# Science Fiction vs. Science Fantasy



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 2, 2013)

Which of the great TV/Movies/Books/Comics are Science Fiction versus Science Fantasy?

For the purposes of starting discussion I'll use the definition of Science Fiction being based on the logical extension of known science, where Science Fantasy is magic cloaked in technobabble*, but feel free to adjust that if you have a different definition.

Example:
Science Fiction: Robert L. Forward's novels, like _Rocheworld_
Science Fantasy: Star Wars

*No trotting out Clarke and saying that because "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" these two categories are the same.  Make a choice, darn it!


----------



## MarkB (May 2, 2013)

Any sufficiently advanced science fiction is indistinguishable from fantasy.

Sorry, couldn't resist. 

But it is a fuzzy line, and what about works in which the 'magic' is deliberately not fully explained?

Having mentioned Clarke, his 2001 series contains a lot of hard SF, and was an evocative portrait of what a present-day human-explored solar system might look like. Do we place it in the Science Fantasy category because it also contains a sentient geometric multitool that's capable of acting as a telepathic sentience accelerant, stargate and remote stellar manipulator?


----------



## jonesy (May 2, 2013)

I thought the distinction was that Science Fiction was fiction where the science is a driving force of the plot and Science Fantasy is where the science is just background detail for the world. 

Like, none of the characters really care how the Death Star works, it's just a WMD that the bad guys have. But everyone who knows about the Monolith wants to know what it is and what it does, even though we don't learn all that much.

And then Speculative Fiction doesn't even need to have any science in it. A portal opens up into the past. Is it magic? Is it science? Irrelevant.


----------



## Nellisir (May 2, 2013)

I think science fiction usually sticks to "realistic" science, whereas science fantasy handwaves more of its science. Star Trek is (currently) science fantasy, because they just "go faster" to exceed the speed of light. In fact, I'd say FTL is usually the stickiest point to get around, science-wise.

Science fantasy doesn't use science as a plot point because there is no science to hang a plot on.

Aspects of cyberpunk are increasingly science fiction.


----------



## Orius (May 3, 2013)

I'd count the use of supernatural elements to be science fantasy.  So basically sci-fi is unexplained technology and advanced alien species, while science fantasy is wizards and/or gods doing stuff.  IN SPACE (usually).


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 3, 2013)

Honestly, I don't think any of the examples of "science fiction" I can think of are scientifically plausible.


----------



## Nellisir (May 3, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Honestly, I don't think any of the examples of "science fiction" I can think of are scientifically plausible.



Now I'm wondering what ones you're thinking of.


----------



## Umbran (May 3, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Honestly, I don't think any of the examples of "science fiction" I can think of are scientifically plausible.




It doesn't really have to be plausible to be science fiction (though that helps, but plausibility is entirely subjective).  It needs to be a logical extension of current scientific knowledge and ideas.

So, for example, take David Brin's "Earth".  The book is about what happens when someone drops a tiny black hole into the Earth, and it starts to chew away at the planet's core, and how do we stop it?

Is this really plausible?  No.  Nobody's making tiny black holes any time soon.  Is it science fiction?  Most certainly.


----------



## Mallus (May 3, 2013)

Umbran said:


> It doesn't really have to be plausible to be science fiction (though that helps, but plausibility is entirely subjective).  It needs to be a logical extension of current scientific knowledge and ideas.



I'd go even further and say it needs to be a (semi) logical working through of a premise; a thought experiment. However, if you're including the "soft sciences" in with scientific knowledge --ie, economics, poly-sci, sociology, gender studies, whatever, etc-- then I agree (completely, even!).

Look at some well-known SF... 

Wells's _The Time Machine_ is about the British class system. The time-travel part is just the satiric lens used to examine it. Wells doesn't care how time machine works, nor does he care to investigate any of the fun, head-scratching paradox stuff. 

Bester's _The Stars My Destination_ posits life in a society where nearly everyone can teleport using their power of their own minds. I don't think this was ever considered remotely scientific.

Herbert's _Dune_ is, to be really reductive, about the intersection of colonialism, religion, and oil. With some neat stuff about an imaginary ecology that produces sand-dwelling Leviathans. Probably the SF-inal thing in Dune is the musing about human development requiring an _absence_ of certain technologies. But it also has a ton of literalized mysticism, space witches, and FTL travel that relies on shrooming psychics. 

More recently, there Bank's _Culture_ series. The technologies in it are so unscientific/magical the author actually makes jokes about them in the text. But it's still SF; speculation about the shape and politics of a post-scarcity economy. 

These are just  top-of-my-head examples. 

Trying to distinguish between "science fiction" and "science fantasy" is tough. Scientific accuracy is, in my book, the least important criterion. You're better off looking to the themes involved, to what purpose the fantastical elements are being put toward. If you use "science" as your primary benchmark, "science fiction" quickly becomes a pretty sparse genre.

So this means _Star Trek_ (TOS in particular) is usually SF, despite the countless examples of ludicrous science, while _Star Wars_ almost never is (I can't any recall any real SF themes in SW, but I might be overlooking something).


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 3, 2013)

Nellisir said:


> Now I'm wondering what ones you're thinking of.



As with many people, the first thing that jumps to mind is Star Trek. In my case, that's followed by a list of mid-twentieth century novels I read as a kid (Bradbury, Heinlein, Dick, etc.), some of Lovecraft's later works, a melange of space opera television and film, the post-apocalyptic/robot uprising subgenre (everything from Terminator to Fallout to BSG), and a number of thought experiment films like The Matrix or Inception.

While I doubt I could list the entirety of science fiction in one post, I don't see anything in my list that could plausibly happen. Frankly, learning about science was a rather disillusioning for me; I used to draw more of a distinction between fantasy and sci-fi, but now it seems to me that they are mostly the same, save a few arbitrary defining tropes.

Were you thinking of something in particular as a counterexample?



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> Trying to distinguish between "science fiction" and "science fantasy" is tough. Scientific accuracy is, in my book, the least important criterion. You're better off looking to the themes involved, to what purpose the fantastical elements are being put toward. If you use "science" as your primary benchmark, "science fiction" quickly becomes a pretty sparse genre.



Well, I'm agreeing with the last point. But as to the idea of themes, I don't see any clear distinction there. A lot of horror fiction blends this distinction; Lovecraft has a lot of very scientific ideas but also magic and religion and monsters.

There are also examples of fantasy, that seem very much like science fiction thematically (The Song of Ice and Fire asthetic feels very sci-fi to me) and science fiction that is fantasy with aliens (Star Wars). It's also been my observation that science fiction stories that go on for a long time often become more and more fantastical and less grounded as they progress (see Lost, BSG, and others).

I mean, there are tons of really good pieces of fiction up there; I'm not criticizing them. I am criticizing the fantasy/sci-fi distinction that this thread was about.


----------



## Super Pony (May 3, 2013)

A lot of stories or settings can flip from one side to the other within the space of a paragraph.  It's the razor's edge between "science!" as explanation and "mysteriousness!" as a foundation.

A zero g knife fight will hit my brain as science fiction, but a knife fight where the combatants are wishing themselves through open space with happy thoughts (Star Wars here)? That comes off as fantasy.  A super intelligent post-human creating a wormhole nexus on earth is fairly science fiction...that same dude using his magic to fight off chaos sorcerers and his turn-cloak clone of son (WH40k here)?  Well that's fantasy.  A ship's crew trying to invert a reaction process to vent a certain type of particle stream at an on-rushing astronomical event?  Science fiction.  That same crew being teleported from one end of space to the other by a magical trickster (Star Trek)?  Well that's pretty fantastical.

