Difference between Fantasy and Science Fiction

[creslin_black]

To me the differences between sic-fi and fantasy literature are at this point almost undistinguishable beyond the generalization that fantasy tends to lend itself well to more traditional settings, i.e. medieval or sometimes even classical, in other words a setting which precedes our own time. Sci-Fi, in comparison, deals with possibilities in the future. Of course, such things are extremely mutable.

 

[Alan]

The problem is that everything that is argued can be disputed. I guess it's a conundrum without a definitive answer. I call my work Dark Fantasy and people can like it or lump it. But bookshops get stressed if they don't have a dark fantasy section. Then it just ends up in Fantasy or, sometimes, horror. Fantasy I don't mind, but when it ends up in horror, that irks me. It just shows a fundamental lack of understanding.

So what about, for things like Star Wars, Science Fantasy?

 

[Prefx]

I think the difference is whatever the website or publisher choses it to be. I've seen Lord of the Rings and other "duh, fantasies" listed as science fiction on certain websites.

Of course, that's probably not the answer you're probing for.

 

[j d worthington]

For all intents and purposes, I tend to use "imaginative" or "speculative" fiction in my own descriptions. I've seen too many crossovers, and fantasy actually has a much longer history than what we tend to think of as science fiction; and the two once more seem to be getting closer together in many people's minds. But -- as said before, for the writers who are trying to get published, with the markets as they are, most professional publishers tend to have a certain idea of what one or the other is, and if you try to get it published as one and they perceive it as the other, it's likely to get bounced; and if you have bleedover that confuses (or that they think will confuse) people, then it makes it much harder to find a market, as they don't know how to advertise, which is, realistically, a very big part of professional publication and the sales based on that are a very big part of getting anything else you write accepted. Self-publication doesn't quite have that to contend with (thank goodness), but there's still overcoming readers' perceptions if you want to succeed as a professional writer.

So, for those trying to find where their work fits, the division between science (or at least pseudo-science based), or, in the case of time-travel, things that have a long history of being accepted as sf ideas, have a better chance of flying; fantasy seems to be becoming more and more insular and into the "faux-medieval world" mindset (not for the first time), and if you buck that, you're likely to have trouble selling your work.

Frankly, I dislike the entire division. If it's well-written, I don't care what sort of literature it's called. I've become more and more of the opinion that when we started creating genres in publishing a little over a century ago, we made a huge mistake. Remember, until at least the late 'teens, general fiction magazines would accept stories that we would now consider science fiction, fantasy, horror, supernatural, mystery, etc.; it was only with the creation of the specialized pulps that the true ghettoization of genre literature began and, due to the frequently appalling writing standards -- what professional writer was going to put in a lot of skull-sweat for 1/4-cent a word? -- the majority of genre fiction quickly earned a not-wholly-unmerited disdain; then came the marketing to specific readers, which cut down on the chance of some of the well-written genre fiction making it into the mainstream market even more, and an even further marginalization of such fiction. And it's a simple fact that that marketing strategy is at present the only way for a writer of genre fiction to make it out there save for the odd chance. I don't like it (in fact, I hate it), but it's a brutal fact.

So, unfortunately, the need for some sort of distinction is still very much a realistic fact of our times.

 

[Frozeninja]

To me the differences between sic-fi and fantasy literature are at this point almost undistinguishable beyond the generalization that fantasy tends to lend itself well to more traditional settings, i.e. medieval or sometimes even classical, in other words a setting which precedes our own time. Sci-Fi, in comparison, deals with possibilities in the future. Of course, such things are extremely mutable.

That's kind of how I had thought of the divide as well. But there were a few examples (Gene Wolfe's "Book of the New Sun" springs to mind) where I wasn't sure whether I was reading Fantasy or Science Fiction. Though i'm not usually all that bothered which of the two categories (or both) a book falls into as long as I like it.

 

[creslin_black]

I have also heard that John C. Wright's new books, i.e. The Last Guardian of Everness, etc... are also somewhat hard to distinguish since they deal with mythology and alternate dimensions.

 

[littlemissattitude]

And it's a simple fact that that marketing strategy is at present the only way for a writer of genre fiction to make it out there save for the odd chance. I don't like it (in fact, I hate it), but it's a brutal fact.

