Sci-Fi in your Fantasy, and vice versa

I think it happens. I write strictly fantasy but every so often a very general sci-fi element worms its way in. (For example, my fantasy characters always seem to be traveling through alternate dimensions...heck...my entire WORLD is an alternate dimension...sounds more sci-fi than fantasy to me.)

As long as the two mesh then I don't see anything wrong with it. Some people will prefer fantasy, some sci-fi, some don't mind eating carrots with their peas. Some people hate both carrots AND peas. Can't please 'em all.

Two words:

STAR WARS.

Enough said. Don't think so much about these things before you write the darn thing. Good luck to you.

All I demand is consistency. As long as the rules for both magic and science are consistent throughout your story, I will suspend my disbelief.

As Tachyon says, consistency is key.

But really, people will 'have a fit' no matter what you write, so ignore it. You're the writer, not them.

Sometimes I'm in a hard SF mood and I want rivets, spaceships, and manly men grabbing their wimmins around the waist. Sometimes I'm in a fluffy fantasy mood and I want dwarves, dammit, living underground and hating on elves while unicorns prance past. Sometimes I want something Weird, where ancient gods brandish laser guns and shapeshifting hip-hop dinosaurs (can somebody write that one, please?). But I never ever sit down with a book to figure out if I'm reading SF or fantasy or some hybrid thereof so that I can be pleased or displeased with the answer. I'm reading to be transported to a new place, and I don't care much if the science explanation borders on magical, or if the magical explanation borders on scientifically rigorous.

Not Star Wars so much as the Pern books. She starts introducing telescopes and satellites and space travel, but the majority of the story is pure fantasy novel, and I try to ignore the SF parts when I can. Fortunately they don't really get in the way until DragonDawn, which is coincidentally where I stopped reading the series.

I just finished the MS for a story that combines werewolves and ghosts with space flight and lunar colonies.

There's a reason why most bookstores shelve SF and Fantasy together. Figuring out how to separate them would be a nightmare.

According to the definitions I personally use for fantasy and science fiction, it's completely impossible for the two subgenres to overlap. Anything that's impossible according to our understanding of this universe is automatically fantastical. If your story has even one tiny fantastical element, the story must be set in an alternative universe and therefore it's fantasy.

But I take a serious hardass approach to science fiction. That's an unpopular way of thinking these days.

Now, there's nothing wrong with fantasy. I just don't like seeing it with a sf label. Similarly, I don't like seeing sf labeled fantasy, though that's far less common.

Celina's example of Star Wars, for example, is pure, unadulterated fantasy, complete with evil wizards and magic and old wise mentors and such.

I recall one of Piers Anthony's novels, I think it was one of the "Incarnations of Immortality" things, but it was absolutely and definitely one of his (many, many) fantasies, he mentioned something about technology competing with magic. Of course, the only technological thing I can recall in the novel was a clock (or maybe it was an hourglass, as one of the Incarnations used).

But it got me thinking of a little substory of my own. It was about technology and magic, and of science discovering how magic things are done... (scribbling in The Sandbox) ...

Rather than write the idea in this thead, I've posted it in the Sandbox forum here.

Nivarion said:

mine is pretty much a fantasy too. The elves have discovered trains, and are building them. the steam engine they invented is a push over compered to what we have, and needs to burn wood because of a lack of fossil fuels.

it stays a semi-medieval world until the alien invasion. Yeah aliens.

Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I personally think that sounds very cool. As long as a writer can pull it off, I'm with them no matter how crazy things get. The primary risk you run, of course, is not pulling it off, which could be disastrous.

I know I shouldn't harp on movies here, but very quickly--has anyone seen Ralph Bakshi's animated film Wizards?
Fantasyland + WW2 technology = awesome. I highly, highly recommend it.

I've got an idea, let's call this mix SGP, for Speculative Genre Potpourri.

Nivarion said:

so the series i am writing on now is a Fantasy Sci-Fi, and by the end its a Sci-Fi Fantasy.

now i was thinking, just as the proverbial peas and carrots some people will have a fit.

Click to expand...

Ok, let me be one of them. Here's my justification.

Story-worthy problems in Sci Fi are resolved by reason. That's why the 'science' exists in the fiction. Any emotion follows the reason.

Story-worthy problems in Fantasy are resolved by emotion, relationship and aesthetics. Any reason follows the emotion in this case.

