Distinction between s.f. and fantasy?

[Zarathustra]

Recent discussion in the Gap forum has made me return to an old question: must there be a significant distinction between science fiction and fantasy? (Donaldson seems to think so). And if there must be a clear dividing line, what precisely defines this line?

Superficially, the distinction seems to revolve around magic vs science. Donaldson seems to agree:

Therefore the essential substance of fantasy worlds is composed of "that which transcends definition" rather than of, for example, electrons and J particles. And *therefore* the inhabitants of fantasy worlds think and act in magical rather than in technological or scientific terms.

However, he goes much deeper in his analysis:

Unlike every other form of storytelling . . . fantasy is not *about* material reality, or even material plausibility. It does not describe or comment upon rational or tangible observations of the external world; the world of science and technology. Nor does it describe or comment upon verifiable observations of the human condition, in general or in particular, through research into the past or extrapolation into the future. Fantasy is *about* metaphysical reality, the intersection of the spiritual with the psychological. It describes and comments upon non-rational and (ideally) universal observations of the internal world; the world of the unverifiable; the world of imagination and nightmare, of hope and despair and faith; the world of magic.

Nevertheless the distinctions are important. In sf, the differences between our reality and the secondary creation are explained materially (rationally): x, y, or z has happened in science/technology, and therefore reality is changed. In fantasy, the differences are explained magically (arationally): x, y, or z powers (which can be imagined, but which defy any material explanation) exist, and therefore reality is changed. As I see it, such distinctions have profound implications. For example, fantasy is--sort of by definition--a journey into the non-rational possibilities of the human mind (a journey inward): sf is a journey into the rational possibilities of consensus reality (a journey outward).

So the technical differences between the genres are necessitated by the philosophical goals an author has in mind when choosing which genre will best facilitate his particular story and themes. “Rational possibilities of consensus reality” might in itself explain why he wrote the Gap cycle from so many different points of view, from so many different character perspectives. And it also suggests a reason for calling the first book, “The Real Story,” and the subsequent opening paragraphs about different perspectives revealing larger layers of the ‘real story.’ Reality, in science fiction, is determined by consensus—much as science itself. In the Chronicles, there isn’t an issue of discovering a consensus for the Land’s reality. It all comes down to the decisions of each individual, individually. Covenant doesn’t decide his final position according to what everyone else thinks. He doesn’t come to a final conclusion at all; he decides that his personal reaction is more important than the external truth. This certainly wouldn’t work for Morn or Warden. Their decisions depend on the ‘real story,’ the larger perspective which informs them of things like the Amnion’s intentions, and Holt’s plan. Their decisions depend on finding out what is really going on, and telling the rest of humanity this real story (hence broadcasting the formula for the anti-mutagen drug and informing others of this previously unknown reality).

Donaldson is certainly consistent with his distinction in these two works. But is his distinction merely his own personal formula for keeping these goals and genres separate? Can other writers find valid distinctions of their own—or even disregard such a distinction altogether?

What about Mordant's Need?

But about "power" in "Mordant's Need": here's one way to look at it. Imagery and the use of mirrors occupy a sort of middle ground between the manifestations of power in more traditional fantasy ("magic and monsters") and those in science fiction (typically "weaponry"). The kingdom of Mordant is not *in itself* a magical place. In fact, it is a rather "mundane" quasi-medieval reality. Instead it has access to magic through the manipulation of devices; through a kind of technology. (Hence the otherwise rather strange fact that Imagery can tap into worlds which operate according to very different "rules" than Mordant does.) In that sense, "Mordant's Need" may deserve to bear the lugubrious label "science fantasy." The use of "magic" there bears a certain resemblence to our use of "science".

For those (like me) who need "lugubrious" to be defined: "Mournful, dismal, or gloomy, especially to an exaggerated or ludicrous degree." Even though Donaldson has ostensibly written a "hybrid" of fantasy and s.f., he implies that he still feels uncomfortable about such a notion of a hybrid genre. Or at least he feels uncomfortable about the label "science fantasy." Is this because he recognizes that he has violated his own philosophical distinctions of story-telling? Has he rendered such neat distinctions meaningless? Which philosophical goal was he trying to accomplish with MN? An exploration of inner, spiritual truths? Or consensus reality? Both?

