@@arpankumarbasak1813 I have a few for you; Black Sun Rising by C.S. Friedman, The Gunslinger by Stephen King, Artemis Fowl by Eoin Colfer, and Iron Widow by Xiran Ja Zhaom.
The difference between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy isn't that the former explains the origin of every single fantastic element. In most cases audiences and readers would die of boredom--as many claimed to after watching Primer. It's that Science Fantasy bends, breaks, and simply ignores the rules for the sake of a new imaginary landscape, while Science Fiction ponders the implications of such breaches. Star Trek doesn't explain how Warp Drive is possible--beyond the theoretical inspiration--and Star Wars doesn't go into the details of Hyperdrive, but the former explores the hypothetical implications of such a technology while the latter uses theirs as a way to get their characters from point A to point B.
Brian C I wrote a mystery novel set in the future where the an AIDS vaccine exists (like the Rabies vaccines) Not sure if it’s sci fi or science fantasy but I it’s mostly mundane. Maybe it’s the later I made up how it works
Some things seem to straddle a boundary, breaking "rules" that conventional science follows but still going out of their way to provide a plausible explanation for its tech. Others entangle themselves it with the goals set out in the video, primarily delivering a good story and incidentally using real science to lend credence. This spectrum of science fiction is probably what lead to the coining of terms like hard SF and soft SF.
As a person who loves math and science, I view Sci-fi as a bigger payoff but with more work. The centripetal force example is a normie version of that but it is a great way to illustrate the difference.
Both are Science Fantasy, ST is just a tad closer to the SciFi end of the scale. SW is an interesting case too, especially when considering the differences between Canon and Legends. While Legends seems more fantastical, it also explains more, both with fantasy and science.
How many different genres are there, really? And why does the Sci Fi genre define setting, while mystery defines plot, and YA defines age group? Why are all of these things different?
I dunno, most people don't say Sci Fi isn't Sci Fi unless it's hard sci fi and say anything past that is science fantasy. Usually that brings to mind things like say the content of Gloryhammer albums to name the only direct example I know off the top of my head. You know, wizards _in space_.
Honestly this sounds more like the difference between hard sci-fi and soft sci-fi, not sci-fi and sci-fantasy. Halo for instance, the game you used the clip of for science fantasy, to me is just a soft sci-fi since it doesn't explain things (in-depth) like gravity drives, but it also doesn't rely on supernatural elements that make a true science fantasy story.
I like the idea of having writing that has elements of both and is therefore ambiguous. With the scientific believability of sci-fi and the wonder and fantasticality of sci-fantasy.
"Science fiction makes the implausible possible, while science fantasy makes the impossible plausible." -- Rod Serling (The Twilight Zone - Season 3; Episode 25: "The Fugitive" March 9, 1962)
You're confusing hard sf with soft sf. Science fiction is technology (even outdated tech, think steam punk). Science fantasy is adding magic and fantasy (such as LotR, magic, or comic book mutants).
Terry Ghast The difference there lies more on how it is treated. Magic, even when having a very detailed system, is always seen as this “divine” or “spiritual” element that may not only defy the laws of physics as we know it, but that is outright separate from it, and can’t be explained through science. Sufficiently advanced science however, although usually as vague and mysterious as the standard magic, is on the other hand regarded as a technological marvel, that can be achieved with science, just that we don’t know or understand how. One is a otherworldly phenomenon that is considered in one way or another “sacred” that we at best can only manipulate but not fully replicate with science. The other is just another part of the mundane world and fully achievable with sufficient intelligence, we just don’t know enough to reach that level yet.
@NW Emerson Science Fiction with a dash of cosmic horror since they explain most of the science. As long as they explain the science sufficiently enough then it is science fiction if they don't explain the science and also have a magic system then it's science fantasy what's the difference between Star Wars and Star Trek as I am a fan of both can tell you that they have very different approaches. there's also the fact that Star Wars takes place a long time ago in a galaxy far far away wow Star Trek takes place in the comparative future from when the series was made.
vgmaster9 I'm not so sure. Avatars' "Pandora" is in the milky way galaxy and that's most definitely a space fantasy. I don't think location is the defining factor for fantasy vs fiction. But this topic us very up to interpretation and debate which is what makes it so interesting.
Pen & Sword Thing is, Avatar isn't set in space, but on a planet (a moon to be specific), so that would make it "Planetary Romance" Instead of Space Opera. John Carter is a similar example.
vgmaster9 I was actually about to bring up John Carter but you beat me to it lol. The point I was trying to make in my video was basically just because you're writing a science related story, doesn't mean hard science has to make the rules, the author can have just as much power, and a lot of new authors don't realize that. We can split hairs all day over what we determine is or isn't science fantasy but that's not exactly what I was trying to convey... Although it is a fun discussion (what would you consider The Matrix to be?)
I think those are different ways to determine genres, much like history can be seen from the point of view of the art (Romanticism, Realism, Gothic, etc) or technology (Stone age, Metal ages, Industrial age, etc). There can be science fiction space operas (The Expanse) and sience fantasy space operas (Star wars). Science fiction/fantasy are from the point of view of plausibility (or ate least believability). Space operas, cyberpunk, planetary romance are from the point of view of setting and scale of the story.
One general trend of Fantasy (of all types) is the idea of the downward trend of ability. The elves of old made wonders that we cannot replicate, the Jedi held illustrious wisdom from the Ancients, the ability to cast this type of magic is lost to us, the First Men were powerful beyond imagining, etc. If you see this kind of thing, your probably reading some kind of fantasy (or post-apocalyptic). The strangest example of this that I can think of is in the Night Angel series by Brent Weeks. The spells to make clean plumbing have been lost, but they can enchant self rowing boats.
Wait you got it wrong. Your talking about hard vs soft sci-fi. A science fantasy is a genre that blends elements of science fiction and fantasy. The difference is that sci-fi doesn’t use any magic or supernatural elements but is manly rooted in science. An example of a science fantasy is Star Wars which has spaceships, robots, and aliens coexisting with wizards ( Yoda ) and magic ( the force.) or Marvel and DC comics have worlds were sci-fi and fantasy coexist ( for example Thor coexists alongside a man who wears power armor.)
