9 ms·

Any and all of these don't make an SF. It's debatable whether Dune is SF or Fantasy. Star Wars, for example, is an action fantasy with an SF theme (more or less

Any and all of these don't make an SF. It's debatable whether Dune is SF or Fantasy. Star Wars, for example, is an action fantasy with an SF theme (more or less). I've found a definition of what makes an SF recently and this is it: Science Fiction is speculative literature that generally explores the consequences of ideas which are roughly consistent with nature and scientific method, but are not facts of the author’s contemporary world. The stories often represent philosophical thought experiments presented in entertaining ways. Protagonists typically “think” rather than “shoot” their way out of problems, but the definition is flexible because there are no limits on an author’s imagination. At its core, SF is putting characters into far psychological extremes and thought experiments.

cafebabbe 9y ago
I'm not saying Dune is idiomatic Sci-fi ... but your definition fits almost perfectly Dune :) > The stories often represent philosophical thought experiments presented in entertaining ways Like acquired omniscience, for instance ? Or the idea of a galatical economy based on travel fuel ? > Protagonists typically “think” rather than “shoot” their way out of problems, About half of the story are analytical inner monologues... > SF is putting characters into far psychological extremes and thought experiments. Yeah well that's the TL;DR of the Atreides arc...
- Keyframe 9y ago
  It's debatable, as I've said. It certainly can be viewed as an SF. However, main story vehicle is that of 'the chosen one' and of 'the legend / prophecy' which is usually main driving vehicle in fantasy. So, maybe an SF Fantasy? :) Matrix trilogy dwells into that space as well. I love Lynch's Dune adaptation very much though.
  - fao_ 9y ago
    The Lion of Commare follows "the chosen one" arc, yet nobody doubts that it is science fiction.
- the_af 9y ago
  Indeed. There is very little action in Dune. Almost all of it is politicking and inner monologues. Dune is definitely NOT a space opera like Star Wars.
YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
I like my definition better: "if the main character is wielding a sword, then it's Fantasy; otherwise, it's Science Fiction". Star Wars, for instance, is Fantasy because lightsabers. Star Trek is Sci Fi because phasers. Hobbit- swords. Dune- weirding modules. Highlander- swords. Blade Runner- no swords. Etc etc.
- Keyframe 9y ago
  I get what you're saying, but I wouldn't cut it just like that. I mean, you could and it would kind of be valid, but hear me out. In my opinion, SF is really about thought experiments, psychological stress to the extreme and what if's. One could imagine a story with a swords and sorcery and still keep it like that. There's also that whole science aspect of SF which I don't think has to be held up to literally. Fantasy, in contrast, is more goal oriented where there's a clear hero's journey line to it. Whether more stories in fantasy wield a sword could lean distinction like you've mentioned. I'm trying to keep the line more at the base level. FWIW, I've been in TV and Film and storytelling for the better part of last ten years or so, so I might have another perspective on it. I'm looking at the distinction based on character development. SF stories have character arc driven by internal goals, whereas Fantasy is more the opposite where external motivation is the one driving the development of the inner goal (a proverbial journey, if you will). It's not a clear line when you look at the story structure, but it's definitely clear when you look at the arc and inner vs outer motivation on the character development front. I've been taught of a certain way of developing stories, so maybe that's my bias. Always develop the character change first and then build the supporting ones and their arcs as well. Then, build a story structure around it (like a separate supporting structure on top of it). Character change IS the story. If character is the same in the beginning and the end, you haven't told a story. The way character changes, not the mechanics, but expression of goals is usually what defines the genre in my opinion. Theme, setting, story structure, and rhythm are flairs which can be genre-specific, but are on top of the 'main story'. I might've gone maybe too much into it though.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
    I appreciate your reply and I find it well thought-of. The problem is that Science Fiction is, literally, Fantasy without swords (or sorcery, but my position is that the two basically go together). Or at least that's what it started as, back in the Golden Age. For instance, you'll probably know that in that era the editors of Sci Fi pulps would reject a story if it had magic in it, so writers instead framed magic as "psionics" - because that made their stories sound more scientifically plausible (for their time, always). So in essence, you could take the exact same story, with the same characters having the same motivations and advancing down the same goal etc, and simply change the external trappings, from sword and sorcery to ray guns and psionics, or vv, and- presto, genre change. The distinction is entirely artificial, is what I'm saying, and dictated more by the needs of the publishing (or TV, film, etc) industry than what kind of stories a writer wants to write or a reader/viewer enjoy. That is as true now as it was back then but it's actually a good thing, nowadays, because it means that you can tell the same stories either as Fantasy or as SF and all that matters is really how good the story is. Hero's journey with aliens and spaceships, for Star Wars, gritty realism with swords and dragons for The Game of Thrones. And why not? The best Fantasy and SF is very often found in the boundary between the two genres. The flimsier the boundary, the easier for the two genres to intermingle to the delight of all of us who enjoy a good story, regardless of the trappings. Btw, I should say that most of my interest in (and knowledge of) Fantasy and SF comes from novels, rather than TV shows and films. I appreciate that TV shows, in particular, have been able to tell more engaging stories in recent times (eg. I'm totally a BSG fangirl) but still TV prioritises tropes and specialises in providing a quick fix- which though makes my criterion even more relevant. In writing, it's a lot easier to escape the tropes and just tell a story about people doing things, rather than who-fought-whom-with-what.

