![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
momebieOver on twitter ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
getyourguns was musing about how X-Men: First Class had been labeled as Fantasy at the Scream Awards, because she considered it to be more Science-Fiction instead. matthewbowers responded to her and said that Science-Fiction and Fantasy are rarely crossed together. He contends that each has a set of tropes and themes that you never (or hardly ever) find in another. Insinuating, I think, that if something is mostly fantasy in essence you would be remiss to call it science-fiction regardless of the extra trappings or themes that read that way. And then there was kind of a dog pile of people telling him how wrong he is, which I feel bad about, because I think we're all dealing in semantics.
Art, by its very nature, will be interpreted differently by everyone. What I see as fantasy or sci-fantasy another might call science-fiction and another yet still may just call speculative fiction. I think that there's always going to be a certain amount of subjectivity in any attempt to place a genre on something. What I do not think is possible to ignore though, is the fact that for better or worse science-fantasy has become an actual genre term that people use. In some ways it doesn't matter whether or not I AGREE that something is science-fantasy, just that someone else thinks it is and has named it so. After all, I cannot tell you how many times something vaguely Victorian has been labeled steampunk and I've wanted to throw up my hands and go home.
What I AM interested in, however, is where people draw those lines. For instance,getyourguns thinks space is one of the science-fiction shorthands, while I think that a focus on or use of technology would be a more concrete one. I know that pointing at an apple and saying it's a banana doesn't make it so, but if it came off an apple tree and was long and curved and yellow I'd be inclined to admit that it did share certain characteristics with a banana that made it a new breed. Because no matter how many times we go around about it, if I find a different collection of themes and tropes to be more one than the other, another person and I can argue till our faces turn blue that they actually aren't and no one will budge. So I thought I'd get a hive mind going about it and see where the discussion takes us. There is no right or wrong answer here, and I mean that. (Though, feel free to argue amongst yourselves.) You can tackle all of them, or cherry pick the thing(s) you find most interesting.
* How do you define straight up Science-Fiction (hard or soft)?'
* How do you define straight up Fantasy (urban or dark or high or anything)?
*What themes or tropes do you find common in Science-Fiction that you think never appear in Fantasy?
*What themes or tropes do you find common in Fantasy that you think never appear in Science-Fiction?
*What do you believe a successful blending of the two would be?
*Do you think it's possible to blend them at all?
*Are there any works of art (movies/books/tv shows/cartoons/oil paintings/sculptures/hair collections...) that you feel DO successfully blend the two? [Aka, show your work for extra points.]
If you think there are any other questions that would add another layer to the discussion let me know and I'll add them to my list. I'm leaving this post unlocked, because I think it would be interesting to get a larger sample. Send your friends over! Anonymous commenting is on until someone starts being a jerk.
getyourguns was musing about how X-Men: First Class had been labeled as Fantasy at the Scream Awards, because she considered it to be more Science-Fiction instead. matthewbowers responded to her and said that Science-Fiction and Fantasy are rarely crossed together. He contends that each has a set of tropes and themes that you never (or hardly ever) find in another. Insinuating, I think, that if something is mostly fantasy in essence you would be remiss to call it science-fiction regardless of the extra trappings or themes that read that way. And then there was kind of a dog pile of people telling him how wrong he is, which I feel bad about, because I think we're all dealing in semantics. Art, by its very nature, will be interpreted differently by everyone. What I see as fantasy or sci-fantasy another might call science-fiction and another yet still may just call speculative fiction. I think that there's always going to be a certain amount of subjectivity in any attempt to place a genre on something. What I do not think is possible to ignore though, is the fact that for better or worse science-fantasy has become an actual genre term that people use. In some ways it doesn't matter whether or not I AGREE that something is science-fantasy, just that someone else thinks it is and has named it so. After all, I cannot tell you how many times something vaguely Victorian has been labeled steampunk and I've wanted to throw up my hands and go home.
What I AM interested in, however, is where people draw those lines. For instance,
getyourguns thinks space is one of the science-fiction shorthands, while I think that a focus on or use of technology would be a more concrete one. I know that pointing at an apple and saying it's a banana doesn't make it so, but if it came off an apple tree and was long and curved and yellow I'd be inclined to admit that it did share certain characteristics with a banana that made it a new breed. Because no matter how many times we go around about it, if I find a different collection of themes and tropes to be more one than the other, another person and I can argue till our faces turn blue that they actually aren't and no one will budge. So I thought I'd get a hive mind going about it and see where the discussion takes us. There is no right or wrong answer here, and I mean that. (Though, feel free to argue amongst yourselves.) You can tackle all of them, or cherry pick the thing(s) you find most interesting. * How do you define straight up Science-Fiction (hard or soft)?'
