You earthlings and your third dimension. It's cute.

[momebie]

Over on twitter 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.

Comments

[kel-reiley.livejournal.com]

Too many thoughts. Must regroup. Return later.

[honeybearbee.livejournal.com]

I'm not very eloquent at these types of things, but I'll do my best.

* 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.

[blamebrampton.livejournal.com]

For me. Space doesn't work as a defining line, because Star Wars is very Fantasy, while Star Trek is usually more Science Fiction, but even then, both have elements that sneak a foot over into the other camp.

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 ;-)

[admiral]

Oh man, we totally talked about stuff like this in my science fiction class freshman year, and I completely forget all of it. I do vaguely remember that we discussed how "real" science fiction requires the science-y tech part of it to tell the story. Like, you could take all the space and laser and stuff out of Star Wars and set it in Medieval England and still have the same basic story of Star Wars. Which makes some sense, I think, because say, if you took the Doctor's TARDIS away and gave him magical powers that let him travel through space and time, I'd lean towards calling Doctor Who science-fantasy more than straight-on science fiction (assuming all the alien-y space stuff was still there). Or you can't take the AI tech out of Neuromancer and still have a story because the tech is the story.

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.

[mrsquizzical.livejournal.com]

i haven't studied this stuff, so there may be very obvious answers to my queries as to why this is such an 'important' question. i think it's an interesting question where people draw lines, but can't really see that it must have this black&white thing. and what about stuff that likes to be cross genre? as a music fan it seems too similar to people not liking bands they can't classify easily.

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. :|||

[brilligspoons.livejournal.com]

I was a little confused when I saw that XMFC had been labeled "Fantasy" at those awards, mostly because I would never in a million years think of it as such. While the movie itself wasn't a typical superhero/comic book flick, to me it still falls under that umbrella, right along with Iron Man and Batman and all the rest. And that's the thing, maybe - superhero/comic book movies are superhero/comic book movies. I don't classify them as sci-fi, and I don't classify them as fantasy; they just don't FIT into either genre. But, as you say, it's more an interpretation than anything else.

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?

[nyghtrain.livejournal.com]

You got me out of my cave for this one. lol

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.

[theemdash]

I HAVE SO MANY FEELINGS ABOUT THIS TOPIC. TO MANY TO ARTICULATE EVEN. THIS IS GOING TO BE MESSY.

For one, I have to agree with matthewbowers that sci-fi and fantasy can be separate genres and that there are things that are exclusively sci-fi and exclusively fantasy. Though I have to disagree about them rarely being crossed because there are a lot of examples in which the two genres blend.

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.

[spinfrog.livejournal.com]

I think of "fantasy" as a sort dreamy PG romance/adventure with fantasy creatures (unicorns, witches, mermaids, fairies), castles, possibly knights, pretty gowns and jewels, swords, horseback riding or boats with sails (no guns, engines or any other tech), damsels in distress.. Of course, from here people who are not soft and romantic wrote Urban Fantasy, still with the pretty and the fantasy creatures, but set firmly in the present or future, and with some use of normal every day tech (cell phones, cars, guns, airplane travel).. some of these do strive for dark realism, but usually overshoot and land in the way darker place :P either way, these writers are usually just looking for a cool backdrop for the romance/adventure they want to write.

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..

[yavieriel.livejournal.com]

It's interesting, I don't really think to label entire works as "fantasy" or "sci-fi" or "steampunk" or whatever, but I definitely label various /tropes/ as "fantasy" or "sci-fi" or whatever, probably because a lot of stuff I like is very mash-up-y. For example, if you've got the classic "Humans-dwarves-elves" sorts of races, that's a fantasy trope, but if your elves are really good computer hackers or gene-splicers or whatever then there's your sci-fi trope. In general, tropes that look backwards, specifically to the pre-Enlightenment era (including mythology/folktales, and this is where belief in magic comes in) is fantasy, but stuff that looks forward in speculation is fantasy. Steampunk kind of fits in but not exactly, I guess it doesn't really feel like a solidly-developed genre to me yet.

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

[(Anonymous)]

On the debate between fantasy and science fiction, I really only have this to say: Science fiction is taking what is already known, or has been established, and then extending it out into what isn't known, or considered impossible. Example: We know space travel can happen. But we can't travel at light speed, so what could happen if we did?

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.

[horosha.livejournal.com]

I tend to think about it like this:

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?