Poll: Which is more diverse: Fantasy or Science Fiction?

[Atmos Duality]

In theory: Fantasy
Reason: There are infinitely more irrational concepts (fantasy, magic) than rational concepts (science).

In practice: Tough to say. I rather like both, and the breadth of concepts from both.

I'll do you one better. Science fiction, taken from scientific romance, is already a KIND of fantasy.

Oh ho ho!
Loopholes.

 

[Lunar Templar]

nether.

one is only as diverse as the person writing it wants it to be.

Scifi might only 'seem' more so since it doesn't have a LotRs of its own for to draw from (read:rip off) whole sale like fantasy does, but is some one is willing to actually think for them selves and NOT 'barrow from' tolken, they can come up with stuff just as diverse as any scifi book/movie/game you'll see

 

[Smiley Face]

What on earth..? How are so many people voting for science fiction? Science fiction is limited in that it is set in the real world, in the future, and has as an integral part the influences caused by advancements in the future. Fantasy, on the other hand, is free of these constraints. It need not exist in the real world. It need not follow our common laws of physics. It can take place in any time, be about anything, in any place. And there is nothing prohibiting a work of fantasy from having some of the elements common to science fiction - after all, Star Wars is, in the end, with its force and faraway worlds and politics, more a work of fantasy than science fiction.

 

[Caiphus]

In theory, fantasy. Because magic is a be-all, end-all cure for plot holes.

In practice, neither.

But surely mass effect / the force / time portals / space portals / lightspeed / warpspeed / science / space magic /aliens / William Shatner / alernate universes / shit-that-sounds-like-physics-but-actually-the-author-just-made-up-while-drunk is a cure-all for plot holes in sci-fi? They get away with some pretty crazy shit.

 

[Rush Syks]

What on earth..? How are so many people voting for science fiction? Science fiction is limited in that it is set in the real world, in the future, and has as an integral part the influences caused by advancements in the future. Fantasy, on the other hand, is free of these constraints. It need not exist in the real world. It need not follow our common laws of physics. It can take place in any time, be about anything, in any place. And there is nothing prohibiting a work of fantasy from having some of the elements common to science fiction - after all, Star Wars is, in the end, with its force and faraway worlds and politics, more a work of fantasy than science fiction.

And that is why I love LotR as a story, but hate it for it's success. It has narrowed western fantasy for decades now and I don't see any change soon.

But when you look into japanese anime/manga/games then you'll quickly realize that science fiction basically is a sub-genre of fantasy without outright magic, although "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" (can't remember who said, sorry).

 

[Abomination]

All sci-fi is fantasy but not all fantasy is sci-fi... ergo fantasy has the higher amount of diversity.

 

[Serinanth]

Snip

I call shenanigans

Last I checked Klingons, Daleks and Crystal Singers do not exit in the real world.
Know what the GNDN conduits in Star Trek do? Goes nowhere does nothing.
Scifi is not limited to the mundane and you can us technology to the same extent as magic.

Well how the hell did we just move this planet? Well first we interfaced with the quantum foam using our inter-spacial plank magnifier blah blah blah. Grounding the stories in real science gives them a pretty good feel but you can have a quartet of planets traveling through space relying on the massive amounts of heat that their society generates to survive. Or an inter dimensional god like being that likes to mess with mortals for the amusement factor.

Just like fantasy, scifi is only limited by your imagination.

 

[Smiley Face]

Snip

I call shenanigans

Last I checked Klingons, Daleks and Crystal Singers do not exit in the real world.
Know what the GNDN conduits in Star Trek do? Goes nowhere does nothing.
Scifi is not limited to the mundane and you can us technology to the same extent as magic.

Well how the hell did we just move this planet? Well first we interfaced with the quantum foam using our inter-spacial plank magnifier blah blah blah. Grounding the stories in real science gives them a pretty good feel but you can have a quartet of planets traveling through space relying on the massive amounts of heat that their society generates to survive. Or an inter dimensional god like being that likes to mess with mortals for the amusement factor.

Just like fantasy, scifi is only limited by your imagination.

True, while most science fiction is a logical extension of reality, sometimes it manifests as an illogical extension of reality. The fact, however, remains, that you could have Klingons, Daleks and Crystal Singers (what're Crystal Singers from?) in a sciency fantasy work. And yes, a good deal of sciency handwaving can happen - but then again, we're all familiar with fantasy doing magicky handwaving, and they're also more than capable of doing sciency handwaving.

Science Fiction and Fantasy both have infinite possibilities. However, the difference between them is that science fiction will always be tethered to being an extension of the real world - much like while there are techinically infinite numbers between 1 and 2, they all start with 1.something - whereas with fiction, you also have those infinite variations, except now those variations are any number at all, unburdened by limitations -except, I suppose, that it can't be any number between 1 and 10 - after all, it's not exactly fantasy if it's taking place in the real world? Nevertheless, greater diversity.

Limitations are often good, mind you. The fact that science fiction is grounded in reality gives it more oomph, more potential for commentary on human nature and society, while still being immensely free to do its work. But, the question was what is more diverse, and that HAS to be fantasy - it's just doesn't have those same restrictions.

EDIT: Actually, I think I can think of examples of fantasy that take place in the real world - would the Dresden Files count? I mean, it's dealing with trolls and vampires and whatnot, fantastical creatures, while grounding itself in modern-day Chicago - I'm pretty sure it falls under the umbrella of fantasy, in which case, yay, even less limitations on fantasy than I thought.

 

[Smiley Face]

Granted a couple of Star Wars fictions fall into both categories, but you take away the force and you still have a starwars story (As many novels comics ect demonstrate), you take away all their technology, not so much.

