, by Elizabeth Moon, (F), and _The Book of Lost Tales_, by JRRT (F). There is no real pattern to my choices within SF/F: I just pick a book that looks interesting and dive in.
There are some sub-genres that don't interest me at all: Cyberpunk, for one. But generally I would advise people new to SF/F not to be put off by the label: be as catholic as you can in reading within SF/F: and don't pass over a title because it's been categorized as either SF or Fantasy. The diffence is blurred anyway: how would you label Anne McCaffrey's _Pern_ books, for instance?


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 8, 2006)

Sharukem said:


> People have been arguing this point for many a century, and have had many a conflict with each other. But I think that it is about time that we discuss this point amongst us.


 
Um, "many a century" is a bit of a stretch, as sf hasn't even been around (as such) for a century yet.....  (Wells and Verne wrote "scientific romances" where the science could be accurate to the knowledge of their day, or complete fluff, for example). And what we know as fantasy really doesn't date much further back than William Morris in the 1880s....

However, to step down from being pedantic: They always have tended to do so. If you read the sf or the fantasy of the 1910s on, you'll find plenty of examples of the lines being blurred... sf is an outgrowth of fantasy (or the imaginative tale, which also includes the tale of supernatural horror, ghost stories -- scary or humorous -- etc.) Personally, I think there's plenty of room for a variety, and I'd prefer to keep it that way: some that are rigidly scientific ("hard" sf writers such as Benford, Bova, etc.), fantasy of various sorts (from the delicate touch of a Dunsany to the mega-doorstops like Jordan, Martin, etc.), and those that fall inbetween ... whatever they may be. (How would you, for instance, classify most of Rod Serling's work? SF? Fantasy? Horror? Or Lovecraft, who wrote in all of these. Or James Tiptree, Jr.? etc.)

In the end, I'd say for the writer to follow the demands of the story ... but I'm not a publisher or agent, and professional writers also have to listen to what will sell -- and therein lies the rub; for marketers like nice, cleancut divisions (until they stop selling because they've become too insular). But in the long run, crossbreeding the stories gives them more vitality, and allows for more growth, than any rigid systematization. So I'd say it's a healthy thing.


----------



## Urien (Dec 8, 2006)

Simpler to classify it all as "Speculative Fiction."


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 8, 2006)

andrew.v.spencer said:


> Simpler to classify it all as "Speculative Fiction."


 
It'll give the marketing people nervous breakdowns, but ... suits me.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Dec 9, 2006)

j. d. worthington said:


> It'll give the marketing people nervous breakdowns, but ... suits me.



Only if they have no imaginations.

And, for the record, I'm all for breaking down boundaries and letting the genres fraternize.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 9, 2006)

littlemissattitude said:


> Only if they have no imaginations.


 
I'm sorry for keeping this one up, but I can't resist: LMA: We're talking marketing. Imagination? Surely you jest!....


----------



## Talysia (Dec 9, 2006)

When I first started reading, I read both Sci-Fi and fantasy, as they were both lumped together in the same section in my library.  I guess that shows how people think that they're one and the same.  Now I mainly read fantasy, but I still like a good Sci-Fi tale once in a while.  Come to think of it, I started with Anne McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern series, and I still haven't been able to decide whether they're Sci-Fi or fantasy.  Apparently, the author says that they're Sci-Fi, but with some of the early books, the line between genres is very fine.


----------



## Urien (Dec 9, 2006)

It's a double helix of dependency.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Dec 9, 2006)

j. d. worthington said:


> I'm sorry for keeping this one up, but I can't resist: LMA: We're talking marketing. Imagination? Surely you jest!....



Look at it this way, j.d....encouraging the blending of genres, and thus inducing nervous breakdowns in marketing executives (it will happen to them all, eventually, because as you point out none of them have imaginations) is just my little way of keeping the therapists in business.  Look at it as my little contribution to the economy. 

And, on a more serious...and on-topic...note: I have never really understood the need for such strict categorization of genres, to the point that no science fiction should, according to some, seep over into fantasy, or fantasy into science fiction ("Don't cross the streams.  That would be very bad").  The same with other genres.  Some of my favorite novels cross genres.  Look at Kage Baker's _In The Garden of Iden_.  It's science fiction.  It's romance.  It's probably also fantasy.  And it works really well, in my opinion.  Perhaps it is because I read in most genres and enjoy them all the same, where some will only read science fiction, or fantasy, or detective novels, or whatever.

