Hatrack River Writers Workshop: Science Fantasy -- how big is it?

This is topic Science Fantasy -- how big is it? in forum Open Discussions About Writing at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004490

Posted by Zero (Member # 3619) on :

I write Science Fantasy almost strictly. And what I mean by that is a blend of futuristic technology with fantastic themes and elements, like magic and destiny. Most of my stories take place on whole other planets, but usually don't extend to multiple worlds. More like Tolkien with laserguns. (Except I write nothing like Tolkien.)

The advantage is that I think this genre has the possibility of appealing to both fantasy readers and sci-fi, but what I'm afraid of is that Fantasy readers will be put off immediately by the "tech" feeling of the milieu that they will drop the story before getting hooked by the fantastic elements. And that sci-fi readers will be put off by the many things that are allowed to happen without scientific explanation.

I can't think of a lot of really big, successful examples of true science fantasy, so I am wondering what kind of a market exists for it. Or is this some sort of bastard genre?

Posted by Christine (Member # 1646) on :

Star Wars.

Expanding on that:

You'll get some die-hard scifi people who won't want an ounce of fantasy in their stories and some die-hard fantasy people who don't want an ounce of anything else in their stories, but I don't think they are the majority. There is plenty of readership for science fantasy. I happen to love it -- both reading and writing. (I don't write it exclusively but the big story I've been working on since I was 11 is very much science fantasy.)

Piers Anthony has done some science fantasy.

Friedman (can't remember her first name) did a terrific job with a trilogy set on a world that creates magic.

Most importantly, if that's what it's your heart to write then that will be your best seller!

[This message has been edited by Christine (edited December 17, 2007).]

Posted by gobi13x (Member # 6837) on :

Yea Star Wars is a big one. Another big evidence that science fiction market is big is the fact that there is a show channel devoted to the market. The Sci-fi channel shows tons of science fiction movies and tv shows.

Posted by Alethea Kontis (Member # 3748) on :

Oh, yeah. Star Wars, Stargate, Farscape, Dune...
That's the great thing about sci-fi. Anything goes.

Posted by Igwiz (Member # 6867) on :

IMHO, (and I'm donning my lazer-proof flak-jackat as I type) Asimov's "Foundation" series was less hard sci-fi and more of what's called "Social Sci-Fi".

The Dune series was again Social Sci-Fi. Both of them were focused on future culture, rather than a specific technological item that was "inherent" to the story.

Each of these spend less time on the technology and science of a setting/planet/universe; and spend more time on the people, the politics, the religion... In some ways, I would call Card's later Ender books Social Sci-Fi. Esp. Speaker for the Dead.

Now, not having read any of your stuff, I can't really respond to what you mean in the sense of "science fantasy." Unless, of course, you're going the Barbarella "Space Opera" route, where people 7,000 years in the future have evolved, reverted, and are now wearing furry bikinis...

Posted by Christine (Member # 1646) on :

I agree that Stargate, Dune, and Farscape are social scifi rather than science fantasy.

I'm not sure what Space Opera has to do with science fantasy, though. It's clearly a sub genre of science fiction.

Science fantasy isn't "soft" or "social" science fiction it is a marriage of science fiction and fantasy. That is to say, something futuristic/technological combined with something magical or mystical.

Star Wars is the most classic example. The Force is magic. Now, in Star Wars as in anything else, there is always the idea that just because something is unexplained, doesn't mean it's magical. Often, science fiction comes with it's own sort of "magic" and tries to spout genetic voodoo to make it scientific -- telepathy, telekinesis...all the powers in Heroes.

So since any sufficiently advanced technology can appear magical and because anything unexplained can appear magical, there is almost no such thing as magic in science fiction. However, it's all in the presentation. Often, the fantasy in science fantasy has more to do with the feel of the magic and whether or not you try to explain it in scientific terms or magical terms.

Posted by Zero (Member # 3619) on :

Duh Star Wars haha, not sure how I missed that. Touche.

Thanks for the responses, now, how many of you would be inclined to pick up a science fantasy over a more traditional book? (strict sci-fi or fantasy)

Posted by InarticulateBabbler (Member # 4849) on :

If Star Wars is Space Fantasy (though I understood it was the quintessential definition of Space Opera), for The Force, then Dune is just as much Space Opera for the Kwisatz Haderach and the prescience offered by the spice. I know that Frank Herbert would roll over in his grave--since he fought for so long to explain away the magic and thus get his work deemed literary--but it's true. Kevin J. Anderson's Saga of Seven Suns is a nice mix, too.

Posted by Christine (Member # 1646) on :

When I think Space Opera, I always think more Star Trek than Star Wars, but even if Star Wars is space opera, it doesn't take away the fantasy element.

I forgot about the magical part of Dune. Really, I try to forget about Dune whenever possible. I didn't really like it....but that's a topic for another time.

Posted by Zero (Member # 3619) on :

It's true, I defined science-fantasy above as a blend of futuristic technology with fantastic elements. So spaceships + The Force definitely qualifies.

