For some reason, speculative fiction fans like to argue about the definitions of science fiction and fantasy. Some even claim they’re the same thing.
For me, they’re clearly different. Fantasy is magic, and wizards and stuff. SF is spaceships and technology.
But, that’s just my opinion. It’s not wrong, nor is an authoritative truth.
(Rabbit trail! Opinions are fine, they’re not right or wrong. And I’ll delete any comments saying someone is wrong just for having a different opinion. Pineapple on pizza is an opinion, and people ARE allowed to like it.. as long as they’re not forcing you to eat it…. but the other side, instead of just saying “no thanks, I don’t like it.” is all: “IT’S WRONG AND NEEDS TO BE OUTLAWED1!!!!!”. That’s just silly. Let people have their likes and dislikes. Rabbit trail rant over. Back to your regularly scheduled rant.)
Is there any sort of authoritative definition?
Let’s check the dictionary:
(I used dictionary.com…)
Science Fiction:
a form of fiction that draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge and speculation in its plot, setting, theme, etc.
Fantasy:
9. a genre of fiction involving magical, folkloric, or mythical elements:
I’ve been reading a lot of fantasy lately.
10. Also Literature. an imaginative or fanciful work, especially one dealing with supernatural or unnatural events or characters:
The stories of Poe are fantasies of horror.
So, that’s pretty clear. I’ve also heard it described as:
“Fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science Fiction is the improbable made possible.” – Rod Serling
… which is basically saying the same thing.
So, why do people argue about the definitions so much?
The short answer is: I don’t know. (please do sound off in the comments with your thoughts.)
I think part of it is that they are both fantastical types of stories. The other definitions of “fantasy” in the dictionary support that idea…
I think when properties start to blur the lines is when the arguments start. Let’s look at two of the larger science fiction franchises: Star Trek, and Star Wars.
Star Trek is pretty classic SF. Spaceships, aliens, tech.
Star Wars also has all those, though, and there are people who will argue to the death that Star Wars is fantasy and NOT science fiction. But why, when it has all the classic science fiction stuff in it?
Some people argue that it’s because Star Wars is set in the past (“A long time ago, in a…”) But that doesn’t align with our definitions above. (Hey, if your definition of fantasy is “set in the past”, and SF is “set in the future”, that’s fine… but there’s no authoritative definition of the two that defines them in that way.)
I, personally, think that the people that have a problem defining Star Wars as science fiction do so because of religion. There’s no religion in Star Trek, or most of the “big” SF franchies, yet Star Wars has The Force, the Jedi are basically a religious order….
I could rant more on this topic, but go see Alexandra’s Reclaiming Sci-Fi.
So, do you enjoy fantasy or science-fiction more, and how would you define them?
No responses yet