Science Fiction vs. Science Fantasy

[Umbran]

A problem of distinguishing science fiction from fantasy using as a basis the closeness of the fiction to an actual possible reality is that most fiction itself is very unreal based on the probability of the described story. Where is the line to be drawn?

This is why I tend to think not in terms of "closeness to possible reality" so much as "source of the fictional reality". If the source of the reality is modern science, however far it is logically extrapolated, and the solutions to the problems that thus arise are within that same realm, it would seem more likely to be science fiction to me.

Thus, you can have low-magic fantasy that is rather close to our Medieval reality but is still fantasy, and have far-future science fiction, where society has gone off to left field, but still be science fiction.

 

[Hussar]

I'd disagree with a characterization of Star Trek as science fiction. Just because it cloaks its magic in the appearance of technobabble doesn't make it any less fantastic than Star Wars. Whether using the force or using a transported, creating midicholrians or transparent aluminum, both series are trying to put a future-tech sheen on what is essentially magic, and the stories they tell aren't really about the science anyway. Trek has the huge problem of being internally inconsistent, and to maintain the appearance of consistency has to invent new technobabble every few episodes (TOS wasn't so bad for this, but TNG was horrible). Star Wars -- at least the original trilogy -- didn't try to provide explanations, but then Lucas had to go all midichlorian on us ...

That's not what separates Star Trek from Star Wars though. What splits the two is theme. In Star Wars, you have aliens, but, the aliens never have any real thematic impact. There's no discussion of slavery of intelligent beings (droids), there's no discussion of Chewbacca and his culture in comparison to human culture. He's just there, he's hairy and big and strong. The droids are just there. It's all accepted.

In Star Trek, the presence of any of the "aliens" on the Enterprise always entails discussions about what they are, how they differ from humanity and what their "alien-ness" tells us about humanity. Spock, Data, Odo, Seven-of-Nine all have the same thematic niche. They are the "Fish out of Water" who act as a mirror to our own cultures and society.

That's what differentiates SF from fantasy. Pew pew lasers and robots certainly don't. Is Pinocchio SF? Well, no. No one would really argue that it is. Because we don't get any sort of discussion about what it is to be a "created human". It's all, "I wanna be a real boy" and that's the end of it. There's no ethical discussion about whether it was right or wrong to actually create Pinocchio in the first place. OTOH, if you look at Frankenstein, which is effectively the same basic idea as Pinocchio, that's the whole point of the story. What are the ethical consequences of being able to create life?

You want a couple of good straight up SF stories? Try "Run" Bakri Says by Ferret Steinmetz - a story where a young woman is trapped in an endless time loop where she must rescue her brother to break the loop. It's all about the dehumanization effects of lack of consequence. Fantastic story. Or, Paulo Baccigalupi's The Gambler. Or, well, pretty much anything by Baccigalupi actually.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

That's what differentiates SF from fantasy. Pew pew lasers and robots certainly don't. Is Pinocchio SF? Well, no. No one would really argue that it is. Because we don't get any sort of discussion about what it is to be a "created human". It's all, "I wanna be a real boy" and that's the end of it. There's no ethical discussion about whether it was right or wrong to actually create Pinocchio in the first place. OTOH, if you look at Frankenstein, which is effectively the same basic idea as Pinocchio, that's the whole point of the story. What are the ethical consequences of being able to create life?

I disagree that what you describe is a distinction between sci-fi and sci-fan. I think it's a distinction between good sci-fi/sci-fan and poor sci-fi/sci-fan. I think you'll find examples on both sub-genres that explore deep meaning and implications of the world (deep sci-fan: China Mieville), and of course those that don't. From a theme exploration standpoint, I believe that Star Trek is deeper on an episode-to-episode basis, but that doesn't make it any more or less sci-fan to me.

I think some posters are interpreting being in one category or the other as negative; I certainly don't see them that way. They're just different.

 

[Hussar]

See, I don't really break it down that far. What exactly is Science Fantasy? Why bother? Either it's Science Fiction or it's Fantasy. With lots of stuff that falls between the two poles.

As far as quality goes, oh, heck no. There's very good fantasy stories that aren't concerned one whit about what it means to be human. Tolkien is a perfect example here. But, it's pretty hard to find SF stories that aren't. When you look at the core of what people think of with SF, you see things like Heinlein, Asimov, P.K. Dick and others. The commonality with these writers is their stories revolve around a single big theme - what does it mean to be human?

Fantasy doesn't care about that. Mieville writes weird tales, which is a bit of its own genre in that it cross polinates a lot of both fantasy and SF. Unlundon is pure fantasy. Great story, but, pure fantasy. The City and The City is much closer to SF in theme. It looks at social conventions and then turns them on their head - the whole sociological application of taboo.

The movie Aliens is SF. (Alien is horror, IMO) It's in the same vein as Starship Troopers or The Forever War. Pretty much milfic. But, look at the character of Bishop. When he goes off to message the ship to remote pilot the lander down, he says something like, "I may be artificial, but I don't want to die" or something to that effect. The Bishop character is straight up SF. A mechanical acting like a human. Now, the movie is about as deep as a rain puddle, so it doesn't really explore the themes too much. But the themes are there.

