That actually sounds interesting. I'll have to check it out. Also, I was thinking, isn't The Circle Trilogy a fantasy?
Just so you don't say, "Hey wait a minute! You didn't tell me that part!"--it's a children's book. A classic, well-loved children's book, especially well-loved by geeky children.
Because the steampunk just like Jules Verne aren't trendy anymore. The fashion changes and it might come back. Vampires were cool, now Aliens are cool, but then the 3 musketeers (era fantasy) are not cool. I agree with you. I do not read many fantasy books because of that. I played World of Warcraft and read Tolkien and I said to myself, shit really, is that what people get obsessed with? Fantasy, in theory, should be anyone's imagination rabid and rampant. Outside the norms of the reality, as experienced by most people. It could be as simple as a child's innocence, talking to invisible friends, to 'magic' stones and 'magic' trees that are portals towards different worlds, all massed up in a cube of tiny proportions. It could be a world where people that are normal are absolutely fantastic and they are hunted down because of their normality. But no, we have to have extraordinary characters dwelling on epic battles that last (in Tolkien's and others time-frame) so long that you can grow a beard and three children before seeing its finale.
I loved it as a child. As an adult I still love the characters and the story, but I have issues with some parts of the writing.
I agree with you, that Firefly is mostly a Western in space—although there ARE no aliens in it, by the way. Joss Whedon made a famous remark, when asked why there were no aliens in Firefly. He said "Well, there aren't any now." This is pretty rich, coming from a man who built a successful series around the notion that demons lurk in high school basements...!!!) I think Firefly is not serious Sci-Fi, in the sense that Blade Runner or Star Trek or Babylon 5 were serious Sci-Fi, but it does deal with the idea of what humans would need to do to begin living in space. Especially interesting was the terraforming concept, and what some of the problems surrounding that would be. It also dealt with the idea of space isolation, which we were led to believe was responsible for creating The Reavers. (Of course we know differently now.) It also deals with the idea—similar to other Sci-Fi stories and series—that people, essentially, won't change. Humans will continue to exploit their environment no matter where they end up, or how far into the future they might survive. Star Wars doesn't try to connect itself to the real world in any way. While it's difficult to make an absolute distinction, I'd say Star Wars has virtually no aspect of Sci-Fi within it, while Firefly has a few. But this is one of those discussions that's fun, but doesn't really make a lot of difference. My original point was that Fantasy doesn't have to be stuck in the middle ages! Hey, swords are 'real' aren't they? And clothing? And grass, and trees—so Fantasy that contains these elements is really Sci-Fi then, because elements of the real world are found in it? You see how silly this argument can get.
OK, So sci fi is based on intention? As long as I try to connect the story to the real world, even if I'm a jackass who doesn't know any science, and I'm completely wrong, it's still sci fi? I can accept this is as one useful definition.
The way I tend to think of it is that both science fiction and fantasy have elements that aren't possible in the real world. If those elements are explained as being possible due to advanced science, it's science fiction. If they're due to magic or divine powers, it's fantasy. Therefore I consider Star Wars to be both. It tends more towards fantasy; There's far more plot emphasis on what the force is all about than how spaceships and droids work, but still it's both. That's just my opinion. I don't think there's a right or wrong answer to the question. There's no official dividing line between the two genres.
Jackass-written Sci-Fi? Perhaps yes. Actually we could start a new imprint, couldn't we? JacAss Books ...with the logo of a donkey in a space suit?
And just like that, you've lost me Anyways, onto topic. Sci-fi means Science Fiction. There isn't any science in a thing such as Star Wars. I mean, did they once explain how the ships were made or why they were made that way?
There's some science behind the Hyperdrive, but (as I pointed out before) the science manages to constrain the story once, and is then never mentioned ever again.
Isn't the whole point of fantasy as a sort of escapism into what we consider the good ol' days? I mean, the world that we know has gotten so small. Fewer mysteries, everyone connected at their fingertips, every culture cataloged and discussed openly in universities. The magic of the unknown has all pretty much dried up. So, when some of us want to tell stories, it's not about making a sociological fact or to show injustice toward a people. It's to tell a story that captivates and makes us wish we lived in this new and exciting world or culture. So, that's why we write fantasies and magics and swords, it's to recapture that feeling the oldest of known stories came with where thunder came from the gods and the wind came from the whispering of trees. Real life guns and computers are too bland and typical for people like us, we want the unknown and we want to keep dreaming of the impossible. It's a shame so much of it is stuck in that 'Tolkien-esque' mindset or proves utterly unoriginal as it defeats the point. I want to fall in love with characters and dream of their landscapes. It's about believing it's real just a little, knowing it's just a book.
Wow, that's EXACTLY what fantasy is. Kind of lame though :/ How many real life guns have you used? I'm not sure why our Earth isn't good enough of for you....