So, unfortunately, the need for some sort of distinction is still very much a realistic fact of our times.

And, see, that's just exactly what drives me up a wall about the whole thing. There is this perception that unless a novel is either one thing or another thing, wholly and without question, it can't be successfully marketed and sold. But, look at The Time Traveler's Wife. Very much fantasy. But maybe also science fiction, due to the reason why the time traveler can actually time-travel. But also, at least to me, it felt very much like mainstream, literary fiction.

Also, because I took the time to ask a library cataloguer once, I know that at libraries it is not so much the nature of the book but the disposition of the individual who catalogues books at individual library branches who decides whether a work of fiction gets put in the general collection or in a separate genre section of the shelves.

...most professional publishers tend to have a certain idea of what one or the other is, and if you try to get it published as one and they perceive it as the other, it's likely to get bounced; and if you have bleedover that confuses (or that they think will confuse) people, then it makes it much harder to find a market, as they don't know how to advertise, which is, realistically, a very big part of professional publication and the sales based on that are a very big part of getting anything else you write accepted.

Since it doesn't seem to bother libraries, I just don't understand why publishers (or at least their marketing departments) are so convinced that people are so stupid as to be easily confused. I say, advertise fiction as just that. Fiction. Period. I think if they did that, people might actually find their way to a wider diversity of styles and subject matter.

Oh, I know...a lot of people insist that they "only like" science fiction, or fantasy, or mysteries, or westerns, or whatever. I see it as like vegetables...kids always say, "Well, I don't like broccoli" or "I don't like brussels sprouts" or whatever. But, often if they just will try them, they'll find out they aren't so bad. Might not become their favorite, but they won't automatically turn their noses up at them, either.

I also know that it is human nature to classify things, to put them in categories, and sometimes that is a helpful thing. Makes life easier. But it also makes life much more dull if it is taken too far, and one of the places where I think it is taken too far is in the publishing dictum that a novel must be this or that and can never be both.

Then again, I've always liked the idea of blurring and blending boundaries, so you can take all this for what it is worth, which likely isn't much.

 

[j d worthington]

Then again, I've always liked the idea of blurring and blending boundaries, so you can take all this for what it is worth, which likely isn't much.

Actually, I think if we heard enough voices on this at the publishing industry offices, they might rethink things. Maybe. (I'm counting you as one of the discontents, Little Miss -- so am I.)

I agree. When I was very young, I was about as close to a sf snob as you could find; but the more I became exposed to other branches on the tree of fiction, the more I found how they're all related. Good storytelling, good writing, etc., aren't restricted to any one or even one set of genres. I've come more and more to feel that the invention of genres has led to stultification in more than one area of fiction over the years, and at times has meant its death.

So, while I recognize the current necessity for such a distinction and urge it here for new writers who are interested in commercial success, as a writer myself I abhor it and would (idealistically) say -- write the stories that are in you and to hell with publishing categories. That way we're likely to get better books with longer lives. (Has anyone noticed that a great number of books in this area have had a short but bright career only to be found in massive numbers on the shelves of secondhand shops, while works in this "genre" published 40, 50, 100 years ago still remain cherished and periodically see reprint? And this was when, at most, these were called "different" stories or "fantastic romances", and the distinction between sf, fantasy, supernatural, etc., simply wasn't even there? Asimov writing a ghost story with Fred Pohl, for instance; and where the heck would an editor of today put Ellison, who certainly doesn't fit any particular category, were he to begin his career now? Maybe this should tell them something.)

(Okay, so I'm a rabble rouser. At least I didn't bring pitchforks and torches.)

Point being, until we can change the publishing industry's mind, for beginning writers who wish to make it commercially, the distinction is unfortunately a necessary one. If we can get them to rethink this, maybe we can do away with the whole bloody mess and simply enjoy some well-written fiction. Period.

 

[j d worthington]

Then again, I've always liked the idea of blurring and blending boundaries, so you can take all this for what it is worth, which likely isn't much.

Actually, I think if we heard enough voices on this at the publishing industry offices, they might rethink things. Maybe. (I'm counting you as one of the discontents, Little Miss -- so am I.)

