Sci-Fi vs Fantasy

[paulmcneer]

Split them up, even if found in the same section. Clearly split one genre on one side and the other on the opposite side.

That was a nice treatise, xdonia. I diagree about Star Wars (maybe a flaw in the litmus test, really) as some of the characters are clearly meant to be human. Possible humans that colonized planets all the way into a far far away galaxy, but clearly human. Space travel is rarely "Fantasy." But I enjoyed reading the overall ideas for the litmus test. Thanks for sharing.

[buddyroo]

I wanted to agree that Star Wars didn't apply, that it was clearly Sci-Fi. I thought about it further though and it has another element of fantasy that doesn't apply to Sci-Fi and that is magic. The "force" is a type of magic. However, I would say that catagorizing "humans" as only from Earth is a bit narrow. I think science would agree that there is the possibility of life elsewhere although it is slim, it fits within science as we know it, so it can be allowed.

[Lydia]

Definitely. Having bookshop owners learn how to divide the two should be essential, but no one seems to care!

[feyindie60]

I am very tired of the two being confused! Isaac Asimov once wrote a simple yet brilliant litmus test for how to determine if a story is science fiction or not. I wish I could remember exactly how he said it or where I read it (it was in one of the many anthologies he had compiled - as a forward to a story he was introducing - and i don't remember which one because it was over 20 years ago when I read it after randomly picking an Asimov book off the shelf while at the library one day).

Anyway, he basically said that in order for a story to be a science fiction story, it must contain ALL three of the following elements:

Science Fiction Litmus Test

1. There must be at least one human being in the story (i.e. a person who is from Earth, the planet we all live on)

2. There must be references to scientific discoveries or ideas in it that are notably in advance of our current level of technology at the time it was written, and are in some way important / integral to the story being told, and it follows the established rules of science as they are known to be at the time the story was written. (i.e. writing a story about a guy watching TV is not science fiction, because TV exists currently. Writing a story about a magician who performs '"real" magic isn't science fiction because scientific rules argue "magic" cannot be real.)

3. The story must be fictional. (i.e. not a true story at the time it was written)

If it has ALL three of these elements, it can be called science fiction. So, what does and does not pass this test?

Dr Who - has humans? Yes. Has science in advance of our own that is integral to the story and follows the general rules of science? Yes. (Tardis, sonic screwdriver, etc). Is fictional? Yes. (Though I wish I could say no.) ... Dr. Who is science fiction.

Star Trek - has humans? Yes. Has science in advance of ours currently that is integral to the story, and follows the rules of science? Yes (the Enterprise, tractor beams, transporters, replicators, phasers, etc). Is a work of fiction? Yes. (Though maybe someday no.)

Sometimes you see sci-fi stories wherein characters are psychic (which Star Trek has done) or have other types of "powers" (like mutant powers in the X-men / Spiderman stories), but science is still out on these issues. Scientific studies have found no conclusive proof that no type of psychic abilities exist or can exist, nor that we might not someday mutate into creatures that can do things humans currently cannot do (like fly), so these things are not deemed "impossible" yet.

Unicorns? Impossible. They do not exist here on Earth. Unicorns on another planet? Possible. Maybe they do exist elsewhere. Magic? Impossible. Miracles? Impossible. Science precludes these things from being real. Any example given for these ideas is just something science cannot explain yet in a scientific fashion at best, and fraudulent acts at worst (deliberate deceptions). Stories with these elements cannot be considered science fiction (unless someday some scientist in a lab proves that magic and miracles can occur and how).

Having a magician or religious man in a story does not preclude the story from being a work of science fiction; however, insisting that the things they do are "real" and examples of "true" magic or miracles being performed does preclude the story from being a work of science fiction. Ghosts are arguable. Science has proposed ways human consciousness could continue to exist after the body dies, so it does not preclude the existence of ghosts. However, ghost stories are generally classified as horror or supernatural stories, due to the fact that ghosts are not "science in advance of our own currently." A ghost story that is considered science fiction is the movie Altered States, wherein a human consciousness is transferred out of and back into a human body, and the man is able to speak to the living while he is "dead," because that is technology we currently do not have but may someday be able to create (if I'm remembering that movie correctly... I've only seen it once years ago).

