Carl is outside in his boxers trying to get his girlfriend’s cat out of a tree when everything with a roof on the planet is destroyed and the smaller number of survivors are made to compete in an intergalactic dungeon game similar to D&D. If this sounds kind of dumb, I described it correctly; it’s kind of dumb. It’s also fairly entertaining and has a good amount of heart. People who have played any sort of role playing game, like World Of Warcraft, will probably be extra amused.
By your description 99% of SciFi is fantasy. You’re just cherrypicking what you feel is “pure” sci-fi and what isn’t.
The Expanse, The Culture novels, Foundation, etc… is just fantasy by your description. I could use your rules to pick apart most sci-fi novels and explain how they are just fantasy.
A little piece of life advice, unless you’re in chemistry or metallurgy, purity tests always make you the bad guy.
The expanse is scifi, it uses believable extensions of our knowledge, they still have thrust mass, they still have deceleration. Thats probably one of the best examples to use as as scifi actually.
Haven’t consumed the culture.
And if you’ve read Foundations by Asimov and his other books, it’s all explained how the weirdness is an extension of current knowledge (60 years ago). Asimov created the genre, and he’s written nothing that’s fantasy.
None of those use handwaving to explain the “technology”.
Unlike DCC, unlike Star Wars, unlike Star Trek, unlike MCU, etc.
Read Asimovs definitions on what the difference between fantasy and scifi, he’s the one that pioneered the genre and was editor on countless magazines and other written media.
Magic alien space goo, psychics, etc…
Your distinctions are arbitrary and purely a function of how you feel about certain properties.
Enjoy your gatekeeping purity tests, I hope they bring you comfort.
They aren’t, they are the foundational and distinguishing differences between the scifi and fantasy genres.
Fantasy doesn’t explain the “magic” or the “tech” it’s all handwaved and is just there as part of the story.
Scifi on the other hand, the technology is the foundation of the story, and the rest is built off of that.
Both can use parts of each other, but how the story is built is which dictates which is the primary category it should be in.
If you can’t understand something, and someone is trying to explain it, does that make them gatekeeping?
So using those non arbitrary definitions, it’s pretty easy to see DCC is fantasy, along with Star Trek and wars
Foundation, expanse, Robots, they all fall into the other.
Using only excerpts from the books themselves. Explain to me how the proto molecule works without one iota of handwaiving.
That’s the combining with the fantasy genre, but everything in the slow and otherwise WAS explained with physics. Not well in the show, but the books yeah.
You’re also ignoring the key basis of the story being the technology and other parts. That’s not gonna help you comprehend it.
You’re hopeless
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t force it to drink.
If you’re gonna ignore established standards, and misinterpret what I’m saying because you think you’re correct, you aren’t gonna learn anything from that place of ignorance.
As a writer of sci-fi/fantasy stories, this level of willful ignorance makes me laugh.
What are the differences than?
These are the differences according to multiple veterans (literary the OG inventors of them…) of Sci fi and Fantasy writing. As well as definitions available on every library as well as Wikipedia and other available sources. We are just supposed to take your word over the proven professionals?
What are your qualifications other than self pronounced author? Usually when someone just interjects that they are lawyer, or a doctor, or other professional, without providing a detailed response, is just making stuff up.
Because the difference surely isn’t “it has spaceships”, that’s a gross oversimplification.
I think rather we need to go back and have you explain where you got these definitions because I’ve read a great many books of both genres and your definitions don’t fit most of them.
Lots of fantasy magic systems have explanations. They just tend to be fantastical explanations.
You count Star Trek as fantasy despite it fitting this description to a tee. Everything about the setting and the stories they tell are predicated on their living in a technologically advanced society. Replicators, transporters, warp drives, holodecks, self-aware AI, all technologies that make Star Trek possible.
Who says it needs to be put in a single primary category? Why can’t we have a sci-fi/fantasy genre in and of itself?
Basically, before you ask for my qualifications, I’m gonna need you to start making a single lick of sense in the first place.
In Star Trek, nothing is explained, it’s all handwaved and is just there as backround to the stories. You said it with your own words “the setting” that’s not the story or the backround of the universe now is it? You contradict yourself in your own point. Just because there is spaceships doesn’t mean it’s scifi, please provide an actual source that supports this exact statement. No one should take you for your word, especially when there is now a posted source that contradicts your statements.
That’s why it’s fantasy. Yes advanced technology exists, but how did they get there from where we are? If you need to suspend belief, it becomes fantasy instead of sci fi
I like their description though, it is just space elves and Klingons.
It just sounds like you self publish and call your stuff whatever you think will sell. Why should we listen to you? There’s sources and credible authors who support here views. What are your credentials, if it’s self published, you’re nothing more than a troll.
Yes it is. It’s not always explained well, and it doesn’t always make sense, but the key technologies of the setting such as transporters, replicator, and warp drives all have very reasonable explanations for how they work. This argument makes no sense on its face.
Magic, no how wonderfully explained, is not an extension of our universe.
I told you my sources?
You’re given the oversimplified modern version for mass appeal. That’s not how libraries and other places categorize the books.
We do have that genre? Science fantasy, that was covered already… you really aren’t given your ale dmucj merit here.
Then they should get with the times, which do change.
No, that’s science fantasy, not sci-fi/fantasy. The image you posted is just sci-fi. You’re not making whatever point you think you’re making.
Well thank goodness for that!