Worlds of Design: Fantasy vs. Sci-Fi Part 1

This is a broader question than just RPGs but the same arguments apply. It’s important for RPG designers, for consistency and to avoid immersion-breaking, but it’s probably not important to players.

View attachment 102751
Sourced from Pixabay.​

After making some notes to try to answer this question for myself, I googled it, and I also asked for suggestions on Twitter.

It’s the kind of situation where most people will agree in most cases whether something is fantasy or science fiction, but there’s an awful lot of room to disagree or to bring in additional terms like “science fantasy”.

One googled source said, "Science fiction deals with scenarios and technology that are possible or may be possible based on science". That's an obvious differentiation, yet it doesn't actually work well. As Arthur C. Clarke said, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." For example, most people would call Michael Moorcock's Jerry Cornelius (The End of Time) stories fantasies, yet they are supposed to be using highly advanced scientific tools.

“Science fiction is any idea that occurs in the head and doesn't exist yet, but soon will, and will change everything for everybody, and nothing will ever be the same again.” Ray Bradbury​

Perhaps the difference is that science can be explained and follows laws, and magic does not. Yet we have examples of magic systems that are well explained (on the surface at least), for example, the metals system in Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn novels.

A lot of the "obvious" differences are semantic, that is, it just depends on what you call something. Are psionics scientific or are they magic? Is a wizard a scientist or a spellcaster? Is a light saber science or magic? Science is usually associated with mass production, magic with individuals and individual use, and nobody but Jedi and a few bad guys use light sabers. Another source: "Many would argue that Anne McCaffrey’s Pern series is science fiction despite the existence of dragons while others say the Star Wars films are clearly fantasy despite the space setting."

In the end, saying it's a difference between science and non-science, or between technology and magic, can fall afoul of semantics all too often.

Do we have to say that science fiction uses technology that we can extrapolate from today? No super advanced stuff? But then what about faster than light travel? Current science says it's not possible: does that mean any science fiction with faster than light travel is a fantasy?

A different way to pose science and magic is to say natural versus supernatural. Some people do not accept the supernatural as an explanation for anything, which leaves no room for gods or prophecies. But when we get to advanced technology versus magic, Clarke's dictum applies. Sufficiently-advanced aliens may look entirely supernatural, even godlike.

We can't really talk about the presence of magic versus scientific technology because it's often impossible to tell which is which.

Saying "Low-tech" is not enough to identify fantasy. There are fantasies where magic is used to achieve a higher level of "technology," in terms of devices to help humans flourish, than we have today. It's a matter of how the magic is used, not the fact that it's magic rather than science.

We could look at the culture of the world-setting to try to differentiate fantasy from science fiction. In SF, almost always there are lots of individual inventions that people use in everyday life, without even thinking about it. Telephones, automobiles, toilets, electric stoves, computers, washing machines, and so on. There will be analogs of those inventions in SF stories and games, usually posed as technology. But you can create a world that you call fantasy, that uses magic to provide all of those functions but calls it magic rather than technology.

Comics style superheroes are shown in something much like the real world (implying science fiction), but I'd call them fantasy, not SF. The Dresden Files (and other urban fantasies) are clearly fantasy, though sited in the real world.

It looks like science vs non-science is not sufficient, though natural vs supernatural is sometimes useful. Let's try other approaches next time.

This article was contributed by Lewis Pulsipher (lewpuls) as part of EN World's Columnist (ENWC) program. You can follow Lew on his web site and his Udemy course landing page. We are always on the lookout for freelance columnists! If you have a pitch, please contact us!

 

[Hussar]

Heh. I think this is one area we're just going to have to agree to disagree. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], you are arguing for a depth in Conan that I'm simply not seeing. Conan is pulp fiction. It's about as deep as the average rain puddle. I think you are expanding far beyond the text. But, then again, maybe I'm just not seeing what you're seeing. Could quite possibly be.

But, in any case, genre's are best defined by their centers, not by their edges. Look at the central works that we put in a given genre and then extrapolate from there. At the center of SF you works like Asimov, Heinlein, Herbert, P. K. Dick, etc. And one of the thing that those works share in common is that they are asking different questions than fantasy does. Like you said, Tolkien is often about what makes someone evil. I'd agree with that. But, that's the point. It's a morality story. It's about good and evil. The Three Laws of Robotics aren't about good and evil, they are about ethics - what does it mean to live in a society and how does that society work?

You asked earlier about my differentiation between morality and ethics. I'd say it comes down to examples. A company that uses predatory practices to create a monopoly is ethically questionable. But, I'd hardly call them evil. We consider monopolies to be ethically bad because they restrict creativity and potentially harm the consumer by price fixing and whatnot. But, again, none of that is morally wrong.

OTOH, things like, say, slavery, is pretty much considered morally wrong. Even in societies where it was ethically acceptable - Roman empire for example - we'd still say that it was morally wrong to keep slaves.

Note, that there is a huge amount of overlap between the two. By and large things that are unethical are immoral as well. But, not always. Cheating on your taxes and moving your investments overseas to avoid paying corporate taxes is unethical. But, not really immoral. There's pretty much no moral judgement to be made here.

Thus, SF talks about ethical questions. What does free will mean in the face of ultimate knowledge (Dune Messiah, Foundation Trilogy)? What does it mean to be human in the face of robots that are virtually indistinguishable from humans (Blade Runner, Star Trek)? How do we hold on to our humanity in the face of extinction (Walking Dead, Battlestar Galactica)?

These themes are often not seen in Fantasy. Not that they are never seen, of course. But, not as prevalent and typically not the central themes.

