So, since we all agree that there is some difference between them (else why would there be two identifiable genres?), how can you take such serious issue with jazzabel's attempt at a workable dividing line if you have no reasonable alternative to offer?
Well, yes, we've already established that. My question gets to why that might be. Deep within the (ever burgeoning) mountain of posts in this thread, and completely irrespective of the side arguments of which is better, fantasy or science fiction or what actually is the difference between the two, I think we see the elements of some answers. As is usually the case, I think those answers lead to further questions.
I think Fantasy literature is popular because when you are a child, nothing is more exciting than a brand new world. I know I loved Fantasy growing up, and I still love it all the same at twenty-eight. The only thing that has changed is my desire to read a more mature Fantasy. With that said, I think there is an ever growing pool of people becoming fans of Fantasy as our younger generations reach an age to find it. Also, I think E-Readers play a big role in younger people reading more, leading to even more younger people discovering Fantasy everyday. And as I said, I think that carries over into adulthood--it did for me at least. Obviously there is exceptions, but I think most children gravitate to Fantasy and its many sub-genre's--especially with the bombardment of children's Fantasy television and films being made all the time. But more on my reasoning for that below. I think Fantasy television and film is popular because technology has gotten to the point where it can be portrayed correctly at a decent price. So more and more people are doing it, especially after seeing the success of their peers. Also, of course, Harry Potter, The Hunger Games and all the other big hits that receive movie adaptions lead younger people to want to read/watch more of the same. Likewise with Lord of the Rings and A Song of Ice and Fire--it makes adults want to read/watch more of the same--I have multiple friends who were never fans of Fantasy start absorbing anything in the genre after watching the two previously mentioned adaptions. But, who knows, all my guessing could be completely wrong.
Shouldn't you ask jazzabel this question? Especially since you wrote this about my position; "I find it hard to believe that anyone would find this controversial."? And this is something that jazzabel clearly disagrees with you about? Also, my main contention with jazzabel's post was him/her stating that there is a "very clear-cut distinction" between sci-fi and fantasy while being wholly unable to categorize specific works in either. And I feel like all this was rehashed in the topic several times already. Let's avoid going around in circles.
I think you raise an interesting point. I remember reading, when my children were quite young, that young children tended to watch commercials more closely than regular programming because the images were brighter, the colors more vivid, the sound a little louder. This generation grew up with widescreen digital television and digital and 3-D theaters and sophisticated sound system. So, yes, the right genre for the right technology. Let's think about that: a generation of nascent writers is drawn to a particular genre in ever increasing numbers because of the technology in bringing those stories to the screen. If true, I think I would find that very troubling.
Let's recap: the position of yours that I did not find controversial was that there is considerable overlap between sci-fi and fantasy. Jazzabel tried to posit a dividing line between the two genres. I do not see these two positions as mutually exclusive. That there are, in fact, two genres (we all seem to agree on that) suggests that something divides them. But it is certainly possible for there to be two genres with identifiable differences and yet for there to be overlaps. Sounds like much ado about nothing to me. It also sounds to me like another case of trying to apply hard and fast rules instead of more general concepts.
Personally, I think the overlap is the fact that both are pretty flexible when it comes to world building and you can make something entirely new and unrecognizable with them as far as settings go. The differences are definitely in execution and the tools. Fantasy is typically more medieval like and scifi is typically futuristic. Also fantasy has much less basis in reality and is not expected to have a basis in reality where scifi is expected to have some basis in the realm of what is scientifically possible even if it is far off. Then there's also hard scifi where it adheres to science much more strictly than regular scifi.
Sci Fi or Fantasy? Tennant Dr Who Douglas Adams Restaurant at the End of the Universe Star Wars John Carter of Mars Lovecraftian mythos Yuggoth Discworld L'Engle A Wrinkle in Time series
Anyway it's pointless convincing the fantasy buffs of anything. I know because I used to be one before I grew up. My old self wouldn't listen to these arguments either.
Clearly fantasy, since the books contained the most laughably idiotic ideas about "science" imaginable, including a misunderstanding of what cytoplasm is, as well as the belief that it's impossible to draw a four-dimensional figure. We read the book in school for fifth grade, and the 11 year-old me drew a four-dimensional hypercube for a homework assignment. My teacher, who couldn't do long division, was impressed! I think most unicorns have more research, thought, and scientific basis put into them than that book. Edit- I'm being intentionally sarcastic when saying "clearly fantasy", in case another person misunderstands this and keeps re-asking me about it for several pages.
I can't think of any example that doesn't have laughable science. Star Trek has the particle of the week. Cyberpunk has cyber-psychosis.
LOL I love Star Trek, but this is very true. There are times that the Trek wanders into realms nearly as campy as Dr. Who.
