Worlds of Design: Fantasy vs. Sci-Fi Part 2

I hope I showed in my last piece that "science vs magic" is not a sufficient way to differentiate fantasy from science fiction. What about other ways?

View attachment 102810
Sourced from Pixabay​

What about the size (and speed) of typical vehicles as a separator? Science fiction often has vast spaceships that you "never" see in fantasy, yet even fantasy can have small space-traveling ships as in the Spelljammer setting for AD&D. Games that are clearly fantasy rarely have land or sea vehicles that can travel 60 miles (100 km) an hour or more. They have nothing like airliners or container ships; rarely anything like a railroad (but some do . . .).

Benny Sperling on Twitter suggested "Low tech (fantasy) knights, wizards, kings vs high tech (sci-fi) robots, space ships, AI".

This led me to think that in fantasy the fighting is almost always melee or short range (catapults, arrows, and spells), whereas in science fiction the fighting is almost always at considerable if not immensely long (in outer space) ranges. This is a useful distinction, though with exceptions, in a fantasy video game such as Age of Wonders III, the wizards are casting their battle spells across dozens or hundreds of miles. But I can't think of a fantasy (story or game) with combat ranges longer than the size of a planet . . .

Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom stories involve both short range (sword) and longer range (the Martian warships) fighting; I'd call Barsoom more fantasy than science fiction.

"Science fiction is fantasy about issues of science. Science fiction is a subset of fantasy. Fantasy predated it by several millennia." Raymond E Feist​

The biggest typical explosions in science fiction are immensely greater than the biggest explosions one typically encounters in fantasy.

Knights? We have knights in armor riding horses, we have Jedi Knights, it's just a word. If by Knights we specifically mean armed horsemen who hold their land in fee to an overlord, then we have something that's medieval, and medieval often translates to fantasy. But that's more often because of low tech and short range fighting than because of the feudal system! We can have a fantasy such as Empire of the Petal Throne that has little resemblance to the medieval. (Though some would call EPT science fantasy, because the technology is supposedly science-based.)

Benny also mentioned Kings, but many science-fiction Empire stories involve monarchies. As for "AI", we see fantasy golems and automatons that exhibit signs of intelligence.

What is "science fantasy?" Star Wars, perhaps, but not Star Trek. Scientific trappings over what is otherwise a fantasy? I think I'll try to avoid the term.

Believability might come into all of this. Science fiction can be quite believable, whereas fantasy is almost always fantastic and ultimately unbelievable. Yet one of the most believable fictions in our genres is the Lord of the Rings, clearly a fantasy. Star Wars isn't believable (though it's enjoyable), and many would say it IS a fantasy. Fantasy elements in what is otherwise science fiction tend to break immersion (take the player out of the game), as do scientific elements in what is otherwise fantasy.

Where do we fit in alternate history - for example, Harry Turtledove's series in which the South wins the Civil War? It's no longer real, though starting from our reality, and it may be realistic. Do we just call it Alternate History and leave it at that? This is related to stories, e.g. Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen, where time- or multiverse-travelers go to an earlier time(line) and use their knowledge of technology to make big changes. Fantasy? SF?

In the end, I think I have to point first to natural versus supernatural as a means of separating fantasy and science fiction. After that I focus on fighting methods, especially ranges, and to vehicle and explosion sizes. Star Wars is fantasy because of the supernatural elements, the prophecy and The Force, and somehow a lot of melee and short range combat. The Pern books are science-fiction because there is no supernatural element. And so on.

You might be able to have an interesting discussion with your players about this topic. It's an intellectual exercise in considerable part, but one that many have tried over the years if we can judge from the weight of material online.

This article was contributed by Lewis Pulsipher (lewpuls) as part of EN World's Columnist (ENWC) program. You can follow Lew on his web site and his Udemy course landing page. If you enjoy the daily news and articles from EN World, please consider contributing to our Patreon!

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Descriptions about magic according to the Old Norse texts themselves are clear.

Perhaps you could enumerate the Old Norse texts which have a clear exposition of how seiðr worked? Because aside from a few oblique references to necromancy, divination and curses I don't seem to be able to find very much.