I agree. When I was very young, I was about as close to a sf snob as you could find; but the more I became exposed to other branches on the tree of fiction, the more I found how they're all related. Good storytelling, good writing, etc., aren't restricted to any one or even one set of genres. I've come more and more to feel that the invention of genres has led to stultification in more than one area of fiction over the years, and at times has meant its death.

So, while I recognize the current necessity for such a distinction and urge it here for new writers who are interested in commercial success, as a writer myself I abhor it and would (idealistically) say -- write the stories that are in you and to hell with publishing categories. That way we're likely to get better books with longer lives. (Has anyone noticed that a great number of books in this area have had a short but bright career only to be found in massive numbers on the shelves of secondhand shops, while works in this "genre" published 40, 50, 100 years ago still remain cherished and periodically see reprint? And this was when, at most, these were called "different" stories or "fantastic romances", and the distinction between sf, fantasy, supernatural, etc., simply wasn't even there? Asimov writing a ghost story with Fred Pohl, for instance; and where the heck would an editor of today put Ellison, who certainly doesn't fit any particular category, were he to begin his career now? Maybe this should tell them something.)

(Okay, so I'm a rabble rouser. At least I didn't bring pitchforks and torches.)

Point being, until we can change the publishing industry's mind, for beginning writers who wish to make it commercially, the distinction is unfortunately a necessary one. If we can get them to rethink this, maybe we can do away with the whole bloody mess and simply enjoy some well-written fiction. Period.

 

[j d worthington]

Then again, I've always liked the idea of blurring and blending boundaries, so you can take all this for what it is worth, which likely isn't much.

Actually, I think if we heard enough voices on this at the publishing industry offices, they might rethink things. Maybe. (I'm counting you as one of the discontents, Little Miss -- so am I.)

I agree. When I was very young, I was about as close to a sf snob as you could find; but the more I became exposed to other branches on the tree of fiction, the more I found how they're all related. Good storytelling, good writing, etc., aren't restricted to any one or even one set of genres. I've come more and more to feel that the invention of genres has led to stultification in more than one area of fiction over the years, and at times has meant its death.

So, while I recognize the current necessity for such a distinction and urge it here for new writers who are interested in commercial success, as a writer myself I abhor it and would (idealistically) say -- write the stories that are in you and to hell with publishing categories. That way we're likely to get better books with longer lives. (Has anyone noticed that a great number of books in this area have had a short but bright career only to be found in massive numbers on the shelves of secondhand shops, while works in this "genre" published 40, 50, 100 years ago still remain cherished and periodically see reprint? And this was when, at most, these were called "different" stories or "fantastic romances", and the distinction between sf, fantasy, supernatural, etc., simply wasn't even there? Asimov writing a ghost story with Fred Pohl, for instance; and where the heck would an editor of today put Ellison, who certainly doesn't fit any particular category, were he to begin his career now? Maybe this should tell them something.)

(Okay, so I'm a rabble rouser. At least I didn't bring pitchforks and torches.)

Point being, until we can change the publishing industry's mind, for beginning writers who wish to make it commercially, the distinction is unfortunately a necessary one. If we can get them to rethink this, maybe we can do away with the whole bloody mess and simply enjoy some well-written fiction. Period.

 

[tiny99]

Science fiction = spaceships
Fantasy = monsters

 

[tiny99]

Science fiction = spaceships

Fantasy = monsters

 

[steve12553]

Marketing aside, sometimes I like fried chicken. Sometimes I like to have cherry pie for desert. But if you serve me a chicken pot pie, that doesn't make the fried chicken or the cherry pie cease to exist. There are clear definitions for the two genre. There are also a lot of novels and stories that blur the boundries. And yes, there are many people and websites and marketing people who try to redefine genre. I personally prefer to speak English rather some sort of advertising pop slang that changes at somebody's whim.

 

[j d worthington]

Hmmm. This is strange. I see the repeated posts from when we went into a timeslip last week; but when I look on the listing of new posts, I see one from Steve, which is why I dropped in here -- yet nothing comes up after my entry in triplicate (as if the first one wasn't long enough...) What happened to Steve's? I'd like to hear what he had to say.....

Okay, now it's giving me the following posts. Here we go again....

As for Tiny's precis definition, I like; but I've seen plenty of crossover there, as well. And just to complicate matters, there's always Brian Aldiss' definition of sf: Hubris clobbered by Nemesis....