Goodreads Sci-Fi/Fantasy Authors discussion

I've given considerable thought to this distinction -- has anyone else?

Is it possible for something to ostensibly be science fiction but really be fantasy? How about the other way round?

When I was a kid SF was king and fantasy was a subcategory of SF. Now it seems to almost be reversed. Any thoughts?

Fantasy is always the larger category, SF is a subset of it, as is epic fantasy, sword-and-sorcery. Most scifi takes some degree of real-world knowledge and mixes it with some degree of fantasy, although the precise meanings of the words 'some' in this sentence are undetermined. The Proteus Operation takes a perfectly ordinary physical theory, the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, and creates an adventure story across time and some of those many worlds, by allowing people to travel from one to another, a fantasy element. David Brin's The Practice Effect is an example of fantasy based on SF, in this case, a world where the physical laws are different, thus allowing what we would call magical effects to occur, and there are many more of that sort. Anne McCaffrey has her whole Pern series, starts out looking like a fantasy series that turns out to be a SF series. I preferred it as a fantasy series and tuned out when she brought in the spaceships and genetic manipulation. But even there, the question becomes, is 'hyperspace', 'warp drive', psionics', a fantasy or an SF idea? I regard them as fantasy cheats used by SF novels that don't want to think of themselves as fantasy even though they are.

I'm not a quantum physicist, but it seems to me that they were projecting the idea of FTL (Faster Than Light) drives back when I was a teenager (1950's) ... and since a 'warp drive' is for all intent and purpose just such an FTL device, it has at least a basis in Theoretical Science.

.. and I would point out that there are engineering teams within aerospace company labs that are being paid to develop such ideas.

Science Fiction or pay-check?

The same with 'hyperspace' ... which I've always understood as the manipulation of higher dimensional space in some relative time... which relates to some function of quantum mechanics.

As to Parapsychology and it's ganglia... an entire psuedo-scientific field of study depends more, I think, upon whether you believe the concept that there are higher-function areas of the human brain that are capable of such things if only we can learn how to 'turn them on'.

On this I reserve judgement... for how do twins always seem to know what their other twin is feeling... or when something has happened to the other twin?

How are some people better able to heal themselves than others? Is it simply genetics or does the mind have a say in it as well?

As a physician, I've seen enough occurrences over the years to leave me open to the idea that there might be something to it, although I doubt I would define it as 'telepathy' or 'psychokinetic' 'ability'... if we're using the generally accepted definition of the words.

The bottom line here is that in a 'real' sense, I think they're more theoretical science than anything else.

If I wave my hand at a wall and then walk through it;

Is it magic?

... or is there some form of particle excitation device imbedded in it that has 'dematerialised' the wall?

... or did someone just use a particle beam weapon to disintegrate it?

... or did the stage hand behind the black drape just pull the rope that slid it aside when I signalled by waving my hand at it in a particular way?

My point?

How they're 'used' by an author, and the setting in which he or she places that use, might determine whether it is Science Fiction or Fantasy.

But the real question is ... why does it matter?

It is, after all... fiction.

We, the authors, pull this stuff out of our minds or the ether or wherever it is we gain our inspirations.

We build the worlds our stories are based in or on, and we decide how the physics and everything else in that world is going to work.

It doesn't have to all work the same from one story by one author to the next.

There is no 'standardised playbook' or 'book of rules' for SF or Fantasy or some combination thereof.

I am a published "Fantasy" author. The "industry" defines the difference this way...

Science Fiction is something that can, theoretically, happen. Time Travel, Hyper Drives, Warp Travel, Laser Guns, etc. None exists today, but they could - theoretically.

Fantasy is anything that cannot happen. Magic, Dragons, Pixies, Santa Claus.

Now, the above seems pert-near easy. Unfortunately, it is up to an acquisition editors / publishers discretion as to what they will classify a book as. This is where the waters become muddied.

Take S.M. Stirling's Change series. It is swords and horses and castles - but set in a future Earth where technology no longer works. America, Europe, etc. all still exist. Just no technology. Is this Sci-Fi or Fantasy? It is subject to interpretation.

For me, as a fan, I personally classify Fantasy as swords, monsters, and magic. This is in no way official. I simply know what I like to read.