You'd be veru wrong with Star Wars being Sci-Fantasy. The Force is caused by microorganisms called Mediclorians. If you watched Episode 1 it gives a brief explaintion with the books giving a deeper explanation. Fantasy usually doesnt explain it's magic unless you're watching some anime where it gets stupid. Star Wars has elves, lizard folk and dragons, but they're all very much alien with little to no real connection to their fantasy counter parts save visuals. Space Wizards is close but not nearly the due respect the actual group deserves same goes for Sith and the Witches. It's all hear say, the Sith think its some great power while the Witches dont even call it the Force but the Ikor. Jedi know exactly what it is and why it shouldn't be abused the way these other groups do, because its a living thing that somehow connects beings to the very essence of the reality around them.
I'm fairly certain, at least when looking at all that I've read on the genre of science fantasy, that what you described in the video was more of a hard sci-fi vs soft sci-fi, rather than vs science fantasy. Sci-fi is broad and can be divided into those two categories and others etc. But science fantasy is pretty much a mixture of sci-fi and fantasy (ex. technology and magic etc etc etc.).
Personally I think the way the story is told is a more useful distinction between the two sub genres if any should be made. I think Science Fantasy is more about a story, that happens to be set in a futuristic world, but could also be told in another setting. In Science Fantasy science is treated like magic and I think there is even a quote out there that any technology advanced enough may as well be magic. As an example, Avatar doesn't even have really "magical" technology and we know from Pocahontas, that the story fits very well in other settings. Science Fiction on the other hand the world and it's advanced technology play a major role in the story. No matter how fantastic or unrealistic it may be, the technology and it's impact on society is an integral part of the story and the world. For example, in Mass Effect, the important bit is in the title. The writers introduced one new, impossible element to fuel all the impossible things that exist in the universe, like FTL travel and telekinesis, yet it is all part of the plot and an integral part of the world.
I think sci-fi writers also have to invent science - if they place the action in the future, there's tons of stuff we don't have yet, but they still keep the appearance of realism
Star Wars and Doctor Who made me realise science fantasy is more my jam. One of my fave modern examples of science fantasy might be the adventure zone podcast which lands itself more on the pure fantasy side but slowly starts implementing more and more sci-fi tropes into it till it ends up basically science fantasy
Am I the only one who likes your knight plate armour, samurai armour, Horned Viking armour ect over your over the top sci fi suits and power armours? There's a simple elegance about it them makes them beautiful and badass at the same time.
I don't find this to be a very accurate definition of Science Fantasy. My understanding is based on Clarks' Third Law ("Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.") and Niven's Law ( "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology."). Sci-fi is based in worlds with concepts capable of being explained, normally derived from scientific thinking. In the case of fantasy, we have otherworldly forces, mysterious even when explanations are offered. The core principles of Science Fantasy are uncertainty and doubt. The explanations are sufficient to be very near to science, yet some pieces are missing. So the reader is caught between several possible explanations with never being given any solid hint to magic or science. Maybe both are the same. Science fantasy is a very hard genre to write convincingly requiring a writer well versed on the tropes of sci-fi and fantasy to put a cohesive world. A good example of modern Science Fantasy literary piece is the séries "His Dark Materials" by Phillip Pullman.
Dragon Ball can also be described as science fantasy with emphasis on aliens, androids and scientific geniuses but also combining Gods, magic, mysticism and the afterlife. Also Akira Toriyama is not interested in exploring science since eh utilized many pseudoscientific ideas such as Lamarckism. He once explained that Goten is stronger than Gohan because Goku was more powerful( Super Saiyan) when Goten was conceived. This is an example of Lamarckism in which acquired characteristics will be inherited by future generations. This very shady at best since this means that if a children or descendants of a skilled athlete like Usain Bolt or Gerard would acquire sport skills even without undergoing the same training
Actually no no no the chance of a dinosaur zoo is impossible as the DNA from that long ago dose not that last that long but it’s still science fiction not fantasy
Another great Video !!! as expected. it really helped me to separate the blurred line between these two heavily merged genres. ### ONE BIG REQUEST ### can you PLEASE do a similar video for the thriller vs drama, ( need, audience effect, the motivation behind chosen route) why does any author particularly choose either route to convey.?special mention genre : thriller drama and dramatic thriller.
I love this video is basically Star Trek vs Star Wars... Did you know you can actually enjoy and appreciate both? I do and I don't see one as better than the other. Sometimes I'm in a more escapist mood and want the laser swords and mystical force powers and sometimes I want a more grounded and logical story. They're both great at doing similar things in a completely different way 😅😂
Is there a category for Star Trek the original series... that mixes actual magical thinking with science? I dont have issues with the warp drive concept. I do have issues with telepathic aliens, energy beings, aliens that literally use magic, ghosts, emotional energy. The first series was very... “magical”
While yes the elements you mention are extremely outlandish and don't match sci fi at all for me the concept of a energy based lifeform is something many scientists consider.
Great explanation here.. I feel relieved because I can’t write science fiction.. my novel I am writing is thus Sci-fi fantasy.. thanks for the video. I needed this.
This video is not really a good reference for what is the definition of "Science Fantasy". What he is describing as "Science Fantasy" is in actuality Soft Sci-Fi (Sci-Fi stories that don't care as much about scientific accuracy) as opposed to Hard Sci-Fi (Sci-Fi that _does_ care about scientific accuracy). I don't blame him for getting things wrong and confused, though just as 90% of all people ever. The line between Sci-Fi and Fantasy can be really thin at times. In order to know what truly is "Science Fantasy" you need to know how to truly separate Science Fiction from Fantasy. If you really want to know the real distinction between them... well, it is rather complex still, but the short version is: Fantasy is speculative fiction that has a non-naturalistic vision of its own setting. Science Fiction, in contrast, is speculative fiction that _is_ naturalistic regarding its own setting. That is, Fantasy treats its non-real aspects as something supernatural that is beyond any scope of scientific analysis, thus making it "magic" (non-naturalism) Sci-Fi, on the other hand, has a materialist view of its setting, little matters how innacurate to real-life science and physics it might be. Sience Fantasy, by its turn, would have a certain level of hybridism and ambiguity between what is natural and is not natural. This entire topic on its longest version is complicated. But it comes mostly to the "feels" that your story wishes to bring upon either your magic or technology or "magic technology/technological magic" (???). I recommend having a read on the basics of naturalism (the philosophy) to get some grasp at this matter and then look at Warhammer 40K, DOOM and Honkai Impact 3rd for some more practical examples of this. Both are stories set in highly technological futuristic worlds where the "supernatural" still coexists (or is even used in conjuction) with such high tech and is treated as such thing beyond science on its highest scopes.
