SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

How do you define the distinction between fantasy and science fiction?

Some people got very annoyed that I let some non-fantasy slip into the fantasy January book selection a few days ago. I thought that zombies equal fantasy, but I've since realised that might not always be true. I apologise for my error and I'll do my best not to let it happen again. The January fantasy poll will stand as is, but in future I'll keep the nomination thread open for longer so more people can comment.

The conversation did lead to an interesting discussion about the difference between fantasy and science fiction. My interpretation is as follows:

Fantasy - magic and/or supernatural creatures and/or a made-up world
Science fiction - advanced technology (usually set in the future)

It's a very basic distinction that leaves a lot of room for error, but I thought it could provide a starting point to an interesting debate about how we each define the two genres. Some good points came up regarding this and I'll post them below.

Trike wrote: “Generally speaking I agree with you regarding zombies and vampires.

That said, if someone can come up with a viable scientific explanation for zombies or vampires, then I'm all for letting them into the SF side of the bed.

Zombies are pretty easy -- the movie 28 Days Later postulates a virulent form of rabies which makes people behave somewhat like zombies -- but I have a really hard time buying even the virus explanation for reanimating the dead. I get that there is a fine line between living and dead and there are organisms in the world right now which turn creatures into zombies, but those zombified critters aren't dead.

Vampires are a harder sell, because they have so many supernatural powers. You can rationalize an allergy to garlic or a fondness for blood, but you can't use science to explain how someone could turn into a wolf, bat or mist, or why they wouldn't have a reflection.

Once you strip out the supernatural parts of vampires, you basically have mentally ill people with compulsions to drink blood and nothing more.”

Porter wrote: “Orson Scott Card says that the difference between science fiction and fantasy is that science fiction has more rivets and fantasy has more trees.”

Leigh wrote: “as I understand it, science fiction deals with subject matter that is theoritically possible e.g. time travel, faster than light travel, cloning. Fantasy is never possible, e.g.elves, hobbits, magical wizards.

Another, more humorous definition states that if it's elves, it's fantasy. If the elves are carrying ray guns, it's science fiction. :)”

Porter wrote: “If the first rule applied, then any science fiction story with faster than light travel would have to be considered fantasy.

I think your send definition is much closer to the truth.

Another rule of thumb is how the fantastic elements are explained in-story. If the magic is called magic, it's fantasy. If the magic is described with technobabble, then it's science fiction. If there's no magic at all, it's hard science fiction.”

I thought that zombies equal fantasy, but I've since realised that might not always be true.

Maybe it's a cultural difference, but I've always lumped zombies (and vampires and werewolves) into horror, not SFF at all. Although I suppose new UF stuff like Kim Harrison's books or The Dresden Files blurs the lines pretty well when it comes to vampires and were-everythingandthekitchensink.

I honestly don't think it matters much as long as the books get nominated and seconded, although perhaps the nomination threads could be kept open more than 48 hours so there are more picks to choose from if some books don't fit the bill? If there is 10+ books to choose from, people can just ignore the non SFF books in the poll.

Evilynn wrote: "If there is 10+ books to choose from, people can just ignore the non SFF books in the poll."

We don't want polls to be that big. 6 or 7 is the max we want. And honestly a lot of the time it's a struggle to get members to nominate that many. I think part of the issue this time was the theme. End of the world books tend to be sci-fi and very few are fantasy. I believe we've learned from this and from now on should run a bit better.

Basically, its all summed up in the first post, but i'll add my own views.

Both are sub-divisions of fiction. could separate them by the amount of imagination put into them. Science Fiction is the lesser concentrating on advancing technology from this day and age and basically inventing new tech.

Fantasy is more imaginative when it comes to creating novels, making up from scratch, new races, worlds, languages, realities etc.

hope this made sense :P

My distinction between genres is hazy and I know a lot of people wouldn't agree either. I think fantasy can really define anything that doesn't happen in real life; zombies, talking animals, wizards etc. I usually try to shelve books according to things like horror, animals, but your still bound to find those things mixed into my fantasy shelf.