Star Wars - has humans? No. There are no humans in this story. All the people in this story live in a "galaxy far, far away." This is a work of fantasy, not science fiction. (No need to go farther with the litmus test; this story failed it.)

Frankenstein - has humans? Yes. Has science in advance our ours currently that is integral to the story? No, not really. (Some argue that the whole animating the dead in her story would make it sci-fi, but her methodology fails the test. Even in Shelley's day they knew that using decaying corpses and lightning to animate a stitched-together creature simply would not work. It isn't science the mad scientist was performing... it was a miracle.) This is not fantasy either. This story actually started a whole new genre of books... horror novels.

So, why did Asimov say humans have to be in the story? Because they ground the story to reality because (at the time he wrote his test, and still today), humans are the only intelligent creatures we know exist. If someday we meet aliens, we could expand his test to include those specific people / races; otherwise, we shall stick with humans.

Why did he say it has to have advanced science in it, and the story has to follow the general known rules of science? Without this element, it's just a work of Fiction (or some other genre). It is not Science Fiction.

Why did he say it has to be a work of fiction? (I am sure I do not need to explain this point.) ...


Fantasy

Sadly, I do not know of a litmus test for fantasy. However, I would say fantasy must include these elements:

1. Be fictional (i.e. not a true story)

2. Contain elements that are made-up and fantastical in nature (contains magic, miracles, fairies, unicorns, werewolves, vampires, or any supernatural or other unexplainable phenomenon that cannot be explained or supported by science as real or possible / likely to occur)

3. Although there are probably examples to the contrary that exist out there (I've never read such an example, but I can think up a few), I would say fantasy should be on a grand scope / scale or impress the reader in some way that is remarkable and excites the imagination. (Writing a short story called "My Pet Unicorn" where a kid goes about his/her normal life with its pet unicorn as if it were equivalent to having a horse, dog, or goldfish, might make for a cute story that could be classified as fantasy, but normally fantasy takes us out of the routine and normal and into something extraordinary and exciting.)

4. Fantasies, unlike horror novels, usually have a happy ending or positive resolution (i.e. good triumphs over evil... I cannot think of one I've read that doesn't have such an ending.)

So Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and the Thomas Covenant series all meet these criteria, and all are fantasy stories.

Maybe this will help clear up the confusion on what is and is not science fiction or fantasy. I have never read a story that successfully merged the two, as one tends to preclude the other. Science fiction has to be grounded in science; fantasy has to have fantastical (i.e. not real) elements. How could one story have both? I do not know, but I'd be very interested to read such a story!

Thank you so much. I was just discussing this with another reader. The line has become blurred for everyone except for serious science fiction readers. Issac certainly defined science fiction. Fantasy should have limitations as a category. What do vampires on earth have in common with people in another world who are not human? As times goes on the topics will certainly evolve. In the end, it may just introduce a new group to science fiction just by being close to fantasy in the bookstore.

[xzonia]

Split them up, even if found in the same section. Clearly split one genre on one side and the other on the opposite side.

That was a nice treatise, xzonia. I disagree about Star Wars (maybe a flaw in the litmus test, really) as some of the characters are clearly meant to be human. Possible humans that colonized planets all the way into a far far away galaxy, but clearly human. Space travel is rarely "Fantasy." But I enjoyed reading the overall ideas for the litmus test. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks for your reply Paul. Not to be argumentative, but I will again say that Star Wars is fantasy, and for several reasons. First, it fails the litmus test on multiple levels (which is an excellent test). Regarding the characters, they are expressly not human in the story. The planets they come from are named. There is never any reference to Earth in any of the movies or books written for the Star Wars universe. There is no possibility that humans colonized planets there, because the story happens "long ago, in a galaxy far, far away." Considering that humans only attained limited space travel in the 1960s, and the story hit theaters in the 1970s, there is no way humans colonized that galaxy "long ago," nor could we have traveled so "far, far away." The only real reason any of the characters in the movie look human is because they were played by humans (and it made it far cheaper for Lucas to make the movie that way than having to come up with unique alien looks for everyone in the movie).