With my enjoyment of all genres and the blending of more than one in one story, I guess I just don't understand what is so difficult about selling something that crosses genres.  I offer as an example the film _Field of Dreams_.  It was sold as a baseball movie.  And it was a baseball movie.  But it was also a fine fantasy, only I didn't know that until I went and saw the thing, because of the way it was sold.  I don't know if they were afraid that baseball fans couldn't handle the fantasy aspect and wouldn't go see the movie, or if they figured that fantasy enthusiasts are all pasty white couch potatoes who hate sports and would stay away if the fantasy didn't include swords and dragons or whatever.  And maybe my faith in people's imaginations is misplaced.  But it would seem to me that advertising it (or any cross-genre entertainment, be it book, movie or whatever) as being of more than one genre would actually increase, not decrease, the audience.

Just call me Pollyanna, I suppose.


----------



## ScottSF (Dec 9, 2006)

My gut reaction is to say “NO!” to this question.

A more tempered response is that people can mix fantasy and sci-fi but it will most likely be something I won’t be interested in reading.

I am a fan of both but I usually prefer each to be solidly in it's own genre.  Something like Terry Brooks having Gnomes and Elves crawling out of a post apocalyptic modern world just turns me off as a reader. I had similar issues with Sarah Douglas' Wayfarer Redemption, I think it should have just stayed fantasy and left more mystery.  I would also prefer they were in separate sections of the book store so when I'm looking for a Sci-fi book I don't have to wade through all the wizards and goblins.  If you look in Writers' Market publication there's always a demand for 'hard' science fiction because plenty of people write what I call 'space fantasy.

I suppose it all comes down to Magic v Science and that’s where you can have genre mixing.  One culture’s Science is another culture’s Magic.  Or the Supernatural is actually part of a greater natural universe that we have barely begun to understand.  I remember once a guy on the train was trying to get me to make a donation for some Hindu based literature.  I think it was Veda Yoga (please correct me if that’s not a real thing) and he kept talking to me about the material vs. the immaterial and I was talking about Einstein’s equations were basically telling us that mater and energy were the same thing so there really is no immaterial world and at the same time there really is no material world and. . . I was really biting off more than I can chew but I can never forget the look of distaste on his face when I was talking about ‘science’ because I think Science was a threat to his Magic.  I don’t like the term Speculative Fiction.  I hope it doesn’t catch on because it may be harder to weed out the half-A**ed sci-fi from the real deal.  
'


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 10, 2006)

Well, as I've said before, through the majority of its history, sf has been often blended with fantasy -- not necessarily the faux-mediaeval fantasy, but fantasy nonetheless; and some of the most highly respected writers of sf have done such: Heinlein, Anderson, Asimov, Silverberg, Le Guin, Sturgeon, to name only a few. While, for aspiring writers who want to more easily sell their books, it may be better in that sense to keep a sharp line of demarcation, in the end what you end up with is a very insular attitude that cannot but hurt each branch of imaginative literature. Cross-pollenization is healthy for both the stories and for the writers; it keeps each from going stale. That is true of any branch of literature. Literary taxonomy is and has always been a slippery thing; and so it should be.

I realize that this may sound odd in light of some earlier posts I've made on the subject of the science in science fiction, but it isn't, really. If you are going to write a "hard" sf story, then you need to know what you're about with the science; but flexibility in what a writer can do with a story is the only way to keep that writer and what they write from becoming vitrified. And, as Ballard's novel showed, while such may be very pretty, in the end, it is stasis, and therefore death to any sort of art.


----------



## Pyan (Dec 10, 2006)

ScottSF said:


> I don’t like the term Speculative Fiction. I hope it doesn’t catch on because it may be harder to weed out the half-A**ed sci-fi from the real deal.
> '


 
I doubt it will: if it hasn't caught on in nearly 60 years, since Heinlein used it in 1948, it's unlikely it will now. 
It _could_ be a useful categorization, though, if you want a phrase that relates to all of the genres in which things occur, events and processes, that we do not fully understand or can only hypothesize about: science fiction, horror, fantasy, future or alternative history, supernatural fiction, etc. But I would think that it would be too broad a definition for most readers, who would find that they prefer closer targeting of their particular tastes.

The problem that I have with the phrase, though, is that it sounds tautological to me: by definition, fiction _*is*_ speculation: otherwise it would be fact.