At the end of the day, I have to agree with Gwendolyn - it's all fiction. Yet, I will disagree as well. It does matter to the taste of the reader. I, myself, read very little Sci-Fi. I love to watch space battles, just don’t really care to read about them. I also write very little in this genre. I have been a "fantasy" fan my entire life. That is the main reason I write it.

As for why Fantasy is now its own category and no longer a sub of sci-fi, I think this is understandable. The "geeks" of our grandparent’s day (i.e. those that did not read westerns or war novels) had a thirst for sci-fi. So, publishers and TV/Movie people fed it to them. They had plenty to choose from - think Flash Gordon, etc. Lord of the Rings was the big break for fantasy, but until the 50's it really did not have a huge following. My generation (people between 30 and 50) were able to ride the fantasy entertainment wave. In the 60’s and 70’s Dungeons and Dragons, Conan, etc. pulled the fantasy genre out of obscurity and into the forefront. Combine the fact that we grew up with a larger base of fantasy products with the fact that technology now allows for movies and TV shows to be set in believable fantasy worlds; this gives the fantasy genre its status. There are some 40 million-fantasy fans now. That is a gigantic market. And it’s a market that publishers and Hollywood are eager to feed.

Maxwell Wrote: Fantasy is anything that cannot happen. Magic, Dragons, Pixies, Santa Claus.

Ack! Sob! Say it ain't so!

Jumps up on Puff's tail and sails hurriedly away with him

Sorry... couldn't resist.

I'm a fantasy writer as well. I rarely wander into that deep pond of Science Fiction, save for my own amusement or as a co-writer.

:) Wait for me!

Good thoughts everyone. Here are some of mine.

Sci-Fi posits a universe entirely accessible to reason and governed by natural laws. There are other sentient beings (aliens), but they are all subject to the same laws we are. The worlds of science fiction are worlds without mystery -- except in a rudimentary sense --"We don't understand it, Jim -- but let's put it in the tricorder and find out what it's made of."

Fantasy helps the reader see a world that has purposes woven into it and not subject to our means of rational control or manipulation. In fantasy we encounter who are not merely residents of a parallel universe, nor Jungian archetypes, but truly Other, whose very existence shakes us. Fantasy is about the numinous and spells wonder with a capital "W".

This is why simply saying its all fiction doesn't work -- it glosses over too much -- failing to make the vital distinction. I think we live in a wonder starved world. We love science and reason -- we enjoy the fruits and noone wants a world without them -- but they're not enough.

....Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's "Faust" is the greatest fantasy ever written 'n merge with the works of the Golden Age of SciFi in the early the 20th century, and we have but half 'The Story of Everything'.... this is advanced literature

so where the vampires fits....?in fantasy or science fiction......?

Technically, if you only have the two choices, it is fantasy by the strictest of definition. The thing is, Horror is a distinct genre and houses Vampires and such. So neither – it’s special and gets its own home.

The biggest one for me is always Star Wars - sci fi and The Force, which is essentially magic, which is essentially fantasy. I don't know that one or the other is really bigger. You've got Harry Potter that's massive for fantasy, Star Trek at the moment is massive for sci fi. There's also Terminator and Transformers - I'm using big budget movies to give examples of mass consumption.

The line is definitely blurred.

I think in the end, it comes down to fan taste.

so wat they re.Fction or fantasy.They not re horror...tat is for sure

Alan, I have been mulling over your Star Wars Force reference, and I think I will now disagree with you.

Technically, everything that is “Force” generated could be attributed to science. Telekinesis (which is what the Jedi could be using when they push/pull/move stuff – including themselves for their high jumping ability) Telepathic (The manipulation of someone else’s mind through thought like the Jedi Mind Control) are both well rooted in Sci-Fi and not Fantasy. Even the Lightning shooting from their hands could simply be an extension of the ability to control and enhance a person’s natural inner “static” charge. A big extension, granted. But Sci-Fi is things that could be “possible” through science.

Not trying to start anything, just my rambling mind would not let go of this when I read your response. I am, as my initials clearly state, not exactly right in the head.

MAD

What about sensing a great disturbance in the Force?

Coming back as a ghost?

