differences between sci-fi and fantasy....

Status
Not open for further replies.

preyer

excessively spartan
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
4,012
Reaction score
676
Location
feels like nashville
i mentioned that i'm not too hep on sci-fi and fantasy being lumped into the same category. while they may share some storytelling practices (though i question if other genres don't share the same ones), i think they may be significantly different to warrant their own separate shelfspace. am i alone in being rather annoyed when i'm not in a good mood and having to sift through both genres when i'm looking for a fantasy?

to me, a major difference is the characterization: fantasy is by far more character based, while in a lot of sci-fi the technology is given more attention than a character's motivation.

also, fantasy tends to be more ensemble oriented, as opposed to a lot of sci-fi which centres strictly around just a few characters.

yes/no? thoughts?
 

Pthom

Word butcher
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,013
Reaction score
1,207
Location
Oregon
Well, I feel the same way, except I hate to wade through all the fantasy to find a good rip-roaring SF story. Most book stores I've been to lump the two genres together. A delightful exception is Powell's, with stack after stack of the two genres separated. I will say though, that I have found some pretty darned good stories in the fantasy genre, purchased mainly because of the great cover art. ;)

The worst place to look for genre fiction (of any kind) is the public library, where all fiction is organized according to author's name. Fortunately, they've seen fit to attach a label for the more prominent genres: a sort of Star Trek emblem for SF, and a unicorn for fantasy. And, they have a new aquisition shelf where it's easy to spot new releases.

As for ensemble cast vs. small cast, I disagree. I've read many SF stories with huge casts of characters. Some well done, others not so well done. Often, when there is a very big cast, authors such as Niven, put a personae dramatis somewhere in the book so you can keep track. I think the issue of whether there is a large cast or not depends on world building. Much SF deals with technology and you just don't need a lot of characters to support something like a 'trans-matter zap gun' or whatever. However, when the issue is how the future (and the advanced technology that goes along with it) affects people or societies or governments, then you see more large casts. My WIP is such a story. I added up the characters the other day and came up with more than 50, although there is a 'core' group of fewer than ten.

No wonder it's taking me forever to finish it. <sigh>
 

Ivonia

Zodiac Fleet Commander
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
169
Reaction score
12
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Here's some sites you might be interested in:

http://www.sfsite.com/columns/amy26.htm

http://www.watt-evans.com/sfvsfantasy.html

Ultimately, it depends on what you have in your story, and how your world(s) works. My own story, it's a mix of both, I have spaceships, but I also have demons and monsters in my story too. If I were to use one of the definitions from that first link, I guess my story would fall under Science Fantasy for instance.
 

fallenangelwriter

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
373
Reaction score
29
each genre has its own trappings, but i don't think spaceships and demons really define the settings. it's mroe a question of the verisimilitude required.

to me, Hard Science-Fiction stories are those which are known or suspected to be possible in reality.

other science-fiction is essentially similar to fantasy. science fiction does require more internal consistency and mroe plausibility. also, IMO Science-fiction should be based on some sort of PHYSCIAL laws. not everything needs to be really possible, but metaphysics and mental states should not factor into it. this doesn't preclude all magic, only sotries focusing on spiritual concepts.

Fantasy is under the least obligation to make sense, but good gantasy should be essentially the same and science fiction. fantasy should have all the consistency and plausibility of sci-fi. fantasy, however, can get by with somewhat fewer explanations, and more significantly, can draw on nonphysical concepts.

to me, magic and science are generally equivalenbt, and attempting to define a distinction is futile. magic is divided into three categories in my mind: bad magic (magic that amkes no sense), good magic (magic that is understandable and obeys laws) and true magic (magic that is unpredictable and beyond mortal kne, used sparingly)

good magic laves a story in science-fiction, but bad or true magic make it fantasy.

this system of classification is one I developed for myself, and i don't know of anyone else who uses it, but i find that it makes sense to me.
 

