What is your definition on sci fantasy and sci fi?

[Greg Cox]

And, for the record, Hard SF does not equal Science Fiction, otherwise you wouldn't need to add a descriptive adjective ("Hard") to the term. Hard SF is just one variety of SF . . . .

(Says the guy who grew up on Edgar Rice Burroughs, not Robert E. Heinlein. )

 

[Nerys Myk]

And, for the record, Hard SF does not equal Science Fiction, otherwise you wouldn't need to add a description adjective ("Hard") to the term. Hard SF is just one variety of SF . . . .

(Says the guy who grew up on Edgar Rice Burroughs, not Robert E. Heinlein. )

Same here. I didn't read any Heinlein till I was in my late teens.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

For me, it's pretty simple. There is no hard seperation, as has been mentioned already, but the spectrum is divided between stories on one side that aspire to a more scientific mindset and stories on the other side which simply aren't really interested in the scientific aspect of things, but simply like using fancy technology for atmosphere.

Star Trek is Sci-fi (not hard sci-fi) because for all the random stuff it invents out of thin air, it still tries to promote the idea of science, progress and the scientific method as the basis for all these technological wonders. It approaches the miraculous as something that maybe hasn't been explained yet, but could be, and could maybe even be mastered by any regular person, under the right circumstances. And it uses these ideas to explore how the technology and the changes it brings will change society (and how the society will change the technology).

Star Wars is Sci-Fantasy because it isn't interested in the science behind any of its technology nor in where that technology came from or where new technology will come from nor in what special/unique effects that technology might have on society. At the end of the day, it basically just uses technology as cool looking stand-ins for much older archetypes (jedi= Knight, Force = Magic, speeders = horses, etc), which makes for a fun story, that is not at all sci-fi. Replace all the technology with medieval fantasy tropes and the story would still work perfectly without the slightest hiccup.

 

[SPCTRE]

my definition is whatever makes people on the internet angry (i.e. all of the definitions)

 

[RJDiogenes]

Science Fiction is the extrapolation of known science (or existing technology) based on current knowledge, and the effect it has on society or an individual. Stanley Schmidt, long-time editor of the Hard SF magazine Analog, defined it like this: "My definition of science fiction is simply fiction in which some element of speculation plays such an essential and integral role that it can't be removed without making the story collapse, and in which the author has made a reasonable effort to make the speculative element as plausible as possible. Anything that doesn't meet those requirements is not science fiction at all, as far as I'm concerned, so there's no need for a separate term like "Hard SF" to distinguish it from "other" kinds of SF."

What the people who get uptight about the label usually don't get is that there are no hard lines between different types of fantastic fiction, and that more than one label can apply to a particular work.

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

Labels and definitions matter a great deal in science.

 

[Greg Cox]

Science Fiction is the extrapolation of known science (or existing technology) based on current knowledge, and the effect it has on society or an individual. Stanley Schmidt, long-time editor of the Hard SF magazine Analog, defined it like this: "My definition of science fiction is simply fiction in which some element of speculation plays such an essential and integral role that it can't be removed without making the story collapse, and in which the author has made a reasonable effort to make the speculative element as plausible as possible. Anything that doesn't meet those requirements is not science fiction at all, as far as I'm concerned, so there's no need for a separate term like "Hard SF" to distinguish it from "other" kinds of SF."

No disrespect to Stan, who did me a very nice favor a few years back, but of course Analog is going to say that. They're the flagship of the whole John W. Campbell/Astounding school of hard and hardish SF, which is a proud and noble tradition, to be sure, but it's not the only branch of SF that matters . ..

What about Ray Bradbury, Theodore Sturgeon, Fritz Leiber, C. L. Moore, Zenna Henderson, Richard Matheson, Philip K. Dick, Rod Serling,and the like? Not to mention magazines like Asimov's or Interzone or Omni or F&SF?

SF is a big umbrella, which covers Analog-style SF as well as many other varieties. And SF overlaps with fantasy and horror under an even bigger umbrella.

Definitions may matter in science, but in the arts . . . maybe not so much.

Says the guy who is editing lots of Weird Westerns these days, which combine SF, fantasy, horror, steampunk, and western tropes--to, hopefully, entertaining effect!

Honestly, I love stories that trash borders and blur genres and, left to my own devices, tend to gravitate toward them . ..

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

For me Science Fiction is anything that features extraordinary things happening through science, while fantasy has extraordinary things happening through other means, usually magic.

That's pretty close to how I look at it. SF is about incredible events that do NOT involve the supernatural. Fantasy is about incredible events that DO involve the supernatural.

 

[Vendikarr]

To me, a story is science fiction or fantasy if it involves one or more of the following:

Science Fiction
- Time travel
- Technology advanced for the time period it is set in
- Extraterrestrials and / or Alien worlds

Fantasy
- Use of 'magic'
- involves mythological or cryptozoological creatures
- physical interaction with a god or its agents (angels and demons)

Depends on above
- reanimation of the dead
- Super heroes because they tend to fall into one of the above categories.

 

[Silvercrest]

That's pretty close to how I look at it. SF is about incredible events that do NOT involve the supernatural. Fantasy is about incredible events that DO involve the supernatural.

