More on Science Fantasy from Wikipedia:

*******

A definition, offered by Rod Serling, is that "science fiction the improbable made possible; fantasy, the impossible made probable"[1]. The meaning is that science fiction describes unlikely things that could possibly take place in the real world under certain conditions, while science fantasy gives a scientific veneer of realism to things that simply could not happen in the real world under any circumstances. Another interpretation is that science fiction does not permit the existence of fantasy or supernatural elements; science fantasy does. Even the usage of this definition is difficult, however, as some science fiction makes use of apparently supernatural elements such as telepathy although science fiction can use telepathy or telekinesis because they deal with the mind and such abilities can be accessed or created through scientific means.

For many users of the term, however, "science fantasy" is either a science fiction story that has drifted far enough from reality to "feel" like a fantasy, or a fantasy story that is attempting to be science fiction. While these are in theory classifiable as different approaches, and thus different genres (fantastic science fiction vs. scientific fantasy), the end products are sometimes indistinguishable.

Arthur C. Clarke's dictum the "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" and Larry Niven's "any sufficiently rigorously defined magic is indistinguishable from technology" indicates why this is so: a writer can write a fantasy using magic of various sorts, and yet turn the story into science fiction by positing some highly advanced technology, or as-yet-unknown but ultimately thoroughly provable science, as an explanation for how the magic can occur. Another writer can describe a future world where technologies are so advanced to be invisible, and the effects produced would be classified as magical if they were only described as such. A world might include magic which only some people (or only the reader) know to be in fact technological effects.

re: preview chapter of WoW:

I really can't wait to see Stannis fort of Ice and Snow. I think it rocks and totally shows that he has accepted that winter is here.

And I'm trying to figure out why Brandon would want to save Theon.

Completely different - this looks interesting Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World that Can't Stop Talking.

that doesn't make LOTR science fiction, because that explanation is not included in LOTR or used as part of the story. It's not even alluded to.

They don't reveal he's of a magical race in LOTR? Not even in the appendices? Is that reveal in the Silmarillion, then?

I don't see how being a wizard that studies and learns magic is any softer than someone who's born of a race that has that power inherent in them. I wouldn't inherently apply hard to either of them, but I would flip your order.

science fiction describes unlikely things that could possibly take place in the real world under certain conditions

Uh, politely, that's bullshit. Lots of sci fi describes things that couldn't possibly take place in *our* real world, because either the conditions are not stipulated, or they could never exist.

I'm pretty sure the backstory on Gandalf/wizards is in both the Appendices and the Silmarillion. Either way, it's canon and hardly obscure.

I follow an online book club called Sword & Laser (mostly on Goodreads but also a podcast), and in theory the book selections are supposed to alternate SF and Fantasy, but it's a rarity that a book falls 100% solidly into one category or the other.

(Probably the clearest example recently was Gene Wolf's Shadow and Claw - the combo of Shadow of the Torturer and Claw of the Conciliator that's currently in release - it's a post-technological world where a lot of the tech still functions, but the people in that universe have forgotten how and why it works, and so to them it's magic. To the reader, it's science fiction and to the characters, it's fantasy.)

I haven't read Hunger Games, but I decided to go through Mark Reads' review of them. Wow, what gets marketed as YA these days is a lot darker than what I read as a kid.

But I'm kind of sad at how shocked Mark is by some of the twists, how honestly surprised he is at how Katniss is treated and how the plot twists. Maybe I've seen too many war tribunals or read too many retrospectives to be surprised by what the Powers that Be do to their tools.

Well, sad isn't the right word, unless it's sad for my own cynicism.

That's why I'm surprised he's thinking of watching Supernatural. Sure, it's one of the funniest shows I watch, but it's also really freaking dark and depressing alongside that.

Does anyone know what B&N means when they're selling enhanced ebooks? I'm looking at the entry for Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, and I can't work out what they're actually selling for the extra two dollars. I have a B+W e-ink Nook, so I'm assuming it'll be lost on me on my main device anyway, but would the extra features be available in their Nook applications on more video-appropriate hardware?

I'm so confused. That's such a zero-information writeup, unless I'm missing something.

It fascinates me that Hunger Games is such a huge hit, since it's such a blunt denunciation of so much of American culture. How many millions of kids have read this and are now looking thoughtfully at reality TV? Or interview shows? Or politicians?

I just read the "Mark Reads" thing on Hunger Games, and I also finished the first book myself.

I think I may be the exact opposite of Mark in every way. First, I knew the basic plot before reading, and can't imagine it any other way. Second, I am all about the romance-- poor Peeta! I know next to nothing about the next 2 books, however.

Dickens Walk podcast from the Guardian.

Be sure to download the cool map from the illustrator Baudade too.