Michelle Elizabeth wrote: "My distinction between genres is hazy and I know a lot of people wouldn't agree either. I think fantasy can really define anything that doesn't happen in real life; zombies, talking animals, wizard..."

A lot of sci-fi storylines wouldnt happen in real life either. alien races, distant planets out of our solar system, etc

Mal wrote: "Michelle Elizabeth wrote: "My distinction between genres is hazy and I know a lot of people wouldn't agree either. I think fantasy can really define anything that doesn't happen in real life; zombi..."

So far FTL is in the realm of pure fantasy. So Mal has a good point.

Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Mal wrote: "Michelle Elizabeth wrote: "My distinction between genres is hazy and I know a lot of people wouldn't agree either. I think fantasy can really define anything that doesn't happen in real..."

FTL?

Perhaps the distinction between Fantasy and Science Fiction is best found with the intent of author.

Does the author seek to justify the operation of his or her world upon current or even fantastic extensions of scientific principals? Or rather are the differences from our own world founded in fantastic powers or magic not intended to be reconciled with current science?

By letting the authors choose the genre at least I know where they are coming from even if I don’t always agree.

Mal wrote: "Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Mal wrote: "Michelle Elizabeth wrote: "My distinction between genres is hazy and I know a lot of people wouldn't agree either. I think fantasy can really define anything tha..."

Faster than light. However, I understand recent scientific research is allowing that this might be possible.

Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Mal wrote: "Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Mal wrote: "Michelle Elizabeth wrote: "My distinction between genres is hazy and I know a lot of people wouldn't agree either. I think fantasy can really define ..."

like i said in mine the only different to separate both genres is sci fi is based on what could be from current science progression like the new theories on FTL. However, fantasy is totally created from scratch.

Kim wrote: "We don't want polls to be that big. 6 or 7 is the max we want. And honestly a lot of the time it's a struggle to get members to nominate that many. I think part of the issue this time was the theme. End of the world books tend to be sci-fi and very few are fantasy. I believe we've learned from this and from now on should run a bit better. "

Fair enough, but maybe keep the nomination threads up for longer than 2 days? Then there'd be a little bit of time to vet the books nominated. This time around I didn't even have time to notice there was a thread before it was closed. I think a fair few members notice these things when we get the daily digest emailed to our accounts (and I think GR had an untimely email hiccup). There are definitely more dystopian books out there that could've made it into the poll, even if the fantasy requirement might make it a little harder to find good matches.

I thought vampires and zombies were usually lumped into urban fantasy.

wikipedia has a good definition

Fantasy - fiction with strange or other worldly settings or characters; fiction which invites suspension of reality.

Science fiction- story based on impact of actual, imagined, or potential science, usually set in the future or on other planets.

Horror - fiction in which events evoke a feeling of dread in both the characters and the reader.

Brad T. wrote: "I thought vampires and zombies were usually lumped into urban fantasy.

wikipedia has a good definition

Fantasy - fiction with strange or other worldly settings or characters; fiction which invite..."

this kinda sums up what I was getting at. thanks :)

Brad T. wrote: "I thought vampires and zombies were usually lumped into urban fantasy."

Depends on the setting in my mind. Things like the Dresden books would be UF but The Strain would be horror. I also tag all books with vampires, etc. as paranormal/supernatural.

Evilynn wrote: "Fair enough, but maybe keep the nomination threads up for longer than 2 days? Then there'd be a little bit of time to vet the books nominated. This time around I didn't even have time to notice there was a thread before it was closed."

We will keep that in mind. This was Penny's first time at doing a nomination thread. We'll take everyones feedback into consideration before we do the February books.

Evilynn wrote: "I thought that zombies equal fantasy, but I've since realised that might not always be true.

Maybe it's a cultural difference, but I've always lumped zombies (and vampires and werewolves) into hor..."

I thought your comment about that on the poll was a good one which is why I mentioned it in my post: "The January fantasy poll will stand as is, but in future I'll keep the nomination thread open for longer so more people can comment." But I agree with Kim that we don't want more than 6 or 7 books in each poll.

