Scifi and Fantasy: where do we draw the line?

[psikeyhackr]

This thread started before I was a member but I don't know how I missed it with all of the 2019 entries.

However in this technological age we should let computers do our thinking so I wrote a program that counts the science and fantasy words to compute the densites.

So if the fantasy word density is 50% or more than the science word density then I figure it is fantasy. The majority of science fiction has an SF word density of 0.3 to 1.5 combined with a fantasy density of less than 0.2. Clarke's A Fall of Moondust is 1.4 vs 0.043.

An exception to this is stories where characters are using computers to play fantasy games. This happens in Ender's Game, Ready Player One and Daemon where the author describes the game play.

Fantasy stories have low SF densities usually less than 0.2 with Fantasy densities as high as 0.7.
The entire Harry Potter series is 0.193 and 0.746.

The Barsoom books by Edgar Rice Burroughs do not have the usual degree of differentiation.
SF density 0.336; Fantasy density of 0.169

Lord of the Rings has a really low SF density:
JRRT.LOTR1_FeloRing.txt
SF density 0.004; Fantasy density of 0.480
JRRT.LOTR2_TwoTow.txt
SF density 0.016; Fantasy density of 0.420
JRRT.LOTR3_RetoKing.txt
SF density 0.010; Fantasy density of 0.642

The Vulcan Science Academy cannot tolerate so much human subjectivity.

 

[Swank]

So if the fantasy word density is 50% or more than the science word density then I figure it is fantasy. The majority of science fiction has an SF word density of 0.3 to 1.5 combined with a fantasy density of less than 0.2. Clarke's A Fall of Moondust is 1.4 vs 0.043.

I would imagine this program finally proves that the Dune, Titan, Ilium and Long Sun books are forever fantasy. Science!

 

[Brian G Turner]

You didn't say that though

Okay Mr Pedant, let's refine it further.

Is the main focus space, the future, or time travel? Then it's science fiction.
Is the main focus the distant past, or mythological creatures? Then its fantasy.

 

[Foxbat]

I’m much less interested in whether a book is SF or F.
I’m much more interested in whether it is any good or not.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Is the main focus space, the future, or time travel? Then it's science fiction

This is why it doesn't work, the overlaps are just too big. You can have fantasy in the future. I realize you're talking about future inventions, but that limits the idea of future in the classification. I think one can have a fantasy story where a bunch of fantasy characters, in fantasy settings, all running around with swords, could be utilizing time travel in a big way to get around the past, present, and future. At the end of the day, its just another highway to get around on.

The number of readers far outnumbers the writers, so it seems to me that a truer sense of the situation would be finding out how the readers classify stuff. We can claim whatever we want about our writing, but does that really cause the average reader to accept that claim. The classification is used for marketing so readers can supposedly find what they are looking for. But that doesn't mean the reader will automatically accept it. That's not my kind of science fiction is a true expression. For example, I think that in the readers world there are plenty of people who think that time travel is total fantasy.

 

[Toby Frost]

I don't want to sound condescending here, because people have clearly thought hard about this and written well-reasoned comments. But this question comes up every so often here, and each time I see it I end up asking myself the same thing: why does it matter? I don't think anyone is arguing that categorising something as fantasy or science fiction makes it automatically good or bad. Apart from the (tired) argument that the only good SF is hard SF, what difference does it make?

I agree with this guy.

 

[Swank]

I agree with this guy.

It doesn't matter in a classification sense. That never seems to be an issue.

It matters in coming to terms with what the essential joy if each genre is, and why it is so different for many people.

 

[The Big Peat]

Okay Mr Pedant, let's refine it further.

Is the main focus space, the future, or time travel? Then it's science fiction.
Is the main focus the distant past, or mythological creatures? Then its fantasy.

Then the Discworld book Night Watch is still either straight sci-fi, or a boundary condition book depending on how distant past you find Ankh-Morpork. Ditto the Outlander series, which is usually referred to as fantasy when referred to as spec fic of some sort. Ditto any straight retelling of Rip van Winkle... time travel is a commonly enough used theme in what is mostly considered fantasy that it would cause all sorts of problems to consider it a signifier of sci-fidom.

And while I'm thinking distant past, it's occurred to me that again depending on how it's defined, neither Morgernstern's The Night Circus or Kushner's Swordspoint would qualify by this definition as neither have mythological creatures either. Nor, more certainly, do Lee's Jade City or Kuang's The Poppy War, and probably neither does Gladstone's The Craft Sequence. Or, basically, any modern-ish set story about human magicians, or human supernaturally adept martial artists. Supernatural powers does seem an obvious fantasy definition.

I accept it goes beyond the bounds of reasonable pedantry to go "what about historic seeming settings that are actually in the future after an apocalypse"

 

[hitmouse]

I agree with this guy.

This. It is a cyclical discussion which goes nowhere and vanishes down its own navel, only to be reincarnated 12 months later.

The thing is, it makes not a blind difference to my choice of reading matter.

 

[jd73]

I have a crazy urge to write a story where some typical fantasy characters are suddenly plonked into a sci-fi world (or vice versa). They must get back through the portal before time runs out.

 

[jd73]

In all seriousness though, for me it's an aesthetic thing. Sometimes I'll be in the mood for the clean neon of SF, other times I want wonky brown F.

"There are no spaceships in fantasy" - Anon.

 

[Pyan]

Then the Discworld book Night Watch is still either straight sci-fi, or a boundary condition book depending on how distant past you find Ankh-Morpork.