Fundamentally I think all science fiction HAS to have a bit of fantasy in it...otherwise it'd just be fiction, using current known science to support a story about man vs self, man vs man, man vs ...etc.  However, the degree that various offerings of science fiction seem more SCIENCE fiction or science FICTION depends on the individual reading/playing/viewing.  Mary Shelly's Frankenstein was science fiction.  Does it still hold up as such?  Should we now put it into occult fantasy, or horror fiction instead?  Is Walking Dead science fiction or science fantasy?  What about Battlestar Galactica?  To me there are elements of classic fantasy in all of these...as well as some "science" that lumps them into the sci-fi family.

TLDR; To me Science Fiction is the genre, Science Fantasy is the opinion of the reader/viewer/player.


----------



## jonesy (May 3, 2013)

Super Pony said:


> Mary Shelly's Frankenstein was science fiction.  Does it still hold up as such?  Should we now put it into occult fantasy, or horror fiction instead?  Is Walking Dead science fiction or science fantasy?  What about Battlestar Galactica?  To me there are elements of classic fantasy in all of these...as well as some "science" that lumps them into the sci-fi family.



That's the same thing with musical genres. People complaining how "That isn't metal." "But is used to be metal." "It made metal. It will always be metal."


----------



## Mallus (May 3, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> But as to the idea of themes, I don't see any clear distinction there. A lot of horror fiction blends this distinction; Lovecraft has a lot of very scientific ideas but also magic and religion and monsters.



My fault -- I wasn't being clear. What I should have said that certain themes are more strongly associated w/science fiction and others w/fantasy and science fantasy, regardless of whatever tropes/conventions are in play, and this difference in themes (or approach to themes) helps differentiate the (sub)genres.

For example, one classic SF theme is the societal effects of scientific/technology change. I've heard people give this as the #1 characteristic of SF literature. This is a less common theme in fantasy/science fantasy. The rapid changes in fantasy tend more towards the "oh noes, the Dark One has risen again" variety. 



> There are also examples of fantasy, that seem very much like science fiction thematically (The Song of Ice and Fire asthetic feels very sci-fi to me) and science fiction that is fantasy with aliens (Star Wars).



You're right, there are plenty of interesting works that are essentially fantasy written in a SF mode (like _Star Wars_), or vice-versa (_Book of the New Sun_, the earlier _Darkover_ novels). 

Out of curiosity, what do you find SF-inal about ASoIaF? They seem pretty squarely historical fantasy to me. 



> It's also been my observation that science fiction stories that go on for a long time often become more and more fantastical and less grounded as they progress (see Lost, BSG, and others).



I find the overt religiosity of nBSG places it more firmly in the "science fiction" camp. Most fantasy I've read doesn't do much more with religious concepts then state: gods are real, some are you friend, some are your enemy. I find science fiction has a more more interesting history dealing with religion (cf. _Dune, Solaris_), and nBSG fits right in. 




> Mary Shelly's Frankenstein was science fiction.  Does it still hold up as such?  Should we now put it into occult fantasy, or horror fiction instead?



Yeah -- if your definition of science fiction means we have to reclassify a book every couple of years, then you probably needs a more definitive definition!


----------



## jonesy (May 3, 2013)

Mallus said:


> Yeah -- if your definition of science fiction means we have to reclassify a book every couple of years, then you probably needs a more definitive definition!



There's a subgenre of science fiction that frustrates both the writers and readers. Hard science fiction.

If you wait long enough chances are excellent that the perfectly hard science story you wrote way back then has now turned into fantasy. The number of stories that never stopped being hard science (or even better, predicted something while doing it) is really small.


----------



## Umbran (May 3, 2013)

Super Pony said:


> Mary Shelly's Frankenstein was science fiction.  Does it still hold up as such?




Yes, I think so.  I mean, we *do* bring people back to life with a shock of electricity, right?  We *do* still seek ways to graft body parts together, don't we?  The idea of immortality through brain transplant into a new body is still not lost to us.  Yes, I think this qualifies a science fiction.



> Should we now put it into occult fantasy, or horror fiction instead?




There's nothing at all "occult" about the text.  And, in fact, if you've read it, you'll note it also isn't a horror novel.  It is a book about what happens when a scientist sees what he *can* do, without considering whether he not he *should* do it.  The focus is as much or more on Victor Frankenstein as it is on the monster.



> Is Walking Dead science fiction or science fantasy?




Neither.  It is Horror.


----------



## Tonguez (May 3, 2013)

John Carters of Mars - Science fantasy
Tarzan - science fiction?

Is the Shanara series science fantasy or just fantasy?


----------



## jonesy (May 3, 2013)

Tonguez said:


> Tarzan - science fiction?



Are you thinking of Pellucidar?


----------



## Tonguez (May 3, 2013)

jonesy said:


> Are you thinking of Pellucidar?





Pellucidar
Tarzan and the Antmen - people only 1/4 human height
Tarzan and the Lion Man has talking Gorillas
Tarzan and the Jewels of Opar features the degenerate beastman of Opar

The Mangani are a intelligent ape species and in Tarzans Quest he becomes Immortal


----------



## Umbran (May 3, 2013)

Tonguez said:


> Is the Shanara series science fantasy or just fantasy?




Neither, really.  Tarzan is pulp adventure.  Not everything needs with a couple of fantastic elements has to be wedged into one of the two camps.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 3, 2013)

I don't think of genres as hard edged things, I think of them in terms of Venn diagrams.

Thinking that way, I find few genre fantasy/Sci-Fi/horror stories are pure.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 4, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Honestly, I don't think any of the examples of "science fiction" I can think of are scientifically plausible.




You need to read Forward, then.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 4, 2013)

Ben Bova's _Grand Tour _novels are pretty good hard Sci-Fi about humanity's expansion into the rest of the solar system.


----------



## Orius (May 4, 2013)

I'd count Star Trek as science fiction rather than science fantasy because Trek's tech and universe is presented in a more or less "scientific" fashion.  (Yes, sometimes they get the science wrong.  Badly wrong.)  Sure, some elements of the setting are things like FTL travel which are generally considered impossible under our current understanding of scientific laws, but it's never presented as anything magical.  It's everyday technology that people more or less understand, and guys like Scotty and Geordi aren't wizards (miracle worker claims nonwithstanding).  Even when Q shows up, he's not seen as a god, but just a highly evolved lifeform, no matter what he claims (though possibly he was just trolling Picard again).