Mal wrote: "like i said in mine the only different to separate both genres is sci fi is based on what could be from current science progression like the new theories on FTL. However, fantasy is totally created from scratch."

Alien worlds and the races that inhabit them tend to come up in science fiction but are worlds totally made from scratch. I think they're still science fiction although they fall into your fantasy definition. I'm not trying to be difficult I promise :P I started a thread about this because I find it so hard to find a solid line to draw between the two.

Brad T. wrote: "I thought vampires and zombies were usually lumped into urban fantasy.

wikipedia has a good definition

Fantasy - fiction with strange or other worldly settings or characters; fiction which invites suspension of reality.

Science fiction- story based on impact of actual, imagined, or potential science, usually set in the future or on other planets.

Horror - fiction in which events evoke a feeling of dread in both the characters and the reader.

I think I like this definition best of all.

Personally I agree that you should use the Wikipedia definitions as a guideline. Its always going to be a challenge with some books to fit them into an exact genre. For example right now I'm in the middle of The Cold Commands which is essentially a fantasy story but has other elements that you can tell he is implying are science fiction in nature. I.e. - “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” – Arthur C. Clarke

I'm mostly in agreement with the Wikipedia definitions (though, as Beezlebug points out, there will always be books that cross genres), with one major caveat and one unsettled question that I've been mulling over recently.

The caveat: I sometimes count paranormal romance as a discrete genre of speculative fiction: namely, when it features otherworldly creatures who usually populate horror fiction, e.g. vampires, werewolves. Those stories can't properly be called horror because they don't evoke dread, but I'm unwilling to call them fantasy by default. (Considering the almost 7000 readers who've shelved Twilight as fantasy, though, I seem to be in the minority.)

The unsettled question: What to do with speculative fiction that neither contains otherworldly (in the mystical sense) elements nor is based on the impact of science? I'm thinking of books like Swordspoint and Orsinian Tales. Most people call them fantasy, but in essence they're no more fantastic than alternate histories or stories about humanoid aliens on other planets.

I did a post on this not all that long ago. Here's a link if you care to see it. http://dlmorrese.wordpress.com/2012/0...
Essentially, science fiction ties back to known science using only extrapolations from known science. Hard science fiction focuses on the 'hard' sciences, math, physics, etc. and soft science fiction deals with the 'soft' sciences, psychology, anthropology, and such. Once you introduce magic or supernatural elements into the story, you've crossed into fantasy, although much fiction incorporates elements of both.

Oh boy, back to the eternal question! When I'm classifying a book, I usually don't look so much at what's different from a "realistic" setting as how the differences are explained. So that puts me on the same page as Porter and Trike, I think. If the differences are presented as extending what scientists believe instead of flat-out contradicting it, I call it science fiction. If the book throws out everything we know and rebuilds the laws of the universe "from scratch," like Mal says, I call it fantasy.

Penny wrote: "Alien worlds and the races that inhabit them tend to come up in science fiction but are worlds totally made from scratch"

I wouldn't really say they're made from scratch, at least not the way I'm explaining it. We know there are a lot of other planets out there, and it's plausible there are aliens on some of them. Science fiction just fills in the details of what the planets and aliens are like, without getting rid of what we know about our solar system. Fantasy actually replaces our world or our laws of nature with the made-up stuff.

I like how Jain is bringing other genres into the question, so I'll throw out some opinions on them. I guess I disagree with the caveat. Science fiction and fantasy are genres I use when I'm classifying books by their setting, and horror and romance are genres I use when I'm classifying books by the feelings in them. The two classification systems are totally independent, so I have no problem with calling a book fantasy and romance or horror at the same time. But I don't normally read romance or horror, especially if it's not also fantasy or science fiction, so I don't know too much about how it works in practice.

The unsettled question is especially interesting to me because I don't think I've ever run into that kind of setting except for Orsinia (which I liked!). I guess if you're trying to divide all speculative fiction into science fiction or fantasy, like we have to do for poll purposes, I'd go with fantasy, using the "from scratch" criterion. But you could make a case for defining fantasy as anything that contradicts the laws of physics and saying these are a different genre because they only switch up contingent details like geography.

