Explanation of every feature is unnecessary though. A Song of Ice and Fire goes from absolutely no magic in the beginning except for something that completely surprises the characters, to more and more in the later books. It is self-consistent - magic had gone away, people thought it was all over, and now it is returning and people are noticing it. It wasn't info-dumped, it was woven into the very fabric of the story. If all fantasy requires explanation, so does science fiction since there are a wide range of impossibilities inherent to that genre, or you just gloss over it and hand-wave it away (sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic and all that) - unless you're into the harder science fiction, and then explaining is a must. Sorry, but you don't know that. That's just how you feel, and is not the objective truth. You don't like fantasy, fine. You have your reasons, and that is also fine. However, you're treating your experience, your viewpoint, as the authoritive truth. For you to 'know' anything like this, it must be agreed by everyone. If a large number of people disagree with you, you only know it fails utterly for you, but it certainly doesn't do it outright. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The best fantasy is largely informed by the real world, especially mythology and folklore. Human behaviour is another major element. I can see that you clearly favour science fiction over fantasy, and consider it superior, and intend to put fantasy down - and its readers - as inferior. That you wouldn't be 'caught dead' reading it shows you have a real disdain for it, not that it isn't simply your thing. The connotation in your post is there, and I do find it insulting to be looked down on like that. Fantasy is certainly not unrelated to the real world, and it shows a lack of true open-mindedness and consideration of the issue on your part. I fail to see how science fiction always has an excuse and fantasy does not because there are various science fiction elements that are completely imaginary, and likely present in some the books you covet the most. I have an idea - go tell Tolkien's relatives that his stories were completely unrelated to the real world. It won't fly. Tell GRRM that, and it won't fly (The Wars of the Roses). Tell me, and it won't fly - if my writing isn't related whatsoever to the real world, what does that say about the inspiration I have had from Japanese myth and culture? What does it say about the sensitive treatment of various non-white cultures in fantasy? Of course fantasy is related to the real world, the best is informed by our real world experiences and our own world's cultures and mythology; it is a reflection of all of that. I take inspiration from the real world, and wish to explore the cultures that never existed, but that would make sense in terms of the Human condition, the way in which people behave and what drives them to do the things they do.
I can see where you are coming with that one, because when i was a little younger than i am now (im 19) i wanted to write fantasy, but ive found Horror has become the more preferential genre for me in terms of how i write, but i may just be one in a million
What can tick off readers when it comes to fantasy and magic is the lack of logic. That's why, I guess, we talk of "magic systems" so that we establish laws and logic to magic, in which case it steps a little closer to the logic and rules science fiction has to offer. Not much has to be explained in either case -- sci-fi or fantasy -- as long as whatever happens is somehow logical. Readers can piece things together. Everyone? The only thing we know is that we know nothing This is your opinion, right? The real world elements that inspire some fantasy, however, are not real-real, they're stories and make-believe, which is another thing that can tick off some readers about fantasy, but which also entices so many writers and readers. The story still has to be anchored to the real world, though, because if it's not, the reader will have difficulties relating to the characters or anchoring themselves to the story. But on the other hand, for new writers fantasy is "a safe genre" because there are not that many limits and e.g. the high fantasy genre offers possibilities for all kinds of acrobatics and heroics that our real boring world lacks. Though, if truth be told, I don't read that type of fantasy myself
Of course they lead somewhere. They would be pointless otherwise. My comment that young writers on this forum tend toward fantasy is the result of observation over the years that I have been a member (3) and the posts of questions, plot problems, requests for brainstorming, etc. If you do not agree with my premise, that's fine. I'd be interested to learn of any data you have to the contrary. I did NOT state that they do this before moving on to other genres, I asked that in response to a comment that someone else had made that seemed to suggest it. I also did not say that I found it to be easier - others did, including those who write it. For the record, I don't think it is. In the immortal words of Felix Unger, "When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME."
First off, I'd like to thank all those partaking in this conversation for remaining so civil, that's really awesome. I've made some big claims in my previous posts that may seem derogatory toward fantasy (mostly because they are), and to be honest, I'm still trying to discover what is exactly about fantasy that turns me off so much. I promise you we will get to the bottom of this. I've always wanted to have a truly thorough discussion on WF, where we can reach a consensus based on concrete examples and well defined claims. Stay tuned for a lengthy explanation sometime within the next few hours.