* How do you define straight up Fantasy (urban or dark or high or anything)?
*What themes or tropes do you find common in Science-Fiction that you think never appear in Fantasy?
*What themes or tropes do you find common in Fantasy that you think never appear in Science-Fiction?
*What do you believe a successful blending of the two would be?
*Do you think it's possible to blend them at all?
*Are there any works of art (movies/books/tv shows/cartoons/oil paintings/sculptures/hair collections...) that you feel DO successfully blend the two? [Aka, show your work for extra points.]
If you think there are any other questions that would add another layer to the discussion let me know and I'll add them to my list. I'm leaving this post unlocked, because I think it would be interesting to get a larger sample. Send your friends over! Anonymous commenting is on until someone starts being a jerk.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-10-19 03:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-19 03:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-19 04:13 am (UTC)OK!
I do have many (conflicting) feelings on this very topic and have been known to get into heated debates with anyone stupid enough to go there with me. But I'll start with this:
I think if something is saying it is Sci-fi, then it needs to be Sci-fi. There must be some basis in science (actual science, futuristic science, whatever, SCIENCE! maybe even sKience!) with appropriate explanations for the ~stuff~ that happens within this universe. (I'm looking at you, Torchwood, and your confusion about what the hell you were.)
If it's fantasy, it doesn't have to work quite so hard to explain things. You can just go blah blah MAGIC! and Bob's yer uncle. Although, world-building for any type of fantasy universe should be pretty involved. I'm not a big fantasy fan b/c I genuinely hate it when there's MAGIC just for the sake of "ooh shiny" or what have you. Even in a magical world, things must make some sort of sense. (And this is why - do not stone me - I'm not a huge Harry Potter fan. Because so much of the flashy flashy magic crap was pointless and without reason.)
Blending the two successfully just sounds way too difficult for my feeble brain. There are so many things that MUST BE EXPLAINED!
Take the zombie genre, for example. You've got your old school rising from the grave voodoo zombies, and you new class "virus" zombies. The former, magical. The latter, science-y. With the former, you don't have to work so hard on explaining HOW dead bodies are walking around and eating live ones. IT IS MAGIC! But with the latter, suspension of disbelief is relied upon too much. All the science talk in the WORLD does not explain a virus that kills then reanimates the corpse, allows that corpse to walk and eat but does not slow/stop decay. Mr Zombie, how are your muscles working if your blood is not pumping? HOW? HOW?
...it's possible I've thought about this way too much.
As for your questions... I sincerely believe that a good writer can make any scenario work within any set of boundaries. It's just really fucking hard. And you should decide, before you set out, if you're going to be science or MAGIC.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-19 04:37 am (UTC)It doesn't do wood!There's an example I was going to use, but didn't because I didn't want to get too into the weeds on a thing I'm still hemming over. There's a certain Victorian era vampire novel that is being classified as steampunk by the publisher. (I say certain not because I'm being coy, but because I don't remember the title of the novel OR the publisher, just the reading from/discussion about it.) As far as I can tell, the novel is your average vampire fare set in the 1800s. I would not classify that as steampunk, since steampunk is a science-fiction genre. I would classify that as Victorian Fantasy. HOWEVER. I am currently working on a story where I send a group of volunteer vampires (it's science! they signed up for it! it's done in a lab!) into space on a Victorian space ship and play around with the tech of the period. I would consider that science-fantasy, because even though the vampires are created in a lab scientifically, they're still vampires, which aren't real and can't be, and the other tech is front and center in the story. Would you classify those things differently?
Randomly, it occurs to me that the many races of aliens found in science-fiction are also not plausible and therefore fantastic in nature. I think the reason I consider those two things different is because we don't know what form life could take outside of our galaxy and it's speculative in nature to give them whatever traits we do. Drastically altering the way the human body works so that it is vampiric, however, is not speculative in nature, but merely fantastic because the way we view vampires makes it impossible for one to actually survive that way.
I HAVE A FEELING THIS WHOLE POST IS GOING TO RIDE THE SEMANTICS TRAIN.
