# Fantasy is childish!



## Galas (May 13, 2006)

I was having a chat with fellow friends last night over a a pint or two and we got into the discussion about what makes fantasy/sci-fi fans tick! They simply didn't get it and bound the discussion up in one foul swoop by stating that it's simply childish.  

Is it purely to escape?  Is it to feel enriched by a world that opens our eyes to something magical and unique? Personally, i love it all because it engulfs my whole in something that makes me feel even more individual, yet part of a collective.  So sod those silly friends. What do you all think?


----------



## scalem X (May 13, 2006)

I'd like to discuss this, but not in this section, so I'll wait till an admin/mod moves it and well maybe deletes my reply during the process, since it will become irrelevant, damn I need mod powers


----------



## Adasunshine (May 13, 2006)

I certainly don't think SFF is childish although it's a genre that is open to children and able to feed their over-active imaginations.

I've never heard of Fantasy/Sci-Fi being described as childish before, although it does have a "geeky" theme attached to it, for what reason I have no idea, perhaps it's because it appeals to the more intelligent person!!! 

Personally, I read SFF because it is an escape for me and plus I've always been very interested in mythological and magical concepts and have often wished that they really do exist, however childish that may be!  Plus each book is a different adventure to embark upon and no book swallows you whole and does that like a SFF book!

Not sure this thread belongs in introductions though...

xx


----------



## alicebandassassin (May 13, 2006)

you take from it what you will and it will provide different things to different people the same with any form of media or litriture>To say its childish probably means they never got past the comic stage tho;p


----------



## scalem X (May 13, 2006)

comics aren't childish . Well some, but not all .


----------



## purple_kathryn (May 13, 2006)

I don't think they've read much fantasy - in fact they probably don't read much at all.   Are they really into football by any chance?


----------



## CarlottaVonUberwald (May 13, 2006)

nah mate...do the read interesting magazines for the articles


----------



## alicebandassassin (May 13, 2006)

yep i think we can agree if there prodced for the under fives then they may class as childish


----------



## j d worthington (May 13, 2006)

I'd have to vote a strong negative on this, and I've got plenty of backup for the opinion, from Nathaniel Hawthorne and E. A. Poe to Lovecraft, to Heinlein, to Asimov, to ... well, plenty of damned intelligent, mature people who have argued for fantasy and science fiction's viability as a mature branch of literature. NO branch is childish, per se (excepting children's books, but even there I've seen some that can work on many levels and that adults can appreciate and learn from as well). One could just as well claim all Westerns are childish; but I hardly think that applies with, e.g., Little Big Man; or mysteries, but Hammett and Chandler certainly put the lie to that, as do John D. MacDonald and a host of others. Etc. When sf or fantasy become childish is when they become formulaic and too rigid in what they allow. As long as writers continue to probe the limits of the medium and explore with any depth of thought what it means to be human, to claim this is childish reflects more on the person making such a claim than on the literature itself.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (May 13, 2006)

I believe it was LeGuin who said that the only people who take issue with escapism are jailers.


----------



## nixie (May 13, 2006)

I don't find fantasy chilidish at all, it enriches the imagination and appeals to all age groups


----------



## Foxbat (May 13, 2006)

I remember not so long ago at work I would get a ribbing about my reading material. The usual question would be - has it got a map in it? (sneeringly). Now, since the success of LOTR at the cinema, they are all reading 'books with maps' whilst I sit back smugly and smile. 

These were the same people who, not too long ago, would have called my choice of reading 'childish'. It's usually the case that people who make such remarks do so out of their own ignorance of the subject...until they learn different.


----------



## heron (May 13, 2006)

childish.. childish..let me at them i'll show them who's....hold on wait a minute i've just dropped my darth vader action figure, hold on i just need to reach it, stupid jedi mind powers never work when you need them, got it, good now you just stay there with luke i'll be back in  minute, don't look at me like that ok ok im sorry i dropped you ok look i'll let you beat luke tonight hows that...ok.now where was i oh yes.childish i'll show them whos childish let me at them,by grabthors hammer i shall avenge you.lol


----------



## steve12553 (May 14, 2006)

heron said:
			
		

> ...by grabthors hammer i shall avenge you.lol


Never give up, Never surrender.

