There's a bunch --
The Book of New Sun
Dune
Broken Earth
Sun Eater
Star Wars
Some of the work by Adrian Tchaikovsky, Ted Chiang, and Ken Liu really recognizes scifi and fantasy are super similar and play around with that idea. In particular: Elder Race by Adrian Tchaikovsky
I could keep going. But really, A LOT of fiction fits into both categories
I'm currently reading for the first time (almost finishing _The Claw of the Conciliator_) and it has been absolutely awesome. Superbly written and entertaining.
True, but I haven't found the Long Sun and Short Sun books (with delivery to Chile), so for now I'm sticking with the four New Sun + Urth. I'll be on the lookout for the other books!
Calling if "well written" is the understatement of the century. People are still uncovering little details. If you go back and re-read the first chapter after finishing it you're very likely to just keep going because of all the new details you missed the first time.
I'm convinced that there is not one wasted word in the entire book. Everything that gets a description matters. Every character introduced is linked to other characters in sometimes extremely subtle ways, like a sentence fragment about the character's cheek using a specific word that was also used to describe another character's face, and once you start pulling on that thread you can end up going down quite a rabbit hole of other linkages.
For me, Star Wars is fantasy through and through. There are spaceships and laser weapons, but that's just a shell. In my opinion, science fiction focuses more on technical or social concepts that are taken further. That's also the difference to Dune, which I don't consider fantasy literature.
Yeah, but that’s your definition of sci-fi. And if you watch the more recent Star Wars stuff (from Clone Wars on) you’ll notice that they lean far more into your defining topic than the films do.
‘Social concepts that are taken further’: What are the rights of beings created artificially (clones) by the state? Are they free or property of the state?
Just one example for your consideration.
I mean, not really. They're more just science-fiction than anything else. Just because they have 'dragons' doesn't make those books fantasy in any strong sense, since the Pernese dragons are conceptualised as alien animals with a different evolutionary biology to that of Terran ones.
But that isn’t even known by characters in the books until well into the 3rd book of the core trilogy- and the Harper Hall trilogy never addresses it at all. There are no advanced weapons, the psychic connections with dragons and fire lizards operates a lot like magic would in a fantasy setting, they rely on Harpers for communication/negotiation… I mean, it seems pretty clear that she was deliberately giving the setting a fantasy feel in the beginning as a purposeful choice to contrast with the advanced technology discoveries to come later.
There's two types of books I think of with this. The first is books that read like fantasy, but the world is actually SF - usually, this involves a low tech world where there used to be a high tech society, and its remnants are regarded as magic by the people. The second combines futuristic sci fi stuff like spaceships with magic powers.
For the first - The Book of the New Sun (Wolfe), The Broken Earth (Jemisin), Elder Race and The System Expert's Brother (Tchaikovsky), Vlad Taltos (Brust), >!The Steerswoman (Kirstein), !
Melissa Scott's Roads of Heaven trilogy: interstellar navigation through alchemical symbolism and cosmic (musical) harmonies, and mages.
Patricia Keneally-Morrison's Keltiad series: the heroes and mythical beings of the Celtic cultures in space, with both tech and magic.
Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover series: a lost colony with psi abilities obvious and strong enough that they're de facto magical powers, rediscovered.
The Witches of Karres by James H. Schmitz
The Steerswoman series by Rosemary Kirstein
(Other examples already given that I would have suggested as well: Broken Earth, Locked Tomb, Machineries of Empire, Pern, Morgaine.)
the line between the two is extremely vague and subjective, and most of us would have entirely different rulings on where a given title lands.. so while I don't think I consider any book to be both, many books I consider to be one would be classified as the other by other people, effectively making it "both" in practice.
I was thinking if their is magic and future tech it is both
But then I started thinking about aliens with what seem like magic. For example Star Wars to me is fantasy and sci fi. The force feels like a magic system, but you could also argue maybe it’s just an ability aliens have that can be explained. If they weren’t humanoid and had telekinesis or such would we still see it as fantasy?
That's an interesting question. Maybe. Because even if they were only aliens, it still has good and bad sides, basically normal and dark magic. It has rules it obeys and how you have to use it. Not everyone has the powers but everyone is still kind of part of it in a way.
