Is The Lord of the Rings sci-fi?
State your case for the book and/or the movie to either be classified as sci-fi or not.
Be sure to go into details as to what makes a story "science fiction". Personal opinions are great, but evidence is even better.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$6 Answers
Proof is in what you already know, in my opinion of course. It wasn't widely thought to be different categories initially. I would say that the late great Gene Roddenberry is the reason there is a difference. Because of him, science fiction fantasy actually turned into 2 different genres and a slew of sub-genre under them. Not actually because of him directly, but because of what he generated. Science in the real world has actually, and in some cases, directly because of Star Trek, made leaps and bounds in ways originally thought to be fiction.
Now, many may still blur the lines still, but as a fan of Star Trek and Lord of the Rings, the two are vastly different. Once Star Trek broke the mold for what a fictional science based story should be like, we then had to redefine what 'kind' of story we were reading...
The new groupings-
Fantasy- based on unfounded laws or theory (Lord of the Rings)
Sci-Fi- base on real world theoretical science yet to be proven (Star Trek)
Science Fiction Fantasy (technically a subgenre of Sci-fi)- based on both theoretical science AND unfounded law or theory (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)
Underneath these 2 categories, we find a slew of additional sub-genre. If you ask me... having a sub-genre selection is a fine mark of a solid genre:
Fantasy:
Arthurian Fantasy = Encompasses stories about King Arthur, the Knights of the Round Table or Merlin etc. Marion Zimmer Bradley's "Mists of Avalon" is a fine example of this sub-genre.
Comic Fantasy = Tales designed specifically as spoofs of other serious fantasies, or containing humorous elements to a light-hearted tale. Robert Asprin's 'Myth' series is a good example of this.
Dark Fantasy = Encompasses the nastier, grimmer side to the usual fun of the fantasy genre. Dark fantasy includes the nightmarish, darker side of magic, creatures, evil and demons
Epic Fantasy = Generally tales of a young nobody, thrown unexpectedly into a massive "Good vs. Evil" struggle, where he must learn to uncover his own latent heroism to save the day. Often also includes a "grail-finding" quest - regardless of whether the 'grail' is an icon, a person, a magical talisman or any other form of symbolic token. Usually involves a very large cast of characters and spans a vast area of a fantastical world. J.R.R. Tolkien is undoubtedly the father of this sub-genre, with his sweeping Lord of the Rings trilogy
Fairy Tales and Mythology = Fairy tales are not just for kids! The original versions of many fairy tales and myths were often violent stories set in mystical lands, sometimes with strange creatures and sometimes even stranger heroes
Heroic Fantasy = Fantastical worlds with an almost 'middle-ages' feel, peopled with wizards and sorcerers, communing with dragons and riding pet unicorns to tame a battalion of wild orcs and goblins. Heroes are generally muscle-bound sword-wielding types, determined to rescue a true damsel in distress. Magic is an accepted part of life, although the workings of such are usually left unexplained within this sub-genre.
High Fantasy = High Fantasy is the type of fantasy that most people expect when they regard 'fantasy' as a genre. Includes lords and ladies, medieval styles and settings, kingdoms and castles, and dragons and knights. High fantasy, while generally rooted in classical mythology and medieval European legends, focuses its themes on Good versus Evil. Sometimes called "Epic fantasy". Often plotted to encompass three or more books.
Magic Realism = Stories where magic is an accepted part of the system and of the culture. There must always be consequences to the use of magic, or involve some form of 'prop' to get the magic working, like an amulet, potion, talisman or incantation. Australian author, Ian Irvine, manages to combine several fantasy sub-genres into his massive four book series "The View From the Mirror". Most notably, though, his use of 'magic realism' and the nasty consequences that come from its use give his characters an extra dimension that makes the series truly worth reading.
Modern Fantasy = Tales of magic and wonder set in modern times
Sword and Sorcery = Good old-fashioned 'Sword & Sworcery'. Rollicking tales of high adventure in almost medieval settings. Designed to follow the exploits of the 'hero' as he battles to overcome all the bad guys by use of his trusty sword and some really huge muscles. Robert E. Howard brought about the rise in popularity of this sub-genre with his creation of 'Conan: The Barbarian'
Science Fiction:
Apocalyptic, holocaust, and post-apocalyptic stories focus on the end of the world, or the world just after "the end." In Niven and Pournelle's Lucifer's Hammer, society is wiped out by a comet and must rebuild; in Nevil Shute's On the Beach, humanity is destroyed by a nuclear holocaust; in Stephen King's The Stand, humanity must cope with the aftermath of a devastating plague.
Cross-genre stories defy easy distinctions between science fiction and other genres, such as fantasy ("if it's psychic power, it's science fiction; if it's magic, it's fantasy"). Christopher Stasheff's Warlock in Spite of Himself series, for example, places a space-traveling agent on a planet apparently populated by witches, werewolves, and other fantasy beings. Such novels may also blend science fiction and romance, mystery, suspense, and even Westerns (as in the Brisco County television series).