Some people are a little too slow on the uptake to read much of anything. Some people have no imagination. That which one does not understand must ever be either evil wrong or childish.


----------



## Snagas Tender Blades (May 14, 2006)

Galas said:
			
		

> They simply didn't get it and bound the discussion up in one foul swoop by stating that it's simply childish.


 
Whats wrong with being a child?


----------



## Allanon (May 14, 2006)

its not childish, but it is escapism, i have no cares or worries when i read fantasy books


----------



## j d worthington (May 14, 2006)

Nothing; but there's a difference between being child_like_ and child_ish_.


----------



## Coolhand (May 15, 2006)

I think that there's a certain strata of people who think that any imaginative fiction at all is childish, because imagination is something for children. You can see that attitude reflected a great deal in people who move in the circles of "literary" fiction. The only books they consider worthy of merit are books that try to replicate real life as closely as possible, books were nothing ever happens, with characters that talk about nothing for pages upon pages, navel gaze and whine about each other.
Personally, I think it comes down to lack of imagination. As soon as they have to start thinking down the lines of "what if", they just can't handle it because they lack the imagination to make it credible for themselves or they’ve progressively killed that imagination over the years. 

So for them, anything involving fantasy, sci-fi or anything other than the world they see in their everyday life (even adventures or thrillers) is childish because they need to use their imagination.

Which is sad, because I think you’ll find more insight into the human condition in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy than you will in the over-written, naked emperor syndrome pages of any Booker Prize winner.

Just my theory anyway.


----------



## chrispenycate (May 15, 2006)

It might well be "childish"; at least, you couldn't prove the contrary by me. Look at me, at an age when I _should_, by social norms, be preparing for retirement, still enthusiastic about learning new skills, aquiring knowledge of the world around me, and making new (for me) mistakes. trying to absorb new music, and relate it to my present experience base. Planning at most a week ahead, while thinking in decades. All very childish tendencies, mitigated by sufficient experience to make them work, and it would be foolish to deny that my favoured reading matter hasn't influenced this, or my choice in reading matter been influenced by it. I also intereact well with children, not by using "baby talk, but by assuming they'll understand the critical information, ignoring the excessive detail. Which in general they do, better than most adults.

So yes, I'm childish, and enjoy seeing the world new each morning. I believe the planet needs a few of us, the yeast in the bread, who are not so absorbed in their aduldhood that they can't see beyond their immediate circumstances.


----------



## GrownUp (May 15, 2006)

I think there may be an analogy here to the film festivals I've attended. Always very serious and important and claiming to explore the whole of human experience, but it's always just sex and death.
 I like fantasy. I'd just as soon my life was full of adventures(fantasy) as whingeing(literary fiction). Not that I can't do literary fiction: 
Whinge whinge death. SEX whinge whinge SEX death. 
 See? See how mature I am? See how I can face these issues head on?


----------



## Coolhand (May 15, 2006)

GrownUp said:
			
		

> Not that I can't do literary fiction:
> Whinge whinge death. SEX whinge whinge SEX death.
> See? See how mature I am? See how I can face these issues head on?


 
Add some drug abuse and maybe an abusive childhood and you'll be up for a major high-brow award with that one.


----------



## iansales (May 15, 2006)

You'll never get people to take science fiction and fantasy seriously if you respond by slagging off literary fiction. If we want people to stop thinking the genre is childish, then we need to raise the bar. There is a lot of appalling escapist science fiction/fantasy currently being published, and the good stuff gets lost under piles of dreck.

Sadly, there are several marketing realities at play here. Media SFF is not as sophisticated as the written form... and the bulk of written SFF published is tied to the media form. Imagine if most mainstream fiction was spun-off from Emmerdale or The Bold & The Beautiful...