Now compare that to Star Wars, where we basically have wizards that use glowing laser swords made of pure awesome.  That's fantasy.  Star Wars rarely tries to be even remotely scientific.  Though that might be a hidden strength.  Unlike hard sci-fi, it doesn't have to worry about being completely disproven by some scientific discovery a few years down the road.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (May 4, 2013)

Thinking just of movies/TV at the moment, some Science Fiction that leaps to mind:

Gattaca
Colossus: The Forbin Project
The Andromeda Strain\
Jurassic Park
Dr. Strangelove
Brainstorm
Planet of the Apes (1968)
Minority Report
Star Trek (original series)
Star Trek Next Generation (at least some of it...)
Forbidden Planet
20,000 leagues Under the Sea
Deep Impact
The Abyss
The Day the Earth Stood Still (maybe)
...even cheese like...
When Worlds Collide

SF (to me anyway) doesn't necessarily have to be a direct examination of science or technology extended into the future or some alternate milieu, but it generally should be trying to SAY something using scientific or technological ideas and objects to get its points across.  Many (not all!) of the original series ST episodes thus qualify as they are examinations of contemporaneous issues of race, class, politics... the human condition.  They do so by framing those issues in science fiction terms enabling open commentary on, say, racial injustice on prime time TV when without such fictional framing it would be exceptionally controversial.

Science Fantasy I think tends to be more adventure tales or drama which uses SF trappings:

Star Wars (though Episode IV is debatable)
Star Trek DS9, Voyager, et.al.
Flash Gordon
Buck Rogers
Battlestar Galactica (original series anyway)
This Island Earth
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
Stargate
The Day After Tomorrow (_wanted _to be SF - definitely wasn't)
Journey to the Center of the Earth


----------



## Nellisir (May 4, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Were you thinking of something in particular as a counterexample?




Not really, but I'm going to check my shelves and see.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (May 4, 2013)

Also...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tazmMiuVnro&feature=youtu.be


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 4, 2013)

I'd disagree with a characterization of Star Trek as science fiction.  Just because it cloaks its magic in the appearance of technobabble doesn't make it any less fantastic than Star Wars.  Whether using the force or using a transported, creating midicholrians or transparent aluminum, both series are trying to put a future-tech sheen on what is essentially magic, and the stories they tell aren't really about the science anyway.  Trek has the huge problem of being internally inconsistent, and to maintain the appearance of consistency has to invent new technobabble every few episodes (TOS wasn't so bad for this, but TNG was horrible).  Star Wars -- at least the original trilogy -- didn't try to provide explanations, but then Lucas had to go all midichlorian on us ...


----------



## Mark CMG (May 4, 2013)

Just for my own clarification, would Outland versus Total Recall be good examples of Science Fiction versus Science Fantasy?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082869/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100802/


----------



## GSHamster (May 4, 2013)

For Science Fantasy, what about something like Sanderson's _Mistborn_? Allomancy is magic, but it's very rule-based magic.


----------



## Nellisir (May 4, 2013)

Magic breaks the laws of physics. That. at least to me, is the definition of magic.  Doing that which is impossible.  Not circumventing it, but literally doing the impossible.  Star Trek breaks the laws of physics with warp drive and time-travel, and does so repeatedly - it's a major point in many episodes.  "Look how hard we can break the laws of the universe!"  
Other red flags: Interbreeding with alien species.  Eating alien life forms in any way shape or form.  Surviving interstellar travel without radiation shielding. Travelling at close to light speed without considering consequences.

The best handling I've seen of this is in CJ Cherryh's sf novels.  FTL works via "hyperspace", thus circumventing the laws of physics, but ships emerge at a significant percentage of the speed of light.  Combat involves taking rocks through jumpspace because the closer to light speed the rock is, the less time the enemy has to react (in the ideal situation, the rock travels at the same speed or a fraction of a second slower than the information about the rock).  And maneuvering takes a considerable amount of distance.

Science fiction, might circumvent the laws of physics, but acknowledges that it does so, or at least doesn't make it a major feature.  There are science stories (Asimov) that take advantage of those laws to tell a story, and there are others that use them as a framing device or constraint or backdrop.  I've been reading the works of Alastair Reynolds, and Wikipedia has this to say: "His works are hard science fiction veiled behind space opera and noir toned stories, and reflect his professional expertise with physics and astronomy (he's an astrophysicist, and worked for the European Space Agency until 2004), included by extrapolating future technologies in terms that are consistent, for the most part, with current science. Reynolds has said he prefers to keep the science in his books to what he personally believes will be possible, and he does not believe faster-than-light travel will ever be possible, but that he adopts science he believes will be impossible when it is necessary for the story."

In his primary universe, Revelation Space... " ...extraterrestrial sentience exists but is elusive, and interstellar travel is primarily undertaken by a class of vessel called a lighthugger which only approaches the speed of light (faster than light travel is possible, but it is so dangerous that no race uses it).

To be honest, I didn't follow the FTL explanations.  It's weird quantum foam stuff involving at least 4 different phases, #3 of which permanently converts you into luminal energy, and #4 of which goes super-luminal, but is frighteningly unstable (turns out it's bad if some of your particles go super-luminal and some don't).


----------



## Nellisir (May 4, 2013)

I should point out that I'll happily read a science fantasy as long as it's not billed as hard sci-fi, and I'm OK with breaking the laws of physics for the sake of story.  It's similar to action movies, where I usually allow the protagonist one unspoken superpower (Does Not Get Hit; Infinity Bullets; Is Tougher Than Everyone Ever) before complaining.


----------



## Nellisir (May 4, 2013)

Allomancy is magic because it says it's magic, and because it breaks the laws of physics.  It does so consistently, but being a repeat offender doesn't make it legal.


----------



## ggroy (May 5, 2013)

jonesy said:


> If you wait long enough chances are excellent that the perfectly hard science story you wrote way back then has now turned into fantasy. *The number of stories that never stopped being hard science (or even better, predicted something while doing it) is really small.*




What would be good examples of this?


----------



## jonesy (May 5, 2013)

ggroy said:


> What would be good examples of this?



20,000 Leagues Under The Sea was already mentioned. Predicted submarine warfare, the taser, and scuba diving.

The Nanotech Quartet was written long before we had working nanotech.

Tau Zero uses buzzard ramjets for space travel. It's now been discovered that the original designs for the theoretical system would need to be altered for it to work well, but it's still basically the same system used.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 6, 2013)

Mallus said:


> Out of curiosity, what do you find SF-inal about ASoIaF? They seem pretty squarely historical fantasy to me.



Forgot to answer this. To me, it seems very much like alt history sci-fi. It's prospective; it establishes certain postulates (notably the unpredictable length of the seasons) and asks what would happen if they were true. It also seems to have a rather modern take on the social issues it covers.


----------



## windywinter (May 6, 2013)

Nellisir said:


> Magic breaks the laws of physics. (...)




Reading the whole thread it seems to be less binary (breaks OR doesn't). Seems that science/fantasy category depends on how author of fiction explains introduced things:
- The more answers to "How it Works" question being "Because, F%%%k You, That's Why" the more it is Fantasy
- The less number of introduced explanations to HiW questions along the fiction text, the more it is Science

If you would compose ingredients:
- Current knowledge
- +200 years
- Break one or two at max currently approved facts
- the rest is so consistent, that on first look explains itself (no need to put Special Character that will monologue explanations)
Then it would be more Science than Fantasy

If you would take:
- Current knowledge
- Stretch one thing to make main hero more Awesomeness
- Every 10 pages explain why this, that happens
Then it would be more Fantasy


----------



## lin_fusan (May 7, 2013)

I submitted a urban fantasy short story ages ago to Marion Zimmer Bradley magazine, and it was rejected because it was "too much like science fiction" since it followed too closely to physical laws.

So I guess a box of endless toys that eats children is science fiction.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 7, 2013)

Its a Star Trek replicator that has clearly gone haywire...


