11 ms·

Science Fiction vs. Science Fantasy

87 points by aldarion 3y ago

kayodelycaon 3y ago
As someone who writes both science fiction and fantasy, I find this to be a good high-level review of the differences. You could do a lot of quibbling and no-true-Scotsman arguments but it’s ultimately a fuzzy line where each work is categorized by preponderance of evidence.
zgluck 3y ago
It's supremely annoying when bookstores put all of their sci-fi and fantasy inventory in one alphabetically sorted "sci-fi/fantasy" section. (And then 80% of it is fantasy...)
- croes 3y ago
  And then it's mostly Harry Potter and LOTR
- ilaksh 3y ago
  I get the impression that a significant percentage of people can't tell the difference between science fantasy and science fiction. Due to a lack of science education or understanding of technology or cognitive ability or who knows.
- Scubabear68 3y ago
  For the first time ever our local Barnes and Noble have independent Fantasy and Sci Fi sections. It is very refreshing.
wrp 3y ago
TFA uses 20 000 Leagues Under the Sea as a prototypical example of science fiction. I'm not sure that's a good example, because Jules Verne took his science and technology very seriously. As I recall, he didn't put fictional technology in his stories, but only things he had actually seen demonstrated at industrial expos. Verne used his plots more as support for descriptions of new technologies and scientific discoveries rather than the other way around.
- forgotpwd16 3y ago
  >took his science and technology very seriously >he didn't put fictional technology in his stories Aka hard sci-fi.
- burkaman 3y ago
  The submarine he was inspired by never went deeper than 10 meters: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Plongeur https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Plongeur. It's still science fiction even if the speculative technology is based on very solid real-world evidence - that just makes it hard sci-fi.
  - wrp 3y ago
    > ...that just makes it hard sci-fi. As I understand the term, hard sci-fi is based on careful use of current scientific knowledge to propose plausible future technologies. Verne tried to use only technologies that had actually been implemented. So, under this definition, Verne's works were no more sci-fi than Tom Clancy.
    - burkaman 3y ago
      > Verne tried to use only technologies that had actually been implemented. No he didn't. The technology to build the submarine he imagined had not been implemented. Additionally, a cannon that could fire humans into space had not been implemented in 1865 when he wrote From the Earth to the Moon, and the interior of volcanos and the Earth's core had not been explored when he wrote Journey to the Center of the Earth. I really think you're selling him short - he used cutting-edge scientific theories as inspiration for imaginative, speculative stories, he didn't limit himself to existing inventions. I have plenty of respect for Tom Clancy as well but they are very different writers with very different approaches.
- bluGill 3y ago
  That is what makes it hard science fiction. Everything that didn't exist could have existed if someone rich tried to build it. Or at least it seems reasonable, it is possible that they didn't know something then and so it wouldn't work. In 20000 leagues under the sea he may not have correctly accounted for water pressure, and it seems like there was more space on the sub than is reasonable.
kzrdude 3y ago
What's the category for Dune? I think it has aspects of both, the Science Fantasy description fits.
- sanex 3y ago
  I agree that it is definitely Science Fantasy. All of humanities memories somehow encoded in DNA and interstellar space travel from taking too many drugs. It also has force fields and anti gravity. The fact it was a direct influence for Star Wars is more evidence that they belong in the same category.
  - throwaway60707 3y ago
    Agreed on all being fantasy but > All of humanities memories somehow encoded in DNA Why not? The Dune universe is in a very far future, the books are happening 10 thousand years after humanity has been practically completely replaced by AIs and mind-uploaded humans for another 10 thousand years. The factions in Dune perform extensive bioengineering, and that is after the anti-computer revolution. Why couldn't the computers/people with computers/people-computers before the revolution bioengineer the genetic memory? Or the people who performed the transition back to biological life, perhaps as a way to ensure nobody ever forgets the 10 thousand years of slavery? > interstellar space travel from taking too many drugs Interstellar travel in Dune is done using the Holtzmann effect, basically a warp technology. The spice gives them precognition abilities that are necessary to not crash into something while warping.
ramblerman 3y ago
star trek vs star wars is the clear distinction for me. Not sure I agree with the premise that star trek has elements of science fantasy because the idea of humanity working together flawlessly is unrealistic. I mean he is right it is unrealistic, but by that token any fiction piece is technically "fantasy".
- krapp 3y ago
  >Not sure I agree with the premise that star trek has elements of science fantasy because the idea of humanity working together flawlessly is unrealistic. It is, but the author didn't base their argument on that entirely. More so, Star Trek has never cared about science except as set-dressing for drama. People say Star Trek's warp drives are based on the Alcubierre drive but they really aren't - they don't behave the way an Alcubierre drive should. Along with all other Trek technology it's basically magic, nothing is bound by realistic physics. You have immortal, godlike beings like the Q, you have people coming back from the dead, psychic phenomena, time travel whose rules change with each episode. In the last episode of SNW, you had a weird space anomaly that made people sing like a musical. I mean, you could put that in a D&D campaign and call it magic and it would work. Really, all science fiction is a subset of fantasy. "science fantasy" is just science fiction that isn't actually about the science, which is the bulk of the genre.
  - dsr_ 3y ago
    "Really, all science fiction is a subset of fantasy. "science fantasy" is just science fiction that isn't actually about the science, which is the bulk of the genre." All fiction is fantasy. Fantasy is the root of all fiction. As soon as one starts to change reality, by lying about what someone said or thinking about what you could have said, that's fantasy. All labels are either useful fuzzy groupings or non-useful groupings. "High fantasy" is a label that gets you works closer in some conceptual space to The Lord of the Rings than to The Manchurian Candidate. "Isekai" is a very definite label that applies to The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe and does not apply to Space Quest, but it applies more to Space Quest than to most episodes of Star Trek (except The City On The Edge of Forever, which is definitely isekai, and some similar episodes.) "Science fiction" is a marketing promise that if there are elves, there will be an evolutionary heritage for them and a reason that you don't notice them walking to your local pub (no guarantees about the walk back.) Spock is a kind of half-space-elf. The space elves split into two groups a long time ago -- the ones who subscribed to a rationalist approach, and the ones who had a religion based on passion.
tsujamin 3y ago
I sure hope the Archangel-class ships in the Hyperion cantos are Science Fantasy :’)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
karaterobot 3y ago
Strict genre taxonomy is an unsolvable problem in my opinion. Take this business about being scientific as an example: sorry gang, but a functioning FTL drive is not one bit less magical than a wizard casting a fireball out of a magic wand while riding on a dragon. Even if you use the language of science to talk about it. Both are violations of the laws of physics, and I do not believe it's helpful to say that one impossible thing is less impossible than another impossible thing. When it gets down to it, science fiction, and fantasy, and science fantasy, and urban fantasy, and every other genre is defined by this: where in the store can we put the book so that customers buy it? What tropes should we tell the artist to paint on the cover, so the customers who like that stuff know they should buy it? Stuff like that. In other words, think of genres only as artificial marketing concepts, it's the only thing that makes sense.
jmyeet 3y ago
I don't really agree with this framing. Science fiction is usually differentiated between hard sci-fi and space opera. The line is blurry. Hard sci-fi is, or tries to be, rooted in actual science. The science can be speculative (eg FTL travel, FTL communication, wormholes) that really have no basis in any actual theory but these still count as "science". The focus of the work is to explore the implications of some technology or science. Space opera, on the other hand, doesn't focus on the science (speculative or otherwise). It's just "there". The focus is more on traditional melodramatic elements of narrative. Hard sci-fi examples: pretty much anything by Larry Niven, Archur C. Clarke or Alastair Reynolds. Space opera: Star Trek, Star Wars. I see science fantasy as the mixing of sci-fi and traditional fantasy elements (eg wizards in spaceships) or where technology takes on the appearance of fantasy elements (eg mental powers that are essentially "magic").
- Narishma 3y ago
