4 ms·

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

by 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.
kibwen 3y ago
I'll disagree with the parent and use the following definitions: Science fiction is a genre that explores the social consequences of technological advancement on humanity. Science fantasy is a genre where futuristic technology just serves as a backdrop. Star Trek at least somewhat delves into the social implications of technological advancement (although less than many other works of sci-fi). The reason that people get bogged down into discussions of "hard" and "soft" sci-fi here is because hard sci-fi, being more grounded in reality, might have more predictive power in its social commentary.
blechinger 3y ago
As with most systems these categories don't work universally because they're firm definitions for complex works which exist on sliding scales. We may identify tropes from a variety of trends and subgenres within a single work of art. Our categories guide us to the greater conversations and traditions some work may be participating in and are no more prescriptive than classifications of evolutionary speciation or morphology. That does not diminish their usefulness: it allows us the freedom to use them as scaffolding to build our own models for the thing itself being studied and compare those models to other's for consistency and depth of consideration.
krapp 3y ago
The real answer is that the distinction between "science fiction" and "science fantasy" is a matter of personal taste and perspective, and there is no objective definition for either. These rigid genre labels are created for the sake of commerce, and for nerds to argue about. There are arguments to be made for Star Wars and Star Trek as either science fiction or science fantasy, depending on how you slice them. Both are fantasy in that they primarily focus on drama rather than speculative science (Star Trek may have the superficial trappings of "science" but they're really morality plays that just "tech the tech") and include pseudo-mystical elements (The Force/Jedi vs. the Q, telepathy, many of Star Trek's weird space anomalies might as well be magic,) and both are science fiction in that they take place in a universe with "futuristic" elements like spaceships, computers, robots and aliens. One could even argue that Star Wars is the harder of the two settings, as far as sci-fi goes, simply by virtue of leaving more explanation to the imagination, and having more variety in alien design. But really it's up to you.

by knodi 3y ago

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.

kibwen 3y ago

I'll disagree with the parent and use the following definitions: Science fiction is a genre that explores the social consequences of technological advancement on humanity. Science fantasy is a genre where futuristic technology just serves as a backdrop. Star Trek at least somewhat delves into the social implications of technological advancement (although less than many other works of sci-fi). The reason that people get bogged down into discussions of "hard" and "soft" sci-fi here is because hard sci-fi, being more grounded in reality, might have more predictive power in its social commentary.

blechinger 3y ago

As with most systems these categories don't work universally because they're firm definitions for complex works which exist on sliding scales. We may identify tropes from a variety of trends and subgenres within a single work of art. Our categories guide us to the greater conversations and traditions some work may be participating in and are no more prescriptive than classifications of evolutionary speciation or morphology. That does not diminish their usefulness: it allows us the freedom to use them as scaffolding to build our own models for the thing itself being studied and compare those models to other's for consistency and depth of consideration.

krapp 3y ago

The real answer is that the distinction between "science fiction" and "science fantasy" is a matter of personal taste and perspective, and there is no objective definition for either. These rigid genre labels are created for the sake of commerce, and for nerds to argue about. There are arguments to be made for Star Wars and Star Trek as either science fiction or science fantasy, depending on how you slice them. Both are fantasy in that they primarily focus on drama rather than speculative science (Star Trek may have the superficial trappings of "science" but they're really morality plays that just "tech the tech") and include pseudo-mystical elements (The Force/Jedi vs. the Q, telepathy, many of Star Trek's weird space anomalies might as well be magic,) and both are science fiction in that they take place in a universe with "futuristic" elements like spaceships, computers, robots and aliens. One could even argue that Star Wars is the harder of the two settings, as far as sci-fi goes, simply by virtue of leaving more explanation to the imagination, and having more variety in alien design. But really it's up to you.