----------



## tomBitonti (May 7, 2013)

A problem of distinguishing science fiction from fantasy using as a basis the closeness of the fiction to an actual possible reality is that most fiction itself is very unreal based on the probability of the described story.  Where is the line to be drawn?

For example, a story about a single survivor of a nuclear holocaust uses the holocaust as a narrative boost.  Of course, this story starts with a huge boost because of the particular circumstance, but the other billions who died had stories, too.  Use of this particular narrative boost to create a story is not really different than the use of fantasy or absurd science elements to create stories.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## tomBitonti (May 7, 2013)

To followup, I suppose we are typing fiction based on the the "what if" aspect of the story.  Star wars "what if" is the force.  That is so very indistinguishable from magic that the stories are fantasy stories, no matter that the society is depicted as futuristic.  Star Trek is all over the place.  Transporter accidents are more fantasy what-ifs.  Alien symbiotes (Trills) which enable personality to preserve over generations seems more science fiction. Stories that look at the question of how a technically advanced society interacts with a less advanced society, I'm not sure about, since there are historic examples, but the underlying theme is based on technology, which seems footed in science fiction.

In other areas, we could have a "what if" of a physicist who gains superpowers when angered (the Hulk, then Supers as the fiction domain, with an odd fit to both fantasy and science fiction).

That is not to say, this is the only way to present the question.  Equally, we could look to how the "what if" element is handled in the story, say, a fantasy element which is subjected to scientific rules (or not).

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Umbran (May 7, 2013)

tomBitonti said:


> A problem of distinguishing science fiction from fantasy using as a basis the closeness of the fiction to an actual possible reality is that most fiction itself is very unreal based on the probability of the described story.  Where is the line to be drawn?




This is why I tend to think not in terms of "closeness to possible reality" so much as "source of the fictional reality".  If the source of the reality is modern science, however far it is logically extrapolated, and the solutions to the problems that thus arise are within that same realm, it would seem more likely to be science fiction to me.

Thus, you can have low-magic fantasy that is rather close to our Medieval reality but is still fantasy, and have far-future science fiction, where society has gone off to left field, but still be science fiction.


----------



## Hussar (May 8, 2013)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> I'd disagree with a characterization of Star Trek as science fiction.  Just because it cloaks its magic in the appearance of technobabble doesn't make it any less fantastic than Star Wars.  Whether using the force or using a transported, creating midicholrians or transparent aluminum, both series are trying to put a future-tech sheen on what is essentially magic, and the stories they tell aren't really about the science anyway.  Trek has the huge problem of being internally inconsistent, and to maintain the appearance of consistency has to invent new technobabble every few episodes (TOS wasn't so bad for this, but TNG was horrible).  Star Wars -- at least the original trilogy -- didn't try to provide explanations, but then Lucas had to go all midichlorian on us ...




That's not what separates Star Trek from Star Wars though.  What splits the two is theme.  In Star Wars, you have aliens, but, the aliens never have any real thematic impact.  There's no discussion of slavery of intelligent beings (droids), there's no discussion of Chewbacca and his culture in comparison to human culture.  He's just there, he's hairy and big and strong.  The droids are just there.  It's all accepted.

In Star Trek, the presence of any of the "aliens" on the Enterprise always entails discussions about what they are, how they differ from humanity and what their "alien-ness" tells us about humanity.  Spock, Data, Odo, Seven-of-Nine all have the same thematic niche.  They are the "Fish out of Water" who act as a mirror to our own cultures and society.

That's what differentiates SF from fantasy.  Pew pew lasers and robots certainly don't.  Is Pinocchio SF? Well, no.  No one would really argue that it is.  Because we don't get any sort of discussion about what it is to be a "created human".  It's all, "I wanna be a real boy" and that's the end of it.  There's no ethical discussion about whether it was right or wrong to actually create Pinocchio in the first place.  OTOH, if you look at Frankenstein, which is effectively the same basic idea as Pinocchio, that's the whole point of the story. What are the ethical consequences of being able to create life?  

You want a couple of good straight up SF stories?  Try "Run" Bakri Says by Ferret Steinmetz - a story where a young woman is trapped in an endless time loop where she must rescue her brother to break the loop.  It's all about the dehumanization effects of lack of consequence.  Fantastic story.  Or, Paulo Baccigalupi's The Gambler.  Or, well, pretty much anything by Baccigalupi actually.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 8, 2013)

Hussar said:


> That's what differentiates SF from fantasy.  Pew pew lasers and robots certainly don't.  Is Pinocchio SF? Well, no.  No one would really argue that it is.  Because we don't get any sort of discussion about what it is to be a "created human".  It's all, "I wanna be a real boy" and that's the end of it.  There's no ethical discussion about whether it was right or wrong to actually create Pinocchio in the first place.  OTOH, if you look at Frankenstein, which is effectively the same basic idea as Pinocchio, that's the whole point of the story. What are the ethical consequences of being able to create life?




I disagree that what you describe is a distinction between sci-fi and sci-fan.  I think it's a distinction between *good* sci-fi/sci-fan and *poor* sci-fi/sci-fan.  I think you'll find examples on both sub-genres that explore deep meaning and implications of the world (deep sci-fan: China Mieville), and of course those that don't.  From a theme exploration standpoint, I believe that Star Trek is deeper on an episode-to-episode basis, but that doesn't make it any more or less sci-fan to me.

I think some posters are interpreting being in one category or the other as negative; I certainly don't see them that way.  They're just different.


----------



## Hussar (May 8, 2013)

See, I don't really break it down that far.  What exactly is Science Fantasy?  Why bother?  Either it's Science Fiction or it's Fantasy.  With lots of stuff that falls between the two poles.

As far as quality goes, oh, heck no.  There's very good fantasy stories that aren't concerned one whit about what it means to be human.  Tolkien is a perfect example here.  But, it's pretty hard to find SF stories that aren't.  When you look at the core of what people think of with SF, you see things like Heinlein, Asimov, P.K. Dick and others.  The commonality with these writers is their stories revolve around a single big theme - what does it mean to be human?

Fantasy doesn't care about that.  Mieville writes weird tales, which is a bit of its own genre in that it cross polinates a lot of both fantasy and SF.  Unlundon is pure fantasy.  Great story, but, pure fantasy.  The City and The City is much closer to SF in theme.  It looks at social conventions and then turns them on their head - the whole sociological application of taboo.

The movie Aliens is SF.  (Alien is horror, IMO)  It's in the same vein as Starship Troopers or The Forever War.  Pretty much milfic.  But, look at the character of Bishop.  When he goes off to message the ship to remote pilot the lander down, he says something like, "I may be artificial, but I don't want to die" or something to that effect.  The Bishop character is straight up SF.  A mechanical acting like a human.  Now, the movie is about as deep as a rain puddle, so it doesn't really explore the themes too much.  But the themes are there.

It's not a question about how well the story addresses the themes, it's the presence of the themes that makes the difference.

An even better example is Doctor Who, particularly the latest reboot.  Every season, the central theme is "what is a human".  The Doctor desperately tries to retain some shred of humanity in the face of the absolutely horrific deeds he's performed.  Every where he goes, he destroys and kills, sometimes to the point of genocide.  And every story is grounded in the idea of the Doctor trying to not become the monster he very easily could be.

The science?  Not even a little.  It's total hogwash.  There's no science at all there.  Holes you could drive a bus through.  But, it's pure Science Fiction.


