They are always in the same section at a book store. When choosing a genre of book on the internet, catalogue, or other media engine, they two are listed as if they were one word: Sci-fi/Fantasy. Even the more broad category defines both Science Fiction and Fantasy as “Speculative Fiction.”
I am saddened by this oversight. In my mind, Science Fiction is the exact opposite of Fantasy. It is as different as Romance is to Horror—as different as Mainstream Fiction is to Children’s Literature.
Science Fiction is the epitome of everything that is possible. Fantasy is the epitome of everything that is not.
Fantasy thrives on the “fantasy” world. It is a world that does not literally exist in the midst of our own. A world where things are possible that are not possible in ours. This is the very reason people love the fantasy genre.
Science Fiction on the other hand, describes things that are plausible and possible, or at least unproven. Just as its parent genre titles it “speculative” fiction, sci-fi speculates on things that just may be possible in our 
real world.
What would happen if aliens really did come to earth? What would happen if someone discovered time travel? What if time travel had already been discovered but we didn’t know about it?
Case in point: Sci-fi takes place in our real world, Fantasy does not. It is for this reason that I am a science fiction fan, but not a fantasy fan. I want to believe that what I read could be possible. I want to understand how and why things happen. As I watch a sci-fi movie or read a sci-fi book, I like to imagine that it’s real—and that’s something I can’t do with fantasy.
5 comments:
While, I understand the gist of what you're saying, and in spirit you are right, there are of course exceptions.
The majority of sci-fi is Earth-centric as you suggested, though not all of it, and some of it is so far removed from Earth, that it really wouldn't be fair to call it Earth-centric. A few that come to mind are the Dune series, all but the first book in the Ender's Game series (obviously it has it's ties to earth, but the later books are so far removed from Earth, you can't really call them Earth-centric. Also, Star Wars, arguably the best sci-fi movie of all time (arguably, as many people would categorize it as fantasy, not sci-fi)
In fact, much of fantasy IS earth centric. While it's easier for fantasy to get away with being some other place, much of it takes place during what we would call the Dark Ages. A time when many magical things could have existed, but we have no record of them. A few examples again would be just about any Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman book (a writing pair, that are some of the most famous fantasy writers), as well as The Wheel of Time Series.
The real difference is Sci-fi is what could be, and Fantasy is what could have been. And thus their collective categorization as speculative fiction.
Aaron said:
The majority of sci-fi is Earth-centric as you suggested, though not all of it, and some of it is so far removed from Earth, that it really wouldn't be fair to call it Earth-centric. A few that come to mind are the Dune series, all but the first book in the Ender's Game series (obviously it has it's ties to earth, but the later books are so far removed from Earth, you can't really call them Earth-centric.
Science Fiction is possible in our realm of existance is probably a better way to put it. I enjoyed reading Dune AND all the Ender books because I could believe that they were possible. Even when not Earth-centered, if I can believe it is possible then I enjoy it.
Aaron Said:
Also, Star Wars, arguably the best sci-fi movie of all time (arguably, as many people would categorize it as fantasy, not sci-fi)
I was going to go into this but decided that it would be better left for its own blog post entirely. Look for it soon! :)
Aaron Said:
In fact, much of fantasy IS earth centric...much of it takes place during what we would call the Dark Ages. A time when many magical things could have existed, but we have no record of them...The real difference is Sci-fi is what could be, and Fantasy is what could have been.
I appreciate that people have written books about what could have been on Earth. If they mention that it is specifically OUR planet that it takes place on, and there was nothing in it that suggested that it was blatantly fiction (impossible in our world) then I just might enjoy reading it. What I have seen, however, is that most if not all fantasy has some element of magic, dragons, wizards, ogres, elves, etc. These things make it hard for me to believe in because I don't PERSONALLY believe these things ever existed.
Fantasy is what could have been? I can't buy that one. I don't speak for everyone by a long shot, but my personal opinion is that fantasy is pure imagination. It is the epitome of all imaginative literary creation and I applaud fantasy authors for having that kind of mind. All I'm saying is that I don't get a sence of realism or a sense of "this really happened" or "this really could happen" when I read it, and therefore Jay's mind cannot find interest in it. :)
Good topic, Jay. I think that sci-fi and fantasy do share some commonality: imagination and creativity. These characteristics are essential to human progress. Once upon a time ....
flying was but science fiction ...
space travel was but a fantasy ...
medicinal drugs and procedures which exist today would have been considered magical ...
All these things needed a bit a fantasy and a dose of science.
I realize that you are talking about book genres, and their very definitions as book genres may be different than what the actual words mean. The book genre of fantasy has its usefulness in the beautiful way it can tell certain stories, but also because it allows the imagination to play without bounds. I believe this is a most essential human attribute.
Well I agree with you there, Yani. I never said fantasy didn't have it's place. I think there are some great authors out there that spin their craft superbly. My only argument was that sci-fi stories are those that are possible and fantasy are those that are not.
Fantasy has its usefulness, for sure. I just cannot personally bring myself to become enraptured by a fantasy tale because on some level I will always know it could never happen and therefore I cannot lose myself completely in the story.
As far as things that "seem magical," if you told that story in our world, I might enjoy it. For example, if you told a story in which a goblin conjured a spirit from the dead to do his bidding... I'd smile and say thanks but no thanks. That's fake and I can't get interested in that. BUT... if you told the SAME story, telling me that 10 lightyears from Earth there is a planet where aliens (that happen to look like goblins) had the ability (technology) to create a being that existed on a different level of time and space as we do (spirit) and then manipulate that being to do his bidding... it just might make for a good story.
In the end, all I'm saying is that for me to enjoy a story, I have to believe it is possible on some level. And for the most part, I cannot do that with fantasy. :)
The fantasy/sci-fi compare and contrast has gone on for a long time. It is true that they do have many ties. They both come from the deep imagination of the human mind.
One seems to be more of an exaggeration of truth (fantasy) to a point where it is purely entertainment or, in the case of excellent authors, a very poignant message weaved through a very fanciful, mystical story drawing the reader into a place where reality disappears. This a place I personally love to go. I like to leave the world behind and travel where I don't have to worry about the world I live in for a brief time. Jay, as you have mentioned, it isn't for everyone.
The second, science fiction, seems to be more of an addition, growth, or broadening of truth. It takes truths that we have and creates potential to become more. Delving into the imaginations of sci-fi writers could be dangerous as many seem to know more about science and real world things than most other authors i've read about. To me, science fiction could almost be horror to an extent. Look at Farenheit 451 - the Giver - and several other books that take us to a world where there is so much control that it forces rebellion. Situations like that come up a lot in sci-fi. But does it lessen the enjoyability. I think not, looking at what could have been, and what could be is what keeps us from going too far! "Do you ever think we will go too far with all of this?" (quote from The Time Machine). I think our ability to look and judge possible consequences will keep us pushing the limit, but keep us from breaking it.
I think more than what takes place, or where it takes place is the logicality of the situation. Fantasy throws the logic of a situation to extremes and makes it seem impossible, and unrealistic (but for some it isn't). Science Fiction has a basis of logic. Sometimes a little more detailed and harder to follow but still everything connects and can lead from one thing to another.
I have been in many bookstores (and worked in one) and have noticed a common thread. They like to put the two next to each other. Not always in the same section, but close. They are very close but the subtle difference is what makes each unique, and in some cases more appealing. Jay, you prefer sci-fi, I prefer fantasy (though I admit I love Science Fiction as well).
To all you readers out there. I don't think it matters as much what you read as long as you can truly learn from it (and that you are reading!!!)!
Post a Comment