When we reach back into the "magic" in ancient Germanic religions - and I'm largely sympathetic to the notion that it was congruent in some regards with Finno-Baltic Shamanism - we don't have much to work with. There's an awful lot of conjecture.

Also, the descriptions of Norse style psychic magic are Nonchristian, where the Christian outlook would rather there be no magic going on at all, and every ‘miracle’ coming directly from God, rather than from a ‘powerful mental visualization’.

Can you honestly say that Theosophical and New Age/Neopagan conceits haven't framed that statement in a certain way? "Psychic?" "Mental visualization?"
And I think you are caricaturing the effect of Christianity; not everything in folklore needs to be subsequently reduced to a miracle or demonic influence. My point is that the Christian lens was in place by the 13th century, and already shaping narratives that were drawing on older material.

 

[Yaarel]

Perhaps you could enumerate the Old Norse texts which have a clear exposition of how seiðr worked? Because aside from a few oblique references to necromancy, divination and curses I don't seem to be able to find very much.

When we reach back into the "magic" in ancient Germanic religions - and I'm largely sympathetic to the notion that it was congruent in some regards with Finno-Baltic Shamanism - we don't have much to work with. There's an awful lot of conjecture.




Can you honestly say that Theosophical and New Age/Neopagan conceits haven't framed that statement in a certain way? "Psychic?" "Mental visualization?"
And I think you are caricaturing the effect of Christianity; not everything in folklore needs to be subsequently reduced to a miracle or demonic influence. My point is that the Christian lens was in place by the 13th century, and already shaping narratives that were drawing on older material.

For a decent intro on the topic of Norse magic, especially seiðr:

vikinganswerlady.com/seidhr.shtml




Too many people confuse what is happening in ‘ancient’ ‘Germania’ before year 100 with what is happening in medieval Nordic countries before year 1300. Even scholars who should know better make grotesquely unscientific, sweeping generalizations as if there was no difference between these cultures.



What ‘ancient Germanic’ magic looks like − I dont know and I dont care.

What Norse magic looks like − I do know and I do care.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Too many people confuse what is happening in ‘ancient’ ‘Germania’ before year 100 with what is happening in medieval Nordic countries before year 1300. Even scholars who should know better make grotesquely unscientific, sweeping generalizations as if there was no difference between these cultures.

I was using the term "Germanic" in its wider linguistic and cultural context, but I suspect you understood that perfectly well.

Regardless, you seem to have a faith-based or apologetic approach - rather than an evidentiary one - to this subject. As such, I'll say no more for the sake of Eric's grandma.

 

[Yaarel]

I was using the term "Germanic" in its wider linguistic and cultural context, but I suspect you understood that perfectly well.

Regardless, you seem to have a faith-based or apologetic approach - rather than an evidentiary one - to this subject. As such, I'll say no more for the sake of Eric's grandma.

That socalled ‘wider linguistic and cultural context’ in fact is diverse and divergent ethnic groups.

 

[Hussar]

Folkbelief was perceived as fact, according to how the universe works within their worldview.

For example, when they talk about ghosts or goblins or witches or shapeshifters or power animals or dragons, these were plausible possibilities.

Only today do we think of it as ‘metaphor’ or ‘archetypes’ or ‘fantasy’.

And perhaps our own worldview has become too mechanical.

You think that Hansel and Gretal was perceived as a factual retelling of an event? Or Cinderella? Or the 1001 Nights?

 

[Yaarel]

You think that Hansel and Gretal was perceived as a factual retelling of an event? Or Cinderella? Or the 1001 Nights?

Good question.

All of the examples in your post are moreorless ‘fairy tales’.

A folkbelief tends to differ from a fairy tale. A folkbelief is usually more like a ‘sighting’. It reports a strange encounter without much story to it. It is more like today, when certain people describe a UFO sighting or alien encounter, or relate an anecdote about meeting a ghost or a spooky house. People believed the incident was true or at least possible.

A fairy tale has more of a ‘tale’, a story with a plot with its desire and the resulting challenge, and a conclusion.