Okay then, what is the Riverworld series? Science fiction or fantasy? The first book was a Hugo award winner and considered a sci-fi classic, but according to your definition, is actually fantasy. And when an author uses faulty science that could never occur in reality, how is that different from "magic"? Are Jules Verne, Robert Heinlein, and countless other sci-fi greats suddenly "fantasy" writers? In fact, you mention "a fictionalized form of science"; isn't that "magic" with a few arbitrary rules thrown in? It's very easy to dismiss my question with a hasty definition, but I don't believe it actually illuminates anything. I'm "completely wrong", yet you "agree" that science fiction is "hard to define"? Tell you what, name me any science fiction novel you want and I will read the first 50 pages and explain to you why it fails in credibility.
Probably the most interesting one to do that with would be The Dragon's Egg, by Robert Foreward. Though I think it was written around 1980.
I'm not sure it can actually be done for every single work ever written, any more than 1234's original arrogant claim that I was parodying. I don't get his preoccupation with "credibility"; most science fiction I have read contains multiple impossibilities and highly questionable events, including many books I love.
Science fiction is either based on or extrapolated from the laws of physics. It strives to give an explanation that a scientist would understand. Fantasy is utterly random, arbitrary make-believe. It's all in the explanation and when the explanation is gibberish, or not present at all, to me the narrative loses any appeal. This to me is a very clear-cut distinction between the two genres, and I have no problem telling the two apart.
I'm guessing you aren't very familiar with the laws of physics then, because science fiction works violate them all the time. And since that's the case, they are also "arbitrary make-believe", no? Oh, but wait, that's also your definition of "magic". What's the difference, again? By the way, I'm a scientist, so my perspective comes from that area. To me, most science fiction is as faulty and arbitrary in its rules as fantasy. Then perhaps you can help me out; what is Riverworld, science fiction or fantasy?
[MENTION=35652]123456789[/MENTION] and [MENTION=54840]IronPalm[/MENTION] - as [MENTION=26136]Kaidonni[/MENTION] alluded to above, you are both trying to define as objective truth something that is inherently subjective. The fantasy genre exists and thrives for a reason - it speaks strongly to those who embrace it. And I would imagine that it is for the same reason that Hemingway and Wouk and Michener speak so strongly to me, or that Asimov, Herbert and Heinlein speak so strongly to their adherents (I could go on). Each particular genre has its own way of expressing truth. My mother once said that nothing any writer ever said after William Shakespeare was said better than Shakespeare had said it. I don't agree with that (and didn't when she said it, although at the time - I was 16 - I wasn't widely enough read to refute it), but that's actually irrelevant. Shakespeare spoke to her on a level that transcended all others - for her. Contrasting genres, like contrasting styles, is a useful exercise to get to know them better, to understand what we like about them and what we don't. But to try to "prove" that one is more "credible" than the other is wasted effort.
Really? Where am I doing this, exactly? I'm simply noting that it's very difficult to separate science fiction from fantasy. That there is a great deal of overlap, and arguments about one can be made just as easily about the other. I'm not trying to actually define anything, let alone some "objective truth". Did you misread my posts?
Genres are different by definition. Therefore, there are some gross rules we should be able to derive. Not everything in the world is subjective. PS. I kinda agree with your ma.
I don't know if it can be done for them all, either, but for that one it would be interesting to try if you had the right background. Dr. Forward had a Ph.D. in physics and did some interesting work with gravity. His novel The Dragon's Egg was described by one reviewer as a textbook on neutron stars cleverly disguised as a novel. That said, I suspect there has been enough that has changed in the science of neutron stars since its writing that someone with the right expertise could find some problems with it.
That's a big statement. As so often, after reading arguments on this forum, I went off to follow up on some points. I decided to check on some of my favourite 'hard' sci-fi writers, to see if they had, or have, a scientific background. So many of them do: Asimov - professor in biochemistry Arthur C Clarke - inventor, won award for his idea that geostationary satellites could serve as telecommunications relays (!) - so without him, we might not be doing this online now? James Blish - biologist, specialty in pharmaceutical science Poul Anderson - BA honours in physics Geoffrey Landis - NASA scientist, specialties: planetary exploration, interstellar propulsion, solar power, photovoltaics, solid-state physics (PhD) Vernor Vinge - Professor of Maths and Computer Science Ben Bova - lasers and fluid dynamics Stephen Baxter - mathematics and engineering Alastair Reynolds - physics and astronomy So I imagine their books are reasonably scientifically accurate? And these guys aren't the only ones ...I just stopped searching after this.
[MENTION=35652]123456789[/MENTION] - Some rules, possibly. But let's remember that the very notion of "genre" is, primarily, a marketing tool. Good literature does not necessarily divide itself into neatly defined categories, nor would there be any need to without the desire to sell to an eager, accepting market (it's true in music, too: how, for example, would you categorize someone like Johnny Cash? Country? Rock'n'roll? Blues? Gospel? He did a lot of material that fit all four of those). Take Herman Wouk's The Winds of War. Historical fiction? Absolutely, one of the finest. But you could also call it a Family Saga. Or Adventure. Or even a Romance (okay, that's a bit of a reach, but it comes down to definitions).
