Fantasy and Science Fiction: A Perspective

[Third Eye]

The way I look at fantasy and science fiction is that the former presents human issues in a fantastical world, while the latter presents fantastical issues in a human world.

What do you think?

[iansales]

There's nothing fantastical about a trip to the Moon - we've been there - but a story set on the Moon would be science fiction.

Nice try... but I get a feeling the genre can't be defined in a dozen words. :-)

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by iansales

There's nothing fantastical about a trip to the Moon - we've been there - but a story set on the Moon would be science fiction.

Nice try... but I get a feeling the genre can't be defined in a dozen words. :-)

After all... we've tried, haven't we, ian?

[iansales]

Yup. And it took us at least 13 words :-)

[Sapheron]

12.5 here.

But seriously, I don't think you can define it that easily. A lot of things you could argue were or were not fantasy/sci fi, and have a reasonable case either way.

[j. d. worthington]

Yes, that's a good part of the problem. As iansales and I have debated in other threads....

If you go back and look at sf published from (abiding by the benchmark he prefers) 1926 on, especially from the 1920s, '30s, '40s, '50s, and well into the '70s at least, a fair amount of what was published in sf magazines or as sf books, is closer to what we think of as fantasy now. Brown Rat mentioned something of that sort concerning Edgar Pangborn's Davy ... that it was more like a "non-magical" fantasy world than what most think of as sf now; this is frequently the case. Nelson Bond's stories were full of it; Kuttner and Moore's stories frequently bled through both; even John Campbell's "Twilight", "Cloak of the Aesir", etc., and Poul Anderson's work often vacillated between the two. (Even in The Broken Sword, Anderson was concerned with giving a scientific rationale to why the creatures of Faerie couldn't touch iron and thus had need of changelings. This in a book where we're dealing with the Norse gods, trolls, elves, and witchcraft and necromancy!) The thing is, that an awful lot of "sf" writers were also the ones writing fantasy through the majority of the 20th century... only after the '70s did it bifurcate so severely. While before that point there were stories that were obviously science fiction, and ones that were obviously fantasy, there was a huge middle ground that accommodated stories that were a blending of the two. And even the "hard" sf frequently borrowed motifs, images, ideas, and archetypes from fantasy (think Gordie Dickson's Dorsai stories, for instance... especially with Necromancer!); while fantasy often used a blending of technological gadgetry and magic -- still does to this day, really. Where would you class Andre Norton's Witch World... at least, the early novels? There we're given what amounts to psi-powers as the basis for most of the magic the witches of Estcarp use... but there are hints of spiritual beings lingering around, as well, such as Volt. Or "The Witches of Karres"? That was picked as one of the best sf stories of all time by the SFWA, yet it definitely straddles the genres. And the examples are well-nigh endless....

Which, for me, is why (aside from the marketing aspect, including writers marketing to agents and publishers) it's rather pointless to try to develop a rigid division of the two, as some of the very best in either field have been in that grey area, whether from the "hard" sf writers or those associated more with "fantasy"... which itself has become defined far too rigidly; it's a broad field, but these days we tend to think "heroic fantasy" or "sword-and-sorcery" when we hear the term, and it encompasses so very, very much more. Despite all the efforts to the contrary, the division between the two is more apparent than real, and their origins are much the same. One tends to take a more rationalist view (though the other frequently takes that tack as well), while the other tends to take a more magical or supernatural view (though both have been known to do that, as well). Both evolved from elements taken from older forms of literature (that is, if one doesn't include mythology and fairy- or folk-tales in with fantasy, which would make it the oldest known form of literary endeavor -- a view with no little justice to it, but rather pointless for classification), but over time they have generally tended to approach things differently... but by no means consistently or exclusively so. If one looks at the history of either field, one will find more common ground that most modern readers are willing to admit.....

[Teresa Edgerton]

Still, if one needed to explain the difference to people unfamiliar with the genres, I think Third Eye's definition makes a good starting point.

[Sapheron]

Again, I'd disagree. Not meaning to be argumentative, but that definition just confused me for a while as I struggled to work it out.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Well, it makes perfect sense to me -- it doesn't go far enough, and it needs a bit of qualifying, but as a capsule description I feel it works very well.

Of course as JD says there is a broad middle ground where the two halves of the genre meet, but I think it's a pretty servicable definition for stories that fall outside of that area.

But I can see how the definition would be confusing to -- for instance -- anyone who doesn't believe as I do that SF is simply a subset of Fantasy.

[jallenw]

Under your definition, my book would be considered Science Fiction, since my story is based in the modern world about 60 years in the future. My novel is, however, decidedly Fantasy fiction.

The Harry Potter series is also based in the modern world.

The problem is that both genres are part of the broader genre of Speculative Fiction.

[iansales]

Well, see, there you go. That's why no one will ever manage a definition of science fiction and/or fantasy: Teresa believes sf is a subset of fantasy; I believe they're separate genres.

I also think "speculative fiction" is a meaningless term, invented by people too embarrassed to admit they write science fiction. All fiction is essentially speculative. What is it about sf that gives it more, er, speculativeness?

(It's ironic that Heinlein coined the term "speculative fiction", a label that sounds more impressively literary than "science fiction", when he did more than anyone to take the art out of writing in the genre...)

[jallenw]

Fantasy vs Sci-Fi
Dragons vs X-Wings
Magic vs Superscience
Elves vs Robots
Swords vs Lasers
Demons vs Aliens
Wizards vs Scientists

and so on...

I believe the most fantasy, unless otherwise stated, takes place in a universe with altogether different laws of existence than our own. It asks the question, "What if the laws of the universe were different?"

I believe that most Sci-Fi, unless otherwise stated, takes place in
our own universe some time in the future. It asks the question, "What if our understanding and control of the laws of the universe was different?"

So I can define both in 6 words.

"Sci-Fi changes mankind. Fantasy changes existance."

I'm sure that many people will disagree, but this is just my humble opinion.

Global Thermo Nuclear Peace,
J. Allen Wentworth

[iansales]

Originally Posted by jallenw

I believe the most fantasy, unless otherwise stated, takes place in a universe with altogether different laws of existence than our own. It asks the question, "What if the laws of the universe were different?"

Like the "zones of thought" in Vernor Vinge's A Fire Upon the Deep? Oh, wait - that's science fiction... Then how about Raft by Stephen Baxter? Damn, that's science fiction too...

Originally Posted by jallenw

I believe that most Sci-Fi, unless otherwise stated, takes place in our own universe some time in the future. It asks the question, "What if our understanding and control of the laws of the universe was different?"

Beauty by Sheri S Tepper is partly set in the future. Oh, wait - it's No 14 in the Fantasy Masterworks series...

So, is a high fantasy set in an invented world that has no magic or dragons or elves, is that fantasy or science fiction? How about an alternate history set in the past? or an alternate present?

Many, many people have tried defining science fiction. No one has yet come up with one that successfully meets all challenges (except, perhaps, Damon Knight's).

[The Ace]

TE, I have to admit that you made a very nice try, certainly better than many could, but why bother ? I'd rather spend time reading (or writing ) either than trying to define them, a task marginally easier than nailing fog to the wall.