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

[Fenes]

Does fantasy set in "the real modern world, but with magic" avoid these issues, or embrace them. Kim Harrison, Laurell K Hamilton, etc?

Mind you these are more horror than fantasy.

Hamilton's latest novels are much closer to erotic fiction than to Horror. Her earlier novels are good though.

 

[Andor]

David Brin argues that the key difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy is that SF looks forward and Fantasy looks backwards.

Meaning in Science Fiction there is always at the heart of it the idea of progress, that whatever the mess is, we can figure a way out of it and build a better tomorrow.

In Fantasy there is always a Golden Past which reached heights which can be mourned but we will never see again. From sunken Numenor to sunken Atlantis to the fallen Elf cities of FR the present is but the shadow of the past.

Note that by this definition Eberron probably counts as SF btw, whereas FR is definitely fantasy.

 

[Mallus]

David Brin argues that the key difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy is that SF looks forward and Fantasy looks backwards.

It's not a bad point, but it sidesteps all the SF that romanticizes the future (ie 'progress') as much as fantasy does the past.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So... you're saying that the difference between science fiction and fantasy is the laziness of the creators?

Nice.

If nice means you disagree, I second this.

It is not laziness. It is the question of what you want to explore.
If I want to tell a story about a farmboy becoming trained in magics and capturing the man who killed his father, I would tell exactly that story, not the story about the farmboy learning to train magic and then engaging in discussing socio-ecomonic topics with his fellow students.

Both stories can be interesting, but the second is not the story I wanted to tell. So I don't.

I can only assume that so-called "lazy" fantasy authors would think similar.

 

[Hussar]

Andor - I'm not really sure if that's a fair brush stroke to be honest. There's lots of SF that isn't forward thinking for example. Heck, lots of distopian science fiction out there is decidely not progressive looking. And, not every fantasy world has a "golden age" in its past. I'd actually go out on a limb here and say that a lot of fantasy doesn't have that anymore.

For example Steven Erikson's Malazan series doesn't have any golden age pasts. Now, that's just one example, but, one could also point to Harry Potter as well. And Buffy. I'm sure there are others.

 

[Cadfan]

The above is just wrong. There's no other way to say it. It's flat out factually wrong. I'm not even particularly a fantasy fan and I know that's wrong. China Meiville and the New Weird movement, Harry Potter, Highlander, Robin Hobb, Pratchett, and a host of others have very, very little to do with Tolkien.

I'm not sure how you consider a genre that publishes more titles per year than it used to publish per DECADE to be stagnating. There's been more fantasy published since the new millenium than was published in the last century. That's not stagnation, that's the opposite.

Fantasy literature, as read by denizens of ENWorld, is stagnating. Ever notice that whenever literature comes up, everyone mentions Howard, Moorcock, and then... the thread trails into silence?

Now, to be １００％ fair, you cannot claim clean lines in any genre. Genre by its nature is messy. Can you claim Star Wars as SF?

Jedi are telekinetic space ninja. You can tell this is science fiction from the word "space."

Fantasy themes are typically wish fufillment.

This is frequently true. But not always.

In SF, you don't usually get wish fulfillment stories.

Oh.... yes you do. Read Heinlein, or Niven, or Saberhagen, or Asher... main characters who can do multidimensional hyper-jump vector calculus in their heads while fighting space-tiger-people with one hand and using the other to seduce a woman who is also their 10th generation descendant who fell through a time rift?

But, in neither case is magic really the vehicle for carrying any sort of philosophical debate.

But you just mentioned Mieville! Have you read The Iron Council yet?

You might get some sense of wonder tales in Space Opera, but, that's usually quite different. Again, SF typically has a philosophical point to make and it uses the existence of whatever element in the story is needed to make that point.

But sometimes that philosophical point IS wish fulfillment. The wish being fulfilled is that the pet philosophical hobby horse of the reader will be one day proven true.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It's not a bad point, but it sidesteps all the SF that romanticizes the future (ie 'progress') as much as fantasy does the past.

Well, Big Brother (the novel, not the TV show) certainly doesn't glorify the future or progress. Neither does Minority Report...

But there are certainly many sci-fis that do exactly that. Maybe because since the past few centuries, progress was mostly a positive effect.

And not all fantasy speaks of the "glorious" past. Many fantasy stories seem also be about bringing the light to the world. "Lord of the Ring" might have the Elves retreating, but it's also about challenging the biggest evil and destroying it once and for all.

 

[Hussar]

But you just mentioned Mieville! Have you read The Iron Council yet?

Oh, I agree, there are works out there that cross the lines. Mieville is an excellent example. The New Weird movement is facinating to me. As is Steampunk. Both are fantastic blends of fantasy and SF.

I agree 100% that you can jump the fence from time to time. My original point, which I think got lost in all this, was that you couldn't define SF simply through setting. To me the definition of SF is philosophical. That's HOW Mieville gets to dip his toes in both pools. Neil Gaiman as well. Even Terry Pratchett, in a few of the later Discworld novels has moved closer to SF thematically.

 

[Mercutio01]

Meaning in Science Fiction there is always at the heart of it the idea of progress, that whatever the mess is, we can figure a way out of it and build a better tomorrow.

I have two dozen novels on my shelf that are decidedly SF and are not this. Most of those novels are by either Bruce Sterling, Phillip K. Dick, or William Gibson - progress is generally a bad thing that is exploited by the powerful to keep the serfs down. Nevermind things like 1984 which doesn't have anything remotely resembling a better tomorrow with a happy ending.

In my mind there is not one thing but a combination of two that truly separates good science fiction from good fantasy - social awareness through extrapolated technology. Science Fiction was essentially created by Mary Shelley as a way to comment on contemporary social issues by extrapolating existing technology into the future.

Some of the best fantasy is also socially aware (Gulliver's Travels, LotR), but isn't SF because it doesn't deal with technology. Some of the worst SF is hard tech without a social implication on contemporary society.

But as a differentiation between the two, I think the SF in general must include technological developments in some way.

 

[Desdichado]

If nice means you disagree, I second this.

Yes, it was definately a sarcastic nice.

It's not laziness to ignore elements that are irrelevent (and quite possibly even detrimental distractions) from what you're trying to accomplish with your novel/movie/whatever. It's just common sense.