Science and Magic.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Flawed Creation

there are two questions here which bother me. they are similar, but not ht same. what is the difference between Sci-fi and fantasy? what is the difference between science and magic?
In this post, allow me to consider the first:
considering the genre first, I would like to say that the distinction is not as immeditely ovious as some would think. there are plenty of books considered "science-fiction" which contain supernatural elements. even heinlein frequently included telepathy, hypnosis, telekinesis, and the like in his stories. on the other hand, there are fantasy stories where the "magic" turns out to be mere theatrics backed up by super-science.

I would contend that it's the way the matter is approached. science-fiction assumes that the world is basically logical and understandable. fantasy doesn't.

Anne McCaffrey's dragonrider books contain dragons, teleportation, and telepathy, but are still, in my mind, sci-fi. why? no wizards, no arcane rituals. not that thje rappinbgs likje staves and pentacles are impotant to me, but there's no sense of wonder. the inhabitants of pern take these things for granted, they work reliably, and seem to be daily life. magic should never work like this.

what do you think?
 

ChunkyC

This is an interesting problem. I certainly don't have a ready answer. In the past, it was easier to differentiate: sci-fi had spaceships, fantasy had magic. Now the line is so blurred that (heaven forbid) there could be a third genre encompassing the stories that have a foot in each camp.

I'm on the horns of that dilemma myself. My stories jump back and forth across that line with impunity.
 

vstrauss

>>science-fiction assumes that the world is basically logical and understandable. fantasy doesn't.<<

I dunno. Plenty of cyberpunk presents an overwhelmingly chaotic, out-of-control world in which the characters are basically lost souls. And in some fantasies magic is what makes the world controllable and understandable--the Earthsea books, for instance, where magic is knowing the true names of things, and thus connecting with the most fundamental level of reality.

I think any sort of fantasy-is-this/science-fiction-is-that distinction (another one is that science fiction is based on science and scientific speculation while fantasy is based on myth, legend, and archetype) is going to run into trouble, because you can nearly always refute whatever distinction is being made. And there's so much that blurs the lines, such as Robert Silverberg's Majipoor books, which read like fantasy but have a SF-nal setting.

How about this...science fiction settings are presented as real-life extrapolations--something that we're supposed to assume could actually exist, even if it's pretty outlandish. Fantasy doesn't ask us to make that assumption, but presents worlds that are explicitly imaginary (though they do need to make internal sense on their own terms).

I don't think that magic is an essential ingredient of fantasy, by the way, though it is a typical one.

- Victoria
 

Nyki27

My working definition (which like all such is very generalised, leaving plenty of exceptions) is that science fiction is about explanations, fantasy is about consequences. That is, the SF writer asks "how could this possibly happen?" and the fantasy writer asks "what would be the result if this were to happen?" Of course, a great many stories contain elements of both, but I think those are the directions the two genres are pulling in.

As for magic and science, I suppose the short answer if that it's science if it's understood, or at least within reach of possible explanation, and magic if it's not, whether or not an explanation is possible. "Magic" tends to cover a number of different things, ranging from manipulation of the world by the mind alone, without any external actions, through the concept of sympathetic cause and effect, to the invocation of beings classed as "supernatural".

As Victoria says, there's a whole class of fantasy that seeks to explain magic in a quasi-scientific way. There are also fantasy worlds where scientific technology is systematically replaced with magical technology, on the basis that, for instance, most of us wouldn't know how to build a printed circuit board, but we can all use the equipment built with it.
 

vstrauss

>> My working definition (which like all such is very generalised, leaving plenty of exceptions) is that science fiction is about explanations, fantasy is about consequences.<<

I like that distinction, Nyki.

>>there's a whole class of fantasy that seeks to explain magic in a quasi-scientific way.<<

And then in SF, or at least television SF, there's the abominable concept of techno-mages.

- Victoria
 

Nateskate

Sci-fi vs Fantasy

The primary difference is the "mechanisms"

That and the the worlds in which they generally exist. Anything that takes place in space is sci fi, and anything that takes place in the 15th century is fantasy for the most part.

But in terms of mechanisms, sci-fi generally presumes that powers, and ability to manipulate are scientifically obtained. Someone creates a chemical, or a machine that makes you invisible.

In fantasy, generally, there is a presumption of an invisible world, and that powers are a in part due to the nature of that world. It believes in intrinsic powers, where someone has the ability to fly or make themselves invisible.