I agree - didn't we just have a long discussion on this a few months ago?

Evilynn wrote: "Maybe it's a cultural difference, but I've always lumped zombies (and vampires and werewolves) into horror, not SFF at all."

For me, "horror" is basically just "scary fantasy." By and large horror has supernatural elements. For horror that doesn't have those, it's a Thriller. If it does have magic, it's a Chiller.

But then I'm the anal-retentive genre guy.

Mal wrote: "Mal Keenan (keeno82uk) | 8 comments Basically, its all summed up in the first post, but i'll add my own views.

Both are sub-divisions of fiction. could separate them by the amount of imagination put into them. Science Fiction is the lesser concentrating on advancing technology from this day and age and basically inventing new tech.

Fantasy is more imaginative when it comes to creating novels, making up from scratch, new races, worlds, languages, realities etc.

hope this made sense :P"

Nope.

Mostly because you have it backwards: Fantasy tends to repeat the familiar, retread the roads already trod, while Science Fiction goes every which way, looking into all the nooks and crannies of the universe and the heart of man... while also telling stories which have nothing to do with humanity.

Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "So far FTL is in the realm of pure fantasy. So Mal has a good point."

It's not, though. Some actual physicists like Hawking and Kaku think FTL is possible.

That's always been *my* litmus test for whether something belongs in the SF genre or not: if actual scientists think it might be possible, no matter how remote, then I say we let it in until we know better.

Right now we don't know whether FTL can happen or not, but some really smart guys who make this stuff their business think there's a chance it might... that's good enough for me.

I never get tired of these discussions because genre definitions were going to be my PhD thesis in college, so I did a lot of work before circumstances forced me out of school.

Silvio wrote: "Science fiction and fantasy are genres I use when I'm classifying books by their setting, and horror and romance are genres I use when I'm classifying books by the feelings in them. The two classification systems are totally independent, so I have no problem with calling a book fantasy and romance or horror at the same time."

This gets at the crux of the matter, I think.

Science Fiction and Fantasy are over-arching genres -- the "uber-genres" if you will -- which can encompass all the other genres within them. But it is their core essence, that of speculation or the supernatural, which defines them first.

If you have a Western and throw some aliens in there, you've got an SF-Western. (Cowboys and Aliens.) If you have a Western and mix supernatural elements into it, you get a Fantasy-Western. (Territory.)

You can have a hard-boiled private eye in a Science Fiction setting (Altered Carbon, Noir) or a Fantasy setting (Dresden Files, Garrett P.I.) and the SF and Fantasy elements trump the other half.

The reason for this is because both Science Fiction and Fantasy have a specific way of viewing the world that overwhelms everything else. They also happen to be diametrically opposed in their outlook. Fantasy tells us that there are things in the world that are unknowable and more powerful than we can ever imagine, let alone be. Science Fiction, on the other hand, says that the world is explicable and understandable, and that we can know it if we try hard enough.

But neither of these genres is limited by setting or era; the milieu is completely irrelevant. Science Fiction can take place on Earth centuries ago (Agent of Byzantium) and Fantasy can take place thousands of years in the future (The Sword of Shannara). There's SF that takes place here and now, and Fantasy that explicitly takes place on other planets.

Trike wrote: "Mal wrote: "Mal Keenan (keeno82uk) | 8 comments Basically, its all summed up in the first post, but i'll add my own views.

Both are sub-divisions of fiction. could separate them by the amount of i..."

I disagree, but I digress. The fun thing about fantasy is that most of it isn't familiar. Its totally imaginary based on the authors imagination. (I was not familiar with Hobbits until reading LOTR/The Hobbit)

Science Fiction does go every which way, but still lends most of its creation to present science and scientific ideas/theories in the pipeline.

Trike wrote: "For me, "horror" is basically just "scary fantasy.""

Interesting. I've always seen horror as a different genre, cemented in the 18th century (although there were obviously scary stories before the onset of Gothic Horror), but I suppose it's a lot more pragmatic to just label things with many different genres instead.

