I generally don’t concern myself with genre divisions as either a writer or a reader. When I’m looking for things to read, I want to spend my time with realistic characters inhabiting an immersive world—and, beyond that, I’m not too picky. I take the same approach when I’m writing. Whatever conventions and ideas fit a story are the ones that I’m going to use, even if that means pulling from multiple genres, or ending up somewhere in between them.

At least, until I get to the point that a story is finished and I’m trying to find a home for it. Then, the question of what genre it belongs to becomes more pressing. While there are a number of markets that accept any flavor of non-realistic fiction, others have a tighter focus on one genre or the other and I find myself forced to answer the question: just what do I call this weird thing that I’ve created?

I’m far from the only one who’s struggled with this question. I would argue, in fact, that the literary establishment at large hasn’t yet reached a firm consensus on exactly where the border falls between sci-fi and fantasy. Sure, there are some stories that are obviously one or the other—but if you were to gather up a roomful of speculative fiction nerds, you might be surprised by the extent of the debate even classic speculative works spur. Some call books like Dune or The Left Hand of Darkness core pillars of the sci-fi canon, while others would insist both are actually a form of science fantasy—not true sci-fi at all.

There are a few different ways you’ll hear people define the difference between these genres, and each approach has its merits (and staunch adherents). Here are the four I’ve seen the most: 

Border option 1: Science vs. magic

This is the division that I think you’d be most likely to hear if you asked the average consumer of speculative media to define the difference between these genres. In science-fiction, there is a scientific underpinning to any element that goes beyond present reality. This often takes the form of technology, like the robots and spaceships that are sci-fi staples. It can also speculate in other scientific fields. Jurassic Park would be sci-fi because it’s focused on genetics, as would iterations of the zombie trope that start from a pathogen, like Walking Dead or 28 Days Later.

Note that the science doesn’t need to make functional sense for something to be considered sci-fi under this definition. Star Wars would still be firmly in the sci-fi camp because the Force is explained as the result of midi-chlorians. It’s a ridiculous explanation, and all the fans hate it, but there is a scientific in-universe logic for the ability. 

Conversely, a story is fantasy when those elements are the result of magic, divine power, faith or spiritual power, or if they are completely unexplained or simply a natural part of the story’s world, like in magical realism. Because of this, some concepts could exist in either a sci-fi or fantasy story depending on how they’re presented. Zombies, for instance—if they’re the Voodoo kind, or nobody knows why people zombify, then that’s fantasy. Same goes for things like time travel. It’s sci-fi in things like Back to the Future or Bradbury’s “A Sound of Thunder” because humans invented it. It’s fantasy in Kindred or A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court because it just happens magically, with no attempt to explain why.

Border option 2: Possible (even if improbable) vs. impossible

This is a similar division to the above, but with a slight tweak. Under this definition, it’s not enough for there to be a scientific explanation for the speculative elements. That explanation also needs to be theoretically possible in consensus reality. It could be something that hasn’t been invented yet, like faster than light travel or sentient robots, but it needs to have a foundation in the known laws of our lived reality. 

Anything that isn’t possible is fantasy, even if it uses elements normally associated with sci-fi like space travel, dystopias, bioengineering, or aliens. In this sorting, Star Wars ends up in the fantasy genre, as do the majority of space operas. As to the other examples used above, Jurassic Park is still safely sci-fi (cloning exists, dinosaurs left genes—it could happen, theoretically), but most would say any zombie narrative goes on the fantasy side, even the ones that use the pathogen-as-origin approach.

This is the most wide-spread definition you’ll find among critics and scholars of the genres, and coincidentally happens to be my least favorite. The problem is that it’s incredibly subjective. New knowledge is being discovered all the time, and with it our view of what is possible shifts. Then there are things like UFOs and monsters like bigfoot or Nessie. Some would say these are all completely impossible; others, that they’re not only possible, but are actual reality (and that doesn’t even touch on the sticky wicket of spiritual beliefs and where divine power falls in the “possible vs. impossible” spectrum).

