Alex Moreno: "The Difference Between Science Fiction and Fantasy"

The Difference Between Science Fiction and Fantasy

By Alex Moreno

                The distinction between Science Fiction and Fantasy is a fuzzy one, and oftentimes stories can exist "on the line." The only real purpose of this distinction anyways is for our convenience; some people (such as me) believe that they are a fan of one but not the other. For them there is a clear distinction, if there was not they would be unable to tell if a story is in their favorite genre or not. However, this personal distinction might vary from reader to reader.

Readers of science fiction and fantasy might have their own personal definitions of the distinction between science fiction and fantasy, but so do literary critics. These people's opinion usually seem to matter more when it comes to defining what a genre is, but even the literary theorists can't seem to agree on exactly what the distinction is.

                James Gunn writes that science fiction is, in perhaps the briefest of all explanations, "a fantastic event of development considered rationally" (in the first page of the theory piece, "Toward a Definition of Science Fiction"). In this vein, fantasy might be defined as "a fantastic event of development considered fantastically." This means that both science fiction and fantasy tell of events which would be impossible in our given world at the present time. This is what makes them both speculative fiction. The difference between the two then, is in how the two different genres attempt to explain these worlds and events.

                Science fiction rationalizes it's events using science. It attempts to explain that the events of the story are possible and scientific, and it may go into detail explaining the mechanisms of these elements. Using science to explain these mechanisms is only natural, science fiction writers would say, because it is the only way to define and explain things rigorously and logically.

                Fantasy writers however, would say that these mechanisms do not have to be explained rationally and in detail. Fantasy fans are okay with not having rigorous and logical mechanisms behind every facet of their world. Whereas the events of science fiction are defined and explained with science and reasoning, the magical elements of fantasy are not necessarily explained at all, it is up to the reader to believe in these magical things, for the sake of the story.

                Phillip Martin agrees with this definition of fantasy, writing that "Fantasy is speculative fiction...creating a world imaginative to the highest degree...", but that science fiction does this as well. He says that "Science fiction, however, speculates in a very different manner. The worlds of science fiction are based on some extrapolated aspect of actual laws of the universe we live in" (in the "Fantasy and Belief " theory piece, fist page). He says that "in contrast, fantasy looks inward, not to rules of social or personal behavior but into our beliefs... Fantasy celebrates the nonrational."

                This is the reason why I love science fiction more than fantasy. I (and other science fiction fans) enjoy the scientific mechanisms behind ever element of the story and setting, it is the reason to read the story. Whereas these mechanisms might be a selling point of science fiction, in fantasy they are mostly used as tools, and left to the reader to believe that they work.

                However, there are many instances in science fiction where the scientific elements are so farfetched, so extrapolated from our current understanding of the universe and technology, that it essentially becomes magic, and it is left up to the reader to believe in this scientific magic (flabotnum). An example of this is in Roger Zelazny's Lord of Light, where the technology of the gods is so unexplained that it is essentially magic, even to the gods themselves. When does the science become so extrapolated that it becomes magic? That line is clearly not well defined, for any technology can become sufficiently advanced to become magic. A television would be magic to Isaac Newton. However, what makes the television scientific rather than magical is that is can be explained by science (even if it is not to Newton). Because no author is going to educate the reader on the physics and technology of his/her futuristic world enough to fully understand every aspect of the technology, science fiction will always remain a bit magical. What separates it from fantasy is that at least a small chunk of it is explained with science, whereas fantasy remains 100% magical.