>>907944
>A pure Fantasy is anything meant to portray a fictional world, to varying degrees of realism and plausibility, with the intent of exciting or entertaining
You've just described every single fiction book ever written. If horror/mystery books weren't entertaining, nobody would read them.
In my opinion the distinction between sci-fi and fantasy really comes down to self-consistency.
The most archetypal sci-fi stories are similar to counterfactual thought experiments. The rules might be significantly different from our own universe (eg. allowing faster-than-light travel), but those rules are applied consistently and serve to guide the development of the story. The setting makes sense given the technology available, and characters generally do sensible things with said technology.
In fantasy the physical laws of the setting usually take a back seat to character goals and narrative progression. "A wizard did it," is a totally acceptable explanation for pretty much everything. Neither the author nor the reader is ever expected to ask questions like, "if wizards can do that, why are they still using water wheels to mill their flour instead of perpetual motion machines?" In many of the purest examples of fantasy, major plot events happen simply because the hero deeply wishes them to happen or because a prophesy predicted they would happen.
There's obviously a lot of overlap in both directions. You get "sci-fi" which is nothing more than fantasy in a futuristic setting, and you get "fantasy" which is basically just sci-fi with magic instead of technology. Admittedly the former is far more common than the latter, and makes up the vast majority of "sci-fi" TV and films.
Maybe we need better words to describe this distinction.