The Discourse of Fantasy

[LordVreeg]

Science fiction, at it's best, celebrates progress through science, but I fear that there is a cultural subconscious push-back.

How do you feel about cyberpunk and other dystopian science fiction - Brave New World, Oryx and Crake, The Hunger Games, A Canticle for Leibowtiz, etc?  These works are pretty ambivalent about science.

well, first of all, we had been talking about larger authors and cultural penetration.  And this is a splinter of a declining movement, and I could leave it at that.  But it is not what I really think. 
Dystopian Science Ficiton deals often with the negative possibilities of technology to some degree, but if that was the only difference, then the Empire in Star Wars would be dystopian.  And Dystopian works have always been part of the genre, with Iron Heel from Jack London and Farenheit 451 joining Orwell.

My feeling on Dystopian works is that they still pay homage to the possibilities of progress through Science, butfrom a cautionary angle.  They nornally expand upon issues that are current, and use technology as a multiplier; as a cautionary take oif what can happen if we let government/corporations/religions/ hkeep going the way they are they will use our attempts towards progress to control us, and technology will aloow them to do it. 
But I don't see them as blaming science, so much as I see them blaming society.

[Humabout]

Which Science Fiction greats? At least, which greats since the 1990s? Most modern Sci-Fi I've read is pretty negative or dystopian at worst, or at best it focuses on the human condition... in a usually negative fashion that creates a dread of advancement.

I haven't read anything I'd consider "great" from the 1990s to present.  I've had a horrible time finding anything that could count as "literature" as opposed to slop thrown out to make a buck.  (I think that's part of what has impressed me about ASoFaI, although that's clearly fantasy.)  Harlen Ellison, Ray Bradbury, Issac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, Arthur C Clark, Frank Herbert - these were masters and wrote stories of literary value that won't be forgotten a week after the movie adaptation leaves the theaters.

Chris Bunch, who wrote military sci-fi wrote entertaining pieces that were generally positive... but at the series' core, it was about the collapse of galactic governance, a launch into the dark ages, so at its heart- it was concerning, not enlightening. The books were good, but they had an undertone of disappointment and loss because you know that the series' heroes are damned and have to make the best they can with what very little they have.

It's difficult though, to make a sci-fi tale that is unabashedly positive towards science without creating a tacky Edisonaide. I've written a number of sci-fi shorts, and the better shorts are the dystopian or at least disturbing ones. (note: none of either type have managed to be published, but I have received a few good rejection letters with notes for improvement :)).

Note: after a bit more reflection and reformulating, I hope to respond in a succinct (non-rambling) way to Steerpike and Lord Vreeg.

Are you familiar with The Revolt in 2100 or any of Heinlein's stories involving Jeremiah Sutter?  They are quite pessimistic and cautionary, but they still express an optimism insofar as such things won't last.  I would suggest that Heinlein expressed a lot of pessimism toward people throughout his novels, but these are not the hopeless, dismal, self-indulgent pity-fests of Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep.

And a note on "Science Fantasy."  The best I can figure, it's just fantasy set in the future.  Star Wars is a wonderful example.  There is no science there.  At. All.  It's just a futuristic fantasy series with space samurai and sound in vacuum.  Science Fiction, at its core, stems from logical extrapolations from science and an attempt to adhere to the possibilities presented by current understanding of science.  Without the injection of scientific rigor, it's not "science" anything.  At best, it's fantasy, and at worst, it's nonsense.

[Elemental_Elf]

You know what was a good Sci-Fi show? The newer Battlestar Galactica. To me that was good sci-fi as it asked questions (about racism, AI, faith, god, etc.), made the audience think AND had endearing characters (i.e. best of both worlds).  

When it comes to fantasy, I can't think of many Fantasy movies/shows/books/games that really made me think about the world around me.