  I feel like space opera is more about the plot. You can have hard sci-fi space opera (the Expanse) or soft sci-fi opera (Starwars, Startrek).
  - jmyeet 3y ago
    The Expanse is very much space opera. Don't get me wrong: I love the show. But the only real difference between it and Star Trek (science-wise) is that The Expanse has zero-gravity. It still has the inertialess movement common in space opera.
    - Narishma 3y ago
      What do you mean by inertialess movement?
    - hollerith 3y ago
      I didn't notice anything in The Expanse that contradicts the laws of motion, and it is the only fiction TV show I can think of that is careful in that way. For example, more than once or twice a space ship is shown firing opposite the ship's direction of travel during the second half of the ship's trajectory. And I seem to recall a scene showing a ship (with only one large engine, which of course is the sensible way to do it) doing a flip at the half-way point to point the engine directly opposite to the direction of travel.
protocolture 3y ago
The problem is that near everything in 40k has been a part of a classic or hard scifi at some point. Its a shit dichotomy. Authors should be able to play around with demons, philosophy, psychics etc etc, without being slapped in the face with some kind of demeaning label designed to lessen them. The real point of comparison is shit vs good. 40k is largely terrible. Dan Abnett can string a yarn together, but Graham McNeil and most other authors coming up behind him are hot trash. This isnt just because Abnett can write, but because he has a lot of experience outside the Black Library can spread his wings and grow the thing in new directions without being hampered by some nard yelling "lore" like it means anything. My touchstone is something like Dying Earth. If you can weave a story that contains unicorns, grues and wizards and still have it be an exploration, a what if, wizards controlled the world immediately before the explosion of our dying star, its legit. I really hate labels. But its legit scifi, its legit fantasy. Its legit critical mans thinking material. But you can have all those same elements, write it poorly, and its at best popcorn trash.
D13Fd 3y ago
I like this, although I feel like there is something missing. The Martian, for example, is fantasy in that it imagines a Mars climate that doesn't exist and can never exist.
- aldarion 3y ago
  No, that just means it gets details wrong. But it is still science fiction - and (tries to be) rather hard sci-fi.
sklargh 3y ago
I feel that Event Horizon is the most effective science fantasy movie produced. I've seen it once, which was enough to leave an indelible mark on me. Event Horizon combines the supernatural with some elements of vaguely plausible science fiction. The movie comes together in a way that traces back to the present-day with a pretty bright line, especially in prop and spaceship design. It keeps you connected and then dumps the fantasy element on you hard. Disturbing but well done stuff. Deeper nerd-cut, it's a 40K prequel, if only unofficially.
- BLKNSLVR 3y ago
  Seconded. The first time I watched it I was away from work, sick, by myself in a dark room with no other distractions. Watching it like that left an indelible mark on me too. I lived it.
- fsloth 3y ago
  "Deeper nerd-cut, it's a 40K prequel, if only unofficially." Yup. Horrors of the warp could hardly be better brought to cinematic form. The actors are surprising high profile as well. An excellent "B" movie that owns itself 100%.
- aldarion 3y ago
  Yep. Warhammer 40k and the Event Horizon are what made me fall in love with the genre.
KineticLensman 3y ago
>> Science fantasy stories tend to be space operas: focus on characters and their adventures rather than technology Now I'd like to see a definition of 'space opera'. Here's Brian Aldiss' take on it: "Science Fiction is a big muscular horny creature, with a mass of bristling antenna and proprioceptors on its skull. It has a smaller sister, a gentle creature with red lips and a dash of stardust in her hair. Her name is Space Opera". This is a great definition although arguably not as useful when you have to classify actual stories.
- 7thaccount 3y ago
  I think of Science Fiction as a very broad field with lots of sub genres like hard science fiction where the science is front-and-center and obeys our current understanding of physics to space opera that has a grandiose storytelling component and is epic in scale. I don't think any of these are firm categories and many books have aspects of many sub-genres
  - KineticLensman 3y ago
    > I don't think any of these are firm categories and many books have aspects of many sub-genres Agree. Some also vary as they progress. E.g. the Charles Stross 'Merchant Princes' sequence that starts out looking like a portal fantasy (people can jump to parallel worlds by looking at a special pattern) but (mild spoiler) becomes quite hard SF as the mechanisms behind the jumping become understood by the protagonists.
- Macha 3y ago
  To me Space Opera is more about the plot (large scale, the main characters being important movers in the setting) while the Science Fiction vs Science Fantasy debate is more about the setting. That is, I think it's possible to have Space Opera Science Fiction (imagine if you removed the protomolecule and its tech from the Expanse and just had the Earth/Mars/Belts political story) or Space Opera Science Fantasy (Star Wars of course is the most prominent example).
golol 3y ago
IMO if there is no fictional science in your story, then it is engineering fiction, not science fiction.
- bashinator 3y ago
  IMO you can have fictional science without going into the fantasy realm, simply by keeping it consistent with our current understanding of the Universe. Alistair Reynolds has written some truly epic space opera that completely omits FTL travel, much to the benefit of the story.
  - golol 3y ago
    Yea I'm being a bit cheeky. I just want to push back a bit against hard sci-fi. It can be really interesting to come up with new science as opposed to just coming up with new engineering given known science. Greg Egan books made me realize that.
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
  See also: Technothriller (1) which is on the edge between thriller and sci-fi - e.g. An action movie with a computer virus bouncing off satellites to hack a moon mission could have little or no "fictional science". James Bond in "Moonraker" 1979 fits this category. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techno-thriller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techno-thriller
  - golol 3y ago
    Also the Martian iirc.
Scubabear68 3y ago
I like going into sub genres of Sci Fi (and liked when it was referred to as speculative fiction to cover the gamut, including Fantasy). In particular, I love Military Sci fiction is a close cousin of Space Opera, but with a harder core emphasis on military logistics, strategy and tactics in a sci fi setting. Time Travel Sci fiction. Hard science fiction. Hybrid worlds - think Proton / Phaze in Piers Anthony’s Split Infinity series, or his Incarnations of Immortality. Social science fiction (think Stranger in a Strange Land). Juveniles. The list goes on!
- protocolture 3y ago
  Ditto. Speculative Fiction is a better label. It seems authors these days like to write to a specific set of sub genres and tropes. Narrowing their vision. I want cool space stuff, cool fantasy stuff, cool science stuff.
- earnesti 3y ago
  What books are your favourite military scifi?
  - stevekemp 3y ago
    Not the parent but The Forever War by Joe Haldemann is a classic. (As is Starship Troopers). For something different, think "navel warfare in space", the Lost Fleet series from Jack Campbell dealt with relativistic effects in space, with regard to combat, and the difficulties of predicting where/when people were.
    - bl0b 3y ago
      I enjoyed the Machineries of Empire trilogy by Yoon Ha Lee. It also is labelled a space opera and has a decent amount of naval warfare in space
    - _0ffh 3y ago
      As you mention "naval warfare in space", David Webers "Honor Harrington" series is apparently quite well regarded. Weber himself has described the series as "Horatio Hornblower" in space.
jamesjyu 3y ago
There are also other ways to slice science fiction besides the tired trope of hard/soft, like naturalistic/expressionistic which I write about here [1]. I find that viewing different axises like this can help question our assumptions about fiction. [1] https://jamesyu.substack.com/p/the-problem-with-hard-science-fiction https://jamesyu.substack.com/p/the-problem-with-hard-science...
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  This is like the intro philosophy exercise of trying to define a chair. You inevitably lose something when you boil things down. I think using multiple axis definitely gets you closer. Its also why the politcal compass memes subreddit is popular. Simply adding a authoritarian/libertarian axis to the traditional left/right axis accounts for a lot more nuance in the political spectrum.
zokier 3y ago
There is some meta-level irony in that this sort of classification is scifi in itself; in reality 90% of stuff labeled as hard scifi is more like soft scifi, and the distinction between soft scifi and sci fantasy is somewhere between subjective, arbitrary, and contextual.
eterps 3y ago
For me personally, "The Andromeda Strain" (1971) feels like science fiction that is true to the term itself, especially in its adherence to scientific principles.
NalNezumi 3y ago
