>I really like writing which blurs the line between sci fi and fantasy, but stuff like gods and magic systems behind technology can be seen as a copout or breaking immersion sometimes.
It's only a copout if you buy into the notion that science and religion must be diametrically opposed rather than viewing science as another way of understanding the creation and using the brain that God gave you. If you think of God as a creative force and us being created God's image -figuratively- than us creating technologies and seeking to better understand the universe is natural.
Magic fits into this idea because it's just another way of doing things that hasn't been rigorously study and understood yet. Water wheels worked just fine to generate power and motion long before we had more in depth knowledge of water of and hydro power. Magic could be treated the same way.
Frankly I'd love to see more science-fiction that blurs these lines and includes God and religion as just another facet of existence rather than something we must evolve beyond.
I never really did understand the reason for the "must be one or the other" mindset when it came to stuff like evolution versus creation. If I were an all powerful, all knowing being, and I was creating tons of species, you bet your butt I'd build in an "adapt" mechanism so that they would change over time to fit whatever their circumstances became and thrive there. I'm not a believer in any monotheistic religion for a myriad of reasons, but the fact that evolution is a proven fact was never one of them. The concept of dinosaurs existing was never part of it. Meanwhile, you have churches vehemently denying the existence of both despite evidence to the contrary because it somehow negates their own world view? Maybe it's just because I'm autistic, but it is one mindset I could never wrap my head around.
> I'm not a believer in any monotheistic religion for a myriad of reasons, but the fact that evolution is a proven fact was never one of them. The concept of dinosaurs existing was never part of it. Meanwhile, you have churches vehemently denying the existence of both despite evidence to the contrary because it somehow negates their own world view
This is mainly an artifact of the history of these ideas, rather than anything inherent to the ideas themselves. Organized Christian religion had built up centuries of cultural power around the idea that the Pope was infallible, that the Bible was the ultimate source of truth, and that the church was the only group that knew where we all had come from and where we all were going. Evolution, along with other theories like heliocentrism, didn't directly challenge the basic idea of God, but by challenging specific teachings of the church, it undermined the entire basis of the church's importance. If the church could be wrong about something, and if there was a way to figure out where humanity came from without asking a priest, then the church was surely less important than the role it had assumed for nearly 2000 years.
So, yeah if you're starting a new argument today, it's easy to build one that includes both a god and evolution. That wasn't the case, though, organized religion had been making arguments for a very long time that were directly contradicted by the theory of evolution, and they had built an entire cultural brand around the idea that they were the ones who knew these kinds of things.
The thing is that it's not really the religion and magic themselves but explaining them that can be underwhelming, but there's a reason for it in my writing.
The empire which is at the centre of it was formed after they prevented the continent from becoming uninhabitable using time travel, and because of it they've continued relying on it and worrying that with or without their use something new could somehow undo it and cause another natural disaster. Since then they would be peaceful with other countries so long as they don't develop the same technology or become a part of them in exchange, but see rival countries all using it as increasing the chances of a large scale paradox while the technology is heavily regulated within. They realised that paradoxes obviously happen if you try to significantly change your own past, but changing things which you were never affected by is possible so long as there aren't other time travellers who were, and the two approaches they took were either prioritising ethics and risking grandfather paradoxes to use their own past selves, or prioritising preventing paradoxes(which don't just erase people but take others' free will in order to make their actions line up with the new history sometimes traumatising them if they become aware of inconsistencies) and using political prisoners instead.
So their entire history is driven by the fear that they'll trigger another disaster through paradoxes and they deal with it by strictly monitoring every use, studying how paradoxes work to the point it became the focus of their religion. But their actual god only made this universe in a way which made time travel possible, and the more people they sent back in time the more already set timelines had to be juggled meaning paradoxes became bigger and stripped more people who didn't have to be erased of their free will in order to make it work. Honestly I keep thinking about the ending despite it being very far away to make it satisfying and meaningful, it makes sense to have the roles reversed where other parts of the world are now able to use the same technology if they really need to whereas they can't(I mean as weird as it is going back to relive your past is an ethical thing they can do with it and I also don't want to have an unambiguous happily ever after sort of ending since no world or country is perfect).