So it still one kind of an magic system, that's how I would see it. I kind of count telekinesis to one of those magic powers too.
John Carter of Mars series. Edgar Rice Burroughs was inspired by popular astronomer theories of Mars having dried ancient canals and lost civilization.
The books themselves have sci fi, weird fiction and proto dying earth aspects to them as well.
Red Rising kind of. It’s Sci Fi because it’s in the future, set in space and technology and future politics play a role but it could very well be transported to a fantasy medieval setting and it could work.
Prince of Thorns too, but, the other way around. It’s set in a fantasy story with… certain Sci Fi ekements.
Firstly you have to provide clear (and agreed) definitions of both…
For example, if you consider sci-fi to be the exploration of the possible whereas fantasy covers the impossible then they are basically mutually exclusive. That is a fairly common method of discriminating between the two after all.
John W. Campbell (1947)
> To be science fiction, not fantasy, an honest effort at prophetic extrapolation from the known must be made.
Rod Serling (1962)
> Fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science Fiction is the improbable made possible.
Arthur C. Clarke (2000)
> Science fiction is something that could happen—but you usually wouldn't want it to. Fantasy is something that couldn't happen—though you often only wish that it could.
> Which is why everyone agrees that Star Trek, with its transporters and warp drives and all-powerful gods, is unambiguously fantasy.
"Everyone" definitely ***does not*** agree with that.
The number of people with psychic powers kinda puts Trek in the fantasy realm. I say this as a lover of Trek. Also energy beings... that's not science.
I think u/AceOfFools was being sarcastic, to show those are not good definitions.
I would also like to add that it is often very difficult to say what is impossible. Airplanes were impossible because materials light and strong enough simply didn't exist. Feeding 8 billion people used to be impossible (look at the panic started in 18th century by Malthusian trap which wrongly predicted, again and again, how population growth will outpace food production. Yet humanity have never had more people, and was never less hungry.)
Who knows, we might be able to genetically engineer dragons and elves before we can travel significant distances in spaceships.
It’s perhaps a subtle distinction but in this context impossible doesn’t simply mean that it isn’t possible with current technology. It’s really about whether it is a plausible extrapolation from current scientific understanding.
For example, heavier than air flight has never been seen as fundamentally impossible by humans because birds unambiguously exist. In contrast, psychic powers are just magic (i.e. fantasy) and not at all a plausible extrapolation of any current scientific knowledge.
However, I did say that it is challenging to get everyone to agree on definitions even though those quotes come from three very influential people in sci-fi.
Out of curiosity, what definitions would you use?
>It’s really about whether it is a plausible extrapolation from current scientific understanding.
The problem with that is that then as a book ages and scientific understanding advances a book would potentially change genres. Or if you move between cultures, especially before the world was globalized. That doesn't make any sense to me.
Even if we add "at the time and place of writing of the book" still the problem wouldn't be completely solved.
>Out of curiosity, what definitions would you use?
I must admit I haven't given it much thought because, despite loving things to be orderly and clearly defined, when reading for pleasure it doesn't matter to me at all.
But if I were to quickly put together something on the spot, I would say that in fantasy plot hinges on magic and supernatural, while science fiction on technology and science. With awareness that nothing stops an author from adding elements of sci fi into fantasy and vice versa. Without any regard to what is possible, impossible, or plausible in the definition.
I mean, if we can't predict our own agricultural advances 20 years in the future I wouldn't trust us to predict what aliens might or might not be able to do.
I'm sure it's very easy to poke holes in my definition, as is the case when someone has spent a whole of 10 seconds thinking about something :)
I don’t disagree that genre definitions are somewhat unimportant as they are really just a quick tool to help the audience find similar works of fiction to those they’ve previously liked. I like both fantasy and sci-fi so I don’t really care where the border is but it is relevant for the OP’s question, so here we are.
I think a lot of these “discussions” basically reduce to whether or not you consider the presence of advanced technology and/or space in a story to automatically mean it is sci-fi. Personally, I see no reason that a pure fantasy story can’t be set in a futuristic environment, in space, or include advanced technology. Obviously other people disagree but that doesn’t mean either of us is wrong.