I agree to the general point and have used similar argument to why I don't really get involved in star wars or Star trek. I think for layman (like me) a question to ask to make the distinction is just to ask "if we replace all the science element in the scifi with magic, would anything change?" In star wars the force could simply be magic, light saber is the magic swords, space travel is portal between worlds, aliens is just magic species (yoda is a fairy), and almost nothing of the story or any core message would change. Now can you say the same for say, Black Mirror? Not really, removing the "science / tech" from those stories will drastically change the meaning of the story and how the audience will relate to it. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" as Arthur C. Clarke said. Core of good science fiction is to make that magic relatable and still somewhat convincing that "in the future, this might be something we would just call science"
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  Eh. I think that is backwards. Star Wars would not (and in some works, does not) work without the magic. Science Star Wars is bad. Star Wars worked because it operated under a backdrop of objective morality. Good guys who learned the virtues of being good. Bad guys who were kind of just evil. When you choose to lean into the science you tend to start doing things related to practical consequences of the tech that frankly just make the universe a lot shittier. Things like Jedi blood, droids that have machine intelligence and perfectly calculated 360 no scope shooting instead of their goofy “organic” personalities and flaws, light speed kamikaze attacks, annoying characters asking if the bad guys are the ones self identifying as the dark side powered by hate or is it some dickish wealthy arms dealers? The important difference imo is not realism but whether the ability of the tech comes from supposed ingenuity or does it come from moralistic fantasy willpower stuff. Game of thrones is more sci fi than Star Wars. While the former has fantasy elements, a lot of it is deconstructed practical consequences of the premise of the tech and magic. Game of thrones is not by any means emblematic here of what I’m saying though* The techification of Star Wars is just a slow grind of ruining a world with canon
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    I think the problem with Star Wars isn't the objective morality, but rather the simplistic morality. Stories with objective morality can still present complex moral situations, dilemmas in which the answer isn't clear cut despite morality being objective. It's been many years since I've read it, but IIRC I think Ender's Game is a good example of this. The author at least believes in objective morality (from what I understand) but the situation presented to Ender is morally complex.
kdamica 3y ago
I’m a huge Star Wars fan, but i have always considered it fantasy rather than scifi.
wheelerof4te 3y ago
> Soft science fiction takes scientific concepts and theories and bases itelf on their practical applications. Things such as warp drive, hyperspace / subspace and jump drive are all based in Einstein’s timespace and related concepts. Specifically, warp drive and jump drive are all based around gravitational bending of timespace being used to move the space ship is part of instead of the ship itself – the ship thus travels faster than light without moving faster than light. Hyperspace is based on moving from realspace into theoretical dimension where distances are significantly reduced, and then popping back up. I don't consider warp drive or hyperspace travel "soft" sci-fi at all. These things are still in the domain of mere speculation, however much "theory" you throw at them. On the other hand, laser weapons can be considered "soft", since we already have working prototypes. Albeit, they still aren't practical in the sense that laser weaponry is portraited in movies. I believe it's hard to write convincing science fiction. There are many required know-hows to write quality works based on futuristic science. Writers often jump into pit-falls trying to incorporate speculative theories and pseudo-science into their work.
- aldarion 3y ago
  Laser weapons as such would be "hard" sci-fi precisely because we have working prototypes. Basically: hard sci-fi: we have concepts and understand how to apply them, but it may not be practical (e.g. Orion drive) soft sci-fi: we have concepts but no idea how to apply them (e.g. antimatter power plants) science fantasy: anything goes, technobabble as a veeneer for lack of science But yes, writing convincing science fiction is hard.
  - wheelerof4te 3y ago
    Looks like I swapped the terms. Thanks.
javajosh 3y ago
Sadly, I've come to believe that any story with FTL in it must be classified as fantasy. I might be willing to accept natural wormhole travel. Even with generation ships, authors vastly underestimate the difficulties of traveling interstellar distances. When authors posit intergalactic travel, forget about it! Galaxies might as well be pocket universes because they don't interact. (Unless they collide, which will happen with the Milky Way and Andromeda in about 4.5 billion years. Oh man if we can make it that long and have even slow interstellar travel, what an opportunity for exploration!) But yeah, thank god most of science fiction is actually fantasy because if any of those things were possible, they'd immediately be used to destroy planets. Ships going FTL could be collided into a planet. Teleportation and easily accessed anti-matter could be used to annihilate cities - or planets. Most authors don't even bother building in reasons why that can't happen, its just that no-one thinks of doing it. I think the limits of the real world are quite fascinating. It's almost like reality was designed to support a huge array of civilizations that cannot interfere with each other. Interstellar travel is so hard that any civ capable of it is going to be capable of executing technologically advanced projects over centuries or millenia, and I daresay such a civ is not doing it for conquest, but to discover and explore. If the urge is militaristic, then such a civ would turn on itself long before the project succeeds. There's a kind of poetry to it.
- fastball 3y ago
  Most scifi I've read with FTL usually has some explanation that isn't pure fantasy. For example, I just finished reading A Fire Upon the Deep[1] by Vernor Vinge, and the in-universe explanation for FTL in the novel is that different regions of our galaxy effectively have different laws of physics, which is (admittedly somewhat handwavingly) due to the density of the interstellar medium. Sure, FTL travel is never grounded in our understanding of physics and the universe, but do you really think our understanding is anywhere near complete? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Fire_Upon_the_Deep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Fire_Upon_the_Deep
  - throwaway60707 3y ago
    Deepness in the Sky is good too, avoid Children of the Sky
GuB-42 3y ago
I think there are two axis there. An axis of "hardness" and an axis of realness. With hardness being how scientific the approach is, and the other axis is how close the world is to the real world. For example: - Hard science fiction: The Martian Mars is real, the laws of physics are the same as in the real world and are followed as closely as possible. - Soft science fiction (here called science fantasy): Star Wars The setting is presented like an unexplored part of the world we live in rather than something completely made up. The difference with the real world is that there are no strict rules, the laws of physics can be broken at any time if the story calls for it instead of making the laws of physics a plot point. - Soft fantasy: The Lord of the Rings Not only the world is made up, there is unexplained magic, but it doesn't have consistent rules. You are free to do as you like, to tell a good story is the only thing that matters. - Hard fantasy: Mistborn series The world is made up, there is magic, but the magic is essentially alternate laws of physics. A dragon may be present, but expect its anatomy, biology and "power source" to be explained in great detail.
- fastball 3y ago
  The limitation in the case of science fiction is that something could be hard, we just don't understand the underlying rules of the universe that would make it possible. The authors of course don't know this, as they are limited by current human understanding, but they could inadvertently be writing hard fiction that sounds soft to us.
- ck425 3y ago
  > - Hard fantasy: Mistborn series How do you square that when Mistborn become scifi?
  - GuB-42 3y ago
    It is a scale, not a pigeonhole. It seems that Mistborn is veering towards sci-fi, so I guess it will become fantasy-ish sci-fi compared to the more pure fantasy of the first book. I didn't read the latter books, but I guess it will never be pure, since it involves a magic system that is taken as an axiom, and I don't think there is any intention to tie it to the real world.
aaron695 3y ago
[dead]
brodouevencode 3y ago
Orson Scott Card said the difference is that fantasy has trees and fiction has sheet metal.
Nihilartikel 3y ago
My sloppy distinction between hard sci Fi vs soft/fantasy sci Fi is how much attention is paid to artificial gravity, and how serious of a hazard the vacuum of space presents. In space at least. Likewise with paradox in time travel stories.
unethical_ban 3y ago
