Begin snip

The following discussion was copied from linkedin.comIt has been pointed out that, as I did not seek any of the others participants opinions on this, that it was impolite. For this I apologize. My understanding is that it was, and still is, essentially a public discussion. I have not changed the text or attributions other than to add headers to the various responses.– Fritz.

http://www.linkedin.com/newsArticle?viewDiscussion=&articleID=36806476&gid=88594

What’s the Difference Between Science Fiction and Fantasy?

From: My Writing Life BLOG | May 18, 2009

So I had to decide if my novel, The Hidden Force, is YA Science Fiction or YA Fantasy. Hmmm, so what’s the difference between the two? Read more at My Writing Life BLOG

http://michellereynoso.blogspot.com/2009/05/whats-difference-between-science.html

Michelle Reynoso

• This article was submitted on May 18, 2009 at 06:26 PM PDT
• By Michelle Reynoso, GSA Administrator/Market Analyst at Safeguards Technology

Contents 1 1. Fritz Freiheit 2 2. Toni L.P. Kelner 3 3. Fritz Freiheit 4 4. Toni L.P. Kelner 5 5. Jay Hartlove 6 6. Peggy Bell 7 7. Fritz Freiheit 8 8. Fritz Freiheit 9 9. Fritz Freiheit 10 10. Toni L.P. Kelner 11 11. Fritz Freiheit 12 12. Fritz Freiheit 13 13. Michelle Reynoso 14 14. Toni L.P. Kelner 15 15. Peggy Bell 16 16. Fritz Freiheit 17 17. Fritz Freiheit 18 18. Toni L.P. Kelner 19 19. Fritz Freiheit 20 20. 21 21. Peggy Bell 22 22. 23 23. Brent Stypczynski 24 24. Francis Hamit 25 25. 26 Back to the Blog

1. Fritz Freiheit

The primary difference between SF and Fantasy, in my opinion, is that in Fantasy the author simply writes what works without consideration of consistency, and in SF the story is consistent with the authors knowledge of science fiction. Between these two poles lies Science Fantasy, where the author creates rules that are not-consistent with real world and does not violate them.

By Fritz Freiheit Software Developer at University of Michigan

2. Toni L.P. Kelner

I disagree, Fritz. Good fantasy still has to be internally consistent–if one vampire can’t see himself in a mirror, the next one shouldn’t be able to either.

In SF, the story should be consistent with the author’s knowledge of science, not science fiction.

I’m not totally sure what science fantasy is, unless it’s something like STAR WARS or various comic books which uses the trappings of science fiction but doesn’t mind bending reality for the sake of a good yarn.

By Toni L.P. Kelner Mystery Writer

3. Fritz Freiheit

Sorry, I mispoke on the SF. I meant to say “the author’s knowledge of science.” (That’s what I get for not proofing my post.)

As to the lack of consistency in Fantasy, I shall point to its roots, typically considered to be “The Lord of the Rings”, and to a lesser degree, “Narnia”. I would argue that consistent rules were not paramount to Tolkien or Lewis. Magic in LotR and Narnia just is.

(If you haven’t seen “Captain Chronos – Vampire Hunter” (1974), I would recommend it for an interesting alternative to the vampire mythos.)

The “trappings of science fiction” is not how I define Science Fantasy, it is the consistent application of a set rules that the reader should be able to work out for themselves.

Star Wars is probably an OK example of Science Fantasy, but I don’t consider myself able to really make that judgment. I would put forward Gene Wolfe’s “Book of the New Sun”, Poul Anderson’s “Operation Chaos”, and Randall Garrett’s Lord Darcy stories as examples of Science Fantasy.

By Fritz Freiheit Software Developer at University of Michigan

4. Toni L.P. Kelner

Okay, now I get the author’s knowledge thing. Sorry I misunderstood.

Narnia is a allegory, so I don’t consider it a typical fantasy. And Tolkien was semi-consistent with his magic. The Ring always acted in a certain way–it didn’t let him fly one minute and not the next. So it was internally consistent–he set up rules and stuck with them.

And I’d call the Lord Darcy books fantasy–they use magic.

As to what science fantasy is… Honestly, I think it’s a marketing term more than anything else. Then again, most genre labels are. It’s a way for me to go to the bookstore and say, “I like books like this one. Where can I find more.”

A lot of good stuff just ignores or crosses over genres. I wrote a vampire mystery story, and it was nominated for a mystery award and recommended for a Nebula. (Not nominated, just recommended.) The vampire anthology it was in–which I co-edited– was reviewed by mystery, SF, and romance reviewers. Then I co-edited a werewolf Christmas anthology, and the book and several of the stories stories were nominated for the PEARL for paranormal romance. After that, two of the stories have been nominated for mystery awards. So what the heck is it?

