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

[Afrodyte]

I think you are too spoiled by Judeo-Christian standards of how good ethics are established by a text, or for that matter what good ethics consist of.

*blink*

*blink*

*blink*

 

[Celebrim]

*blink*

*blink*

*blink*

Pardon me, but I think you have some irony in your eye.

But, for the sake of example:

"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." — "The Tower of the Elephant", Robert E. Howard, Weird Tales, March 1933.

Hope that clarifies.

 

[Celebrim]

2. Fantasy tends to focus on the conflict of good and evil while sci-fi tends to focus on the question of what it means to be human.

Almost nothing is quite so satisfying as raising up your little memes and seeing them thrive on thier own out in the big wide world.

 

[pawsplay]

I once read (don't remember where) a general comparision of sci-fi and fantasy. There were two differences that have stuck with me (the second one more than the first).
1. Where fantasy would give you a watch and describe how it looked sci-fi would describe how it worked.

Star Trek phasers: Zap.
Neuromancer cyber reality: Whoa.

Lord of the Rings: Elaborate mystical theology about Eo and the first song; magic elaborated as knowledge of the natural order, not "trickery" or occult powers.
Magic of Recluse: Order and chaos can be distilled but not destroyed; one exists by an imbalance of the other.
Master of the Five Magics: A magician masters five different magical systems with distinctive laws that govern them.
Narna: A child's primer to Catholic theology.

2. Fantasy tends to focus on the conflict of good and evil while sci-fi tends to focus on the question of what it means to be human.

Lucky Starr: He defeats space pirates.
Starship Troopers: Insects are fine in their place, but when they mess with human beings, someone's getting exterminated.
Ender's Game: What price war?

The Book of Atrix Wolfe: A changeling... does she belong among men, or among fairy, and what are the dangers of moving between realms?
Interview with the Vampire: Can a vampire have a conscience? Are they people? Can they love?
Belgariad: Set apart by magic and immortality, what does it mean to be a wizard?
Pinnochio: Can he become a real boy?

 

[Desdichado]

I think you are too spoiled by Judeo-Christian standards of how good ethics are established by a text, or for that matter what good ethics consist of. It's quite easy to read Howard, Leiber, and the pulp writers as heroic narratives establishing what is meant by living a good life. They are in many ways little different from typical polytheistic epics describing how to live life heroicly and to the fullest.

It's quite easy to do if you're really reaching, you redefine good and evil to fit the evidence rather than letting the evidence lead to your good and evil conclusion, and you ignore the fact that Howard, Leiber, Moorcock, etc. all came from that same Judeo-Christian cultural background and therefore it's absurd to suggest that they were writing in the same mode as Homer or Virgil.

 

[Corjay]

It's quite easy to do if you're really reaching, you redefine good and evil to fit the evidence rather than letting the evidence lead to your good and evil conclusion, and you ignore the fact that Howard, Leiber, Moorcock, etc. all came from that same Judeo-Christian cultural background and therefore it's absurd to suggest that they were writing in the same mode as Homer or Virgil.

Put's hand up: "ooo, ooo, me, me!"

Moorcock is a devout athiest and bases his Elric mythos upon the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs (another devout athiest) and germanic mythology. You only see any reference to Christian grounds in the Von Bek and Cornelius series', and Behold the Man. The Eternal champion shows a blatant disregard for the concept of the Judeo-Christian God. Behold the Man was a complete defiance of the Christian faith, tossing Christ in the same bin as pure fiction and fanciful mythology arising from crude origins (though that's not necessarily my belief).

Sorry, but when you use one of my favorite authors in an incorrect way, I have to speak up.

 

[Midnight Dawns]

Star Trek phasers: Zap.
Neuromancer cyber reality: Whoa.

Lord of the Rings: Elaborate mystical theology about Eo and the first song; magic elaborated as knowledge of the natural order, not "trickery" or occult powers.
Magic of Recluse: Order and chaos can be distilled but not destroyed; one exists by an imbalance of the other.
Master of the Five Magics: A magician masters five different magical systems with distinctive laws that govern them.
Narna: A child's primer to Catholic theology.

