((So, wait. You're saying that if there could be an explanation for the "magic," we can't call it fantasy?))
((I'm saying it depends on what the explanation is. If it's an inherent talent of humanity, that's more on the fantasy side. If it's Space God, it's also fantasy. If it's phlebotinum, that veers more on the sci-fi side, though the fact is, you can't put a certain work in one genre based on only a single detail. And the idea that you can't entirely separate science fiction and fantasy has been sort of my point.))
((So, a novel where everyone uses gems with inherent magical power to use magic is science fiction because the magic comes from phlebotinum?
And you've been trying to do that this whole time by explaining that the difference between science fiction and fantasy is if the "magic" is explained or not.))
((Urban fantasy is a seperate thing, drawing from fantasy (and sometimes superhero fiction) and putting it into a modern setting. And I'm unaware of any fantasy drawing from westerns and samurai stuff, whereas it should be pretty obvious that a lot of sci-fi has the Old West as a metaphor (if they're not going for the Age of Sail), tropes and all, and Star Wars is directly influenced by said samurai stuff. Can you think of any examples of major works of fantasy being inspired by samurai films or westerns? You keep making these claims, but never back them up.))
((How is something called urban fantasy not actually fantasy?
((Same way that science fiction isn't science, that comic books aren't literature, and the glass snake isn't a snake. Names are just names. In any case, calling "urban fantasy," "fantasy" is like calling "fantasy" "folklore"; the only connections they have are certain elements of the story and a sort of...memetic evolution thing.))
As for fantasy settings with Western and samurai influences, things I can come up with right now are mostly game settings (like Deadlands for westerns... oh, and the Dark Tower series, which I haven't actually read, and though I'm not an avid fantasy reader and can't say for certain, I do have a sneaking suspicion ninjas and samurai may not be all that rare, even if they're not called that exactly. The fact that there are a whole lot of game settings with Asian-themed supplements also hints at this. Sounds weak, I guess, but that's the best I can provide without a comprehensive education on the subject.
((Taking ninja doesn't mean you're taking tropes from samurai films, it means you're taking ninja and sticking them into your work. There are story elements associated with samurai films, just like there are ones associated with Westerns or fantasy stories. Taking ninja-like people--or even real ninja--and saying it's proof of taking inspiration from samurai films is roughly akin to saying that since noir films have gunslingers, they take inspiration from Westerns. Arguably, the ninja connection is even weaker.))
I wonder, though, whether steampunk counts more as fantasy or as science fiction? Gaslamp fantasy I'm clear on, but steampunk?))
((Depends on the steampunk. Girl Genius is more fantasy, but a "harder" steampunk setting would fall more into science fiction. Not that most fits well into either, which is part of why "steampunk" exists as a separate term.))
((Factoring in your original point, that's like saying that since there isn't a clear divide between human and ape, there is no difference between the two. Yes, there are australopithecines and such, but barring the occasional insult no one has any real difference telling the difference between an average human and an average ape.))
((That is true, but we hardly have the entire genetic lineage of humanity running around at once either, do we? It's not exactly an apt analogy.
((That point is irrelevant. Besides, we don't have every step between folklore and fantasy in the popular consciousness, do we?))
Besides, humans are apes. Great apes, technically. They look significantly different from chimpanzees, sure, but chimpanzees are also significantly different from gorillas. I'm more trying to say (though I do get caught up in the details a lot and start to argue things more for the sake of it than to prove any actual point - see this paragraph, for instance) that, if we did, in fact, have the entire genetic lineage of humanity running around at any given point, we shouldn't really get too uptight about calling one of the things on the gradient a human and another some other ape we want nothing to do with.))
((And yet, humans are so distinct that from Linnaeus to modern times hominids have been a separate
family from the rest of the apes. Humans are apes because of the way biological classifications work; it's a bit irrelevant since fiction is classified differently, as shown by the fact that no one calls LotR "mythology".))
((The way I look at it, science fiction and fantasy are more settings than stories. If it has golems and magic, it's fantasy. If it has robots and psionics, it's science fiction. If it has a weird mix of both, it's not a justification to lump the two together.))
((The setting part I agree with, and I perceive the true difference to be one of flavor and presentation, once again. Hence why I'm trying to argue that the difference isn't really something to be overly concerned about. I'm not trying to say (though I probably have already - an unfortunate side effect of me getting sidetracked) we should lump the two in together, I'm trying to point out that they overlap in places and to institute some kind of strict dichotomy between them is silly. For example, the Fallout universe has lasers, robots and mutants, but it also has ghosts, telepathy and a touch of magic in a few places, not to mention the general softness of the sci-fi elements there are. So it might not be science-fictiony (or hard, if you prefer that term) enough for some, but that's a matter of personal preference. To try and institute a clear line where there really isn't one is unnecessary.
((Again, just because there isn't a firm dividing line doesn't mean there isn't a difference.))
Although I am also of the opinion that psionics is just magic by a less silly-sounding name.))
((I agree with you here on everything except psionics sounding less silly.))
((What is magic? Is it energy applied through unseen means? Is it rituals that result in a certain event? Is it application of energy and knowledge through communion with a semi-intelligent force? Is it simply an effect we cannot explain? An effect that cannot be explained? It helps when everyone is on the same page, since magic has so many definitions. Depending on the definition you give, the truth of the above arguments changes. Same for some of the other things you are arguing about. Is magic and unknown forces like fate and gods the defining characteristic of fantasy? Is science and technology (or what looks like such) as an important part of the story the defining characteristic of sci-fi?))
((Whatever definition I can come up with seems lacking, but the Wikipedia one is such: magic or sorcery is an attempt to understand, experience and influence the world using rituals, symbols, actions, gestures and language. Granted, I'm pretty sure that means having a lively conversation with a friend about the news of the world, their personal life and politics is magic. Magic, I guess, is basically any repeatable event we cannot in any way explain or connect with the correlating ritual that seems to have caused it with our available knowledge (or the very nature of the event contradicts established and proven ideas on the nature of reality, maybe). That would make any sufficiently advanced technology indistinguishable from magic and any sufficiently analyzed magic indistinguishable from technology, which also makes for a good reason why separating sci-fi and fantasy entirely is unnecessary and silly.
((Again, by your argument most of the pillars of modern science fiction fall firmly into fantasy. When your definitions cause such obvious contradictions, you need to change them.))
Man, I've spent way too much time on this. It's helping me clarify my thoughts to myself, though, which I suppose is good. I should probably stop before I embarrass myself too much, however.))
((There are two kinds of debates: Annoying and stimulating. This has been the latter.))