----------



## Quokka (May 15, 2006)

Some SFF certainly is childish.... as well as repetative, unimanginative, cliched, bland, even offensive, pulp. The thing is some horror, crime, romance, "true life", historical etc is just as guilty.

You can see where I'm going here, some of it's also original, thought-provoking, joyful, engrosing, political, exploratory, humorous, hilarious and beautiful. 

Ditto for movies, poetry, paintings, non-fiction (I've read some shocking research that doesn't even begin to be worthy of _childishness_). It's the artist that define their work not the tools and i think we can agree that SFF has had some amazing ones over the years.

And the best of all..... none of us would completely agree on what belongs in what category .

Personally I think the fans all decked out in their team colours, singing and cheering are enjoying escapism every bit as much as the kid next to them on the bus reading Harry Potter.

Sorry, I couldn't help but add some semi-coherent ramblings of my own.


----------



## Cobolt (May 15, 2006)

Without Fantasy and SF there would be no escapism, no portal to release imagination through and without imagination the world would be a boring place.

Those who consider Fantasy and SF to be childish have no imagination, no desire to stretch their thoughts beyond their current life. Thank god for websites like this and those who read and write genres like Fantasy and SF for releasing dormant thoughts and making us all think of what if's. Releasing our own personal take on what our minds eye sees through each paragraph of a book or the visual splendour of a film, programme etc.

Ignore those who do not understand for they cannot be converted to our way of thinking. Leave them to suffer and wither within their own current bubble of life.


----------



## GrownUp (May 15, 2006)

iansales said:
			
		

> You'll never get people to take science fiction and fantasy seriously if you respond by slagging off literary fiction.


 
Oh come on. This thread started of with a load of people writing off fantasy as 'childish'. I'm not going to respond to that with reasoned arguments, no way.

C'mon then literary fiction. C'mon, put up your dukes.


----------



## purple_kathryn (May 15, 2006)

Coolhand said:
			
		

> Add some drug abuse and maybe an abusive childhood and you'll be up for a major high-brow award with that one.


 
Depressing AND dull!


----------



## CarlottaVonUberwald (May 15, 2006)

all genres have childish books and fantasy is no different.. but fantasy also contains some of the most mature books around


----------



## Paige Turner (May 15, 2006)

I still can't get over "childish" being used as some kind of insult. It is my greatest ambition in life to perpetuate my childish behaviour in all avenues—back me up, here; you've read my posts—until I shuffle off this mortal slinky.


----------



## j d worthington (May 15, 2006)

Chrispenycate -- Remember, Borges was blind and was learning to read Tibetan the last year of his life. No, finding the new, exploring the unknown, and acquiring new skills and knowledge may be, as I said, _childlike_, that is, having the freshness and curiosity of a child, but not _childish_, that is, petulant, whiney, and expecting everything to go your own way. To me, that's the difference. Childish is self-absorbed and completely disregarding reality; childlike is having never lost the ability to marvel at the buds unfolding on a tree, or the beauty of light on a dewdrop.

And CVU -- *Exactly!*

As for the literary, I reiterate: most (if not all) of the greatest writers in literary history have written at least some imaginative fiction; either science fiction, fantasy or ghost stories/horror, from the easily recognized E. A. Poe to Henry James (an entire, rather large book made up strictly of his ghost stories was collected back in the 1940s: _The Ghostly Tales of Henry James_). Thomas Pyncheon and Saul Bellow have also written books that fall into the sf category. Edith Wharton did several ghost stories, as did Sarah Orne Jewett. And all literature is escapist to some degree. One isn't really dealing with life, one is dealing at best with an analog of life, something that is structured and has an artificial flow, a pattern that life very seldom can boast. Literature, of any sort, is out modern-day mythmaking, in order to help us cope with reality via symbols which to us have varied layers of meaning. Good imaginative literature can (and does) stand with the best of 'em.


