Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories

Vanilla 1.1.8 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
    •  
      CommentAuthorswenson
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2012
     

    I was bored in class yesterday, so I started doing some worldbuilding with a new idea I’d come up with for making an interesting fantasy world. I started thinking about magic, various countries, etc., and finally I got around to the inhabitants. “OK,” I thought to myself, “so we’re going to have humans, of course, but I guess we can have some elves and dwarves too, to make things interesting.”

    And I stopped right there, because it suddenly struck me just how silly that is. Elves and dwarves? Hundreds of years of fantasy literature, and that’s all we’ve come up with? I’ve also just finished playing the Mass Effect series, you see, and while I could rant about the ending, I will say this—it has a very interesting and complex galaxy, involving many different, unique species. And I realized that not a single one of those species could be easily categorized as any fantasy species. Sure, you could call the asari space elves or the vorcha goblins, but most elves aren’t blue monogendered hairless telepaths and most goblins aren’t quickly-healing or quickly-adapting creatures with expected lifespans of just twenty years. And there’s no possible analogue I can think of in fantasy to the hanar (big stupid jellyfish) or rachni (hive mind-based insect species) or a number of other species in Mass Effect.

    So my question is this: why is it acceptable or even expected to come up with interesting and unique species in science fiction, but in fantasy we always keep coming back to the same old things?

    •  
      CommentAuthorInkblot
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2012
     

    Because of JRR Tolkien, would be my guess.

    He happened to pick elves and dwarves to populate his myth. And he was a mild obsessive-compulsive with a fanatic’s attention to detail. He did what he did first, and he did it so well that for fifty years people have just been trying to be as good as him at his game.

    There are other races from human myth. And fantasy written before Tolkien used them, and used them well. But Tolkien burned one particular set of traits (“elves” are not homogenous in behavior, lifestyle, or even size across folklore, y’know) into the consciousness of everyone. He was the fantasy author who made it huge, and naturally his tropes kind of overshadow everyone else’s.

    Plus, it’s human nature. We’re lazy. Easier to recycle races that everyone will instantly recognize. :D

  1.  
    bq. He happened to pick elves and dwarves to populate his myth. And he was a mild obsessive-compulsive with a fanatic’s attention to detail.

    But the thing is that Tolkien's weren't monolithic and there was more than culture and race.

    In a lot fantasy nowdays, you have the Dark Elves (who speak the evil dark elf tongue) and the High Elves (who speak high elvish) and then there's the Woods Elves who are basically Indians with pointy ears (who speak, you guessed it! Wood elf).

    The Wood Elves are always in harmony with nature and would never cut down a tree to burn it and thus save themselves from freezing to dead, like us EVUL humans. The High Elves (Insert drug joke here) know a lot about magic and are snooty even for elves, then there's the Dark Elves who wanna take over the world and keel stuff, 'cause they're evil.

    Oh and the they're usually the author's pet race and can do no wrong (despite how they're usually condescending jackasses) and we stupid, clumsy humans will learn from them and everything will sparkling rainbows and unicorns.

    Plus, one of them will fall in love with a human for angsts sake or the elves will be a dying race. Or both.

    [/RANT]

    Tad Williams did a good job with his elves though, but they had more in common with Viking and Celtic folklore and they weren't perfect and Williams didn't pull any punches with them.
    • CommentAuthorSen
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2012 edited
     

    So my question is this: why is it acceptable or even expected to come up with interesting and unique species in science fiction, but in fantasy we always keep coming back to the same old things?

    Often choosing to go back to elves or dwarves, well, I think that what this proves is just how firmly fixed into our imaginations well-known myths have become. Their images have endured for quite some time, and it is this very element, the strength that a creation possesses to stay fixed into your mind, that a writer may be concerned with. In the imagination, these creatures have already become very real.

    Once you choose to start something new, you lose out on that power, and must be able to produce it yourself. It comes down to you to weave this unknown thing into the reality we identify with, to make it seem just so conceivable that such a thing could indeed exist, if we’re willing to suspend disbelief, which is something we will very often allow when it comes to something of the imagination. And yet, although we make this allowance, if your creation is far too flimsy, if you are just unable to embed that image firmly enough into someone’s mind, then there’s a total lack of interest, something no writer wants.

