this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2026

30 points (91.7% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

9373 readers

118 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!

How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.

If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.

Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)

If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].

Rules:

1. NO POLITICS

Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.

2. Be civil.

Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...

Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.

5. No trolling.

This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.

6. Defend your opinion

This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.

Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

Dremor@lemmy.world

All good fantasy is science fiction (multiverse.soulism.net)

submitted 2 days ago by Grail@multiverse.soulism.net to c/unpopularopinion@lemmy.world

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

There's a difference between sci-fi as a setting, and science fiction as a genre.

Science fiction, sometimes differentiated as speculative fiction, is all about exploring the implications of fictional science and technology. Frankenstein is often considered the first work of science fiction, because it truly is a "what if" story centered on a piece of fictional technology. Hard science fiction, such as the Martian, takes this principle to its limit by trying to rely only on known or highly plausible science, with the technology as close to currently feasible as possible. These kinds of stories are deeply grounded, and compel because they consider the consequences of everything they add. The story follows from the science. Black Mirror is a perfect example of this writing philosophy, looking at how people and technology change one another.

The "sci-fi" setting isn't really science fiction at all. Star Wars is set in space with lasers and robots, but nothing about it is driven by science. Star Wars is more interested in special effects set pieces, the politics of fascism, and pseudo-buddhist philosophy. Star Wars is space fantasy, and its philosophical themes almost make it good, but not quite. Star Wars would be amazing if it was good, but alas.

I think that all great fantasy is also about exploring the implication of fictional science. It's just, this science is less sciency-feeling to laypeople. Lord of the Rings is linguistic fiction. The entire world exists to serve a story about the evolution of language. It's awesome! Mistborn is also a really great "fantasy" series where the rules of magic are scientific, and clever readers can tell when unreliable narration is lying to them using the scientific method. These are the stories I love.

Harry Potter sucks because it isn't science fiction. After the second one came out, lots of fans were eagerly expecting the series to delve into the ethics of slavery using House Elves as a narrative device. "What if slavery is enforced by magic rules?" is an interesting sci-fi question. Instead of writing good political fiction, Robert Galbraith chose to say "Dobby's just weird for wanting to be free." That's boring. There's nothing for us to sink our curiosity into in that plot point. It's intellectually lazy. It's not science fiction.

I posit that all good works of fantasy fiction treat their magic the way good speculative fiction treats its science, at least a little bit. And if you're not going to include any of that, then what's even the point? Your universe is wasted on your story, and I'd rather read what AO3 has to say about your setting. I've read lots of HP fanfiction that was better than HP because it cared about science. Even Harry Potter and the Natural 20 is better than Galbraith's garbage.

And I really need to get around to reading Trans Wizard Harriet Porber and the Bad Boy Parasaurolophus...

top 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] lime@feddit.nu 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

genuinely interesting take.

the word youre looking for, i think, is "consistent". good media is consistent, bad media is not. i'd say your definition leaves something on the table, because most fantasy isn't speculative fiction, unless you count "i wonder what will happen to the hobbits when they leave the shire" as speculation, which... i don't.

magic systems are of particular interest there because you can hand-wave them completely while still making them consistent. in the Black Magician trilogy, there is a lot of hinting at a system that isn't ever explored, but the prose is consistent with how it drops those hints. contrast with the potter books, which go to great lengths to explain systems that aren't actually there.

Canavan, the author of the former, shows you an ornate locked gate leading to a mystical gorden, and tells you that there is a key to find somewhere. rowling meanwhile draws a door on a random wall with crayon and then spends seven books trying to open it for you.

star wars is another interesting example because it was made consistent post release. the environment is constantly reshaped to fit the message because the message is what matters, not the environment.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I like the Hobbit more than I like Lord of the Rings, but I don't think it's good fantasy. Fun is different than good. The Hobbit manages to be engaging the whole way through, and it's great for kids, but it doesn't have anything interesting to say. It has even fewer narrative themes than Harry Potter, which at least had "love is the most powerful magic". Which sucks ass and has negative social implications for the asexuality spectrum. But the Hobbit has even less. For adults, the Hobbit is junk food literature. It will not nourish your mind. It will nourish the minds of children, who are natural little scientists always learning about the world, and who need lots of food for their growing imaginations. So, the Hobbit is closer to being science fiction for kids because kids don't know much, and thus everything is science to them. Harry Potter is worse for kids because it actively teaches bad life lessons.