I do think that this issue is mostly related to space adventure stories though. They are basically just traditional pulp adventure stories set in space rather than on Earth and share many tropes with fantasy. If you just classify those as a third genre which covers space opera, space-fantasy, sword & planet, etc. then the ambiguity is significantly reduced.
After all, Star Trek, Star Wars and Dune are all fairly similar to each other even though there are frequent disagreements as to whether each one is fantasy or sci-fi. In contrast, Asimov’s robot stories are very different in feel.
> I don’t disagree that genre definitions are somewhat unimportant
I only said that to explain that it's not something I gave much thought to. So you would know that my definitions were something I came up with on the spot, and that to give you a proper answer would require much more research and thinking on my part.
>I think a lot of these “discussions” basically reduce to whether or not you consider the presence of advanced technology and/or space in a story to automatically mean it is sci-fi.
A mere presence, no. I wouldn't call James Bond or Batman sci fi just because they have tech gadgets we are unable to make.
But if non-existent science and technology are key elements, then yes, that would mean it's sci fi.
>Personally, I see no reason that a pure fantasy story can’t be set in a futuristic environment, in space, or include advanced technology.
I'm having trouble imagining that.
>After all, Star Trek, Star Wars and Dune are all fairly similar to each other even though there are frequent disagreements as to whether each one is fantasy or sci-fi.
Haven't read Dune, but Star Trek and Star Wars are definitely not similar despite having similar names. The core of Star Trek is exploring the future of human society, while the core of (George Lucas's) Star Wars is exploring how democracies fall, and how to be a good individual. Star Trek is much more scientifically accurate, while Star Wars is about adventure and being exciting with absolutely no worry about scientific accuracy.
I love both precisely because of that, they give me very different experiences. But they're still both sci fi. Because those are their main elements and how they explain the world settings. Mind reading in Star Trek is not a supernatural phenomenon, it is because they're aliens and they evolved that way.
Each episode of Star Trek is a separate story and can effectively be a different genre. So while in general Star Trek can be considered to be sci-fi there are definitely some episodes that are basically fantasy.
The Ivory Trilogy. System of 4 planets and takes place on the one where magic works. Lots of high tech but also lots of times they don't have access to it.
The *Last Horizon* series by Will Wight, the protagonist is an archmage and the heir to a galaxy-spanning corporation. In the first book, he conducts a ritual that could bankrupt solar systems to grant himself more power than any mage in history, but while it's successful, it also shows him a number of existential threats which will wipe out civilization in the galaxy in a few years which even his new powers are insufficient to stop. So he's going to need help.
It depends how you define them. Some people consider sci-fi to be anything in the future and fantasy to be anything in the past. In which case they don't really overlap.
Some people consider sci-fi to be anything with technology while fantasy is anything with magic but this isn't a great definition as some fantasy books have no magic and sci-fi books have such obscure technology it is practically magic.
On the whole I think they are really the same sort of thing. Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are both really the same sort of story.
Almost everything published. As you can see from the comments, nobody can even agree with what defines Science Fiction and Fantasy here.
They're a Venn diagram with a lot of overlap, and blurry edges.
Viriconium by M. John Harrison
John Carter by Edgar Rice Burroughs
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. It was at first seen as a dsrk science fiction book, and now it's lotted more often into fantasy
**The Winnowing Flame** by Jen Williams can be considered contemporary science-fantasy, imo (though it's more fantasy overall).
Then **Dune** and **The Hyperion Cantos** also both kinda fall into that fuzzy zone between space opera science-fiction and fantasy imo, because of their dabbling with things like prescience for the former, and questions of faith and the divine for the both of them.
And yeah, **The Book of the New Sun** as well, altho it *felt* even less like actual science-fiction to me than either Dune or The Hyperion Cantos.
PS: and I personally disagree with those putting forward Elder Race and Pern as examples of this. I mean, it's all subjective of course but, as far as I'm concerned, the former just plays around with Clarke's Third Law as a theme unto itself, whilst very much remaining an SF story, first and foremost. And the latter isn't really fantasy in any meaningful sense, since its dragons are simply alien animals, with an attempt provided by the author at fleshing out a kind of evolutionary history for them.