Look at the episode The Outcast from Star Trek The Next Generation. It dealt with a species whose culture was genderless and abhorred gender and viewed it as deviant. One of this species identified as female and fell in love with Commander Riker. Her society punished her with  "Psychotectic therapy" to "cure her" of her gender identity and return her to what society saw as "normal." Clearly this is an analogue to the LGBT community's struggles with society not accepting them and the ways society punishes/cures them. It is thought provoking and makes you question how our own society deals with the LGBT community (especially for back in the early 90's).

That is good (if a bit ham-fisted) sci-fi .

[Humabout]

I totally agree.  BSG was great, excluding the total cop-out final episode.  The entire Star Trek franchise is renowned for pushing social issues (probably excluding Voyager, but I think most trekkers try to pretend that show didn't happen).  One of the things I love about Heinlein was the way he used science fiction to explore social norms and mores.  It forces the reader to really examine why he thinks the things he does.

You're right that there doesn't seem to be much fantasy lit that does the same thing.  Perhaps it stems from many fantasy stories' attempt to create a mythos (or just be entertaining, as is the case with the more pulp fantasy books).

[Lmns Crn]

I totally agree.  BSG was great, excluding the total cop-out final episode.  The entire Star Trek franchise is renowned for pushing social issues (probably excluding Voyager, but I think most trekkers try to pretend that show didn't happen).  One of the things I love about Heinlein was the way he used science fiction to explore social norms and mores.  It forces the reader to really examine why he thinks the things he does.

You're right that there doesn't seem to be much fantasy lit that does the same thing.  Perhaps it stems from many fantasy stories' attempt to create a mythos (or just be entertaining, as is the case with the more pulp fantasy books).

To me, that's unsurprising, as you're talking about what I consider definitional to those genres.

To me: Sci-fi is about using speculative fiction to hold a lens up to society, and the fact that much of it is "futurey" is largely coincidence. Fantasy is about the unfolding of a characters' mythic arc, and the fact that much of it is "magickey" is largely coincidence.

Most (not all) examples make more sense when you ignore the coat of paint on the surface and examine the structure. (Like why Star Wars is fantasy and not sci-fi, even though it has robots and outer space and etc. It's because the actual story being told is about a reluctant nobody, driven by destiny, trained by wizards, wielding his father's magic sword, trying to defeat a dark lord corrupted by metaphysical evil. The robots and planets and spaceships are structurally incidental to the whole thing.)

I think it is more common for a work that is basically sci-fi to incorporate dramatic character arcs (assuming a facet of fantasy) than it is for a work that is basically fantasy to really critically examine an aspect of society (assuming a facet of sci-fi). This is probably because characters are the way in which authors invest readers in their work. (Interestingly, it's different for roleplaying game settings, in which the most interesting characters are ideally the ones created by players, so setting authors often just try to make room for that dramatic character arc without actually building it.)

I think that most fantasy settings that examine societal issues don't really invite critique of those issues, they're just borrowing the emotional weight of things that readers/players/viewers are already familiar with. The Empire in Star Wars is laden with symbols of fascism, but that's not to invite viewers to think about fascism, it's just so we'll know who the unambiguous bad guys are. The slavery in the Jade Stage functions similarly, and the elves' species-wide incapability of empathy is not present so much to explore the societal implications of a species without empathy but rather to emphasize that these people are distant, alien, and unsympathetic. It's a direct route to producing a desired set of reactions, since we know what symbols are usually connected with what reactions.

The best fantasy example I can think of that actually does step toward sci-fi in the "lens on society" sense of the idea is Discworld, which is really so much of a pastiche that I'm not sure what the actual correct genre classification actually is, or if one exists.

[Elemental_Elf]

I totally agree.  BSG was great, excluding the total cop-out final episode.  

The final episode only really had 1 bad part, IMO. The rest of it was pretty darn good... Ok 2 bad parts.

[spoiler]The first bad one was where everyone just decided to "go native" and join the human tribe AND that tribe just accepted the outsiders. The second bad part was at the very end where Baltar calls god "he" instead of "she". I was really hoping Kara was more of a Jesus-like "mortal form of God" not just some Angel. [/spoiler]

The entire Star Trek franchise is renowned for pushing social issues (probably excluding Voyager, but I think most trekkers try to pretend that show didn't happen).  One of the things I love about Heinlein was the way he used science fiction to explore social norms and mores.  It forces the reader to really examine why he thinks the things he does.