Does anyone else get the feeling that these distinctions are merely pragmatic, and not set in stone? That perhaps Donaldson has defined these distinctions after the fact in light of his already-published work? Should we ignore his distinctions and find our own? Or do his distinctions accurately describe the established, major works of either genre? Is there a "consensus reality" about the distinction itself, or are our distinctions manifestations of our own personal journeys made possible through story-telling?

[Menolly]

As a fan of McCaffrey's Pern, I am of the strong belief the author sets the distinction. If read in published order, one sees the series as distinctly fantasy. But if one reads the series in chronological order, begining with Dragonsdawn, you would be hard pressed to not call it SF. It's not hard SF, but it's SF.

[Avatar]

I think that there is a distinction, but I don't think it's a clear one, or that it really matters.

Donaldson's work is an excellent example in fact...fantasy, Sci-Fi and something in between as well as the mystery books.

I'm pretty easy-going. If it has space or time travel, it's sci-fi. If it has magic or any kind of workable "spiritual/religious" force as a plot mechanism, then it's fantasy.

--A

[I'm Murrin]

There are delineations, but they will never be--and never should be--clear boundaries, keeping the areas entirely distinct. Each of the speculative fiction genres--fantasy, horror, and sci-fi--has particular storytelling approaches that suit them, but there is nothing to stop an author from taking one approach and applying it to a story using tropes from another subgenre.
The recent popularity of a couple of 'new' subgenres is a good example: paranormal mystery and paranormal romance novels take elements of the fantasy and horror genres--usually the entities, as in ghosts, werewolves, wizards, vampires--and place them in a narrative structure typical of another genre--mystery or romance, in these cases. In fact, some writers believe that it is the way the story is approached by the author, the way the narrative is structured, that defines its genre, rather than the elements within.
Take the Pern books that Menolly mentioned above. In this series, the author decided to take a fantasy trope--dragons--and apply a science fictional reasoning to explain them. The explanations, however, are not what defines the story--once that frame is established, they actually provide a story that is more akin to fantasy than sci-fi, using a familiar fantasy structure. In other works they may have explored the same setting from a science-fictional standing, and once again it is the narrative form that defines the story.
Horror, in fact, can be seen as a subset of the other genres. It often uses the same ideas, but applies them in a different way, in order to create a different kind of story.

Of course, this is just to talk about the ones that straddle or sit close to the supposed borders between the different genres. Though it is becoming more and more common--slipstream, anyone?--the main part of these genres is still quite easily distiguinshable as sci-fi, or fantasy, or horror, where the recognisable forms are applied within the structures usually associated with them.

[wayfriend]

I'd agree with that, Murrin.

I think "science-fiction" and "fantasy" are ideals. As such, they embody characteristics that you could say define them and distinguish them.

Any given work of fiction, however, matches the ideal to a varying degree, depending on the skill and the intention of the author. As was mentioned, a genre is not a high-walled fence (or "set in stone"), but rather a line in the sand, which can be easily crossed. They are vaguely shaped areas - fantasy is "over there", and sci-fi is "that-a-way".

From there, however, it gets messy. Because everyone has their own idea about what characterizes - that is, defines and distinguishes - science fiction and fantasy.

I think that SRDs definition is something that works for SRD - something he's worked out for himself that helps him do what he does. I don't think every other author in the world would agree to his definition. It's an opinion, a position, more than a definition. I don't think its an after-the-fact pragmatism - I think it's something SRD had to figure out in order to begin the story, a "premise" if you will, that he had to adhere to in order for it to "work". Any premise can work, but you have to be consistant with it within the body of one story.

At the very core, there are some trivial and inane basics that everyone can agree on (I hope). Science fiction involves scientific extrapolation; Fantasy involves magic. If you try to add more to the characterization,
you won't get universal agreement, and in fact you'll find works in the genre that don't match those characteristics.

So not only are the boundaries easy to cross, they're not really clear boundaries. Rather, the area you are in gradually fades the farther you get from the center, until at some point you cannot detect it any more.