LOL, I said I was not trying to start anything!!!

Well, since I write Fantasy (no one doubts where my books fit on the book shelf) I really should not be fighting for the betterment of Sci-Fi.

But...

If the Jedi really extended their minds to the level they have in the movies, it is conceivable they could feel things that were good or bad through that enhanced connection.

Personally, I thought the "ghost" thing was just plain bad writing on Lucas' part... but that’s just me. :)

MAD

I think part of the difference between fantasy and SF is often in the feel (I was thinking about this just this morning).

SF as it is usually written (these days, at least) tends to be more rationalistic and even more cynical; fantasy, though it can often be very cruel as well, seems to have more room for innocence and, as Mortimus says, mystery. The characters are often easier for me to empathize with. This is partly why I prefer to read fantasy, and I don't think I'm alone.

It would be easy to cite exceptions to this, of course, in both directions - it's a generalization, and it applies more to current SF than it does to some of the older stuff.

Of course you're right, Mike -- since you seem to see the world similarly to me!

I think the infatuation with science has worn off. A popular culture turning point for me was Star Wars (which works more like fantasy -- think of the beginning!)

I remember how clean everything was in the science fiction universe before that. Everything from Forbidden Planet to 2001 a Space Odyssey: uniforms never got dirty or worn -- everything was subject to rational inquiry. Then in Star Wars we had used and rundown equipment and a mysterious "force" -- we're told later that it could be explained scientifically -- but the Jedi were a religious order transparently a mix of the Knights Templar (even down to the betrayal) and eastern mysticism.

Remember what the monster was in Forbidden Planet -- "a monster from the Id" -- Freudian pseudo-scientific psychobabble. No mystery, really -- just natural phenomena amplified by technological means.

"Personally, I thought the "ghost" thing was just plain bad writing on Lucas' part..."

Now that's a whole different conversation!

:)

Mortimus,

I will agree with you on the sci-fi, but disagree on the fantasy on one point (at least to me anyway.)

I love fantasy (obviously as a fantasy author) but, you say the infatuation with science has warn off - well, for me, the infatuation with "traditional" fantasy has worn off.

I hate elves, dwarves, and orcs! There, I said it. Just as my tagline says, "Stop regurgitating Tolkien!" I think fantasy has become stale.

Oh, don't get me wrong, there is still a smorgasbord of great fantasy literature out there, and if you want to get into a debate about what I just said, we should do it on a different thread, as this is a different topic. I am just adding to the comment about sci-fi loosing its lustier (which I agree with.) I am simply adding that fantasy fans are getting tired as well, and that we, the authors, can’t keep churning out the same elf/dwarf/orc stories. The cool thing is, most publishers know this. It is darn near impossible to get a “traditional” fantasy book published these days. Publishers are looking for something different.

Again, just my ramblings – that and .80 will get you a cup of coffee. (At McDonalds… not Starbucks)

MAD

Maxwell,

I agree. Enough wannabe Tolkien. Fantasy was not exhausted by him.

I think the wannabes never really "got" Tolkien anyway. They fell in love with the furnishings and missed the point.

Amen Brother.

MAD

What do you think of speculative sci fi? I don't know if my book is fantasy or sci fi. I prefer sci fi. Kill the Messenger Gemini A Small Novel

Spaceships definitely implies SF, Johanna. Though there is a category called "science fantasy" as well (for where you have magic and spaceships in the same story).

My own City of Masks is speculative fiction ("What if there was a city where everyone had to wear a mask and act in character with it?") but there's no technology more advanced than a crossbow, and no magic. It's late-Medieval/early-Renaissance in feel, like a lot of fantasy, but the speculation is sociological. What do you call that? Makes it very difficult to market, by the way - genres are all about marketing.

City of Masks

It's all speculative fiction. Beyond that, who cares?

:)

Mike wrote: "What if there was a city where everyone had to wear a mask and act in character with it?"

C.S. Friedman did something like that in This Alien Shore, but the facepaint patterns were used to represent the inner psychological state of the wearer so that people would know how to act around them.

Thanks, Marc, I've added that to my to-read shelf.