Second, Lucas wrote the story to emulate fairy tales. There's the hero (Luke), the damsel in distress (Leia), and the villain (Darth Vader). That was the initial idea Lucas had for this story. He never intended it to be science fiction; he always wanted it to be a fairy tale with a modern take on the idea. I think you would annoy George Lucas more than anyone if you told him his story was science fiction. It's fantasy. Lucas himself calls Star Wars a "space fantasy." Please don't argue with the author on what he wanted to convey with his story.

Third, the Star Wars franchise centers around Jedis and "the Force." The Force is magic. Despite the explanation provided in the SW movie The Phantom Menace for how Anakin came to be, there is nothing scientific about how Anakin was born. Hans Solo described the Jedi's way of life as a "hokey religion." What they do and how they are able to do it is not based on science, but rather religious beliefs and magic. The Jedis are intended to represent good and evil, balance and chaos. They have more in common with fairies than they do Einstein or any scientist at work.

So, Star Wars is clearly fantasy.

-- Sun Oct 20, 2013 4:09 pm --

I wanted to agree that Star Wars didn't apply, that it was clearly Sci-Fi. I thought about it further though and it has another element of fantasy that doesn't apply to Sci-Fi and that is magic. The "force" is a type of magic. However, I would say that catagorizing "humans" as only from Earth is a bit narrow. I think science would agree that there is the possibility of life elsewhere although it is slim, it fits within science as we know it, so it can be allowed.

Thanks for your response buddyroo! Good point about the Force!

Humans are defined as people from Earth (either now or descended from ones who left at some point in the past). Any other people are aliens. I never precluded the use of aliens in the litmus test I provided. Aliens can be used in science fiction. It's done all the time. The requirement that at least one character be human [or of human / Earth origin, or that it be set on Earth (which some sci fi stories do without there being any humans left alive)... which I didn't mention originally in this detail, but which I think Asimov did in his original definition], or otherwise somehow reference human / Earth life is a requirement to ground the story in reality. Science fiction does not preclude the possibility of life on other worlds... it thrives on that possibility! There were lots of aliens in Star Trek, which I said earlier is sci fi. So I wasn't trying to say only use humans... just have them mentioned or used somehow in the story to make it sci fi.

-- Sun Oct 20, 2013 4:28 pm --

Thank you so much. I was just discussing this with another reader. The line has become blurred for everyone except for serious science fiction readers. Issac certainly defined science fiction. Fantasy should have limitations as a category. What do vampires on earth have in common with people in another world who are not human? As times goes on the topics will certainly evolve. In the end, it may just introduce a new group to science fiction just by being close to fantasy in the bookstore.

Thanks feyindie60! That's a good question. Vampires, werewolves, ghosts, fairies, and such are often thought of as "supernatural," whereas aliens are usually thought of as a possible reality. The only thing they have in common from a literary point of view is that they are all considered to be made up / not real. Ghosts and aliens might be real, but we have no proof at this time that either exist, so they still fall in the make-believe category. Vampires, werewolves, and fairies are completely make-believe. There's no reason to think they actually exist anywhere on this planet. For now, all of these creatures only exist in our imaginations.

As you suggested, limitations for fantasy would be great to have as well. It might be a good question to pose to the big fantasy writers of our day, and see what they say.

[gipps]

I'm not sure I understand the use of having such a strict and exclusive definition of science fiction as a genre. Or perhaps I see a little too much harm in creating these rather arbitrary semantic categories to put books into. Not that I can't understand on some level why genres exist, just that they have their place.

Genres are, basically, for readers. They allow a reader who is looking for a certain kind of book to have some base knowledge of what she is getting into. So a reader looking for a book like something she liked would be able to start somewhere. That's exactly how the concept started, as a way for publishers to tailor certain stories to already existing markets.