Voyager is best known for its Borg episodes and survival in unknown territory stories but, in reality, they did just as much social commentary. The problem with it was that many of the things they discussed were re-treads of what TNG did (which, to many, was a glaring weakness of the show).

Heinlein is a great example of what Sci-Fi can, and should, be. It's about looking at yourself and the world around you and questioning everything (i.e. the foundation of Science).

You're right that there doesn't seem to be much fantasy lit that does the same thing.  Perhaps it stems from many fantasy stories' attempt to create a mythos (or just be entertaining, as is the case with the more pulp fantasy books).

Look at Star Trek, it has a wondrously complex mythos that has been created over the course of 50 years via 5 TV shows (6 if you count the Animated Shows) and 12 movies. When you really get down to it, there are precious few other fictional worlds that have as much generated content. Star Wars definitely is up there, since the books are all considered canon (err... well an acceptable level of canon). Forgotten Realms and middle-Earth are probably up there as well. Point being, most fictional universes have a clear start point and a clear end point in terms of new content and the products life cycle.

Fantasy, to me, could just as easily focus on social issues as Sci-Fi. In fact the way Fantasy could deal with racism, class-ism, privilege, the downtrodden, the environment, etc. could be very compelling and quite interesting. Yet, for some reason, Fantasy sticks to just being entertainment. Maybe it is a case of people not supporting those kinds of stories in Fantasy, thus discouraging authors from writing them (and instead taking their ideas and writing Sci-Fi or pseudo-historical fiction).

To me: Sci-fi is about using speculative fiction to hold a lens up to society, and the fact that much of it is "futurey" is largely coincidence. Fantasy is about the unfolding of a characters' mythic arc, and the fact that much of it is "magickey" is largely coincidence.

It cannot be mere coincidence for Sci-Fi to be the questioning genre and Fantasy to be the mindless entertainment genre. I understand why Sci-Fi does what it does (it just makes sense), what I do not understand is why Fantasy does not tread into the social commentary area (in the way Sci-Fi does). Fantasy is rife with lots of interesting ways to discuss real world, societal issues yet, at the end of the day, it stubbornly refuses to do so. Do people just want to see heroic heroes slaying Dragons? Is that all Fantasy is good for? Why can't we delve into class warfare and intolerance? Why must we always read about larger than life heroes performing heroic acts?

Most (not all) examples make more sense when you ignore the coat of paint on the surface and examine the structure. (Like why Star Wars is fantasy and not sci-fi, even though it has robots and outer space and etc. It's because the actual story being told is about a reluctant nobody, driven by destiny, trained by wizards, wielding his father's magic sword, trying to defeat a dark lord corrupted by metaphysical evil. The robots and planets and spaceships are structurally incidental to the whole thing.)

I've commented on this fact before to other Star Wars fans and there is a lot of negative re-action to this concept that Star Wars is just a Fantasy setting that has been gussied up with Sci-Fi elements. You could take the entire story and, with minimal edits, make it into a perfectly solid medieval fantasy movie. I think a lot of people refuse to see it that way because they have been lured in by the glitz of the sci-fi elements and refuse to see the forest for the trees.

I think that most fantasy settings that examine societal issues don't really invite critique of those issues, they're just borrowing the emotional weight of things that readers/players/viewers are already familiar with.

That sounds like a cop-out. If authors wanted to, they could easily examine societal issues in a profound and meaningful way. Instead they just harken back to well tread archetypes and stereotypes to push character-driven stories.

[Steerpike]

And a note on "Science Fantasy."  The best I can figure, it's just fantasy set in the future.  Star Wars is a wonderful example.  There is no science there.  At. All.  It's just a futuristic fantasy series with space samurai and sound in vacuum.  Science Fiction, at its core, stems from logical extrapolations from science and an attempt to adhere to the possibilities presented by current understanding of science.  Without the injection of scientific rigor, it's not "science" anything.  At best, it's fantasy, and at worst, it's nonsense.