----------



## Jhaelen (May 8, 2013)

lin_fusan said:


> I submitted a urban fantasy short story ages ago to Marion Zimmer Bradley magazine, and it was rejected because it was "too much like science fiction" since it followed too closely to physical laws.



I recall an anecdote from Orson Scott Card, how one of his stories (I think it was what later became the Worthing series) was rejected by a Sci-Fi magazine because they felt it was Fantasy. IIRC, he argued it was Sci-Fi because he could give a scientific explanation for everything that happened in the story. However, these explanations are never given in the story: It was written from the viewpoint of the world's inhabitants who were on a medieval tech level. And to them, when they encountered technology beyond their understanding it was clearly magic. In the story the world is observed from orbit by spacefaring humans who interfere with the local species in order to guide their development but without giving themselves away.

Iain Banks has written a similar Culture novel (Inversions) that is only recognizable as something other than a Fantasy story if you've read a couple of his other Culture novels. Otherwise you might miss the hints.


----------



## Nellisir (May 8, 2013)

Hussar said:


> See, I don't really break it down that far.  What exactly is Science Fantasy?  Why bother?  Either it's Science Fiction or it's Fantasy.  With lots of stuff that falls between the two poles.




Clearly you do not understand the internet.


----------



## Umbran (May 8, 2013)

Hussar said:


> When you look at the core of what people think of with SF, you see things like Heinlein, Asimov, P.K. Dick and others.  The commonality with these writers is their stories revolve around a single big theme - what does it mean to be human?
> ...
> Fantasy doesn't care about that.




Ah, be careful there.  Take, for example, Greg Bear - well known, solid writer of some excellent SF.  But, he did a fantasy duology - "Songs of Earth and Power", in which a human falls into the fae realms.  Clearly fantasy.  But, it has a theme of 'what it means to be human".  Any work that does a good examination of the contrast between humans and things that may or may not be human, will have that theme.  Maybe that non-humans are aliens, maybe they are Greek Gods, fae, werewolves, vampires, or what have you.  

Heck, you can say that Gaiman's Neverwhere has that same theme, by way of comparing people in London Above with London Below, and they're all (well, almost all) human.

Meanwhile, there's a strong argument that Doctor Who is really fantasy - replace "Time lords" with "Sidhe lords" and you might have a very similar story.  Near human, nigh immortal, is better than a human at just about everything, but is nigh begging for contact/input from humans.  His companions are essentially variations on Tam Lin and Thomas the Rhymer.  Instead of sweeping people up in a wild hunt, he does so in a big blue box, into a world where time as they knew it has little meaning, and passes strangely...

So, no, I don't think the "what is it to be human" theme is at all the differentiator.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 8, 2013)

I don't think I'd go with the "what is it to be human" theme:

Looking at "Neutron Star", by Niven, even with its flaws, explores the physics of tides and one person's travails in not being killed by them.  Not much "what is it to be human", unless you count the (silly) blackmail at the conclusion as that exploration.

The flaws are huge (not knowing about tides is just plain stupid, in large capital letters).  But you could re-frame the story suitably to create the circumstances without the silliness and recreate the essential problem.

Thx!

TOmB


----------



## Travis Webb (May 8, 2013)

In addition to the crossovers mentioned above, I think it's worth noting that lots of "hard" fantasy, that is fantasy with zero science fiction elements, still treats magic and magical systems like a science. "The Name of the Wind" being a good example; Brandon Sanderson's original works are another.


----------



## Umbran (May 8, 2013)

Hussar said:


> That's not what separates Star Trek from Star Wars though.  What splits the two is theme.  In Star Wars, you have aliens, but, the aliens never have any real thematic impact.  There's no discussion of slavery of intelligent beings (droids), there's no discussion of Chewbacca and his culture in comparison to human culture.  He's just there, he's hairy and big and strong.  The droids are just there.  It's all accepted.
> 
> In Star Trek, the presence of any of the "aliens" on the Enterprise always entails discussions about what they are, how they differ from humanity and what their "alien-ness" tells us about humanity.  Spock, Data, Odo, Seven-of-Nine all have the same thematic niche.  They are the "Fish out of Water" who act as a mirror to our own cultures and society.




Well, be careful here: if you're comparing Star Wars movies to Star Trek TV, you have the simple issue of amount of screen time available.  Trek has had hundreds and hundreds of hours to explore themes on screen, while Star Wars movies have what, under 20 hours, total?  

But, what do we see when we step back, and look at the more full body of works in each universe?  If you start including the Star Wars Expanded Universe of fiction, and the universe of the Star Wars games (both computer and RPG), you start seeing some of those other issues receive treatment.  But I'd still argue that Star Wars is basically fantasy with tech trappings, and Trek is still basically science fiction.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 9, 2013)

A big issue with Star Wars being any kind of science fiction is that the story is rather entirely separable from the trappings. Compounding the issue is the core resolution point of the movie, where faith in the force provides the final necessary impetus to overcome evil.  Here, the force is a mystical power beyond reason and which requires faith to unleash fully.  That seems roundly unscientific.

As an aside, I think that is one of the big draws of the movie, along with a huge dose of simple fun.

Thx!

TomB

Edit: Although, I don't think  picking on Star Wars is fair.  Much more interesting would be to look at, say, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, or Ringworld, or 1984, or The Dispossessed, or, if we are to look at movies, The Fountain, or The Andromeda Strain, or Solaris.  (To pick a few which are personally specific, but otherwise _somewhat_ random.)


----------



## Hussar (May 9, 2013)

Umbran said:


> /snip
> 
> Meanwhile, there's a strong argument that Doctor Who is really fantasy - replace "Time lords" with "Sidhe lords" and you might have a very similar story.  Near human, nigh immortal, is better than a human at just about everything, but is nigh begging for contact/input from humans.  His companions are essentially variations on Tam Lin and Thomas the Rhymer.  Instead of sweeping people up in a wild hunt, he does so in a big blue box, into a world where time as they knew it has little meaning, and passes strangely...
> 
> So, no, I don't think the "what is it to be human" theme is at all the differentiator.




But, that's the thing.  If you rewrote Doctor Who as fantasy, the themes would be totally different.  No more dwelling on the Doctor trying to maintain his humanity (and what that actually means) in the face of incredible power.  Instead, he's a wand wielding wizard out to stop the evils of the universe from doing bad things.  The focus stops being about the Doctor's humanity and becomes more about the action of the story.  

Or, to put it another way, if you rewrite Doctor Who as fantasy, it becomes a morality tale.  The Doctor helping people by using his magic powers.  As SF, it's about The Doctor, not really about what he does.


----------



## Hussar (May 9, 2013)

tomBitonti said:


> A big issue with Star Wars being any kind of science fiction is that the story is rather entirely separable from the trappings. Compounding the issue is the core resolution point of the movie, where faith in the force provides the final necessary impetus to overcome evil.  Here, the force is a mystical power beyond reason and which requires faith to unleash fully.  That seems roundly unscientific.
> 
> As an aside, I think that is one of the big draws of the movie, along with a huge dose of simple fun.
> 
> ...




I totally agree with this.  And totally agree that it is one of the big draws of the movie.

But, it also provides very good examples of the differences in theme, at least for me.  Look at R2D2.  Now, in Star Wars, he's (it's?) a droid who goes around solving problems.  He's basically a Deus Ex Machina magical handwave.  Need past those blast doors?  R2D2 opens them for you.  Need to hide the Death Star Plans?  R2D2 does it for you.

