That’s pretty standard, really. “Psychic powers” are usually considered sci-fi instead of fantasy, even though it’s no less magical than casting spells out of a grimoire. Spock could read minds in Star Trek, Babylon 5 had PsiCorp as a recurring antagonist, and so forth. A lot of sci-fi from the late '60s through the '80s leaned into this, mostly because there was a fad at that time for scientifically investigating psychics, and a few of the early studies seemed to indicate it was a real thing. (It wasn’t, obviously - the scientists running the study didn’t know how to screen for common stage magic/mentalist tricks, which led to a lot of false positives. Folks like James Randi got into the skepticism business because they knew how these tricks worked, and could set up tests that specifically controlled for them.)
It seems too restrictive to me.
What if someone writes a western that does not “explore the concepts of the frontier verses civilization - what makes civilization and where does it break down”? Is it then not a western even if the author wrote it with that intention and is set in the American West in say 1860?
May be, though,we are using different definitions of “Purpose”, your examples sound to me like what I would call “Characteristics”, it is a common characteristic of westerns to " explore the concepts of the frontier verses civilization - what makes civilization and where does it break down" but it’s not it’s purpose, art doesn’t necessarily have a purpose other than itself.
In literature (and I call all fiction literature, even the worst paperback tie-in, if it’s written it’s literature) sometimes a person has a story they want to tell and they go and write it without other purpose than the sheer pleasure of doing so, maybe it’s for some “purpose” even they themselves don’t know, but that it’s unknowable.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that was the purpose of westerns. I spoke of purpose in the form of literature being the conveyance of society’s ideas and norms, of entertaining, but of entertaining through vicarious adventure and experience.
I then went on to differentiate the origins of the genres and what they spoke to in their form and presentation. I was addressing the OP’s question with a different angle of phrasing. Not what is it for, but what at it apart as a genre. That’s not to say every story in each genre is entirely defined by the motifs as a whole. Sometimes the formats become more settings than themes.
Thus space opera - fantastical stories with a spacey setting.
Absolutely. Trying to draw a hard and fast distinction ultimately boils down to a matter of personal taste and is probably rather a waste of time.
As Damon Knight said: “Science fiction is what we point to when we say it.”
Science Fiction fundamentally asks it’s readers about the world they live in, how it could or should change or even what to fear.
Fantasy doesn’t ask the reader crap. It tells the reader what that world is like and it better be different enough to bother but not so strange the reader cannot image themselves existing in it.
Escapism is a massive component, is what I’m saying.
Fantasy is about people - how they are, how they can be and how they should be. It can show us what it means to be a hero.
Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.
I’d always thought that was Pratchett, but now I look it up, it’s Gaiman.
Oh and, let’s please not get hijacked into that thread….
He was paraphrasing G.K. Chesterton, so it’s cool.
Neither of these things are functions of genre. You can, absolutely, have fantasy that asks questions about the world we live in, and what it should be like. You can, absolutely, have science fiction that’s about people, and how they can/should be. You can also do either in a western, a detective noir, a romance novel, a war story, or literally any other type of genre or non-genre fiction.
You can even do both in the same story.
I like Ray Bradbury’s comment. Science fiction is about the effect of new technology on the lives of human beings. Thus, Singin’ in the Rain is a science fiction movie.
That reminds me of something I’ve seen said about fantasy; that a fantasy story is typically more about people, while science fiction and reality are more about systems and organizations. Fantasy is more about small bands of heroes, craftsmen making tools and items by hand, a monster menacing a village; sci-fi is more about armies & navies, factories churning out blasters and starships, a village flattened by an air strike. Fantasy tends to be more human-scaled, and less impersonal.
Sauron made the One Ring, the Empire made the Death Star. Excalibur is a unique sword pulled from a stone/presented by the Lady of the Lake (depending on the mythic version); it’s not a mass produced weapon made by Lady of the Lake Industries. In fantasy a mountain is big; in science fiction a planet is big.
That’s a good general point about fantasy. There is often some sort of supernatural thing that is one of a kind and has mythic significance: only the Chosen One can use it.
While in SF, the problem may be more ambiguous or general?
It’s not that uncommon in sf. Lots of stories where there’s some bit of unreplicable alien tech that’s driving the story. The protomolecule in The Expanse, for example, or the titular ringworld from Larry Niven’s stories.
Heroic fantasy is often set in pre-industrial settings (although it’s notable that the Ur-text for heroic fantasy ends with a novella about the impact of industrialization on rural life), so you wouldn’t have Lady of the Lake Enterprises churning out Excaliburs, but heroic fantasy isn’t the be-all and end-all of fantasy. There’s lots of urban fantasy that explores the idea of industrial-scale magic.
This is probably a much better refutation of my above claim. Der_Trihs has a point.
We live in a pretty sterile organized homogenized world so a story about unique people has appeal. You guys won’t be able to convince me escapism doesn’t play a large role, but I will concede Fantasy as a genre shouldn’t be discarded as frivolous.
I would say escapism plays a role in most genre fiction, and probably a lot of literary fiction, too. But in genre fiction there are guard rails that usually keep the experience from being too confronting. Not many people are going to read a romance that ends with the lovers breaking up, or an action story where the bad guys win.
Fantasy and science fiction wouldn’t really be genres in this context, since you can have science fiction romance and action fantasy or whatever your heart desires. But I think both science fiction and fantasy often have aspects that readers find comforting.
I’m personally really fond of military space opera. I want planets and spaceships and people caught in the jaws of war. Even though it often deals with real issues, it’s still escapism on some level. It enables us to safely confront a lot of ideas we otherwise could not. Star Trek: TNG for example is an escapist fantasy about being on a highly competent team and feeling good about the work you do and the values you share. But it also deals with a lot of difficult issues.
You said it like it is a bad thing.
To quote a certain mostly unknown fantasy author:
Book Two, The Guns of Avalon, is a mess plot-wise (tho good for characterization), with holes galore, as I am now certain that Roger (who lived within a mile or so of my childhood home note-I likely saw him in public as a young kid a few times without knowing who he was) basically dithered during most of the writing process in question, and I am reasonably sure the subsequent roles of Dara and Ganelon were NOT present in his mind when he first introduced them. C.f. your observation of females in the series: the latter announces herself as the “Enemy of Amber” at the end of Book 2, then vanishes for all of books 3 & 4. This after basically squatting secretly in Benedict’s estate for several years, with him none the wiser the entire time despite her lifting some of his stuff and sneaking looks at his Tarot deck (B. being one of the most observant and astute characters in the mythos). That’s just shitty writing no matter how you slice it even if books 3 & 4 were much more tightly written.
Whoever does the (currently in Development Hell) TV series will have to do quite a bit of rewriting to give the women more of a role and to deal with these gaping plot holes-I don’t envy them one bit.
I don’t think anyone would disagree that escapism is a big component of fantasy. What I don’t get is why you think the same isn’t true for science fiction.
A lot of it is, of course. Really hard SF can be a discipline, though.
I am partway through writing a novel, and I have set the goal: no ‘almost magic’. Everything has to abide by the laws of physics. The amount of math I have worked through so far is rather extensive.
Good for the brain… I have had to brush up on math and physics I hadn’t touched much since university.
The trap here is trying to avoid it turning into a textbook. Robert Forward fell into that somewhat, I think.
I am trying to write characters in that universe that I would like to have as friends…
Mad respect. I never had so much as an intro physics class, so it’s writing soft sci-fi for me! But I have enjoyed myself some hard science fiction. It really helps with the feeling of immersion.