fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2557 ]

[ SECRET POST #2557 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2557 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 013 secrets from Secret Submission Post #364.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Based on secret #1. While skimming through the threads, I did have a strange moment of realization that while I technically know things like the Hunger Games, the Marvel movies, etc. are sci-fi, I don't really think of them as sci-fi. I think of the Hunger games as 'futuristic' or 'dystopian' fiction, and I think of MCU as 'superhero movies' or by individual genres, even as I was fangasming and loving that the the Thor movies aren't actually straight fantasy, but sci-fi cloaked as fantasy. Pacific Rim "feels" like it sits on the border between actual sci-fi and "I know it's sci-fi but I think of it as something else", while Ender's Game feels like 'traditional' scifi (yes, I know, a lot of this doesn't make sense). Meanwhile, Agents of SHIELD is all about science fiction becoming not-so-fictional in-universe, and yet I ultimately think of it as a drama, then a procedural, then a superhero show, THEN sci-fi. And yeah, somewhere along the line 'superhero' became its own genre even when I know it really isn't or shouldn't be.

Meanwhile, these days fantasy seems to mostly be split between 'urban fantasy' and 'high fantasy', at least in terms of the really popular stuff (and from the perspective of non-book media, it feels like most of the popular high fantasy is basically Tolkein movies - but then I don't pay much attention to these things). And which one of those does Harry Potter fall into, anyway?

So, F!S - how do you guys define the genres and sub-genres of fantasy and science fiction? How much do the lines between them blur to you? Or are they all on a spectrum to begin with?

Anything for/from these genres you'd rec to those of us here on F!S? Or anything you can think of that is somehow a good example of these?

(And a personal request while I'm here and on topic - any recs with really good worldbuilding, especially in 'soft' sci-fi and urban fantasy? Though I'll take any genres, really. Also, any good fantasy/sci-fi that features a good matriarchal society? And, any urban fantasy set in Los Angeles? Figured I might as well as ask now.)

Edited 2014-01-03 03:59 (UTC)

Science fiction: Analysis/critiques of society through the lenses of technological leaps.

Fantasy: Metaphors/critiques of interpersonal struggles and/or society through the lenses of elements of the supernatural or magic.

I mostly use those as a base, because there are works that bend them and sometimes mix and match

Science fiction, in my mind, is essentially sociocultural terms. Science fiction is what people who are in the tradition of science fiction produce - what the discrete subfield of science science fiction fandom and people and publishing produces and talks about and likes. I don't think of most supposedly science fiction movies as science fiction in a meaningful sense, because to me, they're not - they don't respond to the same concerns, they don't have the same background. Which is fine - this is fine and this isn't a negative thing about them. I just don't really think of them as science fiction. Within science fiction, I don't really care about subgenres, honestly.

With fantasy, it's just anything more or less modern that has unreal elements that don't have a scientific aspect, really. I'm not very picky in my definition of fantasy. I think the only useful distinction there is being able to talk about the certain kind of epic, multi-book fantasy that owes its origin to Tolkien, and being able to differentiate that from everything else - because that's the most useful distinction that's also non-trivial. So it's 'epic fantasy' and 'everything else' to me.

As far as I'm concerned, the distinction between fantasy and sci-fi is quite simple: Fantasy deals with situations caused by magic, sci-fi deals with situations caused by science (even if the science is very unrealistic by real world standards). In the case of science fiction, I don't think it matters if the science is realistic as long as it's consistent within the fictional universe. Expanding on that a little further, I think science fiction can be split into two main types:

1. Science-y sci-fi (or "hard" sci-fi): Takes the "science" part of science fiction seriously. Has realistic or at least semi-realistic science (either way, you can tell the author actually did some research into whatever they're writing about). Usually has some social criticism and exploration of Important Human Themes thrown in there too.