Clifford Simak wrote a short novel about a day when electricity ceased to work and imps and monsters suddelnly appeared all over the place. A classic example of a master SF writer crossing genres, just for fun I would think. Heinlein wrote The Glory Road - sword and sorcery fantasy except it turned out to be SF after all.

I think one of the major differences between the two genres is this:

In SF, everything is subject to physical laws and/or the exercise of will - it is irrelevant who exercises their will - aliens, the protagonist, controlling factions in society etc. Nothing is predetermined and the course of the story is shaped by the actions of individuals.

In fantasy, there is almost always some 'higher force' that shapes destiny - usually the protagonist's. Call it fate, or the powers of good and evil, it's there. It influences things.

Therefore, the clearest statement of the SF genre is voiced by Sarah Connor / Kyle Reese.

"There is no fate but what we make..."

In a world where random violent change is a constant fact of life; where remote multi-global forces have taken control out of the individual's hands; where many people don't even begin to understand the technology they use and that surrounds them daily, is it any wonder that people turn to fantasy?

They prefer the feeling that there are forces beyond anyones' control, but that these forces, whether good or bad, are taking a personal interest in them.

I think Scifi and Fantasy switch places every decade (or half a decade). It all depends on whats on the silver screen. Lets face it, the rolling masses don't follow books, they follow movies. When Matrix hits the screen, the Scifi books vanish off the shelf; and viceversa when The Lord of The Rings came out. The great differences we see on each decade where they swap places is probably due to a common pool of people that like both, they probably get inspired by the movies, then they hit the book stores to satiate their new found hunger.

Before I go on, let me expound on my bias: I am a hardcore, bonehead, black marrow SciFi fan. No, I'm not a trecky! I don't even like any of the Gene Roddenberry series, or any big bulky Spacecraft Battles, Starship Trooper stuff. I'm the type that likes the "What if's?" a lot, anything that can be slightly plausible, or alternative views of reality...

And that brings me to the reason why I think SciFi is going to become more prominent soon. As Maxwell and Mortimer where saying, Fantasy starts to stale. All the Orcs, Goglins and Dragons are getting old, lets face it, it started to go out of style when Conan became Governator (can you get more mainstream?). I think SciFi adds more versatility. It can span more. Each minute scientific discovery can create a new future vision.

I'll put an authors as examples: I can find Tolkien and his clones in any half-price book store by the pile... you never EVER see Oscar Scott Card or Philip K. Dick in a half-price book store. If one of their tomes hits the shelf... well, lets say that people get maimed trying to get to it. That's a direct correlation to popularity for me, and an unchanging relevance to popular tastes.

.......In the future they will merge as one!

Hi everyone,
I'm new here and saw your discussion. Maybe you can help clarify something for me. I wrote a book titled Scent of a Vampire. It's recently been published. My publisher put it under the paranormal category. Amazon has it tagged paranomal romance, fantasy and dark fantasy. Then to throw another curve ball it was on the kindle bestseller list under mythology. I'm now not sure what genre to advertise it under! lol And to clarify, it does have vampires in it but it also has unique beings that came from my imagination including the main character plus a smattering of myths and legends.
Any thoughts?

Jude

@Jude: Haha...your comment reminded me of where I live. My address is under one town, my phone number another, my library is three towns over...etc, etc... I think similar things can happen with a book. It may have a general theme (home adress) but it can also be given sub-themes (a different phone number, a random library). I don't know if that makes sense or not...

Mainly: Books, like people, are complex. Some even more complex. It can be hard to boil it down to one single genre. At least, that's what I find to be true.

Character-driven books more so than plot-driven ones, I would say. Plots, settings, gimmicks in general are fairly unitary. A story about a quest for a throne or discovering an alien race doesn't stray too far from that main line. When the focus is on the characters, even if the story is plot-centered, then the story can transcend a genre because that's what people do. When the story is character-centered even more so.

Gary wrote: "Maybe the best place to start is with the similarities.

Both deal with world building. Another area of agreement is that both ask us to accept areas of suspended reality. Warp speed, for examp..."

I like that you have noticed that, Über SciFi fans like myself like to see scientific consistency... but they have to have a little plot and character too, don't get me wrong! But in SciFi, I tend to go for things that are much more plausible.