As a side note, I always tend to read virus zombies as not being dead at all, simply addled by the disease, so it doesn't bother me that their bodies function and it's not explained. After all, the 'zombies' in 28 Days Later (which I still consider to NOT be a zombie movie) starve to death after a certain period of time and then do not come back.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-19 05:10 am (UTC)My understanding of Steampunk is pretty limited. I understood it to focus on the Victorian time period, but strictly with the inclusion of advanced technology (that is still steam-powered?) like that awful remake of Wild Wild West with Will Smith... No?
Considering that your vampires are created in a lab, that is definitely basing it in science and not magic or mythology, so I think it could be sci-fi. All that depends on how much you want to explain about your vampires. Are they simply genetically altered humans, with superstrength and such, a thirst for blood, but not undead? I'd be willing to put that in the sci-fi pile. It's when you get into myth and magic that veers into fantasy territory.
I HAVE MANY THOUGHTS ON DIFFERENT ALIEN SPECIES' IN "SCI-FI" SHOWS AS WELL. (Surprised?) Like with fantasy and magic, I... disapprove of fancy aliens that have ~things~ that make no practical sense for a species to develop. I can get behind the theory that most evolved species from different planets might be "humanoid" (and not just b/c they are played by humans painted green and wearing funny hats and shit) if that's what evolution does on life-sustaining planets. But, still, your aliens need to make some fucking sense, yo!
The infected in 28 Days Later are not zombies - they are living, breathing humans with a virus. Not unlike the "Croats" in Supernatural (which... basically kinda stole that same idea, no?). The OTHER zombies in Supernatural were the rising from the grave voodoo kind. But the zombies in The Walking Dead are both dead bodies and infected with a virus (as explained in s1e06) and my suspension of disbelief is firmly in place b/c OMG THEY TRAVEL IN FUCKING HERDS NOW! WHYYYYYYYY?!
Ahem. Yeah. I, um, I could talk about this all night, man.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-19 04:18 am (UTC)* How do you define straight up Science-Fiction (hard or soft)?
Technology, Star Wars/Star Trek
* How do you define straight up Fantasy (urban or dark or high or anything)?
Something with little to no tech at all.
*What themes or tropes do you find common in Science-Fiction that you think never appear in Fantasy?
Alien sex >.>
*What themes or tropes do you find common in Fantasy that you think never appear in Science-Fiction?
Magic did it.
*What do you believe a successful blending of the two would be?
World of Warcraft or Harry Potter do it fairly well. And so do most comics.
*Do you think it's possible to blend them at all?
Yeah.
*Are there any works of art (movies/books/tv shows/cartoons/oil paintings/sculptures/hair collections...) that you feel DO successfully blend the two? [Aka, show your work for extra points.] DC for examples has heroes and villans that use magic, but others use tech.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-19 11:08 am (UTC)i would have put harry potter in strickly fantasy though, where is the science in harry potter?
i thought Doctor Who did the combination better. i cant speak for WoW or comics though.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-21 12:59 am (UTC)Personally, I thought Doctor Who was more sci-fi, but I can see what you mean.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-19 04:49 am (UTC)I think that the focus on technology in Science Fiction becomes defining when that technology is a solution in itself. Technology can be very important in fantasy 'Oooh! he has the Ring of Sauron/Sword of Power/Shiny thing of Whatsit!', but it is only as important as the wielder. In Science Fiction, humans are creatures against which the majesty of physics/engineering/invention can be writ large (even if they will sometimes be lucky in being able to conquer it, it's usually thanks to superior/alien tech), while in Fantasy, humans (or their equivalents, cf Hobbits, elves, gelflings) are the ultimate dominating force that can subdue threatening (usually technologically based (including magical tech, cf horcruxes)) powers (often with love, damn you Dumbledore!).
As to successful blendings, I think the film of 2001, A Space Oddessy, which starts out as hard-core science fiction, but ends with a fantastical re-envisioning of the birth of human beings as something beyond our individualistic selves worked really well. Of course, that could just be because I am a child of the 60s and that drug-taking crap is the visual language I grew up with ;-)
no subject
Date: 2011-10-20 01:02 am (UTC)I wonder, though, where it would put something like Oryx and Crake?
