Sfdebris.net

Should they be considered separate genres? If so, what is the difference between them? To continue a point brought up in the video forums:

BunBun299 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:29 am Science Fiction and Fantasy are two sides of the same coin. The simple definition of a Fantasy story is a story where something extraordinary happens. This could be anything from a talking dog to a full blown alternative world with wizards and dragons.

Science Fiction is the same thing. In fact, it's technically a sub genre of Fantasy. Something extraordinary happens, but in the sci fi story, there's some device that enables the extraordinary thing instead of some magic. Or at least, it pretends to be tech.

The two really are so alike that I get annoyed that pop culture seems to bound and determined to keep them separate.

I tend to agree with this view, if for no other reason than the fact that quite a lot-of classic sci-fi is considerably less... robust than the works of authors like Brandon Sanderson. The 'something' that happens in a Sanderson novel is explained in great detail and and with far more internal consistency than, say, the Borg.

My evaluation is that "pop culture" is actually more prone to lump all the nerdy things together. Even fandom itself has gravitated toward "multi-genre" conventions where sci-fi, fantasy, comics, and anime are all put into the same trough.

As for the distinction... well... there are many Sci-Fi and Fantasy works that overlap to some extent, but while it is certainly in error to say that Fantasy is a subset of Sci-Fi, it is debatable to say that Sci-Fi is a subset of Fantasy.

Granted the categories mean different things to different people, but my view - and bear in mind this is based on a medium-to-hard science fiction background - is that Speculative Fiction is the supercategory, with Science Fiction, Fantasy, and others being subcategories. Each subgenre of Speculative Fiction shares a sense of "What if?" and worldbuilding, but different approaches and limitations apply.

Yeah, I like speculative fiction as the umbrella term. The distinction between sci-fi and fantasy might seem obvious in some cases, but in others it is completely arbitrary. Unless you're talking about hard sci-fi, there is often little real difference between the "science" in sci-fi and the "fantasy" in fantasy. Something like Star Wars seems to contain a lot of the elements that you'd usually see in either genre.

I also think the term "speculative fiction" might do a bit more to showcase what separates sci-fi and fantasy from other fiction that has fantastic or science-y elements but usually isn't lumped into the same category as "genre fiction". Movies by directors like Lynch or Tarkovsky contain a lot of fantastic elements, but they aren't really considered to be in that same category overall. The same is true for any number of writers.

I've been partial to the Clarke definition*, but in general it comes down to genre convention. Besides weird anomalies that blend both, with mixed results, it often comes down to the how, and if it's in space.

*“...science fiction is something that could happen - but usually you wouldn't want it to. Fantasy is something that couldn't happen - though often you only wish that it could.” Obviously, this doesn't work, with any time travel story or alternate history becoming fantasy.

The line between the two is certainly blurred. I think science fiction is supposed to be "harder" (closer to reality) than fantasy, but there are fantasy books where magic operates by definite rules and has fun exploring them, and Star Trek has aliens who have almost godlike powers because, well, they're aliens, or they're just "advanced."

In a nutshell, compare Q to Discord.

Well, since I apparently inspired this discussion, I might as well comment.

Did any of you know that Dragon Age Origins and Mass Effect 3 have pretty much the same story?

You play as a member of an order of elite warriors. Grey Wardens for DA, Spectres for ME.

An army of ultimate evil is invading with the intent of wiping out all life, Dark Spawn/Reapers.

These armies of ultimate evil corrupt people, twisting them to serve their cause, taint of the Dark Spawn and turning mortal women into Brood Mothers, Indoctrination and throwing people into those spike things to turn them into cyborgs (forget the proper name off hand).

The hero must unite the various factions of their world against the evil forces, Elves, Mages, Dwarves, etc. And in ME3, Asari, Turians, Krogan, etc.

The biggest difference between them is that Dragon Age had slightly dated gameplay for the time of its release, but a competently executed story with a satisfying ending that factored in nearly everything you did, and ME3 had the best gameplay the series had, but dropped the ball so badly on its story that the most enthusiastic defense of its ending I have ever seen was, "I didn't think it was that bad."

PerrySimm wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:49 am My evaluation is that "pop culture" is actually more prone to lump all the nerdy things together.

And what is nerdy? Is a Steven Pressfield book more nerdy than a Star Trek one. It could easily be that the contents of the Pressfield book are more obscure for the public. Can we just retire nerdy?

If it's a book about Klingons they can both have the same amount of testosterone anyways.

The best explanation I have heard for the difference between sci-fi and fantasy is that science fiction tends to look to the future to see how society may be changed while fantasy looks to the past, trying to capture our romantic notions of an era that has long since ended.

Science Fantasy is the grey area where they try to put the past into the future, like Star Wars, Dune or Warhammer: 40,000. Which can be described as fantasy plots with a sci-fi setting. The Battletech universe can be described as Game of Thrones with space ships and mechas.

Science Fiction is usually Enlightenment fiction while Fantasy is usually Romantic fiction.

As in, the philosophical schools of thought of Romanticism and Enlightenment. Fantasy often advocates one of two things. Either A, the world of the (fictional) past was better than today, when you could be a hero and go on a quest, and save the world through your heroics. This is very much a Romantic school of thought.

And B, the world of the (fictional) past had great evils to deal with, and it's due to past heroic exploits that such evils are dealt with, so you don't have to achieve any great tasks yourself. Also a Romantic ideal.

Science fiction is usually the opposite track, as it usually has an Enlightenment perspective. It examines what comes in the future with new technologies, new ideas, and how we deal with this problem. It can also show the mistakes we can make with such technologies, sciences, etc.

There's bleed over, Star Wars is very much a Romantic story in an Enlightenment setting, while Girl Genius is an Enlightenment story in a Romantic setting. But for general overtones, that's the difference.

This can become a central issue if the themes of such a work go against the setting. Look at how the Buffy franchise at first embraced subverting Fantasy Romantic trappings in favor of changing the status quo, and then later on, had the heroes embracing Romantic trappings because of the fears of the evils of Enlightenment ones.

Lindsey Ellis talked about this when she talked about the "Lord of the Rings" films and how she sees the split described, one is forward looking (Science Fiction) and the other is more backward looking (Fantasy).

I think I like how FaxModem1 described it best, Romantic vs Enlightenment, a take I have not heard put that way before.

PerrySimm wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:49 am My evaluation is that "pop culture" is actually more prone to lump all the nerdy things together. Even fandom itself has gravitated toward "multi-genre" conventions where sci-fi, fantasy, comics, and anime are all put into the same trough.

Tho... Perry's assessment here is perhaps too true, even if the idea of nerdy stuff is fading from the popular mindset, these genres and their blending has become to consistently profitable the world over for them to be sequestered.