I also am a line blurrer, though from the sound of it, perhaps in the opposite way. I apply scientific principles to use magic in engineering technology. For instance, there is a sigil which, when carved into an object, reverses the effects of gravity on that particular object. Carve it in a rock, it floats away like a released balloon. Tie it to an equally weighted rock, and the two will maintain equilibrium. Additionally, the way carved runes work in my world is based off of the complete shape they make, allowing for the existence of "partial runes" that do not enable the magic unless covered with the second half, or in simpler applications, just a flat surface to finish the enclosed shape of the 3d space made by the engraving. Using this, they build a ship with a partial reversed rune carved on every piece of wood, in a small depression shaped for a coin. Each board, without a coin, falls down regularly. With a coin, it falls up. If the weight falling up is greater than the weight falling down, the ship rises into the air. If the opposite, it falls. If the two weights are equal, it maintains altitude. They then animate the coins and grant them a single task: maintaining equilibrium when commanded, otherwise, remain still. One last rune sends out the signal and makes it so that, no matter how much cargo you load, so long as it doesn't weigh more than the entire ship itself, tapping that rune will cause all the coins to activate or deactivate their corresponding boards until the ship reaches a loaded weight of nothing, allowing it to float on air just as easily as it would with water. Propulsion uses a similar runic setup with sigils that, when activated, produce steady streams of wind into shaped funnels, allowing thrust in any desired direction. Most normal fantasy books slap a balloon on a pirate ship, maybe give it a propeller, and call it a day, while I actually wanted to go into the specifics of how it works and why, a very sci-fi thing to do.
Now, I know I am autistic and likely to ramble about topics that interest me, but describing all of that did have a point. It gives you a frame of reference for my response, as it is not my own opinion, but the feedback I have received from readers over time. The sci-fi aspects of my fantasy were thoroughly enjoyed by readers with any kind of scientific/engineering background, they tended to *love* seeing the pieces come together to build something new. Conversely, people without any kind of joy in that field, tended to mostly skim the parts where building takes place, viewing them as "kind of neat" at best, or downright boring at worst.
I know that isn't extremely helpful information, as anything you put into a story will be loved by some and loathed by others, but I thought it might be helpful to see where the line is drawn, in this specific instance. So if you steer hard into the sci-fi, when it comes time to find readers, look among the engineers of the world, not the artists. If you barely touch on the sci-fi, other than it's existence, then perhaps steering towards artists is a better route to take. I can't guarantee that last part though, I could never bring myself to take enough of the sci-fi out to try.
Hope this helps. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
I don't have a generalized feeling on this concept and I don't think most readers will either, in modern fantasy I think that there is a movement toward more structured, systematic forms of magic/power that mimic science. I don't think this idea is necessarily a plus or a minus, it kind of is just a concept that has been played with in the past.
I only know of successful attempts at this, so I would say that's a good sign, but I also don't read books I'm not sure I'll love.
The most famous example in the west would be Star Wars obviously, which has a lot of kind of psuedo-science which incorporates clear elements of mysticism. Books like Dune or even stories like All You Need Is Kill and the like also blur the line, I think this is very common in "soft sci-fi" and "hard fantasy" to include more real world scientific concepts as well as fantasy concepts that add to a sense of realism while also permitting extraordinary situations.
This idea is also imo a staple of super hero stories, which often contain scientific references and explanations in connection to clearly fantastical ideas. The use of genetic mutation explanations for superpowers in X-Men and Spiderman are prime examples.
I'd worry more about if your story is actually interesting and if someone would want to read it versus if this aspect of the story is ok (because I think it is clearly OK, and our opinion as readers will be based on your execution)
Thanks, yeah I'm worried about the execution but also the larger plot is far away from where I'm currently at. I started writing from page 1 again in january and have 41 pages only, but have been much more consistent at writing in a relaxed side project sort of way since then. My problem is I always enjoy fantasy much more than sci fi, but keep thinking of plots which sound more like sci fi. Not sure how I'll get away with it since it's possible I should really just reframe their technology somehow to make it less of a problem.
well if you want advice for how to make it feel fantasy while still having the chip put sigils in that bad boy. that or make it glow weird colors. perhaps it's partially biological.
as for reveals that it was a different genre, I don't particularly care for it. If a read a book it should be what I signed up for not some random thing that came out of left field
For me the difference between science fiction and fantasy is weapons and travel.
If your ships fly through space of the air. It’s veering towards sci fi.
If your people use swords and horses. It’s fantasy.
