6 ms·

off topic question, whats the difference between science fantasy and science fiction?

by knodi 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bjelkeman-again 3y ago
Science fantasy, something like Star Wars. Magic in a setting that seems technical. Science fiction, only break a few laws of physics, the fewer the hard the science fiction.
- csours 3y ago
  Magic - or - something that sounds science-y but probably is not possible. I call this one science fantasy because there are some big science gaps that are not filled in, so that the story can happen. It makes a better story, but it is not so scientific.
dsr_ 3y ago
With science fiction, the author describes how things work in enough detail that you can definitely tell that it won't. In science fantasy, the author glosses over the explanations and just shows you the effects. In fantasy, the author doesn't care about how it violates known science. (Technically, fantasy is the root of all literature, but these are the marketing categories we have today.)
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  How do we apply that classification system to things that are definitely possible but beyond current engineering? Like a space station around Jupiter.
  - stemlord 3y ago
    I would suppose by the effort the author makes to make the reader feel it could be possible rather than the actual possibility of it (scifi) versus the author not caring to give the reader an impression that it could be possible by any means of explanation (sci-fantasy)
- alanbernstein 3y ago
  That's cute, but science fiction does not require a physically impossible premise. I like to think of scifi as stories that are fundamentally about how a new development in science leads to changes in the world. It could be far-future questionably possibly supertech (The Expanse). It could be near-future changes in social science (1984). It could be future regression of current technology (The Windup Girl).
  - pasabagi 3y ago
    Mmm, not sure those stories match your idea. The only story I can think of that involves a single change in science is Vernor Vinge's Across Realtime (which is very good). I think an Expanse author once commented that he'd never really thought about how the fusion drive thingies were supposed to work.
    - alanbernstein 3y ago
      I was imprecise, I didn't mean to suggest that any book should be based on only a single technological change. > How does the Epstein drive work? > It works very well, thank you very much.
      - pasabagi 3y ago
        It's really nice in Across Realtime. I'm not really a big believer in the 'science' part of 'hard science fiction' - for me, you can basically divide sci-fi into two traditions. The first is based on the old sci-fi magazines that published short stories. Short stories, being characterized by the exploration of a remarkable idea, therefore produces sci-fi that's basically about examining some imagined change, usually scientific, but it could also be social (The Dispossessed, etc). The second is based on old sci-fi comics, serials and pulp novels - and is about characters. It doesn't matter how lightsabers work because Star Wars is entirely about characters. So for me, the Expanse would be in the tradition of Star Wars, while something like Yoon Ha Lee's stuff would be in the magazine tradition, even though it's basically magic with spaceships.
  - ajmurmann 3y ago
- knodi 3y ago
  Thank you. I'm more confused about it then before. Logically I get Star Wars/Dune is science fantasy but wouldn't that make Star Trek also science fantasy as wrap drive is never explained (and when it is its not rooted in reality) and how teleport-er is using magic to reassemble atoms at another location? I get it that Expanse and Three Bodied Problem are SciFi but how can the the two categories be quantified in to words? This is way off topic and i'll stop here. thank you for sending me down a rabbit hole.
  - HelloMcFly 3y ago
    I find that science fiction fans are a little concerned with "proper categorization", and often discussions get into people's own personal interpretations. I don't share the OP's definition of the dilineation between scifi and scifantasy, I'd categorize Children of Time as pretty direct scifi, but I also don't care all that much whether someone else wants to give it a different label. I don't think it's incumbent upon the author to justify the plausibility of every technological feat within our current understanding, but more power to you if you do.
  - tstrimple 3y ago
    I look at science fiction versus science fantasy the same way I look at hard magic and soft magic in fantasy. Hard magic fantasy novels are much more like science fiction than they are soft magic novels and science fantasy has more in common with soft magic systems than science fiction. Science Fiction / Hard Magic: The rules are clear and well established. The fantastical elements become almost like characters in the story and have an impact on society and individuals living within the world. The reader can develop a clear understanding of these rules through the writing, and can creatively participate in problem solving using these rules similar to how the character would. You don't need a plausible sciency explanation for how a teleporter works for it to be science fiction versus science fantasy. You need consistent rules on how they are used that the reader can understand and reason about. But when your science officer can pop open a panel and make it do things it's never done before because the plot needs something to move it forward, you're moving towards science fantasy. Science Fantasy / Soft Magic: Magic and technology are just plot devices used to move the story forward and less integral to the world setting. Need your short little friends to get out of a dicey situation? Oh yeah, I just so happen to know a spell to summon giant eagles to give us a ride. We haven't talked about it at all before, and you'd have no reason to know it exists. But let's sprinkle a little deus ex machina on this because I'm trying to tell a story not build a coherent world and magic system. Star Trek and Star Wars are both science fantasy because the rules are never consistent and you're constantly running into exceptions for how things work. You as a reader can never fully understand the setting because there's always something fantastical waiting around the corner which breaks the rules and changes things. Most fiction exists somewhere along a spectrum with authors like Brandon Sanderson and Andy Weir falling more on the hard magic / science fiction side and George Martin and Ian Banks being more soft magic / science fantasy. Are the fantastic elements there as a mechanism to allow cool shit to happen, or are they actually parts of the world for the characters to interact with and overcome with influences shown across society.
- Razengan 3y ago
  "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" :)
kbenson 3y ago
It's a spectrum along fiction, often along how possibly something is given our known knowledge of the world and possibly future extrapolations. Science fiction can be about something entirely possible today that hasn't been done (and could just focus on the social change or response to it, black mirror sometimes opts for this), but often incorporates at least a few giant leaps to help focus us on the parts the fiction is interested in. For example, faster than light travel to allow us to better explore galactic empires and what it means to not have constrained space for nations again. Science fantasy is the other end of the spectrum, where explaining how something is accomplished or linking it to our current understanding of science is inconsequential. Star Wars is the popular example of this, where generally the explanation of "the force" is so irrelevant that they don't even bother to give it a name beyond the pseudo-descriptive one used. You could replace it's occurrences in the script with "magic" and our understanding and assumptions about it wouldn't change much. In these stories the "science" in science fiction usually signifies it's in space or has aliens, which people associate with the sciences when it involves people out in it.
api 3y ago
I think it’s whether or not it attempts to stay within physics. It can still be very out there, like fusion torch rockets or mind uploading, but there is nothing happening that is physically impossible according to what we know about the universe. A physicist would not have to suspend disbelief (much). This is also called hard vs soft sci-fi where very soft is fantasy. Fantasy incorporates elements that go beyond any known physics. Sometimes they are explained in world with invented physics like Star Trek, and sometimes they are alien and not explained like the stuff the protomolecule can do in The Expanse. If it’s alien it’s playing with “what if we met someone WAY more advanced than us?” It’s not a binary thing. Some stories are super far out in fantasy like Star Wars while others try to be very scientifically accurate like For All Mankind, Gattaca, or most of the human tech in The Expanse.
Razengan 3y ago
Technology vs Mysticism

