"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". I've always felt that good fantasy and good scifi use magic/technology in a consistent way that allows the reader to suspend disbelief without actually turning off too much of your thinking. In other words, the effect of magic /tech is limited and well-bounded in a way that can be understood, ie., if we assume that x and y and z are true then we can have the following reasonable expectations about the effects that we will see in a story. C.S. Lewis is a good example of this. "Out of the Silent Planet" has some pretty lousy science but it's used consistently. (Lewis also had the advantage of being a superb stylist of the English Language).
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to contradict you here, Marnie, just having a discussion. These issues are ultimately matters of personal taste and opinion. I'm just expressing mine ;-) I don't like fantasy nearly as much. For me, the definition of fantasy is that what underpins the story is magic (hence undefinable and it usually has no consistent rules), and what underlies sci-fi is science -- whether good or bad science, it doesn't really matter to me. Although good science is definitely preferable. But I am no scientist and if they offer a reasonable premise for something like warp drive, say, I'll suspend disbelief and buy it. Marnie aka Doe
