I like sci-fi as it actually has some logic too it and could actually happen. But i prefer fantasy becuase i love havign unanswered questions, things that don't make sense or cannot happen, objects or powers that have been created for the purpose of the book. I love that sort of thing.
yes but everything has to make sense to the reader. it doesn't have to be fully explained but there has to be something to ground the reader into nodding their head in acceptance not shaking it in denial. we tend to think logically, its our downfall in many ways because it narrows our vision and stream of imagination. we always need ot know 'why'. for example why a serial killer kills, it doesn't matter why, he might not have a reason explainable, but the story can still be well told if you don't try to look for one. fantasy/sci fi or any other genre is more about the story around it, not any one thing, everything in combination tells the story, makes it believable. if you paint a setting well, then the reader can rest against the wall and in comfort look around. but if there's nothing that they understand to be leanable, well then, they simply fall. so fantasy needs to have some anchoring, some questions still need to be answered or drawn well enough for the reader to imagine without colouring over the lines so much that you cant see the picture.
Not true. You don't HAVE to invent anything. The same way sci-fi uses known technology, in writing fantasy, you can draw from known mythology, fairy tales, and a whole lot of other things. Not to mention the fact that there is nothing that says that fantasy can't take place in a modern world or real historical setting where there just happens to be magical things. People who think it's all about invented cultures/creatures and medieval settings are too stuck on Tolkien's style.
hard to say Rei, though i agree you dont' have to re-invent/invent anything. But if you want to create a unique world and not fall back on the ole failsafe settings so many others draw, well then i think you have to. but it has to be done well, with logic(magically or technically) attached. tolkien sold a lot of books but is not the only way, i agree mythology is just a story, so we are re-writing the same scenes over and over again. its why it has become so hard to push out something unique, because our mind goes 'elves aren't short and stocky, space ships are needed to travel from star to star. but also i agree with what you said that sci-fic and fantasy allows you to expand what yo wish to tell. a magician can pull out a gun stolen from a world he magiked himself to, in order to kill say a dragon. in space you can go to a planet where they use magic, our laws against fantasy can not be theirs. damn i went and rambled
Who said anything about story? I was talking about settings, creatures, cultures, and rules for magic. It's just as hard to create stories that are unique in science fiction. I just meant that you can't generalize fantasy by saying it's harder because you have to invent everything and you don't in sci-fi, which is completely false. It goes back to that most basic definition of what fantasy is. A story with at least one element of the impossible.
isn't that what comprises the story? one genre is the same as any other in degrees of difficulty. they still need a story to be told, paint a pretty setting but without something attached, its just another picture. but i agree, that you can't catagorise one genre any harder than the other. well with the exception of historical because they need to be fact based, logically sounded
Those are things you need to make a story. But I think you are missing the point entirely, and I just re-read your post. I'm not even sure what you mean now. Are you saying that drawing from known mythology etc = harder to create a unique story? If so, I think that makes no sense at all. If using known histories and cultures made it harder, stories set in any real world would be just as hard to make unique. Using creature/cultures/settings from mythology don't tell you what the story is. How you use them does.
lol i love being told i'm missing a point entirely, it makes me smile. could be i'm just missing your point? the way its written makes a story unique, but only by how it is written, not the story it tells. we might as well agree not to agree as long as i can't see your point and you can't see mine. i'd end with that
Tell me exactly what you disagree with then, because I have no idea, since you have now said that how you write it is what makes it unique, which cancels out anything I thought you were saying about using existing mythology making it harder to create a unique story. If people cared that about unique settings, people would read a lot less contemporary fiction set in their own country. Mayhaps you were seeing more in what I said than what was actually there, or thinking something needed to be explained when it didn't?
Shes basically saying it doesnt really matter whether your setting is real or fantasy because at the end of the day, writing a book is no walk in the park. You can set a novel in Tokyo and write it badly, or you can set the story in Pluto and write it brilliantly. You can't really judge which one is harder to do, fantasy setting or not, because its entirely up to the authors skill and approach...
No, I'm talking about the closest thing anyone can get to originality. The settings and cultures don't decide that. How you use them does. I have no idea what he was arguing anymore, since he said this: All I said was that fantasy doesn't automatically mean inventing cultures and setting. I have no idea what got this whole originality thing started.
You're right. As you just said, Castle was wrong in assuming fantasies can only be set in fictional settings. But setting in itself is completely irrelvant to the difficulty (or, as you said, originality) involved in writing a novel.
No. Those things comprise setting. Mythical race of fish people who worship the fish god = setting. Mythical race of fish people who worship the fish god are suddenly struck down by fish god for unknown reasons and one lone survivor must discover the truth = story line. Rei is right by the way. People who get all into world building and inventing stuff are too stuck on the Tolkein style (and a false view of his style I might add cause he didn'y really invent as much as people seem to think he did) which is why I have a hard time finding fantasy I like. Sometimes the imitation works, sometimes it backfires because it's too out there or too much like Tolkein and in either case I can't read it. Fantasy can take place in New York City circa 1888 as easily as it can take place in the far off world of Thisplaceaintrealdealwitit. Not true. Tolkein didn't really invent much, he just repurposed stuff that already existed. Tolkein drew heavily from Norse myth. The tone and feel of his novels are very much in line with the kind of poetry you'll get out of the Norse Sagas, and though the story line and world of middle-earth are very different from the Sagas, most of his setting and character material can be traced to something in Norse myth. Aragon always reminded me of Sigmund anyhow. And plus; Midgard = middle-earth? Come on it's right there. There are even a few connections to Arthurian Legend I think, cause Gandalf is a lot like Merlin in the role he plays. Mythology can be used for more than just rewriting the same old story. I constantly make back references to myth in my pieces, whether with actual characters or beings or just allusions to them through names and items.
lol well that wasn't what i was trying to say, but i probably worded it incorrectly. i see what you are saying, Rei, takes me time but eventually it all sinks in, strangely enough as it came to me, i found myself in agreement but its how i process things. learn something every day, always a good thing.
Personally....I really do prefer fantasy. The exact reason for it though...I'm not sure. It's something I grew up on and have been reading pretty much since I learnt how to read. I honestly used to think that science-fiction was all about spaceships and stuff too, until I grew older and my reading expanded as well. I enjoy reading both though, but for some reason, fantasy grabs my attention more than sci-fi does. I have a huge imagination and I suppose I prefer books which really stretch my imagination as opposed to those that can be explained using logic and science. Sometimes, the best books are the ones that you can't really explain, you just have to accept them...and it's easy because your imagination allows you to.
Dan Simmons wrote a great vampire novel called CHILDREN OF THE NIGHT in which an AIDS researcher discovers a virus in the blood of a child that might possibly cure AIDS and a host of other ills. The virus is of course the cause of vampirism, so it is given a very scientific explanation (Simmons is nothing if not thorough). So in this case I would say vampires are science fiction. I think it is more of a marketing thing than anything else. Fantasy is usually thought of as having a medieval setting with swords and dragons and wizards (occurring in the past or in a world that resembles our past), while SF is usually thought to be about technology and the future. But there are so many writers that defy both conventions that they're little more than stereotypes.