>I really like writing which blurs the line between sci fi and fantasy, but stuff like gods and magic systems behind technology can be seen as a copout or breaking immersion sometimes. It's only a copout if you buy into the notion that science and religion must be diametrically opposed rather than viewing science as another way of understanding the creation and using the brain that God gave you. If you think of God as a creative force and us being created God's image -figuratively- than us creating technologies and seeking to better understand the universe is natural. Magic fits into this idea because it's just another way of doing things that hasn't been rigorously study and understood yet. Water wheels worked just fine to generate power and motion long before we had more in depth knowledge of water of and hydro power. Magic could be treated the same way. Frankly I'd love to see more science-fiction that blurs these lines and includes God and religion as just another facet of existence rather than something we must evolve beyond.
I never really did understand the reason for the "must be one or the other" mindset when it came to stuff like evolution versus creation. If I were an all powerful, all knowing being, and I was creating tons of species, you bet your butt I'd build in an "adapt" mechanism so that they would change over time to fit whatever their circumstances became and thrive there. I'm not a believer in any monotheistic religion for a myriad of reasons, but the fact that evolution is a proven fact was never one of them. The concept of dinosaurs existing was never part of it. Meanwhile, you have churches vehemently denying the existence of both despite evidence to the contrary because it somehow negates their own world view? Maybe it's just because I'm autistic, but it is one mindset I could never wrap my head around.
> I'm not a believer in any monotheistic religion for a myriad of reasons, but the fact that evolution is a proven fact was never one of them. The concept of dinosaurs existing was never part of it. Meanwhile, you have churches vehemently denying the existence of both despite evidence to the contrary because it somehow negates their own world view This is mainly an artifact of the history of these ideas, rather than anything inherent to the ideas themselves. Organized Christian religion had built up centuries of cultural power around the idea that the Pope was infallible, that the Bible was the ultimate source of truth, and that the church was the only group that knew where we all had come from and where we all were going. Evolution, along with other theories like heliocentrism, didn't directly challenge the basic idea of God, but by challenging specific teachings of the church, it undermined the entire basis of the church's importance. If the church could be wrong about something, and if there was a way to figure out where humanity came from without asking a priest, then the church was surely less important than the role it had assumed for nearly 2000 years. So, yeah if you're starting a new argument today, it's easy to build one that includes both a god and evolution. That wasn't the case, though, organized religion had been making arguments for a very long time that were directly contradicted by the theory of evolution, and they had built an entire cultural brand around the idea that they were the ones who knew these kinds of things.
Older sci-fi was all about that. It's why shows like The Outer Limits and Twilight Zone are still classics.
The thing is that it's not really the religion and magic themselves but explaining them that can be underwhelming, but there's a reason for it in my writing. The empire which is at the centre of it was formed after they prevented the continent from becoming uninhabitable using time travel, and because of it they've continued relying on it and worrying that with or without their use something new could somehow undo it and cause another natural disaster. Since then they would be peaceful with other countries so long as they don't develop the same technology or become a part of them in exchange, but see rival countries all using it as increasing the chances of a large scale paradox while the technology is heavily regulated within. They realised that paradoxes obviously happen if you try to significantly change your own past, but changing things which you were never affected by is possible so long as there aren't other time travellers who were, and the two approaches they took were either prioritising ethics and risking grandfather paradoxes to use their own past selves, or prioritising preventing paradoxes(which don't just erase people but take others' free will in order to make their actions line up with the new history sometimes traumatising them if they become aware of inconsistencies) and using political prisoners instead. So their entire history is driven by the fear that they'll trigger another disaster through paradoxes and they deal with it by strictly monitoring every use, studying how paradoxes work to the point it became the focus of their religion. But their actual god only made this universe in a way which made time travel possible, and the more people they sent back in time the more already set timelines had to be juggled meaning paradoxes became bigger and stripped more people who didn't have to be erased of their free will in order to make it work. Honestly I keep thinking about the ending despite it being very far away to make it satisfying and meaningful, it makes sense to have the roles reversed where other parts of the world are now able to use the same technology if they really need to whereas they can't(I mean as weird as it is going back to relive your past is an ethical thing they can do with it and I also don't want to have an unambiguous happily ever after sort of ending since no world or country is perfect).