By Toni L.P. Kelner Mystery Writer

5. Jay Hartlove

To help Michelle get to the answer she needs, I think it is useful to consider not how Fantasy or Science Fiction are different from other fiction, but rather how they are different from one another. It sounds like Michelle knows her book is Speculative Fiction. My yardstick is whether the conflict the protagonist faces hinges on a scientific principal or a magical principal. If that doesn’t help, then consider whether the protagonist can fix the conflict with technology or belief. Both have rules, and any good story must be internally consistent, lest the reader feel cheated by a rabbit out of the hat solution. But someone with a science background will appreciate the technological solution that a Science Fiction protagonist comes up with. And someone with a knowledge of myths would appreciate the ritualistic solution a Fantasy protagonist comes up with. Toni hit it on the head that the distinction lies in the reader (and hence the marketing). Which kind of reader is your book going to appeal to?

By Jay Hartlove Compliance Officer, Paralegal, Wordsmith

6. Peggy Bell

No consistency in fantasy? You’ve got to be kidding. A fantasy world has rules just like any other world they’d just different from what we’re used to. I’ve listened to a lot of fantasy novels and in each things remain constant no matter how strange they may seem.

Jules Verne’s “Ten Thousand Leagues Under the Sea” would have been considered fantasy at publication but today we see it as Science Fiction because so many of the fantastical elements he introduced have become common reality.

By Peggy Bell Author, Editor & Creative Writing instructor

7. Fritz Freiheit

Perhaps I should clarify the distinction between consistency and the consistent application of rules. I am not claiming that Fantasy isn’t inherently consistent, only that Fantasy is consistent without formulating rules. Science Fantasy, on the other hand, formulates rules to govern the world (and Science Fiction’s rules are the rules of science at the time of the writing). A good example of this can be found Poul Anderson’s “Operation Chaos” where the rule is that the transformation of lycanthrope to its animal form is initiated by polarized light, which is what the moon reflects, and that when transforming, mass must be conserved. Contrast this with the more simple, but consistent approach that lycantropy that the full moon causes the transformation and conservation of mass is not regarded.

Verne’s work is obviously Science Fiction, in retrospect, as he rigorously applied the science and engineering that he knew at the time. It wouldn’t be fair to hold Verne to our current level of scientific knowledge. His works weren’t science fiction because the term hadn’t been invented when they were first published.

By Fritz Freiheit Software Developer at University of Michigan

8. Fritz Freiheit

Toni,

I would disagree about the consistency of the Ring in Tolkien’s work. There are a number of serious inconsistencies between “The Hobbit” and the LotR.

I think we will just have to differ on whether or not Narnia is Fantasy.

To me, magic is not by itself a distinguisher between Fantasy and Science Fantasy. If there are rules about how magic works or can be applied, as in the Lord Darcy books, or Steven Brust’s Dragaeran series, then it is Science Fantasy.

By Fritz Freiheit Software Developer at University of Michigan

9. Fritz Freiheit

Jay,

From a marketing perspective, Young Adult encompasses most genres, including Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Science Fantasy. I would recommend that Michelle try to find the books and authors on the YA shelves that are closest to her work and apply the labels that she finds there.

I don’t think Science Fiction is about technological solutions nor is Fantasy about ritualistic solutions. Science can be applied in a ritualistic manner and magic has its technology (think brooms, wands, and potions). I think that stories are more likely to labeled based on atmosphere and trappings (i.e. the used furniture found lying about the story). Which means that, from a marketing perspective, if computers, lasers, rockets, and test-tubes feature then it is Science Fiction, or if it has witches, werewolves, and vampires, then it is Fantasy. Determining whether or not the story follows rules or is internally consistent is too fine a point for genre marketing. (But may have some impact on whether or not an agent or editor will like it.)

By Fritz Freiheit Software Developer at University of Michigan

10. Toni L.P. Kelner

Fritz, I think you’re right on the money when you suggest that Michelle to check the marketplace to see how to label her manuscript to match the market. She may even find that an agent or editor changes the label–I’ve got friends who thought they’d written one kind of book only to have the agent market it successfully as a different genre. One woman thought she was writing mysteries, but they sold as chick-lit.

But we’re totally going to have to live with a disagreement about the importance internal consistency. I think ANY piece of good fiction–no matter what the genre–has to have internal consistency. When I find a new piece of fiction violating that principle, I put it in the Goodwill bag. (I specify new work, because I have come to terms with Dr. Watson’s migrating war wound.)

