Science Fiction is a Sub Genre of Fantasy

[MithrandirOlorin]

In the past I have been very pedantic about drawing a hard line between Fantasy and Science Fiction, especially in regards to Star Wars which I am not alone in considering Fantasy not Sci-Fi.

However my escalating indulgence in Anime over the last 5 years has increased my appreciation for how blurry the line can be. But more importantly looking at the history of the Genre has made me realize that ALL Science Fiction is Fantasy but not all Fantasy is Science Fiction.

People Fantasize about many things, our more traditional definition of what a Fantasy story or world is comes from Fantasies about the Past. Urban Fantasy our fantasies about those elements of the mythic past surviving into the modern world just out of sight. Fantasy's overlap with Horror is tied to our fantasies about what scares us.

But we also fantasize about the Future, and outer space, or alternate routes the past could have taken. We fantasize about what technology could achieve in the future as it continues to advance, or perhaps has secretly achieved already but is being kept secret by the government. Or could have achieved long ago if certain mistakes were averted. We also fantasize about finding things Scientists suggests could exist but that we haven't found yet.

When you look at the history of what's called Proto-Science Fiction, Sci-Fi tropes and ideas in works that predate the birth of Science Fiction as a distinct genre. You'll notice that's it's all Fantasy, the exact same works of the Ancient-Medieval past modern Fantasy authors look to for inspiration is exactly where the founders of Science Fiction drew their inspiration. But when directly adapted today they are classified as just Fantasy not Sci-Fi.

From the Mahabharata & Ramayana, to a Second Century Greek novelist seeking to Parody the Odyssey, to the 1001 Arabian Knights to Japanese Folk Tales to 18th and 19th Century Gothic Romances.

Mary Shelly's Frankenstein is sometimes called the first Sci-Fi novel. But the thing that surprises people reading the original book after entering it with assumptions driven by a century of Cinematic Adaptations, is just how Unscientific it actually is, the full title is referencing a Greek myth after all. The 2nd and 3rd editions actually try to make it more Scientific, the reference to Galvanism for example was not in the original 1817 edition. The only basis in the Book for the trope of the Monster having anything to do with Electricity is a Greedo Shot First/Riddles In The Dark style retcon. Science is only discussed at all in the book because of the Rationalism of those at Ingolstadt shutting down Victor's ideas. Victor's actual inspirations come from late Medieval and Renaissance era Sorcerers and Magicians, and one of the author's inspirations may have been Conrad Dipple.

In a way this makes the development of Science Fiction not unlike the development of Science itself. Chemistry emerged out of Alchemy, Francis Bacon arguably defined the modern "Scientific Method" but he was also an occultist, a student of John Dee. Isaac Newton believed the mystical symbolism of the design of Solomon's Temple could somehow unlock the secrets of the Universe.

Whether or not Technology can be considered a form of Magick kind of depends on how you define Magick. One definition used by some Occultists is that it's the manipulation of the energies that exist in nature.

That's why it makes sense that the roles played by Mages in RPGs are taken over by Scientists in more Science based adventures. White Mages become Doctors and Black Mages become Mad Scientists.

Jules Verne was also pretty open about how Genre wise most of his major works were attempts to create modern Odysseys.

https://jaredmithrandirolorin.blogspot. ... ntasy.html

[Winter]

Sci-Fi and Fantasy are settings not Genres. Romance is a genre, horror is a genre, action is a genre but Sci-Fi and Fantasy are not genres. A genre is, by its definition, a category of artistic composition, as in music or literature, characterized by similarities in form, style, or subject matter. Romeo and Juliet, Twilight and Prince of Persia are all romances but latter two are set in a fantasy setting while the former is set in the real world. To go over to Superheroes for a moment Ant-Man and the Wasp and the, IMO, criminally underrated Hudson Hawk are action-comedies with a sci-fi setting.

So, I have to disagree that Sci-Fi and Fantasy are sub-genres of each other, because neither of them are a genre, their just settings for genres to take place in.