2. Non-science-y sci-fi (or "soft" sci-fi): Cares not for scientific accuracy; often accused of being fantasy with sci-fi trappings (these trappings being things like aliens, robots or AIs, interplanetary travel, character gets superpowers from lab accident, et cetera). Despite generally being the polar opposite of hard sci-fi, is just as likely to have social criticism and exploration of Important Human Themes.

I'm aware that not all sci-fi is purely hard or purely soft (in my personal opinion, most of the best literature is somewhere in the middle of the Scale of Sci-Fi Hardness), but most works lean toward one than the other. For example, I wouldn't classify The Hunger Games as hard sci-fi, but I think it's safe to say it's harder than the MCU films in terms of realism.

"And which one of those does Harry Potter fall into, anyway?"

Closer to urban fantasy than high fantasy, though I don't think it fits perfectly into either genre to be honest.

"And yeah, somewhere along the line 'superhero' became its own genre even when I know it really isn't or shouldn't be."

Superhero comics are a huge mish-mash of a bunch of different genres, but AFAIK they've been more influenced by science fiction than anything else and that influence is very apparent, so superheroes can arguably be considered a sub-genre of sci-fi (a very, very, very soft sub-genre).

Best explanation here. Everyone else can go home.

Scifi: SCIENCE! it doesn't matter how improbable it is because it happens because SCIENCE! (pseudoscience, technology, etc)

Fantasy: MAGIC! Anything is possible because MAGIC! (even if the magic isn't codified or explained, it's still clearly Stuff That Doesn't Happen In Our World)

It has absolutely nothing to do with the depth of material, symbolism and metaphor, issues and topics, underlying themes, moral of the story, or anything else, because both genres can have a very wide range of said characteristics. You can explore deep themes and write allegorical morality-plays in both genres. You can have silly shallow stories (or, as they call it, popcorn-flicks) in both genres. The base core, to me, of the difference between the two is that sci-fi is about science (even pseudoscience, or elements dressed up to look like science) and fantasy is unabashedly about magic. Neither is better or worse, they just choose to explore themes, plots, and topics via different means that presuppose the reader's expectations for one or the other.

Pretty much this for me.

Science fiction - the world is based off/around science (realistic or not) and/or explains things off with science

Fantasy - the world is based off/around magic (realistic or not) and/or explains things with magic.

Yeah, you pretty much just said everything I came here to say. SF has impossible things happen through (nominal) science, fantasy has impossible things happen through (nominal) magic.

For sub-genres which cleave much closer to the "real world" (low fantasy, hard SF, etc.) and therefore have little to no magic/pseudoscience going on, there's always the old fallback rule: if it's got dragons, it's fantasy; if it's got genetically-engineered bat-lizards, it's SF.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the depth of material, symbolism and metaphor, issues and topics, underlying themes, moral of the story, or anything else, because both genres can have a very wide range of said characteristics.

Thank you :)

Sci-fi = technology is the base
Fantasy = magic as the base.

Hard Sci-fi = actual science is being used in some form, so what's going on is plausible in reality, *or* there is a huge focus on the actual technology/science [the two generally go hand in hand.

Soft Sci-fi = everything else that's sci fi.

High fantasy = traditional fantasy, which actually is based on the precedent set by Tolkien's novels.

Low fantasy = all the sub genre's that aren't high fantasy [though there is an argument to be made for a lot of comedic fantasy being high fantasy, since that's what it usually is poking fun of.]

Harry Potter...hmm. That one is hard because it uses the "world within a world" set up, which is a hallmark of low fantasy - but otherwise uses almost exclusively high fantasy standards.

Also, I'd argue that Thor isn't sci-fi since it's main influences are mythology [which was the basis that Tolkien used to form the fantasy genre] and, frankly, only has a passing nod with sci-fi at best. Some of the other Marvel movies are more sci-fi but...well.Thor is definitely the fantasy element to that franchise which, because of him [mainly], is a mix of sci-fi and fantasy.