The goal with my series is to try and make a Science fiction version of the Fantasy Genre. Magic is so normal that it's as mundane and prevalent as gravity. Magic has hard rules that I adhere to in every use of it. For example, a magic user can't use magic to propel himself. everything is relative to the user. If you levitate a ball. it's not just moving up. It's moving along with the rotation, and motion of the planet. but the user doesn't see that from their perspective because they're also moving at that speed.
But how to call a genre where... there is definitely magic and that's not normal for real physics, but that magic is discribed so in detail that it looks like a real science but still doesn't exist? I'm trying to call it "science fantasy", but i'm looking for a more correct name. I really do care about real science and trying to make my "magic science" believable and explicable. There is more depth to the lore of the world that way. Maybe "fantasy science"?
Seems like people are confused. A lot are coming at Science Fantasy from the wrong end, i.e the science. Science Fantasy is named because it is Fantasy that on the surface looks like SciFi. "Star Wars" has more in common with The "Lord of the Rings" than "Star Trek", but is misnamed as scifi because has space. How the Death Star navigates the space is equally as scientific as using leylines or magic mirrors to warp an army around a pseudo medieval Europe. Movie adaptations don't help as most science-fiction novels are converted to fantasy by removing/misunderstanding all the science, or in the case of "Starship Troopers" they become soap-operas.
If I'm trying to write a science fiction in a fantasy world...am I doing it wrong? (i.e. if magic and dragons, etc. existed, what would technology be like?)
Tim Morrison take a look at 40k. Demons, elves and orcs with skeletal robots and aliens and guns, spaceships and superweapons mixed with magic, hammers and swords. You can definitely have both in one universe, the only limit is your imagination.
Warhammer 40000 is actually science fantasy. As soon as any sort of magic is introduced in large capacity is stops being science fantasy. If you wish to try to put fantasy elements in you may want to try looking at a hard magic system and the magic used must be in limited amounts or relies more on explainable technology than a reliance on magic for combat or the average day to day.
sci-fi is based on one or more technology that completely change the life style of the protagonist (and they can be anythign), while fantasy is a story with "magical" thing inside it, and is based on the protagonist
I've always thought of Sci-Fi as an "what if" in terms of science, like what if telekinesis or telepathy is possible, how would that shape the world/galaxy/universe. But my views bring some problems with them, what is the difference between Sci-Fi (and Science-Fantasy) and Fantasy, well there isn't, there are just different levels of probability, consistency, etc. Why are Tolkien's books fantasy and Star Wars Sci-Fi/Science Fantasy? Tolkien's works are much more worked out and consistent (IMHO), Star Wars has magic and a creation myth, yet one is "Science Whatever" and the other "Fantasy"? The only truly applicable term is speculative fiction, in my opinion.
I would argue that Science Fantasy is just a subset of Fantasy that uses some superficial "sciencey" aesthetics. The main difference between Sci-Fi and Science Fantasy is that Sci-Fi focuses on the science as a core part of its plot, whereas Science Fantasy just uses the science as a cool narrative tool for a plot that otherwise explores more Fantasy tropes (magic, heroism, destiny, etc.)
I came here looking for books like star wars, because I am pretty sure that is science fantasy, and I want a book that takes the ideas to the next level. I would like a book that feels like a fantasy space action adventure, recommend me any you like 😁
It seems as though most readers do not care and writers are under no pressure. Mark Long gets centrifugal force wrong in the first chapter of Misjump but told me the story was hard SF. Most reviews seem to be good though.
Say, wouldn't a lot of Final Fantasy games be science fantasy? 6, 7, 13, and 15 are the most obvious, but think about it: in nearly every single Final Fantasy, there was some form of futuristic technology (mostly in the form of airships). It became a lot more prevalent in the later games (I think from something like 6 on), but it's always been there, now that I think about it.
They did not want you to know they copied Lost World of Arthur Conan Doyle until the sequel where they made it obvious calling it Jurassic Park Lost World.
So what exactly was cyborg big foot on The six million dollar man and why call it return of big foot when used two different actors one was Andre the giant the other Ted Cassidy that played Lurch on the Addams Family. If they wore shoes contain iron or cobalt and turned on electro magnet could have some effect to hold in place when flipping a switch. Obviously effects on body would be those of a magnet and not those of gravity however shoes would be attracted to electro-magnetic plates.
the whole space ring with the centrifugal force is actually a real proposal and sci-fi writers just use it because it is very well plausible but never done. I prefer sci-fi over fantasy because I like realism... Though fantasy is fine if they are consistent but sadly many are not. And at the same time many sci-fi is really stupid. Both in terms of the suspension of disbelief and research of said technology. They also never think about how said technology could of been applied to many other fields and the intelligence of the civilization that incorporates it. That itself causes inconsistencies. "Why do they only use it for this single purpose when it had so many potential? Why would anyone make such a decision when the civilization should of been way more intelligent than modern day."
Fantasy can be just as researched as Sci-Fi. Think Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings. So 'Sci-Fan' can be as researched as Sci-Fi. I think your definition of fantasy is limiting. This genre's go-to academic discipline usually is history (real events, old myths, folk tales) where as sci-fi's is science. Both have intellectual credentials.
Some alien races could have descended from earth humans to explain them speaking English also Star Trek has universal translator to translate known languages of known alien races.
What you're desribing as science fantasy is just fantasy (in space). You even basically said yourself that there's nothing scientific about it. So why put the wor science in it.
i sorry but surely the word that should be changed is science no fiction. because fiction and fantasy are basically the same word. i mean it. look fantasy up in a thesaurus and you will find fiction as the 1st word. it sould be science fiction. and space fiction.