There are a lot of books, movies, and other media that ends up in what I think of as a “tomato situation” under this split of sci-fi vs. fantasy. A tomato is, technically, a fruit—but let’s be honest: it eats like a vegetable. That’s the function it serves when used as a culinary ingredient, and that’s what matters to most people, not its botanical classification. The same thing applies to media in a sense. Some stories read or watch like a sci-fi, even though what happens in them is definitely not possible, in any current interpretation of reality. That’s why, to me, this way of splitting the genres kind of misses the point.

Border option 3: Future vs. past

This division takes a different approach to how the genres are divided. It looks not at the details of the on-page content, but the way they’re being utilized from a thematic or meaning perspective. Both sci-fi and fantasy make use of non-real elements to hold a mirror to reality—to amplify an element of society that’s often overlooked, to explore the potential consequences of decisions or events, or to reframe current or historical events through a new lens that brings them into a different focus. 

When using this dividing line, a story is fantasy if it’s using speculative elements to reframe or examine humanity’s past. Conversely, science fiction looks forward toward what humanity could accomplish or become in the future. This also has ramifications for the emotional resonance of the stories. Fantasy stories deal with emotions like justice and nostalgia; often, a status quo is interrupted and the characters go on a quest to return things to how they used to be, an especially common plot arc in high fantasy. Sci-fi stories are more likely to be about exploration and change—breaking the status quo of a dystopian society, or a discovery that irreversibly shifts the way the characters interact with their world. 

Note that “future” and “past” don’t need to apply to the story’s time setting under this system. I’ll give an example of Battlestar Galactica. Technically, that takes place in the very far past, but it would still be sci-fi in this sorting, I think, because its characters are going through a seismic shift to their world. There is no going back or reclaiming the past; their only choice is to evolve into something new.

I enjoy this division from an intellectual standpoint, but ultimately I think it has similar issues to splitting the genres based on plausibility. Theme is often subjective, and it’s common for there to be multiple themes woven through any given story, or for different readers to get different meanings from the same piece. There’s also strong potential for tomato situations. This system would also plop Star Wars down in fantasy because its plot energy is past-looking—the characters’ goal is to overthrow the Empire and restore the peaceful Republic that had come before it. But when you go around telling people that Star Wars isn’t sci-fi you sound like that know-it-all friend who corrects people when they say tomatoes are vegetables. 

Border option 4: Setting.

In other words, this is the “if it quacks like a duck…” approach. In this system, a story is fantasy or sci-fi when it checks enough of the right boxes. If it’s set somewhere like an alien planet, a space station, a post-apocalyptic wasteland, or a surveillance-state dystopia, then it’s sci-fi. The tech they use could be utterly improbable. They could be werewolves in space, or the ship’s engines could be powered by magic, or it could be about gods left over after the humans wipe themselves out—doesn’t matter. It’s set in a sci-fi world, so that’s its genre.

The same applies on the other side. If the locations in the story are classified with words like “kingdom” or “realm”, particularly if there are also castles involved, that’s a fantasy, even if those castles have laser turrets. Fantasy landscapes also include those set in slant versions of Earth’s past. 

From a “finding the right audience” perspective, this seems like the most productive way to split the genres, in my opinion. People who like reading sci-fi expect to see certain things, and ditto for fantasy readers. The more of those things a story has, the more it will scratch their readerly itch.

The problem with this system is that it can’t be used for all stories on its own. It breaks down when you’re talking about stories set in roughly the modern day. There’s not much difference on the page between near-past, present, and near-future. The difference between a contemporary fantasy and mundane sci-fi piece comes down to other aspects of the worldbuilding than just where and when the story takes place. 

So…what’s the difference between fantasy and sci-fi?

The short answer is: it depends on who you ask. It’s a bit annoying for those of us who write in those gray areas that could be considered either, or neither, or both—but it’s the reality, and part of why it’s important to research markets before submitting work to them. Different editors are going to have different opinions, or may only be looking for certain subgenres within one of these broader categories.

It's also an interesting thing to think about. I’m not completely sure how I define the differences between the genres, personally, though for me I do think it’s mostly about the worldbuilding. Having said that, though, thinking about it from a forward-or-past looking standpoint could be useful during the editing stage, helping to shape the themes and what kind of plot moves and character development make the most sense for the story. Ultimately, stories don’t need to live in just one genre, but knowing what kind of tropes you’re using and why can help to keep the focus on the right details.

 

See similar posts:

#Genre #SciFi #Fantasy