That Which Divides Fantasy and Science
By
Grant Williams
Science
fiction and fantasy both create worlds that aim to entrance their readers in a
world separate and alien from that which they are used to whether in design or
law. Categorizing that which composes the backbone of fantasy literature and
science fiction literature is essential in determining how to identify which is
most strongly portrayed in a novel. While both have overlapping features such
as blurring the borders of reality and fiction using imaginative materials and
concepts, their difference lies in the methods of their adaptation.
Defining
the alternativeness of science fiction compared to fantasy is made simple
through James Gunn’s quote in The Road to
Science Fiction:
“Science fiction
is the branch of literature that deals with the effects of change on people in
the real world as it can be projected into the past, the future, or to distance
places. It often concerns itself with scientific or technological change, and
it usually involves matters whose importance is greater than the individual or
the community; often civilization or the race itself is in danger.”
Where science fiction focuses on the
larger aspect of the journey of the characters along with the implications on a
wider scope, fantasy follows the specifics of the journey along with more
personal internal conflicts. The perils encountered endanger separate ranges of
characters with fantasy being more likely to threaten the livelihood of those
centered on the main characters, and science fiction more likely to impend doom
upon the main characters’ society.
Two
examples of where the focus of the story lies based upon the twisting of the
“rational” are Do Androids Dream of
Electric Sheep? by Philip Dick and Neverwhere
by Neil Gaiman. DADES? provides a
plotline based upon a society altered by the invention and introduction of
androids almost non-differentiable from humans and the problems this creates.
This novel separates itself from the fantasy counterpart of Neverwhere which takes emphasis upon the
main character and his expedition throughout two alternate personalities of
London, London Above and London Below. Both Dick and Gaiman create their novels
within the range that maximizes their subject’s strengths and avoids its
weaknesses.
Characterization
of the subjects of science fiction and fantasy is easily defined and identified
using Philip Martin’s Toward a Definition
of Science Fiction. “Science Fiction pushes science to its limit – and
sometimes twists it to the edge of reason- to create new futures or
otherworlds. Yet those imaginary worlds are connected by a line of reasoning,
however tenuous, back to our known laws of science.” Science fiction creates a
world that is no matter how farfetched a creation is retraceable to the idea of
the rational that we now hold. Fantasy takes no hindrance by what we hold
rational and chooses to allow imagination to alter our perceptions of belief
and create as creative and entertaining a story as possible.
The conflicts
involving the characters of a science fiction work are nearly altogether
disregarded by fantasy, which Martin says creates questions such as, “If we
lived in a very different world, how would we behave as individuals or in
groups?” Fantasy alters a question such as this in a way that doesn’t coax
someone to find the reasoning behind an event or struggle rather than to find
the solution to it. The thinking that fantasy implies is not one focused on
that of reason but one with a prominence on belief, “...fantasy looks inward,
not to rules of social or personal behavior but into our beliefs…wonder and
wishes overcome knowledge and explanation.” Both fantasy and science fiction
are prone to view and recognize the internal conflicts faced through struggle,
yet science fiction holds tendencies to connect to society whereas fantasy
replaces that with going further into the individual and the web of human
thought. Defining what classifies as science fiction and fantasy alters the
perspective of the reader prior to reading the material, and can change how the
novel as a whole is accepted.
Grant:
ReplyDeleteYou take a very functional and formal approach to the topic here -- sufficiently formal, actually, that at times I had to work through a paragraph a few times to be sure I was parsing it correctly. While I don't question that the pieces of your process add up to a clear posit, I think your focus was too much on adopting a formal discourse and not enough on just speaking from the heart.
Best,
TT