    It may not necessarily be a matter of being lazy. At least, not always. It would certainly take some work, fleshing out every detail; the creature’s origin, a logical (at least as logical as you can be in a fantasy) explanation for their abilities, their preferences, reasons for those preferences, etc, but it is certainly difficult, even once you finally end up with something pretty solid, to take the next step in merging it with what we already know. Which is pretty hard, as such things cannot exist in the first place, and you’re now going up against the facts.

    Dwarves and elves do not exist either, but such myths have had time on their side. You pretty much cut out the “embedding” process and take it from there. For some, it may be taking the easy route. For a better writer, though, it may be more than that. Perhaps they wish to relate more to us within an incredible, yet very complex fantasy world. And it’s quite possible that an elf or a dwarf was chosen merely as a sort of go-between; it is unreal, but familiar and can help ease us into this very unbelievable world, which we otherwise might never have cared about if we had just been plunged into it.

    •  
      CommentAuthorInkblot
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2012
     

    This is true. You have to balance between the desire to be unique and the desire to tell a comprehensible story that’s easy to slip into. A story that demands a lot of the reader is fun at times, but not always what you’re looking for.

    •  
      CommentAuthorswenson
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2012
     

    But why does science fiction not have this problem of needing to give the reader shorthand to ease them into the story? When you watch Star Wars for the first time, do you have any idea what a Wookie is (or, for that matter, a Mon Calamari or Hutt or Ewok)? You don’t, but it doesn’t seem to matter much. So why does it seem to matter so much more in fantasy?

    •  
      CommentAuthorInkblot
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2012 edited
     

    Ever read John C. Wright? He’s an SF author who has a blog.

    He has stated several times that science fiction’s fanbase is different from other genres in that they have a much higher tolerance for confusion. Most readers of mainstream fiction do not enjoy spending much time disoriented or unsure of the rules of the universe, but sf fans don’t seem to mind that much.

    I’m no expert. I read little to no fantasy myself.

    I’ll tell you, though. I read a SF book called A Fire Upon The Deep by Vernor Vinge. Minor spoilers hidden.

    I was going to use it as an example of a conceit that would fit easily in a fantasy world, but now I think I’m wrong.

    Traditional high fantasy is not speculative fiction, I think. Not in the same way SF can be. I feel like it’s limited to folklore, or something.

    I mean, in my mind the question you’re asking boils down to why wizards? Why elves, why dwarves, why orcs and goblins? Dragons? I don’t know, and I don’t know if anyone knows now. While it’s a good question, I don’t know if there’s any really satisfying answer to what you’re really asking, which is: why can’t we change and do something new?

    Like, if you were to have a story about medieval dogs living in a fantasy land that communicate through thought, and cut out the spaceships and the scientific narration and the psychology, would it even work as fantasy? I don’t see any particular reason why not, and yet I can’t quite make it work in my mind, you know what I mean?

    EDIT:

    Also, I’ve played some JRPGs where the mythical background is not Northern European but Asian or Middle Eastern and those work fairly well.

    •  
      CommentAuthorPuppet
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2012
     

    I can’t really speak on the topic of Dwarves, but I think the reason so many writers use Elves in their stories is because they’re both mysterious and familiar. They have their own cultures, their own languages, they (typically) live in the forest, etc. But except for the pointy ears they look and act like humans. This makes them easy characters to write, in my opinion. I think it would be extremely difficult to write about a race of giant squid-spider people and expect the reader to relate to them. I do credit Tolkien with their popularity, but I think the main reason so many writers choose Elves over other races is, again, because they’re different enough to be mysterious and intriguing, but similar enough to humans that they won’t put off the reader.

    • CommentAuthorSen
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2012
     

    But why does science fiction not have this problem of needing to give the reader shorthand to ease them into the story?