The unsettled question: What to do with speculative fiction that neither contains otherworldly (in the mystical sense) elements nor is based on the impact of science? I'm thinking of books like Swordspoint and Orsinian Tales. Most people call them fantasy, but in essence they're no more fantastic than alternate histories or stories about humanoid aliens on other planets.


I shelved Orsinian Tales as lit!fic, not SFF. The closest parallel I found was older novels where place names would be censored "He lived in N-----shire" etc. Good book in any case. :)

Trike wrote: "I never get tired of these discussions because genre definitions were going to be my PhD thesis in college, so I did a lot of work before circumstances forced me out of school.

Silvio wrote: "Scie..."
"Fantasy tells us that there are things in the world that are unknowable and more powerful than we can ever imagine, let alone be. Science Fiction, on the other hand, says that the world is explicable and understandable, and that we can know it if we try hard enough."
This is a very succinct way of explaining an essential distinction between them. Well done! :-)

For me, I tend to file vampires and zombies in the Horror category.

And then there's Steampunk which could be fantasy or sci-fi, or both! :-)

D.L. wrote: "This is a very succinct way of explaining an essential distinction between them. Well done! :-)"

Well, I *have* been thinking about it for 30 years now, so there's that. ;) But thanks!

For me it's not a versus. I read science fiction, I read fantasy, and urban fantasy, horror, time travel, military science fiction, hard science fiction, soft science fiction, zombies, werewolves, whatever.

I like that here I get to shelve my books on as many shelves as the book fits. Is Doomsday Book fantasy because it's primary setting is medieval France or science fiction because one of its characters is a time traveler? I think it's both.

What about (grrr! Can't think of the name of the book!) It's about aliens that land in a tiny medieval Bavarian village, where the Village priest prefers to see them as angels?

When we read The Yiddish Policemen's Union as a group, we discussed what this alternative history novel's designation as science fiction or fiction was.

As for Swordspoint, the publisher calls it fantasy, which makes it good enough for me. There is no magic in this book, but later in the series there is.

Julia wrote: What about (grrr! Can't think of the name of the book!) It's about aliens that land in a tiny medieval Bavarian village, where the Village priest prefers to see them as angels?



Eifelheim

Trike wrote: "Fantasy tells us that there are things in the world that are unknowable and more powerful than we can ever imagine, let alone be. Science Fiction, on the other hand, says that the world is explicable and understandable, and that we can know it if we try hard enough."

Trike (and D.L.), I'd like to do some poking at this distinction and see what your answer is. It definitely fits some books I've read. On the other hand, I'd use the exact words Trike said about fantasy to describe some books that are marketed as science fiction and fit my definition of it too. Specifically, I'm thinking of Childhood's End, Rendezvous With Rama, and Contact. Would you describe that kind of book differently? Or do you not consider them science fiction?

Trike, if you've seen genre from an academic standpoint, I wonder if you've read The Seven Beauties of Science Fiction by Istvan Csicsery-Ronay Jr.? It was really thought-provoking for me and probably shows through in my opinions. What about anything by Darko Suvin? I haven't, but I read what Csicsery-Ronay had to say about him.

I haven't read any recent academic books on genre, so thanks for the tips.

As for the specific novels you mention, I would submit that that each leave room for mystery but the underlying intent is one of "we just haven't figured it out *yet*." Clarke and Sagan do allow their characters to figure out some things, while sort of implicitly promising that they will eventually uncover more answers. Or at least point those who follow them in the right direction.

This is what led me to the question of the work's intent rather than the iconography it used to tell the story. Just because it had spaceships and aliens didn't mean it was SF. As Science Fiction has become more popular, more of its "stuff" is being appropriated by Fantasy and mainstream fiction, because it's just part of the vernacular of our time. (Which sounds a lot like what Suvin is talking about.)

Isaac Asimov once said he blamed the atomic bomb for bringing Science Fiction down to earth. Instead of being wild-eyed, blue sky stuff, it was suddenly "ripped from tomorrow's headlines!" As time has gone by and technology has so obviously infiltrated every aspect of our lives, most fiction has started feeling like science fiction. Mysteries become less about figuring out who's lying and more about following the evidence. Sherlock Holmes is no longer the outlier, he is the typical example.