Yeah.. grammatically fiction is a recognizable product of someones fantasies (imagination). There are actually more problems with the science fantasy term. "I am writing an SF book." - sad Tom. What kind of book is Tom writing? A speculative fiction book? A science fiction book? Or did he mean science fantasy? At this point of time we have a third abbreviation..
Scifi... meh. It’s not based on science. It’s techno-fantasy. There’s very very little actual science fiction. Hard science is barely present in the works labeled as science fiction. Lately, every scifi movie and show has holographic all over the place. There’s ZERO basis for it in actual science. Also, you read the Rod Sterling quote wrongly.
Why do you call it "science" then and not just fantasy . Looks to me you are inventing words without any logical base . It's just fantasy not science fantasy !
Because it uses the backdrop of a science fiction story. Future technology and such you get what I mean right. Calling it just fantasy makes people think of stuff like Lord of the Rings or Skyrim or Fable or Dark Souls. The thing about science fantasy is it is someone a merger of Science Fiction and Fantasy elements balancing both but not committing completely to one or the other do usually a hearing more towards the fantasy side of things. Science fiction always tries to either explain or if it's like Rick and Morty just hand wave it because the one who knows the science can't exactly explain it in dumb enough terms because he's too smart, and if he does explain it it's in a somewhat backhanded way that just makes it sound plausible and not possible.
Sorry, but this distinction is not helpful at all. Most people struggle to differentiate (or even admit the difference between) SciFi and space fantasy, and now you go and open up a category in the grey area between them which most people fail to recognize in the first place. You make the problem worse by showing (the original) Star Wars as as example of your "science fantasy", which could not be more wrong. George Lucas has clearly declared his old trilogy as "fantasy" - withOUT any scientific reference. The first scientific elements to show up in SW are the creation of the clone army and, of course, the unspeakable midichlorians. Also, "Interstellar", for all its pretentious pseudo-scientific crap, is still a very clear-cut SciFi story, because it *uses* the scientific priniciples it lays out - no matter how stupid - as storytelling devices; and *that* is what makes SciFi: the science and/or technology is *relevant to the plot* of the story. If it just remains decoration like the stupid "Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs", then you have *space fantasy*, NOT "science" fantasy. For the same reason, Star Trek is very clearly Science *Fiction* , NOT "fantasy", because all the completely fictional science babble is *relevant to the development of the PLOT* : transporter failures, warp bubbles - heck, even an entire _wormhole_ dominates the pacing of what is possible and what isn't for the length of an _entire series_ of the franchise. If you want to educate people about the differentiation between SciFi and fantasy, please start with the basics that almost everyone I meet on RUclips still needs before they can move on to finer differentiation.
While classification in the video feels more logical it is not possible to make that judgment without good knowledge of physic and other science fields. as if warp drive is fantasy or reality. also with better knowledge sci-fi eventually turns into nonsense fantasy So your classification is more practical because you do not need that knowledge to make a decision
Well, I think the whole distinction between Sci-Fi and Fantasy is wrong anyway. Maybe you're right with the "science relevant to the plot", but that would really require some *major* reclassifications.
MrWheelman82 I think reclassification is not that much required because even while wrong criteria lead to correct results as it si applied incorrectly. Something like StarTrek is considered science fiction even if their science has no relation to real physic or even basic common sense.
The term I hear in the fandom seems to be the hard/soft continuum. I tend to prefer sci-fi towards the softer end of the spectrum because the scientific hardness frequently comes at the expensive of plot and the ability to tell a good story.
Science fantasy is better because star wars and 40k. Why limit yourself to sci fi when you can have both? Give me a hard sci fi universe that are cooler than either of these two, I'll wait.
None of this is true. Anything that is Science Fantasy, would be Science Fiction. It is a subgenre at best to help find something more specific, and at worst it is a term for elitists.
He pretty much described 'hard science fiction'. There is no way to figure out what soft science fiction would mean by watching this video. And soft SF is very much a thing. Even befor something got called Science Fantasy..
Science Fantasy is my genre. I can't write pure science or pure fantasy. I mix them usually.
Same same
Me too. My current story is gonzo fantasy with elements of magical realism and some anime and superhero elements.
can u name some novels of this genre?
@@arpankumarbasak1813 I have a few for you; Black Sun Rising
by C.S. Friedman, The Gunslinger
by Stephen King, Artemis Fowl
by Eoin Colfer, and Iron Widow by Xiran Ja Zhaom.
@@legionairesunny5507 Thanks !
The difference between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy isn't that the former explains the origin of every single fantastic element. In most cases audiences and readers would die of boredom--as many claimed to after watching Primer. It's that Science Fantasy bends, breaks, and simply ignores the rules for the sake of a new imaginary landscape, while Science Fiction ponders the implications of such breaches. Star Trek doesn't explain how Warp Drive is possible--beyond the theoretical inspiration--and Star Wars doesn't go into the details of Hyperdrive, but the former explores the hypothetical implications of such a technology while the latter uses theirs as a way to get their characters from point A to point B.
Brian C
I wrote a mystery novel set in the future where the an AIDS vaccine exists (like the Rabies vaccines)
Not sure if it’s sci fi or science fantasy but I it’s mostly mundane. Maybe it’s the later I made up how it works
@@Adven4U1 Sounds like sci-fi to me, especially if you're exploring themes about the vaccine itself, its implications etc.
Some things seem to straddle a boundary, breaking "rules" that conventional science follows but still going out of their way to provide a plausible explanation for its tech. Others entangle themselves it with the goals set out in the video, primarily delivering a good story and incidentally using real science to lend credence. This spectrum of science fiction is probably what lead to the coining of terms like hard SF and soft SF.
As a person who loves math and science, I view Sci-fi as a bigger payoff but with more work. The centripetal force example is a normie version of that but it is a great way to illustrate the difference.
Or hard and soft Sci-fi, which you've got to remember exist on a spectrum. It's never just one or the other.
Star Trek is Science Fiction, Star Wars is Science Fantasy.
neither are sci fi...just space opera
But according to his explanation, Star Trek would be fantasy also, so...
Both fantasy and both fiction.
