Sci-Fi versus Fantasy

[English assassin]

Sci fi for sure. One word: cyberpunk.

No disrespect to fantasy [warning: extreme disrespect coming] but a genre whose most well known author's most well known work is a second rate mish mash of ideas he riped off from the sagas, is not saying "creative geniuses at work" to me.

[Goofball]

George R.R. Martin
Terry Goodkind
Terry Brooks
Robert Jordan
Stephen King
Tad Williams
Weis & Hickman
Tolkien

'nuff said...

[Sir Moody]

GAH!! how can you people decide??!?!

I like them both as genres it depends on what mood im in - i have a book shelf full of fantasy (ranging from the lord of the rings to the wheel of time to the Discworld) and a Video/dvd collection full of Scifi (ranging from Firefly to Babylon 5 to Alien to Star Ship trooper) so i like them both equally...

[Togakure]

I like both as well. I'm glad I don't have to choose one or the other--each offers a different flavor of entertainment and food for thought.

One series that I enjoyed over and over again, which I rarely see mentioned in threads like these, has elements of of both genres. The author's name is Julian May, and the first set is referred to as the Saga of the Pliocene Epoch: The Many Coloured Land, The Golden Torc, The Nonborn King, and the Adversary. She wrote two additional sets that relate to the first: The Galactic Milieu Trilogy: Jack the Bodiless, Diamond Mask, and Magnificat; and The Intervention: Surveillence, and Metaconcert (there may have been a third in this one, but I can't remember and I found no quick reference via Google). While predominantly Sci Fi, the first set in particular has elements of Fantasy.

[caravel]

No disrespect to fantasy [warning: extreme disrespect coming] but a genre whose most well known author's most well known work is a second rate mish mash of ideas he riped off from the sagas, is not saying "creative geniuses at work" to me.

I think you'll find that most fiction works are based on old myth and legends, actual history, ancient cultures or a "mish mash" of these.

Tolkien's borrowing from the "die nibelungen" among others, is no different to more modern works borrowing from Tolkien and/or popular mythology. Sci-fi also tends to borrow heavily from previous works. All books have some kind of inspiration, and I believe it was Tolkien's intention to weave a story around those legends and at the same time give them some credibility. I would say that those old legends were an inspiration and Tolkien did not simply copy them. The main fault with Tolkien's work is that it is overly self indulgent and contains the repugnant and arrogant elves (warning this book may contain traces of elves). This is where the self indulgence comes across much more strongly as it appears as if Tolkien worships them.

[Mithrandir]

Elves Arrogant? don't be silly.

[KukriKhan]

I've tried to enjoy fantasy - really tried hard, because people whose opinion I respect in other areas tout it.

But

it puts me to sleep. Always has. Every time.

It must be a character flaw of mine, or a lack of sufficient imagination, or something. I just can't seem to suspend my disblief long enough to enjoy the story.

On the other hand, most sci-fi keeps, if not rivets, my attention. Once the author explains 'how' some different-from-current-reality thing works, I'm sold and dig in for the long haul.

So: sci-fi.

[Marshal Murat]

Dead Even.

I like David Drake

[Don Corleone]

I'm surprised nobody jumped on my Boris Vallejo comment. I'll have to post some in the Babe Thread when I get home tonight to give you all a touch of what I'm talking about.

Anyway, Sci-Fi has one thing going for it that puts it slightly ahead in my book. Sci-Fi could potentially happen. We're guaranteed not to visit Middle Earth. We just might travel the stars one day.

This whole thread reminds me of a hysterical skit on Saturday Night Live a couple of years ago. They had phone-love for nerds, and instead of 'hot blonde', 'nympho redhead', they had "Galdriel", "Princess Leigha" and other sci-fi/fantasy females at the other end of the phone. Priceless.

[English assassin]

On the other hand, most sci-fi keeps, if not rivets, my attention. Once the author explains 'how' some different-from-current-reality thing works, I'm sold and dig in for the long haul.

So: sci-fi.

Aha, a fellow sharer of a guilty secret ! Sure, I really like Sci fi because of its cutting edge exploration of current social problems....wait, FLT travel works HOW? Wow, tell me more.

Yup, hard sci fi, not an insult but a recommendation in my book.

No disrespect to Tolkien, different strokes for different folks. But if you like Tolkien you're going to LOVE the elder Edda, if you see what I mean

I'm surprised nobody jumped on my Boris Vallejo comment.

