[jbcohen]

What makes one particular novel a Sci-Fi novel and another a Fantasy novel. I have been told that the use of magic makes a book fantasy. I have been told that Sci-Fi novels are based on things that could possibly happen in the future.

What's the correct answer?

[Rob B]

That's about as close as a simple definition you'll get, and it's a pretty good one too.

I'll add a bit more. Science Fiction is one aspect of Fantasy, in the sense that Fantasy encompases anything imagined.

Also, I think Orson Scott Card made an anology to the effect

Science Fiction vs Fantasy
Ships travel in space / Ships travel in water
Laser/Guns as weapons / Swords as weapons.

You get the picture.

[Hobbit]

Another fairly simple aspect of the difference is that SF uses 'advanced technology' (ie: something that is either technolgically complex or a technological development beyond what is there in the story already)in order to support the story.

Mind you with a statement like that I'm always reminded of Arthur C Clarke's famous quote about SF stories where technology has been so advanced that it may seem like magic. (I'm paraphrasing badly here... http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif

Hobbit

[mundanemies]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Said Clarke and sagely so. One could also say, and I'm paraphasing very liberally here, that science fiction deals with change, whereas fantasy is about permanence. Roughly it also says that SF looks into the future and fantasy into the past. Also, our world and SF differ mainly because the things that are in the SF-book are not yet. Whereas in fantasy, the tale is often told in a magical land of yore, that no longer exist.

Of course, if there would be one, TRUE and correct definition, I'd guess it would be common knowledge... http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Penumbra]

I think Hobbit is generally correct. Fantasy rarely dwells on science, real or imagined. SF is broken up in sub genres based upon whether it is hard or soft core which in turn reflects on the author's use of technology as an intrinsic part of the story.
Magic can be found in either genre but is more standard in fantasy to compensate for the lack of a scientific explanation of events.

[Keziah]

So what would Anne McCaffrey's PERN series come under?
It's set in our future, technology is present (Aivas the computer) in some of the books, The scientific explanation for the Dragons is Genetic manipulation or whatever it is.
I know quite a few people who class it as science fiction but I personaly would class it as Fantasy, just because thats what it "feels" like to me.

[Rob B]

McCaffrey's Pern books are consistently held as books that defy the conventional classification.

I believe McCaffrey herself insists that they are Science Fiction, therefore that's what I'll go with, too.

[Vitriol]

To me, it's always been the use of technology and writing style that marks science fiction from fantasy. Sci-Fi writers at least attempt to explain how the weird and wonderful devices they use work, and the books are usually quite highly structured, while fantasy books use magic, even when they call it 'technology', and make no attempt to explain things.

I've always considered Pern fantasy, along with others such as Andre Norton's Solar Queen series. Basically I just go with a gut instinct, no matter how inaccurate.

[woody]

You can usually tell just by looking at the covers http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif Also, fantasy books have usually got at least one tree hugger in it http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif

Be seeing ye.

[mlleophelia]

I am in a group doing research on sci-fi for a term paper and presentation. At the beginning of the project we decided to define sci-fi as any literature that has a pivotal difference in either time, setting, or technology from the time the book was written. We distinguished it from fantasy in that in science-fiction, the new ideas in the book have a logical explanation behind them (not necessarily included in the book), but in fantasy, the new ideas are just taken for granted.

Of course there will always be contrasting opinions. In the preface to the collected stories of Philip K Dick, he says about sci-fi vs. fantasy:

"Now, to separate science fiction from fantasy. This is impossible to do, and a moment's thought will show why. Take psionics; take mutants such as we find in Ted Sturgeon's wonderful More Than Human. If the reader believes that such mutants could exist, then he will view Sturgeon's novel as science fiction. If, however, he believes that such mutants are, like wizards and dragons, not possible, nor will ever be possible, then he is reading a fantasy novel. Fantasy involves that which general opinion regards as impossible; science fiction involves that which general opinion regards as possible under the right circumstances. This is in essence a judgment-call, since what is possible and what is not possible is not objectively known but is, rather, a subjective belief on the part of the author and of the reader."

So I believe it's up to the individual to decide. Does it really matter, in the grand scheme of things?