Why do Science fiction and Fantasy have to be mutually exclusive

Recommended Videos

A Free Man

New member
May 9, 2010
322
0
0
hehe so many people have given the same answers so I thought I would offer something knew: How about Starwars, Dune, Steampunk, Warhammer 40k lololol jks : )

But seriously I think that this is not in the same general direction but if anyone has seen the mentalist it sort of features this clash a lot. Well for those who haven't seen it the main character is a guy who is really good at reading people and working out information from surroundings and events etc. So he can almost appear to be reading their mind but really is doing it purely scientific by informed estimations. Then there is this girl on it who claims to be a psychic and though he seems to very blatently doubt her ability many things happen with close to no explanation on her part. Anyway just thought I'd put that out there.
 

dariuskyne

New member
Oct 28, 2009
178
0
0
steampunk, shadowrun and many of that type (starwars) fall under the moniker: science fantasy, since sience fiction purists believe that unless the technology has it's basis in actual factual science, it is not true science fiction (example: star trek, jurassic park, I robot, etc.) truthfully, I prefer the term fictional entertainment, as in I read (or watch) therefore I am entertained, doesn't matter if it's science fiction, science fantasy, or fantasy in general.
 

Fangface74

Lock 'n' Load
Feb 22, 2008
595
0
0
As stated earlier Shadowrun has a good stab at it.

I've read plenty of stories whereby technology reaches the level where it can quantify & manipulate mystical energys, futuristic golems are robots powered by 'mana engines'.

In the Marvel universe Dr Doom's rise to power was due to his ability to mix magicks & tech.
 

SonicWaffle

New member
Oct 14, 2009
3,019
0
0
Trivun said:
And as for the Ian Irvine stuff, The Well Of Echoes is the second quartet in the series. The first book in the cycle is A Shadow On The Glass, which is book 1 of the View From The Mirror Quartet. I assume I'm right in saying the books you have are:

- Geomancer
- Tetrarch
- Alchymist
- Chimaera

Is that right? If so, then those are books 5-8. The total series spans 11 books so far, with a trilogy after the listed series, and another trilogy is planned for release beginning sometime next year. I heartily suggest you do give them a try, the books are very well written and if you're into sci-fi/fantasy fiction, they're a great read. The length may be a bit off-putting, although I managed to read the first quartet in about eight weeks (two weeks per book) when I first saw them in high school. I was about twelve at the time, for the record.
Those are the books I have, yes. However, now you've told me, I'm not going to be able to read them. I have this bizarre psychological compulsion to go from start to finish of everything. I will not start watching a TV series halfway through, I have to go and buy the first series on DVD. I can't start reading at book two of a trilogy, or book five of a series. I just can't do it. I'll have to go back and get the very first books in the series and read my way through, if I actually want to read them all, and right now I don't have the money.

Yes, I know I'm insane, thankyou.

I read a lot faster when I was twelve, personally. Mostly from having more free time - I didn't have an xbox when I was twelve, or a job, and I didn't really give a shit about school. I read all the time. Nowadays I work all day, go home, and can barely find the energy to turn on the TV. I do still read, but much slower; I'm currently read The Algebraist by Ian M Banks, and I've been on the same book for a week now. That's at a rate of reading a bit every day or so, before that I had a book (don't remember what it was) that I only ever really read on trains. Since I got precisely two trains in an average week, it was slow going ;-)
 

Trivun

Stabat mater dolorosa
Dec 13, 2008
9,831
0
0
SonicWaffle said:
Trivun said:
And as for the Ian Irvine stuff, The Well Of Echoes is the second quartet in the series. The first book in the cycle is A Shadow On The Glass, which is book 1 of the View From The Mirror Quartet. I assume I'm right in saying the books you have are:

- Geomancer
- Tetrarch
- Alchymist
- Chimaera

Is that right? If so, then those are books 5-8. The total series spans 11 books so far, with a trilogy after the listed series, and another trilogy is planned for release beginning sometime next year. I heartily suggest you do give them a try, the books are very well written and if you're into sci-fi/fantasy fiction, they're a great read. The length may be a bit off-putting, although I managed to read the first quartet in about eight weeks (two weeks per book) when I first saw them in high school. I was about twelve at the time, for the record.
Those are the books I have, yes. However, now you've told me, I'm not going to be able to read them. I have this bizarre psychological compulsion to go from start to finish of everything. I will not start watching a TV series halfway through, I have to go and buy the first series on DVD. I can't start reading at book two of a trilogy, or book five of a series. I just can't do it. I'll have to go back and get the very first books in the series and read my way through, if I actually want to read them all, and right now I don't have the money.