Setting has nothing to do with this. Star Wars just happens to be fantasy in a futuristic setting. Neal Stephenson's Steampunk stories happen to be SF in an historical setting. Science fiction is not about futuristic machinery but about rationalism and innovation, while fantasy is not about magic but about enchanting the reader. Readers and marketing dudes don't always understand this but as writers we need to -- cos they're very different story designs.

And because of this...

If you pose a rational problem and resolve it by emotion then you are cheating, and must cut off a finger or toe in remorse. Some readers may like it, but your 'thinkier' readers probably won't. We need to solve the problems we originally pose -- not 'swap' them for a different problem, or it's a cheat. If you do this, you get 17 more chances to learn from your mistake, and then you must type with your nose and thumbs forever more.

If you pose an emotional problem and resolve it by reason then you are doomed to write dry, undramatic stories, and should immediately abandon your writing career for the profession of accounting, insurance adjustment or quantity surveying. Some audiences will forgive you for resolving a rational problem with emotion, but virtually nobody will forgive the reverse. Get out while you still have an income, I say!

On the other hand, Nivarion, it's possible that what you have is Space Opera -- if so, don't worry about your digits or your career. It's a perfectly respectable fantasy genre masquerading as Sci Fi that's seeing a rennaissance at the moment. If your characters are theatrical and larger than life, your plots span great swadges of time or space and there are improbably powerful plot-devices then that's what you probably have. Space Opera problems aren't solved by rationality but by emotion, often under a layer of pseudorationality. Space Opera enchants readers with technological imagery and theatrical storytelling -- which is what makes it fantasy. Star Wars is an example. So is Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan stories. Or EE 'Doc' Smith's Lensman series. If that's what you have then push forward. Excelsior!

Er.. hope this helps.

I've never thought of it that way, Ruv. It's an interesting perspective, though I'd have to argue that you've left out a rule or two. Setting plays a big role in designating sci-fi. You'd never convince someone that a problem solved by reasoning through the laws of magic is sci-fi, no matter how rigid and clear the rules of the system. I mean, what's the opposite of space opera?

Off topic I know, but I'm constantly mystified/irked by the Sci-Fi Channel now that we have it on our cable. At least 90% of the movies they show on there are not in the least bit sci-fi, but are more often fantasy (that "Merlin" movie, which I saw when they first aired it on NBC years ago) or just really lame cheesy horror (the other 99% of the 90% I mentioned).

I think they reserve the "sci" for their TV series, which, judging by the commercials, they also probably reserve most of their budget for.

And since this is a writing and not a TV thread, I'll bow out. But at the very least, it illustrates how easily some people blend different genres. (Not just fantasy and sci-fi but horror as well. Look at some of Lovecraft's works to get an idea of all three genres combined in a much better way than the Sci-Fi Channel's movies!)

Liosse de Velishaf said:

I've never thought of it that way, Ruv. It's an interesting perspective, though I'd have to argue that you've left out a rule or two. Setting plays a big role in designating sci-fi.

Click to expand...

That's partly because setting influences how problems can be solved in the first place. A world with gods, and embodiments of good and evil will tend to see its problems solved emotionally, while a world where it's man and technology against nature or rational forces will tend to solve problems rationally. In Lord of the Rings, almost all the rational arguments (like Boromir's quite rational idea to turn the One Ring against its creator) prove to be false; the emotional arguments (like 'Friendship can get you through Mordor') prove to be true. In The Mote in God's Eye solving the conflict with the moties requires humans to understand them -- to see biology, economy and morality from entirely different drivers. An emotional argument like 'Let's just be friends' would never fly there.

You'd never convince someone that a problem solved by reasoning through the laws of magic is sci-fi, no matter how rigid and clear the rules of the system.

Click to expand...

Actually, a lot of psychological Sci Fi looks like this. You know the sort: you're a psychiatrist with some technology that allows you to enter the minds of your patients. To heal the psychosis you must operate directly on the mythic reasoning of your patient - but being a psychiatrist you do it from a rational, objective perspective rather than being caught up in the patient's myths. The 'setting' -- i.e. the environ from which the imagery is sourced -- looks like fantasy, because all mythic imagery does. But the problem may be attacked rationally. As long as the story presents the problem rationally throughout, it works.

Some sociological SF is like this too: e.g. scientists visit a planet where the locals appear to have magic (though perhaps the scientists see it as very imaginative psychokinesis etc...). The main characters must deal with the locals -- but do so from within their rationalist frame. The story remains SF even though there may well be dragons, castles and wizard imagery in the setting - and the scientists may have brought no gizmos to the planet at all.

