Should people mix sci-fi and fantasy?

[sapphail]

Theoretically, there's nothing wrong with the concept, if it's done well. Unfortunately most cross-breed efforts are usually dreadful. I guess it just makes it harder to suspend disbelief (for me anyway), especially if it isn't particularly well written.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic...

Sci-fi is fantasy.

It depends on the sci-fi. The sci-fi I prefer to read is usually more the hard science kind where the stuff within is theoretically possible and often is already being worked on, we're just nowhere close to having it workable.

[Jorkens]

It depends on the sci-fi. The sci-fi I prefer to read is usually more the hard science kind where the stuff within is theoretically possible and often is already being worked on, we're just nowhere close to having it workable.

Hmmm, I've never been convinced by the idea of 'hard' sci fi (although I'll admit that I've only had the idea explained to me rather than actually reading any) - you can make things more plausible, but you're still basically writing fantasy until you get to the point where the stuff you're writing about is actual established to be technologically possible, at which point if it was any good, it would already exist...

To the OP - I think you should write what you want to write and worry about genres later. If you can do
- story
- characterization
- atmosphere
- originality / freedom from cliche
- writing style
- verisimilitude / suspension of disbelief
to a decent level, then I don't personally mind if you're combining steampunk gnomes, Tolkeinish elves, cold war spies, space marines and 20's flappers. The only concern is that the more you mash different styles in, the greater the risk that the story and the characters will get lost in the details of the world, the style and the atmosphere will be inconsistant, the different elements will be off the shelf cliches rather than fully realized ideas and any inconsistancies in the world will be noticeable and spoil suspension of disbelief...

[averagejoe]

Hmmm, I've never been convinced by the idea of 'hard' sci fi (although I'll admit that I've only had the idea explained to me rather than actually reading any) - you can make things more plausible, but you're still basically writing fantasy until you get to the point where the stuff you're writing about is actual established to be technologically possible, at which point if it was any good, it would already exist...

What about the sci fi that serves as inspiration for these things existing? There are a few cases where someone decides to make something because he read it in a sci fi book. Heck, there are more than a few astronauts who decided their career path because they read Arthur C. Clarke. It's more than an event-driven narrative with advanced technology as a backdrop; it's speculation on where humanity is going, and in many cases a glorification of science/knowledge/learning. Hard sci fi isn't merely about plausibility, it's exploration into what may be, whether it be technological or social. It isn't, for example, Star Wars with the technology toned down to reasonable levels. Often the whole purpose is to say, "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if..." Heck, there are many examples of hard sci fi where it, in part, serves to educate about principles in physics. There's an Arthur C. Clarke short story I read where, in order to do it, he had a friend at a university do pages upon pages of orbital calculations just to see how the spaceship would have interacted with the object orbiting Jupiter.

[Talya]

you can make things more plausible, but you're still basically writing fantasy until you get to the point where the stuff you're writing about is actual established to be technologically possible, at which point if it was any good, it would already exist...

That's not true. There's lots of things possible that would be very good, that we do not have the economic infrastructure or political will to initiate. The "space elevator" is a great example.

[Jorkens]

That's not true. There's lots of things possible that would be very good, that we do not have the economic infrastructure or political will to initiate. The "space elevator" is a great example.

Fair point, oversimplification, guilty as charged.

On the other hand, in my view if you're imagining a world in which we do have that political and economic infrastructure and do that sort of thing then you're still writing fantasy of a sort. I guess a lot of people would use the term 'speculative fiction' here. I kind of prefer to give fantasy as broad a scope as possible.

I guess there might come a dividing line - I'd consider some of JG Ballard's novels (Cocaine Nights or Super Cannes, for instance) to be science fiction because they're dealing with hypothetical versions of societies even if those societies more or less exist in today's world, but I'm not sure whether I'd call them fantasy. I probably would, but it's certainly on the limit of the term. Are James Bond and Philip Marlowe fantasy if they don't try to imitate the 'real world' of their respective professions? Very marginal...

[Jorkens]

What about the sci fi that serves as inspiration for these things existing? There are a few cases where someone decides to make something because he read it in a sci fi book. Heck, there are more than a few astronauts who decided their career path because they read Arthur C. Clarke.

