Any Sufficiently Advanced Technology Is Indistinguishable From Magic, said Arthur C. Clark.
I'm getting The Quote out the way first, because this debate cannot be held without it.
They are lumped together due to a similar audience of geek guys and girls without too much thought, but where does one end and the other begin?
Science fiction is the more popular genre, and I mean popular in its most strict sense. The lions of the fantasy genre have always been books - Lord of the Rings, Earthsea, Pern and Narnia. Though there are films as well, broadly speaking they have always been forgettable. If you think of genre as a set of cultural associations, i.e. Westerns = hats, horses, Clint Eastwood, harmonica music, the plate for SF is far richer because of cinema. There are books for the serious SF fans - Asimov, Clark, Dick and the rest - but then there is also Star Trek, Star Wars, Doctor Who, superhero shows, Blade Runner, alien invasions, alternate histories. Ask people in the street what fantasy was, I expect you would merely have the beginnings of a great D&D campaign - whereas Science Fiction would be better understood for it's scope.
I consider Fantasy a younger genre, yet to explore its possibilities. Lord of the Rings was its beginnings in serious cinema, whereas Science Fiction is far more established - to my mind, this means Fantasy's triumphs are still to come. Fantasy is seen as merely an exercise in pure escapism, whereas Science Fiction has always had a social duty. The Cylon occupation of New Caprica isn't just about robots subjugating humans - it's about the Americans in Iraq. Minority Report is about exploring humanity in the face of new technology, 2001: A Space Odyssey explores the nature of what it is to be alive. 1984 was written about 1948
There's no reason fantasy can't provide social commentary, it just doesn't. This is what I mean by associations - Science Fiction is expected to be philosophy first and escapism second, or at least to touch on those elements. Pilgrims Progress and the Narnia books are two Fantasy novels which do, but Fantasy isn't expected to in the same way. Lord of the Rings specifically recoils in horror at the idea it is allegory for real life. In other words, Fantasy has less associations, and this is why I call it younger.
Fantasy: set in unreal world in the past
Science Fiction: set in unreal world in the future, but ah! it's about the present.
Or to be crude, fantasy invents teleportation and uses it to destroy the Evil Wizard. Science Fiction invents teleportation, then meditates about whether it will destroy themselves.
Perhaps because Fantasy is seen as nothing more than a romp in robes, the Science Fiction fans are quick to dismiss it. Wikipedia reveals a third term: science fantasy, the snobbish way of dismissing any space opera without deep meaning. Star Wars is easily compared to yer Fantasy epic, complete with wizards, magic swords and princesses. More than one nerd on the internet makes this cruel division: the hyper-real elements of SF must be "scientifically rational within the rules of the world"; otherwise it is Fantasy.
This appears to make sense until you look at it closely, at which point it turns into bull. Harry Potter apparates, Blake'n'crew have teleport bracelets. As Dr Manhattan would say, "structurally there is no difference". Ah, but the teleport bracelets are created by science - in fact, the characters have a chat about what they think it's made out of - and therefore they are rational. This suggests that every time someone apparates, the other characters stand around shivering, calling on Buddah and predicting the apocalypse. Surely a world in which magic works is just as plausible as ones with a mineral which somehow enables teleportation, if the author says nice and clear from the get go MAGIC WORKS IN THIS WORLD.
My nemesis indicates a lack of explanation: "Fantasy, to me, exists in worlds where the rules can be entirely different, and be that way without any explanation other than "It's magic!" but science fiction has to at least try and make sense in the world we know of."
Because Blake saying "do you think they are using the made-up-for-the-show mineral Aquitar?", or the Doctor pulling some random scientific terms out of his rump suddenly makes it more valid than Harry Potter just waving a wand or Dorothy clicking her heels and thinking of home. In other words, this argument is grossly dismissive - well written Fantasy should and does outline the rules and extent of its differences from conteporary Earth, just as well written Sci Fi does. Just as lazy Sci Fi can invent things as they go along just as magically as Fantasy. The dismissal is extra sad because it's like stunting the genre's development - keeping smart authors out of the way, and preventing it from being challenged, growing up and becoming just as respected as SF.
Of course, this all takes place in the wider context of the genre debate. Sorting things into genre is hard and meaningless. If you allow Alien as science fiction - and most people do - then you open the definition to merely has to be set in the future. Frankenstein is SF, Dracula is Fantasy. The rationale? Frankenstein is created through science, whereas Dracula is a mythological beastie, whose powers are drawn from the Earth and other supernatural sources. This would suggest the gothic genre should come under the fantasy umbrella. Horror too - if "alien attacks stuff" is Sci Fi, then surely "zombie/ghost/vampire attacks stuff" is Fantasy.
You don't consider Charmed, Sabrina the Teenage Witch or Bewitched as Fantasy in the same way as superhero comics are put under the SF umbrella. You don't give modern vampire epics to fantasy authors. There are places for Fantasy to consicously go, almost mirroring Science Fiction's progress. I'm looking forward to it.
Final analysis? Science Fiction is just Fantasy with a paint job. When considered together, the only thing to define them is "stuff that is not real".
I'm getting The Quote out the way first, because this debate cannot be held without it.
They are lumped together due to a similar audience of geek guys and girls without too much thought, but where does one end and the other begin?
Science fiction is the more popular genre, and I mean popular in its most strict sense. The lions of the fantasy genre have always been books - Lord of the Rings, Earthsea, Pern and Narnia. Though there are films as well, broadly speaking they have always been forgettable. If you think of genre as a set of cultural associations, i.e. Westerns = hats, horses, Clint Eastwood, harmonica music, the plate for SF is far richer because of cinema. There are books for the serious SF fans - Asimov, Clark, Dick and the rest - but then there is also Star Trek, Star Wars, Doctor Who, superhero shows, Blade Runner, alien invasions, alternate histories. Ask people in the street what fantasy was, I expect you would merely have the beginnings of a great D&D campaign - whereas Science Fiction would be better understood for it's scope.