However, to some degree that makes readers a little lazy. It makes it so that a reader interested in only one genre focuses on that to the exclusion of other genres. And that I find rather harmful. Why put science fiction books in a different place than fantasy? Why take out the science fiction or fantasy that are also romances and define them as romance only? Why segregate each of these categories so strictly? Not only does it make it so that bookstores are incredibly inconsistent in how they shelf books, it also stifles creativity and pushing the boundaries of narrative to adhere so strictly to genre.

Because the concept of genres makes it so much more difficult for writers to write anything that doesn't fit neatly within the prescribed definition of what fantasy or science fiction or literary fiction or romance or horror are. If something crosses genres, what then? There is something to be said about putting all fiction of all genres together, organized only by author, and forcing people actually judge individual books on their merits. Not that it is feasible in any way, because, again, genres sell books. They are marketing ploys. They work. But beyond that they fall apart. In my home fiction is all together, boundless and free. I see little use in forcing barriers between books based on whether they use humans or not. I think, rather, people should look for books that explore similar themes, of humanity and what is alien, and that concept can be effectively explored across genres.

So while I understand why genres exist, I do very much question why it is important for us as readers to create such strict definitions for them.

[LunaRowan]

I personally prefer fantasy over science fiction, but I've discovered older science fiction to be much more of what I would consider to be "science fiction" than the more recent ones that tend to jumble the genre and combine so many different genres that picking just one to classify it is nearly impossible. Don't get me wrong, every book has the potential to be very enjoyable, but as far as mythical creatures go (besides aliens and scientifically-engineered beings, of course) belong in the fantasy section.

[obiebookworm]

Yes! Sci-Fi is Sci-Fi and Fantasy is Fantasy. I don't understand how Fantasy would be lumped into Sci-Fi - plain and simple.

[Mbreavis]

Trust me, I understand! I'm more of a fan of fantasy, and people always think I'm really into everything that's sci-fi. It's not that I dislike sci-fi, I just prefer fantasy. I wish more people understood the difference.

[obiebookworm]

Amen!

[East]

Just the other day I was trying to explain to someone the difference between sci-fi and fantasy. It was surprisingly hard, Asminov's test really helped me define the boundaries. Thanks so for posting this.

[georgiAAAHHH]

This bothers me too - I mean, if you consider it, Fantasy and Sci-Fi are complete opposites: Science-Fiction focuses on futuristic worlds, creatures and characters, whereas Fantasy tends to relate to myths and legends and creatures of the past.

[audreyrose]

Science fiction must be grounded in some kind of scientific fact, something that could plausibly happen, rules and facts are shown as to why and how. Fantasy however doesn't need an explanation, in fantasy things happen just because they do.
I feel thay should be kept together but seperate, close but not mixed up. Every now and then you get those odd books that really dont fir into just one category, those ones are my favorites

[terrametoo]

"Frankenstein - has humans? Yes. Has science in advance our ours currently that is integral to the story? No, not really. (Some argue that the whole animating the dead in her story would make it sci-fi, but her methodology fails the test. Even in Shelley's day they knew that using decaying corpses and lightning to animate a stitched-together creature simply would not work. It isn't science the mad scientist was performing... it was a miracle.) This is not fantasy either. This story actually started a whole new genre of books... horror novels. "

I totally agree that science fiction is separate from fantasy but also agree with Wikipedia who calls Mary Shelley the mother of science fiction. True her science may not have been perfect by today's standards but Dr. Frankenstein was a doctor not a witch doctor, hospitals use electromagnetic shock to revive patients who've lost their heartbeats all the time, and at the time Benjamin Franklin had just discovered how to harness electricity through a kite. So I think that her story was definitely based on science and deserves to be under the umbrella of science fiction if not at the very top.

[authorkcfinn]

Something that I find strange is the Time Travel genre because I personally class it as sci-fi, but I have had a lot of people looking for my time travel novel who then say to me 'I couldn't find it in the fantasy section'. But surely time travel is scientific rather than mystical?
And what does that then make Paranormal fiction? I don't understand the difference between that and sci-fi either.