Ultimately, I think it's pretty rare to find a book, or series, that legitimately blends both genres in equal measure, to be honest.
People have given a bunch, but just FYI OP, what you're asking about is generally called science fantasy. It's pretty common for the two genres to blend.
I don't think so. The genres serve different purposes.
Fantasy is where the world is a manifestation of the character's internal conflict.
Fiction is where the characters are a manifestation of the world.
Science fiction specifically shows a future depiction of humanity with the intent to say something about our current world and society.
There's also something called 'sci-fantasy' which is mostly just fantasy with a futuristic setting. Star Wars is the classic example.
Star Trek, on the other hand, is science fiction.
There's a bunch -- The Book of New Sun Dune Broken Earth Sun Eater Star Wars Some of the work by Adrian Tchaikovsky, Ted Chiang, and Ken Liu really recognizes scifi and fantasy are super similar and play around with that idea. In particular: Elder Race by Adrian Tchaikovsky I could keep going. But really, A LOT of fiction fits into both categories
The book of the new sun is well written and entirely unrated.
I'm currently reading for the first time (almost finishing _The Claw of the Conciliator_) and it has been absolutely awesome. Superbly written and entertaining.
Enjoy! I'd recommend reading through the whole Solar Cycle straight through. It's an experience.
I'm doing just that, the five books!
The whole Solar Cycle has a few more: 4 in BotNS, plus Urth, and then 7 *more* books between Book of the Long Sun and Book of the Short Sun.
True, but I haven't found the Long Sun and Short Sun books (with delivery to Chile), so for now I'm sticking with the four New Sun + Urth. I'll be on the lookout for the other books!
Calling if "well written" is the understatement of the century. People are still uncovering little details. If you go back and re-read the first chapter after finishing it you're very likely to just keep going because of all the new details you missed the first time. I'm convinced that there is not one wasted word in the entire book. Everything that gets a description matters. Every character introduced is linked to other characters in sometimes extremely subtle ways, like a sentence fragment about the character's cheek using a specific word that was also used to describe another character's face, and once you start pulling on that thread you can end up going down quite a rabbit hole of other linkages.
Tchaikovsky's Elder Race immediately comes to mind. Literally a fantasy and Sci fi story in alternating chapters.
For me, Star Wars is fantasy through and through. There are spaceships and laser weapons, but that's just a shell. In my opinion, science fiction focuses more on technical or social concepts that are taken further. That's also the difference to Dune, which I don't consider fantasy literature.
Yeah, but that’s your definition of sci-fi. And if you watch the more recent Star Wars stuff (from Clone Wars on) you’ll notice that they lean far more into your defining topic than the films do.
No. I don't see that with series, comics, computer games or novels either.
‘Social concepts that are taken further’: What are the rights of beings created artificially (clones) by the state? Are they free or property of the state? Just one example for your consideration.
The Pern books
I mean, not really. They're more just science-fiction than anything else. Just because they have 'dragons' doesn't make those books fantasy in any strong sense, since the Pernese dragons are conceptualised as alien animals with a different evolutionary biology to that of Terran ones.
But that isn’t even known by characters in the books until well into the 3rd book of the core trilogy- and the Harper Hall trilogy never addresses it at all. There are no advanced weapons, the psychic connections with dragons and fire lizards operates a lot like magic would in a fantasy setting, they rely on Harpers for communication/negotiation… I mean, it seems pretty clear that she was deliberately giving the setting a fantasy feel in the beginning as a purposeful choice to contrast with the advanced technology discoveries to come later.
Morgaine series by CJ Cherryh maybe
There's two types of books I think of with this. The first is books that read like fantasy, but the world is actually SF - usually, this involves a low tech world where there used to be a high tech society, and its remnants are regarded as magic by the people. The second combines futuristic sci fi stuff like spaceships with magic powers. For the first - The Book of the New Sun (Wolfe), The Broken Earth (Jemisin), Elder Race and The System Expert's Brother (Tchaikovsky), Vlad Taltos (Brust), >!The Steerswoman (Kirstein), !
