Sci-Fi vs Fantasy

[buddyroo]

It is me or is anyone else tired of Fantasy being called Sci-Fi? These are two completely different things. I am also tired of having these two combined in the book store. If I want to find a fantasy book, I want to just look through fantasy or vice versa for Sci-Fi. Don't get me wrong, I love both, but I get the feeling that no one feels the way I do about this subject. I don't really mind them being combined here in the forum and I guess I wouldn't care in the book store either if I thought I could say to someone, "Do you know of any good new fantasy books?", that they wouldn't recommend the best new Sci-Fi book out. And that is the end of my soap box.

[sblake]

I agree! I am more of a sci-fi fan, and it is annoying to pick up a promising book based on the cover and find out it is vampires, etc...I love a good fantasy too, but they need to split them into two groups!

[Richard Falken]

I think they are mixed in the stores because they attract the same kind of public, or a similar one at the very least. On the other hand, maybe some book sellers are simply stupid.

Yes, I agree, it is not good when they mix the genres.

[Bananacat]

In my local bookstore the Sci-Fi books and the Fantasy books are in the same area of the shop but they are split between the two. Although this is only a vague split because I can still find same fantasy books in the Sci-Fi shelves and vice vrs. I do think bookshops should make split these two genres up!

[kurmudkin]

But where do you file the Science Fantasy books? The Horus Heresy Series? Frank Herbert? Douglas Adams? Some of my all time favs and I wouldn't know which shelf to go to first!

[buddyroo]

Easy, both shelves. They do it for other genres.

[xzonia]

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!

[julianfroment]

I agree. I am a fantasy fan, but have never really gotten on well with sci-fi. Although, I do have to admit that I enjoyed Dune, as a bit of a crossover of genres.

[gipps]

I actually think that a big reason that the genres are lumped together is because there is so much authorial overlap between the two distinct genres. I mean, most mystery authors write only mysteries. Most literary fiction authors writes just that. But with science fiction and fantasies authors cross the aisle so often that I imagine for bookstores they would have a difficult time keeping the two apart. Because, organizationally speaking, we don't want to have to travel all around the bookstore for the same author. As customers we are more likely to pick up a book by the same author as another book we liked if it is in close physical proximity. So having the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant far away from the Gap Into series (both by Stephen R Donaldson), it would mean we might never know that the author did both. And so for that reason I get that they are put in the same general category, because they do have a great overlap of authors.

[aaronhattle]

The differences seem clear to us because we're so involved with both genres. From the outside looking in, I imagine that it's a lot harder to distinguish. "That guy is using a sword. That other guy is using a laser sword. The first guy uses magic. The second guy is a psychic. Hmm. Pretty similar."

[lostinbooks]

I agree with gills. Many authors write in both genres and you would expect to find all their books together. I'm a fan of both, but lean a bit toward sci-fi.

[Ibanezakame]

There is a very thick line between these two. Some people try to erase this line. It shouldn't be done.

[marissa_in]

I agree! Too many people like to categorize them into the same category.

[mishy]

I love both genres and have no problem if they are mixed in a novel. However, when it comes to the Book stores, I think they should be next to each other but separated.

[Anadew]

I feel like mixing the two depends more on the size of the bookstore and the preference of the customers. The B&N near us is massive, and they have the sci-fi and fantasy in separate sections. The Borders (before it closed) was much smaller, and combined the two. At the same time, there's a local bookstore called Books and Cranies, and most of their customers are sci-fi or fantasy fans. So, they divide up sci-fi and fantasy beyond even those two categories. Sci-fi divides into near future, far future, space operas, sci-fi thrillers and so forth. Fantasy divides in sword and sorcery, urban, steam punk and so forth.

As for a fine line or thick line, I think it's more of a continuum, i.e. no line, just a gradual transition. Hard sci-fi on one end and epic fantasy on the other. When you get down to the nitty gritty, I think it's a matter of personal understanding. When I taught high school, I read The Giver with my students, and I introduced it as a fantasy novel. Several of my students felt it was more like sci-fi. They argued that what The Giver is able to do, transferring memories, could be some form of advanced technology related to the workings of the brain.