The downside of this is that the areas of extrapolation shrink as knowledge grows. One by one we lose things that can be considered part of science fiction as they lose their plausibility. Crystals don't have mysterious properties. Nearby planets are lifeless. Psychic abilities become ever less likely. That's Lensmen gone, War of the Worlds rendered unreal, Known Space marginalized.

To fill the gap, Fantasy appropriates Science Fiction's iconography but doesn't adopt its outlook on the universe. Which is when arguments start about the differences between "Hard" and "Soft" SF, or if Space Opera should really be called "Space Fantasy." On some level people sense that the essential component of extrapolation is missing. What you're left with are stories which invest in character and exciting adventure, but they lack the intent of Science Fiction, which is about investigating the world around us and seeking out its secrets.

I suspect this will be quite long, so I'll end here. Hopefully it makes sense, especially since I just wrote all that in the middle of the night and it's now 5:13 am and I'm all used up.

There is no clear distinction between fantasy and science fiction. For any proposed rule, you could think of borderline cases. So what's gained by trying to find a rigid distinction? Better to say, I think, that fantasy and science fiction are two related families of works, sharing family resemblances. When two families are intertwined, like intermarried families in a small old village, how do you determine which people 'are' from one family and which from the other? Any distinction is going to be fairly arbitrary... so we should avoid it unless there's a pressing reason why one is needed.

I would like to comment specifically on the 'realism' point: lots of things in science fiction are generally believed to be impossible. Lots of things in fantasy, on the other hand, are completely physically possible - there's no reason why elves and dwarves and orcs couldn't exist, or even dragons (provided their wings are just for show).


Anyway, for people who feel there is a clear distinction, how about these books:

- The Book of the New Sun and The Urth of the New Sun. Combines superficially fantastic setting with strong suggestions of being merely post-apocalyptic far-future, with some very high tech pretending to be magic... but then again some of the high tech seems to do things that are impossible, other impossible things don't seem to be explicable through tech, and there's a whole lot of mysticism thrown in (the 'SF' spaceships, for instance, appear to be travelling to different kaballistic planes of reality).

- Pern. A clearer post-apocalyptic (sort of) SF-in-the-form-of-fantasy. But then again, the 'SF' elements include teleportation (not limited by mass), telepathy, and great big fire-breathing flying dragons that are clearly too large to actually fly according to known physics.

- The Left Hand of Darkness. Everyone thinks of this as SF. But what SF elements are there in it? The only high tech things are FTL ships (impossible), ansibles (impossible), and some kind of ray gun (probably possible, though not really developed in a sciency theoretical way). Against that, you have an alien-but-suspiciously-human species who would look perfectly at home in fantasy if you just called them 'elves' or something. In-world, the explanation is that all sentient species, including humans, are descended from a single alien forerunner race - which anthropology and our knowledge of the fossil record can pretty much rule out. Meanwhile, we also appear to have mystics with true prophetic powers.

- The Prestige. Victorian setting, the only impossible things are explained in terms of electricity and science. So it looks like SF. In reality, however, we know that the impossible things are pretty much just flat-out impossible (certainly impossible by the methods they're ascribed to), and the final impossible thing has no explanation at all. But does anyone want to have to call The Prestige 'fantasy'?

- The Stars My Destination. SF, right? Well actually, the big 'SF' idea here is that everyone can instantaneously teleport by will alone, without any aids or modifications. That's not very sciency!

etc etc etc...

@Wastrel

I like your point about how related Sci-Fi and fantasy are, they really are difficult to separate most of the time. There are of course exceptions where a book is purely one or the other, but generally they are a mix.

One thing I think you overstated, however, is things that are "possible" or "impossible" with technology. In the Ender universe, for example, ansibles and FTL are both thought to be possible (not exactly in the way described of course). If you don't believe me, google entanglement theory and warp drive. Both have been shown to be possible mathematically, we just don't have the technology to try it yet.