Yes, I know I'm insane, thankyou.

I read a lot faster when I was twelve, personally. Mostly from having more free time - I didn't have an xbox when I was twelve, or a job, and I didn't really give a shit about school. I read all the time. Nowadays I work all day, go home, and can barely find the energy to turn on the TV. I do still read, but much slower; I'm currently read The Algebraist by Ian M Banks, and I've been on the same book for a week now. That's at a rate of reading a bit every day or so, before that I had a book (don't remember what it was) that I only ever really read on trains. Since I got precisely two trains in an average week, it was slow going ;-)
Well, no worries about your insanity, I'm exactly the same :). I always start stuff from the beginning, I have an obsessive need to fully understand the plot entirely for anything I watch, play or read (which is why I never gave up on Lost, and am such a Halo fanboy...).
 

SonicWaffle

New member
Oct 14, 2009
3,019
0
0
Trivun said:
Well, no worries about your insanity, I'm exactly the same :). I always start stuff from the beginning, I have an obsessive need to fully understand the plot entirely for anything I watch, play or read (which is why I never gave up on Lost, and am such a Halo fanboy...).
Man, I miss Lost. I moved into a new flat 8 episodes into the last season, and haven't seen any more since; it isn't on basic TV here yet, and we don't have the internet at home. It's driving me crazy.

My weird habit of wanting to see an entire show has put me in financial trouble before now. I saw an episode of How I Met Your Mother, loved it, and went out and bought the first series. Then the second. Then the third...I only stopped because series 4 isn't out over here yet.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
Because there are differences:
- Science Fiction often gives plausible scientific explanations about the weird things that happend in the world. Science (or something that sounds like scientific mumbo jumbo in the setting) is at the core of the genre. That is why most stories (although not all) are set in some sort of distant future.
- Fantasy often uses mystic forces or magic as explanations about the weird things that happend in the world. Those mystic forces usually overpower the technology in these settings. That is why most stories (although not all) are set in some sort of distant past.

In other words: Star Wars episode 4 is fantasy, since the force is some sort of mystic force. Episode 1 is science fiction, since the force is the effect of a bacteria that can be detected via a medical examination.
 

Czargent Sane

New member
May 31, 2010
604
0
0
Jaywebbs said:
Czargent Sane said:
Lisolet said:
Czargent Sane said:
because fantasy and scifi are often extremely similar, and using the different names helps us differentiate them.
If they're extremely similar, why do we need to differentiate them?

Demongeneral109 said:
Final Fantasy disagrees nyoro~! Si-Fi is kinda the Spock genre, with explanations about everything, while Fantasy assumes a degree of exoticism and "cannot be explained just have faith and know its there" logic, the two ideologies of the genre's are incompatable nyoro~
I agree with Demongeneral109 completely here. This is why I want more of a separation of the genres, at least in bookstores. I want a science fiction section and a fantasy section. I'll be in science fiction :)
to differentiate future and fringe science from past and magic. I dont think we need to differentiate them at all, personally, because they are so similar.
Bollocks,

Honestly Sci-fi requires just as much faith, if not more than, as Fantasy. If Every Sci-fi book or series took the time to explain how the stuff worked the books would be two or three times larger and no one would read it. Take Star Wars: You never find out how the engines work, You have no clue how the weapons work, No one seems to understand how the Death Star is propelled. All of these require some degree of faith else we'd just give up on it saying it's nonsense.

I honestly think the only difference between most sci-fi and fantasy is the time frame.
wait, thats what I think. and thats what I said.

you just agreed with me, so why am I bollocks? "fringe science" is not science. I use the term fringe science to mean the fake science that is used to explain things that the writers dont want to call magic.
also, I know how some of the engines, and most of the weapons work in theory, in star wars.
 

