Scifi and Fantasy: where do we draw the line?

[Swank]

People in general can draw up their own rules for deciding what is fantasy. What is a backdrop for some can be a primary factor in deciding what is fantasy. Some people believe that any kind of space flight outside of the solar system is pure fantasy. For them, any book or movie featuring galactic space travel, no matter how well put together the story is technically, it is automatically fantasy.

Sure, but that's a bit like someone insisting that any sausage is German food and anyone with blonde hair is Norwegian.

 

[Parson]

As I believe was stated earlier in the thread, the only way a book or story is solidly SF or Fantasy is by author definition. No setting or style or activity necessitates one or the other. I've read SF with dragons and magic, and Fantasy space ships and science because that's what the author said the story was.

 

[The Big Peat]

As I believe was stated earlier in the thread, the only way a book or story is solidly SF or Fantasy is by author definition. No setting or style or activity necessitates one or the other. I've read SF with dragons and magic, and Fantasy space ships and science because that's what the author said the story was.

Authors are full of it though and beyond this*, there's also the matter of changing genre classifications. You have to get quite a long way through fantasy's history after all to find authors who recognised what they wrote as fantasy - do we remove Tolkien and all prior writers from the genre? I don't think anyone would suggest that, so it seems to make sense that the work of authors who have stated they were writing in one genre might be more usefully considered as part of another. McCaffrey's Dragons of Pern series seems an excellent example - given the status of fantasy when she started writing them, I completely understand why she might have considered them sci-fi. Fifty plus years after the fact, the general status of the fantasy genre makes dropping them in it pretty obvious. Ditto how Star Wars is a sci-fi no matter what Lucas might say about it being a fantasy.


And speaking of Pern, if the standard of possible scientific explanation based on undiscovered science for seemingly impossible powers (thus qualifying for sci-fi) is Pern's time-travelling teleporting dragons, then about 33% of the fantasy I read should now be classified as sci-fi including Lord of the Rings, Wheel of Time, Discworld, etc.etc. That's a conservative estimate. Also equally drawn from superstitious and what not elements.


In any case, and I know I'm not the first person to say this, but why to draw a firm line between two genres that are considered hand in hand, that borrow from each other frequently, share a very large sub-genre or two in common, and share many of its most famous authors? I'm about as strongly one genre as can be and yet still recognise there's a large overlap on the venn diagram with a lot of authors choosing to camp there.


*my favourite example, above and beyond JK Rowling trying to claim Harry Potter wasn't fantasy, was Brian Jacques saying he didn't view his books as fantasy because that was all about swords, dungeons and dragons, when his first book contained a big quest to find a sword that was found in a underground lair inhabited by a giant snake (i.e. a dragon). Even if you want to follow authors' intentions absolutely he was, by his own admission, quite confused about what he was writing.

 

[Swank]

Authors are full of it though and beyond this*, there's also the matter of changing genre classifications. You have to get quite a long way through fantasy's history after all to find authors who recognised what they wrote as fantasy - do we remove Tolkien and all prior writers from the genre? I don't think anyone would suggest that, so it seems to make sense that the work of authors who have stated they were writing in one genre might be more usefully considered as part of another. McCaffrey's Dragons of Pern series seems an excellent example - given the status of fantasy when she started writing them, I completely understand why she might have considered them sci-fi. Fifty plus years after the fact, the general status of the fantasy genre makes dropping them in it pretty obvious. Ditto how Star Wars is a sci-fi no matter what Lucas might say about it being a fantasy.


And speaking of Pern, if the standard of possible scientific explanation based on undiscovered science for seemingly impossible powers (thus qualifying for sci-fi) is Pern's time-travelling teleporting dragons, then about 33% of the fantasy I read should now be classified as sci-fi including Lord of the Rings, Wheel of Time, Discworld, etc.etc. That's a conservative estimate. Also equally drawn from superstitious and what not elements.


In any case, and I know I'm not the first person to say this, but why to draw a firm line between two genres that are considered hand in hand, that borrow from each other frequently, share a very large sub-genre or two in common, and share many of its most famous authors? I'm about as strongly one genre as can be and yet still recognise there's a large overlap on the venn diagram with a lot of authors choosing to camp there.