[J!!]

All fiction is a fantasy.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

It's like comparing the unit circle and trigonometry.

[MithrandirOlorin]

Sci-Fi and Fantasy are settings not Genres. Romance is a genre, horror is a genre, action is a genre but Sci-Fi and Fantasy are not genres. A genre is, by its definition, a category of artistic composition, as in music or literature, characterized by similarities in form, style, or subject matter. Romeo and Juliet, Twilight and Prince of Persia are all romances but latter two are set in a fantasy setting while the former is set in the real world. To go over to Superheroes for a moment Ant-Man and the Wasp and the, IMO, criminally underrated Hudson Hawk are action-comedies with a sci-fi setting.

So, I have to disagree that Sci-Fi and Fantasy are sub-genres of each other, because neither of them are a genre, their just settings for genres to take place in.

Something can be more then one Genre at once, an assumption that they can't seem to be at the core of your argument here.

If you're gonna Sci-Fi only as a setting then yeah that's the only logic by which Star Wars qualifies. But the stuff more unambiguously Science Fiction do have form, style and subject matter in common. Star Wars has the form, style and subject matter of more Mythology based Fantasy.

[Deledrius]

Something can be more then one Genre at once, an assumption that they can't seem to be at the core of your argument here.

No, the core of the argument was that they are entirely separate classification systems. No one's arguing that a work can't be in more than one genre at the same time.

Winter even mentions "action-comedies", so clearly they believe that hybrids are possible.

I'd say that there are common elements, or tropes, of certain settings that can often become staples and become conflated with genres common to being told in those settings, and then also show up in other settings as well.

It's why people get confused about this when talking about the horror film, Alien, or the slasher film, Terminator.

[Winter]

Something can be more then one Genre at once, an assumption that they can't seem to be at the core of your argument here.

No, the core of the argument was that they are entirely separate classification systems. No one's arguing that a work can't be in more than one genre at the same time.

Winter even mentions "action-comedies", so clearly they believe that hybrids are possible.

I'd say that there are common elements, or tropes, of certain settings that can often become staples and become conflated with genres common to being told in those settings, and then also show up in other settings as well.

It's why people get confused about this when talking about the horror film, Alien, or the slasher film, Terminator.

If I was to say something is a comedy, you'd have a pretty good idea of what sort of story you're going to get. Adventure Time, Gravity Falls and Teen Titans are predominantly comedies with a few other genres mixed in there like drama, mystery and even tragedy but at the end of the day comedy is the most reoccurring element.

To go over to Star Wars and Star Trek, both are dramas, tragedy, actions and adventure films with minor elements of comedy, horror and romance (I say minor because the former are elements that are constantly dominating the narrative while the latter aren't used nearly as much). But in both cases, while the Sci-Fi and Fantasy elements play a part in the story they simply the back drop of the genre. It's fairly easy to change a sci-fi and fantasy into a normal world setting, that's why there are so many High School/Collage AU fan fiction of series like Star Wars, Star Trek and She-Ra.

Now, Sci-Fi and Fantasy do have a number of elements that allow for greater suspension of disbelief like bringing characters back to life (via time travel or making deals with demons) giving characters superhuman powers (via being an alien, some accident in a lab or learning magic from a wizard) but that's all it does, allow for greater use of suspension of disbelief.

A cyborg assassin from the future is hunting a woman before she gives birth to the person who will bring the downfall of the evil machine empire. This is a horror-action mix with minor elements of romance in a Sci-Fi setting. A young woman and her girlfriend get stranded on a island and are now hunted by a crazed dime-god is also a horror-action mix and again has minor elements of romance but this time with a fantasy setup.

And in both cases the Sci-Fi and Fantasy is downplayed and the world they are in is a real world with and while the speculative elements being largely secondary. The terminator could very just be changed into a regular guy who is very skilled at killing people and Himiko could just be a cult leader and the island has nothing unusual and just has really dangerous storms. BUT adding the speculative fiction elements allows for greater use of horror elements and makes the story that much more interesting.