    No well-written story absolutely requires a shorthand. That goes for fantasy as well. It’s merely a device that some may resort to using if they feel the situation calls for it. Everyone’s needs are different and if something well-known just so happens to be perfect for what they need, then so be it. As for Star Wars it’s probably just a damn good story. And maybe everything’s explained well enough to the audience and everything about it is just so intriguing. That’s all you need, really, to make something totally new work.

    So why does it seem to matter so much more in fantasy?

    It doesn’t. I really don’t know why you think it does. It’s very common, yes, but it’s hardly because readers demand only the familiar. Many thirst for originality. Plenty of authors chose to go that route, but I don’t think it matters more. That’s just the direction the majority decided to go into. That hardly places more importance or anything like that on that path.

    • CommentAuthorDanielle
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2012
     

    But why does science fiction not have this problem of needing to give the reader shorthand to ease them into the story?

    I don’t know if sci-fi and fantasy have shorthand as much as they have buried checklists—in other words, things the reader needs to put his or her mind at ease in an unfamiliar world. For example…..

    The straight man. Most sci-fi and fantasy I’ve read or watched has a straight man—a character who is just as clueless about the new world he’s been thrust into as we are. Harry Potter was raised with Muggles, so everyone in the wizarding world had to stop and explain things to him and, consequently, to us. The Pevensies literally walked from our world into Narnia, so the expository session at the Beavers’ was for both their benefit and ours. Frodo was the granddaddy of them all: a simple hobbit, living in the easily-understood Shire, who must go on a journey across a brave new world that must be explained to him through its more seasoned inhabitants.

    Man vs. Lorax. Fantasy writers just love nature, even if they spend most of their time indoors. Machines are naturally ugly to them, so I think the best way they’ve thought of to drive this point across is to have a Lorax character or race of characters. Like Clibanarius pointed out, that race usually ends up being Wood Elves. Why? I think because it’s easier to contrast a Lorax character with a Once-ler character than it is to have the Once-ler slowly gain an appreciation for the forest he’s destroying, and to stop his behavior on his own. It heightens the tragedy when the Once-ler has a Lorax on his shoulder, speaking for the trees, and better show’s man’s stupidity toward his natural resources.

    World War II. Most fantasy stories I’ve read are set, in one way or another, in WWII. The Pevensies walked away from the actual War and into another world, ruled by a dictator (Jadis) and her secret police (the Wolves) whose regime was opposed in secret (the Beavers, Tumnus). (Not to diminish the Biblical symbolism in the books, but you have to admit that WWII was probably on Lewis’ mind as he wrote them.) Harry Potter is raised in Gryffindor (England) and taught that all Slytherins (Germans) go bad eventually, which was a lesson learned in the First War (World War I). In later books, he must join with the Order of the Phoenix (the French Resistance) to defeat Lord Voldemort (Hitler) and his Death Eaters (Nazis). Even Tolkien used the WWII model, as he had Frodo (Allied Everyman) go from a position of neutrality (Britain’s position under Chamberlain) to that of a stalwart opposition (Winston Churchill) against Lord Sauron (Hitler).

    Now, I’m not saying that those motifs make a book bad. Nor do they always constitute cheating. But they do give the reader something familiar to hold onto as they’re led through an unfamiliar world. In the back of their mind, they think, “Oh, this is just like WWII! The good guys won that war.” And they rest a little easier, because they’re not completely in the dark anymore.

    •  
      CommentAuthorswenson
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2012
     

    I really don’t know why you think it does.

    I don’t, really. My question is more about why fantasy writers seem to think it does, if that is truly the reason they keep using the same sorts of species over and over again. Personally, I think it’s just fine to make up your own, unique species, but so few fantasy series actually do this, they just have endless varieties on elves and dwarves.

    I don’t think the reason is that fantasy authors are just lazy. And I don’t think it’s because they don’t have any imagination. Certainly a lot of the poorer or more inexperienced writers may do it for those reasons alone, but I don’t think most fantasy writers overall do. I guess my personal theory (after having thought about this after posting this thread, actually!) is that perhaps it’s because of the different focus of fantasy as compared to science fiction. Scifi is about speculation and imagination, so new species are required. But fantasy is about myth and legend, which are really just human beings working out all of our fears and complaints and desires through stories, so I guess it makes sense that things would recur.

