What is your definition on sci fantasy and sci fi?

[WB2]

Hi, I was curios how peoples definition on Sci Fantasy and Sci Fi vary.

For me, Sci Fi is a story that takes place in space or in the future, or both and if you would change either setting alot of the story would get lost.

Sci Fantasy on the other hand, is a story that you could more or less move into any century or setting and the story would be intact, ie two villages fighting eachother or something like that. It doesn't matter if that story is on Rigel IV between two ridged forehead aliens or in medieval Europe, the story is basically the same.

Now I realize this isn't clear definitions and I don't think I can ever give a clear definition but this is as close as I can come. Am curious about the rest of you all.

 

[1001001]

Moving to SFF

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

My take is that science fantasy is a subgenre of science fiction that also includes fantasy and horror fiction elements such as magic, occultism, and the supernatural that aren't readily explained by science or that are scientifically implausible. That's it.

Countdown to @Christopher appearing in a Djinn-like manner ...

 

[RandyS]

For me it goes something like this:
Star Trek is science fiction.
Star Wars is space fantasy.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

For me it goes something like this:
Star Trek is science fiction.
Star Wars is space fantasy.

Apparently, A C Clarke classed Star Trek as science fantasy because of the high degree of scientific implausibility -- and this was even before the Voyager episode "Threshold" aired.

 

[Velocity]

Steampunk would be science fantasy, I guess.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Sci Fantasy on the other hand, is a story that you could more or less move into any century or setting and the story would be intact, ie two villages fighting eachother or something like that. It doesn't matter if that story is on Rigel IV between two ridged forehead aliens or in medieval Europe, the story is basically the same.

That works with some stories like King Arthur but some fantasy worlds are built up to the point that would be difficult. Like say, does Harry Potter in Space work? Not easily I'd wager yet it's firmly fantasy.

I look at it this way:
Did they teleport through a matter transporter or a mystic portal?
Did the bolt of light come from a ray gun or a magic wand?
etc.

I'm not being too helpful in having a solid definition of delineation because I think in that path lies madness.

For me it goes something like this:
Star Trek is science fiction.
Star Wars is space fantasy.

Of course, the fantasy has actual alien creatures that don't all speak English. Whoops, there comes that madness...

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" -- A C Clarke's third law indicates that what we might classify as science fantasy might actually be hard science fiction. The line between soft SF and science fantasy is also blurry. We don't really have a firm definition but we think we know what is science fantasy when we see it and yet we probably won't agree.

 

[JD]

For me Science Fiction is anything that features extraordinary things happening through science, while fantasy has extraordinary things happening through other means, usually magic. So for me Star Trek is science fiction, while Star Wars is fantasy. Star Wars looks like science fiction, but I'd say the fantasy elements are more prounced with the Jedi basically wizards and the Force basically magic.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Star Wars looks like science fiction, but I'd say the fantasy elements are more prounced with the Jedi basically wizards and the Force basically magic.

But can't the same be said about Vulcans and other aliens with extraordinary abilities? Telepathy and mind transfers aren't science.

I think fantasy in this case isn't magic,wizards and dragons but technology without a strong basis in actual science. Things like warp drive, artificial gravity and humanoid aliens are what pushes Star Trek into Science Fantasy.

 

[JD]

For me even if the science isn't real I still count it as science fiction if the explanation is attempting to be scientific. I guess you could try to say that the midichlorians in SW are a "scientific" explanation for The Force, but there is still very little emphasis put on the science in SW, while Star Trek has whole stories based around science.
Thinking about it more, I guess maybe for me it's more the approach than the explanation, Star Trek tends to focus a lot on explaining things through science or even just "science", while Star Wars never really focuses a lot of energy on giving us explanations for things like hyperdrives or blasters.

 

[Nerys Myk]

For me, Sci Fi is a story that takes place in space or in the future, or both and if you would change either setting alot of the

That seems a bit narrow. One can create perfectly fine SF set on Earth or in the present.

 

[JD]

^Definitely. Defiance is set on Earth and is still very much sci fi, and the X-Files and Eureka were both set in the modern day and are both still very much sci fi.
One of the big undecided ones for me is Warehouse 13, at times it seemed to be trying for a scientific/sci fi approach, but a lot of the ideas went in more of a fantasy direction.

 

[Commander Richard]

Check out Regenesis for a good example of scifi. It took place in "the present" and dealt with cloning, viruses run amok and whatnot. It was the kind of stuff that isn't happening but could plausibly happen in the near future.

Good scifi also has space ships and guns that go pew! pew!

 

[Nerys Myk]

Star Trek tends to focus a lot on explaining things through science or even just "science", while Star Wars never really focuses a lot of energy on giving us explanations for things like hyperdrives or blasters.

Does it? Do we really know how warp drives and phasers work? Is technobabble a real substitute for actual science?
For Star Trek "science" is more a part of the setting than the story. "The Ultimate Computer" isn't a story about computers but about a man.

 

[Greg Cox]

There's not a border. There's a spectrum. Some SF is more at the "hard" end of the spectrum and some are more on the "fantasy" end, with every gradation in-between. You're never going to be able to draw a clear-cut dividing line between one kind of SF and another.

Look at "City on the Edge of Forever." The Guardian of Forever is basically a magic portal through time. Does it become science fiction (and not "science fantasy") just because we throw a "scientific" explanation at it? And does it even matter, since the actual story is about Kirk having to choose between saving Edith or fixing the timeline?

Is that science fiction? Science fantasy? Or do the labels even matter?

 

[Relayer1]

For me it goes something like this:
Star Trek is science fiction.
Star Wars is space fantasy.

I think they're both fantasy, but Trek's closer to science fiction than Star Wars. Much closer with stuff like TMP.

True or 'hard' science fiction doesn't have fanciful stuff like transporters and faster than light travel. Films like The Martian and to some extent Interstellar, books like Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy and Alastair Reynolds Revelation Space novels. Technological settings based on what we understand to be possible, not what is very likely to not be...

 

[Greg Cox]

This is an old debate. Jules Verne complained that H.G. Wells was not scientifically rigorous enough because he made up stuff like anti-gravity metals and time-travel and invisibility serums . . ..

But are we really going to argue that friggin' H.G. Wells didn't write real SF?

 

[JD]

Does it? Do we really know how warp drives and phasers work? Is technobabble a real substitute for actual science?
For Star Trek "science" is more a part of the setting than the story. "The Ultimate Computer" isn't a story about computers but about a man.

That was why I changed direction in the second half of my post. I think what you're basically saying the same thing at the end of your post that I did at the end of mine.

 

[Mudd]

First, science fiction is a subgenre of fantasy just as sword-and-sorcery or heroic fantasy is.

damon knight had the only useful definition of science fiction - it's whatever you point to when you say "science fiction."

Science fantasy? Virtually every well-known, successful sf property in movies, tv and comic books is science fantasy; Star Trek is no more "hard sf" than Farscape.