I think the question of what is Science Fiction versus what is Fantasy can at best only be answered vaguely. I think one problem is the perceived hierarchy between the two - anything can be considered fantasy, but there are "standards" for science fiction.

In general, for something to be "Hard" SF, it must not contain elements which are not directly supportable using current science. Science Fiction in general only contains elements which do not contradict current science, but may contain elements which are not necessarily supported by science.

Fantasy does not answer to science at all, and may contain elements which contradict science.

Many stories contain a mixture of science fiction and fantasy, but where they cross the line from being "SF with fantasy elements" and become "Fantasy with SF elements" is up to the reader.

Regardless of whether a work is SF or Fantasy, the work should still be self-consistent.

I am of the belief that with sufficient mental gymnastics, an argument can be made that any work of fiction is actually just a rehash of Arthurian legend.

Polar bears are one of the eight species of bears - the other seven being brown bears (grizzlies), black bears, sun bears, moon bears, spectacles bears, sloth bears, and panda bears.

This confusion might arise from the red panda, which is actually not a bear but more closely related to the raccoon - but nonetheless bears both morphological and behavioral similarities to the giant panda.



In response to the original question - I think having the bear go away would be the worst thing for an author. Insecurity is one of the side-effects of concern. The only way I know of the make the bear go away is to not care about the quality of the work.

How did the whole police thing get sorted out? They've still got three dead bodies and an active investigation.


And how does Kirmani reconcile Dresden's use of magic? Seems he got to see it up close and personal.