    Also, I’ve just thought of a decidedly fantasy world where there actually are relatively unique species—the Elder Scrolls game series. It has bipedal cats and lizards. Along with elves, but at least their elves are relatively interesting (and cannibalistic, sometimes. Isn’t that fun?).

    • CommentAuthorSen
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2012 edited
     

    My question is more about why fantasy writers seem to think it does, if that is truly the reason they keep using the same sorts of species over and over.

    I see what you mean. It becomes irritating.

    Personally, I think it’s just fine to make up your own, unique species, but so few fantasy series actually do this, they just have endless varieties on elves and dwarves.

    Maybe they don’t start something new out of fear? I don’t know. All you can really do is make assumptions, but it would seem as if many don’t want to take the risk. I mean, take the plunge and possibly have readers jumping down your throat for scientifically explaining their abilities and bodily functions (“it’s magic” can only take you so far) or rely on what you know has already been positively received by the public before?

    It may also be necessary to take into account the gatekeepers. Unless you’re going into self-publishing, there are other people who also take risks in putting something truly unique out there. Maybe there are some out there who make up their own stuff, but don’t get the opportunity to share it. Although, that really wouldn’t explain how it works so well for sci-fi, so I can’t really speak for that one. Surely something absolutely original written for the sci-fi genre has a great chance of being published? I wonder why it sometimes works differently for fantasy…

    Guess you won’t really get an absolutely satisfying answer for this one. You can’t know what people are thinking or tell whether or not there’s just some hesitation on their side.

    •  
      CommentAuthorTakuGifian
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2012 edited
     

    The way I see it, historically the use of elves as they exist in current genreic form boils down to two main influences: Tolkien, as mentioned; and Gary Gygax. A lot of writers tend to overlook the influence he’s had on the fantasy genre, but he actually deserved much more credit than he’s given for shaping modern fantasy. When he developed Dungeons & Dragons, he pretty much cemented the Standard Fantasy Setting with its elves, dwarves, half-elves, orcs and so on. Yes, he ripped a fair bit from Tolkien, but the fact is more people were playing D&D than reading LotR, so the influence sprang up not so much from Tolkien’s small but dedicated fanbase, but from Gygax’s larger and more casual player-base.

    Of course, there are also other writers, like Feist, Brooks, and Goodkind, who added their (rather more commercialised than Tolkien) influence to the mix.

    •  
      CommentAuthorsansafro187
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2012 edited
     

    Hopefully I don’t let this degenerate into shit-talking about fantasy writers and would-be fantasy writers, but I suspect it has something to do with the identity of the genres themselves. Generally speaking, sci-fi is about the future, so on some implicit level it encourages you to come up with your own stuff. There’s no crystal ball that really tells you where we go from here. In contrast, fantasy is generally about the (fictional) past, so writers are more inclined to emulate these kinds of elements because they “already happened,” if that makes sense. It doesn’t have the same spirit of speculation. That, and they’re too lazy to read history books instead of LotR.

    edit wait shit, swenson already pretty much said this a a few posts up

    •  
      CommentAuthorKyllorac
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2012 edited
     

    Fantasy can be just as (if not more) speculative than science fiction, seeing as how science fiction is limited by science (as we understand it) whereas literally anything can go in fantasy. The problem comes when relating it to the audience; the fantastic has to be presented in a way the audience can relate to.

    Science fiction has a built-in sense-making framework in that people assume that aliens, being aliens, will of course not make sense at first. They’re aliens.

    Fantasy, on the other hand, has to deal with the stigma that it’s just all bits and pieces of familiar things rearranged in different ways. People tend subconsciously to try and pick out where X element/creature/archetype/plot device came from, since modern fantasy (pre-Tolkein fantasy is very different) has a history of drawing on those things and recombining them in different ways. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it does give the impression that that’s all there is to fantasy.