By Toni L.P. Kelner Mystery Writer

11. Fritz Freiheit

Toni,

Hmmm, I’m not sure why I am giving the impression that I don’t consider internal consistency to be an important aspect of a story. I do. But I don’t think that all readers have the same sensitivity and criteria for measuring internal consistency. Which makes it difficult, if not impossible to really judge whether or not a given reader will see a story as consistent or not. I also think that the genre that the reader thinks a given story is has an impact on how they interpret the consistency of a story. James Thurber’s “The Macbeth Murder Mystery” has an interesting (and humorous) take on this.

By Fritz Freiheit Software Developer at University of Michigan

12. Fritz Freiheit

Toni,

Hmmm, I’m not sure why I am giving the impression that I don’t consider internal consistency to be an important aspect of a story. I do. But I don’t think that all readers have the same sensitivity and criteria for measuring internal consistency. Which makes it difficult, if not impossible to really judge whether or not a given reader will see a story as consistent or not. I also think that the genre that the reader thinks a given story is has an impact on how they interpret the consistency of a story. James Thurber’s “The Macbeth Murder Mystery” has an interesting (and humorous) take on this.

By Fritz Freiheit Software Developer at University of Michigan

13. Michelle Reynoso

Awesome feedback everyone! Thanks for the ideas and feedback. After reading through your comments, I have to say that I’m leaning towards “fantasy”, but I will continue to peruse similiar books to see how they are being marketed too.

Michelle Reynoso

www.MichelleReynoso.com

http://www.michellereynoso.blogspot.com

By Michelle Reynoso GSA Administrator/Market Analyst at Safeguards Technology

14. Toni L.P. Kelner

Good luck with the book, Michelle!

And I see from your blog that you’ll be pitching at BEA, so good luck with that. I’ll be at BEA, too, but only on the Saturday at the trade show. If you come by the MWA booth at 1:30 or so, I’ll be giving out books, so come say “Hey!”

By Toni L.P. Kelner Mystery Writer

15. Peggy Bell

Fritz said, “Fantasy isn’t inherently consistent, only that Fantasy is consistent without formulating rules.”

Again I have to disagree. Take for example Anne McCaffrey’s Dragonriders of Pern. Anne built an entirely new and different world with its own rules to which she and her son, Todd now continuing the series, have stayed with ever the length of many wonderful [IMNHO] novels.

Or, as another example, take Robert Jordon’s never-ending Wheel of Time [12 books so far, including a prequil] Although strange and fantastical I’ve just finished listening to all 12 in sequence and there is no inconsistency in them anywhere. Rules of the Wheel begin and remain the same throughout.

I do agree that Lord of the Rings is a poor example for this issue [it's unfortunately an example of fantasy gone astray - after The Hobbit, perhaps he, like so many others succumbed to publisher to produce a sequel - fast]

By Peggy Bell Author, Editor & Creative Writing instructor

16. Fritz Freiheit

Peggy,

In trying to come up with a classification rule for Fantasy, I considered the major works that I am familiar with and would be classified as Fantasy by most readers and scholars. “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy is considered the foundational work of Fantasy. Given that it doesn’t appear to have internally consistent rules — and I am thinking mostly about magic when I say that — then the lowest common classification rule can’t include internally consistent rules, only that it be consistent without necessitating rules. Fantasy can, of course, have consistent rules (but I would personally classify such works as Science Fantasy).

I have not read McCaffery’s Dragonriders of Pern nor Jordon’s Wheel of Time, so I can’t really judge them. I do remember running across the assertion that the Dragonriders is actually Science Fiction.

Just as a note, “The Hobbit” was first published in 1937 and LotR in 1954-55.

By Fritz Freiheit Software Developer at University of Michigan

17. Fritz Freiheit

First off, I still disagree about Tolkien’s rules. I think he was entirely consistent.

But if if I didn’t think he’d been so strict, I wouldn’t hold him to the same standards as I do to people writing fantasy today, any more than I hold Arthur Conan Dolye to the standards of those writing mystery series today. (If a modern author had a character get married twice, with no mention of an intervening divorce or death, I’d be annoyed.) The expectations have changed.

So sure, I can insist on fantasy written today having internally consistent rules, no matter how I view Tolkien’s work.

As for McCaffrey, Pern is another planet, not a fantasy realm. So technically, it’s SF. Ditto for the Darkover series by Marion Zimmer Bradley and Andre Norton’s Witch World books. But Pern, Darkover, and Witch World READ like fantasy. Which is why those darned labels are so tricky!

