Fenxy

I think the comment may be a bit biased, or generalized, but not too far off base. I don't think most authors set out to make sci-fi about ethical/moral complications the future may bring... but I think it often happens naturally.

Both genres can go either way. It's a matter of the author really. There are quite a few entertaining/escapist sci-fi romps (like star wars,) and there are sophisticated fantasy novels and series with interesting ethical dilemas or complex moralities presented. The Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind is probably one of the best introductions to objectivism since Ayn Rand. The author didn't start it with that intention, but as he explored his characters (and perhaps himself,) as the series continued it became so.

Greg Bear's "Anvil of Stars," is a really interesting journey of morality in a very advanced and complicated setting/world, but that's a sequel to a much simpler romp "Forge of God." Both excellent sci-fi books you should read, btw.

To me, fantasy has been more about escapism... and well, fantasy. Sci-fi is escapism as well, but it is tinged with hope, promise, and a passion to improve oneself and the world we live in. While the magic of fantasy can weave beautiful worlds and stories, good sci-fi weaves possibilities. Sure, some are completely unrealistic and outlandish, but others are not unrealistic at all.

*Pfft* I laugh at your flame wars. (Flies out in a Vorlon Cruiser, followed by a Shadow Death Cloud.)

As for the argument between the two, the problem with such a broad term as "Fantasy" is that it can be applied to anything. Technically, James Patterson writes "Fantasy", as does John Grisham, Stephen King, Margarett Weiss... Every fiction author writes fantasy. Some are just more honest about it.

As such, all science fiction technically falls into the "Fantasy" genre. Certainly not the "Magical Fantasy", "Medieval Fantasy", or if you will, "Tolkien-esque Fantasy" genre, which is usually what's being referred to when people speak of "Fantasy". Instead, it falls into a Science/Space fantasy, or "Science Fiction."

The genre is determined by the components of the story more than by the ethical dilemmas found therein. The fact that one genre tends to look more towards that than others is inconsequential. This is what the author, not the genre, brings to the table.

Of course, all "genre" designations are just marketing ploys for companies to see where in the book store to best place their authors. Why else would Stephen King's "Dark Tower" series be in "Fiction" instead of EITHER "Fantasy" or "Sci-fi", or Michael Crichton not in sci-fi, for that matter?

(Of course, here we get into the whole "Hard Sci-fi" vs. "Soft Sci-fi" argument, and whether to lump Military Sci-fil (David Weber) with something more thought-provoking (Gene Wolfe, Issac Asimov.)

Edit
Ozone42: I don't think most authors set out to make sci-fi about ethical/moral complications the future may bring... but I think it often happens naturally.

As a sci-fi author, I disagree with this. When planning out the story, usually an ethical/moral complication is at the root of the story, twin at least to the birth of the story which will carry the ethical/moral complication.

While the magic of fantasy can weave beautiful worlds and stories, good sci-fi weaves possibilities

I love that Alex, good one.

I don't think most authors set out to make sci-fi about ethical/moral complications the future may bring...

and

When planning out the story, usually an ethical/moral complication is at the root of the story

You guys are way more advanced into the "genre" than I am. I mean, I read half the local library's worth of sci-fi, but that was as a kid, so that's 20 years back.

I do think, however, that when it comes to these moral, ethical or plain societal questions raised about a (possible) future or possible other civilizations, we speak of "science" fiction, (the sub-genre perhaps?) in which we start out with a more or less earth-like society and see how it deals with technological advances or manages the confrontation with alien entities (Solaris, Stanislav Lem!).

I don't know if that's hard or soft sci-fi, but it's about science – something Star Wars obviously never was. Maybe, as our surroundings become ever more technological, that is something we regard as philosophical and relevant, more than classic fantasy at least...

Thanks for the splendid responses so far! This is why Chawlk is so effing fab :)

Star Wars? I laugh at Star Wars. :)

Seriously though, Gnorb beat me to it. Almost every science fiction novel out there it built around fantasy. If we're going to build science fiction around actual science that we know and understand now, a lot of the stories we know and love wouldn't have existed.

It is that imagination to go where no one has dreamed off that spawned some of the best stories in both science fiction and fantasy novel. Give, I don't real much fantasy as I do with science fiction, but I dare say Dune, Foundation, Rama, or Perdido Street Station all breathe in them fantasy that puts our imaginations into an infinite world.

I do think, however, that when it comes to these moral, ethical or plain societal questions raised about a future or possible other civilizations, we speak of "science" fiction, in which we start out with a more or less earth-like society and see how it deals with technological advances or manages the confrontation with alien entities.

The kind in which you speak off is more of a plotwise direction. It's something that allows the readers to digest more easily because rebuilding a whole world in your mind that's completely alien can throw off the average reader. That being said, many of the best science fiction novels start off with worlds that are completely beyond a present Earth like society. They are possibilities maybe, but the scope of the worlds, culture, philosophy and ethics of these universes are comparable with the alien worlds of mainstream fantasy novels.

At the end of it, wasn't it Arthur C. Clarke that once said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"?

Whether it be pop culture like Star Wars or the relatively unknown-to-the-masses stories like Perdido Street Station. Those far fetched possibilities of science cannot be told apart from fantasy. The point is not to look at them based upon its mainstream elements (both science fiction and fantasy), but rather in the intricacies in which they are built on.

P.S. Terry Pratchett's Discworld stories, Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time and Philip Pullman's Dark Materials Trilogy are excellent fantasy novels that have complex ethical and philosophical worlds. Why? Because they original worlds of their own not based on the Tolkien Universe.

There are so many different intersections of the two, even without approaching the matter from a 'everything is fantasy' viewpoint. Certain elements of fantasy will include scientific ideas, and vice versa. I suppose the best definition I've heard is from my brother Kris: "Science fiction is what could be, fantasy is what could never be."

Similar to Alex's note on weaving possibilities. Perhaps a good perspective is to think of science fiction as a story that builds on scientific reasoning and current knowledge; while fantasy does so to a drastically lesser degree.