By the power of Google....yes, you have a definite point.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Don, are you talking about this kind of art;



It does have an overweight guy in a wife beater.

Huh, all the options are still within one vote of each other, 17, 16, 17.

Closest poll ever.

CR

[Blodrast]

Keep looking, CR.
Good things come to those who... er, seek ?

[macsen rufus]

Sorry, I just had to push GAH! up into the lead. I like both genres, as someone else said, so long as it's well written! There is genius and cack to be found in both camps.

And I can well endorse a lot of other people's favourites: Gaiman, Mieville, Orson Scott Card, Julian May, Tolkien...

(I quite agree with Masamune about Julian May - an excellent writer who straddles both categories -- the Pliocene Sagas are mostly based on Celtic mythology, btw. And Orson Scott Card I'd recommend to anyone -- he's a very human and humane writer, with great insight, and he's given me a lot of understanding and respect for Mormon history, too).

Both genres have the huge advantage that they make great grounds for experimentation with what-ifs and isolating philosophical questions from the constraints of reality. The sort of fantasy I like is that which has its roots in traditional mythologies, for it can often develop themes and shed some light on the traditions, and renew them for modern times. Mythology can contain a lot of truth that can be forgotten if it seems "outdated" by social and technological change. But the big issues of human identity, values, our place in the universe etc are pretty much timeless and the insights of preceding generations are no less worthwhile than our own, indeed can remind us of things we've overlooked or misplaced in our development. So power to fantasy writers for keeping that alive. In particular I like Charles de Lint and Terry Windling. Doc Bean mentions Hobb - is that Assassin's Apprentice series? Really enjoyed that one, too....

Sci-fi, however, helps us to examine what we are doing and where we are going. Arthur C Clarke is a classic example, envisioning geostationary satellites and a few other developments in literature before they occured in reality. (I also loved the Rama series ) Although I haven't revisitied Asimov for a couple of decades, I thought he got a lot of mileage out of the "Laws of Robotics". A E van Vogt was another who raised some interesting ideas (eg "The Weaponshops of Isher" should be read by anyone with an interest in the gun control debate). And Philip K Dick was a genius (if somewhat twisted at times )

And there's so much more to Allen Dean Foster than "Alien", as well... okay better stop there, before I rant on for the whole afternoon

[doc_bean]

Doc Bean mentions Hobb - is that Assassin's Apprentice series? Really enjoyed that one, too....

Yep, one of the few fanatasy writers I thought wrote something totally original. Also one of the best written fantasy series out there imo. I tend to find anything more than a trilogy overkill.

[Blodrast]

..lots of good stuff...

Very well said.

[Orb]

George. R. R. Martin.

The guy is a genius. The A Song of Ice and Fire series is by far the single best series I have read, and it continues to be good.

Otherwise,I find a lot of fantasy bland. Sci-fi I'm iffy on as I haven't read enough.

[Rilder]

Both.

[Sjakihata]

sci-fi for movies, fantasy for books (disregarding a few obvious exceptions)

[Lemur]

"Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell" by Susanna Clarke is definitely fantasy, but it's a very good read.

I was beginning to wonder if anybody else had read that book. I was feeling so lonely.

Well-written is the key. And some books defy categorization, anyway. "The Book of the New Sun" by Gene Wolfe is either fantasy or science fiction or both, and nobody can give a definitive answer. It doesn't matter, 'cause it's a masterpiece.

I'll take well-written over a particular genre any day of the week. (Although, when I'm in the mood for relaxing, I'll tolerate more hard SF than anything else.)

[Captain Fishpants]

The Ladies of Grace Adieu is the sequel - a set of truly excellent short stories that extend the world of Jonathan Strange and explain why he won't go near one group of young ladies in particular.

[English assassin]

I was beginning to wonder if anybody else had read that book. I was feeling so lonely

I read it too. Its top. God knows how she got it pitched to a publisher though "OK, its about 900 pages long, part comic part not, written in a sort of 1850's style, there's copious footnotes, oh, and did I mention the Fairies? Wait, where are you going?"

I'll look out for the other one now the Captain has recommended it.

Does the Gormenghast trilogy count as fantasy do we think? If so I may have to reconsider my vote as that is my favourite set of books ever.

[Lemur]

Here's a different way of looking at it: In which genre are you more tolerant of goofs and trash? Maybe that's the way to identify your true love.