[TGLS]

But more importantly looking at the history of the Genre has made me realize that ALL Science Fiction is Fantasy but not all Fantasy is Science Fiction.

As counter-examples, The Martian, Gravity, and Apollo 13 (The film, not the space mission). The Martian is grounded largely in real-world proposals for a Mars mission. Gravity uses the real-world concept of the Kessler Syndrome to show a disaster film about an astronaut trying to return to Earth in the midst of the crisis. Apollo 13 is a dramatization of real events. Each of these films speculate very little (or not at all, in the case of Apollo 13), but are science fiction to some degree or another.

But we also fantasize about the Future, and outer space, or alternate routes the past could have taken. We fantasize about what technology could achieve in the future as it continues to advance, or perhaps has secretly achieved already but is being kept secret by the government. Or could have achieved long ago if certain mistakes were averted. We also fantasize about finding things Scientists suggests could exist but that we haven't found yet.

People also fantasize or speculate about:
-> Being chased around by a maniac with a knife (Halloween)
-> Confronting terrorists in an skyscraper (Die Hard)
-> Being involved in a love triangle (The Graduate)
-> Having to raise a child alone after separation (Kramer vs. Kramer)
-> Robbing a casino (Ocean's Eleven)

However, nobody describes any of these works as fantasy, in large part because our definition of fantasy has a very particular meaning (the other is because they are all Mimetic Fiction). The particular meanings of fantasy and science fiction are part of the reason why academics created the term "Speculative Fiction" to encompass all of Fantasy, a large part of Science Fiction and Horror, and other genres like dystopian fiction and alternate history.

When you look at the history of what's called Proto-Science Fiction, Sci-Fi tropes and ideas in works that predate the birth of Science Fiction as a distinct genre. ... But when directly adapted today they are classified as just Fantasy not Sci-Fi.

From the Mahabharata & Ramayana, to a Second Century Greek novelist seeking to Parody the Odyssey, to the 1001 Arabian Knights to Japanese Folk Tales to 18th and 19th Century Gothic Romances.

As a counterpoint, consider The Travels of John Mandeville. It blends geographical information as known at the time, with the utterly ridiculous, such as giants, men with wolves heads, and cotton plants with itty bitty lambs on them. At the time, Mandeville was considered perhaps the greatest traveler, but these days the question is whether the author actually traveled at all.

Given what was being passed off as non-fiction historically, it's fairly obvious that the boundary between Speculative Fiction (i.e. fiction that does not resemble reality) and Mimetic Fiction (i.e. fiction meant to resemble reality) was in a different place than it was now. In other words, calling anything written before a certain point fantasy is going to be a little tricky.

Two asides:
-> Calling the Itihasa works of fantasy runs into the problem that some Hindus regard these as true. It would be like calling Acts of the Apostles a work of fantasy.
-> The Tale of the Bamboo Cutter still resembles a science fiction work today, though I suppose the historical setting might make people take it in a different way.

TLDR:
-> Fantasy has a very specific meaning, which is why the superset of Fantasy, Science Fiction and others is called Speculative Fiction
-> Works from long in the past should not have genres assigned to them based on modern opinions
-> Some science fiction has little to no speculative elements.

[MithrandirOlorin]

But more importantly looking at the history of the Genre has made me realize that ALL Science Fiction is Fantasy but not all Fantasy is Science Fiction.

As counter-examples, The Martian, Gravity, and Apollo 13 (The film, not the space mission). The Martian is grounded largely in real-world proposals for a Mars mission. Gravity uses the real-world concept of the Kessler Syndrome to show a disaster film about an astronaut trying to return to Earth in the midst of the crisis. Apollo 13 is a dramatization of real events. Each of these films speculate very little (or not at all, in the case of Apollo 13), but are science fiction to some degree or another.

