[redsniper]

Wait, doesn't that mean that all fantasy is actually soft sci-fi?

No, because fantasy is not real life and thus can have magic in it.

[headdie]

except that magic often has rules and can form a "science" in itself

[redsniper]

Well okay yeah, different works handle magic differently. I was kind of hoping to avoid several pages of long posts detailing everyone's personal definitions of fantasy, soft sci-fi, science fantasy, and the delineations between them, but whatever. Let's all whip out our e-peens and start the sword fight.

[Apollo]

No, because fantasy is not real life and thus can have magic in it.

Science fiction isn't real life either, and as we've discussed it doesn't usually have magic in it.

"Magic" in fantasy often has a semi-rigid set of rules that defines what it can do. This means it follows some (admittedly fictional) laws of physics, preventing it from being supernatural. Therefore, fantasy is arguably an extremely soft subgenre of sci-fi.

Unless you think the large thematic differences prevent this, which is something you could easily argue.

[redsniper]

Unless you think the large thematic differences prevent this, which is something you could easily argue.

I was going to say something like that, but then I foresaw a bunch of other posters smugly trotting out examples that blur the line between soft sci-fi and fantasy and then the whole thread would devolve into a moronic semantics argument.

[Apollo]

Yeah, it might be better to avoid having that discussion. Anyway, it's irrelevant. It could be argued that fantasy is technically a subgenre of sci-fi, but it's thematically different enough to make that a moot point.

[Phantom Hoover]

Sci-fi using formalised magic is in fact very possible.

[Apollo]

How is formalized magic different than science?

That story looks interesting. I'll read it later.

EDIT: Actually, according to Dictionary.com one of the definitions of magic is:

the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature.

Apparently controlling the forces of nature would obey the laws of physics* and be magical at the same time, so I guess actual magic could exist (at least fictionally).

*Although they would be laws we are not currently aware of.

[-Norbert-]

"Controlling the forces of nature" is a nice phrase...
By that definition pretty much every kind of technology IS magic already.
For what else are electricity, motion and inertia, if not forces of nature (they exist even without Human interferense after all).

[Apollo]

That definition implies controlling nature through incantation or some other weird techniques.

But yeah, I guess if you interpret it broadly enough it could be used to call most technology magic.

[General Battuta]

I think magic in fiction can and often should be something very different from science and technology.

[Luis Dias]

Biotics.

[NGTM-1R]

Any sufficiently analyzed magic is science.

[Luis Dias]

Any sufficiently analyzed magic [IN FICTION] is science [FICTION].

Sorry, had to do it. Sorry again.

[General Battuta]

Any sufficiently analyzed magic is science.

I think this is a myth that really hobbles a lot of modern fantasy writers. It's true for certain cases but it is absolutely not a universal.

[MatthTheGeek]

It's only true if the fantasy writer wishes so, IMHO.

[The E]

What GB refers to is more something happening in the writer's mind. By saying or assuming that sufficiently explained magic is science, it creates a kind of corset the writer has to fit his writing in.

Compare, for example, the treatment of magic in Lord of the Rings with the treatment of magic in Harry Potter. In LotR, magic is largely unexplained, and even largely invisible (Tom Bombadil notwithstanding). There seem to be a few rules, but we never really find out what they are; Magic is something that is present in the setting, but never really explained.
In HP, on the other hand, magic is a developed topic of study; sure there are some mysteries, but most of it has been formalized to such a degree that you can develop a curriculum to teach its proper use to teenagers.

Now, both approaches can be used quite well, both definitely have their place, but that does not mean they are universal rules. The "magic as science" approach makes a certain amount of sense when you tell a story from the POV of a traditional Wizard-type character who derives his power from studying the laws of magic; but if your story is told from the POV of, say, a bunch of hobbits who haven't got a clue about magic and who will never use it in the story, it's better to leave your mind open and not bother with creating an elaborate ruleset, as this allows you to be more imaginative in your applications of magic.

[NGTM-1R]

Then you simply hobble yourself in a different fashion. There is no easy way around the study problem save for scarcity.

[General Battuta]

Nuministic or narrative magic that doesn't obey a strict set of paraphysics can't be analyzed inside (or outside) of the setting, but can still behave intuitively and enable satisfying storytelling. It's not the only approach, but it's a good one that a lot of classic authors (LeGuin, for example) used very well.

The Brandon Sanderson school of magic-as-paraphysics is really popular lately and I think it must spring from generations of RPG sourcebooks or something. The same thing popped up with people trying to analyze the black goo in Prometheus without understanding that it's more about a confrontation with the Lacanian real than any kind of biological action.

[Meneldil]

Now, both approaches can be used quite well, both definitely have their place, but that does not mean they are universal rules. The "magic as science" approach makes a certain amount of sense when you tell a story from the POV of a traditional Wizard-type character who derives his power from studying the laws of magic; but if your story is told from the POV of, say, a bunch of hobbits who haven't got a clue about magic and who will never use it in the story, it's better to leave your mind open and not bother with creating an elaborate ruleset, as this allows you to be more imaginative in your applications of magic.

This is especially evident seeing that Tolkien's approach to magic was otherwise also quite analytical.

As for the "magic as science" style approach, I think that one of the important differences even between "magic as science" and "science as science" is the internal logic they use. Fantasy writing explores intuitive modes of reasoning, which are more often than not absurd outside of the human perspective. This is obvious, but it implies that no kind of reasonable analysis completely removes the difference in perspective. For example, in Harry Potter treating magic as a well defined field of study and obnoxiously labeling "spells" with quasi-Latin incantations does little to remove the profound difference in reasoning.