It's a reasonable divide. I'm wrapping up the Expanse series and I would consider it soft science fiction, veering into sci-fi. (mild spoiler? Maybe?) On one hand, they have "epstein" drives which aren't FTL but constantly accelerate. Caring about gravity and physics is huge in the books, as are components of biology. On the other hand, the protomolecule and its associated story elements are all completely made up. There is no plausible explanation for its existence in our universe. The series is very much about humanity, the characters, and how the characters have developed in the incredible lifetime that occurs through the series. In that way, it is very much "Space Opera" and not sci-fi. But when I'm telling my friends what I'm reading, I don't want to explain "space opera" so I just say sci-fi. I guess I'm not helping. Likewise, Battlestar Galactica is definitely space fantasy (thanks season 4).
gyrovagueGeist 3y ago
imo the distinction has little to do with the "hardness" of the science. Science fiction has a thesis about society, technology, and how it shapes and reflects us (see: the root at Frankenstein) Science fantasy is about the hero's journey These are not mutually exclusive things, but it does also explain the Star Trek/Star Wars divide some are commenting on here.
mdorazio 3y ago
I’ve personally come to the conclusion that the vast majority of sci-fi is sci-fantasy for the simple reason that I can’t convince myself fleshy humans have any meaningful place in the exploratory parts of the future. Novels featuring human crews of spaceships doing more than maintenance, let alone humans in combat scenarios are increasingly laughable. It’s 2023 and humans on crewed SpaceX flights already don’t do anything. Humans 100 years from now will be even less necessary, not more. Any sci-fi recommendations where the fleshy meat bags are mostly useless? I enjoyed the earlier Murderbot novels, thought the Bobiverse was interesting, and have already read all the Culture and Polity universe books.
- Klaster_1 3y ago
  Greg Egan's Incandescence and Diaspora fit the bill.
  - jcul 3y ago
    Yeah, I was about to recommend Diaspora just before I spotted your comment.
- dmoy 3y ago
  One of the three manifold books (Baxter), I forget which one, has a very beginning with your exact conclusion (no meat bags at all), and later a subsection/ending that at least doesnt have human fleshy meat bags.
- hirsin 3y ago
  Children of Time/Ruin handles the "what are the living things for?" decently well, although does skate towards the "maybe nothing?" conclusion over time. Haven't gotten the third book so will see.
- ABS 3y ago
  Charles Stross' Accelerando, which is also available for free: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/accelerando/accelerando-intro.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/accelera...
jccalhoun 3y ago
The way I like to think about this is Rick Altman's Sementic/Syntactic approach to genre. (a short summary here: https://introfilmgenres.wordpress.com/2014/09/09/the-semanticsyntactic-approach-and-genre-development/ https://introfilmgenres.wordpress.com/2014/09/09/the-semanti... ) Basically there are stock elements like space, lasers, aliens, etc. and there are thematic elements like themes of futurism, exploration, paradoxes, what is live? (these are just the ones I came up with off the top of my head) and just because a work has one of these doesn't make it part of that genre. Apollo 13 is set (largely) in space but I don't think people would call it science fiction. Star Wars is set in space but I have seen it argued thematically it is a western. (I think in the book Film/Genre Altman added a third category but I don't remember it and thought the book was pretty confusing compared to the initial article he wrote.)
__MatrixMan__ 3y ago
If the distinction that we're after is Science Fiction vs Science Fantasy, then I think it should focus less on how the science is handled (since that appears in both labels anyhow) and more on whether the Fiction is Fantasy. The soul of scifi, science aside, is that it's a commentary on the present. 1984 feels like sci-fi despite not really having much to do with the science that appears in it because its a cautionary tale about where we're going if we don't change our ways. So yes it's about whether elements of the story are connected to reality somehow, but I don't think the relevant elements are the scientific ones.
r00fus 3y ago
Star Wars is science fantasy but refreshingly Andor is more sci fi. May be why I liked it so much.
thefurdrake 3y ago
Accusing Paolini of "stealing" dragonriding from Mcaffrey made me dump all the limited credibility this post had for me. I love both series and have the capacity to comprehend very few ideas spontaneously appear in a vacuum without external influence. There were also a large number of dragonriding stories written in between Dragonquest and Eragon. Did they steal from Anne, too? Is the omnipresence of elves and dwarves in modern fantasy all theft from Tolkien? Did Anne steal dragons from $GeneralEuropeanMythology? Did she steal the idea of colonizing other planets from early scifi writers? Did she steal the idea of aliens causing a galactic war early scifi writers? Dumb take, bad opinion. All writing is derivative. The tone of Pern and the tone of Inheritance are substantively different.
- DropInIn 3y ago
  " Is the omnipresence of elves and dwarves in modern fantasy all theft from Tolkien?" In the form they seem to all take? Yea, it really kinda is... at best it's appropriation. This isn't even a question for those who studied the topics is it? Here's a link from a quick Google that goes over the topics. https://jamestkelly.com/8-ways-tolkien-changed-modern-fantasy-forever/ https://jamestkelly.com/8-ways-tolkien-changed-modern-fantas... Tolkienesque elves and dwarves are only superficially similar to those mythological creatures which inspired them, with the subsequent prevailing forms used throughout fantasy being clearly derivative if not outright copies of his work (or as close as possible without violation of IP). Your whole position seems to be born of the same "dumb take" behavior you're supposedly decrying, no?
  - thefurdrake 3y ago
    > Your whole position seems to be born of the same "dumb take" behavior you're supposedly decrying, no? It's not stealing, so no. Figure it out. Writers synthesize ideas based on the ones they already experienced and their own personality. To suggest that yes, it is stealing, is to have a fundamental misconception about the function of the creative process.
    - DropInIn 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
AtlasBarfed 3y ago
The key difference to me in science fantasy vs pure fantasy is generally around whether mass production can be applied to its distinguishing superpowers. The force in star wars can't be manufactured or welded in a manufactured manner. Magic in dungeons and dragons must be wielded by wizard specialists because it's application can't be industrialized for (insert setting reason). Because industry is about taking novel techniques and bringing them to the masses. The force and magic is about exclusivity in wielding the power, not being generally available to the public.
ryzvonusef 3y ago
As a 90's kid, I used to be a sci-fi sort of nerd, when I read Asimov it was as if a prophet foretold of the future, I could not wait to earn enough money to buy my own robot. That a robot would exist in my adulthood was presumed to be certain; I just needed to study to get a job good enough to afford one, like one would dream of a car they would buy when they would grow up. I distinctly recall a memory from childhood, watching a report in CNN I think, around the year 2000, making predictions of the future, and they mentioned 2015 as the date when everyone would have personal robots. They had something earmarked for year 2005 and 2010 too that i don't remember, but 15 years later was the key moment for me. And yet.... And I think that's when I came to the realisation that robots, and my sci-fi dreams aren't going to be. Some how I stop reading Scifi and shifted to Fantasy; Harry Potter becoming popular globally (even in my corner of the world), around that time only sped up matters. At least with dragons, I don't have any expectations of reality, only entertainment. It irks me to read "real" Sci-fi now, my Doyle-ist mind refused to shut up about the Watson-ian explanations provided for various scientific phenomena. I would much rather the mechanism behind a "portal" be from a spell rather than from a dark hole, or whatever, I just can't accept it now.
- mabbo 3y ago
  I had a different take on Asimov, in that his future was so far fetched and ahead that it seemed like just a different form of fantasy. Too much was hand waved away or just ignored that it might as well have been about magic. I still enjoyed it, and I enjoy lots of fantasy books, but I drifted to more "hard" sci fi pretty quickly.
  - ryzvonusef 3y ago
    True, but when you are young, you tend to eat this shit up. Obviously when you get older, you start considering the meta of the story, and start thinking like "oh that's a deus ex machina, that's just bullshit"
yencabulator 3y ago
Lots of people ganging up saying FTL is impossible in hard scifi. 1. Consistency Protection is seriously considered by some quantum mechanics proponents. https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/fasterlight.php#ftlloophole https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/fasterlight.ph... 2. I hereby authorize every hard scifi author to 1 (one) background impossibility per publication for the sake of plot development. Lack of FTL limits what stories can be told, and I'd rather have exploratory stories than 100% sticking to the rulebook. Break one rule to enable exploring the implications of all the others. Scifi is meant to be "what if" in nature.

