Generally, I like to refer to things that I write as “Speculative” fiction, because I often utilize rules of SciFi and fantasy in the same piece, that is, I write fiction with fantastic elements but I expound on the details as if it were SciFi. Is that a bad thing? There was a time when it would be looked down upon, maybe even be considered heretical, as Michael Crichton pointed out a long, long time ago:
“As a category, the borders of science fiction have always been poorly defined, and they are getting worse. The old distinction between science fiction and fantasy - that science fiction went from the known to the probable, and fantasy dealt with the impossible - is now wholly ignored. The new writing is heavily and unabashedly fantastical.”
“The breakdown is also seen in the authors themselves, who now cross the border, back and forth, with impunity. At one time this was dangerous and heretical; the only person who could consistently get away with it was Ray Bradbury. Science fiction addicts politely looked the other way when he did books such as Dandelion Wine and the screenplay for John Huston’s Moby Dick. It was assumed he needed the money.”
Consider a movie like Jurassic Park, where the concept of bringing back dinosaurs is perfectly believable. You believe it, don’t you? We believe it because we want to believe fantastic things are possible, and this is especially the case with readers of SciFi. One advantage SciFi has over fantasy, however, is that SciFi generally resounds with possibility. Even though its ideas may be impossible now, one who has the foresight to dream of tomorrow can see the inherent potential in virtually any work of SciFic.
There are two basic ways to write fantasy, and neither of them have to be believable in the least:
- Real world, whether it be historical or modern-day.
- Other world, in which another universe is created specifically for the story.
Sure, fantasy can take place in the future, but generally if it does, it’s called science fiction, and it’d better stick to the laws of physics as we understand them. On that same note, present-day fantasy is often called horror, therefore it should really be classified as a sub-genre of fantasy. It’s difficult to make a sweeping epic of orcs and dragons set in our present day, unless you create an alternate reality, which is generally how it’s handled. The teen is swept into a book, goes down a rabbit hole, whirled away in a tornado, or opens a door that allows them to enter a fantastic realm. Rarely do we get an insight as to how the portal works. We just get a stock line of explanation stating that the door or book was magical, if we get any explanation at all. In SciFi, this would hardly ever do. Readers of SciFi want the exposition of how things work:
- Why did the wormhole appear?
- How does it work?
- To where does it lead?
- How long is the travel time through it?
- What happens when you travel through it? Do you get sick?
This, to me, is one of the great dividing differences between the genres.
When the science of something is explained plausibly, within the laws of physics it is SciFi.
When the science of something is not explained, it is fantasy.
For SciFi, you can’t simply talk about a world of orcs and dragons, you have to give the planet a name, talk a bit about the history of it, how it evolved, and it wouldn’t hurt to have them flying a spaceship. But with fantasy, if it’s a good enough story the hows and the whys aren’t really all that important.
If you liked that post, then try these...
Back to Basics on June 16th, 2008
The Unknown Story of the Day on July 7th, 2008
Egret Island on June 30th, 2008
Overused Words; the plight of the descriptive adjective on June 4th, 2008
In a Million Years... on March 4th, 2008
January 8th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Hey, welcome back! You’ve been post-less for a stretch. This is a good one though.
I’m lacking in knowledge of Fantasy, so not sure I can say much about the difference between it and Sci-Fi. I do write a fair bit of Space Opera though and there are times when I wonder if I’m writing Fantasy or Sci-Fi.
Keep up the thoughtful posts!
January 9th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Hey Ken, thanks! I’ve been busy as a bee lately, and am literally running out the door as I write this, but I hope to be settled down into the new year routine soon, and then I’ll be back to my old posting self again. Glad you liked this post!
January 11th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
I’m not so sure. There’s plenty of SF out there that is written with enough detail to allow those who need the explanation do the research. Also, I’ve seen fantasy that explains the orcs and fairies. I’ve also been in a critique where I was asked just exactly what kind of fairy I had in my story (it was the intermix of Bogan and Brownie, which can change places, you can tell by the nose, no really, the nose). And I’ve done SF where I haven’t explained the wormhole, but people accept it.
Also, within my group, when you say “nanotech” it is instantly labeled fantasy. Because nanotech has come to mean you can do magical things.
January 12th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
It’s a start, but it doesn’t account for tropes. There’s plenty of classic SF that doesn’t explain anything– the entire oeuvre of Philip K. Dick springs to mind. A lot of authors don’t care about tech, and just use terms the audience will understand. SF of the ’50s didn’t explain rocketry in every story; they just assumed that readers understood the basic concept of a rocket. Also, the concepts of “plausability” and even “the laws of physics” aren’t exactly neat and clean. What’s plausible for one reader is pure fantasy for another, and the laws of physics change with the times. Stories about time travel into the past are still SF in my book, even though current physics claims that’s not possible. (Not to mention FTL…)
Nevertheless, an interesting essay– too many people have abandoned the distinction between SF and fantasy in recent years, and I’m always happy to see it being debated!
January 16th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Steve: This is a GREAT comment: “Also, within my group, when you say “nanotech” it is instantly labeled fantasy. Because nanotech has come to mean you can do magical things.” This comment also works well with Gabriel’s comment below yours.
Gabriel: and an interesting debate it seems to have spawned, too, and I agree with you, which was one reason I wrote this. I’m not the guy to save SF (if it does need saving, which is an entirely other debate), I’m just a hack tossing chum into the water, hoping a big fat publishing shark will eat what I’m throwing them. But the big question to me begins with the fact that people used to be passionate about it. There was a time when the sanctity of SF was guarded, but then you look at new guys like me and even Ken McConnell (commenter above) and you’ll see that we just don’t care as much any more about the sanctity of SF. It’s my belief that the core problem (once again, if there is a problem, and sales figures tend to say yes, there is) could be a result of the loss of that thought process by its writers that kept SF holy and its precepts inviolate.