    It doesn’t help that mainstream fantasy, by virtue of being mainstream, and D&D reinforce this impression. It’s not easy to find the more unconventional stuff, but Garth Nix tends more towards original settings/scenarios/creatures in his stories.

    Fantasy, given a chance, can really explore perception and related concepts in ways that science fiction cannot since fantasy is not bound by the rules of science. This article covers the basic gist, though the most relevant sections are:

    This act of interpreting every object is so transparently habitual that most people are completely unaware of doing it. Most people think that they are simply experiencing the world. What they experience, however, is not simply what is “out there” but what they have construed the “out there” to mean.

    and

    Once we are aware of the capacity for primary imagination, we can also entertain the possibility of directing it. We can deliberately begin to consider objects with the purpose of looking through them. We can consciously intend to interpret the objects of our perception, to become aware of levels of meaning and symbolism that have previously been opaque to us.

    Basically, one of the purposes of fantasy is to examine and explore perceptions and concepts. People do it naturally, though perhaps not as extensively as writers need to. Although fantasy may be far removed from reality, it is still a reflection of reality, and as such the fantasy may reveal new truths about the reality that would not be otherwise apparent (or accessible).

    Fantasy started out with the above, more serious purpose in rather stark contrast to the more entertaining purpose most fantasy has/is perceived to have today. While you can still find works that still follow this purpose, they’re far outnumbered by the entertainment variety, and tend to be quite obscure. (Not to hate on purely entertaining fantasy; those are fun to read/watch/write every once in a while.)

    Pretty much, if you can get your readers to accept your fantasy unconditionally for what it is, you can get away with anything. It’s just really difficult to get your readers to accept anything unconditionally, even/especially in fantasy.

    —-

    Edit:

    Generally speaking, sci-fi is about the future, so on some implicit level it encourages you to come up with your own stuff. [...] In contrast, fantasy is generally about the (fictional) past, so writers are more inclined to emulate these kinds of elements because they “already happened,” if that makes sense.

    Lies. That’s the common concept (and, as a result, how it is often executed), but there is no such limitation. You can have (and do have) future-set fantasy, and sci-fi that takes place in a far (or not so) distant past.

    It’s just not what immediately comes to mind.

  2.  

    That’s the common concept

    That’s why I said it(and qualified it with “generally.”) Just because it’s not a rule doesn’t mean it’s not what most people hold to, and this thread is about discussing most people.

  3.  

    Perdido St. Station is a great example of a fantasy book with creatures that couldn’t resemble elves and dwarves any less. However, there are definitely mythological creatures, like the Garuda, that are re-adapted.

    You can have (and do have) future-set fantasy, and sci-fi that takes place in a far (or not so) distant past.

    To be honest, I don’t distinguish all that much between science fiction and fantasy. I know that there are substantial differences, but to me, they are two sides of the same coin.

    As far as the stereotypical fantasy elves/dwarves dichotomy goes, it’s not that you can’t use those weirder creatures, but anthropomorphism can be quite influential, as somebody pointed out. Having telepathic dog creatures makes an angsty cross-species romance harder than attractive humanoids. It’s not entirely fantasy, either- look at Avatar.

  4.  

    I went back and dug up a quote I read on SA the other day that seems somewhat appropriate to this topic. Terry Pratchett, on why he doesn’t read modern fantasy fiction:

    I do read a reasonable amount of fiction in other fields, and I read an awful lot of non-fiction. The one thing – and again, as I said, occasionally I do talks for wannabe writers, and I say, ‘look, for God’s sake don’t read fantasy fiction. The fact that you want to write it means that you’ve read too much.’ [laughs] ‘So if you go on reading, you actually recycle other people’s ideas. If you want to write fantasy, read westerns. Read the history of the Chinese Empire. It’s amazing what you will import because the job is not to melt down and reform jewelry made by other people – it’s to go out and mine fresh ore’.

