Thread: 'Future Fantasy'

I have recently realised that I don't really write sci-fi. Well, I do in some cases, but I feel more at home when I'm being fantastical. So I'm basically writing fantasy in the future, or 'future fantasy' as I would call it.

I was wondering if anyone else had a similar spectrum of writing, where they liked sci-fi, but prefered fantastical sci-fi. I know my writing is fantasy, because half the things I present I don't explain, and never intend to. And when I do explain the rest, it either doesn't make scientific sense, or it does, but only if you aren't super-critical of my use of science...

This sounds interesting to me. I have in a sense done fantastical sci fi, but in a different sense. All my stories I have written thus far for fun (6), have involved sci fi forces, but I wouldn't classify most of these novels as sci fi. But, a few of the people have been from the future. One of them caused havoc in the past and was a vampire. Usually a fantasy figure, I sci-fi'ed it in the sense that vampires came from a genetic modification going wrong, and one thing that changed about them was their ability to time travel and teleport (not really explained). So, they went back in time, but people of the future went to retrieve them and change them back, but people still had a recollection of them so became a myth. *Breath*.

Can you tell me more of your way? Do you have mythical creatures in them, or what makes them sci fi?

Here's the best explanation I can come up with:

There is a collection of alien races that are always in my writing, known as the 'ancients'. They are the old races, which are all far more powerful than any of the other civilizations in the galaxy. Among them are the Opariste Legion, who are the greatest soldiers ever to exist, the Axunians, who are the masters of technology and can communicate with it in way that are unimaginable (a bit fantastical). A lot of the fantasy is centred around the common ancients and the Balon'Sha, who use the Ancient Arts; abilities that many would call magic (but the ancients despise anyone who calls their powers 'magic'). They are based on three concepts;

1) Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be transferred from one state to another. There exists a kind of energy known as 'mental energy', which collects around the minds of all living things. This mental energy responds to the thoughts of the being it collects around, and can be instructed to change. For example, you can transfer mental energy into kinetic energy, which is the energy of moving things. Thus, you can blast someone backwards with mere thought. The same can be done with things like thermal energy, and other complex manipulations. In summary, mental energy exists, and by telling it to do things, you can do what people would call magic.

2) Whenever you think of something, that thought is manifested by mental energy and becomes a wisp. This wisp will exit the mindspace, and then re-enter it, to become only a memory. While it is away from the mind, it can be read or interferred with - it is vulnerable to outside interference. Thus, you can plug thoughts, commands and ideas into people. These wisps are the same as the signals generated by the senses. Therefore, you can interrupt the eyes sending a message to the brain about what is being seen, and change it, creating an illusion. You could make the person believe there is wall when there isn't one, or floor where there is a hole. In summary, you can communicate with, change, and control other peoples' minds with the Arts.


Combining 1) and 2), you can do something like create a fireball. You bind mental energy to a point and turn it into thermal energy. But this doesn't make the fire; just the energy for it. So, you fool the minds of those around to believe it is fire by making such an illusion, changing their thoughts to see a burning ball of flame. You then move the point of focus towards your foe, thus striking them with a fireball. Most ancients have these operations stored in their mindspace so that they cna instantly use them. If they didn't, it would take a long time to use the Arts.

3) All things have conciousness, which is partially mental energy, and partially other things, some of which unknown. But there are different 'levels' of conciousness, which form the rules of 'conciousness dominance'. Greater conciousnesses can control other conciousnesses with no resistance, as long as they can use the Arts ot do so. Living things like human beings, and the alien races - inculding the ancients - have the normal amount of conciousness. Plants have slightly less. Hence, anyone who knows the Arts to the level of mental communication can control a plant. They can also understand its feelings, opinions and the other thoughts it has (since all things have conciousness, all things have thoughts. But things like plants and calendars cannot communicate, so many do not know that they have these thoughts). Inanimate things have even less conciousness than plants, and mental energy has less too, which is why you can tell it what to do. All other forms of energy have a greater conciousness than living things, so you can't tell fire what to do without having a greater conciousness. And you can't change the power of your conciousness. But there exist things with greater conciousnesses than us, like the Orv and the Fayte, two opposite powers who rule over galaxies (the Orv rule ours; they're the nice guys, which is why things here are nice). Greater conciousnesses can tell lesser conciousnesses what to do, which is why we can't fight the Orv or the Fayte. But they cannot fight us either, because conciousnesses that are greater than the normal conciousness cannot harm or affect normal conciousnesses. That's why the Fayte don't charge in and kill us. They can only fight the Orv. And Giegonns. Giegonns have the same conciousness as Orv and Fayte. They do something else special that I won't explain right now. Greater than the Orv and the Fayte and the Giegonns are the High, and Higher than the High are Ath'Dar and Aes'Geth. Ath'Dar rules the Fayte. Aes'Geth rules the Orv. All the Higher conciousnesses that are nice choose not to command those below them (because they're nice) and all the ones that are evil don't care, which is why it's bad for them to be in power. In summary, greater coniousnesses can tell lesser conciousnesses what to do, so an Ancient can use the Arts to tell a window to open or have a conversation with a fridge.

