In the spirit of our continuing discussion of genre, Al Robertson writes about popular misconceptions of the differences between fantasy and science fiction over at his blog Allumination.  In response to the argument that fantasy is "innately conservative," focusing solely and often inaccurately on the past, while science fiction is progressive and real, Robertson writes:

Science Fiction can act as propaganda for science, but it cannot honestly lay claim to the realist authority that is innate in science. The fundamental aims of science – the development and propagation of an objectively true, reproducible worldview – are in opposition to the fundamental aims of fiction – the development and propagation of a personally true, unique worldview.

In this context, the claim that SF is superior to Fantasy because it is a more accurate reflection of the potentials and realities of the world is meaningless. Science can seed fiction, but it can’t (by definition) be fiction.

He goes on to bolster the importance of fantasy as a modern art form:

We live in a world where fantastic rhetoric is far more successful than scientific rhetoric. You don’t believe me? Watch some ads. Rooted in Surrealist shock tactics, the language of advertising is built on entirely fantasised imagery that presents individual brands as the kinds of crusading , transcendental superheroes that critics of Fantasy condemn. More broadly, check out modern political rhetoric. There, too, is fantasy; a conscious, ongoing project to present the world as politicians would like it to be, rather than to engage with it as it is.

Robertson concludes that fantasy, even more than sci-fi, is perhaps the more relevant response to the modern situation.  The entire essay is worth reading.

Via SFFWorld.com.