Cyberpunk is set in a high-tech, often bleak, mechanistic and futuristic universe of computers, hackers, and computer/human hybrids. The subgenre was pioneered by Bruce Sterling and William Gibson, who coined the term "cyberspace" in Neuromancer. Humans may have built-in computer jacks or software ("wetware"), and spend considerable time "living" in a virtual environment, as in The Matrix.
First contact explores the initial meeting between humans and aliens, ranging from horrific tales of invasions to stories of benign visitors bearing the secrets of advanced technologies and world peace (or irony, as in The Twilight Zone episode "To Serve Man" -- the one that ended, "It's a cookbook!"). The meeting may occur on Earth, in space, or on another planet. H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds helped define the "alien invasion" variant of this subgenre.
Hard science fiction is driven more by ideas than characterization. Plausible science and technology are central to the plot. If your story is set on a lunar colony, for example, issues of technology may be of greater concern than a character's personal life. To write effectively in this subgenre, an author must generally have a good grasp of the scientific principles involved. Much classic science fiction, including the earlier works of Asimov and Heinlein, fall into this category.
Light/humorous science fiction may occur within any of these subgenres, or (often) spoof a subgenre. Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is one of the best-known examples of humorous science fiction.
Military science fiction looks at combat in future locations (space, another planet), against a range of opponents (modified humans, aliens, machines), with futuristic, high-tech weaponry (including genetically modified soldiers). While some military science fiction asks "how fast can we blast the bugs?" (Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers), many authors use this subgenre to address anti-war themes. David Drake's Hammer's Slammers series explores both the heroism and the carnage of warfare.
Near-future science fiction takes place in the present day or in the next few decades. Elements of the setting should be familiar to the reader, and the technology may be current or in development. Stories about nanotechnology or genetics, such as Greg Bear's Blood Music, often fall into this category.
Science fantasy/future fantasy, rare now but popular in the 1930's and 1940's, alters, breaks, or ignores known laws or scientific theories for the sake of the story. Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom novels (set on Mars) are a good example.
Slipstream deals with "mainstream" themes but contains a speculative element. Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale is set in a speculative future, for example, but is marketed as a mainstream novel.
Soft/sociological science fiction is character-driven, with emphasis on social change, personal psychology and interactions, etc. While technology may play a role, the emphasis is not so much on how that technology works, but how it affects individuals or social groups. Robert Silverberg's short story "To See the Invisible Man," for example, focuses on how a futuristic form of punishment affects the individual and the surrounding society. Ursula K. LeGuin is a noted author of sociological science fiction. (For more information, see How to Write Soft SF, by Penny Ehrenkranz.)
Space opera, like Western "horse operas," often involves good guys "shooting it up" with bad guys (who may be aliens, robots, or other humans) in the depths of space or on a distant planet. Space operas (of which Star Wars is a classic example) don't worry about scientific implausibilities; technical explanations tend to be vague ("You see, Bob, if you fold space just so...").
Time travel was popularized by H.G. Wells with The Time Machine (1888), though Edward Page Mitchell wrote "The Clock that Went Backwards" seven years before that. Characters travel to the past or future, or are visited by travelers from either end of the spectrum. Topics range from "Let's go see what the Pleistocene looked like," to issues of paradox (what if you traveled to the past and killed your own grandfather?) and "tampering" (could stepping on a butterfly in the Paleolithic profoundly alter the entire future?). A variant of this subgenre is the "alternate universes" theme, in which each change in the timestream spins off a new universe.
(further inquire is in the source bar)
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$There is nothing to stop an author from combining the two themes, or genres, and many have. However, this is absolutely not the case in LOR. Tolkien based his world on the old Norse Sagas, on Old English works such as Beowulf, and on other classic legends and myths. The entire set of stories is deliberately set in the vague, legendary past. In no way whatsoever did Tolkien attempt to predict or guess about the future, or an alternate future, or make hypotheses or guesses about science and their implications. He did not like modern (20th century) science, or at least its engineering and practical aspects.
Magic is not sci-fi unless the author describes something magic like and presents a pseudo scientific explanation. Tolkien never does this. Orcs are not resurrected, I have no idea what you mean by that. Orcs are long lived but otherwise mundane folk possibly descended from corrupted elves. The Ents are creatures of legend, not science.
Sci-fi can be a subset of fantasy if, for example, space travelers visit a world of magic and magical creatures. Or, fantasy can be a subset of sci-fi, if magical creatures and effects are given pseudoscientific explanations. But some, perhaps most, authors keep the two separate. JRR Tolkien was only interested in the fantasy genre, which he did so much to create and popularize. He had no interest in sci-fi and neither LOR nor any of his other books and stories is sci-fi or even slightly mixed in genre. He preferred the ancient, the worlds of legend and myth, to anything remotely modern.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
I'm more a fan of the book than the movies, especially wherever the movies change anything. The Uruk hai were not pulled from the earth, they were bred from ordinary orcs and possibly humans by Saruman. Crossing orcs and humans is considered a particularly vile crime. This was ordinary, pre-industrial breeding. The movie had some sort of violent scene that presumably represented magic. Regarding Gollum, that physical features come to reflect a corrupted soul is not science but legend and tradition. It probably comes from folks looking wizened as they age, but it shows up as religion/magic, etc not science. Even in Star Wars, which is almost entirely sci-fi, it is the magic-spell-like use of the Dark Side powers that has a similar effect on the Emperor. The Island of Dr. Moreau doesn't really have any magic, it's just an extrapolation of then current medicine to a sort of super-plastic surgery on animals. It's sci-fi because it wasn't really possible, but could be envisioned as a matter of "progress" in medicine.
