fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3538 ]

[ SECRET POST #3538 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3538 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 56 secrets from Secret Submission Post #506.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

If there's magic in your fantasy universe, they're functionally identical. The only difference is aesthetic.

That's kind of the point.

Fantasy: magic but no advanced technology
Sci-fi: advanced technology but no magic

but in essence, both are fantastical and impossible by today's standards, so yes, the difference is largely aesthetic.

I find it kind of boring though. The idea of sci fi is generally appealing to me because of the (at least quasi realistic) possibility of advances in knowledge and human ability on a fantastical scale.

If you just throw "lol magic is real you can do anything" into the equation, the point is lost.

The existence of magic is boring to you? Then sounds like your answer is "sci-fi", not "they are the same thing".

Narratively, they're pretty much the same excuse though. Look at this impossible thing the characters can do because X.

NAYRT

that's such a reductive and shallow way of looking at it

Yeah, but look me in the face and tell me honestly that that's not how it gets used *cough*STAR WARS*cough*.

Re: Fantasy or sci-fi living?

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-10 21:10 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Fantasy or sci-fi living?

herpymcderp - 2016-09-10 21:21 (UTC) - Expand

Every party needs a pooper that's why we invited you, party pooper!

Listen.

I don't see you starting any conversations around here.

I'm getting this party STARTED.

*casts Sufficiently-Advanced Technology*

Oh no! My argument!

*reality implodes*

Disagree.

Explain.

Even setting aside the aesthetic and storytelling and intellectual differences, which maybe don't matter in a strict worldbuilding sense, I think they generally do work in importantly different ways.

It's only a very specific variant of magic - where it's very widely available and rationalistic and systematized - that I think you can really say it functions the same as magic. But there's a wide range of magic outside of that.

Since when does the advancement in sci fi have to be widely available or systematized?

What if the story is about alien technology (e.g. Roadside Picnic) or extreme cultural hierarchy (as is sometimes the case).

...And yes, I realize I'm just being contrary at this point, but I feel that too often the difference between the two genres is fairly moot.

First of all, even in the cases where they function similarly in the world, I would say the aesthetic and rhetorical and thematic differences are still massive.

Second, I think, yes, there are extreme edge cases where they do genuinely look alike in world terms. But those are still, you know, edge cases. There's one specific subset of technology that looks like magic, and one specific subset of magic that looks like technology. That doesn't mean they're the same.

Well, yes. In my first comment I acknowledged the aesthetics are different. I'm not entirely certain about thematic differences given the way the genres have evolved... but I guess I could give you that one.

I'm also not sure that it's specifically edge cases.

Like, take Stranger Things. Definitively science fiction, but you could just as easily do exactly that premise as modern fantasy if it had just a slightly different lens and some minor story tweaks. I won't spoil it for people who haven't seen it though.

Re: Fantasy or sci-fi living?

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-10 21:21 (UTC) - Expand

STRANGER THINGS SPOILERS COMMENCING NOW

herpymcderp - 2016-09-10 21:24 (UTC) - Expand

Re: STRANGER THINGS SPOILERS COMMENCING NOW

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-10 21:45 (UTC) - Expand

Re: STRANGER THINGS SPOILERS COMMENCING NOW

herpymcderp - 2016-09-10 21:57 (UTC) - Expand

Re: STRANGER THINGS SPOILERS COMMENCING NOW

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-10 22:04 (UTC) - Expand

Re: STRANGER THINGS SPOILERS COMMENCING NOW

herpymcderp - 2016-09-10 22:09 (UTC) - Expand

I mean, if you really want to get into the history and theoretics of each genre, they are drastically different in terms of the stakes they set up and the logic they work by.

Oh man... if we also want to get into genre history then we can go back to a time when science fiction was all about a theoretical outcome of policies dependent on racial superiority and keeping all vaginas far away from universities because cooties.

I'm not sure I want to go back there.

Sure, it's different, but...

Please explain, with specifics, how Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is about a theoretical outcome of policies dependent on racial superiority and keeping all vaginas far away from universities because cooties.

Or, more generally, explain what the fuck you're talking about and why you think that's a representative characterization of science fiction in general.

Oh my god no. Just google sexist sci fi and go read any of the literally hundreds of articles yourself.

I ain't got time to write a thesis.

I agree there's a lot of sexism in science fiction.

I don't think that characterization is representative of the genre's roots, nor do I think it's intrinsic to the genre from a theoretical point of view. Which is what I took you to be saying, and that's kind of why I asked what the fuck you were talking about.

I'm saying I think there's a lot of people that would agree that at it's roots early science fiction has a whole lot of sexism/racism endemic to it.

I don't think it's ALL there is to it, but holy shit is there a lot of it to go around. Like, for instance, there is a buttload of Russian sci fi that is essentially, "this is why communism is awesome, science says so, we will create the perfect race of workers and take over the universe".

But really I don't have time for a huge thesis considering other people have already done a way better job of characterizing it.

Re: Fantasy or sci-fi living?

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-10 21:42 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Fantasy or sci-fi living?

herpymcderp - 2016-09-10 21:51 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Fantasy or sci-fi living?

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-10 21:56 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Fantasy or sci-fi living?

herpymcderp - 2016-09-10 21:58 (UTC) - Expand

(frozen comment) Re: Fantasy or sci-fi living?

dethtoll - 2016-09-10 22:32 (UTC) - Expand

well, that's a tangent we could totally go on. I was more thinking in terms of the fact that the intentions and expectations each genre is built on are different. So yes, effectively, you can do the same things with magic and with technology in fantasy and sci fi, but the way you get there is different, and how the reader is supposed to understand magic vs. technology is very different. Focusing just on outcomes is an awfully narrow and dry way of looking at two very interesting dynamic genres.

That dynamism what what I was trying to get at though. My point was more to the fact that the separation between the two genres these days is really starting to be much less elves/wizards/knights vs. aliens/robots/scientists than it traditionally has been. Which... on the surface is probably a step in the right direction since either cliche is pretty done to death by this point.

But in my opinion it also means we're starting to see more of a blending to the point where it's sort of difficult to concretely state where one genre begins and the other ends, especially considering you can pretty much use "it was science!" or "it was magic!" as more or less interchangeable forces.

And while I'd really like to agree with you about the level of understanding the reader is supposed to have about magic vs. technology, I'm not entire sure that holds up. In theory it does, but in practice? How many people reading science fiction really have a good idea of how science works? I'm not sure if Hard Sci Fi is back in vogue again or what though, so feel free to edify here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only