[Zarathustra]

Wayfriend, you seem to be saying two things at the same time: there are basic distinctions we should all be able to agree on, but the distinctions are up to the particular author. Paradoxically, I want to agree with you. I want to say that it's pretty obvious when you read a book whether or not it's fantasy or s.f. But at the same time, I don't think you can form a universal definition. (Murrin, Av, and Menolly, you also seem to be saying something similar. Don't mean to leave you out!)

Star Wars is undeniably s.f. But it has magic (ignoring the midichlorians). Also, the Guardians of the Flame series by Joel Rosenberg is clearly fantasy (dragons, wizards, Elves, Dwarves), but they also have gunpowder and lots of other technology.

In the end, I really don't think there's a difference other than a cosmetic one. You can have magic in s.f., and technology in fantasy. Going even deeper, using Donaldson's philosophical distinctions, I believe you can have fantasy which explores external, rational, and consensus reality issues. And I believe you can have s.f. which explores spiritual, mental, internal, irrational issues. There's absolutely no reason why an author can't write such stories; nothing inherent to the genres themselves which forbid this. They are merely conventions derived from reader expectations and authors' comfort zones.

The reason I believe Donaldson's definitions are purely pragmatic and purely personal is because they only apply to his specific books. How can he speak in such universal terms when he's describing features of his own books? He tries in one post to apply it to Tolkien, saying that his Elves don't develop technology. But that ignores Tolkien's men. They develop a lot of technology (medieval tech).

I'm going with option 2: no meaningful distinction. Only a cosmetic one--analogous to a change of wardrobe. Sure, a person wearing a business suit might look responsible and professional, and you might be able to guess what type of job he has, but he could still be a child molester when he goes home. Only very superficial conclusions can be drawn from the clothes a person chooses to wear. Likewise, you shouldn't be able to deduce automatically which philosophical goals an author has in mind simply by the artwork on the book's cover or its place on a store's bookshelves. That, to me, is ludicrous and sad.

[Avatar]

Good post. I largely agree. Only cosmetic differences. (Which if you think about it, are the only differences between any genre...all fiction has one thing in common...a story. The elements of the basic story, whatever they are, heroism, love, betrayal, war, whatever, all remain while the setting changes.)

--A

[balon!]

"Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic." --Isaac Asimov.

[Menolly]

Ohhhh.

Excellent quote. Balon.

[aliantha]

I still maintain that *all* fiction is fantasy, 'cause by definition it ain't real. (Literary fiction fans just *hate* it when I say that....)

I think SRD's definitions (and Wayfriend's "trivial and inane basics") hold true for your basic, all-purpose, everyday fantasy or sci-fi novel. But numerous authors are pushing the boundaries now, introducing "magic" into sci-fi settings and, as McCaffrey has done, expanded a fantasy series toward sci-fi. So the genre distinctions have blurred. As long as the blurring adds depth to the story and the characters, and isn't done just as a gimmick, it can only be a good thing.

[Zarathustra]

That is a cool quote. But it was Arther C. Clarke. And "technology" rather than "science."

I'd add: "Any sufficiently ignorant person cannot distinguish natural explanations from super-natural explanations." (This is why some people think creationism is actually a scientific theory, they can't distinguish "magic" from science, even when that science is rather mundane--like Darwinism.)

The point is, it doesn't take extremely advanced science to trick people into believing in magic, or giving people trouble in distinguishing "natural" from "super-natural." They've been believing in magic and supernatural explanations for our existence long before there was any technology. I think this point is extremely relevant to the current issue, because it presents a plausible way to draw the line between fantasy and science fiction--even more so than Donaldson's philosophical division. It illustrates a mindset, a world-view distinction. Fantasy gives us worlds where supernatural explanations are legitimate. I don't think this is possible in science fiction--which may explain the midichlorians after all . . . But even before there were midichlorians, we were told that the Force is an energy field created by all living things. That's a natural explanation, not supernatural.

So maybe I'm backpedaling a bit. Maybe there is no room for magic in s.f., unless that "magic" is rooted in something natural. If it's the Arthur C. Clarke kind of "magic," then fine. That's just mistaken technology. But if it's a place that has Creators, then I don't see how that can have anything to do with science.

Can I change my vote?