And boy howdy, was LORD OF THE RINGS not written in a hurry! I’ve always heard that the editor had to drag it away from Tolkien, who wanted to keep working on it.

By Toni L.P. Kelner Mystery Writer

18. Toni L.P. Kelner

Fritz said:

“Hmmm, I’m not sure why I am giving the impression that I don’t consider internal consistency to be an important aspect of a story.”

I’ll try to explain why I’m getting that impression. First off, you said, “The primary difference between SF and Fantasy, in my opinion, is that in Fantasy the author simply writes what works without consideration of consistency…”

But you read fantasy, at least Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. Therefore you’re reading something that you feel is written without consideration of consistency. That’s the first link in my chain of thought.

The second link is that I don’t get the impression that you disliked or disrespected Tolkien or Lewis. In fact, I’ve gotten the impression that you like both. Which means you like works that you feel are written without consideration of consistency.

That gets me to the conclusion that internal consistency isn’t a big deal for you.

Does that make sense?

As for me, internal consistency is a particular interest. Especially since I’m currently in edit mode for an anthology right now, noticing that on page 2 a headboard is attached to the wall where later on its banging against the way.

Overall, I think it’s more our labels and definitions that are in conflict, not our actual view of fiction. But I could be wrong…

By Toni L.P. Kelner Mystery Writer

19. Fritz Freiheit

Toni,

Ah. I see your chain of reasoning, and, for the most part, I won’t dispute it.

I think you are correct in thinking that we having some label and definition issues. I suspect it is because I have been a bit lazy in that I haven’t clearly made the distinction between consistency and Consistency. The big-C-consistency is what I mean when I contend that Fantasy is written without regard for Consistency. I think of little-C-consistency being more akin to film continuity. Like your example of the headboard, it is about making sure that all the bits match up. Big-C-consistency lies below the surface of a story and is related to worldbuilding. It is about there being more to a (speculative) story feature than just “I thought it was cool”. Is the foundation of the story sound if we start asking questions and applying logic? Have the consequences of a decision been followed through to their (more or less) natural conclusions? Is the plot an “idiot plot” or even a “second-order idiot plot”? I think that big-C-consistency can be ignored if the writing is compelling, or if the story generates a sense of wonder, or if the pace is driving and I don’t have time to stop and think about the inconsistencies. These are easier to achieve in movies, as they are a more visceral experience. Reading, on the other hand, is more intellectual (whether we want to admit that or not), and relies on the reader to construct everything in their head. Which makes it much easier to run across the jarring bit that doesn’t fit. At which point it is the strength of the story structure that determines whether the slip is fatal and throws us out of our willing suspension of disbelief. Which is a long winded way of saying that internal inconsistencies may or may not be a big deal to me. They are certainly a big deal to me when I write. But that is another story…

By Fritz Freiheit Software Developer at University of Michigan

20.

Ursula K. LeGuin long ago formulated LeGuin’s rule: Your PSG must be in order. PSG means “Pseudo-Scientific Garbage”. That is, whatever rules you create within a magical universe have to be consistently applied to maintain the needed suspension of disbelief. Science fiction uses the hard facts of the known world. The works of Vernor Vinge are a good example. His day job was astrophysics and he uses that knowledge in a creative context but never departs from the current agreed theories; it’s just that quantum mechanics is passing strange. If you want an example of an author comfortable in both SF and Fantasy, then read C.J. Cherryh who plots astronomical distances on star charts but had magical events and characters in other books within that same universe. She’s a former high school teacher and her young people are particularly well-observed. It all works over more than 60 novels so far.

By Francis Hamit Contributor at Self Publishing Review

21. Peggy Bell

Classifications are no more than tools used by marketing departments to tell book stores and librarians where to shelve our books and let our readers know where to look for them. All else is moot.ByPeggy Bell Author, Editor & Creative Writing instructor

22.

Fritz,

“Fantasy is consistent without formulating rules.”

Sorry, but I’m not buying this. Cases in point: check out some modern young adult fantasy–Rowling, Colfer, and Stroud, for example. Also check out Alan Dean Foster’s comments regarding fantasy, in which he states, “because speculative fiction always differs from the knowable world, the reader is uncertain about what can and can’t happen in the story until the writer has spelled out the rules” and “With magic, you must be very clear about the rules.” (I can provide citation if desired.) Admittedly, he also states that “warp drive” is the “silliest of space travel rules” (15 years later, physicists have decided that warp drive is one of the most plausible FTL options out there).