Excellent points however.

Brendan wrote: "@Wastrel

I like your point about how related Sci-Fi and fantasy are, they really are difficult to separate most of the time. There are of course exceptions where a book is purely one or the other..."

Well, I'll rephrase: impossible in the sense that there is no generally accepted possible method. So there are things we can't do, and then there are things we not only can't do but don't know how to do, and then there are things we not only don't know how to do, but don't even know that it's even possible that there might be a way to do them. Here we find FTL - not absolutely impossible, in that some people think they may have found loopholes, but still impossible, in that there aren't any loopholes that are generally accepted to BE loopholes, only potential loopholes that some people think are loopholes but others think are not loopholes.

By that logic, pretty much all magic in fantasy novels is also 'possible' - even more possible, actually, since there are no physical laws against things like telekinesis (only no practical method known to us). FTL is a step beyond magic.

Wastrel wrote: "There is no clear distinction between fantasy and science fiction. For any proposed rule, you could think of borderline cases. So what's gained by trying to find a rigid distinction? Better to say,..."

I take your point and agree that any rule has borderline cases. I like to make a distinction for myself because, even though what I call science fiction and what I call fantasy are both fun to read, they're different kinds of fun. If I finish a book and can't tell which it was, it's not fun at all.

Oh, and this is nitpicking, but I don't remember any FTL ships in The Left Hand of Darkness, only NAFAL (Nearly As Fast As Light).

FTL is a good example of my definitions, actually. We say it isn't possible because general relativity says it isn't. I consider FTL science fiction because writers typically explain it in a way that suggests some new theory replaced relativity the same way relativity replaced Newtonian physics. If a book explicitly or implicitly throws the whole discipline of physics out the window, then I call it fantasy.

As I said earlier, FTL has been said to be theoretically possible by physicists like Hawking and Kaku. If they say it can work, I think we should let it into the genre. Likewise, time travel via wormhole is theoretically possible. So that's in, too.

That said, it's pretty easy to determine whether something is Fantasy or not. Does it have elements which we know for certain are impossible? Were those elements included *after* the date when we knew they were impossible? Then it's Fantasy.

Pern is Fantasy, so is The Prestige and The Stars My Destination. I honestly don't recall enough about the LeGuin book to say, but I would feel safe betting real money that it's Fantasy. I haven't read the Wolfe series, so I don't know.

The Apocalypse Door by James Macdonald is the only book I've had trouble distinguishing which genre it belongs in. Is the Big Bad an alien AI or a demon from hell? MacDonald makes both seem plausible, and because the main character is an unreliable narrator I couldn't really decide. I'll have to find the book and read it again to see if I can pick up anything I missed.

Regarding Pern: I wouldn't feel comfortable calling it one way or another. In fact, another group had a very long debate whether it belonged on the "Top 100 Fantasies" and finally decided in favor of the author's opinion--SciFi.

At the start of the series, it certainly looks like fantasy, especially the dragons and telepathic communication with them. But once we find out about an earlier civilization, it becomes apparent that it is a colony that has regressed over hundreds of years. Dragons became a thing of genetics. I don't remember the telepathy/teleporting explanation, but that's in many sci-fi, so it doesn't automatically disqualify it.

My point?

I agree with Wastrel-there is a wide borderland of books that are not clearly 'fantasy' or 'sci-fi.' When logical fails, I go with author definition.

Wastrel wrote: "Well, I'll rephrase: impossible in the sense that there is no generally accepted possible method. So there are things we can't do, and then there are things we not only can't do but don't know how to do, and then there are things we not only don't know how to do, but don't even know that it's even possible that there might be a way to do them. Here we find FTL - not absolutely impossible, in that some people think they may have found loopholes, but still impossible, in that there aren't any loopholes that are generally accepted to BE loopholes, only potential loopholes that some people think are loopholes but others think are not loopholes.

By that logic, pretty much all magic in fantasy novels is also 'possible' - even more possible, actually, since there are no physical laws against things like telekinesis (only no practical method known to us). FTL is a step beyond magic."