And in terms of magic, it is not based on the scientific understanding, as much as it is in some craft which again, taps into unseen powers.

The explainations of sci fi is that "We, through intelligence, learn to manipulate and make things happen-invisibility ray. But in fantasy, the explanation is in learning the secret words, or some other mechanism of disappearing.

At least that is somewhat the way that I see it. But the lines are often blurred, and that is really the case in some stories.
 

Nyki27

Re: Sci-fi vs Fantasy

Unseen powers? Like gravity, electromagnetism, the strong & weak forces? They're all intrisic in nature. Someone creates a chemical? Like a potion, say?

The real issue is what "scientific understanding" actually is. I'd say that, at root, it's learning how the universe works and how to use that knowledge to manipulate matter and energy. Plenty of magic systems in fantasy fit that definition.
 

Nateskate

Re: Sci-fi vs Fantasy

I wrote a sci fi fantasy once, and the gist of it was that science had found a "Scientific means" of performing an occultic practice.

The means was "Science", but ultimately the question of the story was when is science stepping into the paranormal?

Stories like "White Noise" blurrs those edges, finding a mechanical means to have a seance.

But because the means is a machine, it would seem to fit more into Sci Fi.
 

Nyki27

Re: Sci-fi vs Fantasy

Where would place an apparatus consisting of conventional mechanical moving parts, but operated by mental projection, demonic energy or something of the kind? Just curious.
 

detante

Re: Sci-fi vs Fantasy

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

-Arthur C. Clarke
 

Nateskate

Re: Nyki27

What you are asking is simple, a blend of Sci Fi and Fantasy. Who says that a book can't have both?

It's like having a murder mystery and a romance in the same book. You can blend Genre.

But technically speaking, people tend to like a label, so if it is more of one than the other, that's the Genre.
 

arrowqueen

Re: Nyki27

Cheers, det. That's the quotation I was looking for.
 

Nyki27

Re: Nyki27

Nate, I wasn't saying I didn't understand it. I was the one challenging the sharp distinction in the first place.
 

Nateskate

Re: Nyki27

No problem.

It's not an exact science is it?

I guess I don't care what the label is as long as the story is good.
 

Flawed Creation

Re: Nyki27

My essential problem is that the simplest definition of magic fials utterly to help fantasy.

in real life, it's simpple enough to say that magic is "the impossible". anything hat couldn't really happen.

"paranormal" is often used ot refer to things that don't work within our understanding of the universe but cannot be disproven, such as precognition.

in a fantasy world, it seems probable that science and magic would be indistinguishable.

consider: our real-wrold "Science" is the study of how the universe work.s this cause that. this action, this result. magic should work the same way. in a world with magic, that amgic would be part of science. that is, if you do this, this is the result. cause and effect.

one may point out that magic is often protrayed as lacking some fo the features of formal science: for instance, working the same for everyone. but of course, that's not really how the world work.s if some people are stronger, some smarter, then some people can be mroe magical. maybe their brains are strctured differently.

therefore, magic isn't magic at all.

unless, of course, one decidees that is the antithesis of the idea of magic. one could take pains ot make magic, unpredictable, undefinable, answering to no laws. this runs fo the risk of creating a world or story that makes no sense. if magic is truly uncontrolled, undefined, and unpredictable, it should be used sparingly. any magic should be a rare occurrence, and i don't think there would "wizards", whose life's work was habitual and continmuous use of magic. this ruins the mystery.


perhaps the best idea wuld be to combine them, making both present in one world.

wizards and magical creatures could have some "magical" abilities that defy our earth's physics and the normal abilites of humans, but which follow their own carefully limited laws; at the same time "true" magic would be a force beyond the comprehension even of wizards, invoked only by the gifted or desperate. those able to wield it would be envied even by other wizards.


this seems like an ideal compromise: it creates a (mostly) consistent and understandable world without sacrificng the enchantment and mystery of fantasy.

what do you think?
 

DaveKuzminski

Re: Nyki27

I like that last idea. I may try incorporating it into a story.
 

Nyki27

Re: Nyki27

I prefer using magic as a learnable, consistent practice, but that would make a good story.

To continue your analogy of how there can be specialist magicians, not everyone has the same intrinsic ability to understand, say, a car engine. People are wired in different ways.
 

Flawed Creation

Re: Nyki27

now, by Learnable, do you mean "learnable by those with 'the gift of magic'"?, or "learnable by anyone"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.