----------



## williamjm (Dec 11, 2006)

j. d. worthington said:


> Um, "many a century" is a bit of a stretch, as sf hasn't even been around (as such) for a century yet.....  (Wells and Verne wrote "scientific romances" where the science could be accurate to the knowledge of their day, or complete fluff, for example).



I'm not sure much has changed, modern Science Fiction can still be accurate to the knowledge of our day or complete fluff


----------



## steve12553 (Dec 11, 2006)

Through all this, I've got 2 points. First I have to think that both Welles and Verne wrote Science Fiction even though today it appears to be Fantasy. What they wrote was not outside the science of their times anymore than writers today are outside today's science. It's not outside the realm of possiblity that fifty years from now the Science Fiction of today will look like Fantasy because the advances in science make the backdrop of science look like a fairy story. I really believe you have to take into account the author's knowledge and the science of the times it was written. The other point is that when mixing genre, Fantasy dominates. If you take a Science Fiction story and throw in a troll without explaining the science of genetically engineering a troll, you have a Fantasy regardless of the rest of the story. They really don't blend, the content defines them. I like both although I lean more toward Science Fiction. I do see distinct differences which suit my moods perfectly.

Edit: _Got distracted in the middle of this post and did not see the one above_.


----------



## Parson (Dec 11, 2006)

> If you take a Science Fiction story and throw in a troll without explaining the science of genetically engineering a troll, you have a Fantasy regardless of the rest of the story. They really don't blend, the content defines them.


 
Well said Steve 12553. I agree but you still have to deal with Anne M.'s Pern whose only real nod to the SF which she claims for it is she talks about the Dragons being genitically engineered to destroy thread. But for all the rest smacks like Fantasy of the first degree. 

Give me David Weber any day.


----------



## Pyan (Dec 11, 2006)

Yes, but only at the start of the series. As it goes on, it gets more and more sff-y, with the introduction of AVIAS and the back-stories of the First Founders.


----------



## The Technophobe (Dec 11, 2006)

re Pern books - Very Good


----------



## Parson (Dec 11, 2006)

pyanfaruk said:


> Yes, but only at the start of the series. As it goes on, it gets more and more sff-y, with the introduction of AVIAS and the back-stories of the First Founders.


 
Okay, I never got past book 3? The White Dragon? I love much of what Anne has done (ie the Crystal Singer series) but generally I found Pern boring. It was not SF enough to suit me. Maybe some of the later stuff would have been.


----------



## The Technophobe (Dec 11, 2006)

Parson, you should have stuck with the series, talking Dolphins later in the series as well, go back and get the books. The Doona series is ok as well.


----------



## Anomander (Dec 12, 2006)

My classification is perhaps a bit simplistic: Sci-fi is based on the futuristic, while Fantasy is based more on the past (Swords, knights etc). But there is indeed some overlap.


----------



## Pyan (Dec 12, 2006)

Anomander said:


> My classification is perhaps a bit simplistic: Sci-fi is based on the futuristic, while Fantasy is based more on the past (Swords, knights etc). But there is indeed some overlap.


 
But then how do you treat the post-apocalyptic SF, when we've gone past the future and reverted to steel? The _Pelbar Cycle_, by Paul O. Williams, for instance, is set in a future after nuclear war, where North America is reduced to less than 5%of its present population. Tribes have sprung up, and the most advanced weapon is the bow. But this is most definitely SF, not fantasy, and hard SF at that. A good read, too, if you can find them: see review below.


> *Superior Post-Holocaust Novel*, October 26, 2005
> Reviewer:*R. Albin* (Ann Arbor, Michigan United States) - See all my reviews
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Sharukem (Dec 12, 2006)

pyanfaruk said:


> Yes, but only at the start of the series. As it goes on, it gets more and more sff-y, with the introduction of AVIAS and the back-stories of the First Founders.


It doesn't always have to be  intertwined at the beginning though. It could wind up coming together near the middle and then split at the next book, or finish the intertwined story. so just remember that there is more than one way to intertwine a story and not always at the beginning.