I'm good with this! Now let's define the word "supernatural".

 

[Kor]

"The Time Machine" is definitive science fiction, and the story never ever ventures out into space.

Kor

 

[Silvercrest]

On the other hand, "Apollo 13" takes place in space and depicts events that never happened (at least not exactly as shown). Therefore by the OP's definition it must be science fiction.

 

[BillJ]

I guess it comes down to whether or not it entertains me. If I like it, it is "sci-fi", if I don't, it is "sci-fantasy".

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

I'm good with this! Now let's define the word "supernatural".

How about: "Any object or force that contradicts the laws of physics. For example, magic."

By "laws of physics," I am including all of the undiscovered ones scientists don't know about yet. That way, SF can have things like time-travel and faster-than-light travel.

Of course, that could blur things a bit if someone suggests "Maybe scientists just haven't discovered magic yet!" But the border between the genres has always been blurry anyway.

I suppose another way of stating my distinction between the genres is: An SF author believes his/her story could actually happen, even if it is unlikely. A fantasy author knows his/her story could not happen.

Then again, the distinction blurs again if you have an author that believes in magic, like Diana Wynne Jones. Oh well, no distinction is going to be perfect.

 

[Greg Cox]

To me, a story is science fiction or fantasy if it involves one or more of the following:

Science Fiction
- Time travel
-.

And even time-travel is slippery. "A Christmas Carol" by Dickens is a basically a time-travel story, but it's done via ghosts. And what about SOMEWHERE IN TIME, where the protagonist basically wills himself into the past? Or DARK SHADOWS or HARRY POTTER or any number of TWILIGHT ZONE episodes that dabbled in time-travel without resorting to technology . . .

Heck, on DARK SHADOWS, Victoria was sent back in time via a seance . . ..

 

[JD]

Where would we put the DC and Marvel comics that include both magic and scientific concepts? For instance we've had Avengers teams which have included Iron Man, a science/technology based hero, and Dr. Strange, a magic based hero.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Where would we put the DC and Marvel comics that include both magic and scientific concepts? For instance we've had Avengers teams which have included Iron Man, a science/technology based hero, and Dr. Strange, a magic based hero.

Superheroes mostly tend to lean towards the Science Fantasy end of the spectrum. They exist in a world were Science Fantasy and Magical Fantasy co-exist.

 

[Vendikarr]

And even time-travel is slippery. "A Christmas Carol" by Dickens is a basically a time-travel story, but it's done via ghosts. And what about SOMEWHERE IN TIME, where the protagonist basically wills himself into the past? Or DARK SHADOWS or HARRY POTTER or any number of TWILIGHT ZONE episodes that dabbled in time-travel without resorting to technology . . .

Heck, on DARK SHADOWS, Victoria was sent back in time via a seance . . ..

Yes you're right, Time travel would have to move under my Depends category. i would also add Artificial beings under Depends, because you can have Androids ( a product of science ) on one hand, and a creature like the Golem on the other ( a creation of magic ). There's a new buddy cop series. She's an android, he's a golem. Together they fight crime, as the Artificials.

i would add under Science Fiction
- Non-existatn, fantastic or impossible / improbably technology

 

[Greg Cox]

Comic books are a mishmash. Once you decide that Adam Strange, Wonder Woman, Doctor Fate, Jonah Hex, The Legion of Super-Heroes, and Detective Chimp all exist in the same universe . . . all bets are off.

Not that certain series and characters don't lend themselves more to certain genres. Daredevil's natural milieu is urban crime stories with a superhero twist, Doctor Strange does mysticism and magic, Morbius the Living Vampire mixes horror and science fiction, the Fantastic Four goes adventuring through time and space, Howard the Duck does satire, etc.

In fact, one of the things I really enjoyed about novelizing all those DC crossovers a few years back was that I got write umpteen genres in the same book. I could do horror with the Spectre, fantasy with the Amazons on Paradise Island, space opera with the Rann-Thanagar War, gritty crime stuff in Gotham city, prehistoric adventure with Tor the teenage caveman, and post-apocalyptic SF with Kamandi, the Last Boy on Earth.

I had a ball . . . and never had to worry about staying true to one particular genre, since it changed every chapter!

 

[Silvercrest]

I suppose another way of stating my distinction between the genres is: An SF author believes his/her story could actually happen, even if it is unlikely. A fantasy author knows his/her story could not happen.

I was being a bit facetious the first time, but I actually do like this one. It also meshes with a definition I've seen elsewhere (not sure if it's quoted upthread): "If it's extrapolated from the known laws of physics, it's science fiction. If it's not extrapolated from the known laws of physics, it's fantasy."

There's still plenty of blurring of the line there, like what "science fantasy" means in that context.

How about, "If it acknowledges the known laws of physics while blatantly thumbing its nose at them, it's science fantasy."

 

[Greg Cox]

I suppose another way of stating my distinction between the genres is: An SF author believes his/her story could actually happen, even if it is unlikely. A fantasy author knows his/her story could not happen.

Perhaps, but somehow I doubt that Pierre Boulle really believed that chimpanzees and orangutans could actually take over the world someday . . . .