It's not a question about how well the story addresses the themes, it's the presence of the themes that makes the difference.

An even better example is Doctor Who, particularly the latest reboot. Every season, the central theme is "what is a human". The Doctor desperately tries to retain some shred of humanity in the face of the absolutely horrific deeds he's performed. Every where he goes, he destroys and kills, sometimes to the point of genocide. And every story is grounded in the idea of the Doctor trying to not become the monster he very easily could be.

The science? Not even a little. It's total hogwash. There's no science at all there. Holes you could drive a bus through. But, it's pure Science Fiction.

 

[Jhaelen]

I submitted a urban fantasy short story ages ago to Marion Zimmer Bradley magazine, and it was rejected because it was "too much like science fiction" since it followed too closely to physical laws.

I recall an anecdote from Orson Scott Card, how one of his stories (I think it was what later became the Worthing series) was rejected by a Sci-Fi magazine because they felt it was Fantasy. IIRC, he argued it was Sci-Fi because he could give a scientific explanation for everything that happened in the story. However, these explanations are never given in the story: It was written from the viewpoint of the world's inhabitants who were on a medieval tech level. And to them, when they encountered technology beyond their understanding it was clearly magic. In the story the world is observed from orbit by spacefaring humans who interfere with the local species in order to guide their development but without giving themselves away.

Iain Banks has written a similar Culture novel (Inversions) that is only recognizable as something other than a Fantasy story if you've read a couple of his other Culture novels. Otherwise you might miss the hints.

 

[Nellisir]

See, I don't really break it down that far. What exactly is Science Fantasy? Why bother? Either it's Science Fiction or it's Fantasy. With lots of stuff that falls between the two poles.

Clearly you do not understand the internet.

 

[Umbran]

When you look at the core of what people think of with SF, you see things like Heinlein, Asimov, P.K. Dick and others. The commonality with these writers is their stories revolve around a single big theme - what does it mean to be human?
...
Fantasy doesn't care about that.

Ah, be careful there. Take, for example, Greg Bear - well known, solid writer of some excellent SF. But, he did a fantasy duology - "Songs of Earth and Power", in which a human falls into the fae realms. Clearly fantasy. But, it has a theme of 'what it means to be human". Any work that does a good examination of the contrast between humans and things that may or may not be human, will have that theme. Maybe that non-humans are aliens, maybe they are Greek Gods, fae, werewolves, vampires, or what have you.

Heck, you can say that Gaiman's Neverwhere has that same theme, by way of comparing people in London Above with London Below, and they're all (well, almost all) human.

Meanwhile, there's a strong argument that Doctor Who is really fantasy - replace "Time lords" with "Sidhe lords" and you might have a very similar story. Near human, nigh immortal, is better than a human at just about everything, but is nigh begging for contact/input from humans. His companions are essentially variations on Tam Lin and Thomas the Rhymer. Instead of sweeping people up in a wild hunt, he does so in a big blue box, into a world where time as they knew it has little meaning, and passes strangely...

So, no, I don't think the "what is it to be human" theme is at all the differentiator.

 

[tomBitonti]

I don't think I'd go with the "what is it to be human" theme:

Looking at "Neutron Star", by Niven, even with its flaws, explores the physics of tides and one person's travails in not being killed by them. Not much "what is it to be human", unless you count the (silly) blackmail at the conclusion as that exploration.

The flaws are huge (not knowing about tides is just plain stupid, in large capital letters). But you could re-frame the story suitably to create the circumstances without the silliness and recreate the essential problem.

Thx!

TOmB

 

[Travis Webb]

In addition to the crossovers mentioned above, I think it's worth noting that lots of "hard" fantasy, that is fantasy with zero science fiction elements, still treats magic and magical systems like a science. "The Name of the Wind" being a good example; Brandon Sanderson's original works are another.

 

[Umbran]

That's not what separates Star Trek from Star Wars though. What splits the two is theme. In Star Wars, you have aliens, but, the aliens never have any real thematic impact. There's no discussion of slavery of intelligent beings (droids), there's no discussion of Chewbacca and his culture in comparison to human culture. He's just there, he's hairy and big and strong. The droids are just there. It's all accepted.

In Star Trek, the presence of any of the "aliens" on the Enterprise always entails discussions about what they are, how they differ from humanity and what their "alien-ness" tells us about humanity. Spock, Data, Odo, Seven-of-Nine all have the same thematic niche. They are the "Fish out of Water" who act as a mirror to our own cultures and society.

Well, be careful here: if you're comparing Star Wars movies to Star Trek TV, you have the simple issue of amount of screen time available. Trek has had hundreds and hundreds of hours to explore themes on screen, while Star Wars movies have what, under 20 hours, total?

But, what do we see when we step back, and look at the more full body of works in each universe? If you start including the Star Wars Expanded Universe of fiction, and the universe of the Star Wars games (both computer and RPG), you start seeing some of those other issues receive treatment. But I'd still argue that Star Wars is basically fantasy with tech trappings, and Trek is still basically science fiction.