Shiny_Penguin

665:Neighbor of the Beast
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
99
Reaction score
30
Location
PA
Website
www.bellaonline.com
Pthom said:
The worst place to look for genre fiction (of any kind) is the public library, where all fiction is organized according to author's name. Fortunately, they've seen fit to attach a label for the more prominent genres: a sort of Star Trek emblem for SF, and a unicorn for fantasy. And, they have a new aquisition shelf where it's easy to spot new releases.

Our library has a seperate section for SF/Fantasy. Of course it's in a tiny closet. And far more SF than Fantasy. And it just sounds funny to tell my kids "I'll be in the closet if you need me!"

I remember bookstores around here also used to lump the horror in with SF and fantasy. Now it has it's own section. I tend to read both SF and fantasy, so it doesn't really bother me that they are all together, but I wonder why they are. Maybe it's because the decision is made by people who don't read these genres.
 

SFEley

Registered
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Messages
23
Reaction score
9
Location
Atlanta, GA
Website
www.invisiblejames.com
preyer said:
i mentioned that i'm not too hep on sci-fi and fantasy being lumped into the same category. while they may share some storytelling practices (though i question if other genres don't share the same ones), i think they may be significantly different to warrant their own separate shelfspace. am i alone in being rather annoyed when i'm not in a good mood and having to sift through both genres when i'm looking for a fantasy?
You're not alone, but it's not about your mood. It's about the industry. There's enough crossover in both readers and writers of the genres that marketing them separately would be more inconvenient (and might result in lower sales) than marketing them together. And really, how hard is it to ignore the stuff on the shelf you don't want to buy? Is this genuinely making your buying process more difficult?


to me, a major difference is the characterization: fantasy is by far more character based, while in a lot of sci-fi the technology is given more attention than a character's motivation.
This is a common cliche, but it fails to explain stories like Ender's Game (to pick a good character-based SF example) or Anthony's Xanth series (to pick a bad technology-based fantasy example). There's a diverse range of styles and stories in both genres. Implying "Ah, but fantasy's about people, so it's better!" is naive.

Very loosely, science fiction is speculative fiction based on the theoretically possible, which pretends to happen in some logical extension of our own universe. (Although there are exceptions, like Vinge's A Fire Upon the Deep.) Fantasy is speculative fiction based on the blatantly impossible, either in our own universe or another. (Although there are exceptions, like McIntyre's The Moon and the Sun.)

Mostly, though, I like Damon Knight's definition: "Science fiction is what we point to when we say it." It could, of course, be generalized to any genre. Nailing down a precise definition is hard, but most people know what you're talking about when you mention it.
 

preyer

excessively spartan
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
4,012
Reaction score
676
Location
feels like nashville
'This is a common cliche' ~ cliche for a reason, though, eh? lol. clearly i'm speaking in general terms. say you were reading short stories, would you be able to identify with the halfling more than the space captain in general, given the characters were standard run-of-the-mill for what they are?

is it that big a deal having to slog through both genres? well, sometimes it rather is, particularly when they don't line the books up with the cover facing out. when the spine is facing me, i've got to stop and look at the thing. i don't want to be there all day. biggest issue facing mankind? hm, probably not. :)

'There's enough crossover in both readers and writers of the genres that marketing them separately would be more inconvenient (and might result in lower sales) than marketing them together.' ~ i think you'd want to keep the two genres close together, but i'm not sure if you consider mixing them 'marketing' as opposed to somewhat laziness by bookstores which doesn't hurt sales, so there's no real problem. i'm not sure if by separating them it would hurt sales: i mean, it's not like i walk into a store looking for a fantasy book and leave with a horror. just that when i want a fantasy, it's all a cluttered mess.

i feel there's enough divergence in the general storytelling method of each to warrant their own separation, albeit fans of one are likely, i guess, to be fans of the other.
 

Galoot

I am a pretty pretty flower
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
570
Reaction score
195
Location
Vancouver Island, BC
Website
thegaloot.blogspot.com
I don't like the two sections combined, but I've got to say it's worked in at least a few authors' favor when I've decided to buy Fantasy novels on a whim just because they caught my eye and held it long enough for me to get them to the till. That never would have happened if the sections were separate.

That was years ago, mind you. Now I'll occasionally seek out the Fantasy section if they're separate.