Also, holy shit and thank you so much. Ideas from the Black Magician have been floating around in My head for over a decade, but I forgot the name of the book! Now I can finally give that series a reread! And though due to My long-rusted memory I can state naught with confidence, I believe Black Magician is science fiction in the way I have described above. I will likely be able to elaborate later.

Finally, I'd like to say Star Wars is definitely not consistent. Many of its individual entries are consistent, but the whole is endlessly contradictory. The Last Jedi is My favourite Star Wars movie because it is the most science fiction. It clearly tries to build a unified theory of the Force which George Lucas vehemently disagrees with.

But more interesting for our conversation is the bombers at the start of the movie. See, many fans criticised that scene because "well why did the bombs fall? It's space, there's no gravity." And I love the bombers because those fans are wrong. Space has gravity. It's orbit that doesn't have gravity. Usually in space movies, ships are in orbit. The Enterprise is always flying into orbit. But in Star Wars, antigravity technology is cheap! You don't need orbit when you can make your ships hang in the air in much the same way bricks don't! That battle wasn't in orbit, and that's why they couldn't just rotate the bombers to shoot the bombs at the enemy ship! That's science fiction! Consider the consequences of cheap antigravity tech, and write based on that worldbuilding.

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

The Hobbit is about courage and subverting social expectations and perceived limitations.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 1 points 2 days ago

hey don't forget potter's prominent themes of "progress is bad and adherence to the status quo is the ultimate goal" and "slavery is good and anyone seeking to abolish it should be ridiculed".

i think "fun is different than good" is a pretty bad stance. "guilty pleasures" are just a way to deal with feeling shame for liking something. you have to like it ironically because genuinely liking it is seen as shameful due to it not reaching some standard. screw that, i say.

i'm reading it as you saying "good" is somehow a more objective quality? correct me if i'm wrong. i'd instead reach for something like quality. the hobbit is unquestionally high quality writing, and it is set in a fantasy world, which i would say makes it fantasy without being science fiction.

"junk food" can be another word for "comfort food". sometimes it's not about nourishment, but about feeling good.

my take on the last jedi is that it definitely tried to set up something bigger, unlike the rest of the disney creations. but sci-fi? nah. it's at best a political thriller with some vfx. there is no detail given to the inner workings of the world, things are just there.

as i've understood the lens you've presented, i'd say the phantom menace is much more sci-fi than the last jedi, to its detriment. it tries to set up utterly massive systems, spends a long time on examining their details, and just spins its wheels for about an hour of its runtime.

[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Hmm, 'All good fantasy' smacks of no true scotsman, but the premise is interesting. It brought to mind one of my favourite 'hard' science fiction approaches, all real physics but with one new thing. Inertialess drive, Epstein (aged like milk) Drive, Niven's "A fusion drive is a weapon, powerful in direct ratio to its efficiency as a drive". Maybe I, or sci-fi, have a thing for drives. Anyhow, I think the story (heh) is more complex.

Counterpoint the first. Le Guin's Earthesea. Super consistent, superb writing, but handwavy magic system which doesn't detract from the story, nothing particularly linguistic here. The fantasy is immersion in an alternate world, that you need to use your imagination to create, which leads me to …

The second : Zelazny's Amber, pseudo-scientific (many worlds hypothesis), super stylized prose with broad strokes leading the reader to their own interpretation. The structure create a world system where anything imaginable can be realized, therein fantasy.

The third : McCaffrey's Pern, comes across initially as fantasy, dragons, medieval society, but a few novels in turns out to be

spoiler

actually a science fiction colonization story

Showing my age with these examples, but, I guess I see them as ends of a speculative spectrum, from physics based to out there, and that's OK. As the bard has it, 'the play's the thing' that matters, a good unfettered story, preferably with social commentary, is it's own reward. Sci-fi / Fantasy is, IMO, mostly a publisher's advertising construct to target demographics.

[–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I was with you until you misquoted Shakespeare. The actual line, "the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king", has precisely the opposite meaning which you imply, as the sole purpose of having the players there for Hamlet is to see Claudius' reaction to their play, which he has seeded with a scene containing the same method of murder which hamlet believes Claudius used on Hamlet's father. The play literally doesn't matter at all, only watching the king's reaction to it to confirm his guilt.