87 points by aldarion 3y ago

As someone who writes both science fiction and fantasy, I find this to be a good high-level review of the differences. You could do a lot of quibbling and no-true-Scotsman arguments but it’s ultimately a fuzzy line where each work is categorized by preponderance of evidence.

zgluck 3y ago

It's supremely annoying when bookstores put all of their sci-fi and fantasy inventory in one alphabetically sorted "sci-fi/fantasy" section. (And then 80% of it is fantasy...)

croes 3y ago
And then it's mostly Harry Potter and LOTR
ilaksh 3y ago
I get the impression that a significant percentage of people can't tell the difference between science fantasy and science fiction. Due to a lack of science education or understanding of technology or cognitive ability or who knows.
Scubabear68 3y ago
For the first time ever our local Barnes and Noble have independent Fantasy and Sci Fi sections. It is very refreshing.

wrp 3y ago

TFA uses 20 000 Leagues Under the Sea as a prototypical example of science fiction. I'm not sure that's a good example, because Jules Verne took his science and technology very seriously. As I recall, he didn't put fictional technology in his stories, but only things he had actually seen demonstrated at industrial expos. Verne used his plots more as support for descriptions of new technologies and scientific discoveries rather than the other way around.

forgotpwd16 3y ago
>took his science and technology very seriously >he didn't put fictional technology in his stories Aka hard sci-fi.
burkaman 3y ago
The submarine he was inspired by never went deeper than 10 meters: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Plongeur https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Plongeur. It's still science fiction even if the speculative technology is based on very solid real-world evidence - that just makes it hard sci-fi.
- wrp 3y ago
  > ...that just makes it hard sci-fi. As I understand the term, hard sci-fi is based on careful use of current scientific knowledge to propose plausible future technologies. Verne tried to use only technologies that had actually been implemented. So, under this definition, Verne's works were no more sci-fi than Tom Clancy.
  - burkaman 3y ago
    > Verne tried to use only technologies that had actually been implemented. No he didn't. The technology to build the submarine he imagined had not been implemented. Additionally, a cannon that could fire humans into space had not been implemented in 1865 when he wrote From the Earth to the Moon, and the interior of volcanos and the Earth's core had not been explored when he wrote Journey to the Center of the Earth. I really think you're selling him short - he used cutting-edge scientific theories as inspiration for imaginative, speculative stories, he didn't limit himself to existing inventions. I have plenty of respect for Tom Clancy as well but they are very different writers with very different approaches.
bluGill 3y ago
That is what makes it hard science fiction. Everything that didn't exist could have existed if someone rich tried to build it. Or at least it seems reasonable, it is possible that they didn't know something then and so it wouldn't work. In 20000 leagues under the sea he may not have correctly accounted for water pressure, and it seems like there was more space on the sub than is reasonable.

kzrdude 3y ago

What's the category for Dune? I think it has aspects of both, the Science Fantasy description fits.

sanex 3y ago
I agree that it is definitely Science Fantasy. All of humanities memories somehow encoded in DNA and interstellar space travel from taking too many drugs. It also has force fields and anti gravity. The fact it was a direct influence for Star Wars is more evidence that they belong in the same category.
- throwaway60707 3y ago
  Agreed on all being fantasy but > All of humanities memories somehow encoded in DNA Why not? The Dune universe is in a very far future, the books are happening 10 thousand years after humanity has been practically completely replaced by AIs and mind-uploaded humans for another 10 thousand years. The factions in Dune perform extensive bioengineering, and that is after the anti-computer revolution. Why couldn't the computers/people with computers/people-computers before the revolution bioengineer the genetic memory? Or the people who performed the transition back to biological life, perhaps as a way to ensure nobody ever forgets the 10 thousand years of slavery? > interstellar space travel from taking too many drugs Interstellar travel in Dune is done using the Holtzmann effect, basically a warp technology. The spice gives them precognition abilities that are necessary to not crash into something while warping.

ramblerman 3y ago

star trek vs star wars is the clear distinction for me. Not sure I agree with the premise that star trek has elements of science fantasy because the idea of humanity working together flawlessly is unrealistic. I mean he is right it is unrealistic, but by that token any fiction piece is technically "fantasy".

krapp 3y ago
>Not sure I agree with the premise that star trek has elements of science fantasy because the idea of humanity working together flawlessly is unrealistic. It is, but the author didn't base their argument on that entirely. More so, Star Trek has never cared about science except as set-dressing for drama. People say Star Trek's warp drives are based on the Alcubierre drive but they really aren't - they don't behave the way an Alcubierre drive should. Along with all other Trek technology it's basically magic, nothing is bound by realistic physics. You have immortal, godlike beings like the Q, you have people coming back from the dead, psychic phenomena, time travel whose rules change with each episode. In the last episode of SNW, you had a weird space anomaly that made people sing like a musical. I mean, you could put that in a D&D campaign and call it magic and it would work. Really, all science fiction is a subset of fantasy. "science fantasy" is just science fiction that isn't actually about the science, which is the bulk of the genre.
- dsr_ 3y ago
  "Really, all science fiction is a subset of fantasy. "science fantasy" is just science fiction that isn't actually about the science, which is the bulk of the genre." All fiction is fantasy. Fantasy is the root of all fiction. As soon as one starts to change reality, by lying about what someone said or thinking about what you could have said, that's fantasy. All labels are either useful fuzzy groupings or non-useful groupings. "High fantasy" is a label that gets you works closer in some conceptual space to The Lord of the Rings than to The Manchurian Candidate. "Isekai" is a very definite label that applies to The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe and does not apply to Space Quest, but it applies more to Space Quest than to most episodes of Star Trek (except The City On The Edge of Forever, which is definitely isekai, and some similar episodes.) "Science fiction" is a marketing promise that if there are elves, there will be an evolutionary heritage for them and a reason that you don't notice them walking to your local pub (no guarantees about the walk back.) Spock is a kind of half-space-elf. The space elves split into two groups a long time ago -- the ones who subscribed to a rationalist approach, and the ones who had a religion based on passion.

tsujamin 3y ago

I sure hope the Archangel-class ships in the Hyperion cantos are Science Fantasy :’)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

karaterobot 3y ago

Strict genre taxonomy is an unsolvable problem in my opinion. Take this business about being scientific as an example: sorry gang, but a functioning FTL drive is not one bit less magical than a wizard casting a fireball out of a magic wand while riding on a dragon. Even if you use the language of science to talk about it. Both are violations of the laws of physics, and I do not believe it's helpful to say that one impossible thing is less impossible than another impossible thing. When it gets down to it, science fiction, and fantasy, and science fantasy, and urban fantasy, and every other genre is defined by this: where in the store can we put the book so that customers buy it? What tropes should we tell the artist to paint on the cover, so the customers who like that stuff know they should buy it? Stuff like that. In other words, think of genres only as artificial marketing concepts, it's the only thing that makes sense.

jmyeet 3y ago

I don't really agree with this framing. Science fiction is usually differentiated between hard sci-fi and space opera. The line is blurry. Hard sci-fi is, or tries to be, rooted in actual science. The science can be speculative (eg FTL travel, FTL communication, wormholes) that really have no basis in any actual theory but these still count as "science". The focus of the work is to explore the implications of some technology or science. Space opera, on the other hand, doesn't focus on the science (speculative or otherwise). It's just "there". The focus is more on traditional melodramatic elements of narrative. Hard sci-fi examples: pretty much anything by Larry Niven, Archur C. Clarke or Alastair Reynolds. Space opera: Star Trek, Star Wars. I see science fantasy as the mixing of sci-fi and traditional fantasy elements (eg wizards in spaceships) or where technology takes on the appearance of fantasy elements (eg mental powers that are essentially "magic").

