[MENTION=54840]IronPalm[/MENTION]: I find your combative tone intolerable, and I'm hesitant to continue any conversation with you. I will only point one thing out, and if you continue to be so confrontational, I won't bother replying anymore. Also, I'm not going to get involved in specific works because that's just silly. For every example that you can find, I can find another, so what's the point? I am familiar with most basic laws of physics, thank you for assuming so arrogantly that I'm not, and I said 'extrapolated' as well as 'explained'. Science fiction explains the processes and it builds the possibilities along the lines of scientific knowledge (such as wormholes, time-travel, ftl etc, all theoretically possible within the framework of the known universe. Even if someone changes the cosmological constant in a novel, in order to conjure up a different universe, that's still science fiction because it is working along the same principles and it bothers to explain it logically. I'll give you a personal example - I have a guy who can remotely view stuff. I'm currently trying to figure out whether to make it anything within solar system or only specific things. It will all be rooted in quantum theory, and nano-technologies, but I haven't decided exactly how to do it yet. I have several theories that need ironing out and then chosen from. If I was writing fantasy, I'd come up with some bs explanation and carry on my merry way months ago, utterly unconcerned about trying to figure out something at least consistent with some area of physics that might be applicable. Big, big difference in difficulty level. Obviously, I'm only talking about well-written stuff, not about crap.
I definitely disagree, and I'm not the only one (think about what they teach in high school and college) but like I said, I'm not here to discourage people from literature.
Dude, I read way more "science fiction" than I do "fantasy", and generally prefer the former. However, I put quotes on both because there is considerable overlap between the two genres, and in many instances, they're very difficult to tell apart.
Seems to me to be self-evidently true. You could take any work of literature and rewrite it as fantasy, or science fiction, or whatever, and keep the same complexities if you wanted to. The fact that others share this misconception with you really isn't very compelling. Genre places no limitations on theme, complexity, sophistication of writing, etc.
I wasn't being "confrontational" or "combative" in that post. At least, it certainly wasn't my intention. If you felt I was, perhaps you could have pointed that out, instead of responding in a genuinely rude manner? I fail to see what is "silly" about my question. You claimed there was "a very clear-cut distinction" between sci-fi and fantasy in your mind, so I asked you about Riverworld, which is hardly distinct in mine. Your only response is to claim the question is "silly"? Seriously? The point is you claimed a "very clear-cut distinction" between the genres, so every example where you can't even attempt a response renders your point further invalid. That's very impressive and unique if you are. Personally, I did my undergrad at Caltech, took a lot of very advanced courses, and strongly considered majoring in physics, yet I would not call myself "very familiar with the laws of physics". I assumed you weren't because you didn't realize how badly science fiction books butcher even basic physics. That and 99+% of the human population is unfamiliar with physics laws. Faster than light is strictly impossible according to the special theory of relativity. The possibility of time travel is almost impossible, but if you insist, its likelihood is somewhere between the odds of me winning the lottery and the existence of unicorns. Even wormholes, a standby of science fiction, are close to that level of extreme unlikelihood. Edit- Alma mater is Caltech and my degree was in math. I'm pretty good at physics and computer science, passable at chemistry, and completely awful at biology.
As a lover of both genres, discussions I have had here and elsewhere on the net amongst those who take a side for either genre seem (in my admittedly singular observation) to fall into the opposite configuration than the one you mention. The reason I have found being that Science Fiction tends to offend less the sensibilities of those with religious views than Fantasy does. I am a stout atheist myself and though amongst my atheist friends there doesn't seem to be a preference one way or the other stemming from atheism, it would seem to me that many of the props of Fantasy come very close to religious structures, thus there may be a lack of appeal to religious individuals who see this as vaguely heretical. I again use the example of the spectacularly written Wraeththu series by Storm Constantine. Though I, as an atheist, found the questions she asks about religion, faith, and gods extremely interesting, I know atheist friends who would find it to be intolerable rhetoric because they are somewhat militant about their atheism. They won't go anywhere near anything that gives off the faintest whiff of religion. I think there can be no conclusion. It's too subjective.
There is this really smart guy in a wheel chair who has written a lot of science fiction (some people call it theory) concerning multiverses, wormholes, different design theories, time travel, etc. Many scientists in his field balk at those sci-fi stories (theories) yet still regard him as one of the greatest mathematicians of our time.