It depends on who is saying it's possible. I give a bit more weight to the scientists who hypothesize something is possible than I would to a random guy on a street corner. I think if a physicist says, "Here's a way for FTL to work," then that's good enough for me. If a bunch of science-types go, "Yeahhh... that ain't gonna happen and here's why," then we can safely say it's impossible.

As long as the question is up in the air, we ought to let it into the genre.

Trike wrote: "Wastrel wrote: "Well, I'll rephrase: impossible in the sense that there is no generally accepted possible method. So there are things we can't do, and then there are things we not only can't do but..."

In the case of FTL, however, both things have happened. Some physicists have said 'here is a way that FTL MIGHT be possible', and then a bunch of other physicists have in each case gone 'yeahhh... that ain't going to happen, and here's why'.

And I'll re-iterate: most of the magic you see in fantasy novels is not physically impossible. And indeed more physicists would say it was possible than would say FTL was possible.
[Note: possible is not the same as probable. Most magic is staggeringly improbably, but it rarely actually violates any physical laws.]

This is pointed out by Asimov, iirc, when in the later foundation novels he has characters who are basically sorcerors, due to a genetic development.

Likewise, taking Asimov again, his hyperminiaturised nuclear power cells (basically nuclear power stations in a wristwatch) are clearly less likely to be possible than, say, the existence of elves, or even vampires.

--

In any case, I think the problem with what you are doing in defining SF like that is that you are making 'science fiction' the same as what's normally called 'hard science fiction' - and excluding the vast bulk of what's normally called SF. At that point it becomes questionable, I think, what the point of the term is any longer.

I'm with Wastrel on this. I think. It seems to me if every science fiction book was judged by such strict standards there'd be nothing left to call "science fiction".
I tend to think of science fiction mostly in terms of our world (and universe) and our future.

Psychic abilities are responsible for most of my hesitations. If they're intended as science fiction I take them as science fiction, but it's hard for me to take them as good science fiction*. I tolerate them when the book has enough other redeeming virtues, but unhappily.

For me fantasy isn't when we can't reconcile things with our physics, it's when the book doesn't do any of the reconciling for us.

*From my subjective taste's point of view, of course.

I think Lord of the Rings and Isaac Asimov's Foundation series should be considered the poles of the two genres. So anything that's closer to LOTR is fantasy and if it resembles The Foundation more, its Science Fiction. Of course not eveyone has read these books.

Mach wrote: "I think Lord of the Rings and Isaac Asimov's Foundation series should be considered the poles of the two genres. So anything that's closer to LOTR is fantasy and if it resembles The Foundation more..."

Except of course that if you want to define SF through hard SF, Foundation is a very, very long way from being hard SF.

Off the top of my head:
- immortal robots
- FTL
- nuclear power stations in the palm of your hand
- true prophecies (albeit couched in pseudoscientific language)
- telepathy
- pyschic mood and memory control
- a planetary collective consciousness (extending even to inorganic matter)
- psychically-generated electricity
- telekinesis
- people who can destroy entire spaceships with their mind alone
- probably several different types of time travel, and time-rewriting, depending on which books you include

I was thinking only of The Foundation trilogy not the preludes and prequels, you do have a point though, but all the supernatural stuff is explained scientifically. Maybe that's the real difference between Scifi and Fantasy. ¨

I have never read a book and been like .. is this fantasy or scifi? i always know. Most people know what genre the book they are reading is, i believe. And if they don't, they usually don't care as long as it's good.


How many of you have ever read a book and been in a doubt to the books genre? if so what book is that?

One author for me that I question where to place him is Lovecraft. Horror. Science fiction. Fantasy. He's all three.
And some of the classics that were considered science fiction aren't anymore because of technology and advances in science. Burroughs is one that comes to mind.
The The Great Book of Amber. This is an odd one too that can be considered both fantasy and science fiction.
Though generally I agree. When it's science fiction, you know. When it's fantasy, you know.
(Should I bring Star Wars is fantasy into the mix?)

No you don't once that Star wars is fantasy/science fiction discussion starts it never ends. People will never agree on that one. ( it's scifi :)