The difference? It's in whether you ask the readers to immerse themselves in believing that the emotional/psychological elements of myth are 'real' (i.e. the mysterious enchantment determines consequence), or whether you simply present them as images, and insist that rationality and investigation determine the consequences instead.

Star Wars' catch-cry 'Use the Force Luke' is just another way of saying 'Have faith and wish hard' -- click your ruby slippers together, Luke. It's an emotional argument. Star-wars is a theatrical techno-fantasy -- which is all that Space-Opera is, really.

Oh, I get the comment on space opera. And of course, you make a great point with the psychological Sci-fi. Thanks.

Ruv Draba said:

Actually, a lot of psychological Sci Fi looks like this.

Click to expand...

There's a series, I think, by Gael Baudino, featuring a world that was created out of the mind of a psychologist as he lay dying. He travels there by dragon and has a double life as a hero, until the dragon takes one of his students with him and--
It's a weird story, filled with psychological imagery.

And Star Wars is not space opera. David Weber and R.M. Meluch are space opera. Star Wars is a fantasy novel in space.

In the series I'm writing, I've got dragons alongside spaceships, aliens, and other sci-fi elements. In the same book, I've got fighting between ship and ship, dragon and dragon, ship and dragon.

So, no. I don't have a problem with the two mixing. In fact, I'd think it would be an interesting story if we had the usual sci-fi elements meeting the usual fantasy elements.

Nivarion,
I'd say you should just make sure that the world of the elves makes sense, and the place that the aliens come from fits in a coherent universe. I would be cautious, though, since David Eddings has already had a major evil character named Asharak.

"Science fantasy" tends to break an important underlying rule of speculative fiction, in my opinion: It usually includes two major violations of reality in one story.

The interesting thing about speculative fiction is that convincing the reader to suspend his disbelief may be more important in our genre than in any other type of fiction. To do that, we need to assure him that we're presenting one consistent world, and where we break the rules of reality, we will do so consistently and in a rational manner.

So when you start to mix wizards with FTL travel, things begin to get rather hairy--in the mind of the reader, you're strongly risking spiraling off into making this up as I'm going along territory. He begins to worry that anything could happen if you, the writer, feel like putting it in the story. This is death to belief.

Of course, like all rules, this one is made to be broken--if you're willing to pay the price and deal with it accordingly. The caveat is the same as usual: You better understand the rule really well before you go off breaking it, so you know how to handle the consequences.

A couple of final, random notes:

a) There are instances where you won't care nearly as much about suspension of disbelief. This is usually when you're going for comedy (particularly of the farcical kind). The attraction of your story is the wit and humor. People aren't reading to believe and care--they're reading to laugh and have fun.

b) If you do go for science fantasy, consider keeping reality-breakage subdued. Maybe a near future or mundane sf story with supernatural elements. Heck, you can even deal with sf-like topics without breaking reality. For example, a short story idea I recently had dealt with a NASA employee encountering ghosts while on the job.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

You'd never convince someone that a problem solved by reasoning through the laws of magic is sci-fi, no matter how rigid and clear the rules of the system. I mean, what's the opposite of space opera?

Click to expand...

This immediately makes me think of the Lord Darcy books by Randall Garret. They are essentially Sherlock Holmes-style mysteries, only in an alternate Europe where magic has taken the place of technology. (And the politics are completely different.) Lord Darcy solves all the mysteries by the rigorous application of logic, generally involving the rules which govern magic.

You're right, no one would ever call those sf. But mysteries are the *other* genre that depends on solving problems by reason, so it makes sense that if you want to use the . (I have heard sf called a sub-genre of mystery for this reason; the theory being that sf tends to focus on a particular type of mystery. IMO, if that were ever true, it stopped being true a long time ago.)

Ruv Draba said:

Story-worthy problems in Sci Fi are resolved by reason. That's why the 'science' exists in the fiction. Any emotion follows the reason.

Story-worthy problems in Fantasy are resolved by emotion, relationship and aesthetics. Any reason follows the emotion in this case.

Click to expand...

This does a very good job of explaining why the fantasy novel that I am writing seems so atypical, even though the trappings are not that unusual. In a lot of ways it is probably best described as a political thriller in a fantasy world -- the real problems to be solved are all political and economic, and depend on my doing a good job of explaining how the unusual political and economic systems work, given the particular geography and magic that I have set up.

Hmmm. I actually have 4 viewpoint characters, and by this analysis, I have 2 of them with intuitive problems and 2 with analytical problems. I think this illuminates the balancing act that I've been feeling, but couldn't quite explain.