 

[Hussar]

Could you set Western on Mars? Mars looks a lot like some very dry places out west Some changes would have to be made to make the setting plausible yet still a Western.

Oh, of course. I mean, Original Trek was pitched as Wagon Train to the Stars after all. And there are significant crossover themes between westerns and Star Trek. And, Firefly obviously borrows very heavily from westerns.

Please, don't make the mistake that I'm trying to make prescriptive genre definitions here. There is ALWAYS going to be overlap. That's unavoidable. Is work X genre Y or Z? Well, it all depends on how you look at it and there's nothing preventing a work from appearing on both genre lists. Particularly at the edges of a given genre. Genre is far more of a spectrum than a clearly defined box. It's very difficult, often, to claim that this work is definitely X or Y. And that's true of any genre.

If I set a murder mystery in an Old West town, what genre is it? Well, both really. And, if you get enough similar works blending genres, they spawn off and create a new sub-genre. It's always a very messy process, just like any of the arts.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

I agree about Turin. He's something like JRRT's Achilles, Oedipus and Beowulf rolled into one package. He's to be admired in a certain way, but also there's a sense in which he gets what he deserves - or, rather, he ultimately could not have done better given that he refuses to submit his fate to providential will.

He's strongly based on Kullervo from the Kalevala, as is Elric.

 

[pemerton]

He's strongly based on Kullervo from the Kalevala, as is Elric.

I didn't follow your link because I'm lazy - I'm assuming that Kullervo also has an evil talking sword?

 

[pemerton]

At the center of SF you works like Asimov, Heinlein, Herbert, P. K. Dick, etc. And one of the thing that those works share in common is that they are asking different questions than fantasy does.

I would say that that is because they are all modernists. Whereas JRRT is resolutely anti-modern. As soon as you get a modernist spirit deploying fantasy tropes (I think REH - you disagree, fair enough - but also Ursula Le Guin in Tehanu) your account breaks down!

I've got strong doubts about your moral/ethical distinction - eg a couple of years ago I was at a conference where a leading American criminal law theorist gave a talk on the immorality of tax evasion - but working with something like it, I want to say the following: you perhaps wouldn't use fantasy to ask "ethical" questions about technology or democratic forms of government or colonisation (or, if you did, the work would probably be seen as "new wave" in some fashion); but equally you wouldn't use sci-fi to ask "ethical" questions about tradition, or the nature of domestic life (both are in play in Tehanu), or honour, etc (or, if you did, the work again would be non-standard - eg Dune is much closer to fantasy than is Clarke or Bradbury for just these sorts of reasons).

And I think this is driven, to a significant extent, by tropes. Sci-fi tropes include vast vistas, exploration and travel, hypermodern social forms driven by hypermodern technological transformations, etc. Fantasy tropes include ancient secrets, restoration of overthrown rulers, defending the homeland, etc. And also elements of domestic life (eg we see this in JRRT, and Earthsea, and Arthurian stories) whereas these are less prominent in sci-fi, partly because a key feature of modernity is narrowing and quarantining the role of the domestic! (I'll admit to being ignorant of "new wave" feminist sci-fi, but I assume that it has something to say about exactly this, and departs from the Star Trek/Star Wars treatment of home as a simply a constraint or limitation to be overcome, rather than a source of value and guidance as it is in (say) LotR.)

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

I didn't follow your link because I'm lazy - I'm assuming that Kullervo also has an evil talking sword?

Yes and there are many other points of match. Kullervo's tale is also one of the few clear pre-modern acknowledgements of the effects of childhood trauma. The Kalevala in general has been very influential in the creation of fantasy stories. Tolkien was highly influenced by it, and Finnish more generally, as were other writers. Quenya is in part based on it.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Oh, of course. I mean, Original Trek was pitched as Wagon Train to the Stars after all. And there are significant crossover themes between westerns and Star Trek. And, Firefly obviously borrows very heavily from westerns.

As indeed is there with Star Wars, particularly the original one. The entire Kurosawa genre of samurai movies and kung fu movies wouldn't work the way they do without the influence of Westerns. Batman is largely based on Zorro.

Please, don't make the mistake that I'm trying to make prescriptive genre definitions here. There is ALWAYS going to be overlap. That's unavoidable. Is work X genre Y or Z? Well, it all depends on how you look at it and there's nothing preventing a work from appearing on both genre lists. Particularly at the edges of a given genre. Genre is far more of a spectrum than a clearly defined box. It's very difficult, often, to claim that this work is definitely X or Y. And that's true of any genre.

Indeed, genres are very blurry around the edges.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

And I think this is driven, to a significant extent, by tropes.

One reason I laid out the genres the way I did way back up on this thread was to focus on the tropes, which I think tend to be much more central features. Indeed, if one were attempting to make a similarity structure mapping of different books (e.g., to make a genre-based recommendation engine) this would be one way of going about it. Genres also metamorphose over time: Hollywood mostly stopped making Westerns in the late '60s/early '70s, but many of the same basic tropes showed up in crime, war, and sci fi movies. Later on in the '80s, Westerns had a revival.

 

[Shasarak]

I like to have fantasy and science fiction come together like oil and water.

Mmm, tasty Science Fantasy emulsion. Now thats scientifical!

 

[Shasarak]

I've got strong doubts about your moral/ethical distinction - eg a couple of years ago I was at a conference where a leading American criminal law theorist gave a talk on the immorality of tax evasion.

And he did not talk about the immorality of taxation? Oh well he is a lawyer so....