Right, yeah - this is what I was trying to say about Dune - it is a whisper away from this when you actually look at it.  About the only thing I "buy" at all are drugs being used to make human computers and the really basic brute stuff like shields and atomics.  But anything the Bene Gesserit and Guild Navigators do, while sounding sciencey, is pretty much dressed-up mysticism.

To me: Sci-fi is about using speculative fiction to hold a lens up to society, and the fact that much of it is "futurey" is largely coincidence. Fantasy is about the unfolding of a characters' mythic arc, and the fact that much of it is "magickey" is largely coincidence.

Speaking of Dune, that novel is kind of an interesting example given your definitions here.  The novel is very much the story of Paul, his coming of age, his training, and his ascension (it's all incredibly mythic and such - prophecies and chosen ones and all that), but as a consequence of his social standing and powers, he radically reshapes several societies whose ways of life the novel spends a great deal of time examining, and in later novels the very ecosystems of planets are altered as a result of his decisions and the decisions of his son.  So depending on how you look at it, I think, Dune either messes with your rubric or sits right in the middle between science fiction and fantasy.

I'm also curious what you make of A Song of Ice and Fire, which while very character-driven focuses a great deal of its time on exploring the power structures of medieval societies and often depicts their overthrow and disruption.  It's definitely invested not only in using such power structures to give its stories emotional heft but to force readers to examine them.

Do you feel, in essence, that "proper" or "real" science fiction is necessarily a more didactic genre, LC?  Naturalism in space?

Yet, for some reason, Fantasy sticks to just being entertainment.

If you haven't read Miéville, man, you gotta.  Also Gene Wolfe's The Book of the New Sun, most of Neil Gaiman's work, Vandermeer's Ambergris series (especially Finch), and of course A Song of Ice and Fire spring to mind as works that tackle all sorts of sociopolitical themes - religious conflicts, class conflicts, economic woes, racial oppression, queer sexuality, the nature of power etc.

[Humabout]

Of those, I've read ASoIaF, and as good as it is, it really doesn't do anything to examine society.  It focuses on the struggles of individual characters within a more sociopolitically realistic setting than most fantasies.  It isn't asking any questions, though.  It isn't examining anything, really. Just focusing on the individual struggles of each person within unfolding events that take on the typically mythic scope of most fantasies.

[Lmns Crn]

Re: EE,

Well, I don't agree with language like "cop-out" and "mindless entertainment." I'm talking about two different story structures, I'm not making value judgments about one being better than the other.

I assume that the reason sci-fi often lines up with societal issues and fantasy often lines up with heroic journey stories is that technology has its effects on the societal level and magic is typically a will-made-manifest reflecting the mastery of an individual.

Pyrokineticism is a sign of the inner strength of the person who can manipulate fire with his mind; that's an element of a character. Getting free energy by magically binding fire spirits and using them to power industry, that's technology dressed up as magic, with a societal effect. If that's glossed over and not really explored, it's a background detail that gives you some flavor but doesn't meaningfully impact genre. The more we start to investigate issues that arise as a result (what happens when you take a society and give them limitless energy for free? is it exploitative to make use of spirits in this way? etc.) the more we start to develop science fiction genre elements.

Re: Steerpike,

Speaking of Dune, that novel is kind of an interesting example given your definitions here.  The novel is very much the story of Paul, his coming of age, his training, and his ascension (it's all incredibly mythic and such - prophecies and chosen ones and all that), but as a consequence of his social standing and powers, he radically reshapes several societies whose ways of life the novel spends a great deal of time examining, and in later novels the very ecosystems of planets are altered as a result of his decisions and the decisions of his son.  So depending on how you look at it, I think, Dune either messes with your rubric or sits right in the middle between science fiction and fantasy.

There are all sorts of in-between cases and difficult calls to make, obviously. This is a continuum, not an either/or thing.