----------



## Rahl Windsong (May 16, 2006)

The funny thing is I don't feel like a child when I read Erikson, Martin, or any good fantasy author in fact I find it difficult to see how children would enjoy the two examples I have given though I am quite likely wrong in some cases.

Rahl


----------



## hugo (May 16, 2006)

If fantasty is childish how millions of children and adults read Harry Potter. Many


----------



## iansales (May 16, 2006)

Er, your point being?


----------



## alicebandassassin (May 16, 2006)

yep i think harry potter a bad example as most readers are pre teens not all but most!


----------



## Paige Turner (May 16, 2006)

alicebandassassin said:
			
		

> yep i think harry potter a bad example as most readers are pre teens not all but most!



Of all Harry Potter books purchased, 79% were bought expressly by or for children or teens 16 and under. (Though undoubtedly many of those were subsequently read by adults in the household) A full 21% were purchased for adult consumption, including large printings of specifically "adult cover" editions.

Purchases of boxed sets are more skewed toward a young readership, with 91% of sets purchased intended for readers 16 and under.


----------



## CarlottaVonUberwald (May 16, 2006)

harry potters just appaling..and therefore does not count


----------



## violetann (May 16, 2006)

i second that CarlottaVonUberwald... harry potter is appalling, but that’s more personal preference. 
If fantasy is childish.. how come most children cannot read most fantasy books out there.. for example the Silmarillion.. I know adults that can't read that, in fact I can’t I attempted to once but it you stop reading for a second you loose what’s happening. 
also the vast amount of sex and violence in some other fantasy books excludes it from childishness I think... since some of the 18 rated games/moves out there have less of it in. but like all genders well almost all… have kid version of styles, but I think it’s more important to look at a book for the book not on if it’s for kids or not.


People who just go around saying stuff is childish, just want to enforce there ideas onto others to make them stop liking fantasy and themselves are just unimaginative and unable to cope with differences, since there doing the equitant to going up to someone in the playground and saying there cloths are uncool, just so they will dress like them just incase they person saying it is uncool so at least then they will be in a group which will make it cool.

also just because an adult reads a book of ABC's doesn’t make that book adult, so why should a child reading a adult book make it a Childs book.


----------



## CarlottaVonUberwald (May 16, 2006)

harry potter annoys me because the story Isn't remotely original and the actual writing is dreadful... to call that childish is an insult to children...


----------



## Paige Turner (May 16, 2006)

CarlottaVonUberwald said:
			
		

> harry potter annoys me because the story Isn't remotely original and the actual writing is dreadful... to call that childish is an insult to children...



I think Harry Potter is quite original. An orphaned boy, whose parents were killed by a powerful evil sorcerer, raised by relatives and having no idea of his true heritage, then taken from home to learn to use mysterious magical forces, thrust into a friendship with two best mates (who end up having the hots for each other), going to exotic locations in places with strange beings, having adventures with a tall, hairy friend, and culminating with a final confrontation with evil? I don’t know how you can say Luke Skyw—I mean Harry Potter—is not an original story.


----------



## CarlottaVonUberwald (May 16, 2006)

lol actually  iwas going more for the worst witch esque stories crossed with the poor little orphan boy tales....well you know what i mean lol

and jk rowling pishes me off... im a single mum who diedicates my child...but i really had tto dedicate alll my time to this book..make up your mind woman


----------



## alicebandassassin (May 16, 2006)

i have encouraged my children to read adult books once i have read them and find them suitable as well as childrens books, sometimes they have liked adult novels sometimes childrens. however the harry potter books are just poorly writen and predictable not childish.


----------



## Paige Turner (May 16, 2006)

Indoor voice: I actually liked the Harry Potter books.


----------



## ScottSF (May 17, 2006)

Rahl Windsong said:
			
		

> The funny thing is I don't feel like a child when I read Erikson, Martin, or any good fantasy author in fact I find it difficult to see how children would enjoy the two examples I have given though I am quite likely wrong in some cases.
> 
> Rahl



I agree.  Erikson and Martin have very adult themes.  I would get upset when people would mention Harry Potter and Lord of The Rings in the same breath.  People would assume that if I read LOTR, then I must be into Harry Potter also.  I don't really read children's fiction.  I do thing what Rawlings and the Harry Potter crazy has done to get kids reading is great but it's just not the same thing as fantasy written with adults in mind.