*my favourite example, above and beyond JK Rowling trying to claim Harry Potter wasn't fantasy, was Brian Jacques saying he didn't view his books as fantasy because that was all about swords, dungeons and dragons, when his first book contained a big quest to find a sword that was found in a underground lair inhabited by a giant snake (i.e. a dragon). Even if you want to follow authors' intentions absolutely he was, by his own admission, quite confused about what he was writing.

Tolkien and other authors may not have articulated that they were writing fantasy, but that doesn't mean that they assumed it was therefore SF. The two genres bear some similarities, but the there is no reason that we have clumped them together.

Pern, in particular, is SF. Not because McCaffery "says so", but because it is about Earth astronauts that genetically manipulated alien animals on the alien planet they colonized - and then lost their history and technology in a catastrophe.

Everything in it happens because of nature and technology in our future. There is no magic or mythical beasts.

Did Anne set up her readers by "tricking" them with SF disguised as fantasy? Absolutely. That was one of her pleasures in writing Pern. Gene Wolfe did something similar.

Telepathy is no more or less SF than FTL What we all seem to recognize as not-SF is when the fantasy elements are supposed to be just that, with names, powers and histories lacking connection to our rational history.

 

[Swank]

The problem with this question is viewing SF and fantasy as two sides of the same coin. SF doesn't have to have any fantastical stuff in it. It can just be a story that feels like it is about science - even 100% real science.

Fantasy really doesn't have that ability - it needs to have something unreal in it. And the fantasy unreal is generally agreed upon as the kind of thing that is unrepentantly false, impossible, fantastical, mythological etc. Often taken from old beliefs that have been well, well disproven and almost totally abandoned by the societies that consume Fantasy. And usually, there is more than one of those impossible things. Dragons AND spells. Witches and enchanted blades.


What I have come to appreciate are speculative fiction books like The First Fifteen Lives of Harry August, or The Sudden Appearance of Hope. In these stories there is a fantastic thing - ONE fantastic thing - and that thing creates the speculative possibilities that the plot turns on. The fantastic thing isn't science based (like FTL), and isn't obviously occult or mythical, and it is never explained in terms of why it came to be or how it can be changed. Harry August keeps being reborn with all his previous lives' memories, and some other people have that happen, too. The story is then a lot like SF in that the plot is an extrapolation on this central device, even though it is not like SF in that the setting or backstory are not science-like. And it isn't like a fantasy, where many things can be greatly different from reality; not just one.

I don't think there is any combination fantasy/SF. Either it rules out being SF because it sticks to its impossible guns (magic), or it allows that every unreal element came from somewhere 'real' due to the application of science and time. Books like the Claire North novels above could be either, but don't bother clearing up the ambiguity.

 

[Brian G Turner]

IMO the distinction is pretty simple:

Is is set in space, the future, or involve time travel? Then it's science fiction.
Is is set in a distant past, or involve mythological creatures? Then its fantasy.

Some people would like to make the additional distinction that science fiction involves science a driving part of the story, but frankly the vast majority of science fiction makes no attempt at this and simply throws in random science terms in a meaningless way. Star Trek is a great example of this.

Swank is on to a good point about whether SF attempts to be "rational" or not, but IMO all SF/F is simply speculative fiction in that involves the fantastical in some way, but that the setting defines whether it's further sub-defined as SF/F.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

SF is about rational speculation.
F is about irrational speculation.

 

[The Big Peat]

IMO the distinction is pretty simple:

Is is set in space, the future, or involve time travel? Then it's science fiction.
Is is set in a distant past, or involve mythological creatures? Then its fantasy.

Some people would like to make the additional distinction that science fiction involves science a driving part of the story, but frankly the vast majority of science fiction makes no attempt at this and simply throws in random science terms in a meaningless way. Star Trek is a great example of this.

Swank is on to a good point about whether SF attempts to be "rational" or not, but IMO all SF/F is simply speculative fiction in that involves the fantastical in some way, but that the setting defines whether it's further sub-defined as SF/F.