no subject
Date: 2011-10-19 05:45 am (UTC)But idk, I tend to lump sci-fi and fantasy into one category and then divide it by magic/no magic, so I don't think too deeply about these things. xD AND HALF THE TIME THE "SCIENCE" IN SCI-FI IS LIKE MAGIC TO ME ANYWAY.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-19 09:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-20 03:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-20 03:57 am (UTC)Other characters: *explainy-splainy SKIENCE!*
POV character: Bzuh? I DON'T CARE HOW IT WORKS JUST GIMME! (...or something like that)
no subject
Date: 2011-10-20 04:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-20 04:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-20 04:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-20 04:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-20 04:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-20 04:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-20 04:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-20 04:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-20 04:31 am (UTC)Why did I ever try to read that book.Unless you're JK Rowling in which case everyone wants all the extra details.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-20 04:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-22 05:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-19 09:32 am (UTC)my favourite author is ursula k le guin. i know that her stuff has been criticised for this before. it's sometimes called science fiction but people argue it's 'just' fantasy or somesuch. i think there's some distinction between if magic or naturalistic elements are used to explain stuff, or if it's more overtly science-y. but then some space type stuff doesn't really go into the 'how' of the science, you just expect that there is science happening to help people live in space etc.
anyway i do think it's interesting. the only reason i can think of for people to get really irate about it would be if they have a heirarchy for what is considered 'better'. which i assume would be science fiction, because of course science is better than nature or superstition. :|||
no subject
Date: 2011-10-19 01:26 pm (UTC)As for the line between sci-fi and fantasy, well. You can make the argument that the themes and tropes of one genre are the same in the other, just that they have different facades. I think that both genres essentially try to address the same thing, which is humanity: humanity's struggle to overcome obstacles (external or internal) - what makes humanity, well, human - what drives humanity onward, etc. What makes them different is the manner in which they choose to address these, and their focus varies as well. I tend to view sci-fi as the more philosophical and/or psychological approach, and fantasy as the physical and/or physiological.
I feel like Star Wars and the Dune series bridge the gap between the two genres. Sure, there's space and technology and all, but the science often comes across as magical or fantastical in both instances. In Dune especially, I think - you have both Paul and Leto undergoing philosophical crises (Is this the right path to follow? Are we dooming the universe by setting it on this course?) as well as their physical transitions (Paul to Fremen life, Leto to the sand creature) (not to mention the transitions that Arrakis the planet makes).
That's...pretty much all I have to say on the matter. I mean, I probably have more ~feelings, but I've run out of coffee, so. :D?
no subject
Date: 2011-10-19 01:59 pm (UTC)Science fiction, like fantasy, has a range. That's why there are sub-categories and what we deem as soft and hard sci-fi. Hard sci-fi usually involved actual hardcore science and math. Your explanation actually had to be justified with probable science and math. Soft sci-fi usually involved space and the future, such as Star Wars or dystopian. Star Wars actually falls under the category Space Opera. To limit science-fiction to things that are probable or have high tech is to limit it to hard science fiction, which is a disservice to the genre. Fiction is, after all, a story that though similar to reality is made up. I would rather not ignore Star Trek and War of the Worlds (novel).
Fantasy is a category that deals with magic and is usually set in modern times or in a world that is similar to a past time. It is true that futuristic tech without an explanation and magic are similar, but magic never claims to be anything else but magic. Also, not all fantasy has magic in it. Some might simply have a warrior going about killing stuff or a knight in a made up world that deals with the politics of that universe.
I do think science-fiction and fantasy can cross over. I think you find this mostly in comics. X-men is a great one, because the basis of the story is an alternative world where people are evolving and this has given people genetic mutations that produces psychic abilities. So we have genetics, the future, and parasychology as the basis of the premise, but we also have things that are not science and people who actually have magic powers thrown in there and some of the mutants are more magical than psychic.
So those are my thoughts on the subject. If the categories didn't cross over we wouldn't have fantasy and science-fiction always lumped together. There are things that are very distinctively sci-fi and some that are distinctively fantasy, but sometimes the lines blur.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-19 02:47 pm (UTC)For one, I have to agree with
Genres, on the whole, exist within continuums. There's the easy to define traits, the THINGS that make up a genre (like aliens, emphasis on how technology works, magic, vampires) and there's the more difficult to define traits, the THEMES of a genre (for example, steampunk focuses on "can-do," a lot of sci-fi focuses on philosophy or existentialism, some fantasy focuses on the importance of the individual (magic from within)). Some stories are easily defined by the THINGS of the genre, but the THEMES can throw a kink in. I think the thing that is most important is to find what feels correct for the story or blend the damn genres (or to learn to not fuss too much about labels).