Absolutely. Some people seem to think genre is like some invisible force, that stays the writers hand and determines what can be written about, and how. It's nonsense, of course, but a lot of people feel a strong need that their subjective viewpoints reflect some kind of objective truth. Just possessing a subjective opinion doesn't seem to do it for them.
[MENTION=54840]IronPalm[/MENTION] - In your desire to discredit Jazzabel, you've lost me. What, exactly, is the point you are trying to make?
I don't know how you can easily put other writers down like this, i'm not mad that you have a different opinion, but you literally trash Fantasy like it's nothing. At least the others who disliked fantasy were polite about it but you just act like all Fantasy writers are complete nimrods just because it has a made-up context. I don't really understand your hatred for the genre to the point where you will knock others down just because it's your opinion. Opinions are great to have, but when you dislike something and put down the people who write it then it's no longer an opinion; it's an attack. Threaten me with a ban for just standing up for others, if that's what you find most pleasing. But do not make this a hate thread.
Phew! I almost decided to ignore this post after seeing it explode into a flame war. Anyway, still the most civil flame war I've ever read on the Internet. So here's my two cents. The original point that popped into head is interactivity. Yes kids tend to write what they read, and that goes a long way towards explaining the trend. But I think there's also the open world building. Why are the most popular games sand box games and games like mine craft? Kids are used to having an impact on their entertainment. Seems like any aspiring young author is going to be attracted to a genre that allows this same kind of freedom. Fantasy allows a sort of god mode. You can use all the tools of writing without limit. You can add anything you need into the story. You can also just add stuff you like or think is cool just to do it. Modern fiction seems to disdain overly flowery prose. Some people still like that stuff. But this kind of freedom can lead to sloppiness. Combine that with fledgling writers and you'll get crap. One of the problems some people have with fantasy is getting passed the style of writing. I read Tolkien the same way I read Beowulf. Expecting the same kind of flowery prose and generalized hero elements. So I enjoyed it. If you don't expect that, you're bound to feel annoyed when he starts a song off, or info dumps you. Great fantasy is an exploration of life as much as any other genre. Sometimes it's easier to simplify something down to its most basic elements in order to understand it. Science does this.
Stephen Hawking is a physicist, not a mathematician. I have actually met him in real life (he vacations at Caltech every so often), and could say a lot about his speech on Bayes' law, the way physics grad students and postgrads view him, his relationship with Kip Thorne, etc. However, considering the resistance I have met in making a simple point about science fiction versus fantasy, perhaps those controversial views are best left for another topic. Same point I mentioned several times earlier in the topic; "There is considerable overlap between the genres of science fiction and fantasy, and in many instances, they're very difficult to tell apart." That's all.
I think one thing people tend to overlook in the sci-fi vs fantasy debate is how similar the two genres are. Writing, to me, anyway, is all about sharing the human experience. In both Sci-fi and Fantasy you have races other than human that take some aspect of humanity and amplify it - such as the honorable warrior Klingons, or mystical tree-loving elves. These creatures are exaggerated reflections of ourselves. The two genres also speak to the universality of our experiences. You can take the man out of the 20th century, but he's still not going to understand women - green skinned, half-elven, or otherwise. But the world will always welcome lovers, as time goes by. Sorry. Ahem... Anyway, my point is, in either genre you take a relate-able character, even if that character isn't nominally human, place them in extraordinary circumstances, under incredible pressure, with rules they may not even understand and have to learn as they go along, and what you end up with, after all is said and done, is an examination of how [the author believes] humans would or should behave. What is Bravery? Where is the line between right and wrong? Is it ever ok do do a wrong to make a right? Can two people from different cultures find common ground? What is fate, and can we overcome it? Are we trapped by our genes or upbringing, or can re rise above it? The rest is just set dressing that allows for extraordinary ways to ask these same questions. For beginning writers I can understand the appeal of fantasy: there is already an established shorthand for archetypes and stereotypes. Elves behave one way, Dwarves another, Orcs can't be trusted, and the old hobo's advice should always be listened to because he's not what he seems. I'm not saying, by any means that this is the only formula for fantasy, or that it is overly simplistic. In the right hands it can make for a very complex, nuanced, and compelling story.
I think that is true, regardless of the fact that they may stem from different creative goals and expectations. I find it hard to believe that anyone would find this controversial. It's something that has been noted before on this forum. Since you take issue with jazzabel's attempt to provide a description of what divides the two genres, how would you differentiate between the two?
I suspect we are about to share an *Aha!* moment. Edit: also sometimes known, among the younger set, as a "Holy shit!" moment.
