What exactly makes the difference between sci-fi and fantasy or even fairy-tale?

Greetings.

I'm writing this in reply to Helm in the thread about "Laser and plasma weapons in movies".
I'm opening a new thread with this post, since a further discussion of the matter raised herein besides my initial little sidenote in the aforementioned thread would be overly off-topic and possibly derail it, since I suppose there may be quite a lot to discuss in regard to this topic.

For reference, the initial sidenote and Helm's reply:

Originally Posted by me

Just a little sidenote regarding the mentions of Star Wars and the nerd discussions around that: All those discussions are moot, since Star Wars is not Science-Fiction, it's Fantasy. Whatever something is called there, it doesn't have to be what it's called. Star Wars even meets all requirements of a classic Grimm's fairy tale. Insofar it would be wise to refrain from taking Star Wars as an example for anything scientifically technological.

Originally Posted by Helm

The technology they're using is futuristic so can be considered sci-fi. The setting may be fantasy unless humans from our the future travelled through a wormhole that went through time as well as space and so ended up in a galaxy a long time ago and far far away. But that's the kind of subject Lucas doesn't want anyone to go into.

Which is somewhat curious. Back when the first movie came out, didn't he defend against sci-fi buffs ridiculing the fact that there's sound in space with something along the lines of "I decided that there's sound in space in my universe"?

Anyway, as much as Star Wars may still be inappropriate as an example on which to base a discussion on laser and plasma weapon technology in my opinion, it is a perfect example of a tale to discuss where to draw the line between sci-fi and fantasy.

And in Star Wars' case the classic fairy-tale aspects go a lot farther than just the reference to the "Once upon a time" intro line:
- Conflict between clearly defined good and evil
- Magic (= The Forks™)
- Princess in despair...
- ...and her hero
Y'know. That kind of stuff.

Also, sci-fi isn't just defined by the use of "futuristic technology". Sci-fi is a genre with an agenda. Sci-fi raises questions about certain future-related issues, which Star Wars doesn't do, and doesn't even intend to do. And guess what - sci-fi doesn't even need futuristic technology to be that. Take "A Clockwork Orange", for example. There's hardly anything noteworthy in regard to technology mentioned/shown in the book/movie. The conditioning Alex receives there could well be seen related to Pavlovian conditioning, that, in regard to literature, is an incredibly old concept about which to raise any questions (Huxley's ingenious "A Brave New World", anyone?). Nevertheless, "A Clockwork Orange" is sci-fi, it's just that the sciences of physics, chemistry, genetics etc. don't play a role in there, but the science of sociology does.

That shall be all for now. Discuss! ()

There isn't a line between science fiction and fantasy, it's more like the tidal zone on a beach. The sea of fantasy stretches out beyond the horizon, turbulant and chaotic, while the dry dunes of science fiction march inland in serried ranks.

In essence science fiction is about the impact of science/technology on society and/or individuals. It contains all the story types found in general fiction. It doesn't have to be set in the future.

Paradoxically, science fiction can even contain things we think are impossible, provided these are fundamental to the story, behave in a logical manner, and are kept under tight control. Basically you need to be able to say either "this could happen", or "if X were true, then, this could happen".

Fantasy is all about there being no physical constraints. The story can happen anywhere in any time and does not have to have any connection with any known time or place. Fantasy can include any number of magical objects, forces and abilities that the plot requires. There is no requirement for these to even be explained in a rational manner.

Fantasy is constrained by plot. I'm not sure if you can even have a fantasy without plot (any examples?) The plot stands in for the normal constraints of reality. In a war story you could object to a character using a particular weapon because it it hadn't been invented yet. In a fantasy, the only constraint is the story itself. Events that don't fit the story cannot be permitted. Therefore fantasy normally abhors chance and coincidence (unless they further the plot). Everything must happen for a reason. If the reason isn't immediately apparent, then it must be explained later. Perhaps this is why protagonists in fantasy stories have a habit of being pivotal to the resolution of world-shaking issues.

Fantasy is all about there being no physical constraints. The story can happen anywhere in any time and does not have to have any connection with any known time or place. Fantasy can include any number of magical objects, forces and abilities that the plot requires. There is no requirement for these to even be explained in a rational manner.