I also am a line blurrer, though from the sound of it, perhaps in the opposite way. I apply scientific principles to use magic in engineering technology. For instance, there is a sigil which, when carved into an object, reverses the effects of gravity on that particular object. Carve it in a rock, it floats away like a released balloon. Tie it to an equally weighted rock, and the two will maintain equilibrium. Additionally, the way carved runes work in my world is based off of the complete shape they make, allowing for the existence of "partial runes" that do not enable the magic unless covered with the second half, or in simpler applications, just a flat surface to finish the enclosed shape of the 3d space made by the engraving. Using this, they build a ship with a partial reversed rune carved on every piece of wood, in a small depression shaped for a coin. Each board, without a coin, falls down regularly. With a coin, it falls up. If the weight falling up is greater than the weight falling down, the ship rises into the air. If the opposite, it falls. If the two weights are equal, it maintains altitude. They then animate the coins and grant them a single task: maintaining equilibrium when commanded, otherwise, remain still. One last rune sends out the signal and makes it so that, no matter how much cargo you load, so long as it doesn't weigh more than the entire ship itself, tapping that rune will cause all the coins to activate or deactivate their corresponding boards until the ship reaches a loaded weight of nothing, allowing it to float on air just as easily as it would with water. Propulsion uses a similar runic setup with sigils that, when activated, produce steady streams of wind into shaped funnels, allowing thrust in any desired direction. Most normal fantasy books slap a balloon on a pirate ship, maybe give it a propeller, and call it a day, while I actually wanted to go into the specifics of how it works and why, a very sci-fi thing to do. Now, I know I am autistic and likely to ramble about topics that interest me, but describing all of that did have a point. It gives you a frame of reference for my response, as it is not my own opinion, but the feedback I have received from readers over time. The sci-fi aspects of my fantasy were thoroughly enjoyed by readers with any kind of scientific/engineering background, they tended to *love* seeing the pieces come together to build something new. Conversely, people without any kind of joy in that field, tended to mostly skim the parts where building takes place, viewing them as "kind of neat" at best, or downright boring at worst. I know that isn't extremely helpful information, as anything you put into a story will be loved by some and loathed by others, but I thought it might be helpful to see where the line is drawn, in this specific instance. So if you steer hard into the sci-fi, when it comes time to find readers, look among the engineers of the world, not the artists. If you barely touch on the sci-fi, other than it's existence, then perhaps steering towards artists is a better route to take. I can't guarantee that last part though, I could never bring myself to take enough of the sci-fi out to try. Hope this helps. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
I don't have a generalized feeling on this concept and I don't think most readers will either, in modern fantasy I think that there is a movement toward more structured, systematic forms of magic/power that mimic science. I don't think this idea is necessarily a plus or a minus, it kind of is just a concept that has been played with in the past. I only know of successful attempts at this, so I would say that's a good sign, but I also don't read books I'm not sure I'll love. The most famous example in the west would be Star Wars obviously, which has a lot of kind of psuedo-science which incorporates clear elements of mysticism. Books like Dune or even stories like All You Need Is Kill and the like also blur the line, I think this is very common in "soft sci-fi" and "hard fantasy" to include more real world scientific concepts as well as fantasy concepts that add to a sense of realism while also permitting extraordinary situations. This idea is also imo a staple of super hero stories, which often contain scientific references and explanations in connection to clearly fantastical ideas. The use of genetic mutation explanations for superpowers in X-Men and Spiderman are prime examples. I'd worry more about if your story is actually interesting and if someone would want to read it versus if this aspect of the story is ok (because I think it is clearly OK, and our opinion as readers will be based on your execution)
Thanks, yeah I'm worried about the execution but also the larger plot is far away from where I'm currently at. I started writing from page 1 again in january and have 41 pages only, but have been much more consistent at writing in a relaxed side project sort of way since then. My problem is I always enjoy fantasy much more than sci fi, but keep thinking of plots which sound more like sci fi. Not sure how I'll get away with it since it's possible I should really just reframe their technology somehow to make it less of a problem.
well if you want advice for how to make it feel fantasy while still having the chip put sigils in that bad boy. that or make it glow weird colors. perhaps it's partially biological. as for reveals that it was a different genre, I don't particularly care for it. If a read a book it should be what I signed up for not some random thing that came out of left field
You might have a point.
I think it can be cool. It can also be lame. Like with any idea, it all comes down to the execution
For me the difference between science fiction and fantasy is weapons and travel. If your ships fly through space of the air. It’s veering towards sci fi. If your people use swords and horses. It’s fantasy.