I'm not familiar with Dune (I know, I know, stop throwing tomatoes), but it sounds like you are describing a fantasy arc, just one where massively powerful characters are knocking planets around. The degree to which it shades into sci-fi, I would say, corresponds to the degree to which those changes and their consequences are explored (separate from their direct relationship to Paul and co.), but that's not a thing I can know without reading the book(s).

Rama travels to Kishkindha, deposes the king of the monkeys, and installs a new monarch, but the Ramayana is still fantasy because the focus of the story is on the journey of Rama and his friends, not on how Kishkindha's society shifted due to regime change foisted upon the monkeys by an itinerant avatar of Vishnu. The Death Star blew up Alderaan not so we could discuss the political impact of the existence of such terrible weapons, but so we could know how evil and dangerous the Empire is before the heroes go wreck their day.

Things that start to straddle the line are things like The Matrix (I've only seen the first one), which I would classify as primarily fantasy because of its concern with Neo's character arc, but with some minor sci-fi elements. Not because of the machines or the predicament of humanity; those are just the backdrop for Neo's enlightenment and overcoming of the lie of reality (he is basically a Christ-figure in a Hindu mythos). Rather, because in a few places, we start to examine the question of whether the rebellion against the machines is the right thing to do. We start to wonder-- why not take the blue pill? There's the one traitorous freedom fighter who rejects his enlightment, preferring the pleasant lie to the difficult truth. That's starting to play up the muted sci-fi themes in this story.

The other things that stump me are things like Kurt Vonnegut's novels, which don't seem to have much weight in either category. I want to call things like Cat's Cradle and Slaughterhouse Five sci-fi as a matter of instinct, and they're both using impossible themes (Ice-9, a form of sortakinda time travel, aliens) to comment on the horror of war and weapons of mass destruction, but there's something about how that stuff is used that feels... different. I dunno. Maybe I'm overthinking it.

I'm also curious what you make of A Song of Ice and Fire, which while very character-driven focuses a great deal of its time on exploring the power structures of medieval societies and often depicts their overthrow and disruption.  It's definitely invested not only in using such power structures to give its stories emotional heft but to force readers to examine them.

It's fantasy with some political elements. Or maybe it's a political drama with some fantasy elements. The parts that function as fantasy are a different style of fantasy without any Joseph Campbell kind of arc, and there are multiple protagonists, no moral absolutes, etc.

I've only read the first four books, so no spoilers, please.

To my eye, ASoIaF is a highly character-driven story, and a lot of the societal issues are there to show the stakes of politically-involved characters' actions in a morally grey world. The main spotlight of the story is on a large number of individual character arcs, some of which are typical of fantasy characters. Some characters have powerful dramatic arcs which are not fantasy arcs (Ned Stark, Robb Stark, etc.). Dany has, so far, a textbook-perfect fantasy arc. Not only does she feature a bunch of stock-standard fantasy elements (exiled heir, special lineage, dragons), the shape of her arc is one of overcoming adversity, building confidence and autonomy, and asserting moral character. Bran is probably well on his way to a similar fantasy arc, and Stannis is probably still doing the same sort of thing in reverse, in classic Faustian style.

I think the missing element for science fiction is something speculative. It can't be sci-fi because of the question: what would society be like if it were a medieval kingdom with corrupt nobles in charge?, because that is a thing which has existed historically and the question doesn't cover any new ground. It can't be sci-fi because of the question: what would society be like if dragons were real?, because even though that is a real and immediate thing for the people Danerys is hanging out with, that's not really the scope of the story, and the dragons are there to support Dany's fantasy arc. (Maybe something like Dragonriders of Pern comes closer to addressing that question in a sci-fi context? I don't remember, it's been like 20 years and I only ever read one of those.)

Do you feel, in essence, that "proper" or "real" science fiction is necessarily a more didactic genre, LC?  Naturalism in space?

I don't think sci-fi needs to be naturalistic at all (even though it often is.) I think science fiction seems more classically sci-fi when it poses a hypothetical and then starts exploring the societal (often ethical) implications of it. So maybe that makes it didactic, I dunno.