But we also fantasize about the Future, and outer space, or alternate routes the past could have taken. We fantasize about what technology could achieve in the future as it continues to advance, or perhaps has secretly achieved already but is being kept secret by the government. Or could have achieved long ago if certain mistakes were averted. We also fantasize about finding things Scientists suggests could exist but that we haven't found yet.

People also fantasize or speculate about:
-> Being chased around by a maniac with a knife (Halloween)
-> Confronting terrorists in an skyscraper (Die Hard)
-> Being involved in a love triangle (The Graduate)
-> Having to raise a child alone after separation (Kramer vs. Kramer)
-> Robbing a casino (Ocean's Eleven)

However, nobody describes any of these works as fantasy, in large part because our definition of fantasy has a very particular meaning (the other is because they are all Mimetic Fiction). The particular meanings of fantasy and science fiction are part of the reason why academics created the term "Speculative Fiction" to encompass all of Fantasy, a large part of Science Fiction and Horror, and other genres like dystopian fiction and alternate history.

When you look at the history of what's called Proto-Science Fiction, Sci-Fi tropes and ideas in works that predate the birth of Science Fiction as a distinct genre. ... But when directly adapted today they are classified as just Fantasy not Sci-Fi.

From the Mahabharata & Ramayana, to a Second Century Greek novelist seeking to Parody the Odyssey, to the 1001 Arabian Knights to Japanese Folk Tales to 18th and 19th Century Gothic Romances.

As a counterpoint, consider The Travels of John Mandeville. It blends geographical information as known at the time, with the utterly ridiculous, such as giants, men with wolves heads, and cotton plants with itty bitty lambs on them. At the time, Mandeville was considered perhaps the greatest traveler, but these days the question is whether the author actually traveled at all.

Given what was being passed off as non-fiction historically, it's fairly obvious that the boundary between Speculative Fiction (i.e. fiction that does not resemble reality) and Mimetic Fiction (i.e. fiction meant to resemble reality) was in a different place than it was now. In other words, calling anything written before a certain point fantasy is going to be a little tricky.

Two asides:
-> Calling the Itihasa works of fantasy runs into the problem that some Hindus regard these as true. It would be like calling Acts of the Apostles a work of fantasy.
-> The Tale of the Bamboo Cutter still resembles a science fiction work today, though I suppose the historical setting might make people take it in a different way.

TLDR:
-> Fantasy has a very specific meaning, which is why the superset of Fantasy, Science Fiction and others is called Speculative Fiction
-> Works from long in the past should not have genres assigned to them based on modern opinions
-> Some science fiction has little to no speculative elements.

Some Medieval Fantasy works are similarly hyper realistic, like the 200s trend of more Realistic takes on Arthur.

Yes making something a Fantasy Genre and not just Fiction does require something Fantastic, speculative Science I'm arguing is simply just as Fantastic. Look at The Lost World in it's various forms, Dinosaurs something in the modern are clearly narratives just a new way of telling Dragon stories.

I'm a Christian, and a fairly literalist one too. I have no objection to fiction based on my Bible being classified as Fantasy genre wise.

[Madner Kami]

Sci-Fi and Fantasy are settings not Genres. Romance is a genre, horror is a genre, action is a genre but Sci-Fi and Fantasy are not genres. A genre is, by its definition, a category of artistic composition, as in music or literature, characterized by similarities in form, style, or subject matter. Romeo and Juliet, Twilight and Prince of Persia are all romances but latter two are set in a fantasy setting while the former is set in the real world. To go over to Superheroes for a moment Ant-Man and the Wasp and the, IMO, criminally underrated Hudson Hawk are action-comedies with a sci-fi setting.

So, I have to disagree that Sci-Fi and Fantasy are sub-genres of each other, because neither of them are a genre, their just settings for genres to take place in.

I agree with you in all instances, but particularly your assessment of Hudson Hawk. Geez, do I wish it would be shown on TV as often as Home Alone...

As for the general topic, there's a simple distinction that I feel Winter gets perfectly right, while Mithrandir does not. Genre describes the basic plot-structure of a given story. Setting does not. SciFi or Fantasy are obviously the later.