Recs: Mmm...Mercedes Lackey seems like she'd be right up your alley. She has a lot of Urban fantasy [and historical urban-ish fantasy!] as well as high fantasy that have strong female characters and is pretty well written. Oddly enough, she co-wrote a book with Piers Anthony [Boo, hiss, etc.] that features a matriarchal society that's interesting in that it turns a lot of traditional gender roles on their heads in a way, with a strong female lead [and a love interest that 1. she doesn't fall for right away, and 2. is sort of out of the gender binary in that they change between female and male on a regular[ish] basis.] It's called If I Pay Thee Not in Gold.

Edited (Left out a few words) 2014-01-03 07:21 (UTC)

While it was hinted at in Thor 1, it's Thor 2 that's gone more firmly down the "not gods, just super-advanced aliens mistaken for gods" route.

And thanks for the recs. :)

Edited (I have manners, I swear.) 2014-01-03 07:54 (UTC)

High fantasy = traditional fantasy, which actually is based on the precedent set by Tolkien's novels.

It's not traditional, and Tolkien's influence is radically overstated.

I really liked the worldbuilding in Lackey/Mallory's series...help i cant remember the name! Obsidian trilogy, i think! Very magic, so culture, much adventure. Also sassy unicorns.

Magic Vs Technology. You can try to pin ideologies to it if you want, but at it's most basic, Fantasy has it's roots in magic, Scifi has it's roots in technology.

The best definition I've come across is Drako Suvin's which says that science fiction uses the sciences and technology to create cognitive estrangement for the reader. Similarly, fantasy uses the arts and humanities to create cognitive estrangement.

In both cases, the relationship between those genres and their chosen disciplines is usually that of the mugger who drags an unsuspecting work of peer research or folklore back into a dark alley for the purpose of knocking it out and taking the wallet for the purpose of identity theft.

To answer specific questions:

Harry Potter: Urban/Contemporary given that it's fundamental themes and conflicts are cribbed from 20th/21st century European racism. I'd say the names to read there are Bull (War for the Oaks), Gaiman (Neverwhere and Graveyard Book), De Lint (Memory and Dream), Lukyanekno (Night Watch, just to get you into the brilliant Day Watch and Twilight Watch), Lauren Beukes Zoo City, and Crowley's Little, Big.

Thor: If you must put a label on it, I'd say Science Fantasy. But mostly superhero which is its own separate sort of thing. Same with Agents of SHIELD. Probably better examples of Science Fantasy is Star Wars.

I'm finding myself reading a lot of Lightspeed Magazine these days, which is online and has a nice variety of both Science Fiction and Fantasy

Other Fantasy sub-genres: Weird (Mieville), Literary (Beagle's Last Unicorn and Lord's Redemption in Indigo, arguably some King and Gaiman as well), Mythic (Tolkien), and Historical (not my thing.)

Science Fiction sub-genres: Post-Apocalypse/Dyslit (with fighting about whether they're the same thing), Hard Space (Niven, Reynolds, Clarke), Cyberpunk (Gibson), Singularity (what happened when cyberpunks got religion), and Philosophical (PKD, Lem, Vonnegut, Le Guin).

Not an exhaustive list.

Edited 2014-01-03 17:13 (UTC)

Thank you! :D

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2557 ]

How do you guys define sci-fi and fantasy?

Re: How do you guys define sci-fi and fantasy?

Re: How do you guys define sci-fi and fantasy?

Re: How do you guys define sci-fi and fantasy?

Re: How do you guys define sci-fi and fantasy?

Re: How do you guys define sci-fi and fantasy?

Re: How do you guys define sci-fi and fantasy?

Re: How do you guys define sci-fi and fantasy?

Re: How do you guys define sci-fi and fantasy?

Re: How do you guys define sci-fi and fantasy?

Re: How do you guys define sci-fi and fantasy?

Re: How do you guys define sci-fi and fantasy?

Re: How do you guys define sci-fi and fantasy?

Re: How do you guys define sci-fi and fantasy?

Re: How do you guys define sci-fi and fantasy?

Re: How do you guys define sci-fi and fantasy?