Fantasy is based on those same ideas and premises. The theme of every fantasy work can be applied to any other genre of fiction, or even real-life events. Your problem is that you can't get past the idea of something obviously not of this world taking place in a world unlike our own. You can't seem to see below the surface. Yet again, your only point is 'not real = not good'. You said nothing on the subject of how universal themes play out in every work of fantasy just as prominently as those of "general fiction". What do you think the word 'fantasy' means? Of course it deals with the imaginative - it's right there in the title! Dragons have no basis in the real world? Mostly all fantasy stories don't take place in our world, so the rules and logics of Earth circa 2013 do not apply. You have to use your imagination. This appears to be something you have issue with. You still need to explain how dragons don't make sense beyond 'they're not real'. It seems that's your entire argument, right there in three words. Of course you can prove universal truths and ideas with fantasy. I think your problem is that you don't know how. You can't suspend disbelief enough to see below the surface to comprehend the subtext. If I'm wrong, please correct me. I would love to hear your thoughts on how fantasy commonly deals with universal dreams, fears, goals, motivations, desires, prejudices, beliefs, etc. Because you have yet to say a single word on that subject. Fantasy is all about transporting to another time and place, to live in a world different from ours for a little while. That seems to be the part you can't understand. But that is by no means a problem with the genre or any particular work from it...that is a problem with YOU.
Ok, not good at quoting but I want to reply to every paragraph. Paragraph 1: I'd like to first ask you, and the others, why write fantasy, if your goal is to deal with the themes you mentioned? If someone wants to tackle an issue, say, feminism, I'm going to say, ok, do it in a verbal ground I can take seriously, not in a setting based on your rules. Why can't you understand that real subjects are best dissected in real settings? Also, yes, there is a bias. It's hard to take someone seriously when he's writing about imaginary things- things I thought about when I was 12. How am I supposed to take that seriously? Not too mention, a lot of fantasy novels do not focus on those issues well. Again, I've read a lot out there. Paragraph 2: All real living things depend on environment, biology, genetics, physics, evolution, and who knows what other sciences. Dragons, which have never existed, may not have ever existed due to some impossibility in one of the above listed subjects. Can I know what, or how exactly? No, but I can assume the possibility is there, since they presumably never existed. Does that make sense? If you want to write about dragons, fine, but you're potentially ignoring subtleties in physics, genetics, etc, for the convenience of dragging up a dragon, but have you really considered how altering the fabric of reality to add in dragons might change other things? Go ahead, open up your computer, tinker around, and watch what happens. The universe is an interconnected system that works together. Changing one thing may (not saying definitely) require changing other things. The problem is, its impossible to know whether it would make sense or not. So how can you tell me your world with a dragon is "logically consistent?" Google the old Lara Croft from the video game franchise. If that women became real, she'd be teetering over cliffs not jumping them. As much as I'd love all women to look and act like that, creating a world with them, if one is to be logically consistent, requires great consideration into how physics has been altered to allow for it, if it can be altered without altering anything else (that would require serious equations) and what else it affects. Reality is not simply mixing and matching, boss. It's a system you shouldn't take for granted. I've said all this before but what more can I say? Paragraph 3: How would you know that, lol? As I've stated before (pages ago so I don't blame you for not knowing), the Last Unicorn, by Peter S Beagle, is a beautiful story filled with allegory and metaphor. It's about longing to be something greater, more beautiful, than one actually is (like people who write fantasy often do), and how in brief moments it can be lived. It involves magicians, unicorns, and fake setting. The story doesn't prove anything. It provokes ideas, absolutely. But what does it prove? Because Schmendrick, a terrible magician, was able to cast a spell once, greatness can be attained? Is that what you're gonna teach your kids next time they fail at something? Paragraph 4: Again, I used to read fantasy. I totally get the appeal. I consider that extent of escapism immature and silly. And guess what, friend, I'm not the only one. How many times do I need to say it? I used to read fantasy, too. I used to like it for all the same reasons you still like it. I got older. What can I do?
Using a world that doesn't exist is a common way of lambasting the existing framework and mocking it entirely. Just as we don't take A Modest Proposal or Gulliver's Travelers seriously, we still can find something in them that can be taken seriously. Sometimes we need an escape from our realm to see how ridiculous our way of life can be. I'm not saying fantasy does this well, I do think it can be quite juvenile at times. To say that it can't do it well is preposterous. Just because it uses the imagination in a way that doesn't seem realistic doesn't mean it isn't serious. Otherwise, stories like the Metamorphosis should simply be ignored. Yes, MANY fantasy works are simple in their themes, scope, and plot elements. Just because the setting is fantastic doesn't mean it can't tackle a serious issue, and when we do tackle a serious issue, we don't always have to do it seriously. That's where "Very Special" episodes of sitcoms come from.
Masked, this is a great argument, and the closes anyone's come to get me to folding. But if someone doesn't tackle a serious issue seriously, why should I take it seriously? I don't think Swift is a good example. He writes satires, which are entirely out of the scope of this conversation. Also, I want to say there's a difference between metaphor and fantasizing. If I write about a man turning into an insect to show something between him and his family, I'm using metaphor. If I write about a golden land without showers but beautiful honeys and kick ass swords, I'm fantasizing. Big, big difference. I don't want heavy pieces of literature to be thrown in with the vanilla romance novels that are most fantasies.