But, nothing in the movies really deals with what R2D2 actually is.  And, what he is is an intelligent machine whose creators are so horrific that they don't even let their slave creation have a voice.  R2D2 is obviously intelligent and certainly appears to be self-aware.  But, beyond very basic elements, he cannot ever voice an opinion to anyone other than other slaves.  He's a slave with his tongue cut out.

But, that whole concept is completely swept under the carpet because this isn't what the movie is about.  He's Tinkerbell.  His function in the movies is pretty much exactly like a Good Fairy.  But, like Tinkerbell, he's never allowed to have any motivations beyond what his slave masters dictate to him.

For an SF approach to R2D2, look at Blade Runner.  C3P0 gets satirized as Marvin The Paranoid Android in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.  There is an excellent episode of Star Trek TNG where Data is put on trial to determine if he is, in fact, a sentient being with rights.  In Star Wars, despite the Republic apparently fighting for freedom against tyranny, no one has the slightest problem enslaving sentient droids and treating them as objects.


----------



## GSHamster (May 9, 2013)

Hussar said:


> But, that's the thing.  If you rewrote Doctor Who as fantasy, the themes would be totally different.  No more dwelling on the Doctor trying to maintain his humanity (and what that actually means) in the face of incredible power.  Instead, he's a wand wielding wizard out to stop the evils of the universe from doing bad things.  The focus stops being about the Doctor's humanity and becomes more about the action of the story.
> 
> Or, to put it another way, if you rewrite Doctor Who as fantasy, it becomes a morality tale.  The Doctor helping people by using his magic powers.  As SF, it's about The Doctor, not really about what he does.




But many vampire and werewolf stories are about trying to stay human, even though you are a monster. Are you saying that all those stories are SF, rather than fantasy?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 9, 2013)

> But, nothing in the movies really deals with what R2D2 actually is. And, what he is is an intelligent machine whose creators are so horrific that they don't even let their slave creation have a voice. R2D2 is obviously intelligent and certainly appears to be self-aware. But, beyond very basic elements, he cannot ever voice an opinion to anyone other than other slaves. He's a slave with his tongue cut out.




Just because we (the audience) don't speak machine or lack the auditory acuity to understand his trills & beeps doesn't make him a tongueless slave.  Others seem to understand him just fine.


----------



## Tonguez (May 9, 2013)

GSHamster said:


> But many vampire and werewolf stories are about trying to stay human, even though you are a monster. Are you saying that all those stories are SF, rather than fantasy?




yes


----------



## MarkB (May 9, 2013)

Hussar said:


> But, that's the thing.  If you rewrote Doctor Who as fantasy, the themes would be totally different.  No more dwelling on the Doctor trying to maintain his humanity (and what that actually means) in the face of incredible power.




I really don't see that as anywhere near the difference between SF and fantasy. Aside from the already-mentioned werewolf and vampire stories, many fantasy stories deal with themes of this nature. It's one of the central themes of The Lord of the Rings, and that's pretty much a definitive example of fantasy.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 9, 2013)

Hussar said:


> But, nothing in the movies really deals with what R2D2 actually is.  And, what he is is an intelligent machine whose creators are so horrific that they don't even let their slave creation have a voice.  R2D2 is obviously intelligent and certainly appears to be self-aware.  But, beyond very basic elements, he cannot ever voice an opinion to anyone other than other slaves.  He's a slave with his tongue cut out.




It is strange that R2D2 can't talk.  Maybe, human language is too foreign to how he is wired?

Still, the robots do seem to be self aware, many of them at least, and the story has no problem with their enslavement.

Worse, in my mind, Yoda seemed to have no trouble commanding clone soldiers -- beings created to fight and die for others.  Was he making do with a bad situation (the clones already existed, and might not have any other use), or is the story sidestepping a moral issue?

The robot self awareness, at least, seems quite thin.  The same cannot be said for the clone soldiers.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Tonguez (May 9, 2013)

MarkB said:


> I really don't see that as anywhere near the difference between SF and fantasy. Aside from the already-mentioned werewolf and vampire stories, many fantasy stories deal with themes of this nature. It's one of the central themes of The Lord of the Rings, and that's pretty much a definitive example of fantasy.




The werewolf and vampire stories mentioned aren't fantasy they are gothic romance using monsters as protagonist. Frankenstein and Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde were also gothic romance that qualify as Sci-Fi.

and LoTR doesnt have a humanity theme, it has a resisting the grip of evil theme which fits with fantasy and can equally be seen in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

but the Dr Who as fantasy discussion is veering into the realm of basic archetypes and how they are portrayed in various genre. Afterall the Doctor as Mentor is comparable to Merlin and also Obiwan. But he is also  Warrior, Shapeshifter and even Trickster.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 9, 2013)

Hussar said:


> But, that's the thing.  If you rewrote Doctor Who as fantasy, the themes would be totally different.  No more dwelling on the Doctor trying to maintain his humanity (and what that actually means) in the face of incredible power.  Instead, he's a wand wielding wizard out to stop the evils of the universe from doing bad things.  The focus stops being about the Doctor's humanity and becomes more about the action of the story.
> 
> Or, to put it another way, if you rewrite Doctor Who as fantasy, it becomes a morality tale.  The Doctor helping people by using his magic powers.  As SF, it's about The Doctor, not really about what he does.




It's curious.  I'm thinking that retelling Dr Who through fantasy would be possible, but the retelling does seem harder through fantasy than through science fiction.  The scale is just so large (all of time and space, parallel universes, rewriting history; the time war) that it slips out of fantasy frameworks.  Has science fiction eclipsed fantasy in its breadth of scope?

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Nellisir (May 9, 2013)

Hussar said:


> But, that's the thing.  If you rewrote Doctor Who as fantasy, the themes would be totally different.  No more dwelling on the Doctor trying to maintain his humanity (and what that actually means) in the face of incredible power.  Instead, he's a wand wielding wizard out to stop the evils of the universe from doing bad things.  The focus stops being about the Doctor's humanity and becomes more about the action of the story.
> 
> Or, to put it another way, if you rewrite Doctor Who as fantasy, it becomes a morality tale.  The Doctor helping people by using his magic powers.  As SF, it's about The Doctor, not really about what he does.




I'm not sure that's true.  CJ Cherryh's Morgaine Cycle is "science fantasy": it's technically sci-fi, with interplanetary and time-travel via gates, but treated as fantasy (medieval worlds, etc, etc), and it is very much a Doctor Who-esque story of a powerful outsider, possibly the last of her kind, who travels different realms with a companion (who serves as the reader's proxy) on a possibly infinite quest to end the threat time-travel poses to the universe.

Much of the book is about Morgaine and her relative inhumanity, and about learning to be human, not about using magic powers to help people.  Her job is bigger than helping people, but doing it has eroded her humanity and her connection to other people, so...can she do her job and be human about it?


----------



## Umbran (May 9, 2013)

tomBitonti said:


> A big issue with Star Wars being any kind of science fiction is that the story is rather entirely separable from the trappings. Compounding the issue is the core resolution point of the movie, where faith in the force provides the final necessary impetus to overcome evil.  Here, the force is a mystical power beyond reason and which requires faith to unleash fully.  That seems roundly unscientific.