[Lord Mhoram]

But isn't magic "natural" when it's set in its own world? In other words, it's natural by the laws of the universe that the author has created. It would defeat the purpose of fiction to apply all real-world standards to a novel. Then we all become those moviegoers that Hitchcock so detested - "the plausibles," whose only concern is finding a real world answer to plot questions.

[wayfriend]

Science fiction is a broad genre of fiction that often involves speculations based on current or future science or technology.

Fantasy is a genre of art that uses magic and other supernatural forms as a primary element of plot, theme, or setting.

I can subscribe to that.

I would call things like Star Wars et al as partaking of multiple genres, rather than allowing them to stretch and blur the definition of a genre.

[Zarathustra]

I think super-natural is still super-natural no matter what world you're in. The point is that it can't be explained by physical laws, physical mechanisms.

[Lord Mhoram]

It can't be explained by our physical laws. The point of fantasy is to create a new physical world where magic can and does exist.

[Zarathustra]

If magic can be explained by the physical laws of another world--even if they contradict the laws of our own world, then why would anyone in that world call it "magic?" It would be science based on a different set of laws.

Super-natural can't be explained in mechanical, physical processes. The point of fantasy might be to create a world where magic exists, but it isn't because of rational, mechanical processes that magic exists in these worlds. For instance, someone in the Land can't take the separate metals in the alloy of white gold and make their own wild magic. The power of white gold doesn't come from the physical properties of the metal itself.

If earthpower is just another physical force like gravity or electricity, then it's not magic.

[Lord Mhoram]

All true, but we are calling it "magic" because we are judging it from the perspectives of our natural world. For instance, I don't think anyone could say with any accuracy that Earthpower is unnatural in the Land. It's physically possible and physically natural in the Land. Would a Stonedownor call hurtloam healing Covenant's leprosy "magic"? No. They would think it perfectly natural.

[Zarathustra]

Well, I don't know if they'd call it natural or not. But whether or not they call it natural, surely they would have some distinction between the Staff of Law and regular pieces of wood. And there must be a difference to them between Lore and regular old knowledge.

And the fire raised by Lore must be different in some way from fire raised by burning. If the distinction isn't that the latter uses physical mechanisms, while the former does not, then what is the distinction?

[Lord Mhoram]

Yes, but there's a distinction to be made here. The term "magic" denotes the supernatural - I would call it "extra-natural." Something magical isn't supposed to be able to occur. In a place like the Land, where what we would call "magic" is so ingrained in the landscape that it is intrinsically tied to what we would call "natural," there is no discernible difference for a Lander between natural and magical processes. Now obviously there is a difference in potency and power - i.e., the distinction you make between a regular tree limb and the Staff of Law. But I would argue that in a fantasy narrative, there is no ontological difference between the two, any more than there is between a skateboard and a Mercedez, because both can and do exist in a fundamentally natural way in that reality.

[taraswizard]

This reply will most likely ruffle most of your feathers. Interestingly, this is a topic I've spent more than fleeting moments considering. Is there a distinction? Of course, and if you want proof at my local public library they have little stickers for the spins of books, some have little rocket ships on them and say 'science fiction' on them, other stickers for the book spins have pictures of a wizard in a pointed hat and say fantasy. So since they have two types of stickers, that is incontrovertible and uncontestable proof there are two different things. However the boundaries are not distinct, clear cut or easily defined.

For along time the distinction was drawn around the use of fictional tropes. Example, if the story used ray guns, spaceships and aliens that would make a text SFnal, and if a story used wizards, elfs and unicorns then the text was considered fantastical. This definition frighteningly comes close to a definition used by Orson S. Card.

The Pern books turn this method of categorization on its head, because even if the books use a fantasy trope, dragons, but they are SFnal stories. And there's a very popular cinema hexalogy that's a good example of using science fiction tropes but still writing a story of fantasy. Consider the stories of China Mieville who uses magic (it's what he calls magic) in his Bas-Lag stories but it works like a technology.

A final point to say all fiction is fantasy, since it's by definition fictional is really a reductio ad absurdum and adds little meaning to the dialogue. Furthermore, there is really little fantastical about the mimetic texts of Robert B. Parker, Sarah Paretsky, John Cheevers, or Jack Kerouac.