Narishma 3y ago
I feel like space opera is more about the plot. You can have hard sci-fi space opera (the Expanse) or soft sci-fi opera (Starwars, Startrek).
- jmyeet 3y ago
  The Expanse is very much space opera. Don't get me wrong: I love the show. But the only real difference between it and Star Trek (science-wise) is that The Expanse has zero-gravity. It still has the inertialess movement common in space opera.
  - Narishma 3y ago
    What do you mean by inertialess movement?
  - hollerith 3y ago
    I didn't notice anything in The Expanse that contradicts the laws of motion, and it is the only fiction TV show I can think of that is careful in that way. For example, more than once or twice a space ship is shown firing opposite the ship's direction of travel during the second half of the ship's trajectory. And I seem to recall a scene showing a ship (with only one large engine, which of course is the sensible way to do it) doing a flip at the half-way point to point the engine directly opposite to the direction of travel.

protocolture 3y ago

The problem is that near everything in 40k has been a part of a classic or hard scifi at some point. Its a shit dichotomy. Authors should be able to play around with demons, philosophy, psychics etc etc, without being slapped in the face with some kind of demeaning label designed to lessen them. The real point of comparison is shit vs good. 40k is largely terrible. Dan Abnett can string a yarn together, but Graham McNeil and most other authors coming up behind him are hot trash. This isnt just because Abnett can write, but because he has a lot of experience outside the Black Library can spread his wings and grow the thing in new directions without being hampered by some nard yelling "lore" like it means anything. My touchstone is something like Dying Earth. If you can weave a story that contains unicorns, grues and wizards and still have it be an exploration, a what if, wizards controlled the world immediately before the explosion of our dying star, its legit. I really hate labels. But its legit scifi, its legit fantasy. Its legit critical mans thinking material. But you can have all those same elements, write it poorly, and its at best popcorn trash.

D13Fd 3y ago

I like this, although I feel like there is something missing. The Martian, for example, is fantasy in that it imagines a Mars climate that doesn't exist and can never exist.

aldarion 3y ago
No, that just means it gets details wrong. But it is still science fiction - and (tries to be) rather hard sci-fi.

sklargh 3y ago

I feel that Event Horizon is the most effective science fantasy movie produced. I've seen it once, which was enough to leave an indelible mark on me. Event Horizon combines the supernatural with some elements of vaguely plausible science fiction. The movie comes together in a way that traces back to the present-day with a pretty bright line, especially in prop and spaceship design. It keeps you connected and then dumps the fantasy element on you hard. Disturbing but well done stuff. Deeper nerd-cut, it's a 40K prequel, if only unofficially.

BLKNSLVR 3y ago
Seconded. The first time I watched it I was away from work, sick, by myself in a dark room with no other distractions. Watching it like that left an indelible mark on me too. I lived it.
fsloth 3y ago
"Deeper nerd-cut, it's a 40K prequel, if only unofficially." Yup. Horrors of the warp could hardly be better brought to cinematic form. The actors are surprising high profile as well. An excellent "B" movie that owns itself 100%.
aldarion 3y ago
Yep. Warhammer 40k and the Event Horizon are what made me fall in love with the genre.

KineticLensman 3y ago

>> Science fantasy stories tend to be space operas: focus on characters and their adventures rather than technology Now I'd like to see a definition of 'space opera'. Here's Brian Aldiss' take on it: "Science Fiction is a big muscular horny creature, with a mass of bristling antenna and proprioceptors on its skull. It has a smaller sister, a gentle creature with red lips and a dash of stardust in her hair. Her name is Space Opera". This is a great definition although arguably not as useful when you have to classify actual stories.

7thaccount 3y ago
I think of Science Fiction as a very broad field with lots of sub genres like hard science fiction where the science is front-and-center and obeys our current understanding of physics to space opera that has a grandiose storytelling component and is epic in scale. I don't think any of these are firm categories and many books have aspects of many sub-genres
- KineticLensman 3y ago
  > I don't think any of these are firm categories and many books have aspects of many sub-genres Agree. Some also vary as they progress. E.g. the Charles Stross 'Merchant Princes' sequence that starts out looking like a portal fantasy (people can jump to parallel worlds by looking at a special pattern) but (mild spoiler) becomes quite hard SF as the mechanisms behind the jumping become understood by the protagonists.
Macha 3y ago
To me Space Opera is more about the plot (large scale, the main characters being important movers in the setting) while the Science Fiction vs Science Fantasy debate is more about the setting. That is, I think it's possible to have Space Opera Science Fiction (imagine if you removed the protomolecule and its tech from the Expanse and just had the Earth/Mars/Belts political story) or Space Opera Science Fantasy (Star Wars of course is the most prominent example).

golol 3y ago

IMO if there is no fictional science in your story, then it is engineering fiction, not science fiction.

bashinator 3y ago
IMO you can have fictional science without going into the fantasy realm, simply by keeping it consistent with our current understanding of the Universe. Alistair Reynolds has written some truly epic space opera that completely omits FTL travel, much to the benefit of the story.
- golol 3y ago
  Yea I'm being a bit cheeky. I just want to push back a bit against hard sci-fi. It can be really interesting to come up with new science as opposed to just coming up with new engineering given known science. Greg Egan books made me realize that.
SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
See also: Technothriller (1) which is on the edge between thriller and sci-fi - e.g. An action movie with a computer virus bouncing off satellites to hack a moon mission could have little or no "fictional science". James Bond in "Moonraker" 1979 fits this category. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techno-thriller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techno-thriller
- golol 3y ago
  Also the Martian iirc.

Scubabear68 3y ago

I like going into sub genres of Sci Fi (and liked when it was referred to as speculative fiction to cover the gamut, including Fantasy). In particular, I love Military Sci fiction is a close cousin of Space Opera, but with a harder core emphasis on military logistics, strategy and tactics in a sci fi setting. Time Travel Sci fiction. Hard science fiction. Hybrid worlds - think Proton / Phaze in Piers Anthony’s Split Infinity series, or his Incarnations of Immortality. Social science fiction (think Stranger in a Strange Land). Juveniles. The list goes on!

protocolture 3y ago
Ditto. Speculative Fiction is a better label. It seems authors these days like to write to a specific set of sub genres and tropes. Narrowing their vision. I want cool space stuff, cool fantasy stuff, cool science stuff.
earnesti 3y ago
What books are your favourite military scifi?
- stevekemp 3y ago
  Not the parent but The Forever War by Joe Haldemann is a classic. (As is Starship Troopers). For something different, think "navel warfare in space", the Lost Fleet series from Jack Campbell dealt with relativistic effects in space, with regard to combat, and the difficulties of predicting where/when people were.
  - bl0b 3y ago
    I enjoyed the Machineries of Empire trilogy by Yoon Ha Lee. It also is labelled a space opera and has a decent amount of naval warfare in space
  - _0ffh 3y ago
    As you mention "naval warfare in space", David Webers "Honor Harrington" series is apparently quite well regarded. Weber himself has described the series as "Horatio Hornblower" in space.

jamesjyu 3y ago

There are also other ways to slice science fiction besides the tired trope of hard/soft, like naturalistic/expressionistic which I write about here [1]. I find that viewing different axises like this can help question our assumptions about fiction. [1] https://jamesyu.substack.com/p/the-problem-with-hard-science-fiction https://jamesyu.substack.com/p/the-problem-with-hard-science...

nonethewiser 3y ago
This is like the intro philosophy exercise of trying to define a chair. You inevitably lose something when you boil things down. I think using multiple axis definitely gets you closer. Its also why the politcal compass memes subreddit is popular. Simply adding a authoritarian/libertarian axis to the traditional left/right axis accounts for a lot more nuance in the political spectrum.

zokier 3y ago

There is some meta-level irony in that this sort of classification is scifi in itself; in reality 90% of stuff labeled as hard scifi is more like soft scifi, and the distinction between soft scifi and sci fantasy is somewhere between subjective, arbitrary, and contextual.

eterps 3y ago

For me personally, "The Andromeda Strain" (1971) feels like science fiction that is true to the term itself, especially in its adherence to scientific principles.

