Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kaisoku" data-source="post: 4360686" data-attributes="member: 58447">Wikipedia has some good info on this subject in their Science Fiction entry.&nbsp;Specifically this quote nails it pretty well:&nbsp;&quot;In general, science fiction is the literature of things that might someday be possible, and fantasy is the literature of things that are inherently impossible.&quot;&nbsp;Basically, Science Fiction will look at things in a scientific way. It can be in a setting of future or present or even past (unknown past usually), but it's always looking at things in a more technical way.&nbsp;Fenes has it right with Star Wars in that it really doesn't focus on the technical side of things, and that's what makes it more fantasy. Is there some problem that needs fixing? Bring out the doodad to fix it without explaining a single thing, or bring in the mystical unexplained 'force'.&nbsp;This is why Episode One rubbed a large portion of the fans the wrong way (and I'm not talking about Jar-Jar molesting our ears). They tried to go the &quot;explain it scientifically&quot; route for the force. It felt out of place in the current theme of the story.&nbsp;The flipside to this is having magic written about in a more technical way, to the point that it's observed scientifically. You can have a &quot;fantasy&quot; setting, that takes magic in a scientific way, and you end up with a more Science Fiction work than Fantasy.The wiki entry talks about this and names a few authors that &quot;blur the lines&quot; between the types, creating &quot;science fantasy&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kaisoku, post: 4360686, member: 58447"] Wikipedia has some good info on this subject in their Science Fiction entry. Specifically this quote nails it pretty well: "In general, science fiction is the literature of things that might someday be possible, and fantasy is the literature of things that are inherently impossible." Basically, Science Fiction will look at things in a scientific way. It can be in a setting of future or present or even past (unknown past usually), but it's always looking at things in a more technical way. Fenes has it right with Star Wars in that it really doesn't focus on the technical side of things, and that's what makes it more fantasy. Is there some problem that needs fixing? Bring out the doodad to fix it without explaining a single thing, or bring in the mystical unexplained 'force'. This is why Episode One rubbed a large portion of the fans the wrong way (and I'm not talking about Jar-Jar molesting our ears). They tried to go the "explain it scientifically" route for the force. It felt out of place in the current theme of the story. The flipside to this is having magic written about in a more technical way, to the point that it's observed scientifically. You can have a "fantasy" setting, that takes magic in a scientific way, and you end up with a more Science Fiction work than Fantasy. The wiki entry talks about this and names a few authors that "blur the lines" between the types, creating "science fantasy". [/QUOTE]

Verification