cafebabbe 9y ago

I'm not saying Dune is idiomatic Sci-fi ... but your definition fits almost perfectly Dune :) > The stories often represent philosophical thought experiments presented in entertaining ways Like acquired omniscience, for instance ? Or the idea of a galatical economy based on travel fuel ? > Protagonists typically “think” rather than “shoot” their way out of problems, About half of the story are analytical inner monologues... > SF is putting characters into far psychological extremes and thought experiments. Yeah well that's the TL;DR of the Atreides arc...

Keyframe 9y ago
It's debatable, as I've said. It certainly can be viewed as an SF. However, main story vehicle is that of 'the chosen one' and of 'the legend / prophecy' which is usually main driving vehicle in fantasy. So, maybe an SF Fantasy? :) Matrix trilogy dwells into that space as well. I love Lynch's Dune adaptation very much though.
- fao_ 9y ago
  The Lion of Commare follows "the chosen one" arc, yet nobody doubts that it is science fiction.
the_af 9y ago
Indeed. There is very little action in Dune. Almost all of it is politicking and inner monologues. Dune is definitely NOT a space opera like Star Wars.

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago

I like my definition better: "if the main character is wielding a sword, then it's Fantasy; otherwise, it's Science Fiction". Star Wars, for instance, is Fantasy because lightsabers. Star Trek is Sci Fi because phasers. Hobbit- swords. Dune- weirding modules. Highlander- swords. Blade Runner- no swords. Etc etc.

Keyframe 9y ago
I get what you're saying, but I wouldn't cut it just like that. I mean, you could and it would kind of be valid, but hear me out. In my opinion, SF is really about thought experiments, psychological stress to the extreme and what if's. One could imagine a story with a swords and sorcery and still keep it like that. There's also that whole science aspect of SF which I don't think has to be held up to literally. Fantasy, in contrast, is more goal oriented where there's a clear hero's journey line to it. Whether more stories in fantasy wield a sword could lean distinction like you've mentioned. I'm trying to keep the line more at the base level. FWIW, I've been in TV and Film and storytelling for the better part of last ten years or so, so I might have another perspective on it. I'm looking at the distinction based on character development. SF stories have character arc driven by internal goals, whereas Fantasy is more the opposite where external motivation is the one driving the development of the inner goal (a proverbial journey, if you will). It's not a clear line when you look at the story structure, but it's definitely clear when you look at the arc and inner vs outer motivation on the character development front. I've been taught of a certain way of developing stories, so maybe that's my bias. Always develop the character change first and then build the supporting ones and their arcs as well. Then, build a story structure around it (like a separate supporting structure on top of it). Character change IS the story. If character is the same in the beginning and the end, you haven't told a story. The way character changes, not the mechanics, but expression of goals is usually what defines the genre in my opinion. Theme, setting, story structure, and rhythm are flairs which can be genre-specific, but are on top of the 'main story'. I might've gone maybe too much into it though.
- YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
  I appreciate your reply and I find it well thought-of. The problem is that Science Fiction is, literally, Fantasy without swords (or sorcery, but my position is that the two basically go together). Or at least that's what it started as, back in the Golden Age. For instance, you'll probably know that in that era the editors of Sci Fi pulps would reject a story if it had magic in it, so writers instead framed magic as "psionics" - because that made their stories sound more scientifically plausible (for their time, always). So in essence, you could take the exact same story, with the same characters having the same motivations and advancing down the same goal etc, and simply change the external trappings, from sword and sorcery to ray guns and psionics, or vv, and- presto, genre change. The distinction is entirely artificial, is what I'm saying, and dictated more by the needs of the publishing (or TV, film, etc) industry than what kind of stories a writer wants to write or a reader/viewer enjoy. That is as true now as it was back then but it's actually a good thing, nowadays, because it means that you can tell the same stories either as Fantasy or as SF and all that matters is really how good the story is. Hero's journey with aliens and spaceships, for Star Wars, gritty realism with swords and dragons for The Game of Thrones. And why not? The best Fantasy and SF is very often found in the boundary between the two genres. The flimsier the boundary, the easier for the two genres to intermingle to the delight of all of us who enjoy a good story, regardless of the trappings. Btw, I should say that most of my interest in (and knowledge of) Fantasy and SF comes from novels, rather than TV shows and films. I appreciate that TV shows, in particular, have been able to tell more engaging stories in recent times (eg. I'm totally a BSG fangirl) but still TV prioritises tropes and specialises in providing a quick fix- which though makes my criterion even more relevant. In writing, it's a lot easier to escape the tropes and just tell a story about people doing things, rather than who-fought-whom-with-what.