But at the time that it's written, it's normally still fundamentally magic. By the way, I'm not saying I don't like the scientific detail, just saying that even if you come up with a plausible sounding explanation based on real physics or extrapolations of real technology you're still making some sort of leap of faith to believe that it'll all work.

It's more than an event-driven narrative with advanced technology as a backdrop; it's speculation on where humanity is going, and in many cases a glorification of science/knowledge/learning. Hard sci fi isn't merely about plausibility, it's exploration into what may be, whether it be technological or social. It isn't, for example, Star Wars with the technology toned down to reasonable levels. Often the whole purpose is to say, "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if..." Heck, there are many examples of hard sci fi where it, in part, serves to educate about principles in physics. There's an Arthur C. Clarke short story I read where, in order to do it, he had a friend at a university do pages upon pages of orbital calculations just to see how the spaceship would have interacted with the object orbiting Jupiter.

So does it refer to the social aspect too, then? I mean, most of the science fiction I find interesting has some implicit sense of social, political or philosophical enquiry rather than just 'hey, wouldn't it be cool if we all had spaceships and stuff.'

But as I read it, the post I was replying to was specifically referring to the science...

[Leush]

It depends on the sci-fi. The sci-fi I prefer to read is usually more the hard science kind where the stuff within is theoretically possible and often is already being worked on, we're just nowhere close to having it workable.

What's theoretically impossible today, is perfectly plausible tomorrow, and a handy gadget the day after.

Having said that, I like that sort of sci-fi myself, although to be fair, I like just about everything- too weak willed to resist reading a book to the end.

In Koreku's case the two elements seem not to have too different polarity and so should be fine.

[Telonius]

Eberron actually caught a lot of flak for this. "Robots? Bah, it'll never work." But it seems to have done a reasonably good job of it. There are some excellent series that combine fantasy and sci-fi quite well. Herbert's "Dune," Gene Wolfe's "Book of the New Sun," Storm Constantine's "Wraeththu" (not for the faint of heart or stomach). Star Wars is another obvious one. And even "Star Trek: Deep Space 9" has some arguably fantasy-like elements.

[Swordguy]

Yes it's possible. Go look up Shadowrun. It's pure sci-fi + fantasy (ever see a Dragon with an assault cannon?), with a healthy dose of cyberpunk.

It can also be done badly. I refer you to Rifts...

[Tobaselly]

That's not true. There's lots of things possible that would be very good, that we do not have the economic infrastructure or political will to initiate. The "space elevator" is a great example.

Not meaning to nit pick, but we don't currently have the technological capabilities to create a space elevator either.

[averagejoe]

But at the time that it's written, it's normally still fundamentally magic. By the way, I'm not saying I don't like the scientific detail, just saying that even if you come up with a plausible sounding explanation based on real physics or extrapolations of real technology you're still making some sort of leap of faith to believe that it'll all work.

No, it isn't magic. Star Wars uses magic, and not just as far as the force is concerned. Sometimes it can be rather magical, I admit, but certainly not all of it. A lot of it requires less of a leap of a leap of faith than one might think. It often uses very simple ideas; using doves inside of space stations, for example, or portable music playing devices (and, yes, kids, that was sci fi once.) The fact that it takes a leap of faith doesn't make it magical, only potentially wrong. A scientist might imagine that all matter is made up of very small particles linked together; this takes a leap of faith, but imagining such a world isn't imagining magic. All science is based on such leaps of faith. People throw around the word "science" all the time, but very few really think on what it means. The use of complex words and theories doesn't necessarily make something hard sci fi. Generally speaking, it is magic when it says, "This is true, and I'm using it as a vehicle for my story." It isn't when it says, "Well, what if this was true," and the story forms from there.

So does it refer to the social aspect too, then? I mean, most of the science fiction I find interesting has some implicit sense of social, political or philosophical enquiry rather than just 'hey, wouldn't it be cool if we all had spaceships and stuff.'

The two are inseperable, when it comes to hard sci fi, that is. The goal is not just to explore the possible, but to explore the implications. Nearly all good sci fi inquires into the social, political, and/or philisophical implications of whatever it is they're talking about. The sci fi bit is just the idea; how it fits in with everything else is the story.