Individual Entry: Science Fiction vs. Fantasy
« Resolute | Main | Someone else “Doing It” »

If you read this blog, PLEASE sign in to my guest book on frappr. No personally identifying information is needed, so this is risk-free. Just provide a name (even a nickname), your zip code, and any statement you want to make ("hi" is sufficient).

If you want to know more about me, click here.

January 02, 2008

Thoughts : Science Fiction vs. Fantasy

One of the easiest arguments to instigate at WorldCon (the World Science Fiction Convention) is the question: “How do you distinguish between Science Fiction vs. Fantasy?” Most book stores don’t even bother making the distinction – lumping all of the books together in one section. Is the distinction even useful or meaningful? Having read several Neil Gaiman “fantasy” stories last week, I started thinking of this question in the context of why I enjoy Neil’s work and not a lot of other modern fantasy.

The classic definitions that most people use follow the form that Arthur C. Clarke employs: “Science fiction is something that could happen – but usually you wouldn’t want it to. Fantasy is something that couldn’t happen – though you often wish it would.” The operative part of that definition being that if a story could in theory happen at some point in the future (or have happened at some point in the past), then it is science fiction because it is grounded in real-world science. If the story could not possibly happen because it violates some law of nature, then it is fantasy.

The problem with that definition is that it classifies almost everything as “fantasy”. Have a story about space ships traveling between stars faster than the speed of light? Fantasy (physics says it can’t happen). Teleportation? Fantasy. Time Travel? Probably Fantasy. In fact most of the classic “Sci Fi” tropes are all now known to be physically impossible, so you’d have to classify all of those stories as Fantasy. What’s more, this definition means that many stories are one scientific discovery away from being reclassified. There are stories that would have been determined to be Science Fiction when they were written; but new science has since proved them to be impossible. Likewise someone could always discover a new level of physics that enables one of these “impossibilities” under certain conditions. Not a very useful definition in my opinion.

All this led me to take a different approach. I started to think about the Science Fiction and Fantasy stories I really liked – what made “good” SciFi vs. what made “good” fantasy. I came up with a different definition, one that actually capitalizes on the other part of Clarke’s definition – the “you wouldn’t want it to”/“wish it would” part.

It is often said that “Science Fiction is the Literature of ideas”, and I think that cuts closer to the truth. Good Science Fiction makes the reader think. It asks questions. What would it be like if. . .? Would you still think that if. . .? What would happen if. . .? Science Fiction is written to engage the reader’s brain and to get them thinking about some issue. The actual science in the stories really only exists to help us suspend disbelief as we read. A story would not be effective at making us think if our first thoughts are always “that could never happen”, so enough of an explanation need to be given to get us past that and on to the real issues presented.

Then what about Fantasy? The fantasy stories I like the most are those that engage my heart. They make me feel something – hope, joy, fear, wonder, compassion, and so on. This is why fantasy stories can just use explanations like “it’s magic” because what you think about the story isn’t important. What matters is how it makes you feel. It doesn’t ask how you feel about something, it makes you feel something.

So to me, Science Fiction is Literature of the Mind. It uses artificial scenarios to make the reader think about something. Fantasy is Literature of the Heart. It uses artificial scenarios to make the reader feel something.

Posted by Steven at January 2, 2008 05:00 AM

Comments

I like that way of thinking about it, and I agree as far as "good" sci-fi and fantasy goes.

But what about stories that clearly belong in the sci-fi/fantasy lump but aren't "good" in the sense of making you think or feel: a story that's set in another world, but doesn't go any deeper in the reader's heart or mind? How would you classify them? What about something like Star Wars? - it's a classic example of sci-fi, but doesn't really engage the mind or the heart except for the die-hard fans.

Posted by: Melissa at January 2, 2008 02:35 PM

Whether it be space travel or magic, both genres simply say 'there is this thing that you must accept, now let's get on with the story.' The acceptance of that thing, the context, is easier if you happen to like that kind of context, nothing more. It may give you different possible solutions to particular puzzles, but it is just as hard to accept a black sheriff in the 1880s or a thrown together team managing to win a championship. It is background. It is merely the stage upon which the actors strut.

In the end, the stories aren't about the space ships or the team or the sheriff at all. The context is merely a vehicle to help get the author's specific points across.

In my mind there is only fiction (a story not based on events), fact (biographies, histories, descriptions of events), and reference.

I would argue it is possible to write the same fantasy in any of the contexts - as Star Wars did by using stories from the Westerns to tell a Galactic tale.

Posted by: janbergs [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 2, 2008 02:44 PM

Re: Star Wars – I classify it as fantasy (although, perhaps, not very good fantasy). Lucas is on record as having tried to evoke Jungian archetypes to tell a story of failure and redemption. He wanted the viewer to feel something as a result of Luke and Anakin's stories, not think about it.

However, you are correct that there are works where the authors intent is not so clear, and so they are hard to categorize; but at least the ones you can categorize make sense.

Posted by: Steven at January 2, 2008 03:14 PM

I was going to post another comment, but it became long and not wholly relevant to yours. So I put it on my blog instead.

Posted by: Melissa at January 3, 2008 04:15 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)