I've never used a gun. They kinda bother me, honestly. The knowledge of anyone being able to squeeze a trigger and then a bullet moving faster than sound, or close to it, hitting me and going right through is terrifying. Its just so easy and unfair.. How can I defend myself against something like that unless I know I'm being aimed at and even then... It's terrifying, really. Hell, a stray bullet from my neighbors could fly through my window and kill me right now.. that's f'ed up, right? But that's not saying guns are bad or they don't belong in a fantasy universe. I mean, why can't fantasy be modern (No, not urban fantasy...) and deal with guns and computers and whatnot? There doesn't even have to be magic or monsters or anything overly typical. Fantasy is much more than that. It's not that Big Blue is boring or not good enough. It's a wonderful and beautiful place and we have great animals like lions and wolves and horses. Oh, and we got puppies and lolcatz. It's simply about wanting more, I suppose. Like the Doctor's companions in the Doctor Who series. They jump at the opportunity to visit new worlds and explore the universe. Isn't that was fantasy is? Our outlet on the need to see more and more wonderful things? Heck, even simple time travel would have us zipping everywhere across the Earth and experiencing historical moments and day to day things. The world was so different a mere hundred years ago, it'd be great to see the real thing.
Because JRR Tolkien is the father of the genre and the tropes set down by him are often used in future novels of said genre. This is no different than mysteries, who to this day follow the deductive reasoning first established by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle with Sherlock Holmes (or you could argue Edgar Allen Poe with "The Murders in the Rue Morgue"). He also set forth the trope of the detective arresting the culprit and only after the "who-done-it" is revealed does he expose the evidence collected (often because the reader did not understand the significance of said evidence). That being said, aren't all these "fantasy is cliché and overdone" threads getting old?
I always loved those 'explain everything' segments of the mysteries. It felt like the protagonist was talking directly to me as he/she was helping me to make sense of what I read. To be fair, fantasy is the 'do whatever the hell you want' genre, yet people opt to do Tolkien-esque fantasy which can grind on some nerves.
OUCH! I am quite sure that Johnathan Swift, Bram Stoker, Lewis Carroll, even... what's the guy that wrote Beowulf? Oh, yeah. So far back we don't even know! There was a thing, a vignette turned into a film, back in the 1890s by, I think a Frenchman, called "The Bewitched Inn"... a fantasy story of elves and mystery and magic. And, maybe that's the problem. A generation gap that only thinks so far back as the publication of Tolkien's books. So they presume their collective memory goes as far back as the genre. In any case, Tolkien is, in no way, "the father of the genre". A little respect to the great-great-great-grandfather's of the genre might be in order. (And, if you haven't read... actually read Beowulf - not watched some hack movie version of it, you really need to!)
And there are the pulpier fantasy classics from the first half of the twentieth century--Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, the Barsoom books (some call them science fiction; I absolutely don't), Robert Howard's Conan the Barbarian, and so on. Some may come after some of Tolkien's work (I'm too lazy to line up a list of dates), but I wouldn't say that they were inspired by it.
I was wondering when the first pedantic argument was going to show up. Yes. I got you. Thank you for getting into the minutiae. However, JRR Tolkein is the father of modern high fantasy and in none of the other authors you have offered (Bram Stoker, Really? And what's the guy that wrote Beowulf made me laugh...should've gone with The Odyssey there, at least the author is "known") do we see as much influence in modern novels. Additionally, just like anyone who made it through their first year of college I have read Beowulf, though calling it 'reading' is a stretch as it's written entirely in Anglo-Saxon. "Had it translated to me by the professor" would be more appropriate. Finally, Your point is moot, seeing as your argument is comparable to someone claiming The Beetles' "Helter Skelter" is the reason they're the father of modern heavy metal instead of Black Sabbath.
Well, Tolkien didn't invent the concept of elves and such and the Beatles didn't invent heavy metal. (A long way from it in that case, actually.) But Tolkien is also a long way from being the 'father of the genre". He was, in fact, inspired by the likes of those others who pre-dated him. (Even Shakespeare dabbled in fantasy!) In fact, given Tolkien's in-depth study of Beowulf, it is theorized by some that Beowulf was, in fact, the inspiration for his own later works.
Beowulf absolutely inspired Tolkien. The idea of fantasy as a genre was not invented by Tolkien just as the idea of faster, darker music wasn't invented by Black Sabbath. None-the-less, Tolkien (like Black Sabbath) took the inspiration from those who preceded them and made something completely unique and awesome and something that hadn't been seen before. You can keep going back and back to find who wrote fantasy first, but there's no point to it. Today we have plenty of authors who are making unique stories (though still influenced by Tolkien and other previous fantasy writers) and some whose stories...aren't so unique. The point is you shouldn't throw a book down because it has a dragon in it just like you shouldn't have thrown LOTR down because "gar, it has a damn dragon in it. Beowulf did this hundreds of years ago! Cliché!" And if this is your reaction...maybe stay away from high fantasy then. It doesn't seem to be a genre you enjoy.
You're stating this as if it's an accepted fact. It's not nearly that clear. I'd like to see some cites, preferably academic cites.
