Is fantasy really scifi?

[Loner]

Ah! This hoary old chestnut? People have been arguing aobut sci-fi and fantasy since the two genres existed.

These days the lines are getting increasingly blurred, but yes phase38, once upon a time that was seen as the clear line between sci-fi and fantasy.
Sci-fi contained science that explained some of the unusual elements in the story. Fantasy contained mythic figures and magical elements which must be accepted as given in order to enjoy the story.

I'm not judging;I like both.

 

[Sharukem]

What is the point of having a "lower class species" if really they are only us but smaller? And who really knows if the "lower class species" is really dumber than we are now? They could be twice as smart than we are. For all we know at the age of 5 they could pronounce the biggest word in the dictionay without flaw, we don't know. So really what I'm trying to say is don't assume that what the doctor says is true, even doctors have flaws in their studies. We have to wait and find out for our own if this is going to be true or not.

 

[The Pelagic Argosy]

I was talking to someone who said science fiction is when science is applied, and somewhat explained/justified.

For example, Back to the Future is science fiction, as the time travel is explained "scientifically" by Doc.

It wouldn't be sci fi if the films focused on Marty, and he just happened to time travel.

Do people agree with this?

Finally, someone invokes Back to the Future. And now I can ask a question that's been bugging me with this thread.

Orson Scott Card, in his book, "How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy" defined them thusly: Science fiction is what could be but isn't; fantasy is what couldn't be.

So, what about "science fiction" where the "science" is so far removed from anything that resembles real science that it is completely unbelievable, and might as well be considered "magic." For example, Doc did not explain time travel scientifically. He explained it, well...comically. Based on all accepted scientific principles that I know of, time travel cannot be accomplished via car and lightening strike. Back to the Future would, in my opinion, fall into the "what couldn't be" category, and it would be...fantasy?

However, Back to the Future does explore a common theme of time travel sci-fi: interfering with the past and messing up the future. So, does Back to the Future qualify as science fiction? Is there a certain minimum level of scientific plausiblity that a writer would have to meet to have the work qualify as science fiction?

If a work has to meet a certain level of plauiblity, then a lot of early science fiction may no longer qualify, as our level of scientific understanding grows.

 

[j d worthington]

I think that's where the real hornet's nest gets stirred up.... And I think that the majority of people in the field would agree that a lot of earlier science-fiction, and even of those works that were the precursors to sf, should still be considered such with the caveat that they were within the bounds with the scientific (or, in some cases, pseudoscientific) understanding of their time, but that our information has now superceded that. I don't know how many on here are aware of it, but until around the late 1930s, and even well into the 1950s, science fiction was considered to be a branch of fantasy. (I make the qualification because some of the fans began to differentiate it from outright fantasy without any scientific element about the 1930s, but it was a slow process, and even many of the best editors in the field continued to consider them part of the same thing until well into the 1950s.) (How's that for throwing a spanner into the works of this discussion -- even my own comments?)

However -- I think that the majority (based upon the various arguments I've seen, and the various statements by writers and editors and sf historians and critics alike) would come down in favor of the system I note above: Let the older entries in the field maintain their status with that caveat; but for newer things they must be much more stringent on their application of the word "science" because it has become so differentiated from fantasy per se. (And, just for the record, I'd class the Back to the Future films as definitely fantasy with scientific trappings but no science; i.e., science fantasy the same as Moorcock's Eternal Champion, several pieces by Ellison, etc.)

Also, just so I'm clear on this ... I tend toward the older idea myself; that's a definite shift for me, as I began by reading sf considerably more than fantasy; but as I learned more about the history of the field, the more I began to see that the older classification makes a lot more sense, and gets rid of the whole conception that because the science in a story is no longer valid, the story isn't valid -- which is utter nonsense. If the story itself is well done, it is still a good story, no matter how erroneous the science is.

 

[phase38]

Science Fantasy... interesting...

So what is Star Wars?

 

[j d worthington]

Science Fantasy... interesting...

So what is Star Wars?

By the above definition, it would certainly be science fantasy. The "science" in it is virtually nonexistent; it is all cloudy mysticism and magic with some flashy-looking (but never realistically grounded -- or extrapolated) technology. Which -- lest someone take that view -- is not to denigrate any such story; I'm very fond of both the first and second (original) Star Wars films, about 50/50 on the third, and abominate the last three to be released. But, given the third category, they most certainly aren't science fiction. (I'd have called them fantasy rather than sf to begin with.)

 

[chrispenycate]

I suspect that the writing style more than the content sets into which branch a particular work falls. I've seen science fiction dragons, elves, vampires, psionics, while fantasy has used parallel dimensions,alternate realities, time travel, even space travel (though elves are too wedded to the Earth to travel in space, or perhaps it's all that nasty cold iron)
A.C. Clarke's "the city and the stars" is purest SF, but its technology is sufficiently advanced to be indistinguishable…, Cordwainer Smith's "Instrumentality of mankind" with all its mythical tie-ins?M.Z. Bradley's "Darkover" is an SF universe, but the swords, Talents and gothic atmosphere make it quite recognisable to fantasy fans, while some crossover artists build hybrid universes, in the hope of grabbing both halves of their audience (Particularly Piers Anthony, or Stashieff, but I'm sure there are others)
Even scientifically trained writers can tend towards specialisation (Baxter, as an example, is practically untrappable in physics, but has some loose ends in biology) but occasional loopholes don't downgrade (big, silly grin) a work to fantasy, if the writing is done in a science fiction style. Similarly, using lasers and cryonics to detect and trap demons doesn't force a work into either camp; the handling of the concept is all (though if you aim it at the SF market you'd better be very convincing with your descriptions)