----------



## GrownUp (May 17, 2006)

Paige Turner said:
			
		

> Indoor voice: I actually liked the Harry Potter books.


 
Me too, I'm a big fan. I don't watch Star Wars films for the script or the direction; they have another ineffable quality. ( I mean the original Star Wars films, not the new ones, which I can't watch at all.)

Harry Potter has that same _something._

People oughtn't to bring up Harry Potter when the worthiness of fantasy or children's writing is being discussed. The writing quality just isn't what it is about. People don't bring up The DaVinci Code as an example of the best of well-written contemporary adult fiction. Thank goodness. 




			
				ScottSF said:
			
		

> I would get upset when people would mention Harry Potter and Lord of The Rings in the same breath.


Heh heh. I know. How about some Jeffrey Archer novel in the same breath as Cloud Atlas, that'd be a good come-back.

Although, to be honest, I find Harry Potter a lot more readable than LoRings.


----------



## Dala (May 17, 2006)

People who label fantasy childish have either never read any or have lost any kind of spark of imagination...may be bit of a hard line to take, but I just can't see how you can resist getting swept along by a good fantasy book.  

I've found myself bawling my eyes out or chuckling dementedly to various books, and although I may catch myself for a minute and think its a bit silly to get carried away, I'm ultimately chuffed that I can still see the wonder in a subject so removed from everyday stuff.


----------



## purple_kathryn (May 17, 2006)

Paige Turner said:
			
		

> Indoor voice: I actually liked the Harry Potter books.


 
*whispers* me too!


----------



## alicebandassassin (May 18, 2006)

you can like a book and still not find it insiring or great we have all watched a curry movie whitch was fine to watch and just enjoy without having to think


----------



## hypocriticHarkonnen (May 18, 2006)

let's put it in a way that the dudes who don't dig sff could understand: sff entertains us, well, me anyway. heck, it's better than most other forms of 'entertainment' these days.


----------



## Paige Turner (May 18, 2006)

alicebandassassin said:
			
		

> … we have all watched a curry movie whitch was fine to watch and just enjoy without having to think



What's a "curry movie?" Can I add this to my slang repertoire?


----------



## alicebandassassin (May 18, 2006)

a curry movie is the film you watch with beer and curry... an action film with no plot always fits the bill nicely.


----------



## Kettricken (May 18, 2006)

"Curry movie", learned something new today! 

In fantasy (as in other genres) there is a variety of quality. I agree that in all kinds of books there are both 'mature' and 'childish' books.
Sometimes people around me look down on the escapism which fantasy offers, but when you ask them why they travel, they say it is to forget all of their worries, to be in another environment.... so, why would it be bad if you can do this everyday for a while when reading a fantasybook?


----------



## PERCON (May 19, 2006)

I've never considered the entire fantasy genre to be childish. Take Lord of the Rings for example. I know it appeals to children (especially now it's been made into the three films) but I wouldn't say it's childish. Same goes for gazillions of other stories, films, comic books, etc. It's the same with Sci-Fi books, tv programmes and films making people think 'geeky' almost immediately when they often aren't. Sci-Fi is just strange, weird things or things that aren't possible with our laws of physics, abstract thoughts I'd say. Fantasy is more of a thoughts explosion, grand stories, not always to do with elves and wizards believe it or not . Fantasy is harder to open up to a variety of age groups than Sci-Fi is in my opinion.


----------



## iansales (May 19, 2006)

Having said that, some of the best fantasy written was aimed at a young adult market: The Weirdstone of Brisingamen, Alan Garner; A Wizard of Earthsea, Ursula K Le Guin; The Daymaker, Transformations and The Skybreaker, Ann Halam...


