Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Hobbes wrote:A well-known sci-fi writer bemoaned the fact that in fantasy, some clumsy fool with a sword goes and kills the smart wizard, whereas in sci-fi, smart people are the ones solving the problems.

Anybody know which writer said this?

That aside, this "hasty generalization" made me groan for several reasons. 1. A lot of writers dabble in both of these genres, as well as horror. They all share a lot of tropes. And most writers recognize that different ideas are best told using different genres. Sad that someone who glories in the ability of science to break through barriers is so willing to stuff themselves into such a tiny literary box. 2. The quote is more accurate if said about pulp fantasy and pulp sci-fi. But the best sci-fi and fantasy transcend such simple, escapist plots. 3. It sounds like a fanboy argument rather than an intellectual one. His genre of choice is sci-fi, so it must be the best one. And any pithy epigram, no matter how skewed, is used for ammo.

Oh sure, trivialize the contribution of the pulps.

I'm pretty sure it was Orson Scott Card. I think I remember him saying that in his little forum in the HBLL, but I can't find it online.

Why on earth would Card say that? Card writes plenty of fantasy, wrote a book on writing both Sci-fi and fantasy, and said "This is the golden age of serious fantasy literature."

Another thought: if it's so easy and so common for clumsy fools with swords to kill all these wizards, perhaps they're not that smart after all.

So I've been thinking about the question concerning whether a book can be both Sci-Fi and Fantasy. In particular, I've been thinking about CPM's answer. I take issue with his criteria since a lot of the best sci-fi and fantasy don't meet those criteria. But by his own admission they are oversimplified, so I won't belabor them here. But I will take issue with his score for Star Trek.

I will re-present his rubric as follows: Dichotomy? CPM's answer. Did he get it right?

Robots or no robots? No robots. CPM is correct.
Medieval or futuristic? Futuristic. CPM is correct.
One planet or many planets? Many planets. CPM is correct.
Fantastical events due to technology or magic? Technology. Wrong!
Fantastical events explained or not? Explained. Wrong!

Most of the fantastical elements of Star Trek are technological and are explained in terms of semi-plausible sounding technobabble. But some things are blatantly magical and non-scientific, even if they never condescend to call it such. Examples? Vulcan mind meld--technological or magical? Magical. Betazoid empathy/telepathy--technological or magical? Magical. El-Aurian empathy and 'future perception'--technological or magical? Magical. The Q continuum's control over time, space, energy, and matter?--technological or magical? Magical. The Traveler's control over time, space, matter, and energy?--technological or magical? Magical. I'm sure there are more; these are just what I can remember off the top of my head (I haven't watched TNG since it aired in the 1990s). The only one that gets a pseudo-explanation is the Betazoid ability.

So I would rate Star Trek the same as CPM rated Star Wars: Fantasy: 1.5 -- Science Fiction: 3.5

Oh, and then there's the Trill Symbiont and the Changelings from DS9. Magic or Technology? Magic.

In my Science Fiction class in high school, we defined the difference between sci-fi and fantasy as this: science fiction gives explanations for its universe that could be possible (or at least sounds possible), while fantasy is wholly impossible.

The Thursday Next series, by Jasper Fforde, is both science fiction and fantasy, I think. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Damasta wrote:

Hobbes wrote:A well-known sci-fi writer bemoaned the fact that in fantasy, some clumsy fool with a sword goes and kills the smart wizard, whereas in sci-fi, smart people are the ones solving the problems.

Anybody know which writer said this?

That aside, this "hasty generalization" made me groan for several reasons. 1. A lot of writers dabble in both of these genres, as well as horror. They all share a lot of tropes. And most writers recognize that different ideas are best told using different genres. Sad that someone who glories in the ability of science to break through barriers is so willing to stuff themselves into such a tiny literary box. 2. The quote is more accurate if said about pulp fantasy and pulp sci-fi. But the best sci-fi and fantasy transcend such simple, escapist plots. 3. It sounds like a fanboy argument rather than an intellectual one. His genre of choice is sci-fi, so it must be the best one. And any pithy epigram, no matter how skewed, is used for ammo.