That just about covers it. If that makes sense, hooray!

All SF is just fantasy set in the future.

So, yes. I would say that plenty of people share that range with you, myself included.

Double post. Sorry. Firefox went screwy.

Originally Posted by Cadence

I have recently realised that I don't really write sci-fi. Well, I do in some cases, but I feel more at home when I'm being fantastical. So I'm basically writing fantasy in the future, or 'future fantasy' as I would call it.

I was wondering if anyone else had a similar spectrum of writing, where they liked sci-fi, but prefered fantastical sci-fi. I know my writing is fantasy, because half the things I present I don't explain, and never intend to. And when I do explain the rest, it either doesn't make scientific sense, or it does, but only if you aren't super-critical of my use of science...

There's a name for this brand of fiction. It's called Science Fantasy, and happens to be my preferred fiction genre.

Originally Posted by Vertigo

All SF is just fantasy set in the future.

So, yes. I would say that plenty of people share that range with you, myself included.

Not necessarily. I think that true sci fi is something that has a possibility of happening in the future even if the odds of some parts are low. Most things in sci fi is heavily explained and makes it seem like a true science that could come about in the future.

Science fiction started in the 1950's when our technology became so great that some authors started to contemplate what our technology could do to us in the future, and most sci fi plots revolve around that, or aliens, and since space travel was on the horizon then, it would make sense that that would be apart of science fiction.

Fantasy is what would be considered to have zero possibility of ever happening. Wolfs, unicorns, dragons- of course those don't exist, and won't ever, but they do in fantasy.


How I see it, Science Fantasy is a happy mirage of the two. I think that they would most often be set in the future, but have major components to it that could never- have a zero percent chance- of existing.

Originally Posted by Vertigo

All SF is just fantasy set in the future.

So, yes. I would say that plenty of people share that range with you, myself included.

I find the difference between Sci-Fi and Science Fantasy (thanks, ShatteredUniverse) is the use of concepts; scince fiction is usualkly based on one, plausable concept - a 'what if'. Science Fantasy has a licence to use as much weird stuff as it likes. Some of the early sci-fi is actually what is happening right now; not the events, but the state humanity is in.

That's what I was worrying about. Sci-fi implies that it makes sciencific sense, which my stuff doesn't (well, slightly). But because Science Fantasy does properly exist (who doesn't watch Doctor Who), I guess I should be fine. In fact, it's ficiton, so I should be alble to write whatever I want. I don't have to stick with any particular genre; the genre is created through the writing, not the other way round!

Thanks, guys. That's put me at ease.

Originally Posted by Dramatism

Not necessarily. I think that true sci fi is something that has a possibility of happening in the future even if the odds of some parts are low. Most things in sci fi is heavily explained and makes it seem like a true science that could come about in the future.

Science fiction started in the 1950's when our technology became so great that some authors started to contemplate what our technology could do to us in the future, and most sci fi plots revolve around that, or aliens, and since space travel was on the horizon then, it would make sense that that would be apart of science fiction.

Fantasy is what would be considered to have zero possibility of ever happening. Wolfs, unicorns, dragons- of course those don't exist, and won't ever, but they do in fantasy.


How I see it, Science Fantasy is a happy mirage of the two. I think that they would most often be set in the future, but have major components to it that could never- have a zero percent chance- of existing.

You've confused some things that I feel the need to clarify. Yes, there is actual science in science fiction. Plausible, real, hence the name. SF was old by the 50s. The first bigname sf writer was probably Jules Verne. Wells after that. /short sf history lesson.
And I believe you mean "happy marriage", though "happy mirage" lends itself well to other interpretations.

Saying that Star Trek or Star Wars are accurate representations of possible futures for the human race is... patently ridiculous, unless someone rewrites the science. There is such a things as facts-based SF- classic space opera and today's hard SF both tend to be more plausible than the average- but they represent only part of the scene. All of this, however, is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make, which is that SF and F are both playgrounds for adolescent wanderings. The settings change but the ideas and characters mostly remain the same.

If what you're looking for is an example of fantasy written in a SF setting, then I can point you to arguably the best SF book (misnomer: it's a four-volume series) ever written- Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun. Or you could look at some things like Neal Stephenson's past couple of novels (Anathem and Reamde), both of which contain fantasy elements, but within a more realistic setting. (Also, I think the old Dragonriders of Pern books were F in SF, but I've never read them....) The other point is that there's plenty of marriages out there.

Also, why is it impossible for unicorns to have evolved elsewhere in the universe? Evolution is built, more or less, on sheer chance: in a (practically) infinite time scale, anything that can happen, will.