----------



## chrispenycate (Dec 12, 2006)

I suppose science fiction should be able to explain away all its marvels, while fantasy's magic is less analysed. Still, there are plenty of technologies "indistinguishable from magic" even in hard science fiction, and no few fantasy writers have discovered that putting limits on their magic, establishing laws, made the situation more exciting, not less; and that is essentially applying the scientific method (for me, the touchstone of the difference) We've seen dragons, trolls, griffins, werewolves and vapires in major or minor roles in SF, with time travel, nuclear fission and public transport in fantasy: either technology has attempted weather control, mind control, genocide and social disruption or uniformity.
Someone back in the Campbell days suggested that SF was essentially democratic, while, in fantasy, the hero would always turn out to be the undiscovered son of some noble or another; another suggestion was that SF looked towards an improving future, while fantasy lived in a dark age, after the downfall of a previous, higher civilisation, who's ancient relics hung about for good or evil to stumble over (excuse me; go on mighty quests to discover) Anyone here can point out exceptions on both sides to either of these conditions. More than anything else I suspect, the difference is in the writing style as much as in the content - SF readers expect explanations, fantasy readers would prefer not to have them, but like the feeling that they exist somewhere. (Whee, vast generalisation)


----------



## Parson (Dec 13, 2006)

The Technophobe said:


> Parson, you should have stuck with the series, talking Dolphins later in the series as well, go back and get the books. The Doona series is ok as well.


 
I have read the Doona series. I would agree Ok. But not classic. I don't think I will go back to the series. It still just sounds boring to me.


----------



## Pyan (Dec 14, 2006)

Have you tried the *Tower and the Hive* series, or the _*Crystal Line*_ books, by the same author?


----------



## Cloud (Dec 14, 2006)

Yes.  why not?  I want to be entertained, amused, provoked into thought, and have my belief suspended; I don't really care what you call it or if genres get mixed, as long as the ideas and presentation hold together.


----------



## Parson (Dec 14, 2006)

pyanfaruk said:


> Have you tried the *Tower and the Hive* series, or the _*Crystal Line*_ books, by the same author?


 
Yes and Yes. Once, some years ago, I had a short e conversation with Anne and I said (honestly I think) that I was one of her few readers who had read about everything she had written but very little of the Pern stuff. I asked if she were going to do any more of the Crystal Singer Series. She said she didn't think so. Needless to say I was sad.


----------



## Parson (Dec 14, 2006)

Cloud said:


> as long as the ideas and presentation hold together.


 
Cloud, I think you've put your finger on the problem for me. I have a much harder time having the ideas hang together for me in Fantasy than I do in SF. Even the "Fantasy" SF seems to have more going for it for me than straight Fantasy. For example, I had a very hard time with the Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings because I just couldn't get over the setting "Middle Earth!" As if there were a possibility of a whole other word suspended between earth and the molten core!! It is much easier to suspend belief on "FTL" travel or esoteric Physics. We all know there are things we don't know there so belief becomes far less of a stretch.


----------



## RyFrye (Dec 20, 2006)

Parson said:


> Cloud, I think you've put your finger on the problem for me. I have a much harder time having the ideas hang together for me in Fantasy than I do in SF. Even the "Fantasy" SF seems to have more going for it for me than straight Fantasy. For example, I had a very hard time with the Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings because I just couldn't get over the setting "Middle Earth!" As if there were a possibility of a whole other word suspended between earth and the molten core!! It is much easier to suspend belief on "FTL" travel or esoteric Physics. We all know there are things we don't know there so belief becomes far less of a stretch.


 
Correct me if I am wrong...but...I think "middle earth" isn't a physical locale, it's a time in history...even in LTR. Though LTR added an alternate history with mythical creatures.


----------



## Parson (Dec 21, 2006)

I don't know if "Middle Earth" were a "historical epoc" or not. That would make more sense, but I never picked up on that if it were true. It would make more sense than a physical location.


----------



## sci-fi girl (Dec 22, 2006)

Tolkien said that Middle Earth is our Earth but in a fictional period of the past. It was a wide continent at the east of the other continent Aman, also called the Immortal Lands, and both had been separated by Belegaer, the Great Sea. The Immortals Lands became inaccessible after Numenor's fall. Middle Earth was mortals' land and over the centuries, it became Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 22, 2006)

And the term itself comes from Middle English, which took it from Norse mythology's Midgard:

Midgard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And, yes, it was (like Howard's Hyborian Age) set in prehistory. "Middle-earth" also refers to it being the "mid-realm" between the unknown East and the "Undying Lands" of the Valar.


----------



## Parson (Dec 22, 2006)

There sure are a lot of bright people here with phenomenal memory.


----------