Ankh-Morpork is in the past? Do you have empirical or theoretical proof of this?

 

[The Big Peat]

Ankh-Morpork is in the past? Do you have empirical or theoretical proof of this?

Am taking Brian's "distant past" to mean "parallel to our own distant past in terms of development and aesthetic", at which point the word distant might be arguable* but the word past isn't.

*not aided by Ankh-Morpork's constant development and wide range of historical influences either.

 

[The Big Peat]

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.

My point wasn't that the Wheel of Time's powers were rational, or possible as we know our reality. My point was they were no less rational or possible than the Force or Pern's dragons, and that if these weren't supernatural because of them being a result of possible greater understanding of the natural laws of our universe (i.e. technology and nature), then why doesn't that follow for any equally well explained seemingly supernatural force in fantasy that is set in our universe? And yes, The Wheel of Time is explicitly set in our future

Some might disagree about them being equally possible and well explained. Fair enough but for me, they all seem of a piece. There is some explanation, but not a great deal, and the connection to reality as understood is very tenuous, and they all allow individuals to do great and seemingly impossible things (probably as a result of their genes) allowing access to a force the rest of us can't touch.

The point is not about the level of possibility asked for (although some fantasists have believed in the supernatural and more SF writers have clearly asked only for suspension of disbelief), or how big or narrow a role they play (although if the Force is a side note in Star Wars then the One Ring is a side note in Lord of the Rings for my money).

The point is that if we declare seemingly supernatural abilities in sci-fi as non-supernatural as they might possibly be a result of current unexplained scientific laws in our universe, what do we say about the many cases of seemingly supernatural abilities in fantasy that are as equally in our universe and equally as possibly the result of said laws, and whether they're still fantasy if we're basing the idea of fantasy as involving the supernatural.

Me, myself, I would simply say they are equally supernatural and that sometimes you get the supernatural in sci-fi, and that its presence often means a work that is part of both genres.

 

[Swank]

The point is that if we declare seemingly supernatural abilities in sci-fi as non-supernatural as they might possibly be a result of current unexplained scientific laws in our universe, what do we say about the many cases of seemingly supernatural abilities in fantasy that are as equally in our universe and equally as possibly the result of said laws, and whether they're still fantasy if we're basing the idea of fantasy as involving the supernatural.

Generally speaking, fantasy supernatural is that way because the magic or whatever the result of other supernatural factors - like gods. And it is conspicuous because the writer labels all that supernatural stuff with words that we regard as disproven myth. And then there will often be a lot of it, not just one exception to the natural world but dozens.

In SF, the "supernatural" things aren't supernatural, they are natural. Like how magnetism or electric eels exist despite seeming like magical powers. Their origins in SF are always branches of physics that we have yet to identify or biology that contains structures not seen on earth. And they tend to be discreet - this power exists because of this physical law, and aren't competing with a dozen other powers of unrelated origin. Which is why SF won't usually have one spaceship going though hyperspace while another is warping and a third is chugging through wormholes.

And that difference is why I like thinking about fantasy vs. SF. SF is usually a speculation about the results of a finite set of special conditions, and everything spins off of those restrictive powers. Fantasy can work that way, but that really isn't the point. Fantasy is purposely unrestricted by the need to link the powers to rational existence, and the story is free to go anywhere without the reader saying "convince me". That's the pleasure of fantasy - it can have the logic of a daydream.

although if the Force is a side note in Star Wars then the One Ring is a side note in Lord of the Rings for my money

The Force is a side note in the war that Star Wars depicts. The Force is a central element in the personal story of the Skywalker family. Star Wars is not about the war but about Han, Leia, Luke, Darth, Yoda and Ben. The film dotes considerably on actions and events have nothing to do with the Rebel Alliance, and the Rebels win without the need to appeal to any Force powers. Just like WWII was won without Captain America or Kelly's Heroes personally killing Hitler. It is a side story in a larger war.

 

[M. Robert Gibson]

Another resurrection post

This has got to be the best thread I've ever resurrected

I was going to offer my extremely simple demarcation
Fantasy has swords
Science-fiction has lasers
but then Star Wars raises its head again - Light Sabres

 

[psikeyhackr]

This has got to be the best thread I've ever resurrected

I was going to offer my extremely simple demarcation
Fantasy has swords
Science-fiction has lasers
but then Star Wars raises its head again - Light Sabres

Yeah, light beams that stop at a certain distance and cannot interpenetrate are So Cool!

Fantasy! LOL

Traveling faster than light?

Fantasy! NO! Science Fiction! NO! Fantasy!

I will vaporize you with my phaser mofo!

No you won't. I can bounce that sh*t back with my light sabre.

 

[The Big Peat]

Yeah, light beams that stop at a certain distance and cannot interpenetrate are So Cool!

Fantasy! LOL

Traveling faster than light?

Fantasy! NO! Science Fiction! NO! Fantasy!

I will vaporize you with my phaser mofo!

No you won't. I can bounce that sh*t back with my light sabre.

And this is why physics is phutile and fizics is fundamental.

 

[Venusian Broon]

This has got to be the best thread I've ever resurrected

I was going to offer my extremely simple demarcation
Fantasy has swords
Science-fiction has lasers
but then Star Wars raises its head again - Light Sabres

Star wars is Space Opera which is (generally some mix of) SF and Fantasy. Hence light sabres make perfect sense.

 

[psikeyhackr]

And this is why physics is phutile and fizics is fundamental.

It's fiziks!

No FTL for you.