Magic becomes sci-fi when the "logic" behind it is based on technology rather than religion. In lots of fantasy genre stories, there is logic behind magic that is based upon powers derived from the gods. In some, what amounts to magic in the story is based upon some hypothetical science, for example in "The Practice Effect", or the stories in "The Incomplete Enchanter". The Tolkien world does not attempt to explain magic as science, and in fact the more magical characters are actually partially supernatural themselves. Gandalf and the other Wizards are not actually human.
Also, I might argue about magic not being sci-fi. Is there not a point when magic crosses over into the science fiction realm?
How about the properties of The Ring. Bilbo uses it for its abilities to transform physical matter into an invisible state. When magic is confined within a predefined set of limitations, is that so different from the Star Trek holodeck?
Just to be clear, I would not call LOTR a stright-up sci-fi. But could you not see sci-fi elements in it?
Forgive me, you are right it is not the Orcs that are pulled from earth, but rather the uraki. My bad.
But let me throw this out there just as a counterpoint:
Most people I have talked to will readily agree that ''The Island of Dr. Moreau'' is purely science fiction. Do you disagree with that?
And if you do not, then what separates that from the creation of the uraki?
Or what about the corruption of Gollum (that is, to say, that the science of his mind-altered state playing a role in his physical transformation)?
@gno....
A story in which people fly on a magic carpet doesn't become SF just because it involves a "flying device". As per my answer, if the author takes pains to have us believe that flying carpets could actually be possible in reality, that would be SF. If they instead actually want us to enjoy a break from the limitations of reality, it's fantasy.
In SF you would never have something like the Lord of the Nazgul, a being that cannot be killed by any mortal man... but can be killed by a woman and a hobbit. In SF a knife is a knife, a sword is a sword, and if a knife or a sword works differently in the hands of one particular gender or species, you'd darn well have to explain why that would be.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$There is a big difference between the worldviews of sci-fi and fantasy. In SF, the premise is the world is rational and explainable, and the story is one which could actually happen in our own world, or at least in some other galaxy far far away, but still in the same reality as ourselves.
In fantasy the premise is the world is magical and mysterious and removed from normal reality, and that is a large part of what's enjoyable about it. In a lot of fantasy, it's clear that the world of the story is certainly not part of the same reality as ourselves, and even in the kind of fantasy that's set in the everyday world, it's taken for granted that what you're seeing couldn't actually happen.
People use the term "speculative fiction" to cover both SF & fantasy. So your suggestion that "I believe sci-fi can be a form of fantasy" would be rewritten by most of us as "sci-fi is a form of speculative fiction, as is fantasy". That's just how people use the labels, so calling LOTR SF is just confusing to people.
Final point... think about what would happen if you did add rational quasi-scientific explanations to LOTR. The whole feel of the book would change, and the whole sense of an ancient, beautiful, magical world being lost and replaced by our prosaic technological one would be gone.
To Tolkien and in LOTR, science, technology and industrialization weren't such good things.
Remember what the wise Gandalf said to the warped Saruman about breaking white light to discover that it's made up of many colors: "He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom".
A sentiment to make any scientist cringe! Esp when you are talking about light, and alluding to one of the most famous experiments in science, the discovery by Isaac Newton that white light can be split by a prism.
That's a major difference between the outlook of SF and the feel of fantasy in a nutshell, "the true nature of things is astounding" vs "delving too deep into things takes away their wonder".
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Super ANSWER!!! True...Fantasy and Sci-Fi are 2 different things. Tipped for this beautiful answer!
Honestly, I want to hear the case for LoTR being AT ALL science fiction. I'm just not seeing it. There's no science in it at all, and I'm not sure where this "debate" comes from.
@jdhatred This is a fantastic answer.
Thank you kindly! Personally, my favorite is Steampunk... tangent reality where the first trials of the steam-powered engine were not abandoned as folly and stronger metals were tried a long with stronger, smarter builds. Often this first 'what if?' tangent starts with the success of Thomas Savery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Savery
I applaud your answer, but wish to play devil's advocate further:
You wrote that science fiction is "base on real world theoretical science yet to be proven". So does that mean that science fiction CANNOT be set in the past (time travel aside)? Or in an alternate fantasy realm?
Does science fiction really only limit itself to space, time travel, robots, and/or weaponry?
Having read all of your definitions, I disagree with none of them, but wonder if there isn't more crossover between them than you might acknowledge here. Aren't there some elements of science fiction within the LOTR story?