Jaywebbs

New member
Sep 24, 2009
600
0
0
Czargent Sane said:
Jaywebbs said:
Czargent Sane said:
Lisolet said:
Czargent Sane said:
because fantasy and scifi are often extremely similar, and using the different names helps us differentiate them.
If they're extremely similar, why do we need to differentiate them?

Demongeneral109 said:
Final Fantasy disagrees nyoro~! Si-Fi is kinda the Spock genre, with explanations about everything, while Fantasy assumes a degree of exoticism and "cannot be explained just have faith and know its there" logic, the two ideologies of the genre's are incompatable nyoro~
I agree with Demongeneral109 completely here. This is why I want more of a separation of the genres, at least in bookstores. I want a science fiction section and a fantasy section. I'll be in science fiction :)
to differentiate future and fringe science from past and magic. I dont think we need to differentiate them at all, personally, because they are so similar.
Bollocks,

Honestly Sci-fi requires just as much faith, if not more than, as Fantasy. If Every Sci-fi book or series took the time to explain how the stuff worked the books would be two or three times larger and no one would read it. Take Star Wars: You never find out how the engines work, You have no clue how the weapons work, No one seems to understand how the Death Star is propelled. All of these require some degree of faith else we'd just give up on it saying it's nonsense.

I honestly think the only difference between most sci-fi and fantasy is the time frame.
wait, thats what I think. and thats what I said.

you just agreed with me, so why am I bollocks? "fringe science" is not science. I use the term fringe science to mean the fake science that is used to explain things that the writers dont want to call magic.
also, I know how some of the engines, and most of the weapons work in theory, in star wars.
Oh my, I seem to have made an ass of myself once again. It think I meant to quote the person you quoted.
 

dalek sec

Leader of the Cult of Skaro
Jul 20, 2008
10,237
0
0
Demongeneral109 said:
Drakmeire said:
it's been mixed in the past. examples would be that movie Stardust from 2007 (which wasn't very successful) as well as Dune. but a very famous one is star wars. It's really just ships flying around and the Jedi can use magic to heighten their reflexes and move objects, though in the prequels "metaclorians" kinda screwed up that idea for everyone.
Lucus got ret-conned with the midiclhoirans thing :D one of the problems is that in such mergers, one takes a backseat to the other, Dune is sci-fi, the predictions are kinda quantum-string-theory-ish to me... and in Star-Wars and Fowl tech is the key componant, with magic ocassionally playing a key part (jedi stuff, insta-healing ect.
Whoa whoa, did they actually ret-conned that frakking midiclhoirans thing? As in it doesn't exhist anymore? O_O
 

Nomanslander

New member
Feb 21, 2009
2,963
0
0
That's actually something new you see, in the past, there was a lot of ground in the middle.



Today, ever since the LOTR trilogy, fantasy demands you see Orcs and Elves set in a strictly medieval setting, and with the prequels George pretty much killed the whole fantasy aspect to SW when he introduced midichlorians into the picture...-_-
 

Demongeneral109

New member
Jan 23, 2010
382
0
0
dalek sec said:
Demongeneral109 said:
Drakmeire said:
it's been mixed in the past. examples would be that movie Stardust from 2007 (which wasn't very successful) as well as Dune. but a very famous one is star wars. It's really just ships flying around and the Jedi can use magic to heighten their reflexes and move objects, though in the prequels "metaclorians" kinda screwed up that idea for everyone.
Lucus got ret-conned with the midiclhoirans thing :D one of the problems is that in such mergers, one takes a backseat to the other, Dune is sci-fi, the predictions are kinda quantum-string-theory-ish to me... and in Star-Wars and Fowl tech is the key componant, with magic ocassionally playing a key part (jedi stuff, insta-healing ect.
Whoa whoa, did they actually ret-conned that frakking midiclhoirans thing? As in it doesn't exhist anymore? O_O
No, still there, but now instead of creating the force, they channel it... basically, the more you have, the bigger the pipe and the more water(force power) you have avaailable to yau, hence Ani being Jesus compared to... uh, everyone nyoro~!
 