My library mixes the paperbacks but divides the hardcovers. They do use the little spine stickers, though.
 

fallenangelwriter

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
373
Reaction score
29
I think the reason that they're combined is that many readers read both.


Anyway, i can't accept the definition of Sci-Fi and necessarily possible. plenty of science fiction is blatantly impossible, or there is no reason to belive that it is possible. the science-fiction nature of it is that even the impossible is presented as basically understandable and not mysterious.
 

SFEley

Registered
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Messages
23
Reaction score
9
Location
Atlanta, GA
Website
www.invisiblejames.com
fallenangelwriter said:
Anyway, i can't accept the definition of Sci-Fi and necessarily possible. plenty of science fiction is blatantly impossible, or there is no reason to belive that it is possible. the science-fiction nature of it is that even the impossible is presented as basically understandable and not mysterious.

I did say there were exceptions. And yes, the dividing line does get fuzzy when the "science fictional" concepts are ones with no scientific grounding, like telepathy or faster-than-light travel.

Does it really matter, though? If I asked you to look at your own bookshelf at home and separate the SF/F books into a "science fiction" pile and a "fantasy" pile, how many books would you have trouble with? You know what the difference is. Who cares if it can be precisely articulated?
 

fallenangelwriter

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
373
Reaction score
29
Well, it all dsepends on whether we want to be semantically (or epistemologically) rigorous.

i could easily sort all the books in my room into fantasy and sci-fi by the commonly accepted standards, but i have my own definitions and sortin by those could be mroe difficult.
 

SFEley

Registered
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Messages
23
Reaction score
9
Location
Atlanta, GA
Website
www.invisiblejames.com
fallenangelwriter said:
Well, it all dsepends on whether we want to be semantically (or epistemologically) rigorous.
Why would we want that? (This is not a trivial question, BTW, applied to art.)

i could easily sort all the books in my room into fantasy and sci-fi by the commonly accepted standards, but i have my own definitions and sortin by those could be mroe difficult.
You mean that you have trouble classifying things by your own definitions? If that is the case, why do you maintain those particular definitions? What value do they have for you?
 

fallenangelwriter

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
373
Reaction score
29
What good is a definition that does NOT make it difficult to classify things?


It is easy enough to create a system of definitions which makes classification EASY, but this rarely yields much insight. for example, "Sci-fi has spaceships and gadgets, fantasy has wizards and dragons, if it has both, Who knows/it's science fantasy/ who cares?/it's in between."

this doesn't yield much insight. the mroe difficult to aplly a definition is, the morwe insight is generated, because it is the act of examining finer details and less obvious points that yields true understanding.

in any event, I am interested in magic and science philosophically, and i call anything science-fiction if it is, in my opinion, based on science, which much of "fantasy" is.
 

SFEley

Registered
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Messages
23
Reaction score
9
Location
Atlanta, GA
Website
www.invisiblejames.com
fallenangelwriter said:
It is easy enough to create a system of definitions which makes classification EASY, but this rarely yields much insight. for example, "Sci-fi has spaceships and gadgets, fantasy has wizards and dragons, if it has both, Who knows/it's science fantasy/ who cares?/it's in between."

"If it has horses and swords, it's fantasy. Unless it also has a rocket ship, in which it becomes science fiction. The only thing that will turn a story with a rocket ship in it back into fantasy is the Holy Grail."
-- Debra Doyle


this doesn't yield much insight. the mroe difficult to aplly a definition is, the morwe insight is generated, because it is the act of examining finer details and less obvious points that yields true understanding.

I agree that simple definitions don't yield much insight. I guess I just have my doubts about whether more complex categorization yields useful insight either. At least it doesn't to me. If it does to you, that's spiffy. If you have an Aristotelian view and I have a Platonic one, that doesn't mean we can't enjoy the same books. >8->
 

mistri

Sneezy Member
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
533
Reaction score
62
Location
UK
Website
www.livejournal.com
When I worked in a bookshop, the SF/F section was split into two at first. However, I didn't agree with this for a few reasons.

a) Fantasy was getting a lot more visitors, and fewer people were buying the poor SF books. The space for SF was diminishing as fewer books were being sold, and less were being bought in, etc. It may be selfish (I like both genres and wanted to support both), but I wanted the sections to be merged so that SF wouldn't end up getting totally wiped out.

b) Often fantasy and SF are distinct, but not always. Where would you shelve McCaffrey's Pern books, for example. They're SF (at least there's an SF explanation behind them) but they usually read like fantasy. Tad Williams is best known as a fantasy writer, but his Otherland books are more SF. If he was shelved across both sections his fantasy fans might not find the SF books. Lots of people argue about whether China Mieville writes SF or Fantasy.