off topic question, whats the difference between science fantasy and science fiction?

by knodi 3y ago

off topic question, whats the difference between science fantasy and science fiction?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

bjelkeman-again 3y ago

Science fantasy, something like Star Wars. Magic in a setting that seems technical. Science fiction, only break a few laws of physics, the fewer the hard the science fiction.

csours 3y ago
Magic - or - something that sounds science-y but probably is not possible. I call this one science fantasy because there are some big science gaps that are not filled in, so that the story can happen. It makes a better story, but it is not so scientific.

dsr_ 3y ago

With science fiction, the author describes how things work in enough detail that you can definitely tell that it won't. In science fantasy, the author glosses over the explanations and just shows you the effects. In fantasy, the author doesn't care about how it violates known science. (Technically, fantasy is the root of all literature, but these are the marketing categories we have today.)

Dylan16807 3y ago
How do we apply that classification system to things that are definitely possible but beyond current engineering? Like a space station around Jupiter.
- stemlord 3y ago
  I would suppose by the effort the author makes to make the reader feel it could be possible rather than the actual possibility of it (scifi) versus the author not caring to give the reader an impression that it could be possible by any means of explanation (sci-fantasy)
alanbernstein 3y ago
That's cute, but science fiction does not require a physically impossible premise. I like to think of scifi as stories that are fundamentally about how a new development in science leads to changes in the world. It could be far-future questionably possibly supertech (The Expanse). It could be near-future changes in social science (1984). It could be future regression of current technology (The Windup Girl).
- pasabagi 3y ago
  Mmm, not sure those stories match your idea. The only story I can think of that involves a single change in science is Vernor Vinge's Across Realtime (which is very good). I think an Expanse author once commented that he'd never really thought about how the fusion drive thingies were supposed to work.
  - alanbernstein 3y ago
    I was imprecise, I didn't mean to suggest that any book should be based on only a single technological change. > How does the Epstein drive work? > It works very well, thank you very much.
    - pasabagi 3y ago
      It's really nice in Across Realtime. I'm not really a big believer in the 'science' part of 'hard science fiction' - for me, you can basically divide sci-fi into two traditions. The first is based on the old sci-fi magazines that published short stories. Short stories, being characterized by the exploration of a remarkable idea, therefore produces sci-fi that's basically about examining some imagined change, usually scientific, but it could also be social (The Dispossessed, etc). The second is based on old sci-fi comics, serials and pulp novels - and is about characters. It doesn't matter how lightsabers work because Star Wars is entirely about characters. So for me, the Expanse would be in the tradition of Star Wars, while something like Yoon Ha Lee's stuff would be in the magazine tradition, even though it's basically magic with spaceships.
- ajmurmann 3y ago
knodi 3y ago
Thank you. I'm more confused about it then before. Logically I get Star Wars/Dune is science fantasy but wouldn't that make Star Trek also science fantasy as wrap drive is never explained (and when it is its not rooted in reality) and how teleport-er is using magic to reassemble atoms at another location? I get it that Expanse and Three Bodied Problem are SciFi but how can the the two categories be quantified in to words? This is way off topic and i'll stop here. thank you for sending me down a rabbit hole.
- HelloMcFly 3y ago
  I find that science fiction fans are a little concerned with "proper categorization", and often discussions get into people's own personal interpretations. I don't share the OP's definition of the dilineation between scifi and scifantasy, I'd categorize Children of Time as pretty direct scifi, but I also don't care all that much whether someone else wants to give it a different label. I don't think it's incumbent upon the author to justify the plausibility of every technological feat within our current understanding, but more power to you if you do.
- tstrimple 3y ago