AND NOW I'M THINKING TOO MUCH AND HAVE CONFUSED MYSELF AND AM ARGUING INTERNALLY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT FMA IS BOTH SCI-FI AND FANTASY OR JUST FANTASY. I NEED TO GO THINK.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-19 04:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-20 01:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-20 01:09 am (UTC)I AM SO TORN. I honestly am not sure if it's a blend or if it's more fantasy than sci-fi.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-20 01:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-19 04:14 pm (UTC)Sci-fi is all about the tech, explaining the hows and the whys (no "magical machines", that's steampunk :PP). Space travel or time travel is likely to be at least in the background. No swords, no prettiness, extreme realism, often rather dark and sad (see: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Neuromancer). The best sci fi authors do not just make up new shit and explain it/show it off, they also express philosophical views re: future tech and the various moral dilemmas it will present and possible ways these can or cannot be resolved.
One of the best blendings of hard sci fi and fantasy is The Goblin Reservation by Clifford Simak, who mostly wrote excellent hard sci fi but also did write some ridiculous fantasy...stuff (I am always harping about Simak, sorry!) - this book does have a LOT of fantasy creatures and even a ghost, but they are explained through tech. There is space travel, time travel, mech animals, alien societies, and an expression of philosophical thought in regard to it all..
no subject
Date: 2011-10-19 05:23 pm (UTC)I think it's interesting that you mentioned political maneuvering as significant to the plot as a sci-fi trope, though, since I find it a pretty genre-neutral trope. In any sufficiently well-built world where major characters are in positions of power, there should be lots of political maneuvering. I don't think anyone would argue that David Eddings writes pretty pure classic medieval high fantasy, and there is tons of political maneuvering (palace coups and vote-rigging and all).
As for blending, I think any time your magic operates by reasonably clearly defined rules, it will mesh just fine with science, a la Clarke's Third Law ("Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic") and its converse ("Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from technology" - Girl Genius).
Off the top of my head, the biggest sci-fi-fantasy blender I can think of is probably Warhammer 40,000, but there's plenty of others.
Urban fantasy roleplaying games (NightLife, for example) seem to really like to raid cyberpunk tropes for story fodder and character traits while keeping a sort of classic fantasy backstory-history, so that the hidden society seems like it has evolved right along with modern society.
For the reverse situation, Trinity Blood is one of my favorite anime/manga, and while it's aesthetically fantasy (Vampires! Catholicism! Magic! The Byzantine Empire WITH Vampires!) with steampunk touches (Airships and clockwork and Victoriana) the backstory and a lot of the world-building is very sci-fi; it's a post-apocalyptic (nuclear armageddon variety) world with a history of genetic engineering and elaborate technological inventions, so it has its share of Schizo Tech.
...be glad LJ doesn't make it easy to put links in comments, or this would be full of TVTropes links.
Throwing my own two cents
Date: 2011-10-19 06:51 pm (UTC)Fantasy does just the opposite, taking what we consider to be impossible and integrating them into the world as we know it in a way that makes sense. Example: There are dragons. How can we as humans co-exist with fire breathing creatures? How are they even able to produce flame without blowing themselves up?
There are of course, ways to blur the line. If magic is really a form of energy manipulation, and the Force in Star Wars is energy manipulation, what makes them different from each other? A less people-friendly example would be blood-powered taxi cabs or airplanes that fly from distilled sorrow. (Both examples borrowed from the Nightside series) In a way, some of it is perspective, if you have a race capable of understanding, manipulating and using the technology, the series they're in would be considered sci-fi, if they're not, then it's fantasy. Think Clarke's third law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Re: Throwing my own two cents
Date: 2011-10-21 01:34 pm (UTC)The Knight of the Word and the Shannara books, where the first series is set in our world and leads to an apocalyptic even that would end with the World of Shannara, and the races are mostly humans who had to survive in different conditions... with the exception of the elves. Who are from elsewhere so to speak.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-20 12:48 am (UTC)Science Fiction:
- Generally happens in the future or is futuristic.
- Advanced technology is an important part of the main story.
Fantasy:
- Not futuristic or evokes images from the past.
- Generally not technology-themed.
In this case, "advanced technology" can mean either "technology more advanced than what's going on today" or "technology that's more advanced than the general era in which the book is set."
So even though Star Wars technically happened a long long time ago, it's still science fiction because its story revolves around space travel. Steampunk is also SF because it involves futuristic technology, same with other "soft" SF books like Jurassic Park, which is set in the present but revolves around a technological leap forward.
Fantasy, on the other hand, tends to use something other than technology to drive plots.
As for blends, I think Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke is a good example. You can have blends of wine. Why not blends of fiction?