Definitions and Boundaries between Fantasy and Science Fiction

[Roman]

Where do the boundaries lie between Fantasy and Science Fiction Genres? Does the inclusion of 'advanced technology' automatically make a genre science fiction?

I recall reading in the 2nd Edition Spells and Magic Players' Option book that the presence of a supernatural force/magic is what defines fantasy and separates it from other genres. They even suggested that Star Wars is fantasy rather than Science Fiction because it has the mystical Force.

At the time I read it several years ago this definition seemed reasonable and stuck. Now, however, I am not so sure. Many stories generally classified as science fiction have some supernatural powers - even in Star Trek there are telepaths, Babylon 5 also has some, Dune has lots of supernatural effects... Obviously, the Science Fiction and Fantasy are not entirely distinct. Still, how would you define and separate them?

Also, it must be noted that although fantasy is based on myths and legends, myths and legends are most likely not considered to be part of the fantasy genre by most people. This leads me to say that what distinguishes fantasy from myths and legends is that unlike them it is not set in our own world.

So I propose that the fantasy genre contains several defining elements:-

1) Magic/Psionics/Supernatural or some other mystical force must be present in the story/setting.
2) It is set in different/alternate reality/world.

This is still insufficient to distinguish it from other genres, but beyond this I am not sure how to continue. Any thoughts?

 

[johnsemlak]

Just a note, in Russian (and other languages presumably) there is no difference. There is one word for both genres-- 'Fantastika', and no word that properly translates as 'Science Fiction'.

Thus, films like Dune, Star Trek, Star Wars, LotR, Harry Potter, Terminator, etc, all get lumped in the 'Fantastika' genre. However, some Fantasy books and films get labled 'Fairy Tales' instead.

 

[Samuel Leming]

The Debate Goes On

There's been debate on this topic for longer then I've been alive.

A purist will tell you that science fiction is a form of speculative fiction and that fantasy is not. A true science fiction story will postulate some what-ifs and then illustrate how the world changes due to their effects. Non-speculative fiction with futuristic trappings is usually refered to as sci-fi, which is a fantasy genre. There's still debate on this boundary. Many will mention the "three miracle rule". If the author waves his hand more than three times it's sci-fi, not science fiction. I think that's arbitrary. I go by the authors intent, but there are arguments against that too.

Fantasy isn't just one genre, but a collection of the fantastic. You've got swords & sorcery, elfie welfies, historical fantasy, high fantasy, sci-fi, etc...

Alternate reality can't be a prerequisite for fantasy since many examples are set in our world.

Sam

 

[Ranes]

I've seen science fiction authors either struggle to define their genre or dodge the question altogether. Is Star Wars SF? No would be my answer. It isn't science fiction just because it has some of the trappings of science fiction. Look at it this way; the tale of Snow White and Rapunzel are not medieval histories, even though they have some of the trappings of medieval histories.

The simple difference between SF and fantasy, to me, is that fantasy is the realm of 'no way'. SF is the realm of 'maybe'. The problems arise when your 'no way' is my 'maybe' or vice versa.

Of course, in Hollywood and on television, anything with an alien, sentient robot, spaceship or even psychic power is SF but Hollywood and TV are for the masses and they like to keep it simple for that reason. And who can blame them when even serious SF authors cannot clearly delineate their own genre?

As far as I'm concerned, Dante's Divine Comedy is proto-SF but he's never going to pick up a posthumous Hugo for it. Maybe a Nebula though...

 

[johnsemlak]

I might agree that Star Wars is not considered Science Fiction, but the problem is for many people out there, Star Wars is definitive science fiction.

Really, I think for a lot of people (i.e. non science fiction fans), science fiction contains all or some of the following in its setting: futuristic robots, spaceships, space travel, ray guns, alien races, etc.

Fantasy, on the other hand, for me is defined by the presense of one simple element: Magic.

These definitions are doubtlessly over-simplistic. But I don't think any other definitions are agreed upon.

 

[fredramsey]

Wow, this is a can of worms that, as usual, has no place to go but down...

Here are two definitions of "True" SF, each of which has been argued before:

1. You must only extrapolate from what we know now.

This definition is the most hardcore, and is followed very rarely.

2. You are allowed one and only one "breakthrough", such as AI or FTL travel.

This one is used more often for so-called "hard" SF.

This is an argument that can go on and on. While I agree, for example, that Star Wars is not hard SF, since its release, we have sent spacecraft into the void with Ion engines, and there are always theoretical physicists who postulate about the existence of hyperspace.

The biggest non-sf element in Star Wars, besides the Force, is the motion and sound of the spacecraft.

One of the best almost pure SF films there has ever been, IMHO, is 2010.

Have fun with this one; it ain't gonna be solved here.

 

[Acid_crash]

This is a good one, hard to answer.

Is Peter F. Hamilton's Nights Dawn trilogy Science Fiction or Fantasy, or a combination of both?

To me, it's science fiction. He writes very detailed, creates a very believable universe (within the confines of the realities of the books) and I can see it in my mind. Plus, great read. Yet, he puts in supernatural elements, like the fact that the dead never die but the spirits of the dead continue to 'live' in a dark abyss that somehow they get out of, they can control 'energy' and have powers of illusion and an 'energistic fire' and can only possess other living bodies. In other words, fantasy-ish.

When we have science fiction authors write stories that combine all these elements into one, what is it called?

---------

Isn't the definition of 'fantasy' anything that isn't based on current reality, or known real history?

If this is the case, then including any sort of supernatural effect, even psychic powers, is fantasy. Therefore, what we call 'science fiction', especially that based on Star Wars, is just fantasy. All these games we play, if it includes some form of magic or psychic powers, supernatural creatures, etc, is fantasy.

 

[johnsemlak]

For what it's worth, Merriam-Webster says:

Fantasy n
[alternate meanings skipped]
3 : a creation of the imaginative faculty whether expressed or merely conceived: as a : a fanciful design or invention b : a chimerical or fantastic notion c : FANTASIA 1 d : imaginative fiction featuring especially strange settings and grotesque characters -- called also fantasy fiction

Science Fiction
noun
fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component

 

[Desdichado]

Why do you ask?

I mean, as others here have said, even the so called "subject matter experts" out there can't really agree, and there are clearly works which bridge the two extreme ends. It's really a spectrum, IMO, with hard SF on one end and fairy tales on the other, and most works falling somewhere in between.

But what does it really matter?

 

[Glyfair]

On a trivial note:

Fantasy and science fiction got very tangled from a fiction standpoint in the middle of the 20th century. Publishers, in general, wouldn't publish "fantasy" but would publish science fiction. So, a number of writers who wanted to write fantasy would dress it up as science fiction to get it published.