Perhaps it's because most writers are introverts. They are more aware of what is going on with them than outside of them. My pain psychologist and my general practitioner MD and my counselor have all -independently- remarked that I'm much more self-aware than their other patients. I strongly doubt that I'm unique in this regard. I suspect that all writers are very self-aware. It enables creating real characters. (Keeping in mind that what you're talking about is fantasy, not mythology) Mythology is not just made-up stories. Mythology is a collection of stories passed down through generations which has, embedded within it, heuristics for understanding the world, how to live in that world, and identifying what is valuable in that world. They, also, build group identity (they tell us what it means to be a member of a group and that we are not the only people who have felt the way we feel). These may seem like stuff that exists outside of ourselves, rather they very much are things which resonate in the heart. Fantasy is written by people trying to tap into the power of mythology. These people may not want to take the time to break apart real myth to see how and why it works or they may believe that the myths they know are out of date. So, they create new ideas of what is real, what is valuable, and how life should be lived (hopefully based on their own self-awareness of living in the present) and dress them in a language that they think is mythical.
I think you did misread my intentions. Read the sentence I was directly quoting right above that, as well as my very next reply to Steerpike. I was parodying a statement by 1234. Hardly bigger than the original one about fantasy. Not sure what your list is supposed to show, either. That some science fiction writers have a science background? I'm well aware of that. I have a comparable science background to a few authors you listed (I'm not a professor or any great discoveries, though!), and if I tried to write science fiction, I'm sure it would be riddled with errors no matter how hard I tried. Scientists write research papers in their specific, narrow area of expertise and have to do numerous revisions just to iron out all the errors they find. (Nevermind the errors that other scientists find in the work!) By comparison, science fiction books are much longer, often contain scientific elements far outside their area of expertise, and aren't written with the same level of self-scrutiny, for obvious reasons. (And thank god for that!)
Absolutely. We need to look at gross rules, and accept there will always be exceptions to varying degrees.
I am assuming and I admitted I was assuming. At least I admit it, unlike others, who try to pass off their observations, opinions, and assumptions as fact. If I am wrong (I always consider it a possibility!) then I apologize. I certainly give you credit for a thought (and emmotion) provoking topic. What really intrigues me is the thought of personality and its effect on the preference of Sci-Fi or fantasy to the reader. Alot of the problems some sci-fi lovers have with fantasy, it seems, is "It's not REAL" (as if lizard-people, light sabers, space ships travelling at light speed, and time travel are "real"), or that it's "always good vs. evil". Sci-fi is basically fantasy with a science slant, where having backround and knowledge about scientific facts and theories make the genre more interesting to you. This is why I do not like sci-fi. I have absolutely no interest in the complicated scientific explanations in these stories...they put me to sleep. For fantasy, however, what seems to make you "better" at writing it is a knowledge of history, culture, language, religion, and mythology (all of which we can group into a related category. "Social studies" if you will.) You add in the magical element (sometimes. Some fantasy stories have no magic at all) and you go to town creating the adventure. If you're not a fan of these topics, then you will find the genre boring (and you certainly won't react like me while reading salvatore "WHAT? These people are MATRIARCHAL? And they worship a god where evil deeds like murder and betrayal are openly accepted? WHAT IS GOING ON???? *flip page*) just like I do sci-fi. However, the true interesting question, on top of this, is religion. Do those who are not religious prefer sci-fi? While those that are religious prefer fantasy? And how does this tie into Ed's observation of a youth's preference toward the genre? I was having a conversation about literature with one of my buddies at breakfast this morning. He's an athiest liberal, I'm a religious libertarian. He has a degree in psychology, I have one in international politics. Go figure, he has no interest in fantasy just as I have no interest in sci-fi.
Actually, after writing up my rebuttal, I have decided not to post it. The one thing I'll give fantasy readers is that they're passionate, and the last thing I want to do is hurt anyone's feelings. Some people need fantasy. It's not my agenda to change their minds.
First a personal note - I did post-graduate work in international politics. Once upon a time, I planned on teaching college. Now, a request - please don't go there. Unless you've done massive surveying with scientific sampling, there is no factual basis for any conclusions you may develop. All that will be left is empty conjecture and a lot more heat than light.
I don't think it's anything other than personal preference. No genre is inherently better than another, or inherently more 'needed.' People read what they like; they write what they like. You can be as complex or sophisticated, or conversely as simple or unsophisticated, as you like in any of the genres. Trying to play a ranking game where you set one above another makes no sense.