Quite.



Hussar said:


> But, that's the thing.  If you rewrote Doctor Who as fantasy, the themes would be totally different.  No more dwelling on the Doctor trying to maintain his humanity (and what that actually means) in the face of incredible power.  Instead, he's a wand wielding wizard out to stop the evils of the universe from doing bad things.  The focus stops being about the Doctor's humanity and becomes more about the action of the story.




You realize that you just described two and a half decades of Doctor Who - pretty much everything prior to Eccleston's Doctor?  You're talking about a new theme, on the scale of these things - it only entered with Eccleston's Doctor, with his history in the Time War.  For most of the show's history, it was pretty much him as a wand-wielding wizard, out to save the universe.

And, even in the more recent episodes, there's still many episodes where the Doctor is in his old "force of nature" mode, where the question of his morality runs a far second to his role as wizard - a lot of who is still morality tale.



Hussar said:


> But, nothing in the movies really deals with what R2D2 actually is.  And, what he is is an intelligent machine whose creators are so horrific that they don't even let their slave creation have a voice.




Technically incorrect - it is just that the *viewer* cannot understand his language.  Luke can understand Binary, however.  So does C3PO, Annakin Skywalker, and arguably Chewbacca.



> But, that whole concept is completely swept under the carpet because this isn't what the movie is about.




Yes.  But the newest Star Trek movie wasn't about who and what Sulu is, either.  Most movies have secondary characters.  The movies aren't about them.  "This movie isn't about what the secondary characters might be about" is not a good basis for what genre it should fit into.  It's like trying to say that Mulan isn't science fiction because it fails to explore the inhuman insectoid mental workings of the cricket character.  Sure, Mulan isn't sci-fi, but failure to explore the cricket isn't the reason it fails to fit the genre!


----------



## Meatboy (May 9, 2013)

After a few days thinking about sci-fi and sci-fan I think I have a good way to spilt the two. Here goes.

1. Science fiction is a genre that uses what if scenarios to examine philisophical ideas like the nature of man, technology or even politics. It uses these "what ifs" like a mirror so that we can more closely examine ourselves.

In Frankenstein, Shelly uses the what if of "what if we can bring back the dead?" to create a discussion about who is the true "monster". 

2. Science fantasy is really just fantasy but instead of using psuedo medieval europe as a back against which stories are told it uses near or far future settings as a back drop. The focus here is on the characters and the story and although there may be deeper themes in them they are not the focus the way they are in sci-fi.

Star wars is a great example hear because it just re-skins what is for all intents and purposes a fairy-tale and throws it into space. 

Using these definitions something like Star Trek TOS is pretty much sci-fi but as the series progressed they drift farther from that and over into sci-fan. A lot of what is considered science fiction today is really science fantasy. Laser and spaceships don't mean sci-fi.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 9, 2013)

Meatboy said:


> In Frankenstein, Shelly uses the what if of "what if we can bring back the dead?" to create a discussion about who is the true "monster".




Frankenstein is perhaps more about creating new life (albeit using parts from the dead; the flesh is re-animated, but the consciousness is new).  The creation is physically grotesque, but is quite intelligent.  I don't know if the crimes that the creation ultimately commits can be attributed to a fundamental moral failing (hence the creature also being morally grotesque), or are expected and fairly normal results of the creatures suffering.

From Wikipedia, but ultimately from Shelley's writings:



> I saw the pale student of unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he had put together. I saw the hideous phantasm of a man stretched out, and then, on the working of some powerful engine, show signs of life, and stir with an uneasy, half vital motion. Frightful must it be; for SUPREMELY frightful would be the effect of any human endeavour to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world.




Thx!

TomB


----------



## MarkB (May 9, 2013)

Meatboy said:


> 1. Science fiction is a genre that uses what if scenarios to examine philisophical ideas like the nature of man, technology or even politics. It uses these "what ifs" like a mirror so that we can more closely examine ourselves.
> 
> 2. Science fantasy is really just fantasy but instead of using psuedo medieval europe as a back against which stories are told it uses near or far future settings as a back drop. The focus here is on the characters and the story and although there may be deeper themes in them they are not the focus the way they are in sci-fi.




Yeah, that about sums it up for me. Science Fiction proposes a "what-if" and then explores the implications of that proposal. Fantasy proposes a setting, but doesn't care about the what-if - it simply uses it as a backdrop for its storytelling.

Science Fantasy, then, uses familiar SF tropes but does so purely to establish setting, not to explore their implications.

And SF-style fantasy (which really needs its own genre name - perhaps Fantasy Science) uses fantasy setting tropes, but posits them as a "what-if" and consistently explores their implications.


----------



## Nellisir (May 9, 2013)

Meatboy said:


> 1. Science fiction is a genre that uses what if scenarios to examine philisophical ideas like the nature of man, technology or even politics. It uses these "what ifs" like a mirror so that we can more closely examine ourselves.
> 
> 2. Science fantasy is really just fantasy but instead of using psuedo medieval europe as a back against which stories are told it uses near or far future settings as a back drop. The focus here is on the characters and the story and although there may be deeper themes in them they are not the focus the way they are in sci-fi.




This* really* doesn't do it for me at all.  Whether you mean it or not, it comes across as "science fiction is deep and meaningful, and fantasy is about twinkly fairies."  Fantasy can absolutely examine philosophical ideas about the nature of man, etc, and so forth - that's just good literature, not one genre.  

I will perhaps posit that sci-fi is more often directed towards examining cultural & societal change, whereas fantasy is concerned with individual & personal change, but that's as far as I'd go.


----------



## Hussar (May 9, 2013)

GSHamster said:


> But many vampire and werewolf stories are about trying to stay human, even though you are a monster. Are you saying that all those stories are SF, rather than fantasy?




No, these stories are horror.  

If the purpose of the story is to scare you, it's horror. That works for me anyway.


----------



## Hussar (May 9, 2013)

Meatboy said:


> After a few days thinking about sci-fi and sci-fan I think I have a good way to spilt the two. Here goes.
> 
> 1. Science fiction is a genre that uses what if scenarios to examine philisophical ideas like the nature of man, technology or even politics. It uses these "what ifs" like a mirror so that we can more closely examine ourselves.
> 
> ...




Yes, this.  



Nellisir said:


> This* really* doesn't do it for me at all.  Whether you mean it or not, it comes across as "science fiction is deep and meaningful, and fantasy is about twinkly fairies."  Fantasy can absolutely examine philosophical ideas about the nature of man, etc, and so forth - that's just good literature, not one genre.
> 
> I will perhaps posit that sci-fi is more often directed towards examining cultural & societal change, whereas fantasy is concerned with individual & personal change, but that's as far as I'd go.




It's not that fantasy doesn't examine philosophical ideas.  You're right, that's not true.  But, fantasy most often is examining moral issues, rather than ethical ones.  Fantasy is far more concerned with good and evil, rather than right and wrong.  That's a whole lot reductionist, but, at the core, I do think that is the basic differentiation.

Time travel was mentioned.  I'm currently reading the Black Company series.  The book, Bleak Seasons, is a time travel story.  The main narrator is being bounced back and forth in time to, essentially, tell three different stories.  Time travel is used as a narrative mechanic in order to tell the story in an interesting fashion.  It's no longer truly linear.  Considering the Black Company stories are written as a "history" book of the experiences of the Company, it changes the way the story is told considerably from the way the earlier books were written.

