Forked Thread: What is the difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy?

[xechnao]

I think the difference is that fantasy has demons and gods and other crap of the kind that influence humanity. Science fiction drama on the other hand relies more on human uncanniness. 4e's PoL and PC "centricness" is more science fiction than fantasy. OTOH WH40k with chaos with demons and stuff is more fantasy than science fiction.

 

[hong]

Fantasy is literary stagnating because nearly no one tries to escape the influence of Lord of the Rings.

Well, you have to admit the novelisation of the movies is pretty good. Dunno why they added in all that funny business about Tim Bombadil, though.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Science Fiction has pewpewlasrebeems.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Fantasy is literary stagnating because nearly no one tries to escape the influence of Lord of the Rings.

Go, read Perdido Street Station now (and the German translation is also surprisingly good, though not as good as the original, of course).

Cheers, LT.

 

[greyscale1]

I approve heartily of Hussars definition of Sci-fi versus fantasy.

When I think of Sci-fi I think of it in four distinct ways:

1. Does it have future technology? Are there lasers? Is it in any way in space? Pew Pew?

2. Is there an internal consistency to the 'mechanics' of the world and the people within it? Can the people learn how the system works and exploit it (as per real life). In sci-fi the denizens of the universe tend to know (or have the theoretical capabilities to know) anything there is to be known. They then act in order to attain and exploit (realistically) any knowledge that is there. StarWars is fantasy, and Midechlorians was just as much a shift towards science fiction as it was a punch in the face of fans.

3. Is it hard to be a hero? In fantasy whether you are a hero depends on what you want to do. Heroes in fantasy tend to grow on their way and tend to operate under a different set of rules than the rest of the world. In Sci-fi to be a hero you have to have some spectacular reason to be. For example, in Ender's game Ender is basically bred to be a super-genius, then spends his whole life training for one particular act. In fantasy, characters face many extremely difficult encounters and overcome them all (lets say). In Sci-fi if the heroes are still alive, it is because they have gotten lucky, made extremely tactile decisions, and probably weren't facing the most impossible of challenges. In other words, in a true Sci-Fi, pluck alone will not save you. In Sci-fi, the heroes are almost always separated from the pact by more than destiny. They are the best of the best.

4. The theme. Fantasy tends to be more based on character based fables; coming of age stories, etc. Sci-fi is more based on sweeping philosphical arguments. What does it mean to be human? In Fantasy the theme usually developes around the character(s). In Sci-fi the characters are usually used to support philosphical thought as Paul (and more especially Leto, for those who read God Emperor of Dune) exemplifies.

 

[Tervin]

Which gives most fantasy setting a very unrealistic/unbelievable feel. Humans have always used the tools at hand to improve their life, so why wouldn't they do that with magic?

SciFi has the advantage that there is no single big work of SciFi (or at least there are multiple ones). In Fantasy you have one big work, Lord of the Rings, where the vast majority of all other fantasy works are clones from. (The ones which are not give a nod to Conan). Nearly every fantasy work features elves, dwarves and often orcs in the same way as how they were portrayed in LotR. On the other hand you will have to search very hard to find an alien race which appears in the majority of SciFi works.

Fantasy is literary stagnating because nearly no one tries to escape the influence of Lord of the Rings.

Hmm... I think you are lucky in a way, because there is just so much fantasy left for you to read it seems. In our home we have hundreds of fantasy titles - not yet a thousand I think. Not counting Tolkien I would say ten or possibly twenty of them feature other races portrayed as they are in Tolkien's work. Fantasy is a very rich and vibrant genre, if you learn how to look for what you like.

I remember a set of definitions of genres from back at university. Science Fiction and Fantasy both deal with stories that cannot be explained by scientists in our world today. In Science Fiction it is implied that there is a scientific explanation to those things that would otherwise be supernatural. In Fantasy supernatural things exist without scientific explanations.

That definition is far from perfect, but it works in almost every case I can think of. And well, there are no perfect definitions when it comes to that field of study.

 

[Fenes]

Which gives most fantasy setting a very unrealistic/unbelievable feel. Humans have always used the tools at hand to improve their life, so why wouldn't they do that with magic?

It's not improvement that I mean, but the application of modern concepts to a Fantasy world. Most Fantasy worlds cannot handle modern thinking without breaking. And those that can end up SF with Magic instead of high-tech instead.

What happens to knights in shining armor once you combine modern thinking and historical knowledge about tactics and equipment? And then add magic to it on top? Firearms are the most prominent examples, but social and industrial changes are right behind.

LotR is the best example of how a Fantasy world cannot have scientific advancement without breaking down. How would LotR look if there had been one engineer with 10, 20 years time to prepare? Oh, look at the orcs getting gunned down and blown up, and poisoned, and so on. And then Aragorn gets replaced by a populary elected president.

The "Modern island/town/scientist gets transplanted into medieval/ancient/fantasy land/time and changes it" genre is pretty popular, and shows some examples of that.

SF worlds, on the other hand, usually thrive on applicating modern thinking, and thinking it through. I often have the impression that Fantasy worlds/novels have the effect (Whatever culture/hero the author wants) first, and then cobble together the cause, while SF worlds/novels usually deal with exploring the effects of a given cause.

 

[Derren]

It's not improvement that I mean, but the application of modern concepts to a Fantasy world. Most Fantasy worlds cannot handle modern thinking without breaking. And those that can end up SF with Magic instead of high-tech instead.

What happens to knights in shining armor once you combine modern thinking and historical knowledge about tactics and equipment? And then add magic to it on top? Firearms are the most prominent examples, but social and industrial changes are right behind.

Which is a problem of the fantasy worlds. Most fantasy worlds conform to the romantic perceptions most people have about the medieval time period. This romantic perception alone doesn't even make sense and the unaltered romantic perception applied to a world with magic even less.

That means that most fantasy worlds are build around a unstable "Don't ask, don't tell" concept and the more magic is available the more unstable it becomes.
Also what you likely attribute to "modern thinking" already existed in the medieval time period and before. Do you really think that all the great buildings were build without an organized plan? Or just look how the Venice arsenal worked.
Most fantasy words are build according to a very unstable "Don't ask, don't tell" concept and the more magic and fantastic elements exists in the world, the more unstable the setting becomes and only because the author wants to retain a romantic medieval feel. Or rather the romantic western medieval feel as at that time "modern thinking" was very prevalent in the middle eastern and far eastern cultures of that time.

 

[Doug McCrae]

As the terms are used, I think fantasy and science fiction mostly refer to setting elements. Fantasy has knights, dragons and wizards. SF has robots, lasers and spaceships. Star Wars has all of those SF trappings but it also has magic (sort of), swords (sort of) and knights (sort of) so it wouldn't be wrong to call it fantasy. The most apt terms are probably 'space opera' and 'science fantasy'.

Summary: I agree with hong.

 

[Cadfan]

They're both just "speculative fiction." Deep down, they're the same. Science fiction has lasers and fantasy has dragons, except when the lasers are bolts of arcane energy and the dragons are mechanical.