----------



## GrownUp (May 19, 2006)

Paige Turner said:
			
		

> What's a "curry movie?" Can I add this to my slang repertoire?


 
People here eat takeaway Indian food mainly, it's the staple.

The translation for the Americas would be Chinese food movie.


----------



## j d worthington (May 19, 2006)

GrownUp said:
			
		

> People here eat takeaway Indian food mainly, it's the staple.
> 
> The translation for the Americas would be Chinese food movie.


Speaking as an American, I'd still prefer "curry movie"; simple, elegant, and gets the point across (also less of a mouthful -- I didn't say that....)


----------



## alicebandassassin (May 20, 2006)

it does do exactly what it says on the tin


----------



## The Ace (Oct 19, 2006)

Lewis said it all;
  "It is the stupidest children who are the most childish, and the stupidest grown-ups who are the most grown-Up."


----------



## Saltheart (Oct 20, 2006)

Fantasy and Sci-Fi allow authors to write about the more touchy subjects of life without offending people. For example, Pratchett talks about passive racism and its effects. If he, instead of using a fictional setting, mentioned actual names on Earth, people would get offended and try to ban his books -- or develop a bias against it. Another example: Farenheit 451 talks about the effects of pursuing pleasure instead of knowledge and what society would be like if it were possible.

In many cases, Sci-Fi and Fantasy books discuss more intellectual ideas than any mainstream books; if anything, mainstream books are blatant escapism, compared to the genres' books' themes.


----------



## phase38 (Oct 23, 2006)

Adasunshine said:


> I've never heard of Fantasy/Sci-Fi being described as childish before, although it does have a "geeky" theme attached to it, for what reason I have no idea, perhaps it's because it appeals to the more intelligent person!!!


 
I think the geekiness is because a huge number of sci-fi/fantasy fans, particularly when younger, would rather have stayed in and read for 5 hours after school than go out and play marbles with friends. They tended to not have very good social skills as children, and some have kept this with them to adulthood. 

I enjoyed sci-fi, but would much rather be outside building a ramp for my bmx, whereas my brother would be shut in his room with the latest space goblin book. He was WELL on his way to becoming a major "geek", but secondary school, girls, and then uni changed his ways. We both still enjoy reading though...

As for childish... naah. I bet they dont think Halo 2 is childish, or the plethora of other sci-fi/fantasy based console games.


----------



## Memnoch (Oct 23, 2006)

People that say these things don't read in general or do but haven't ever read decent fantasy/sci fi, books and just assume it's Harry Potter or Dragons n witches etc . . . so must be for kids!! Ignorance should be made illegal lol


----------



## jackokent (Oct 23, 2006)

To be fair I think it is sometimes easier for fantasy to be "childish".  For example there is often a fine line between an imaginative alien and a silly one, same with dragons etc.

With other genre that do not have made up creatures they can be written extreemly badly but if they deal with adult issues they are unlikely to be viewed as childish.  

I imagine each genre has it's cross to bear ie war novels could be over dramatic, romance cliche and cringy, young women's novels ( I understand they call them chick flick) inspid, detective - cliche again etc etc.  

I think having to bear the cross of childishness is probably the least of the crimes.  I'm glad I've never grown up.


----------



## SpaceShip (Oct 24, 2006)

Galas said:


> I was having a chat with fellow friends last night over a a pint or two and we got into the discussion about what makes fantasy/sci-fi fans tick! They simply didn't get it and bound the discussion up in one foul swoop by stating that it's simply childish.
> 
> Is it purely to escape? Is it to feel enriched by a world that opens our eyes to something magical and unique? Personally, i love it all because it engulfs my whole in something that makes me feel even more individual, yet part of a collective. So sod those silly friends. What do you all think?


 
How many pints did your friends actually consume while they had this discussion with you?  And what sort of fairies did they see as they lay down to sleep?

I prefer my fantasy when I'm virtually sober and can imagine them as I read about them rather than having them attack me during my inebriated state.