The best part of this entire thread is watching fiction writers argue over whose make believe is more real
Well, for me, the supernatural holds a fascination for me like no other. I read all kinds - I read thrillers, crime, romances, chick lits and classics - but fantasy remains the genre that really captivates me. With fantasy, there's always something new, something unexpected, anything can happen and it's simply breath-taking to imagine the possibilities. I also have a fascination for parallel worlds - my friend suggested it may have something to do with the fact that I grew up with a dual heritage and my two worlds never mixed all that much, though I longed for them to do so. I just love the idea of that there's something unknown. As a writer, as much as fantasy holds its challenges with world-building and say, creating a magic system - and these are difficult and exhausting things, certainly - but as much as that is the case, I find it far more interesting than real-world research. I hate research. I'd rather sit and dream away and put in the hard work imagining things, rather than the hard work of... well... reading history. I'm not an academic at heart, I'm not usually fascinated by facts and details. I have no problem reading some non-fiction books - I read one on North Korea and then another on Gay Christians recently, all fascinating stuff - but reading in *detail* - that's where I fail. I simply don't have it in me, but research that's not detailed is not well-done and it will reflect in the story. So, research is hard work. Fantasy's world-building etc is also hard work. I just prefer the fantasy type of hard work far more than the other kind of hard work, that's all. And if I can choose, well, then, why not?
I would too, until I read several replies quoting my post and informing me that there is a "very clear-cut distinction"! No clue, honestly. I recall David Brin (one of my favorite science fiction writers) writing a giant article on this subject, sourcing multiple definitions from a variety of authors, all of which were tangibly different, and at the end, I still wasn't convinced of anything! On an interesting note, he considers Ann McCaffrey's work to fall into the "science fiction" category, even though it's about dragons. Sure enough, on McCaffrey's Wikipedia Talk page, there is debate going back all the way to 2004 about whether to classify her works as "science fiction" or "fantasy"! I remember reading Simak's "The Goblin Reservation" and wondering about it as well, since it provides loose scientific explanations about a futuristic society filled with aliens, but incorporates dragons, pixies, banshees, and goblins, while presenting "magic" uncritically.
As far as I am concerned, Fantasy genre literary offers the possibility of escaping the known world and creating an entirely new universe with entirely new laws, which may be appealing to both the creaters and consumers. Sth. like "I wanna to do this whole stuff in my ways..." which may indicate --in some instances-- the author's immaturity (I myself have realized how INCREDIBLY difficult it is to write a story with a reliable frame of reference... something that one not always has; having Doyle's frame of reference (knowledge), fiction would be MUCH easier to me than it currently is. It is, in actual fact, hell difficult. It is so difficult that I-- as well as many aspiring writers-- incline to creating my own world with my own mechanics, so that the world is compact.) But I think you can create a genuinely imaginary world in literary any genre. A story that draws you in. I think that this tendency to write Fantasy has something to do with collective unconsciousness.
Some of the first books I read as a youngun'. And yeah, hard to pin, aye? They have all the props and devices of high fantasy, but there is the unmistakable real-world-ification she lends the story by giving very plausible (under the umbrella of science fiction) explanations for everything. She refrains from references to magic at all costs save for the telepathic bond between the dragons and their riders or fire lizards and their "owners", and that is very arguable since telepathy is one of the standard props of sci-fi. Let's just say it seems she thought long and hard about what could substitute for magic in this world. This example now brings to mind the many, many, many books of Darkover by Marion Zimmer Bradley. Again, there are unmistakable queues of Fantasy, but... everything is very much explained in the words of Science Fiction. BTW, I freakin' LOVE the Darkover books. EDIT ~ Ooo! Also there's Julian May's two interlinked series, The Saga of Pliocene Exile and the Galactic Milieu series! Yeah! Good stuff! She beats you over the head a bit with her, "Hey I think everything French pwns everything else in existence," but once you get past those pages it's all gravy.
Consider, too, C. S. Friedman's Coldfire Trilogy. Or Jack Vance's Dying Earth stories, which are a mainstay of fantasy gaming, but which some people consider science fiction since they are set in the far future. There is certainly overlap, where things are hard to pin down. As a general rule, I feel that science fiction must conform with what is known of the laws of science at the time of its writing, OR if it deviates from what is known, it does so via reasonable extrapolation from those laws. It doesn't mean it has to turn out to be scientifically correct, just that there is some basis for the deviation and a reasonable scientific explanation to go with it. Under that test, I think Star Wars is fantasy in space.