@@niarlatotepbasset Very seldom did they have opera singers then again neither does soap operas so what do they mean by operas?
Both are Science Fantasy, ST is just a tad closer to the SciFi end of the scale.
SW is an interesting case too, especially when considering the differences between Canon and Legends. While Legends seems more fantastical, it also explains more, both with fantasy and science.
How many different genres are there, really? And why does the Sci Fi genre define setting, while mystery defines plot, and YA defines age group? Why are all of these things different?
I dunno, most people don't say Sci Fi isn't Sci Fi unless it's hard sci fi and say anything past that is science fantasy. Usually that brings to mind things like say the content of Gloryhammer albums to name the only direct example I know off the top of my head.
You know, wizards _in space_.
Honestly this sounds more like the difference between hard sci-fi and soft sci-fi, not sci-fi and sci-fantasy. Halo for instance, the game you used the clip of for science fantasy, to me is just a soft sci-fi since it doesn't explain things (in-depth) like gravity drives, but it also doesn't rely on supernatural elements that make a true science fantasy story.
I like the idea of having writing that has elements of both and is therefore ambiguous. With the scientific believability of sci-fi and the wonder and fantasticality of sci-fantasy.
"Science fiction makes the implausible possible, while science fantasy makes the impossible plausible." -- Rod Serling (The Twilight Zone - Season 3; Episode 25: "The Fugitive" March 9, 1962)
You're confusing hard sf with soft sf.
Science fiction is technology (even outdated tech, think steam punk). Science fantasy is adding magic and fantasy (such as LotR, magic, or comic book mutants).
Yes, exactly. This is not a correct definition.
Terry Ghast
The difference there lies more on how it is treated.
Magic, even when having a very detailed system, is always seen as this “divine” or “spiritual” element that may not only defy the laws of physics as we know it, but that is outright separate from it, and can’t be explained through science.
Sufficiently advanced science however, although usually as vague and mysterious as the standard magic, is on the other hand regarded as a technological marvel, that can be achieved with science, just that we don’t know or understand how.
One is a otherworldly phenomenon that is considered in one way or another “sacred” that we at best can only manipulate but not fully replicate with science.
The other is just another part of the mundane world and fully achievable with sufficient intelligence, we just don’t know enough to reach that level yet.
@@zettovii1367 So basically, the difference between a naturalistic worldview and a non-naturalistic worldview.
So star wars is sience fantasy
Anime Gandalf sience
Always has been 🔫 >:)
Yes for Star Wars does have a magic system in the force. A lot of people tend to think that it's a version of Science Fiction.
@NW Emerson Dead Space Falls more into the cosmic horror category truly and a lot of dead space is actually explained in the games.
@NW Emerson Science Fiction with a dash of cosmic horror since they explain most of the science. As long as they explain the science sufficiently enough then it is science fiction if they don't explain the science and also have a magic system then it's science fantasy what's the difference between Star Wars and Star Trek as I am a fan of both can tell you that they have very different approaches. there's also the fact that Star Wars takes place a long time ago in a galaxy far far away wow Star Trek takes place in the comparative future from when the series was made.
Regarding the Space Opera genre, Science fiction is set in our galaxy in the distant future, while science fantasy is set in "a galaxy far, far away".
vgmaster9 I'm not so sure. Avatars' "Pandora" is in the milky way galaxy and that's most definitely a space fantasy. I don't think location is the defining factor for fantasy vs fiction. But this topic us very up to interpretation and debate which is what makes it so interesting.
Pen & Sword Thing is, Avatar isn't set in space, but on a planet (a moon to be specific), so that would make it "Planetary Romance" Instead of Space Opera. John Carter is a similar example.
vgmaster9 I was actually about to bring up John Carter but you beat me to it lol.
The point I was trying to make in my video was basically just because you're writing a science related story, doesn't mean hard science has to make the rules, the author can have just as much power, and a lot of new authors don't realize that. We can split hairs all day over what we determine is or isn't science fantasy but that's not exactly what I was trying to convey...
Although it is a fun discussion (what would you consider The Matrix to be?)
Pen & Sword I would label The Matrix as "Cyberpunk" without a second thought.
I think those are different ways to determine genres, much like history can be seen from the point of view of the art (Romanticism, Realism, Gothic, etc) or technology (Stone age, Metal ages, Industrial age, etc).
There can be science fiction space operas (The Expanse) and sience fantasy space operas (Star wars).
Science fiction/fantasy are from the point of view of plausibility (or ate least believability).
Space operas, cyberpunk, planetary romance are from the point of view of setting and scale of the story.
One general trend of Fantasy (of all types) is the idea of the downward trend of ability. The elves of old made wonders that we cannot replicate, the Jedi held illustrious wisdom from the Ancients, the ability to cast this type of magic is lost to us, the First Men were powerful beyond imagining, etc. If you see this kind of thing, your probably reading some kind of fantasy (or post-apocalyptic).
The strangest example of this that I can think of is in the Night Angel series by Brent Weeks. The spells to make clean plumbing have been lost, but they can enchant self rowing boats.
You have very good content Hopefully you get more views and recognition soon! Good luck!
Wait you got it wrong. Your talking about hard vs soft sci-fi. A science fantasy is a genre that blends elements of science fiction and fantasy. The difference is that sci-fi doesn’t use any magic or supernatural elements but is manly rooted in science. An example of a science fantasy is Star Wars which has spaceships, robots, and aliens coexisting with wizards ( Yoda ) and magic ( the force.) or Marvel and DC comics have worlds were sci-fi and fantasy coexist ( for example Thor coexists alongside a man who wears power armor.)
You'd be veru wrong with Star Wars being Sci-Fantasy. The Force is caused by microorganisms called Mediclorians. If you watched Episode 1 it gives a brief explaintion with the books giving a deeper explanation. Fantasy usually doesnt explain it's magic unless you're watching some anime where it gets stupid. Star Wars has elves, lizard folk and dragons, but they're all very much alien with little to no real connection to their fantasy counter parts save visuals. Space Wizards is close but not nearly the due respect the actual group deserves same goes for Sith and the Witches. It's all hear say, the Sith think its some great power while the Witches dont even call it the Force but the Ikor. Jedi know exactly what it is and why it shouldn't be abused the way these other groups do, because its a living thing that somehow connects beings to the very essence of the reality around them.
