by Amelia Schaffer

Created on: June 20, 2009

The divide between science fiction and fantasy has been a subject of argument among authors and fans for many years. The debate has been most clearly illustrated by bookstores whose shelving systems separate the subjects into two different sections. There are some works which seem to definitively belong in one category or the other-e.g., J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is fantasy, Isaac Asimov's Foundation series is science fiction-but for many works there is no consistent separation. Is a book like Robert Silverberg's Lord Valentine's Castle, which uses typical elements of fantasy stories such as wizards and shapeshifters but is set on a faraway planet accessible by spaceship, science fiction or fantasy?

One standard is that "hard" science fiction-that is, science fiction which emphasizes scientific and technological detail and attempts to reflect accurate research-is science fiction because the science and technology are essential to the plot and are well explained, while "soft" science fiction, whose authors might fudge scientific details and facts for the sake of a good story, and which tends to emphasize character development over scientific intricacies, leans more towards fantasy because the science is not integral to the plot.

Even Star Wars, despite being set in a futuristic, spacefaring world (albeit "a long time ago"), has sometimes been categorized as fantasy rather than science fiction under much these same terms. After all, how is the Force much different than fantasy's usual wizardry or magic? How is the technology essential to the story when we are given no idea of how it works? Could we not easily set Star Wars in a fantasy world with orcs, goblins, and fairies instead of aliens and evil wizards instead of Sith lords and still have much the same story?

The false assumption, of course, is that if a story is based more on character development than technology, the setting has little or no significance. In fact the setting affects the character development a great deal, changing how the author can present them and how they are able to interact.

A less extreme argument would place the dividing line between stories that attempt to explain their universe in a scientific way, even if they are not focused on the scientific details or are riddled with inaccuracies, and stories that explain their universe by magic or not at all. But even this is a difficult line to draw. Before The Phantom Menace established that Force-sensitivity is controlled by midichlorians, Star Wars made no attempt to explain its existence in a scientific way. Even with this explanation, we do not know what the Force is or where it comes from; it might as well be magic. If some elements of a story's universe are explained by science and some are not, how can we easily categorize that story as science fiction or fantasy?

The unsatisfactory truth is that the difference between science fiction and fantasy is blurry and that attempting to place every story into a neat category is more trouble than it is worth. "Sci-fi/fantasy" may be too general of a label to make everyone happy, but it does keep us from spending more time arguing over definitions than enjoying a good story.

Learn more about this author, Amelia Schaffer.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.