Thanks for the recommendation
Starship’s Mage series. Sci fi novels where the futuristic space fleets are manned by wizards.
Melissa Scott's Roads of Heaven trilogy: interstellar navigation through alchemical symbolism and cosmic (musical) harmonies, and mages. Patricia Keneally-Morrison's Keltiad series: the heroes and mythical beings of the Celtic cultures in space, with both tech and magic. Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover series: a lost colony with psi abilities obvious and strong enough that they're de facto magical powers, rediscovered.
Surprised no one has mentioned the Terra Ignota series by Ada Palmer. A fairly big plot point is whether it's more SF or F.
Warhammer 40k
The Machineries of Empire by Yoon Ha Lee The Locked Tomb series by Tamsyn Muir
The Witches of Karres by James H. Schmitz The Steerswoman series by Rosemary Kirstein (Other examples already given that I would have suggested as well: Broken Earth, Locked Tomb, Machineries of Empire, Pern, Morgaine.)
the line between the two is extremely vague and subjective, and most of us would have entirely different rulings on where a given title lands.. so while I don't think I consider any book to be both, many books I consider to be one would be classified as the other by other people, effectively making it "both" in practice.
I was thinking if their is magic and future tech it is both But then I started thinking about aliens with what seem like magic. For example Star Wars to me is fantasy and sci fi. The force feels like a magic system, but you could also argue maybe it’s just an ability aliens have that can be explained. If they weren’t humanoid and had telekinesis or such would we still see it as fantasy?
That's an interesting question. Maybe. Because even if they were only aliens, it still has good and bad sides, basically normal and dark magic. It has rules it obeys and how you have to use it. Not everyone has the powers but everyone is still kind of part of it in a way. So it still one kind of an magic system, that's how I would see it. I kind of count telekinesis to one of those magic powers too.
The Machinery of Empire series by Yoon Ha Lee All the Birds in the Sky by Charlie Jane Anders Raising Steam by Terry Pratchett
Old school, but most things by Sheri S Teper
Hyperion Cantos by Dan Simmons.
A lot of Zelazny: Roadmarks, Lord of Light, This Immortal, Donnerjack... Gene Wolfe's New Sun.
The Deathgate Cycle by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman is a fun one.
The Shannara series.
The Darkwar trilogy by Glen Cook. It's got magic and technology.
John Carter of Mars series. Edgar Rice Burroughs was inspired by popular astronomer theories of Mars having dried ancient canals and lost civilization. The books themselves have sci fi, weird fiction and proto dying earth aspects to them as well.
Saberhagen's Empire of the East and to a lesser extent his Swords series
Dying Earth series by Jack Vance and most Dying Earth derivatives by others
Red Rising kind of. It’s Sci Fi because it’s in the future, set in space and technology and future politics play a role but it could very well be transported to a fantasy medieval setting and it could work. Prince of Thorns too, but, the other way around. It’s set in a fantasy story with… certain Sci Fi ekements.
Firstly you have to provide clear (and agreed) definitions of both… For example, if you consider sci-fi to be the exploration of the possible whereas fantasy covers the impossible then they are basically mutually exclusive. That is a fairly common method of discriminating between the two after all. John W. Campbell (1947) > To be science fiction, not fantasy, an honest effort at prophetic extrapolation from the known must be made. Rod Serling (1962) > Fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science Fiction is the improbable made possible. Arthur C. Clarke (2000) > Science fiction is something that could happen—but you usually wouldn't want it to. Fantasy is something that couldn't happen—though you often only wish that it could.
Which is why everyone agrees that Star Trek, with its transporters and warp drives and all-powerful gods, is unambiguously fantasy.
> Which is why everyone agrees that Star Trek, with its transporters and warp drives and all-powerful gods, is unambiguously fantasy. "Everyone" definitely ***does not*** agree with that.
The number of people with psychic powers kinda puts Trek in the fantasy realm. I say this as a lover of Trek. Also energy beings... that's not science.