Today I learned that Harry Potter, Discworld, and Magician are all Sci-Fi to name a few

Tolkien and other authors may not have articulated that they were writing fantasy, but that doesn't mean that they assumed it was therefore SF. The two genres bear some similarities, but the there is no reason that we have clumped them together.

Pern, in particular, is SF. Not because McCaffery "says so", but because it is about Earth astronauts that genetically manipulated alien animals on the alien planet they colonized - and then lost their history and technology in a catastrophe.

Everything in it happens because of nature and technology in our future. There is no magic or mythical beasts.

Did Anne set up her readers by "tricking" them with SF disguised as fantasy? Absolutely. That was one of her pleasures in writing Pern. Gene Wolfe did something similar.

Telepathy is no more or less SF than FTL What we all seem to recognize as not-SF is when the fantasy elements are supposed to be just that, with names, powers and histories lacking connection to our rational history.

There are plenty of fantasy books that suggest their magical mythical beasts are a result of genetic manipulation and if we accept that nature and technology in our future might provide telepathy, teleportation and time travel, why wouldn't we also accept it might provide other things we consider might consider magic - which is after all, simply a manipulation of natural laws as known to the user to do things we don't think is possible by natural laws as we know them, as such as telepathy, teleportation, time travel, and choking people/retaining consciousness and some form of life after death thanks to an energy field created by all life that connects everything through the universe.

You say there's a difference due to the purported origin given by the author. I say that not only are there a great number of purported origins just as based on nature and technology in fantasy, but that the difference is slim and virtually meaningless. You used the example of saying any sausage is a german food, I would contend this is like saying a mince-meat patty in a bun is a form of what we know as a burger, even if it's known as roujiamo or bøfsandwich, and then noting that it is complicated due to many instances of non-mince meats in buns being called burgers as well.

And while I happily respect your right to see a big difference there and make that your boundary, it

a) Can't work as the semi-objective consensus boundary of the genre when it doesn't attract consensus agreement
b) still provides a great many cases that seem to lie across the boundary. The Wheel of Time is explicitly set in our future. It features genetically manipulated beasts. The One Power and the True Power are no less possible than the Force. Is it Sci-Fi and not Fantasy?

In any case, I have no problem with Pern being called a sci-fi. It's just also a fantasy, if for no other reason apart than that's what the consensus labels it as. And a great many works are both. Trying to erect a border that prevents this from being the case is futile.

 

[Astro Pen]

Never was it so tempting to say much but so wise to say nothing.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Today I learned that Harry Potter, Discworld, and Magician are all Sci-Fi to name a few

Not their main setting, which are clearly fantasy.

 

[The Big Peat]

Not their main setting, which are clearly fantasy.

You didn't say that though, just does it contain one of these three things to which the answer is "Yes" on the Time Travel front (actually on second thoughts the time travel might be in other books of Feist's Riftwar but I digress).

Tbh, "come on, you clearly know it when you see it" is probably the best definition of the dividing line so far!

 

[Swank]

b) still provides a great many cases that seem to lie across the boundary. The Wheel of Time is explicitly set in our future. It features genetically manipulated beasts. The One Power and the True Power are no less possible than the Force. Is it Sci-Fi and not Fantasy?

The Wheel of Time is jam packed with spiritual forces that cause the action and are not the result of anything in our reality. No reference I can find says anything at all about a connection to us. Those forces aren't one-offs, but the creators of the shape of the universe. No, that doesn't sound like it has even a little bit to do with a rational connection to us.

Let's be clear about technology: Everything people make is technology, from pottery to spaceships to genetic engineering. All fiction includes technology, whether it is a saddle or a satellite, so simply the existence of technology in a story doesn't tell us anything.

And fictional technology is seemingly magic in its level of power - but it is called technology or nature because it doesn't flow from a wellspring of pervasive mystical forces, explicitly denoted as such.

You certainly can have a story where there is a Force that is not explicitly the result of nature (technology) or the supernatural, but the sniff test is whether that power is broad reaching or narrow, and if it has a host of cousins. Star Wars, Dune and Star Trek feature semi-mystical powers that affect very few characters in a way that fails to affect the overall shape of the world. Indeed, the Force in the original SW trilogy is practically a side note, as it has zero effect on the outcome of the war between Empire and Rebels. And the powers it provides are both in line with the technology - tractor beams - and only a little help against normal combatants.