But there are SciFi novels that suspend reality completely, and still have scientific content to it. That is the case of "The Cosmicomicas" by Italo Calvino (Italian author). You guys remember how grandpa would always pester us on how lucky we are because back in the day they ate dirt and where happy, and they had to walk 11 miles to school in winter snow year round and up hill both ways! Italo Calvino starts from this premise, but his old geezer is so old that back in his day there wasn't even matter and apparently everyone was a disembodied consciousness!

In the end, a good book, be it SciFi or Fantasy is made by a good author, that knows how to equilibrate, plot, character development and description (be it atmospheric or scientific in nature). Its been hard for me, I would jump into detailed explanations and bore my readers to death... so I had to find how to space it out!

I took part in a live panel discussion on Radio New Zealand (NZ equivalent of NPR) today about science fiction and fantasy writing and publishing in New Zealand. The discussion also involved New Zealand fantasy authors Helen Lowe and Russell Kirkpatrick, and the first part of the discussion was about the difference between fantasy and science fiction.

I've linked to a podcast of the discussion from http://bit.ly/3tdkk2

Technically speaking Gary, you should have no problems with micro-organisms when stepping onto an strange planet. I'm assuming it has an atmosphere you can breathe. Bacilli, viruses and PPLOs infect specific hosts based on protein configuration and biochemical compatability. Highly unlikely you'd be compatible with any alien germ. It would just be like inhaling dust.

I've spent some enjoyable, though ultimately wasted, time discussing a similar thing in a horror group - what is the definition of horror?

Same here - what is the definition of fantasy; of SF?

Both SF and fantasy are similar: they involve worlds that do not exist, or events that have not happened, or both.

SF has a rational explanation for why such worlds are the way they are, why such events have happened/are happening. It is based on scientific law and theory, and where it goes beyond, it is at least with a logical consistent world-view. Note that this explanation need not be given to the reader. It just has to exist.

Fantasy on the other hand, usually involves magic in some form. Magic being defined as manipulating the physical world through a process that is ultimately not explicable. Oh, and usually a statement like "In the dawn of the world, when ancient beings..."

Yes, works cross genres, in fact most do, but in the end, as Gary said, it is the story that counts. That and the characterization and the entertainment value. If a book entertains/amuses/informs/exites/scares/disturbs you, it is good. Who cares what genre someone wants to put it in?

Many people prefer the term speculative fiction to embrace SF, fantasy and horror - based on the speculation "what if...". That would save a lot of hair spltting.

So, like I said in that other thread, there are my definitions of the similarities and differences. They're my definitions and I like them. Find definitions you like and stick with them. Write your own if you want.

BTW I haven't listened to the podcast yet, so if I'm saying what was contained in there, my apologies.

I've spent some enjoyable, though ultimately wasted, time discussing a similar thing in a horror group - what is the definition of horror?
There is an interesting book on the subject of horror by Noel Carroll called The Philosophy of Horror. I used this book as the basis of my term paper when I was taking an aesthetics course. His position was that horror is composed of a) fear, and b) disgust. The tricky part to me was the disgust element. I don't want to waste the time of this thread on that subject (the origins of disgust sre tricky), but I will say that thanks to his book and my work with it, I concluded that the only real monsters are based on humans, which is a point I've used in my books, by the way.

Simply put, fantasy as an extension of mythology, came long before science fiction and encompasses a much larger body of literature. Fantasy is the stuff of dreams allowing for a more humanistic exploration of our imagination. It doesn't help that science fiction is often treated by the gatekeepers of the genre as something that belongs to a small club of like minded people. I think this perception diminishes the potential of science fiction to reach a larger audience.

Gary wrote: "Maybe the best place to start is with the similarities.

Both deal with world building. Another area of agreement is that both ask us to accept areas of suspended reality. Warp speed, for examp..."

Well said, Gary. Very well said.

I like to read books and watch movies from both genres. I like to write in both genres.

But what I want out of both is a good, believable story and characters that I enjoy and writing that snares me and a world that sucks me in.

Last year I wrote a 140,000 word fantasy book (not yet published, still working on the editing) called Never Forget.

http://www.goodreads.com/story/show/3...