NalNezumi 3y ago

I agree to the general point and have used similar argument to why I don't really get involved in star wars or Star trek. I think for layman (like me) a question to ask to make the distinction is just to ask "if we replace all the science element in the scifi with magic, would anything change?" In star wars the force could simply be magic, light saber is the magic swords, space travel is portal between worlds, aliens is just magic species (yoda is a fairy), and almost nothing of the story or any core message would change. Now can you say the same for say, Black Mirror? Not really, removing the "science / tech" from those stories will drastically change the meaning of the story and how the audience will relate to it. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" as Arthur C. Clarke said. Core of good science fiction is to make that magic relatable and still somewhat convincing that "in the future, this might be something we would just call science"

jncfhnb 3y ago
Eh. I think that is backwards. Star Wars would not (and in some works, does not) work without the magic. Science Star Wars is bad. Star Wars worked because it operated under a backdrop of objective morality. Good guys who learned the virtues of being good. Bad guys who were kind of just evil. When you choose to lean into the science you tend to start doing things related to practical consequences of the tech that frankly just make the universe a lot shittier. Things like Jedi blood, droids that have machine intelligence and perfectly calculated 360 no scope shooting instead of their goofy “organic” personalities and flaws, light speed kamikaze attacks, annoying characters asking if the bad guys are the ones self identifying as the dark side powered by hate or is it some dickish wealthy arms dealers? The important difference imo is not realism but whether the ability of the tech comes from supposed ingenuity or does it come from moralistic fantasy willpower stuff. Game of thrones is more sci fi than Star Wars. While the former has fantasy elements, a lot of it is deconstructed practical consequences of the premise of the tech and magic. Game of thrones is not by any means emblematic here of what I’m saying though* The techification of Star Wars is just a slow grind of ruining a world with canon
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  I think the problem with Star Wars isn't the objective morality, but rather the simplistic morality. Stories with objective morality can still present complex moral situations, dilemmas in which the answer isn't clear cut despite morality being objective. It's been many years since I've read it, but IIRC I think Ender's Game is a good example of this. The author at least believes in objective morality (from what I understand) but the situation presented to Ender is morally complex.

kdamica 3y ago

I’m a huge Star Wars fan, but i have always considered it fantasy rather than scifi.

wheelerof4te 3y ago

> Soft science fiction takes scientific concepts and theories and bases itelf on their practical applications. Things such as warp drive, hyperspace / subspace and jump drive are all based in Einstein’s timespace and related concepts. Specifically, warp drive and jump drive are all based around gravitational bending of timespace being used to move the space ship is part of instead of the ship itself – the ship thus travels faster than light without moving faster than light. Hyperspace is based on moving from realspace into theoretical dimension where distances are significantly reduced, and then popping back up. I don't consider warp drive or hyperspace travel "soft" sci-fi at all. These things are still in the domain of mere speculation, however much "theory" you throw at them. On the other hand, laser weapons can be considered "soft", since we already have working prototypes. Albeit, they still aren't practical in the sense that laser weaponry is portraited in movies. I believe it's hard to write convincing science fiction. There are many required know-hows to write quality works based on futuristic science. Writers often jump into pit-falls trying to incorporate speculative theories and pseudo-science into their work.

aldarion 3y ago
Laser weapons as such would be "hard" sci-fi precisely because we have working prototypes. Basically: hard sci-fi: we have concepts and understand how to apply them, but it may not be practical (e.g. Orion drive) soft sci-fi: we have concepts but no idea how to apply them (e.g. antimatter power plants) science fantasy: anything goes, technobabble as a veeneer for lack of science But yes, writing convincing science fiction is hard.
- wheelerof4te 3y ago
  Looks like I swapped the terms. Thanks.

javajosh 3y ago

Sadly, I've come to believe that any story with FTL in it must be classified as fantasy. I might be willing to accept natural wormhole travel. Even with generation ships, authors vastly underestimate the difficulties of traveling interstellar distances. When authors posit intergalactic travel, forget about it! Galaxies might as well be pocket universes because they don't interact. (Unless they collide, which will happen with the Milky Way and Andromeda in about 4.5 billion years. Oh man if we can make it that long and have even slow interstellar travel, what an opportunity for exploration!) But yeah, thank god most of science fiction is actually fantasy because if any of those things were possible, they'd immediately be used to destroy planets. Ships going FTL could be collided into a planet. Teleportation and easily accessed anti-matter could be used to annihilate cities - or planets. Most authors don't even bother building in reasons why that can't happen, its just that no-one thinks of doing it. I think the limits of the real world are quite fascinating. It's almost like reality was designed to support a huge array of civilizations that cannot interfere with each other. Interstellar travel is so hard that any civ capable of it is going to be capable of executing technologically advanced projects over centuries or millenia, and I daresay such a civ is not doing it for conquest, but to discover and explore. If the urge is militaristic, then such a civ would turn on itself long before the project succeeds. There's a kind of poetry to it.

fastball 3y ago
Most scifi I've read with FTL usually has some explanation that isn't pure fantasy. For example, I just finished reading A Fire Upon the Deep[1] by Vernor Vinge, and the in-universe explanation for FTL in the novel is that different regions of our galaxy effectively have different laws of physics, which is (admittedly somewhat handwavingly) due to the density of the interstellar medium. Sure, FTL travel is never grounded in our understanding of physics and the universe, but do you really think our understanding is anywhere near complete? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Fire_Upon_the_Deep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Fire_Upon_the_Deep
- throwaway60707 3y ago
  Deepness in the Sky is good too, avoid Children of the Sky

GuB-42 3y ago

I think there are two axis there. An axis of "hardness" and an axis of realness. With hardness being how scientific the approach is, and the other axis is how close the world is to the real world. For example: - Hard science fiction: The Martian Mars is real, the laws of physics are the same as in the real world and are followed as closely as possible. - Soft science fiction (here called science fantasy): Star Wars The setting is presented like an unexplored part of the world we live in rather than something completely made up. The difference with the real world is that there are no strict rules, the laws of physics can be broken at any time if the story calls for it instead of making the laws of physics a plot point. - Soft fantasy: The Lord of the Rings Not only the world is made up, there is unexplained magic, but it doesn't have consistent rules. You are free to do as you like, to tell a good story is the only thing that matters. - Hard fantasy: Mistborn series The world is made up, there is magic, but the magic is essentially alternate laws of physics. A dragon may be present, but expect its anatomy, biology and "power source" to be explained in great detail.

fastball 3y ago
The limitation in the case of science fiction is that something could be hard, we just don't understand the underlying rules of the universe that would make it possible. The authors of course don't know this, as they are limited by current human understanding, but they could inadvertently be writing hard fiction that sounds soft to us.
ck425 3y ago
> - Hard fantasy: Mistborn series How do you square that when Mistborn become scifi?
- GuB-42 3y ago
  It is a scale, not a pigeonhole. It seems that Mistborn is veering towards sci-fi, so I guess it will become fantasy-ish sci-fi compared to the more pure fantasy of the first book. I didn't read the latter books, but I guess it will never be pure, since it involves a magic system that is taken as an axiom, and I don't think there is any intention to tie it to the real world.

aaron695 3y ago

[dead]

brodouevencode 3y ago

Orson Scott Card said the difference is that fantasy has trees and fiction has sheet metal.