I heard it from Brandon Sanderson, who attributed it to Isaac Asimov. Sorry for the lack of citation.

I'd recommend Scott Card's How to Write Science Fiction & Fantasy his first (and, I believe longest) chapter dives into the Sci-fi/Fiction boundaries with various rubrics offered. After each one he gives numerous examples that show why it is incomplete. (One without counterexamples was author preference: once an author is established enough what he writes is what he claims it is, regardless of practically any other criteria.) He then goes on to point out that it really doesn't matter. The only point at which sci-fi vs. fantasy comes into play is when sending out feelers getting published. (Many sci-fi magazines are disinclined to publish anything lacking steel and rivets.) He then offers one reason why bookstores choose to lump the two genres together and why it'd be foolish to expect them to do otherwise.

Dead Cat wrote: The Thursday Next series, by Jasper Fforde, is both science fiction and fantasy, I think. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Looks like a good candidate. The alternate universe helps explain things in a sci-fi manner, and the genetic engineering and other advanced sciences prevalent help, but it seems to me that the focus on literary characters coming to life, influencing and being influenced by the protagonist is why it gets labeled as part of the fantasy/alternate history category.

The first sci-fi/fantasy combo to my mind is Piers Anthony's Apprentice Adept series. That's a bit of a cop-out as the entire series is based on two parallel worlds, one running on advanced science and the other on magic. But hey, it'd be a hard one to argue against being a dichotomy.

Damasta wrote:So I've been thinking about the question concerning whether a book can be both Sci-Fi and Fantasy. In particular, I've been thinking about CPM's answer. I take issue with his criteria since a lot of the best sci-fi and fantasy don't meet those criteria. But by his own admission they are oversimplified, so I won't belabor them here. But I will take issue with his score for Star Trek.

...

The only one that gets a pseudo-explanation is the Betazoid ability.

Interesting that each of what you qualify as 'magical' harks back to CPM's first criterion biological vs. mechanical. The matter/antimatter drive intermix ratio is often as fantastical as empathy/telepathy/mind melding et al. I think most of the biological variants in Star Trek are given a scientific hand waving and tossed into the black box of evolution. In the case of Q and especially the Traveler, their abilities derive from their advanced state. (doesn't Westley end up duplicating some of the Traveler's abilities? Part of the reason no one outside of the writing team liked him?)

I think it largely boils down to artistic intent. In a sci-fi work, the explaination comes fairly quickly that the standard rules of physics can be assumed, with deviations noted and often explained in some way. In a fantasy, magic may be the mode of action, but it in itself is a science, as if it were without rules, the audience would be unwilling to accept it. ("He has magic, anything he wants he can get, without restriction" hmmm, hard to have convincing conflict there...) In fantasy, mind-reading is magic because that is what the audience will accept, whereas in sci-fi it is classified as an evolutionary trait that we simply lack. (Which could be the basis for any 'magical' ability, the sighted man in a blind community could easily be called magical, discerning that which his vision-less peers cannot. {insert your 'Seer' lame joke or epiphany here})

What I wonder is, if the episode where they get trapped in a Robin Hood story on the Holodeck were a stand-alone work, would it be sci-fi or fantasy? The framework is science based, but the majority of the story is fantastic.

And would it be different if you only found out about the holodeck in the closing scene?

Hobbes wrote:I heard it from Brandon Sanderson, who attributed it to Isaac Asimov. Sorry for the lack of citation.

Ah, yes. That quote makes a lot more sense coming from Isaac Asimov. In his heyday science fiction and fantasy really did fit more closely into the stereotypes he complained of. It was hard sci-fi vs. sword-and-sorcery. But both genres have really fleshed out in the intervening decades (and done a fair degree of overlapping).