Wheel of Time sets out mystical underpinning to the world and distributes magical forces throughout. It has nothing to do with us and our age. Tolkien features immortal people that are plunked down by gods to fulfill destiny like functions. That's all supernatural in conception and construction. There is no ambiguity about whether the wizards might actually be robots, because they are surrounded by all sorts of totally unrelated magic.


SF is open to the possibility that the world might be hiding all sorts of weird stuff in the physics of reality, and it approaches those weird things in that manner. Fantasy says "this is magic, that stuff real people know isn't real, and here's a fun story about what could be if it was", usually followed by a story where nearly everything is totally different from the reality we know.


I'm open to a good counterexample. Wheel of Time doesn't seem to be one. D.O.D.O. certainly dances on the line. Jedi 'ghosts' that only Jedi can see doesn't seem all that magical to me, but I buy into the Melange weirdness.

 

[Lostinspace]

It may be that some readers of science fiction try to restrict the meaning of science fiction to exclude fantasy is that they have been trained to read science fiction is a special way as described in an old essay by Eric S. Raymond at SF Words and Prototype Worlds. The problem for these readers (I am probably one of them) is that that approach is not how you read fantasy. Thus we like our science fiction labelled science fiction and our fantasy labelled fantasy, so that we know how to start reading.

 

[Zach777]

I get what you're saying, but what about fantasy elements described in scientific ways? Such as magic that's intertwined in the genetic code and evolved into humans and some alien species over time?

Though in Sci-Fi, I think there does have to be a large scientific element. Or at least an attempt to explain things through science.

 

[Phyrebrat]

Indeed, the Force in the original SW trilogy is practically a side note, as it has zero effect on the outcome of the war between Empire and Rebels

Um… are you saying that with a straight face?

 

[Swank]

Um… are you saying that with a straight face?

Sure. Luke himself says a two meter port is a reasonable shot, does it Force style instead. Wedge could have done it.

He fails to rescue anyone in Empire.

Han and Lando destroy the second Death Star.

 

[Phyrebrat]

We don’t see Luke attempt the shot without his targeting computer and make it, so we can’t make that assertion. Also, Luke is not an adept at the Force in ep4; he’s not an empirical authority on what he can and can’t achieve. But even if he could, he doesn’t. We don’t see that onscreen. Obi-Wan’s Force ghost intervention indicates that, on a balance of probabilities, his tapping into his nascent Force abilities is what helped the Rebels win.

Also, the Death Star is not the Empire; Palpatine (and I suppose Vader) are.

Sorry, I don’t want to distract the discussion from the categorisation of SF and F; I’m probably the least qualified on Chrons to discuss genre fiction outside of horror and it’s sub-genres, but …

Also, I wonder if there is a stronger demarcation to be had in literature over film.

 

[Swank]

We don’t see that onscreen.

What we do see onscreen are serious military planners saying that the mission is reasonable (without any sort of Force intervention). Ben intervening doesnt demonstrate a necessity. It makes Luke aware of his real abilities.

Also, the Death Star is not the Empire; Palpatine (and I suppose Vader) are.

Palpatine, who may or may not be dead in the bottom of a shaft, is well and truly anhilated when Lando and Wedge blow the reactor. He'd be just as dead if he was sitting in a chair at that moment.

Star Wars is a story about important but not central characters in a war. None of them is the leader or indispensable. Which frees them up to have their personal journeys. Merry and Pippin, Legolas and Gimle.

 

[Zerth]

Simple answer; Sci-Fi deals with advancement in tech, computer AI, ect.
Fantasy flips the coin. The results are the same, the process is different.
Neither is better, we all hope for this proscribed future

 

[Swank]

Also, I wonder if there is a stronger demarcation to be had in literature over film.

I'm sorry - I had missed this very interesting point.

The argument can be made either way, but films substitute visuals for exposition. One doesn't need to know why a spaceship drive works if you can watch it in action and be convinced that you are witnessing SF. Star Wars looks like SF. Spirited Away looks like it could only be fantasy.