Posted by Pyre Dynasty (Member # 1947) on :

I don't think Space Opera and Science Fantasy are the same kind of thing. It's like Western and Comedy, they aren't mutually exclusive. So to say that Star Wars isn't Science Fantasy because it is a Space Opera just doesn't work.

My definitions:

Space Opera: Episodic story occurring largely in space.

Space Fantasy: Science Fiction with magic, usually magic is a major part of it.

Posted by rstegman (Member # 3233) on :

Hard science fiction is where you take an invention or social trend and push it to the limit to see what society would become. In the 40s through the 60s, this was what science fiction was.
Hard science fiction examines known, plausible future, no more than a couple hundred years from now, usually in fifty to a hundred years hence.
It was mostly involved in predicting what the future will be, or what the future would be if nothing changes.

One could do a credible hard science fiction story about tomorrow. By the time you wrote it, got it to the publisher, and the publisher got it onto the shelves of the stores, and then into the hands of the readers, it would be months old. Hard science fiction tends to deal with things far enough ahead that people can have time to think about what is going to happen. It is even more likely that they are chosen far enough in the future that the author is no longer alive to be pointed out wrong, or their book is forgotten long enough that mistakes are not noticed.

Soft science fiction tends to deal with Characters in a science fiction environment. You cannot remove the science fiction and still have a story.
This started becoming popular in the 1960s.

Science fantasy is where the science fiction is not really important and there is a lot of "powers" involved, some not fully explained.
Star wars is an example of science fantasy.

Many hard science fiction stories can have magic, or some form of "powers" but it is scientifically explained in a way that is at least probable, even if the explanation would not work in reality.

Posted by TaleSpinner (Member # 5638) on :

I agree with rstegman except that I would not characterize SF stories as explaining their magic, any more than they explain their science. What matters in SF is the science has to be consistent with itself, and so too does the magic.

In stories like Star Wars and Dune the magic can coexist with the futuristic science because it cannot displace it. In other words, the masters of magic can only do so much with their magic and still need scientific and engineering marvels to achieve their ends as well.

As a counterexample, JKR's wizards and witches had powerful magic, saw no need for technology and were often delightfully bemused by it. In such fantasy worlds futuristic science has a weak position because where there's strong magic there's little call for science.

I think that's the trick. If you're going to have science and magic, each must leave space for the other and neither can be all-powerful.

Cheers,
Pat

Posted by TaleSpinner (Member # 5638) on :

"And that sci-fi readers will be put off by the many things that are allowed to happen without scientific explanation"

Some of us--many of us I'd like to think--have souls ;-)

If I understand things correctly fantasy sales exceed hard SF sales these days. Maybe that has something to do with hard SF's lack of soul (as well as its tedious attention to arcane scientific detail).

I'd like to think that what you're calling science fantasy has a market. I'd like to read more of it, and write some.

Pat

Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :

I'm inclined to think that Science Fantasy was for long the dominant form of fantastic literature, until Fantasy reasserted itself in the wake of Tolkien. Some adventurerer travels via spaceship to a strange planet, then the spaceship is forgotten and he goes on to have a series of adventures on that planet that have little or nothing to do with science. Maybe they'd all fight with ray guns or laser pistols, but just as often they'd fight with swords.

Now that impulse is elsewhere, back with Fantasy, where you can create a fictional world and not have to worry about how somebody got there.

Posted by Alethea Kontis (Member # 3748) on :

Well, the conversation of SF labels and subgenres could go on ad nauseum (and has, for years), but I'll throw these few out at you for consideration: Anne McCaffrey, Sharon Shinn, Meredith Ann Pierce and Madeleine L'Engle.

If it's a scientific explanation that gives us the magic or the dragons or the angels, I consider it a "science-fantasy".

Posted by MartinV (Member # 5512) on :

I never think about classifying my work. I believe putting stories in groups like that is a hideous act because I strive to make every story unique. Of course my work would be called science fiction, but I don't go much into technology praising. I use FTL technology, but I also have pre-technological societies in the same time. They know what machines are out there, but they choose not to use them in their daily lives.

Posted by InarticulateBabbler (Member # 4849) on :

Zero, this has been an interesting look into people's definitions of sub-genre, so thanks for starting the topic.

Pyre Dynasty, I think you have an interesting take on it. But I think it's flawed, in that episodic is like saying, "If its sci-fi and has a sequel or prequel, it's Space Opera."

From yours, and the other posts, I have modified it. The "science" elements in Star Wars are a lot more "bolognium" than "believeable" aspects. It throws laser-swords, forcefields, small cockpitted/long range TIE fighters, and never-ending charges on laser blasters around with abandon. It doesn't explain them, doesn't care if you buy it, it just pushes the characters and story on. An opera is less concerned with the details than what it displays center stage, and forces everything out larger-than-life.

Space Fantasy would integrate believeable science and magic at the core.

Hmm. Food for thought.

[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited December 18, 2007).]

Posted by JeanneT (Member # 5709) on :

Both Modisett and McCaffrey did fantasy worlds with the vague background of having at some point arrived on space ships though. I'd consider both of them at least vaguely space fantasy. It's a rough definition to pin down.