This is why the first one didn't stick with me as much, though as an over generalization it still has some merit.

Lucky Starr: He defeats space pirates.
Starship Troopers: Insects are fine in their place, but when they mess with human beings, someone's getting exterminated.
Ender's Game: What price war?

The Book of Atrix Wolfe: A changeling... does she belong among men, or among fairy, and what are the dangers of moving between realms?
Interview with the Vampire: Can a vampire have a conscience? Are they people? Can they love?
Belgariad: Set apart by magic and immortality, what does it mean to be a wizard?
Pinnochio: Can he become a real boy?

Classifying Interview With a Vampire as fantasy is a stretch. Belgrariad is about godd(change) vs evil(stagnation). (And no that I think about it it, I believe it was inthe Riven Codex that I might have read the comparision.) Ender's Game used the Formics to answer part of the question of 'what does it mean to be human?'; most sci-fi answers this by showing us other races/species. The statement of fantasy generally dealing with (at least precieved) good vs evil and sci-fi being about what does it mean to be human is true.

 

[WayneLigon]

Star Trek phasers: Zap.
Neuromancer cyber reality: Whoa.

Because we've already established that both catagories have a fair amount of wiggle room, it's not surprising you'll find exceptions to the rule. Star Trek, though it occassionally uses science (and at least the original series was the closest thing we had to actual SF on TV for a long, long time), is more space opera or western. Neuromancer is part of that 'social science fiction' catagory I posted about in the other thread. Gibson didn't know computers from a hole in the ground when he wrote it but the book was more about how people cope socially and psychologically with massive change.

 

[Celebrim]

It's quite easy to do if you're really reaching, you redefine good and evil to fit the evidence rather than letting the evidence lead to your good and evil conclusion

Oh good grief, that doesn't even make any sense! How am I redefining anything? Are you claiming that good and evil are terms with such fixed meanings that any two books or cultures will agree on exactly what they mean? Of course Burroughs is going to offer a different standard of heroism and define a different sort of good than say Tolkien - they are two very different sorts with very different belief systems.

And as for following the evidence, I invented the definitions in question. I've read over 400 works of science fiction and fantasy, and I'd read over 200 before I even came up with unifying characteristics that I thought fit the available evidence. The definition was formed by the evidence after a great deal of thought and after discarding a great deal of other ideas.

...and you ignore the fact that Howard, Leiber, Moorcock, etc. all came from that same Judeo-Christian cultural background and therefore it's absurd to suggest that they were writing in the same mode as Homer or Virgil.

Because we all know that everyone from a Judeo-Christian culture fully accepts the tenants of that theology, and also that no one is ever classically educated much less reads and admires Homer or Virgil?

Who is being absurd here again?

Do you read Burroughs at all? Read 'Gods of Mars' or 'Mastermind of Mars' and then tell me again how Burroughs feels that organized religion of any sort is a suitable basis for ethical behavior. Yet at the same time, try to argue that either book isn't being didactic and preachy. I've got both on the shelf. I'm quite happy to dig up quotes if you are willing to make an issue of it. Howard's 'Conan' is believed by many critics to be an idealized version of himself - the person that he aspires to be. How am I reaching? I mean if you are going to offer the criticism that my definition of fantasy excludes all of pulp fantasy, then at least offer as examples some pulp fantasy that isn't so obviously moralizing just so your argument will be interesting. I mean sheesh, these are largely boy's stories in both execution and conscious conception. This is 'How to be a real man' fiction. You might as well tell me that child-martyrdom stories from Puritan primers don't meet my definition because they aren't trying to define good and evil modes of behavior. Just because the ethical precepts the authors are trying to demonstrate and teach aren't wholly modern doesn't mean that they aren't there.

Oh well, we've been here before several times. I wasn't convincing the first time. I doubt I've grown in rhetorical power since then.

 

[Hussar]

The only real difference is where they shelve the books. While defining genres can be useful, pretending there is a basic philosophic difference between the two is an exercise in self-delusion. To be perfectly pedantic, all science-fiction is a sub-genre of fantasy. In fact, all fiction contains elements of fantasy.

umm what?

Fantasy is an outgrowth of SF, not the other way around.