It's like chick films with the wife -- I will happily watch a good chick film, but I have no tolerance for a mediocre or bad one. So the BBC Pride and Prejudice gets a pass, but nothing will compel me to watch Enchanted April. Whereas I have a high tolerance for absolute junk when it comes to SF films. Is Steel Dawn on? I might sit through it, just for laughs.

Likewise, I have tolerance for junk when it comes to written SF, and none when it comes to fantasy. LotR is fine, as is Johnathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, and I'll re-reach The Curse of Chalion many times. But don't try to get me to read those David Eddings monstrosities. (I hope I'm thinking of the right author ...)

So try that on for size: In which genre are you more tolerant and forgiving?

[macsen rufus]

In which genre are you more tolerant and forgiving?

I think I'd have to resort to GAH!! again, even on that rephrasing, Lemur. Trash is trash whichever old hat it's wearing . But I will put up with trash on the occasion that I'm looking for escapism, and I can bitch about a trashy book in preference to dealing with other stuff I'm escaping from.

BTW "The Book of the New Sun" rings a bell, I'm thinking the torturer's guild and its "clients", green moon, a cloth blacker than black etc? If we're on the same book then I'm in full agreement, bit of a genre-bender and well imagined and executed.

DOH! Just saw your link and we are on the same book, excellent choice!

[Gregoshi]

But don't try to get me to read those David Eddings monstrosities.

So now wouldn't be a good time to mention I've been thinking about re-reading Eddings' Belgariad series.

[Mithrandir]

sci-fi for movies, fantasy for books (disregarding a few obvious exceptions)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Keep looking, CR.
Good things come to those who... er, seek ?

Huh? Oh, wait, I get what you're saying....something like this:


I guess all you vallejo fans just like the skimpily clad guys. Well, whatever floats your boat.

In which genre are you more tolerant of goofs and trash?

Fantasy, I think. Or maybe that's just bad experience from reading some stupid Ben Bova book about exploring saturn, chocked full of every stereotypical character the author could think of. Heaven knows bad fantasy can be real bad. Well, gonna have to go with GAH! on that too.

Crazed Rabbit

[doc_bean]

Here's a different way of looking at it: In which genre are you more tolerant of goofs and trash?

The problem here is that sci-fi tries to convince you it's a plausible world, Fantasy already assumes you can put aside your disbelief.

BTW I think fantasy is currently to narrowly defined. I tshouldn't just involve swords&sorcery but also horror,mythology etc.

[Lemur]

BTW I think fantasy is currently to narrowly defined. I tshouldn't just involve swords&sorcery but also horror,mythology etc.

Hmmm, horror is sort of a grab-bag that includes just about every genre known to man. Even poetry can have horrific aspects. Wuthering Heights manages to be the ultimate romantic chick novel and still have horror elements. Alien is a hard SF movie, but it owes its structure to haunted house stories.

[R'as al Ghul]

In assassin's voice: "Sci-Fi or fantasy, a tough decision".

I've read plenty of both and can enjoy both genres. There's also a lot of crap in both genres but where do you not have that?
I've read my Asimov 20 years ago and took the Sci-Fi section of the local public library from there. I've also grown up playing with Star Wars (A new hope) action figures.
It took me ages to finally pick up LotR because I had read "The Hobbit" first when I was 14 and I was completely bored by all the descriptions of the hobbit lineage. Instead I loved reading action-packed Michael Moorcock epics about the eternal hero.

Today I enjoy contemporary authors like Neil Gaiman, William Gibson and Neal Stephenson. Gaiman's work is mostly fantasy but not of the classical type, he constructs his own worlds that aren't too far from our own. Gibson is best known for "inventing" cyberspace but his last novel is set in our time frame and so will be his next. Stephenson writes Sci-Fi and historical novels. His Baroque Cycle is one of the most amazing contemporary works I've read.
Recently I've picked up the Discworld novel-series by Terry Pratchett. I've just finished the third one and can highly recommend it.

R'as

[doc_bean]

Recently I've picked up the Discworld novel-series by Terry Pratchett. I've just finished the third one and can highly recommend it.

I've read all the ones out in paperback format. Most of them are very good. Their tend to be 'bursts' of better and slightly less good books in the series imo, certainly between 20 and 30 he really developped his own style. The early books feel too much like the hitchhikers guide to fantasy to me.

Good Omens, by gaiman& Pratchett is also very good