Nihilartikel 3y ago

My sloppy distinction between hard sci Fi vs soft/fantasy sci Fi is how much attention is paid to artificial gravity, and how serious of a hazard the vacuum of space presents. In space at least. Likewise with paradox in time travel stories.

unethical_ban 3y ago

It's a reasonable divide. I'm wrapping up the Expanse series and I would consider it soft science fiction, veering into sci-fi. (mild spoiler? Maybe?) On one hand, they have "epstein" drives which aren't FTL but constantly accelerate. Caring about gravity and physics is huge in the books, as are components of biology. On the other hand, the protomolecule and its associated story elements are all completely made up. There is no plausible explanation for its existence in our universe. The series is very much about humanity, the characters, and how the characters have developed in the incredible lifetime that occurs through the series. In that way, it is very much "Space Opera" and not sci-fi. But when I'm telling my friends what I'm reading, I don't want to explain "space opera" so I just say sci-fi. I guess I'm not helping. Likewise, Battlestar Galactica is definitely space fantasy (thanks season 4).

gyrovagueGeist 3y ago

imo the distinction has little to do with the "hardness" of the science. Science fiction has a thesis about society, technology, and how it shapes and reflects us (see: the root at Frankenstein) Science fantasy is about the hero's journey These are not mutually exclusive things, but it does also explain the Star Trek/Star Wars divide some are commenting on here.

mdorazio 3y ago

I’ve personally come to the conclusion that the vast majority of sci-fi is sci-fantasy for the simple reason that I can’t convince myself fleshy humans have any meaningful place in the exploratory parts of the future. Novels featuring human crews of spaceships doing more than maintenance, let alone humans in combat scenarios are increasingly laughable. It’s 2023 and humans on crewed SpaceX flights already don’t do anything. Humans 100 years from now will be even less necessary, not more. Any sci-fi recommendations where the fleshy meat bags are mostly useless? I enjoyed the earlier Murderbot novels, thought the Bobiverse was interesting, and have already read all the Culture and Polity universe books.

Klaster_1 3y ago
Greg Egan's Incandescence and Diaspora fit the bill.
- jcul 3y ago
  Yeah, I was about to recommend Diaspora just before I spotted your comment.
dmoy 3y ago
One of the three manifold books (Baxter), I forget which one, has a very beginning with your exact conclusion (no meat bags at all), and later a subsection/ending that at least doesnt have human fleshy meat bags.
hirsin 3y ago
Children of Time/Ruin handles the "what are the living things for?" decently well, although does skate towards the "maybe nothing?" conclusion over time. Haven't gotten the third book so will see.
ABS 3y ago
Charles Stross' Accelerando, which is also available for free: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/accelerando/accelerando-intro.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/accelera...

jccalhoun 3y ago

The way I like to think about this is Rick Altman's Sementic/Syntactic approach to genre. (a short summary here: https://introfilmgenres.wordpress.com/2014/09/09/the-semanticsyntactic-approach-and-genre-development/ https://introfilmgenres.wordpress.com/2014/09/09/the-semanti... ) Basically there are stock elements like space, lasers, aliens, etc. and there are thematic elements like themes of futurism, exploration, paradoxes, what is live? (these are just the ones I came up with off the top of my head) and just because a work has one of these doesn't make it part of that genre. Apollo 13 is set (largely) in space but I don't think people would call it science fiction. Star Wars is set in space but I have seen it argued thematically it is a western. (I think in the book Film/Genre Altman added a third category but I don't remember it and thought the book was pretty confusing compared to the initial article he wrote.)

__MatrixMan__ 3y ago

If the distinction that we're after is Science Fiction vs Science Fantasy, then I think it should focus less on how the science is handled (since that appears in both labels anyhow) and more on whether the Fiction is Fantasy. The soul of scifi, science aside, is that it's a commentary on the present. 1984 feels like sci-fi despite not really having much to do with the science that appears in it because its a cautionary tale about where we're going if we don't change our ways. So yes it's about whether elements of the story are connected to reality somehow, but I don't think the relevant elements are the scientific ones.

r00fus 3y ago

Star Wars is science fantasy but refreshingly Andor is more sci fi. May be why I liked it so much.

thefurdrake 3y ago

Accusing Paolini of "stealing" dragonriding from Mcaffrey made me dump all the limited credibility this post had for me. I love both series and have the capacity to comprehend very few ideas spontaneously appear in a vacuum without external influence. There were also a large number of dragonriding stories written in between Dragonquest and Eragon. Did they steal from Anne, too? Is the omnipresence of elves and dwarves in modern fantasy all theft from Tolkien? Did Anne steal dragons from $GeneralEuropeanMythology? Did she steal the idea of colonizing other planets from early scifi writers? Did she steal the idea of aliens causing a galactic war early scifi writers? Dumb take, bad opinion. All writing is derivative. The tone of Pern and the tone of Inheritance are substantively different.

DropInIn 3y ago
" Is the omnipresence of elves and dwarves in modern fantasy all theft from Tolkien?" In the form they seem to all take? Yea, it really kinda is... at best it's appropriation. This isn't even a question for those who studied the topics is it? Here's a link from a quick Google that goes over the topics. https://jamestkelly.com/8-ways-tolkien-changed-modern-fantasy-forever/ https://jamestkelly.com/8-ways-tolkien-changed-modern-fantas... Tolkienesque elves and dwarves are only superficially similar to those mythological creatures which inspired them, with the subsequent prevailing forms used throughout fantasy being clearly derivative if not outright copies of his work (or as close as possible without violation of IP). Your whole position seems to be born of the same "dumb take" behavior you're supposedly decrying, no?
- thefurdrake 3y ago
  > Your whole position seems to be born of the same "dumb take" behavior you're supposedly decrying, no? It's not stealing, so no. Figure it out. Writers synthesize ideas based on the ones they already experienced and their own personality. To suggest that yes, it is stealing, is to have a fundamental misconception about the function of the creative process.
  - DropInIn 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

AtlasBarfed 3y ago

The key difference to me in science fantasy vs pure fantasy is generally around whether mass production can be applied to its distinguishing superpowers. The force in star wars can't be manufactured or welded in a manufactured manner. Magic in dungeons and dragons must be wielded by wizard specialists because it's application can't be industrialized for (insert setting reason). Because industry is about taking novel techniques and bringing them to the masses. The force and magic is about exclusivity in wielding the power, not being generally available to the public.

ryzvonusef 3y ago

As a 90's kid, I used to be a sci-fi sort of nerd, when I read Asimov it was as if a prophet foretold of the future, I could not wait to earn enough money to buy my own robot. That a robot would exist in my adulthood was presumed to be certain; I just needed to study to get a job good enough to afford one, like one would dream of a car they would buy when they would grow up. I distinctly recall a memory from childhood, watching a report in CNN I think, around the year 2000, making predictions of the future, and they mentioned 2015 as the date when everyone would have personal robots. They had something earmarked for year 2005 and 2010 too that i don't remember, but 15 years later was the key moment for me. And yet.... And I think that's when I came to the realisation that robots, and my sci-fi dreams aren't going to be. Some how I stop reading Scifi and shifted to Fantasy; Harry Potter becoming popular globally (even in my corner of the world), around that time only sped up matters. At least with dragons, I don't have any expectations of reality, only entertainment. It irks me to read "real" Sci-fi now, my Doyle-ist mind refused to shut up about the Watson-ian explanations provided for various scientific phenomena. I would much rather the mechanism behind a "portal" be from a spell rather than from a dark hole, or whatever, I just can't accept it now.

mabbo 3y ago
I had a different take on Asimov, in that his future was so far fetched and ahead that it seemed like just a different form of fantasy. Too much was hand waved away or just ignored that it might as well have been about magic. I still enjoyed it, and I enjoy lots of fantasy books, but I drifted to more "hard" sci fi pretty quickly.
- ryzvonusef 3y ago
  True, but when you are young, you tend to eat this shit up. Obviously when you get older, you start considering the meta of the story, and start thinking like "oh that's a deus ex machina, that's just bullshit"

yencabulator 3y ago

Lots of people ganging up saying FTL is impossible in hard scifi. 1. Consistency Protection is seriously considered by some quantum mechanics proponents. https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/fasterlight.php#ftlloophole https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/fasterlight.ph... 2. I hereby authorize every hard scifi author to 1 (one) background impossibility per publication for the sake of plot development. Lack of FTL limits what stories can be told, and I'd rather have exploratory stories than 100% sticking to the rulebook. Break one rule to enable exploring the implications of all the others. Scifi is meant to be "what if" in nature.