[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

‘the play’s the thing that matters’,

Sorry, I am aware, misplaced the quotes, should have been ‘the play’s the thing' that matters. Thanks, will fix.

In furtherance, it speaks to the power of a story to catch in the mind, I think an appropriate usage.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The only thing that really separates scifi from fantasy is an explanation of the magic. If the magic is just technology or can be explained somewhat scientifically, it becomes scifi.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

And I agree with Brandon Sanderson that all good magic is technology.

I've been reading Witch Hat Atelier which is most definitely science fiction

[–] riskable@programming.dev 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Classically, science fiction was all about the, "what if?" Whereas fantasy was all about the, "same old story archetypes, fancy characters and setting."

Over time, the two styles have overlapped and become interchangeable. For example, a lot of "sci-fi" is just "drama, in space!" Or "drama, with time travel!" Or... Well, you get the picture.

We also have fantasy that follows that "what if?" question. "What if... Magic was like programming?" "What if... Transformation changed who you are?" "What if... The system of the world granting everyone special powers was secretly just a mechanism to keep populations under control?" Stuff like that.

We probably need new categories for fiction. Story types have been inter-mingling for a long time now and the classical filing system doesn't work for a lot of things.

What if your fantasy has space ships? What if your space pirates use magic? Etc

[–] keimevo@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Hard disagree, so take my upvote.

The line between science fiction and fantasy is blurry, but the difference is not about how well the systems are explained or about the quality of the story.

There are very good scifi stories with "laws of the world" that are not terribly well designed or explained (a lot of stories from the sixties, like the ones from the "Dangerous Visions' anthologies or from more poetic authors like J. G. Ballard). And OTOH, there are many really good fantasy stories with well defined systems, like the Mistborn series, as you mentioned.

I don't remember where I read it exactly (it was more than 30 years ago), but there was a story/explanation of the difference that stayed with me. It was something like guy A (a fantasy writer) is talking with guy B (a scifi writer) in some room and guy A suddenly exclaims "Look over there, there's an alien walking upside down on the ceiling! It's green and has a spacesuit with a flowing cape that reaches to his boots!". Then guy B asks "If the alien is upside down, shouldn't the cape be flowing down to the floor, instead of his boots?" and guy A replies "That's why you're a scifi writer and I'm a fantasy writer". I think guy A was Ted Sturgeon and guy B Asimov, but I'm probably wrong.

[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I agree much of good fantasy is sci fi (all the Robin Hobb, most of Ian McDonald) but will counter with:

Almost anything by Patricia McKillip

Kushiel's Dart/Chosen/Avatar

Some good fantasy is built around relationships or horror, not just focused on a technology. I also just finished The Lies of Locke Lamora, and while there is fantastical tech in it (alchemy, mages) it's certainly not mainly about that, and doesn't explore it much. And was very good.

So I don't know if your idea is unpopular, as there's a large overlap between science fiction enjoyers and fantasy enjoyers, including me - but I can and do enjoy fantasy stories that are not mostly exploration of a technology.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

ah and of course lord of the rings sucks as does the oddyssey and all mythology and the wheel of time and ...... anyway take my upvote.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The Odyssey isn't fantasy, it's historical drama. Same as Count of Monte Cristo.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't see why you would not consider it fantasy with the gods, magic, and monsters and all. Don't remember enay of that in the count of monte cristo. I mean what is the cut off date where something with obvious magical or other fantasy elements is now a historical story???

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The difference is that Homer genuinely believed all of that stuff existed in his world.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I mean that seems like a silly distinction. I mean people believe in magic and gods nowadays. Is that enough? How about something like american gods?

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't think Neil Gaiman is a Norsist and I don't think he believes in the new gods he invented. I think that story is science fiction, with the central scientific concept being the power of worship to create divinity.

But The Prince of Egypt is historical fiction, the same as Saving Private Ryan.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

ok but to be clear if he did believe in them we are now not going to call it a fantasy story? Thats all it takes is author belief? Like if a person who believes in vampires writes a vampire story its now not fantasy?

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 1 points 2 days ago

Yeah, that's why the bible is in the nonfiction section of the library. Even though I used to move it to the fiction section back in high school for fun.