But even a fairy tale tends to be a retelling of story that is more widely known. Often these stories are ancient and sometimes immigrating from other cultures. So the original provenience of the tale becomes uncertain. ‘Once upon a time’ ‘in a land far far away’. The retelling often reworks the details so that it sounds more plausible (or fun) to the immediate audience.

It is probably fair to say, fairy tales are fictional accounts that are perceived to be based on a true story. But the setting tends to be perceived as real. And most fairy tales probably originate from folkbeliefs that the original audience believed was true.

Germans did really believe in the existence of devilish witches. French really did believe the faerie. And British had their own version of the faerie. Muslims today still believe in genies. And so on.

 

[Hussar]

But, we're talking about the roots of Fantasy as a genre. The roots of fantasy come from a number of sources, fairy tales, travelogues and a few others. Gulliver's Travels is a fantasy novel and predated Frankenstein by quite a few years. Hans Christian Andersen's The Little Mermaid is another good example of a fantasy novel.

That people may have believed in or may still believe in the fantastic doesn't actually have any real impact on fantasy as a genre.

 

[Jhaelen]

What makes faerie tales and fables (and maybe myths, as well) different from the Fantasy genre is their purpose. Imho, they're first and foremost meant as allegories. Fantasy is usually 'just' entertainment.

I always felt that Tolkien's work was a strange beast and doesn't really fit in well with the rest of the Fantasy genre, because it's been an attempt of creating a modern myth.

But maybe I'm just overthinking things...

 

[Yaarel]

But, we're talking about the roots of Fantasy as a genre. The roots of fantasy come from a number of sources, fairy tales, travelogues and a few others. Gulliver's Travels is a fantasy novel and predated Frankenstein by quite a few years. Hans Christian Andersen's The Little Mermaid is another good example of a fantasy novel.

That people may have believed in or may still believe in the fantastic doesn't actually have any real impact on fantasy as a genre.

Heh, to be fair, you were the one who asked me if the original audiences believed in fairy tales. The answer was sorta. Fairy tales are a blurry line between folkbelief and fictional embellishment to enhance the story for the sake of a story.

I got your point that fairy tales are the origin of the fantasy genre, and I have to agree. I see fairy tales flourishing as a genre in its own right during the 1800s, and this seems to inspire the earliest examples of ‘science fiction’.

An interesting question is, when did people start writing ‘fantasy’ in the sense of strict fiction (as opposed to fictionalized).

In some sense, Tolkien is a pioneer in modern fantasy. At a time when human scientists were beginning to understand how cultures and archetypes *functioned*, he used these methodologies to create a fictional one. His invention of fictional languages evidences his intention as a fictional author, even tho much of what he wrote is a mosaic of many reallife ethnicities whose heritages he broke apart and then used the pieces to reassemble a fictional spiritual heritage.



Thinking on this. I find myself crediting Sigmund Freud as part of the origin of the fantasy genre. His book, On the Interpretation of Dreams, demystified the realm of dreams. (He showed how dreams ‘conflate’ facets from waking life into a holistic image. The key to understanding a dream is identifying which facets of a dream correspond to which facets of waking life, then assessing the significance of how these pieces of waking life fit together. He considered this his most important book.) Before Freud, humans perceived dreams as a mystical realm. Freud allowed dreams to be mundane.

This paradigm shift from mystical to mundane, likewise made the shift from mystical folkbelief to mundane fantasy fiction possible.



By the way, good call on Gulliver’s Travels from the 1700s. I might consider it something like ‘proto fantasy’. Swift wrote in genres of allegory and parody, but the results look like fantasy − maybe because he has a distinctively modernist and Enlightenment rationalist feel.

 

[Yaarel]

By the way, I am comfortable using the term ‘scifi’ as synonymous with ‘speculative fiction’. Because, once one includes the human sciences of archeology, history, ethnography, religious studies, mythography, folkbelief studies, psychology, sociology, anthropology, art history, and so on, these human sciences along with the physical sciences cover every subgenre of speculative fiction.