There is if you want to produce a decent story - otherwise you end up with a constant string of God from the Machine crap.

on the OP

Sci-fi is a genre with an agenda. Sci-fi raises questions about certain future-related issues,

Umm only if you buy into Ray Bradbury kind of pompousness. Why does it have to raise issues just because the author wants to feel self important? Take Star Wars sure there is an obvious debt to Joseph Campbell and Akira Kurosawa, but in a way at the end of the day the realization of a galaxy spanning space flight era is much better than a lot of silly 'hard' sci-fi. At least Lucus realized that most of technology is a black box for most people (not the same people the but in general your great auto mechanic is not the same person as a good tool and die maker who is not a geneticist, who is not also a mathematician nor an electrical engineer unlike say Star Trek). Better yet in a way he did deal with technology and future related issues in suggesting that no matter how uber spiffy it gets there will still be haves and have nots. When you think about it that has been fairly constant since we started down the path no invention has really changed that.

Originally Posted by conon394

Umm only if you buy into Ray Bradbury kind of pompousness. Why does it have to raise issues just because the author wants to feel self important?

If you are going to make a serious argument, you should justify claims such as these rather than just begging the question. Anyway, what Ray Bradbury writes is a form of fantasy-horror. His rocket ships are like firecrackers and his alien worlds are nightmares made real. I can only guess that you are referring to his philosophising at the end of Farenheit 451 when you speak of pomposity?

Originally Posted by conon394

Take Star Wars sure there is an obvious debt to Joseph Campbell and Akira Kurosawa, but in a way at the end of the day the realization of a galaxy spanning space flight era is much better than a lot of silly 'hard' sci-fi.

What is "silly" about hard science fiction? I have heard many criticisms of it, but that is a new one.

Originally Posted by conon394

At least Lucus realized that most of technology is a black box for most people (not the same people the but in general your great auto mechanic is not the same person as a good tool and die maker who is not a geneticist, who is not also a mathematician nor an electrical engineer unlike say Star Trek).

I am not sure that Star Wars is really science fiction at all. It is an adventure story with space-ships, force-powers and a galactic struggle between good and evil as a backdrop.

George Lucas took the kind of story you might find in the pulp magazines of the 1940's and expanded it out into a Hollywood epic (Indiana Jones was a similar exercise in the non-SF field).

Everything in Star Wars is familiar, merely wearing trendy new clothes. The technology does not actually seem to affect anyone in a fundamental manner. The society feels familiar as well, we have seen militaristic Empires and plucky Rebel bands a thousand times before. The space battles were modelled on WW2 Pacific carrier battles. The protagonists even have sword fights!

The technology is presented as black box because it is merely a prop for the story and you are not supposed to think about it.

Originally Posted by conon394

Better yet in a way he did deal with technology and future related issues in suggesting that no matter how uber spiffy it gets there will still be haves and have nots. When you think about it that has been fairly constant since we started down the path no invention has really changed that.

I didn't notice that in Star Wars, I thought it was about good vs evil and freedom vs enslavement. Were there any have-nots?

Look, I enjoyed Star Wars, but it consists of action, humour and big explosions. There aren't any big ideas and all the characters are fairly shallow. I don't think you can have real science fiction without ideas and the consequences of those ideas on the story and characters.

With Star Wars everything revolves around The Force, but it is a piece of magic. I say this because it does exactly what is required of it to advance the plot and no more. It is never explained and we the audience are never able to use our knowledge of the characteristics of The Force to say what is and isn't possible in the Star Wars universe.

Sci-fi is a setting that could happen while fantasy is a setting can't happen. Star Wars could happen providing there's an explanation for humans being where and when they are. Mystical powers can be a part of sci-fi see Star Trek and Warhammer 40K particularly, reason being those are things that still could happen providing there's an explanation for them. In Star Wars the Force was explained to an extent with midi-cholorians which takes it closer towards being sci-fi.

For all we know the Force does exist only we can't tap into it directly because unlike the people of the Star Wars galaxy we don't have midicholorians. And unlike say Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter Star Wars still takes place in our own universe at a particular time and place so that makes it more akin to a sci-fi, just in a more regular sci-fi it's set in our own galaxy in the future rather than a different galaxy in a the past.

It's actually not relevant whether it could exist because until Episode I, there wasn't even an attempt to explain it in any way. That said the whole idea actually became worse when Lucas started giving it a pseudo-scientific explanation where the number of midichlorians started to become a factor in how "strong" the force in someone is. Like a Jedi can't feel it, but he runs a bunch of tests.