    •  
      CommentAuthorFalling
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2012
     

    Well the thing is, although Tolkien popularized Elves in their current form, what he really was doing was salvaging the concept of Fairy. Or Faerie which by his time had been reduced to Tinkerbell basically. But the Elves function very much like the Faerie in Sir Launfal, Sir Orfeo, Dame Ragnelle, the Green Knight and a variety of others.

    Which is why you get the references to Fair Folk. I never really understood what that meant and thought it had more to do with them looking beautiful. Specific instances like The Dwarves and Bilbo in Mirkwood (the Hart) or the Fellowship stumbling into Lorien is very much like how travellers stumble into Faerie land. Things are not always as they seem and the Faerie are often doing strange things that have no explanation. They ride off to battle, but you see no war. They ride out to hunt, but where exactly? They can be beheaded and live or disguised as unlovely creatures. It’s almost the medieval version of the UFO’s- explanation for what goes bump in the night. Now, I think that connection has been more or less lost in modern fantasy, but I actually find those connections to even older stories very interesting as it brings the mystery back to the Elves who otherwise have become quite plain.

    I don’t know. I personally still enjoy stories about Elves and Dwarves although I definitely enjoy other worlds that don’t have them. Actually, I’d love stumble upon some dark fantasy series that has the same atmosphere feel to Blizzard’s Diablo 1 and 2 games. There’s something about that form of fanatasy that’s rather interesting.

    •  
      CommentAuthorTakuGifian
    • CommentTimeMar 23rd 2012
     

    Another theory I’ve read (I cannot remember the source, alas) is that elves and dwarves fulfil a psychological metaphor role; e.g. elves represent all that is good and just and noble in mankind, and dwarves represent the messy, homely, salt-of-the-earth, quarrellous, common and vulgar side of humanity. They are removed from humanity within the stories so that we can examine them with a more detached, critical eye, and only gradually begin to see the connection to humanity, rather than immediately being confronted with all of these human flaws and being told “this is all YOU”, and being put on the defensive.

    There was also an interesting historical metaphor of the tall graceful elves representing the romantic view of the French aristocracy, and the dwarves representing the pastoral subsistence-farming commoners, although I don’t really know enough abut historical context to explore that one in any great detail.

    •  
      CommentAuthorswenson
    • CommentTimeMar 23rd 2012
     

    Eh, I dunno if I’d go along with the theory about elves being good and just and noble and whatnot. Some of the old stories about elves are pretty disturbing.

    On the other hand, if the theory is talking more about our modern psychological needs (and quite frankly, we’ve got just as much need to work out our collective psychological issues through story, same as any other period in history), that just might work. It would at least explain the Our Elves Are Better mentality that always crops up in pulp fantasy.

    •  
      CommentAuthorTakuGifian
    • CommentTimeMar 23rd 2012 edited
     

    It might say something about us fearing extremes of either end. I mean, ‘tall poppy syndrome’ has been around a lot longer than its name. Going back to that second idea I mentioned, the nobles might have been quite fearsome, as they had power, riches, mystical knowledge (education, numbers, letters, etc) and could do pretty much whatever they wanted to the peasantry. Especially the highest-ups, the royalty, would have walked around like gods among men, comparatively. So comparing them to the temperamental, alien elves wouldn’t have been much of a leap for the average wandering storyteller.

    • CommentAuthorAlyssa
    • CommentTimeApr 10th 2012
     
    I'm gonna say this, I'm not a fan of elves or dwarves, I'm just not. I don't know why but I never really liked them.
  5.  

    One time I was talking with my friend about Halo and I said “I prefer fantasy.” He said “Halo IS fantasy.” I thought about it, and realized he was right. “It’s a different kind of fantasy,” I said. “That’s true.”

    Fundamentally, Sci-Fi and Fantasy are the same thing: fictional stories. The difference between the titles “Scifi” and “fantasy” is what an audience would expect from the genre. Most Scifi try to work in logical explanations for everything. Even if it makes no sense realistically, it makes an attempt to explain itself. With fantasy there’s more leeway to have fantastic things happen without logical explanations to back them up.

  6.  

    Fundamentally, Sci-Fi and Fantasy are the same thing

    Yeah, basically my opinion.