I think the big problem here is that the statement, especially the statements about Fantasy lacking consistency, imply that fantasy writers just “slap something together” (patently false). Speaking as someone who has been studying fantasy and fairy tales on a scholarly basis for some time, there’s more SF out there that lacks consistency (Dan Simmons, for example) than there are fairy tales or medieval romances (the ancestors of modern fantasy). In fact, I’d argue that the vast majority of fantasy, and its precursors, is more concerned with consistency and rules than most SF.

“There are a number of serious inconsistencies between “The Hobbit” and the LotR.”

Unfortunately, this is like saying there are a lot of differences between an apple and an orange. “Hobbit” was a children’s faerie tale, LotR was an adult epic created later, although they share roughly the same setting. Actually, a better example would be that it is like saying there are a lot of inconsistencies between “Sleeping Beauty” and “Beowulf” – they’re two very different stories for very different audiences even though they share the same world. Note too that the only four entities that carry over from Hobbit to Rings – the Ring, Bilbo, Gandalf, and Gollum (ok and the Eagles, who still act as a deus ex machina) – are more or less completely consistent across the books (taking into account a fifty year, in world, gap between the stories).

“‘The Lord of the Rings’ trilogy is considered the foundational work of Fantasy.”

By fans, this is true. By scholars, not so much. Although there is some debate, most of us consider Lord Dunsany to be a foundation of Fantasy. More of us actually consider the medieval romances to be the “foundational works of Fantasy.” Some consider ancient mythology to be the “foundational works of Fantasy.” Tolkien is mostly acknowledged as the one who popularized the genre, eventually (20 years after “Hobbit” was first published) and employed the first serious use of neo-medievalism.

____________________________

As far as classification goes . . . beyond the cop out (and, admittedly truth) that these are marketing tools, here’re a few of my own definitions:

Science Fiction — has a scientific basis, even if only Le Guin and Roddenberry’s PSG; that is, anything that is not possible in the reader’s primary world is explained through science or pseudo-science.

Fantasy — has a magical basis; that is, anything that is not possible in the reader’s primary world is explained through magic

Science Fantasy — any work that mixes the scientific and the magical; ex. Star Wars, Shadowrun, some of Charles de Lint’s work, most of my own recent work (in which advanced technology/science and magic work side-by-side), even some examples of the Marvel Universe

Are these permeable? Certainly. They’re definitely open to adaptation and modification. But, I think they’re effective working definitions that don’t cast aspersions on or denigrate each other.

By Brent Stypczynski Adjunct Instructor at Columbus State Community College

23. Brent Stypczynski

Francis,

“C.J. Cherryh who plots astronomical distances on star charts but had magical events and characters in other books within that same universe.”

Could you provide a specific example? I’ve read nearly all of Cherryh’s work, almost religiously, but can’t recall seeing this. Rather curious. :)

(So far, I haven’t read most of the Merovingan Nights books or her Russian trilogy, but have covered practically everything else.)

By Brent Stypczynski Adjunct Instructor at Columbus State Community College

24. Francis Hamit

This came from a panel that Carolyn was on several years ago where she disclosed that all of her work is within the same universe and talked about some of her preparations for various novels. I go to a lot of conventions and she used to go to some of them.

By Francis Hamit Contributor at Self Publishing Review

25.

Brent,

When I say that Fantasy is not defined or limited to the consistent application rules (i.e. the big-C-consistency) I am not being insulting or derogatory. You may interpret it this way, if you wish, but it is not my intent.

I would like to be clear, I am not conflating big-C-consistency and little-c-consistency. They are separate issues. I do not think that Fantasy as a genre is defined by the lack of consistency, only the lack of big-C-consistency. If you think I am saying that Fantasy authors simply “slap something together” (not that being inconsistent in the little-c sense actually implies this, but that is an inference for another discussion), then you would be mistaken.

I would go so far as to argue that the notion of big-C-consistency is a modern construction that came in with the rise of the scientific method. Which is why I use the terms “Science Fiction” and “Science Fantasy” to classify the application of rules by the author as distinct from the “Fantasy”, where I contend scientific reasoning is not applied in general. Note that I say “in general”. The classification process applies to all candidates for inclusion. If we are separating membership between Fantasy and Science Fiction, then the fact that some items included in the classification set for Fantasy include works that are not big-C-consistent, then the definitional characteristic of the set excludes big-C-consistency. This obviously does not exclude works that not Science Fiction (i.e. based on rules consistent with scientific knowledge) yet have their own internally consistent rules, such as the Harry Potter books. Again, I am not making these definitions based on the trappings of the story, i.e. magic vs. technology.

By Fritz Freiheit Software Developer at University of Michigan

Back to the Blog

• 2009/05/21

End snip