[LordVreeg]

I think that most fantasy settings that examine societal issues don't really invite critique of those issues, they're just borrowing the emotional weight of things that readers/players/viewers are already familiar with.

Just a quick scribble to say I agree, that it is very hard to set up players in a game that utilizes cultural and societal issues regularly.  Normally, the best you can get is turning stuff around slightly to make the PCs see the difference, and few times, they do.  I DO remember when I started making Bugbears feisty and hyper-intelligent and very, very sarcastic...and suddenly the Players started making friends with them...(this is pre Celtricia)..and I know I was onto something.

[LordVreeg]

Right, yeah - this is what I was trying to say about Dune - it is a whisper away from this when you actually look at it.  About the only thing I "buy" at all are drugs being used to make human computers and the really basic brute stuff like shields and atomics.  But anything the Bene Gesserit and Guild Navigators do, while sounding sciencey, is pretty much dressed-up mysticism.

Ok, you've mentioned this twice, and I need to mention a few things we might be forgetting.

Dune may not be as high-science as some, but it deals with science quite a bit, actually.  The whole idea of Mentats was due to the prohibition on 'thinking machines', so it was very unique in that it tried to show a different spin on since without AI or Robotics.

It also dealt with the Ecology of Arrakis heavily, with the function of the spice, the worms, the water, all tied together, with the stillsuits, the genetic adaptation of the fremen, water and the way water affected the soclal class systems, etc.  Spice harvesters, spotters, worms and wormsign, also should be included.

Who groupings of science were created, under the Holtzman effect, which explained shields, suspensors, and the spacecraft travel.

Genetics are mentioned quite a bit, with the Bene Gesserit programs, the various houses, the fremen...


So, year, the effects of prophecy and feudal politics and the coming of age bits are all god points.  But Dune is most certainly SCIENCE fiction.

[Steerpike]

it really doesn't do anything to examine society.

I completely disagree here.  Yes, it focuses on individuals to tell its story (pretty much any novel does this, even the most resolute, hard SF - SF has characters too!).  Ice and Fire examines a wide range of issues from a variety of perspectives.  First and foremost, it breaks down the idea of binary morality, posing all manner of ethical questions.  Do the ends justify the means?  Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?  Which is more important: family or duty?  Is it better to always stick to principles, even if it means others will get hurt, or is it alright to bend or break your principles for a greater good?  Are ideals foolish, or indispensable?  How should justice be administered and how can justice be abused?  Characters like Jaime Lannister, with his constant struggle between knightly honour, duty to the realm, duty to the king, duty to his father, (forbidden) love of his sister, fraternal love of his brother, and pure selfishness, illustrates a lot of these struggles.  So do people like Ned Stark, Davos Seaworth, Catelyn, Jon, etc.  The series is continuously putting its characters in ethical dilemmas in order to examine these questions.

Much of the series is about power and its various uses and abuses, the institutions that support it and uphold it.  More than one character has long speeches about the nature of power and how it is wielded.  Characters like Tywin, Varys, Littlefinger, Tyrion, Joffrey, Stannis, Dany, Margaery, Cersei, Viserys, the Queen of Thorns - the rulers, basically - all engage with these questions.  We are frequently shown examples of characters contending for power, struggling to maintain power, examining their power, exerting their power.  Through the struggles of these characters within the detailed, semi-historical political institutions the books present, many questions are raised.  What is the nature of power?  How is is gained, transferred, distributed, lost?  Does power always corrupt?  How can power be undermined?  Is power merely an illusion?  How are power and money related?  How are power and violence related?  How are power and faith related?  How are power and sex related?  How are power and knowledge related?

The series is deeply interested in questions of gender.  Multiple societies with different constructions of gender are presented, like the egalitarian Wildlings and the patriarchal Seven Kingdoms and others across the Narrow Sea.  A diverse array of female characters (Arya, Cersei, Brienne, Dany, Asha) defy gender-boundaries in different ways.  The texts are also obsessed with bodies and how those bodies are socialized, especially when they're disabled, maimed, or deformed.

Just scratching the surface... there's lots, lots more to talk about in those texts.