In the end, the sections got merged together. There are downsides to this as well, of course, but I kind of preferred it the merged way.
 

SeanDSchaffer

preyer said:
i mentioned that i'm not too hep on sci-fi and fantasy being lumped into the same category. while they may share some storytelling practices (though i question if other genres don't share the same ones), i think they may be significantly different to warrant their own separate shelfspace. am i alone in being rather annoyed when i'm not in a good mood and having to sift through both genres when i'm looking for a fantasy?

to me, a major difference is the characterization: fantasy is by far more character based, while in a lot of sci-fi the technology is given more attention than a character's motivation.

also, fantasy tends to be more ensemble oriented, as opposed to a lot of sci-fi which centres strictly around just a few characters.

yes/no? thoughts?


I'd have to agree with you, Preyer, on the issue of Sci-fi and Fantasy being lumped together into the same genre. When I look through, say, Amazon or other websites for Fantasy, it's amazing to me how I can't seem to find a single genre known as 'Fantasy,' and generally end up finding it only when I look under 'Sci-fi'

I'm not as peeved at it as you seem to be, but since I write mostly Fantasy -- dragons, knights and stuff like that generally are not considered 'Sci-fi' -- I do find it frustrating to see the two genres put into the same shelf space.

I'd also have to partially agree with the attitude of characterizations versus technology. But I at the same time would say that a major difference you might not have mentioned in your first post between the two genres is this: Sci-fi is by many people expected to explain the reason(s) such-and-such technologies work, whereas Fantasy, if it does possess such technologies, is not.

An example of this is Star Wars as compared to Star Trek. In Star Trek, the technology of the Warp Drive is theoretically explained throughout the storylines, in great detail. It is fairly well explained what the dilythium crystals do in concert with the Matter/Anti-Matter Reactors, and how they warp the space around the respective starship to allow that ship to travel faster than the speed of light.

How does Star Wars, on the other hand,explain its Hyperdrive system? You push a lever forward and the Millenium Falcon goes real fast. It's not explained hardly at all, let alone in tremendous detail, and therefore remains somewhat of a mystery. That's why, technically speaking, Star Wars is considered a Fantasy and Star Trek is considered Sci-fi -- even though many people would consider both to be Sci-fi because they both take place in the stars.

In fact the above example could be part of the reason the two genres are lumped together as the same. I don't know, honestly, but I imagine it is a real possibility.
 

fallenangelwriter

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
373
Reaction score
29
Star wars is also a fantasy because of the abundance of wizards and magic swords.
 

whitehound

Resident rodent-freak
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
240
Reaction score
17
Location
Edinburgh, Scotland
Website
www.whitehound.co.uk
I would say, fantasy is based primarily on what we consider to be mythology (often but not neccessarily European mythology), whereas science fiction is based on speculation about what we consider to be the "real" world. Fantasy is also often based on folkloric or theological themes such as quests to find magical objects or to lift curses, lost princes, redemption from evil and etc.. While these themes also occur in SF, and indeed in all fiction genres, they are usually covert - whereas in fantasy they are overt and explicit.

Very "hard" SF tends to be ideas-driven, where the science-element - the new technology or whatever - is the main focus of the story, whereas fantasy is usually plot and character driven: but a great deal of slightly less "hard" SF is equally character-driven. I think for example of CJ Cherryth's Chanur saga (my own favourite SF series) which is mainly about politics and war and commerce and detailed character-development and even romantic love, but all set among alien societies and against a high-tech. background which are both absolutely vital to the plot, and not just a technological gloss on a fantasy story.