Have they ever sat down and read something like "Lord of the Rings"?  I bet they've seen the film, though!  It would be interesting to hear if they have.  Would they have thought that "childish"?  More than likely "really scary" in parts.

As an aside, though, I would prefer to call a "curry movie" a "Ruby movie" - gets the old lips a-puckering in anticipation of the feast!


----------



## Parson (Oct 24, 2006)

I find it interesting that this thread has come to an understanding of childish which is quite apart from the original post. This thread has come to define childish basically as "full of imagination." It has turned the perforative sense of the word completely around. A wise man once said, "Unless you change and become like little children you will never enter the Kingdom of God."

So I agree, we need the child like innocence and faith that is so rarely found in our utterly modern age.


----------



## Jason_Taverner (Oct 25, 2006)

I try so hard to remain as childish as possible


----------



## Talysia (Nov 11, 2006)

To me, the style of the book and the themes - whatever the genre - decide whether a book is childish or not, but even if a book is written in such a way, why is that a bad thing?
If the definition of childish is open-minded and eager to look at weird and wonderful things that you've never seen before, then yes, fantasy is childish.  Fantasy is all about using your imagination, in ways that adults rarely do.  It all depends on the reader.  In my opinion, though, a person who hasn't read a fantasy book shouldn't really judge whether it's childish or not.  How can you judge something you don't know about?


----------



## bruno-1012 (Nov 11, 2006)

I would say that the beauty of SF is that it gives the opportunity to explore themes for the world under a microscope.  You can take some ideas and expand them to make a point.

Pratchet does a good job of this in his books by pointing out some of the absurdities of the modern world.  Inn-sewer-ants is one of my favourites.

I also liked The Dueling Machine and Starwatchman by Ben Bova for that reason.  There are many examples of how SF can enlighten by holding up a mirror or bright light to us.

I also quite like the Harry Potter stuff.  Can still remember being on a train to Dundee sitting opposite 2 women both reading a copy of The Philosophers Stone just before the movie was released.

The genre can include examples of the daft rules that abound in society.


----------



## The Ace (Nov 12, 2006)

Googoogaga.mummy potty, never mind.


----------



## Esioul (Nov 13, 2006)

Nothing wrong with being a bit childish for as long as is possible... I think there's a lotof fantasy that is really quite dark and not childish at all. For example, Gormenghast.


----------



## Urien (Nov 13, 2006)

Childish is the knee jerk reaction to the sff genres. Generally the response comes from the literary establishment which is small, and more generally from those who do not read books at all.

Nevertheless as mentioned above these same people will have seen and enjoyed movies that come from the genre; Star Wars, LoTR, Terminator, Alien and so on.

It's a constant battle. Stephen King has frequently commented on it; he was initially dismissed by the literati because he wrote in the horror genre, there was no real effort to find out if it was good writing.


----------



## The Ace (Nov 15, 2006)

Paige Turner said:


> Indoor voice: I actually liked the Harry Potter books.


  Me too


----------



## Nikitta (Nov 16, 2006)

Saltheart said:


> In many cases, Sci-Fi and Fantasy books discuss more intellectual ideas than any mainstream books; if anything, mainstream books are blatant escapism, compared to the genres' books' themes.



I find that Sci-Fi and Fantasy satisfy my need/desire of books that make me stop and think while also satifying my need/desire of books with a sense of wonder and "Oooh! Shiny!"

I don't see why those two sides should be mutually exclusive. 

Yes, I sometimes stop and get overly joyed when I see for instance a pretty dragon figure and I have no problem giving clear expression of how pretty I think it is. If some people have a problem with that, then that's their choice and not something I'll let spoil my good mood.

Some people might consider that childish. 

That just doesn't mean that it's all there is to me. I just see it as an aspect of myself which I'll gladly embrace.


