Fantasy vs Science Fiction: A Poll

[Ihe]

Sci-fi is at the same time boundless and possible. It is the absolute escapism. Sci-fi for me.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Fiction in books

is at the same time boundless and possible. It is the absolute escapism.

I like all Fiction. Fantasy and SF

 

[Ihe]

Fiction in books

I like all Fiction. Fantasy and SF

Good Point. All fiction in general can be boundless and possible, true, but I meant it from a perspective of degrees, not in absolute terms, god forbid. Fantasy can be amazing, but I consider SF a shade more boundless and a whole spectrum more possible than it. But then again, my stance is most definitely biased, as all of us here are (except you, it seems ). It's hard to keep from categorizing, comparing, and hierarchizing everything. Our brains are wired for it, and they spark when presented with polarizing questions such as the one asked in this thread. But if you absolutely HAD to choose, would you maintain neutrality? Are you really as neutral as you say? We are bound to like things more than others at the biological and evolutionary level. You can't outrun this or any dichotomy. I, for one, let myself be caught. Call me lazy, haha.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

@Ihe No, I couldn't vote.
I've been reading SF for maybe 50 years. A lot is not remotely possible. Some is pure entertainment, some Speculative fiction, some the SF aspect is a McGuffin. Ray Bradbury famously claimed that Martian Chronicles ISN'T SF and Fahrenheit 451 ISN'T about censorship!
The first Pern books seem just like Fantasy ... Dragons and a Mediaeval style culture? Esp if you skip intro.

Spoiler: Really?

But the settlers came by spaceships, the three sisters and the "Dragons" are genetically engineered fire lizards. Still very Fantasy.

Most of Star Trek's SF is nonsense.
Philip K. Dick, the point is not about the Technology, it's SF though.
There is a continuous spectrum from Realistic through to pure High Romance Fantasy (in original meaning of Romance). I adore both ends if well written. SF with too much Fantasy pretending to be science is harder to enjoy than unashamed Fantasy.
The threads here when people try (mostly without success) to define SF, soft SF and Hard SF are interesting, especially when people give examples that sound interesting.

 

[Mirannan]

I think that either genre could be said to include the whole of fiction, if one pushes hard enough. The reason is that both genres involve changes in the currently-understood laws of physics, at least if one excludes near-future SF. Hyperdrive and time travel are beyond the currently understood laws of physics; so are many of the themes of fantasy.

It's also true (IMHO) that the two genres cross over more than some people would like to admit. For example, Dune includes such things as prescient powers and mind control that have no basis in currently-understood science, whereas fantasy often includes such things as opening gates to alternate realities - ditto - and magic is often strongly bound by its own set of rules.

Clarke's Third Law is also relevant, as is its reverse.

 

[BAYLOR]

One of my favorite universes is the Warhammer 40K. It's a Dystopian science fiction with fantasy elements. It's a very improbable , but it's great fun to read .

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I thought it was a game and the thick books were rules?

 

[BAYLOR]

I thought it was a game and the thick books were rules?

It started out as a game , first . Warhammer the fantasy series, then the 40k came along. Later on they began to write novels taking place in the universe. My two favorite writers of Warhammer novels, are Dan Abnett and Sandy Mitchell.

Then there's the Horus Heresy saga which takes place 10,000 before. It shows how the 40 k universe became a dystopic war wracked mess .

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Our house has lots of the little models, some even painted.

 

[Ihe]

I agree that a lot of SF can be bogus, reason why I didn't say "probable", but "possible". Even if the final product is flawed, its manufacturing process tries to be sound (if the author is any good), and in my paltry experience so far, average SF is as much about the how as it is about the what and the other 'W's, giving it an extra dimension compared to average Fantasy (I'm, of course, thinking average books for both SF and Fantasy, with often-used elements in their respective niches).

To be more specific, magic cannot hold a candle to technology (because technology would use LEDs and plasma and gadgets that go "piririp kwitng beep beep") in both plausibility and variety of mechanics. Even if both genres tackle the same ludicrously impossible thing like, say, talking to the dead, I will always see Ubik to be more accurate/possible/creative in its take on necromancy than anything magic has to offer, even if I know the concept is ridiculous. This isn't to say that a lot of Fantasy doesn't try to set up internally consistent mechanics to their supernatural elements (I'm thinking Rothfuss's "empathic links", for example).

What it comes down to, for me, is falsifiability in the methods. We already know lots of supernatural things in fantasy cannot be. Due to technological restraints, there are many things in sci-fi that we suspect cannot be, but we cannot disprove 100%. That in itself grants SF, no matter how improbable the element, an edge in terms of suspension of disbelief at the very least.

With that said: I am a hopeless SF fanboy. Please forgive the literary bigotry. I can't help it. I like Fantasy, but SF is my first love. We tend to idealize first loves and the tendency is hard to shake.

