 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.staresattheworld.com/2010/12/scifi-vs-fantasy/
I think this guy hits the nail on the head, expressing it better than I ever
managed. (As I would hope.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/18/2010 2:48 PM, Darren New wrote:
> http://www.staresattheworld.com/2010/12/scifi-vs-fantasy/
>
> I think this guy hits the nail on the head, expressing it better than I
> ever managed. (As I would hope.)
Best quote:
"You show me a Scifi/Fantasy mixer, and I’ll show you a liberal arts
major who wishes their degree was useful."
As far as the setting goes, in science fiction the departures from the
real world are the result of the inherent capacities of artifacts by
which these departures are exhibited. Ray guns shoot rays because
that's what they do when you pull the trigger. Philosophers call this
the primacy of reality.
On the other hand, fantasy is based on magic, which is all about the
real world responding to human will. Magic wands spout magic because
the person holding the wand wants it to. Philosophers call this the
primacy of consciousness.
Either things do what they do (they work according to the principles of
science), or they do what we want (and work according to the principles
of magic)[1]. If things do what they do at one moment, but do what the
characters want at another, then the author is making stuff up as he
goes along.
Now that's the setting of the tale, but that is not necessarily what the
tale is *about*.
Fantasy, in view of what the story is about, is a tale of individual
good and evil. Science fiction is a tale about societal good and evil.
For the most part, a fantasy setting works better with a story about
individual good and evil, and a scientific setting works better with a
story about societal good and evil.
So it is possible to mix SF and Fantasy, but only in that you can have a
tale about individual good and evil in a technological setting. Star
Wars is essentially a fantasy tale, but its magic (the Force) is tamed
by operating in very specific ways. Harry Potter is a fantasy setting,
but it spends as much time exploring societal good and evil as it does
exploring individual good and evil.
I suppose you could also have a tale that explores both individual good
and evil as well as societal good and evil, but that takes better
handling than most authors can manage.
Regards
John
[1] Under this pair of definitions, Windows, which does what it does,
and not necessarily what we want, is science, not magic. Make of it
what you will.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> On the other hand, fantasy is based on magic, which is all about the
> real world responding to human will. Magic wands spout magic because
> the person holding the wand wants it to. Philosophers call this the
> primacy of consciousness.
I wouldn't say that fantasy as a genre is defined in terms of or
requires the existence of any kind of 'magic'. Magic is a common
feature of fantasy, but it's perfectly possible to write fantasy
that does not contain any magical elements at all.
Likewise sci-fi doesn't necessarily require the use of currently
non-existent (or even impossible) technology. It might include things
that are simply not done currently, not because the technology is not
advanced enough, but because it's not feasible (eg. it's too expensive,
has no useful purpose, etc. People traveling between planets would be
a good example.) Much scifi has been written which use purely settings
which could be achievable today, if someone really wanted (eg. astronauts
traveling to Mars).
This distinction between "fantasy" and "scifi" always comes down to
your *definition* of those terms. No two people have the same definition,
and what one considers to be an example of one of the genres might not be
in the opinion of another person.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-12-2010 20:48, Darren New wrote:
> http://www.staresattheworld.com/2010/12/scifi-vs-fantasy/
>
> I think this guy hits the nail on the head, expressing it better than I
> ever managed. (As I would hope.)
>
The natural reaction is probably trying to figure out what various well
known authors have written in this framework
asimov-foundation: clearly SF
Zelazny-Amber: clearly fantasy
Adams-hitch-hikers guide: possibly SF
Adams-Dirk Gently:just a detective (possibly fantasy). I mean the books,
not the TV show a couple of days ago. That was SF with a story line that
actually made sense. What a way to mistreat Douglas' heritage.
Pratchett-Discworld:mostly fantasy. Though in later books, e.g. Going
Postal, magic and science fuse in an indescribable way.
Pratchett-Strata/Dark side of the sun:SF, or is it?
Pratchett-Bromeliad trilogy:fantasy without magic and with an SF storyline
From this group the main possible counterexamples to the idea that you
can not mix these genres are IMO: Strata and Going Postal. Leaving Adams
aside, because he has never written a book that is completely in one genre.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