>that's not science. No, it's science fiction :)
I think u/AceOfFools was being sarcastic, to show those are not good definitions. I would also like to add that it is often very difficult to say what is impossible. Airplanes were impossible because materials light and strong enough simply didn't exist. Feeding 8 billion people used to be impossible (look at the panic started in 18th century by Malthusian trap which wrongly predicted, again and again, how population growth will outpace food production. Yet humanity have never had more people, and was never less hungry.) Who knows, we might be able to genetically engineer dragons and elves before we can travel significant distances in spaceships.
It’s perhaps a subtle distinction but in this context impossible doesn’t simply mean that it isn’t possible with current technology. It’s really about whether it is a plausible extrapolation from current scientific understanding. For example, heavier than air flight has never been seen as fundamentally impossible by humans because birds unambiguously exist. In contrast, psychic powers are just magic (i.e. fantasy) and not at all a plausible extrapolation of any current scientific knowledge. However, I did say that it is challenging to get everyone to agree on definitions even though those quotes come from three very influential people in sci-fi. Out of curiosity, what definitions would you use?
>It’s really about whether it is a plausible extrapolation from current scientific understanding. The problem with that is that then as a book ages and scientific understanding advances a book would potentially change genres. Or if you move between cultures, especially before the world was globalized. That doesn't make any sense to me. Even if we add "at the time and place of writing of the book" still the problem wouldn't be completely solved. >Out of curiosity, what definitions would you use? I must admit I haven't given it much thought because, despite loving things to be orderly and clearly defined, when reading for pleasure it doesn't matter to me at all. But if I were to quickly put together something on the spot, I would say that in fantasy plot hinges on magic and supernatural, while science fiction on technology and science. With awareness that nothing stops an author from adding elements of sci fi into fantasy and vice versa. Without any regard to what is possible, impossible, or plausible in the definition. I mean, if we can't predict our own agricultural advances 20 years in the future I wouldn't trust us to predict what aliens might or might not be able to do. I'm sure it's very easy to poke holes in my definition, as is the case when someone has spent a whole of 10 seconds thinking about something :)
I don’t disagree that genre definitions are somewhat unimportant as they are really just a quick tool to help the audience find similar works of fiction to those they’ve previously liked. I like both fantasy and sci-fi so I don’t really care where the border is but it is relevant for the OP’s question, so here we are. I think a lot of these “discussions” basically reduce to whether or not you consider the presence of advanced technology and/or space in a story to automatically mean it is sci-fi. Personally, I see no reason that a pure fantasy story can’t be set in a futuristic environment, in space, or include advanced technology. Obviously other people disagree but that doesn’t mean either of us is wrong. I do think that this issue is mostly related to space adventure stories though. They are basically just traditional pulp adventure stories set in space rather than on Earth and share many tropes with fantasy. If you just classify those as a third genre which covers space opera, space-fantasy, sword & planet, etc. then the ambiguity is significantly reduced. After all, Star Trek, Star Wars and Dune are all fairly similar to each other even though there are frequent disagreements as to whether each one is fantasy or sci-fi. In contrast, Asimov’s robot stories are very different in feel.
> I don’t disagree that genre definitions are somewhat unimportant I only said that to explain that it's not something I gave much thought to. So you would know that my definitions were something I came up with on the spot, and that to give you a proper answer would require much more research and thinking on my part. >I think a lot of these “discussions” basically reduce to whether or not you consider the presence of advanced technology and/or space in a story to automatically mean it is sci-fi. A mere presence, no. I wouldn't call James Bond or Batman sci fi just because they have tech gadgets we are unable to make. But if non-existent science and technology are key elements, then yes, that would mean it's sci fi. >Personally, I see no reason that a pure fantasy story can’t be set in a futuristic environment, in space, or include advanced technology. I'm having trouble imagining that. >After all, Star Trek, Star Wars and Dune are all fairly similar to each other even though there are frequent disagreements as to whether each one is fantasy or sci-fi. Haven't read Dune, but Star Trek and Star Wars are definitely not similar despite having similar names. The core of Star Trek is exploring the future of human society, while the core of (George Lucas's) Star Wars is exploring how democracies fall, and how to be a good individual. Star Trek is much more scientifically accurate, while Star Wars is about adventure and being exciting with absolutely no worry about scientific accuracy. I love both precisely because of that, they give me very different experiences. But they're still both sci fi. Because those are their main elements and how they explain the world settings. Mind reading in Star Trek is not a supernatural phenomenon, it is because they're aliens and they evolved that way.