There is inevitably some overlap. SFEley referred to "concepts...with no scientific grounding, like telepathy" but in fact telepathy, although still unproven, is a subject of hot scientific research, and is a rather more likely and less fantastic element for an SF story than, say, anti-gravity.
Mistri mentioned the Pern books, which are solid SF which read like fantasy, with their genetically engineered dragons etc.. Tad Williams is another interesting borderline case because he is a fantasy writer who reads like SF.

His The War of the Flowers revolves around a high-tech. fairyland, and if it wasn't for the fact that some of the characters are little fluttery things with wings (and horrble bad attitudes) it would be a straight-SF parallel world story. The Memory, Sorrow and Thorn series is said to be based on Tolkein's Middle Earth, a thousand or more years later and on a different continent: but while Tolkein's elves are mythological and quasi-religious, Williams' version feel like some sort of alien life-form.

Idealization may be part of the key, and part of the distinction. Tolkein's fantasy elves are idealized and are there to represent certain qualities, to be beautiful and mysterious and, yes, fantastic. Williams' nearly-SF equivalent are treated as a well-rounded species with their own faults and virtues and individual natures, and are as much weird and disturbing as they are attractive.

I don't care much for fantasy of the dragons and quests type, but I am currently reading Barbra Hambley's Darwath trilogy, and she is another author who overlaps the boundaries. She writes about magic and wizards which says "fantasy," but does so in the context of a well-thought-out system of parallel worlds, in which magic is portrayed as just another sort of energy which operates more strongly in some universes than others. Her inimical Dark Ones read far more like alien energy-beings than fantasy demons.

I have a potential problem with the distiction between SF and fantasy myself, because I'm writing a novel which I would consider to be SF - albeit SF in which the sciences concerned would be mainly sociology and evolutionary biology, rather than technology and physics - but which may end up being classed as fantasy, simply because the setting is an alien world where the technology-level is quasi-mediaeval and clairvoyance is an established fact.
 

Pthom

Word butcher
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,013
Reaction score
1,207
Location
Oregon
whitehound said:
I would say, fantasy is based primarily on what we consider to be mythology (often but not neccessarily European mythology), whereas science fiction is based on speculation about what we consider to be the "real" world. Fantasy is also often based on folkloric or theological themes such as quests to find magical objects or to lift curses, lost princes, redemption from evil and etc.. While these themes also occur in SF, and indeed in all fiction genres, they are usually covert - whereas in fantasy they are overt and explicit.
Well put.

I have a potential problem with the distiction between SF and fantasy myself, because I'm writing a novel which I would consider to be SF - albeit SF in which the sciences concerned would be mainly sociology and evolutionary biology, rather than technology and physics ...
Science Fiction need not always deal with warp drives, phasers or time travel. Asimov's Foundation stories deals with a 'sociological' topic: prehistory. Greg Bear's Darwin's Radio deals with evolution. Both are, in my opinion, very 'hard' science fiction.
 

preyer

excessively spartan
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
4,012
Reaction score
676
Location
feels like nashville
i think i can agree with most of what WH said, and i'd like to add to that the apparent sociological attitude of a lot of sci-fi. you may find a lot of social commentary in LOTR if you want to see it, but not really so much of that in traditional fantasy. at least, as mentioned, it's one of those overt vs. covert themes. which is ironic considering fantasy being more character/plot driven, eh?

my views about the whole what SF and what F are is more black and white. for example, i've argued endlessly that 'star wars' is science fiction. granted, it's got fantasy elements in them (though i'd argue those are more mythological, especially the 'magick sword', a theme prevalent in european (and somewhat eastern) myths, and i wonder about the differences between myth and fantasy). but, fantasy elements aside, by which standard you could argue 'star wars' is a romance, and despite its definitely non-hard science approach, lightsabres are most likely plasma-based (scientists are still working on that one) and even the one strong fantasy element, the 'force,' lucas has explained away as being midi-chlorian-based (an absolutely horrible thing to have done, imo). so now that there's at least a thin scientific basis for even its strongest fantasy element, is it still fantasy? well, i never thought it was fantasy in the first place, lol. (i don't mean to contradict ya, but being a 'star wars' geek from childhood, this is a discussion i've had a hundred times.)