I'm fairly certain, at least when looking at all that I've read on the genre of science fantasy, that what you described in the video was more of a hard sci-fi vs soft sci-fi, rather than vs science fantasy. Sci-fi is broad and can be divided into those two categories and others etc. But science fantasy is pretty much a mixture of sci-fi and fantasy (ex. technology and magic etc etc etc.).
Personally I think the way the story is told is a more useful distinction between the two sub genres if any should be made. I think Science Fantasy is more about a story, that happens to be set in a futuristic world, but could also be told in another setting. In Science Fantasy science is treated like magic and I think there is even a quote out there that any technology advanced enough may as well be magic. As an example, Avatar doesn't even have really "magical" technology and we know from Pocahontas, that the story fits very well in other settings.
Science Fiction on the other hand the world and it's advanced technology play a major role in the story. No matter how fantastic or unrealistic it may be, the technology and it's impact on society is an integral part of the story and the world. For example, in Mass Effect, the important bit is in the title. The writers introduced one new, impossible element to fuel all the impossible things that exist in the universe, like FTL travel and telekinesis, yet it is all part of the plot and an integral part of the world.
I think sci-fi writers also have to invent science - if they place the action in the future, there's tons of stuff we don't have yet, but they still keep the appearance of realism
Star Wars and Doctor Who made me realise science fantasy is more my jam. One of my fave modern examples of science fantasy might be the adventure zone podcast which lands itself more on the pure fantasy side but slowly starts implementing more and more sci-fi tropes into it till it ends up basically science fantasy
Am I the only one who likes your knight plate armour, samurai armour, Horned Viking armour ect over your over the top sci fi suits and power armours? There's a simple elegance about it them makes them beautiful and badass at the same time.
What about Moh's Scale of Sci-Fi hardness? Does that play into SciFi or SciFa at all?
I don't find this to be a very accurate definition of Science Fantasy. My understanding is based on Clarks' Third Law ("Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.") and Niven's Law ( "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology."). Sci-fi is based in worlds with concepts capable of being explained, normally derived from scientific thinking. In the case of fantasy, we have otherworldly forces, mysterious even when explanations are offered. The core principles of Science Fantasy are uncertainty and doubt. The explanations are sufficient to be very near to science, yet some pieces are missing. So the reader is caught between several possible explanations with never being given any solid hint to magic or science. Maybe both are the same. Science fantasy is a very hard genre to write convincingly requiring a writer well versed on the tropes of sci-fi and fantasy to put a cohesive world. A good example of modern Science Fantasy literary piece is the séries "His Dark Materials" by Phillip Pullman.
Dragon Ball can also be described as science fantasy with emphasis on aliens, androids and scientific geniuses but also combining Gods, magic, mysticism and the afterlife. Also Akira Toriyama is not interested in exploring science since eh utilized many pseudoscientific ideas such as Lamarckism. He once explained that Goten is stronger than Gohan because Goku was more powerful( Super Saiyan) when Goten was conceived. This is an example of Lamarckism in which acquired characteristics will be inherited by future generations. This very shady at best since this means that if a children or descendants of a skilled athlete like Usain Bolt or Gerard would acquire sport skills even without undergoing the same training
Have you done Historical Fiction vs Historical Fantasy?
Actually no no no the chance of a dinosaur zoo is impossible as the DNA from that long ago dose not that last that long but it’s still science fiction not fantasy
Cool
Okay so short story:
Sci-fi: Halo
Sci-fan: Doom
That's a great exemplification of it.
I hope there's a mention of Warhammer 40,000 in the science fantasy part.
Thank you for the information cuz im planning to make an story of an medieval era but like to fit in sci-fi. Now I know what I have to do further!❤
3:44 you somehow misquoted him while having the quote right there
this is why Syfy and fantasy should always be presented as separate individuals.
Another great Video !!! as expected.
it really helped me to separate the blurred line between these two heavily merged genres. ### ONE BIG REQUEST ###
can you PLEASE do a similar video for the thriller vs drama, ( need, audience effect, the motivation behind chosen route) why does any author particularly choose either route to convey.?special mention genre : thriller drama and dramatic thriller.
Anil Barwar I will have to do more research on both genres, but I can see an episode on those in the future.
Thanks for the feedback!
I love this video is basically Star Trek vs Star Wars... Did you know you can actually enjoy and appreciate both? I do and I don't see one as better than the other. Sometimes I'm in a more escapist mood and want the laser swords and mystical force powers and sometimes I want a more grounded and logical story. They're both great at doing similar things in a completely different way 😅😂
Okay so if I'm writing a novel about humans going to war with an alien race of space reptiles, is that Science Fiction or Science Fantasy?
So in this sense wouldnt almost all time travel stories be considered science fantasy rather than scifi?
Thank you for this explanation
Is there a category for Star Trek the original series... that mixes actual magical thinking with science? I dont have issues with the warp drive concept. I do have issues with telepathic aliens, energy beings, aliens that literally use magic, ghosts, emotional energy. The first series was very... “magical”
While yes the elements you mention are extremely outlandish and don't match sci fi at all for me the concept of a energy based lifeform is something many scientists consider.
Great explanation here.. I feel relieved because I can’t write science fiction.. my novel I am writing is thus Sci-fi fantasy.. thanks for the video. I needed this.
This video is not really a good reference for what is the definition of "Science Fantasy". What he is describing as "Science Fantasy" is in actuality Soft Sci-Fi (Sci-Fi stories that don't care as much about scientific accuracy) as opposed to Hard Sci-Fi (Sci-Fi that _does_ care about scientific accuracy). I don't blame him for getting things wrong and confused, though just as 90% of all people ever. The line between Sci-Fi and Fantasy can be really thin at times. In order to know what truly is "Science Fantasy" you need to know how to truly separate Science Fiction from Fantasy.