Genetics are mentioned quite a bit, with the Bene Gesserit programs, the various houses, the fremen...

Right, but it's like fantasy genetics - stuff about genetic memories and breeding programs to create a precognitive, mystic messiah.  It has nothing to do with real genetics, it just invokes genetics to make itself sound credible.

Same with space travel in Dune: it's pure fantasy.  Prescient space-fish-things use their psychic/magic powers to travel through space at impossible speeds.  The Holtzman Effect is a great example of what I mean.  It sounds sciencey, and I think Herbert throws the word quantum in there to describe "foldspace," but it's totally vague and unexplained, like hyperspace or the Ethereal Plane.  It's not really based in actual physics or science at all, it just sort of invokes scientific terminology broadly to make itself sound realistic.  I have no problem with this whatsoever, but it's not proper science, it's fantasy with a thin sheen of science dabbed on for looks.

The ecology of Arrakis is pretty interesting, although anyone with much knowledge of actual ecology can tell you it doesn't really make a whole ton of sense unless there are some primary producers hiding somewhere that we don't know about (tricky in a planet without precipitation... never a drop of rain on Arrakis).

I'll totally admit that the stillsuits and wormsign are cool and credible, and like I said I can buy mentats (human computers) and atomics and stuff, but the vast majority of the cool stuff in Dune is just made up with almost no basis in real science.  Now, we can just say that it's future science that we don't understand, which is fine and I'm totally cool with, but we can't pretend it has a proper basis in known, actual science.

[LordVreeg]

http://www.amazon.com/The-Science-Dune-Unauthorized-Exploration/dp/1933771283
Tell you what, I'll let you know how it goes.

It's not future science, it is alternate science.  It is not supposed to be far in our future, it is far in A future.  Not to say you are wrong, but I think you are holding Dune to rigor beyond most science fiction.  It's not like SnowCrash or Neuromancer explained more science, it was just less alien.

[LordVreeg]

Are ideals foolish, or indispensable?  How should justice be administered and how can justice be abused?  Characters like Jaime Lannister, with his constant struggle between knightly honour, duty to the realm, duty to the king, duty to his father, (forbidden) love of his sister, fraternal love of his brother, and pure selfishness, illustrates a lot of these struggles.  So do people like Ned Stark, Davos Seaworth, Catelyn, Jon, etc.  The series is continuously putting its characters in ethical dilemmas in order to examine these questions

I tend to find this true to my feelings and a decent answer to how a game can also force PCs to answer very, very difficult situations without true 'answers'.

[Elemental_Elf]

Re: EE,

Well, I don't agree with language like "cop-out" and "mindless entertainment." I'm talking about two different story structures, I'm not making value judgments about one being better than the other.

I assume that the reason sci-fi often lines up with societal issues and fantasy often lines up with heroic journey stories is that technology has its effects on the societal level and magic is typically a will-made-manifest reflecting the mastery of an individual.

Pyrokineticism is a sign of the inner strength of the person who can manipulate fire with his mind; that's an element of a character. Getting free energy by magically binding fire spirits and using them to power industry, that's technology dressed up as magic, with a societal effect. If that's glossed over and not really explored, it's a background detail that gives you some flavor but doesn't meaningfully impact genre. The more we start to investigate issues that arise as a result (what happens when you take a society and give them limitless energy for free? is it exploitative to make use of spirits in this way? etc.) the more we start to develop science fiction genre elements.

I apologize, I was being a bit provocative with my language (bad habit from other forums).

I do not think a Campbellian Journey  and thought provoking stories are necessarily the equivalent of oil and water. You can take hard hitting issues and make them a key point in a heroes journey. You don't necessarily need to have hard science to deliver a message to your audience. However, all too often, Fantasy jut turns into a character driven narrative where the kind of introspective nature that defines classic Sci-Fi are rebuffed before ever being allowed the chance to thrive.

EDIT: I think ASoF&I is a good example of thought provoking Fantasy but it doesn't go quite far enough in my opinion. Still it is leagues ahead of other books in its genre.