I beg to differ. Star Wars doesn't care about its technology. It's part of the setting, but not part of the plot. You could transplant Star Wars' basic plot into another setting without technology - let's say, for this example, a stereotypical medieval fantasy setting. The evil magician Vader and his evil empire have created a great, floating Death Ship, with enough siege weapons on it to lay any of the island states in the world to waste, and a young boy and his wise mentor get entangled in the resistance effort to stop it. I mean, it's entirely possible to hit all the salient points and dynamics and relationships - the technology isn't important.

Then try the converse. How does Star Wars work, without the force? Major subplots, particularly in the prequels, deal with these people who have these supernatural abilities, shaping the world around them. Luke goes to Cloud City because he gets a vision of the future and sees his friends in danger. Anakin joins Sidious because he promises to save Padme's life - a life that Anakin knows is in danger because of, yup, a premonition. The corrupting influence of the dark side of the force is a major theme throughout the entire series. Then there's the FORCE GHOSTS, for crying out loud - Obi-Wan guiding Luke, and, apparently, Qui-Gon guiding Obi-Wan, kind of. The Force is WAY more important to Star Wars than the presence of space-age tech.


That said, it's not impossible for the force to elements to be translated into science-fiction terms, but it's FAR more of a stretch than removing the tech levels, and even if you do, it creates plot holes and logical inconsistencies that you wouldn't get by shifting it away from sciencyness.

Also, again, just because something is a fantasy, doesn't mean it can't have space age tech - so technically, you don't even have to remove the technological setting of Star Wars to get it to conform to fantasy - it already does. It's just that, unfortunately, people don't tend to venture outside your standard 'western-medieval-fantasy' archetype for people to start thinking of fantasy in different ways.

 

[Serinanth]

I agree Marvin, err Smiley Face, about limitations that is. I think that's why I like scifi a tad more. Hypothetically they both have the same potential for diversity but fantasy writers as said seem to fall into the same tenants. Dresden files would be fantasy imo, I enjoy the throwing of fantasy into the real world, again that grounding.

Crystal Singers are from Anne McCaffery's old series of the same name, its a scifi romancy kinda feel. Pretty neat premise, crystal found on only one dangerous planet allow for enhanced space travel and communication. Hah, writing that out I realized something, Spice anyone?

Edit: Negated myself there, Dresden files grounded with real world setting, I guess I can not say which I prefer, I just like a good story =).

Edit again: I think my favorite stories are the ones that blend the mystical and the technological, perhaps that's why Star Wars, or The Fifth Element as examples are so well received?

 

[LtWigglesworth]

I'll have to say science fiction.
It encompasses everything from Michael Chricton's books such as Prey and The Andromeda Strain, to space operas such as SW, Star Treck or Mass Effect. With so many different styles in between, from the realistic hard sci-fi such as the Red/Blue/Green Mars series, Rendezvous With Rana, The Sparrow and softer sci-fi such as Dune and the HH series.
Fantasy has this unfortunate habit of repeating the D&D and LOTR tropes.
That said, I do love GoT.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I say Science Fiction is more diverse.
Seriosuly how many fantasy stories that used elf, orc, dragon, dwarf and other sterotype fantasy creature? Yes I know there are other fantasy element that don't used them but the fantasy stories I've seen keep using the same frictional creatures or its likeness.
The thing is science fiction is that isn't using the same old basework like some fantasy stories used. Also science friction tend to be set in outer space meaning the possiblity set in space is endless compared to a fantasy planet.

 

[King of Asgaard]

In theory: Fantasy
Reason: There are infinitely more irrational concepts (fantasy, magic) than rational concepts (science).

Except Star Trek turns that on its head because they came up with a ton of bullshit technobabble throughout the series.
While some of it was grounded in reality, a lot of the time it was made up for one time uses on episodes.
That said I do see your point; magic doesn't need an explanation to be accepted while Sci-fi does.

OT: At this point, I don't think one is more diverse than the other, because they both borrow elements from each other, not to mention, there are not many original ideas nowadays, so it depends on who can write either in such a way as to make it interesting, despite the commonplace tropes and clichés.
Mass Effect is a good example of this. It shares quite a few things with its contemporaries, while still being interesting to experience.
I'll catch flak for this, but in my opinion, Dragon Age: Origins is an example of this done poorly, because there is no deviation from the norm, so the story was trite and clichéd from start to finish.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

There is so much content out there I haven't come into contact with, I don't think I can really make an educated choice. Not all fantasy is Tolkien and not all Sci-Fi is Star Wars, and chances are, the more strange and unique it is the less likely I am to have heard of it. But I have read and watched enough to know they're both ridiculously broad.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Granted a couple of Star Wars fictions fall into both categories, but you take away the force and you still have a starwars story (As many novels comics ect demonstrate), you take away all their technology, not so much.

I beg to differ. Star Wars doesn't care about its technology. It's part of the setting, but not part of the plot. You could transplant Star Wars' basic plot into another setting without technology - let's say, for this example, a stereotypical medieval fantasy setting. The evil magician Vader and his evil empire have created a great, floating Death Ship, with enough siege weapons on it to lay any of the island states in the world to waste, and a young boy and his wise mentor get entangled in the resistance effort to stop it. I mean, it's entirely possible to hit all the salient points and dynamics and relationships - the technology isn't important.

As an aside, that was the Eragon movie. It was Star Wars, just set in generic fantasyland, and utterly, utterly crap.

Having said that, Forbidden Planet was "The Tempest" except turned into fairly hard science fiction. Works both ways.