If you really want to know the real distinction between them... well, it is rather complex still, but the short version is: Fantasy is speculative fiction that has a non-naturalistic vision of its own setting. Science Fiction, in contrast, is speculative fiction that _is_ naturalistic regarding its own setting. That is, Fantasy treats its non-real aspects as something supernatural that is beyond any scope of scientific analysis, thus making it "magic" (non-naturalism) Sci-Fi, on the other hand, has a materialist view of its setting, little matters how innacurate to real-life science and physics it might be. Sience Fantasy, by its turn, would have a certain level of hybridism and ambiguity between what is natural and is not natural.
This entire topic on its longest version is complicated. But it comes mostly to the "feels" that your story wishes to bring upon either your magic or technology or "magic technology/technological magic" (???). I recommend having a read on the basics of naturalism (the philosophy) to get some grasp at this matter and then look at Warhammer 40K, DOOM and Honkai Impact 3rd for some more practical examples of this. Both are stories set in highly technological futuristic worlds where the "supernatural" still coexists (or is even used in conjuction) with such high tech and is treated as such thing beyond science on its highest scopes.
I always wonder about a science-fantasy story in a solarpunk world where all the magic is a variation of technomancy
Thank you very much. Sir.
The goal with my series is to try and make a Science fiction version of the Fantasy Genre.
Magic is so normal that it's as mundane and prevalent as gravity. Magic has hard rules that I adhere to in every use of it. For example, a magic user can't use magic to propel himself. everything is relative to the user. If you levitate a ball. it's not just moving up. It's moving along with the rotation, and motion of the planet. but the user doesn't see that from their perspective because they're also moving at that speed.
But how to call a genre where... there is definitely magic and that's not normal for real physics, but that magic is discribed so in detail that it looks like a real science but still doesn't exist? I'm trying to call it "science fantasy", but i'm looking for a more correct name. I really do care about real science and trying to make my "magic science" believable and explicable. There is more depth to the lore of the world that way.
Maybe "fantasy science"?
Hard fantasy?
No. Just no.
It's still just fantasy, just that it has a hardcore or meticulous magic system.
The youtuber "Hello Future Me" actually made a video on that.
"How to design a hard magic system."
Seems like people are confused. A lot are coming at Science Fantasy from the wrong end, i.e the science. Science Fantasy is named because it is Fantasy that on the surface looks like SciFi. "Star Wars" has more in common with The "Lord of the Rings" than "Star Trek", but is misnamed as scifi because has space. How the Death Star navigates the space is equally as scientific as using leylines or magic mirrors to warp an army around a pseudo medieval Europe.
Movie adaptations don't help as most science-fiction novels are converted to fantasy by removing/misunderstanding all the science, or in the case of "Starship Troopers" they become soap-operas.
Sci Fi can be escapist as well
Thank you for the explanation I do not think I am cut up to write hard science fiction however I can incorporate it whenever I possible into my stuff.
I just found your channel and it's pretty great 👍🏻
you only have a few videos? Are you making more?
Hey wow i know youre a busy guy and i sure as heck am hitting that subscribe button anyway but i cant wait to see ut future content
Is this Brandon Sanderson's voice? Not sure if he is affiliated with this channel or not.
If I'm trying to write a science fiction in a fantasy world...am I doing it wrong? (i.e. if magic and dragons, etc. existed, what would technology be like?)
Tim Morrison take a look at 40k. Demons, elves and orcs with skeletal robots and aliens and guns, spaceships and superweapons mixed with magic, hammers and swords. You can definitely have both in one universe, the only limit is your imagination.
Warhammer 40000 is actually science fantasy. As soon as any sort of magic is introduced in large capacity is stops being science fantasy.
If you wish to try to put fantasy elements in you may want to try looking at a hard magic system and the magic used must be in limited amounts or relies more on explainable technology than a reliance on magic for combat or the average day to day.
sci-fi is based on one or more technology that completely change the life style of the protagonist (and they can be anythign), while fantasy is a story with "magical" thing inside it, and is based on the protagonist
So Star Wars is a Science Fantasy
Absolutely.
I've always thought of Sci-Fi as an "what if" in terms of science, like what if telekinesis or telepathy is possible, how would that shape the world/galaxy/universe.
But my views bring some problems with them, what is the difference between Sci-Fi (and Science-Fantasy) and Fantasy, well there isn't, there are just different levels of probability, consistency, etc. Why are Tolkien's books fantasy and Star Wars Sci-Fi/Science Fantasy? Tolkien's works are much more worked out and consistent (IMHO), Star Wars has magic and a creation myth, yet one is "Science Whatever" and the other "Fantasy"?
The only truly applicable term is speculative fiction, in my opinion.
I would argue that Science Fantasy is just a subset of Fantasy that uses some superficial "sciencey" aesthetics. The main difference between Sci-Fi and Science Fantasy is that Sci-Fi focuses on the science as a core part of its plot, whereas Science Fantasy just uses the science as a cool narrative tool for a plot that otherwise explores more Fantasy tropes (magic, heroism, destiny, etc.)
@@Lazurath101 extacly this
Any staple aliens for a science fantasy story/setting? Making a story, wondering what kind of aliens too add
Thanks
I came here looking for books like star wars, because I am pretty sure that is science fantasy, and I want a book that takes the ideas to the next level. I would like a book that feels like a fantasy space action adventure, recommend me any you like 😁
i dont know who you are but i have just made an essay based on your video, thanks
It seems as though most readers do not care and writers are under no pressure. Mark Long gets centrifugal force wrong in the first chapter of Misjump but told me the story was hard SF. Most reviews seem to be good though.
Say, wouldn't a lot of Final Fantasy games be science fantasy? 6, 7, 13, and 15 are the most obvious, but think about it: in nearly every single Final Fantasy, there was some form of futuristic technology (mostly in the form of airships). It became a lot more prevalent in the later games (I think from something like 6 on), but it's always been there, now that I think about it.
They did not want you to know they copied Lost World of Arthur Conan Doyle until the sequel where they made it obvious calling it Jurassic Park Lost World.
So what exactly was cyborg big foot on The six million dollar man and why call it return of big foot when used two different actors one was Andre the giant the other Ted Cassidy that played Lurch on the Addams Family. If they wore shoes contain iron or cobalt and turned on electro magnet could have some effect to hold in place when flipping a switch. Obviously effects on body would be those of a magnet and not those of gravity however shoes would be attracted to electro-magnetic plates.