When I finished the rough draft, I played around with some short stories. One was a scifi story that I wrote after I had this question in my head: What happens to my fantasy world if my character fails her goal? Magic would die and science & technology would take over.

Thus I began my 5 part novella series called the Siraendis Scrolls and is a blend of scifi and fantasy. Although there is both magic and science in this story, it's not the focus. The characters and the plot are the focus.

I've noticed the same thing in many classic scifi writers like Orson Scott Card. If you don't have characters and don't have a plot, you don't have anything to write about.

http://www.goodreads.com/story/show/4...

I think you have to include in one's study the golden era of such fiction as well as the original intention of such genres. Obviously today many genres overlap and become like ingredients in a bigger pot of stew. One of the principles or elements in early SF was to make a prediction for the future. A postulate as to how society or man would be like in the future. In the Assoc. of SF writer's book: "How to sell and write SF" there are many essays by published authors whom deal with this subject. One felt that SF had to be about man in some way. However this was written in the 70's and I don't think today's novels would comply.
Three of my 5 novels are about other worlds which may press it into fantasy. Of course we are talking about imagination and the making of new ideas concerning conduct, environments and behavior. So many common threads, one big quilt.

Diana wrote: "...every story has a central imbalance that needs to be corrected by the story's end!

Interesting way of looking at it Diana. So the job of the writer is to aid the protagonist restore the balance?

Does that mean that every writer of SF, horror or fantasy has to be trained as a Jedi?

It is interesting that the topic has turned to the conflict, the essential protagonist vs antagonist which is the two sides of plot. I do also like the term of imbalance. It is perhaps how people see what a hero is suppose to restore. It seems to me, that despite the genre, the elements of a story still must be there to make a good story.

A.d. wrote: ". . . It seems to me, that despite the genre, the elements of a story still must be there to make a good story"

Agreed. No matter how much you try to adhere to scientific possibility, or draw the reader away from reality, a story has to be about people (Or hobbits, or elves, or whatever). No one wants to read a story about spaceship, or about a non-thinking robot.

People want to read stories about other people. No matter how big the battles or how amazing the technology, you need to get inside the characters' heads and open their mind to the reader.

Otherwise, it's not a book, it's a trade show.

Ian wrote: "Otherwise, it's not a book, it's a trade show."

I like that last line, Ian. I think that was very well said.

One difference between science fiction and fantasy (I'm defining fantasy as stories with vampires, werewolves, ghosts etc) is that at the heart of sf stories there is a moral dilemma and at the heart of fantasy stories there is an emotional dilemma.

As soon as I wrote this down, I could think of exceptions, but generally the best SF stories set humans against a force, technological, alien, or political, that threatens to change what it means to be human. The themes are common topics in ethics or philosophy. I think of SF as a fictionalize way to work out problems of moral philosophy. The future or alternative worlds are a stand in for our own. The writer has freedom to explore problems from a different angle.

Fantasy stories are usually less intellectual and more visceral. The best fantasy stories explore human's fears of death, sexuality, or propensity for violence. A fantasy writer who is terrified by a old people with dementia, or a heroine addled mobs of homeless people can explore these strange creatures by writing about zombies for example. Or werewolves allow the writer to examine human blood lust and pack behavior. Fantasy writer uses fantastic creatures to explore human nature.

All these comments are great, thanks. I feel the line is often blurred. I just wrote a piece that I thought was urban fantasy, but have come to learn that it is science fiction, or science fiction urban fanatsy, LOL.

D.B. wrote: "All these comments are great, thanks. I feel the line is often blurred. I just wrote a piece that I thought was urban fantasy, but have come to learn that it is science fiction, or science fictio..."

I blur it on purpose, and I think most character-oriented fiction will blur these lines, since characters do or should transcend the limits of genre.

Marc, I know. Blurring can be good. There are defined genres, sub-genres, and new ones rising! Maybe I will write a story that contains ALL genres, LOL!

D.B. wrote: "Marc, I know. Blurring can be good. There are defined genres, sub-genres, and new ones rising! Maybe I will write a story that contains ALL genres, LOL!"

My latest novel is a futuristic (Lunar colonies) paranormal (werewolves) mystery with romantic elements. I'm trying.

Oh my goodness, LOL. Well, we can just write and then try to decide what we have created!