i tried reading the pern books way back when thinking they were fantasy. that's certainly how it was marketed if i recall the cover correctly. then there was all this science in it. i felt rather cheated. i didn't finish the book, but the point is it definitely sounds as if it's sci-fi predominantly... that and the setting makes it, well, sci-fi, doesn't it?
 

whitehound

Resident rodent-freak
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
240
Reaction score
17
Location
Edinburgh, Scotland
Website
www.whitehound.co.uk
I would say Star Wars belongs to that sub-set of SF known as "space opera." :)

By "mythological" in this context I meant "derived from traditional mythology" in the sense of dragons, Grails, quests, elves etc..

Strictly speaking in folklore a myth is a story which is preserved and re-told because it teaches people something about the social and moral structure of their culture (as opposed to a legend which just teaches about history). Technically a myth doesn't have to be untrue - stories about the Blitz spirit, for example, are mainly true and historically accurate and are also an important part of recent British mythology.

Fantasy often deals very explicitly with these sort of teaching themes - the triumph of good over evil, the virtues of courage and honour and so on - whereas they tend to be only implicit in other forms of fiction (except I suppose fiction about theology).

Again there are grey areas, such as the explicit moral-of-the-story often stated at the end of a Trek episode - but even Trek wouldn't *begin* a story with a character saying "I am now going on a quest to put down the Forces of the Evil One and demonstrate the superiority of Honour and Virtue," whereas that would be perfectly acceptible in a fantasy novel.

[Star Wars more or less did, but space opera is altogether a grey area IMO.]

The archetypal early fantasy novels are Mort d'Arthur and The Faerie Queene.
 

maestrowork

Fear the Death Ray
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
43,746
Reaction score
8,652
Location
Los Angeles
Website
www.amazon.com
Actually, personally I consider Star Wars a fantasy more than sci-fi. Even the logline is fantasy: A galaxy far far away and a long time ago... It's not based on hard science. Sure it has technologies in it -- but no more than, say, swords and arrows and magic wands. The main thrust in Star Wars are the mythologies -- the force (good vs. evil), the Jedi knights, the creatures, the politics (royalties, senators, councils)... there are quests and magic (the force, for example). I mean, take the traveling for instance. Even if they're traveling at light speed, it's still impossible for them to travel across their galaxy in a matter of hours or days. And Yoda and Obi-Wan are typical fantasy characters. The lighsabres are purely fantasy.

So my view is that Star Wars is really a fantasy set in a technologically advanced galaxy system, instead of a technologicall backward middle Earth.
 

DaveKuzminski

Preditors & Editors
Requiescat In Pace
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
5,036
Reaction score
859
Location
Virginia
Website
anotherealm.com
I try to keep in mind that the differences matter only to the readers. I just write whatever I like that I come up with.
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
DaveKuzminski said:
I try to keep in mind that the differences matter only to the readers. I just write whatever I like that I come up with.

I was going to say something similar. Good writing is good writing, regardless of genre. The different genres are best viewed as categories for marketing, and even in marketing a work, there will always be stories that don't fit neatly into a specific category.
 

victoriastrauss

Writer Beware Goddess
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
6,704
Reaction score
1,314
Location
Far from the madding crowd
Website
www.victoriastrauss.com
whitehound said:
Fantasy often deals very explicitly with these sort of teaching themes - the triumph of good over evil, the virtues of courage and honour and so on - whereas they tend to be only implicit in other forms of fiction (except I suppose fiction about theology).
This is becoming less and less true in modern, serious fantasy, a lot of which completely abandons those heroic absolutist categories, and has little resemblance to popular assumptions about what "defines" fantasy (magic, quests, wizards, swords, good vs. evil, etc.).

As the diversity of fantasy and SF continues to grow, and the genre boundaries become ever more fluid, I think that attempts to distinguish between "fantasy" and "science fiction" become ever less meaningful. I propose we call it all speculative fiction, and leave it at that.

- Victoria
 
Status
Not open for further replies.