What about Destiny? It has planets and aliens. But it has magic and the monsters are named from mythical creatures. 🤷
Can you make Science Fanasty Mixed with Science Fiction together?
that would be soft sci-fi, which is still technically sci-fantasy but less on the fantasy part. Kinda.
the whole space ring with the centrifugal force is actually a real proposal and sci-fi writers just use it because it is very well plausible but never done. I prefer sci-fi over fantasy because I like realism... Though fantasy is fine if they are consistent but sadly many are not.
And at the same time many sci-fi is really stupid. Both in terms of the suspension of disbelief and research of said technology. They also never think about how said technology could of been applied to many other fields and the intelligence of the civilization that incorporates it. That itself causes inconsistencies. "Why do they only use it for this single purpose when it had so many potential? Why would anyone make such a decision when the civilization should of been way more intelligent than modern day."
Fantasy can be just as researched as Sci-Fi. Think Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings. So 'Sci-Fan' can be as researched as Sci-Fi. I think your definition of fantasy is limiting. This genre's go-to academic discipline usually is history (real events, old myths, folk tales) where as sci-fi's is science. Both have intellectual credentials.
Good vid bruh
Some alien races could have descended from earth humans to explain them speaking English also Star Trek has universal translator to translate known languages of known alien races.
What you're desribing as science fantasy is just fantasy (in space). You even basically said yourself that there's nothing scientific about it. So why put the wor science in it.
i sorry but surely the word that should be changed is science no fiction. because fiction and fantasy are basically the same word. i mean it. look fantasy up in a thesaurus and you will find fiction as the 1st word.
it sould be science fiction. and space fiction.
It's more on the connotations of the words really than the actual meanings
Yeah.. grammatically fiction is a recognizable product of someones fantasies (imagination).
There are actually more problems with the science fantasy term.
"I am writing an SF book." - sad Tom.
What kind of book is Tom writing? A speculative fiction book? A science fiction book? Or did he mean science fantasy?
At this point of time we have a third abbreviation..
Argument is a bit too reductive.
Rick and Morty?
Warhammer 40k is science fantasy.
100%, and I just got into Warhammer 40k during quarantine. Enjoying painting figures so far!
Life finds a way
...,,star wars'' and ,,star trek'' aren't sci-fi...DUNE & Space Odyssey are SCI FI
Scifi... meh. It’s not based on science. It’s techno-fantasy. There’s very very little actual science fiction. Hard science is barely present in the works labeled as science fiction. Lately, every scifi movie and show has holographic all over the place. There’s ZERO basis for it in actual science. Also, you read the Rod Sterling quote wrongly.
it is fine
Dragon Ball is a science fantasy
Serling*
Why do you call it "science" then and not just fantasy . Looks to me you are inventing words without any logical base . It's just fantasy not science fantasy !
Because it uses the backdrop of a science fiction story. Future technology and such you get what I mean right. Calling it just fantasy makes people think of stuff like Lord of the Rings or Skyrim or Fable or Dark Souls. The thing about science fantasy is it is someone a merger of Science Fiction and Fantasy elements balancing both but not committing completely to one or the other do usually a hearing more towards the fantasy side of things. Science fiction always tries to either explain or if it's like Rick and Morty just hand wave it because the one who knows the science can't exactly explain it in dumb enough terms because he's too smart, and if he does explain it it's in a somewhat backhanded way that just makes it sound plausible and not possible.
Sorry, but this distinction is not helpful at all. Most people struggle to differentiate (or even admit the difference between) SciFi and space fantasy, and now you go and open up a category in the grey area between them which most people fail to recognize in the first place. You make the problem worse by showing (the original) Star Wars as as example of your "science fantasy", which could not be more wrong. George Lucas has clearly declared his old trilogy as "fantasy" - withOUT any scientific reference. The first scientific elements to show up in SW are the creation of the clone army and, of course, the unspeakable midichlorians.
Also, "Interstellar", for all its pretentious pseudo-scientific crap, is still a very clear-cut SciFi story, because it *uses* the scientific priniciples it lays out - no matter how stupid - as storytelling devices; and *that* is what makes SciFi: the science and/or technology is *relevant to the plot* of the story. If it just remains decoration like the stupid "Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs", then you have *space fantasy*, NOT "science" fantasy.
For the same reason, Star Trek is very clearly Science *Fiction* , NOT "fantasy", because all the completely fictional science babble is *relevant to the development of the PLOT* : transporter failures, warp bubbles - heck, even an entire _wormhole_ dominates the pacing of what is possible and what isn't for the length of an _entire series_ of the franchise.
If you want to educate people about the differentiation between SciFi and fantasy, please start with the basics that almost everyone I meet on RUclips still needs before they can move on to finer differentiation.
While classification in the video feels more logical it is not possible to make that judgment without good knowledge of physic and other science fields. as if warp drive is fantasy or reality.
also with better knowledge sci-fi eventually turns into nonsense fantasy
So your classification is more practical because you do not need that knowledge to make a decision
Well, I think the whole distinction between Sci-Fi and Fantasy is wrong anyway.
Maybe you're right with the "science relevant to the plot", but that would really require some *major* reclassifications.
MrWheelman82
I think reclassification is not that much required because even while wrong criteria lead to correct results as it si applied incorrectly.
Something like StarTrek is considered science fiction even if their science has no relation to real physic or even basic common sense.
The term I hear in the fandom seems to be the hard/soft continuum.
I tend to prefer sci-fi towards the softer end of the spectrum because the scientific hardness frequently comes at the expensive of plot and the ability to tell a good story.
plausible, not probable.
Science fantasy is better because star wars and 40k. Why limit yourself to sci fi when you can have both? Give me a hard sci fi universe that are cooler than either of these two, I'll wait.
None of this is true. Anything that is Science Fantasy, would be Science Fiction. It is a subgenre at best to help find something more specific, and at worst it is a term for elitists.
He pretty much described 'hard science fiction'.
There is no way to figure out what soft science fiction would mean by watching this video. And soft SF is very much a thing. Even befor something got called Science Fantasy..