    •  
      CommentAuthorswenson
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2012 edited
     

    I agree with that. The differences between scifi and fantasy are more about how the subject matter is approached than what the subject matter actually is—like you say, scifi tends to focus more on the hows and whys and the effects of crazy new things, while fantasy tends to just plunge in and enjoy them without worrying too much about how they got there. Obviously “science fiction” tends to deal with, well, science and therefoe the future and fantasy tends to dwell more on the past and magic. But even the concept of magic is a result of fantasy’s approach—you don’t really explain how stuff works, you just say “it does” and lo, it does.

    I’m always going on about Mass Effect, I know, but it, like Star Wars, is a great example of something that is ostensibly science fiction, yet I would argue takes the fantasy approach. It does try to explain things, but the story isn’t about the technology, that’s all just incidental. It’s really about forgotten legends and ancient fears coming to life, complete with the incomprehensibe secrets of an ancient civilization to unlock to save the day.

    •  
      CommentAuthorsansafro187
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2012 edited
     
    •  
      CommentAuthorFalling
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2012
     

    I don’t know if the difference between sci fi and fantasy is even the issue of expalanations and the effects. I don’t really see the difference between a magic hand wave and a technobabble hand wave and most have heaps of both. Some rely on more mysterious forms of magic or technology while some can develop quite rigourous magic systems and technological explanations.

    Perhaps this:
    bq. like you say, scifi tends to focus more on the hows and whys and the effects of crazy new things,

    Is not so much the difference between the genres so much as a failing of the fantasy writers. Quite often fantasy writers fail to take into account the effects of their magic on an economy. One of blogger Shamus Young’s big nitpicks with magic systems is if the magic is so easy that you could just endlessly produce food with little exertion and run the farmers of business.

    I want to say sci fi looks to the future while fantasy to the past, but then there is urban fantasy. I do think there is a very big distinctive, but perhaps they are the opposite sides of the same worldbuiling coin.

    •  
      CommentAuthorTakuGifian
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2012 edited
     

    I think the biggest difference is that fantasy deals with things patently impossible, while science fiction deals with things either possible or probable. Sure, there’s a lot of technobabble and such, but in my opinion science fiction is based on current scientific and technological knowledge, extrapolated and taken to a different level, while remaining entirely possible within the realm of science. For instance, I consider Michael Crichton’s Timeline to be fantasy1, whereas Jules Verne’s Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea is a science fiction. Because fantastic metal ships that move under the sea powered by electricity, is entirely possible and in fact proved by time, but ‘time travel’ through the ‘quantum foam’ into an alternate-earth middle ages is either science that is too advanced/improbable to be distinguished from magic, or too unscientific to be taken seriously. For now.

    As far as science can discover, elves do not exist and never will, but steam-powered shoe polishers are entirely possible, and a creative enough mind would be able to potentially even make a working model. And I think that’s the biggest difference.

    1 Correction: I consider Michael Chrichton’s Timeline to be terrible.

    •  
      CommentAuthorFalling
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2012 edited
     

    Huh. See I wouldn’t consider time travel to be fantasy at all if it is using some sort of technobabble machine. Unless it’s like Lawhead’s Song of Albion, but that’s more like going to parallel realities using ancient rifts. And Song of Albion has all the trappings of the old Faerie stories.

    Would any faster than light travel place a story into fantasy? Because even extropolating, I highly doubt it will ever be possible so we resort to worm holes and hand wave technology. It’s like the catch-all for superheroes. Radioactivity = super powers.

    •  
      CommentAuthorSoupnazi
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2012
     

    I think the difference between fantasy and sci fi is that when something happens in fantasy, it’s explained as “magic!” but when something happens in sci fi, it’s explained as “science!” Essentially, the means, not the ends—telekinesis can be a sci fi or a fantasy plot point, depending on how it’s explained and rationalized.

  7.  

    Sci-fi doesn’t have to go “science!” to explain things. That’s the difference between “hard” sci-fi and “soft” sci-fi(or science fantasy depending on your preferred nomenclature).