But, the whole time travel thing is simply a plot device.  It has no effect whatsoever on the characters within the story.

Which is the basic difference, IMO, between SF and Fantasy.  In SF, the "magic" stuff impacts the narrative.  In SF the "magic stuff" drives the narrative.  The existence of robots gives us Asimov's Three Laws.  The Time Traveler's Wife in indelibly linked to time travel.  That the method of time travel is never explained and might as well be magic, doesn't matter.  That's not what the story is about.  But, it wouldn't work as a fantasy story.

Ender's Game isn't about good versus evil.  It's about humanity.  Heck the later books are all about what humanity is.


----------



## Umbran (May 10, 2013)

Hussar said:


> But, fantasy most often is examining moral issues, rather than ethical ones.  Fantasy is far more concerned with good and evil, rather than right and wrong.  That's a whole lot reductionist, but, at the core, I do think that is the basic differentiation.




I think there's that tendency, yes.  I think that largely comes from the basic difference of magic vs science.  In magic, whether or not you can do a thing is largely based upon your moral (and thus spiritual) character.  In science, there's no question about whether you can or not - that question is answered by an entirely neutral Universe, and you're left with the question of whether you _should_ do it or not.

Thus, we draw the line between a necromancer (who can do what he does because he is evil, and is evil because he can) and Doc Frankenstein (who is unethical because he was so absorbed in his actions that he didn't think through the consequences).


----------



## Hussar (May 10, 2013)

Yeah, Umbran.  I'd agree with that.  Now, to be fair, any genre discussion is automatically reductionist, so, there will always be outliers.  But, painting with a larger brush, it works for me.


----------



## Nellisir (May 10, 2013)

Hussar said:


> It's not that fantasy doesn't examine philosophical ideas.  You're right, that's not true.  But, fantasy most often is examining moral issues, rather than ethical ones.  Fantasy is far more concerned with good and evil, rather than right and wrong.  That's a whole lot reductionist, but, at the core, I do think that is the basic differentiation.




So what would this be?


> [these] works are infused with psychological undertones involving an exploration of the darker side of the protagonist... whilst preserving strong humanist ideals. The contextual richness of the... varied [setting], races, cultures and history enables all [of the books] to explore and expand upon an increasingly diverse and storied environment.




What changes if you replace [setting] with "planets" versus "kingdoms"?


----------



## Hussar (May 12, 2013)

Nellisir said:


> So what would this be?
> 
> 
> What changes if you replace [setting] with "planets" versus "kingdoms"?




Nothing.  You can certainly have all the tropes of SF and still have a fantasy story.  That's what Star Wars is.  Examining the darker side rather literally.  

For me, setting has very little to do with the difference between SF and Fantasy.  The Quest for Fire is SF despite being set with cavemen discovering fire.  Anne McCaffery's Pern series is pretty much stock fantasy, despite using a number of SF tropes.

I guess that's where I'd define Science Fantasy.  A fantasy story that uses SF tropes.


----------



## Nellisir (May 12, 2013)

Hussar said:


> Nothing.  You can certainly have all the tropes of SF and still have a fantasy story.  That's what Star Wars is.  Examining the darker side rather literally.




That quote wasn't from/about Star Wars.  Totally different series, and one that (as I recall) delves into right and wrong, not good and evil.  Which you posited as the difference between scientific fiction and fantastic fiction.


----------



## Nellisir (May 17, 2013)

In "science" fiction, reptilian creatures lay eggs.  In "fantastic science" fiction, they lay eggs AND have breasts.


----------



## MercenaryfromLimbo (May 28, 2013)

Fantasy is only limited by the ambition of its authors. I think the genre is perfectly positioned to tackle moral and ethical issues.

I'd say the Pern series fits under Science Fiction, as would the first couple of Pendergast novels. Michael Moorcock has written quite a few novels that fit under Science Fantasy, including:

_The Eternal Champion_: The Eldren armies feature warriors called halflings. These halflings have the ability to teleport themselves by rearranging their atomic composition. Furthermore, the Eldren weaponry that Humanity refer to as "sorcery" are futuristic tanks, guns, and bombs.

The first Corum trilogy: Corum's race possess technology which allowed them to build a castle that travels between the planes and spheres of the Multiverse. 

_The City in the Autumn Stars_: Libussa, the Duchess of Crete, constructs a human-sized crucible for use in an alchemic ritual. After her sacrificial death on a black cross during the Conjunction of the Spheres, she was reborn and intended to use the crucible and the Holy Grail to merge her being with von Bek. The result--a hermaphrodite--would be the ruler in the Age of Reason.

The Hawkmoon/Count Brass series: In the first four Hawkmoon books, Dorian Hawkmoon encounters a people with a device that can shift beings from one dimension to another. The Empire of Granbretan possess scientific knowledge which allowed them to create a mechanical throne-globe to sustain their King-Emperor Huon. Granbretan's armies are equipped with flamelances and ornithopters. The chief sorcerer of Granbretan helped construct the Empire's firepower and built a time-traveling device.

Jerry Cornelius: In the first novel, the character Miss Brunner has the tendency to absorb people. Brunner also spearheads a project to gather the world's brightest minds to construct a Messiah to the Age of Science. In the second novel, Jerry shifts through the Multiverse for a bit. In the third novel, there's a secretive gathering attended by many characters from Moorcock's work, including Elric, Erekose, and Hawkmoon. Plus lots of alternate history stuff, including a transmog machine Jerry uses in the second novel to turn people into whatever they desire. The main plot of the second novel also involves a box that increases the amount of entropy within the universe.

Science fantasy uses the trappings of science fiction--the technology, the alien races--and uses them as vehicles of character development. This is in contrast to science fiction, which can get caught up on "worldbuilding" with the futuristic technology etc at the expense of the story's characters. Of course, some science fantasy may also bring in more fantastic elements and use some real-world science to ground them or create a system for those elements.

On the subject of planets vs kingdoms, why not both?

If you're writing with the fantasy staples--elves, goblins, or whatever--study the folklore. There's many variations of elves and goblins in real world mythology. Thus, you could have an elf planet populated by the different kinds of elves from the various real-world cultures, a goblin planet populated by the redcaps, kobolds, and other different types of goblins from real-world cultures.


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 30, 2013)

In the beginning there was pulp, it was fiction but it covered a great number of subjects; action, adventure, magic, horror, alternate worlds, death-rays, the occult, and stuff like that.  

Then came the Atomic Bomb and the age of the atom and pulp had to be explained within the laws of nature or rationally, things like FTL "warps" space are explained.  What this did was break apart pulp into science stuff and the rest went to fantasy (the stuff that did not have science in it).

The Star Wars effect: Star Wars was sort of a reunion for science fiction and fantasy, the science did not have to be explained, it was just in the background and then you added your elements of fantasy.  From this we find ourselves back at pulp, lots of stuff mixed in with science and rationality taking a background role.

So, don't think of it as science fiction or science fantasy, think of it as pulp.


----------



## MercenaryfromLimbo (May 30, 2013)

When I hear "pulp", I think of stories where the setting is crafted on the spot as the author is writing the story. I have nothing against those stories; I love the Conan and Elric series. I think you can have a science-fantasy setting that transcends "pulp" by combining the snappy style of pulp stories with good worldbuilding.


----------