  I look at science fiction versus science fantasy the same way I look at hard magic and soft magic in fantasy. Hard magic fantasy novels are much more like science fiction than they are soft magic novels and science fantasy has more in common with soft magic systems than science fiction. Science Fiction / Hard Magic: The rules are clear and well established. The fantastical elements become almost like characters in the story and have an impact on society and individuals living within the world. The reader can develop a clear understanding of these rules through the writing, and can creatively participate in problem solving using these rules similar to how the character would. You don't need a plausible sciency explanation for how a teleporter works for it to be science fiction versus science fantasy. You need consistent rules on how they are used that the reader can understand and reason about. But when your science officer can pop open a panel and make it do things it's never done before because the plot needs something to move it forward, you're moving towards science fantasy. Science Fantasy / Soft Magic: Magic and technology are just plot devices used to move the story forward and less integral to the world setting. Need your short little friends to get out of a dicey situation? Oh yeah, I just so happen to know a spell to summon giant eagles to give us a ride. We haven't talked about it at all before, and you'd have no reason to know it exists. But let's sprinkle a little deus ex machina on this because I'm trying to tell a story not build a coherent world and magic system. Star Trek and Star Wars are both science fantasy because the rules are never consistent and you're constantly running into exceptions for how things work. You as a reader can never fully understand the setting because there's always something fantastical waiting around the corner which breaks the rules and changes things. Most fiction exists somewhere along a spectrum with authors like Brandon Sanderson and Andy Weir falling more on the hard magic / science fiction side and George Martin and Ian Banks being more soft magic / science fantasy. Are the fantastic elements there as a mechanism to allow cool shit to happen, or are they actually parts of the world for the characters to interact with and overcome with influences shown across society.
Razengan 3y ago
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" :)

kbenson 3y ago

It's a spectrum along fiction, often along how possibly something is given our known knowledge of the world and possibly future extrapolations. Science fiction can be about something entirely possible today that hasn't been done (and could just focus on the social change or response to it, black mirror sometimes opts for this), but often incorporates at least a few giant leaps to help focus us on the parts the fiction is interested in. For example, faster than light travel to allow us to better explore galactic empires and what it means to not have constrained space for nations again. Science fantasy is the other end of the spectrum, where explaining how something is accomplished or linking it to our current understanding of science is inconsequential. Star Wars is the popular example of this, where generally the explanation of "the force" is so irrelevant that they don't even bother to give it a name beyond the pseudo-descriptive one used. You could replace it's occurrences in the script with "magic" and our understanding and assumptions about it wouldn't change much. In these stories the "science" in science fiction usually signifies it's in space or has aliens, which people associate with the sciences when it involves people out in it.

api 3y ago

I think it’s whether or not it attempts to stay within physics. It can still be very out there, like fusion torch rockets or mind uploading, but there is nothing happening that is physically impossible according to what we know about the universe. A physicist would not have to suspend disbelief (much). This is also called hard vs soft sci-fi where very soft is fantasy. Fantasy incorporates elements that go beyond any known physics. Sometimes they are explained in world with invented physics like Star Trek, and sometimes they are alien and not explained like the stuff the protomolecule can do in The Expanse. If it’s alien it’s playing with “what if we met someone WAY more advanced than us?” It’s not a binary thing. Some stories are super far out in fantasy like Star Wars while others try to be very scientifically accurate like For All Mankind, Gattaca, or most of the human tech in The Expanse.

Razengan 3y ago

Technology vs Mysticism