And where the hell did they teach you that wolves weren't real?

Yeah, the rubber-science stuff definitely belongs to the realm of science fantasy-ST, SW, et al. Dr Who. Some is very good though. Gene Wolfe, as mentioned, has made a career out of it. George Martin of course morphed into sfantasy as is Piers Anthony. In all three cases I prefer the harder stuff but you gotta make a buck.
Could definitely make a case for an "evolutionary" unicorn. That's actually a good story idea.
I disagree that sf is a place for adolescent wanderings. In Hugo Gernsback's time, sure. But not since Tony Boucher's tenure at the Magazine of F&SF has there been a majority of bookform sf that was prone to the original trope. After Pohl at Galaxy and Terry Carr helming Ace, forget about it. I'll stop there before I get pedantic and start throwing out names and titles.
Fantasy still is (let's say arguably because it's just New years and I feel generous). I can't stand that about it. And these days it's female-oriented adolescent fantasy to boot. I'm not the target audience for that tripe.

Originally Posted by moderan

You've confused some things that I feel the need to clarify. Yes, there is actual science in science fiction. Plausible, real, hence the name. SF was old by the 50s. The first bigname sf writer was probably Jules Verne. Wells after that. /short sf history lesson.
And I believe you mean "happy marriage", though "happy mirage" lends itself well to other interpretations.

I know that there is actual science in science fiction, I never doubted that. I just specified that some of the science we don't really know for sure since none of it exists.

Old by the 50's? Hmm, maybe then it's that that's when it became popular? I've never seen a sci fi book that was written before then.

I spelled happy 'marrage' before, and of course that's mispelled, and the stupid word checker thought I meant 'mirage' and not 'marriage'. I thought it looked weird, but I knew people knew what I meant.

Originally Posted by Dramatism

I know that there is actual science in science fiction, I never doubted that. I just specified that some of the science we don't really know for sure since none of it exists.

Old by the 50's? Hmm, maybe then it's that that's when it became popular? I've never seen a sci fi book that was written before then.

I spelled happy 'marrage' before, and of course that's mispelled, and the stupid word checker thought I meant 'mirage' and not 'marriage'. I thought it looked weird, but I knew people knew what I meant.

None of it exists? I'm not sure I'd get on board that train. Sf stories have predicted and/or followed current sciences throughout their history. Here are a couple of pages with evidence. And funny.

I'd bet you have read sf written before the 50s. You just didn't know it was sf. Ever read Frankenstein? My nomination for first true sf novel. War of the Worlds? 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea? Brave New World? Animal Farm? I could go on for a long time here. I'm an sf fan and popularizer, and thoroughly unashamed of that.
It is true that the genre has mushroomed during the 20th and 21st centuries, but it has been around for awhile. Here's a good list of pre-1950 sf.

LOL...we're writers. Specific words mean specific things. I've had people call me out here for typos. Which is ok. I hate them. But just sayin'.

Genre can be restricting however it is important to consider when thinking about our target audience - it can also act as a kind of guide for our writing. So the question is, when we write how conscious should we be of genre? Well I agree with you Cadence when you said -

Originally Posted by Cadence

it's ficiton, so I should be alble to write whatever I want. I don't have to stick with any particular genre; the genre is created through the writing, not the other way round!

I think this is good advice in general, just let yourself write the story you want to write and worry about the genre when it comes time to publish and promote. Having said that, I agree with Dramatism that your story seems like a happy mirage ( ) of the two - Science Fantasy.

I really liked your 'rules' for magic. It seems very clear. The only thing that seemed (perhaps) a little dubious to me was this

conciousnesses that are greater than the normal conciousness cannot harm or affect normal conciousnesses

I immediately wondered 'why?' Certainly in fantasy virtually anything can be 'true', but readers still need to understand the rules - so this might need further clarification.

On another note -

Originally Posted by Vertigo

SF and F are both playgrounds for adolescent wanderings.

WT? I think this is a little unsubstantiated.

Originally Posted by moderan

Fantasy still is (let's say arguably because it's just New years and I feel generous). I can't stand that about it. And these days it's female-oriented adolescent fantasy to boot. I'm not the target audience for that tripe.

Surely you're not reducing all of fantasy to Twilight? Also moderan, would you really consider Animal Farm to be Science Fiction? Seems like a bit of a stretch. Certainly the other novels you mention but not Animal Farm.

You caught that, did you? No, Animal Farm is pure and simple fantasy satire. I wanted someone to think about what they were reading. And no, I'm not reducing all fantasy to Twilight. There's Anita Blake too. And all of the faux-medieval faux-Tolkien crap that saturates the marketplace. The real good fantasy, if it so exists anymore, is hidden away under lock and key, or at least buried under all of that schlock.
One of my hobbyhorses.