I consider Fantasy a younger genre, yet to explore its possibilities. Lord of the Rings was its beginnings in serious cinema, whereas Science Fiction is far more established - to my mind, this means Fantasy's triumphs are still to come. Fantasy is seen as merely an exercise in pure escapism, whereas Science Fiction has always had a social duty. The Cylon occupation of New Caprica isn't just about robots subjugating humans - it's about the Americans in Iraq. Minority Report is about exploring humanity in the face of new technology, 2001: A Space Odyssey explores the nature of what it is to be alive. 1984 was written about 1948
There's no reason fantasy can't provide social commentary, it just doesn't. This is what I mean by associations - Science Fiction is expected to be philosophy first and escapism second, or at least to touch on those elements. Pilgrims Progress and the Narnia books are two Fantasy novels which do, but Fantasy isn't expected to in the same way. Lord of the Rings specifically recoils in horror at the idea it is allegory for real life. In other words, Fantasy has less associations, and this is why I call it younger.
Fantasy: set in unreal world in the past
Science Fiction: set in unreal world in the future, but ah! it's about the present.
Or to be crude, fantasy invents teleportation and uses it to destroy the Evil Wizard. Science Fiction invents teleportation, then meditates about whether it will destroy themselves.
Perhaps because Fantasy is seen as nothing more than a romp in robes, the Science Fiction fans are quick to dismiss it. Wikipedia reveals a third term: science fantasy, the snobbish way of dismissing any space opera without deep meaning. Star Wars is easily compared to yer Fantasy epic, complete with wizards, magic swords and princesses. More than one nerd on the internet makes this cruel division: the hyper-real elements of SF must be "scientifically rational within the rules of the world"; otherwise it is Fantasy.
This appears to make sense until you look at it closely, at which point it turns into bull. Harry Potter apparates, Blake'n'crew have teleport bracelets. As Dr Manhattan would say, "structurally there is no difference". Ah, but the teleport bracelets are created by science - in fact, the characters have a chat about what they think it's made out of - and therefore they are rational. This suggests that every time someone apparates, the other characters stand around shivering, calling on Buddah and predicting the apocalypse. Surely a world in which magic works is just as plausible as ones with a mineral which somehow enables teleportation, if the author says nice and clear from the get go MAGIC WORKS IN THIS WORLD.
My nemesis indicates a lack of explanation: "Fantasy, to me, exists in worlds where the rules can be entirely different, and be that way without any explanation other than "It's magic!" but science fiction has to at least try and make sense in the world we know of."
Because Blake saying "do you think they are using the made-up-for-the-show mineral Aquitar?", or the Doctor pulling some random scientific terms out of his rump suddenly makes it more valid than Harry Potter just waving a wand or Dorothy clicking her heels and thinking of home. In other words, this argument is grossly dismissive - well written Fantasy should and does outline the rules and extent of its differences from conteporary Earth, just as well written Sci Fi does. Just as lazy Sci Fi can invent things as they go along just as magically as Fantasy. The dismissal is extra sad because it's like stunting the genre's development - keeping smart authors out of the way, and preventing it from being challenged, growing up and becoming just as respected as SF.
Of course, this all takes place in the wider context of the genre debate. Sorting things into genre is hard and meaningless. If you allow Alien as science fiction - and most people do - then you open the definition to merely has to be set in the future. Frankenstein is SF, Dracula is Fantasy. The rationale? Frankenstein is created through science, whereas Dracula is a mythological beastie, whose powers are drawn from the Earth and other supernatural sources. This would suggest the gothic genre should come under the fantasy umbrella. Horror too - if "alien attacks stuff" is Sci Fi, then surely "zombie/ghost/vampire attacks stuff" is Fantasy.
You don't consider Charmed, Sabrina the Teenage Witch or Bewitched as Fantasy in the same way as superhero comics are put under the SF umbrella. You don't give modern vampire epics to fantasy authors. There are places for Fantasy to consicously go, almost mirroring Science Fiction's progress. I'm looking forward to it.
Final analysis? Science Fiction is just Fantasy with a paint job. When considered together, the only thing to define them is "stuff that is not real".
Comments (3)
True science fiction seldom makes it to the movies (or at least it has been turned into Space Opera or fantasy by the time it arrives). True SF often has only a small "Science" component (Andromeda Strain) but without it the entire plot falls. Space Opera is only marginally SF as almost all its components could be replaced by the mundane. So "BSG" could be the last survivors of Troy fleeing vengeful Greeks and almost all the plot turns would work. SF operates in a Newtonian Universe where things like gravity behaves properly and plot quirks must have a rational (if ultimately fantastic)explanation. High Fantasy (LOTR is the shining example) defies the Newtonian universe. Dragons can fly, Gandalf can live 5,000 years, One Ring can Rule them All. It sets its own rules. Bad fantasy cheats by making the rules up as it goes along. Star Wars is High Fantasy. Dr Who can be classed (sometimes)as true SF, ie there is a small number of plot points which only work via the science vehicle.
Brian Aldis presented the Us/Here/Now test for SF. If you can replace all the elements in the story with real people, set it on earth in a known historical period and still have a rkable plot its NOT SF. The Daleks could be Nazis but the Stone Angels can only exist in a SF or fantasy setting.
This site published my last comment at 08.18, exactly 8 hours before I wrote it. Time travel is perfected!