The need to explain things is a good marker, I think, and why I consider Doctor Who to be fantasy instead of science-fiction. That said, I do consider Star Wars to be a space opera and therefore both, because there is enough future tech and politics in those stories with enough of the plot revolving around it that I can't in good faith classify it as only fantasy. (I realize that many people do not agree with me there, which is fine. But it's not like Han ran the Kessel Run on a winged dragon.) The reason I classify this differently than Doctor Who is that technology does not play a huge part in the world of Doctor Who as I see it. 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
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.