PS: Warhammer 40K is a frustrated hobby of mine. I envy anyone who has it in any form. Necrons were the coolest.

 

[BAYLOR]

I like both science fiction and fantasy , though I tend to gravitate toward fantasy. The biggest problem with science fiction , any science fiction, is that it gets dated. It's far less of a problem for fantasy.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

magic cannot hold a candle to technology

Ah ... you aren't an engineer or scientist?

Also what about "magic" in a contemporary 70th Century alien setting (they have Electricity 5,000 years ago) rather than usual Bronze / Iron / Mediaeval / Renaissance age settings?

It may have been Larry Niven rather than A.C. Clarke that first discussed difficulty of telling Science and Magic apart when the observer hasn't knowledge of either.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I like both science fiction and fantasy , though I tend to gravitate toward fantasy. The biggest problem with science fiction , any science fiction, is that it gets dated. It's far less of a problem for fantasy.

Which is great as a SF writer because you always have to write the next thing that isn't dated. Planned obsolescence!

I agree that Fantasy can (although not always) have a long shelf life.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Some really good SF doesn't date. The really good SF that is Obsolete/Dated is still brilliant.

 

[althea]

I agree that really good SF,even dated is good.
I've been reading several of PKD's books and the technology part of the books is dated.The stories,characters and dialogue are not dated though and they carry the books through into present times.His ideas were wonderfully creative when you realise the times he wrote in.

 

[Ihe]

I agree that Fantasy can (although not always) have a long shelf life.

Spot-on. SF needs to reinvent itself over time (and SF readers need to adapt over and over again.). Fantasy doesn't have that pressure, and there's a risk of it stagnating at some point (not that it has, but it could).

It may have been Larry Niven rather than A.C. Clarke that first discussed difficulty of telling Science and Magic apart when the observer hasn't knowledge of either.

I can't argue the Third Law. At some point SF transmutes into Fantasy, willingly or not. This raises a question for me: just how many fantastic elements not key to the plot can SF works allow before stepping over the line into Science Fantasy? This might not be the thread to discuss it, though. Not sure. It is related at least, as Science Fantasy is the middle ground between the two genres discussed--its love child, if you will.

 

[J-Sun]

The biggest problem with science fiction , any science fiction, is that it gets dated. It's far less of a problem for fantasy.

Yes, some SF gets dated; fantasy is dated to start with.

 

[Mirannan]

Yes, some SF gets dated; fantasy is dated to start with.

Not necessarily. Fantasy in a modern setting does exist; admittedly such stories do date, but no more than "mainstream" fiction does. This can be to do with technological change and/or linguistic drift. Amusing examples of the latter are the Enid Blyton kids' books (lots of examples of characters feeling queer, for example) and something that Stephen Fry did a mini-skit on during QI, from the Sherlock Holmes stories. When the stories were written, for a character to ejaculate out of a second-floor window was entirely reasonable.

Less amusing examples of modern concerns intruding on the appreciation of 19th century books might well include Huckleberry Finn. A similar concern applies to the much-rumoured Dambusters remake; I'm going to find it very interesting to see what they do about the name of Guy Gibson's dog.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

for a character to ejaculate out of a second-floor window was entirely reasonable

I found it in a 1949 novel.

Amusing examples of the latter are the Enid Blyton kids' books (lots of examples of characters feeling queer, for example) and something that Stephen Fry did a mini-skit

I think you have to be like Stephen Fry to find that amusing or odd.
Lots of ordinary words and symbols have been "hijacked" by special interest groups and absolutely still obviously mean what they meant when the book written 70 years ago. The context is rather obvious as we are not as primitive as "Google Translate" or "kindle Text to Speech".

 

[psikeyhackr]

Ah ... you aren't an engineer or scientist?

Also what about "magic" in a contemporary 70th Century alien setting (they have Electricity 5,000 years ago) rather than usual Bronze / Iron / Mediaeval / Renaissance age settings?

It may have been Larry Niven rather than A.C. Clarke that first discussed difficulty of telling Science and Magic apart when the observer hasn't knowledge of either.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - A. C. Clarke

The Third Law is the best known and most widely cited, and appears in Clarke's 1973 revision of "Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination". It echoes a statement in a 1942 story by Leigh Brackett: "Witchcraft to the ignorant, ... simple science to the learned".[2] Even earlier examples of this sentiment may be found in Wild Talents (1932) by the author Charles Fort, where he makes the statement: "...a performance that may some day be considered understandable, but that, in these primitive times, so transcends what is said to be the known that it is what I mean by magic."

[2] "The Sorcerer of Rhiannon", Astounding February 1942, p. 39.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws

Brackett beat Clarke by 31 years.

psik