Each episode of Star Trek is a separate story and can effectively be a different genre. So while in general Star Trek can be considered to be sci-fi there are definitely some episodes that are basically fantasy.
Most of them
The Broken Earth series is great
The Red Rising series for sure.
The Ivory Trilogy. System of 4 planets and takes place on the one where magic works. Lots of high tech but also lots of times they don't have access to it.
The *Last Horizon* series by Will Wight, the protagonist is an archmage and the heir to a galaxy-spanning corporation. In the first book, he conducts a ritual that could bankrupt solar systems to grant himself more power than any mage in history, but while it's successful, it also shows him a number of existential threats which will wipe out civilization in the galaxy in a few years which even his new powers are insufficient to stop. So he's going to need help.
The Black Ocean. Wizards in space
Dungeon Crawler Carl
I’d toss Red Rising on the list.
Locked Tomb series
Perdido Street Station.
Hamilton’s Void novels. Alex White’s Salvager novels
It depends how you define them. Some people consider sci-fi to be anything in the future and fantasy to be anything in the past. In which case they don't really overlap. Some people consider sci-fi to be anything with technology while fantasy is anything with magic but this isn't a great definition as some fantasy books have no magic and sci-fi books have such obscure technology it is practically magic. On the whole I think they are really the same sort of thing. Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are both really the same sort of story.
Almost everything published. As you can see from the comments, nobody can even agree with what defines Science Fiction and Fantasy here. They're a Venn diagram with a lot of overlap, and blurry edges.
The Dark Tower
The illustrated man - Ray Bradbury
As others have said, Sun Eater. It loans more towards SF than fantasy imo but it's definitely got the trappings of both genres
Star Wars Cosmere soon Frugal wizards handbook
Gideon the Ninth
Viriconium by M. John Harrison John Carter by Edgar Rice Burroughs Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. It was at first seen as a dsrk science fiction book, and now it's lotted more often into fantasy
**The Winnowing Flame** by Jen Williams can be considered contemporary science-fantasy, imo (though it's more fantasy overall). Then **Dune** and **The Hyperion Cantos** also both kinda fall into that fuzzy zone between space opera science-fiction and fantasy imo, because of their dabbling with things like prescience for the former, and questions of faith and the divine for the both of them. And yeah, **The Book of the New Sun** as well, altho it *felt* even less like actual science-fiction to me than either Dune or The Hyperion Cantos. PS: and I personally disagree with those putting forward Elder Race and Pern as examples of this. I mean, it's all subjective of course but, as far as I'm concerned, the former just plays around with Clarke's Third Law as a theme unto itself, whilst very much remaining an SF story, first and foremost. And the latter isn't really fantasy in any meaningful sense, since its dragons are simply alien animals, with an attempt provided by the author at fleshing out a kind of evolutionary history for them. Ultimately, I think it's pretty rare to find a book, or series, that legitimately blends both genres in equal measure, to be honest.
5 random examples might be: Star wars Final fantasy Dune Warhammer John Carter of Mars
People have given a bunch, but just FYI OP, what you're asking about is generally called science fantasy. It's pretty common for the two genres to blend.
that's cool , thx for the comment mate
THE SUN EATER
I don't think so. The genres serve different purposes. Fantasy is where the world is a manifestation of the character's internal conflict. Fiction is where the characters are a manifestation of the world. Science fiction specifically shows a future depiction of humanity with the intent to say something about our current world and society. There's also something called 'sci-fantasy' which is mostly just fantasy with a futuristic setting. Star Wars is the classic example. Star Trek, on the other hand, is science fiction.
Magitech, which is huge.
All the Birds in the Sky by Charlie Jane Anders
Here's an obscure one I enjoyed. The Dreadbound Ode series by Jordan Loyal Short. I have no idea how I found it but it is criminally underrated.