SonicWaffle

New member
Oct 14, 2009
3,019
0
0
HG131 said:
Well, if they kill everything else, they'd have the resources. Besides, you know they're most likely secretly getting ready for a backstab. Even if they aren't, sooner or later the Slayers WILL be able to kill them.
True, but do you think all of these demon clans/races/book clubs who have agreed to cease hostilities will just wait around until everything else has been wiped out? No. As soon as they can see which way the wind is blowing, they'll turn on the Slayers. After supposedly wiping out most of the other demons, Slayer ranks will be seriously depleted, and will probably be easy pickings for any of these demon groups. Consider that, for there to be an official ceasefire, the Slayers would have considered these groups powerful enough to be very dangerous to them. If they were all to turn on them at once...

HG131 said:
Hmm, good point. However, Wes turned out to be pathetic (it took ALOT of character development on Angel for that to change), and most humans kinda look pathetic when facing vamps or demons. I'd assume while they have a few badasses, it's most likely mostly people like S3 of Buffy Wesley. Remember, the Slayer is activated wherever they're needed the most, and is supposed to go to wherever their Watcher sends them (Remember Kendra?). Buffy was a special case, not really going places normally, having friends and family and a Watcher who barely gave a damn about the rules.
Wesley was pretty pathetic, yes, although he could always fight; he just got in his own way with his insufferable personality. Giles, however, went toe-to-toe with Angelus and beat him up with a baseball bat. Merrick (Buffy's first watcher) was equally capable of beating down vampires. Gwendolyn Post (Faith's watcher, the one who stole the glove of...something. Mynigon?) was able to handle herself in a fight, and once she got the glove she was kicking ass with it. The reason most of the humans on Buffy have looked pathetic when fighting vamps/demons is because they lack training, which as we've already discussed, the Council would naturally give their Watchers. Take Robin Wood; expert hand-to-hand fighter, been killing vampires and demons for years, and why? He was trained by a Watcher. At the end of the day, Watchers are intended to be field operatives, training and accompanying the Slayer. Nobody, least of all an ancient institution that is very much aware of how dangerous the world really is, send operatives into the field without combat training.

Slayers are not always called where they're "needed the most". Buffy was clearly needed the most in Sunnydale (hence her staying there, brief stints to LA not included, for seven years; the whole time, the Hellmouth was warming up to the Big Finale) but she was called in LA. It took maybe a year before she was moved to the place she was needed. Giles didn't send her to places not because he didn't care about the rules (he did, in the early seasons. A lot) but because A) she was clearly needed more in Sunnydale and B) she probably wouldn't have gone. Remember when Kendra first appeared and mentioned the Slayer's Handbook? Giles says he had a copy, but after meeting Buffy, decided that she was unlikely to bother with it.

An interesting side-note; in 'Something Blue', where Cordelia wishes that Buffy had never come to Sunnydale and is transported to an alternate reality where the town is controlled by vampires, Giles requests that the Slayer come to help, and the Council (or presumably her Watcher) sends her. So not only is Giles, as a Watcher, expected to fight vampires even without a Slayer (see my earlier point), but it also means that Buffy is so radically different in the alternate timeline that she'll actually follow the Council's orders
 

Tallim

New member
Mar 16, 2010
2,054
0
0
There was a very general rule I came across a few times about genre fiction.

If the story could be told independent of the setting then technically it doesn't belong to that genre.

So the two genres can be mixed providing that the plot elements depend on both of them.
Just mixing the two for setting purposes doesn't really achieve the goal. It might seem like a cross genre but it won't be.

There are however many examples of it working and adhering to that rule, and many examples of it not.
 

Lucifron

New member
Dec 21, 2009
809
0
0
dekkarax said:
I've noticed that whenever a Fantasy story adds elements commonly associated with Science fiction (such as aliens, spaceships, etc) people tend to complain about it, and vice versa.

I wonder why these two genres can't mix. Sufficiently advanced technology may be indistinguishable from magic, but if that is true, shouldn't the opposite also be true?
The late 1980's called; they curse your ignorance [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,000]. It's already been done, and the universe is alive and well.
 

B2kCyclops

New member
Apr 28, 2010
180
0
0
Jekken6 said:
Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura, anyone?
Love it. Steampunk combined with fantasy, what's there not to love? ;-)
Also Shadowrun(Cyberpunk/Fantasy) and serveral G.U.R.P.S.-campaigns are a fantasy/sci-fi mix.
And the're awesome.