----------



## dark druid (Nov 18, 2006)

being grownup is so over rated 
its grownups that are messing up the world
how many children have distroyed rainforests or started a war
what we need is more childishness 


now that i'v had my rant could somebody please come and change my nappy


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 18, 2006)

Well, though I've said it before, I'll reiterate it here. I think the problem is a confusion of terms. _Childlike _means to have that sense of wonder, the ability to be surprised and swept away by things (even something as simple as coming out as the sun rises and having your breath taken away by the way the sun catches the dew on the grass, or seeing the first buds on the trees); it also connotes innocence, trust, frankness (all very positive qualities, you'll note). _Childish_, on the other hand, indicates the negative side of children: selfishness, uncontrolled temper, petulance, or things that are puerile, weak or silly.

So my response would be: While bad fantasy can be and is indeed often "childish" (just as would be the case with any other branch of literature, the arts, or behavior in life), good fantasy (as with any of the above) is more "childlike". Or, in other words, in the example given by Dark Druid and several others above, those behaviors and those people tend to be _childish_ (selfish, short-sighted, petulant, unreasonable, etc.); fantasy, on the other hand, tends to encourage the positive, _childlike_ aspects of our nature. Therein lies the difference, and it is those who make such uninformed, willfully ignorant charges that are themselves behaving childishly.


----------



## dark druid (Nov 19, 2006)

i don't think that the term "childish" needs to be completely negitave. yes it can mean (selfish, short-sighted, petulant, unreasonable, ect.) it can also mean (giddy, fun loving, irrisponsable, thoughtless, ect.) it can have both negitave and positive connotations. the term "childlike" is more positive in it's connotations, but nither term is ever use to discribe something or someone that is deliberetly destructive or malicious.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 20, 2006)

Perhaps, in the strictest etymological sense, no. But all the dictionaries I've consulted do make the distinction as this is how the term has come to be used over many, many years. They all note that it is in connection (obviously) with things of, relating to, or befitting a child or childhood, but inevitably the further refinement of meaning is that childish represents the negative connotations rather than the positive. Merriam-Webster has the following: "marked by or suggestive of immaturity or a lack of poise" with the example of "a _childish_ spiteful remark"; "lacking complexity" with the example of "it's a _childish_ device, but it works"; and "deteriorated with age, especially in mind". The American Heritage dictionary has pretty much the same, adding puerile to the list; MSN Encarta defines it as "regarded as showing a lack of adult qualities such as emotional restraint, seriousness, or good sense" and follows with the following comparison between the two: "The difference is that childlike is complimentary and even affectionate (_childlike innocence_), whereas childish is a dismissive and disapproving term (_a childish tantrum_)." Synonyms for childish are: "babyish, immature, infantile, juvenile, puerile". Whereas childlike invariably has strictly positive definitions and synonyms, such as "marked by innocence, trust and ingenuousness" (Merriam-Webster), "innocence, trustfulness and candor", etc. There are two words they have in common as synonyms, however, which show their similar origin: "senile" and "infantile". But, from all sources, it's obvious that the first term has overwhelmingly negative connotations, whereas the second has largely (if not exclusively) positive associations.

Which is a pedantic way of saying: "Backed by the evidence, I'm sticking to my guns on this one." N.B.: The "meanings" of terms change, of course, depending on what becomes accepted usage. One of my favorite examples being the word "curious", which we understand today to mean "inquisitive, desirous of knowledge, questioning", etc., but where the original definition was "intricate (especially as of something of intricate workmanship); odd or unusual", etc. The two are related, but over just under a century and a half, the modern sense came to overshadow the earlier one, and this could happen again with these two terms. For now, however, I must say that not only all definitions I've seen, but all examples I've come across in literature express "childish" as negative (unless in dealing specifically with children: "childish prattle", etc.) and deserving of opprobrium; and "childlike" as positive, deserving of approbation.

One thing I'd like to note: you use two terms in a positive sense that I'd say are anything but: "irresponsible" and "thoughtless". I'm not sure that there's any time when the first can be positive, but the second, I suppose, may be if it is taken to mean "spontaneous, instinctive, naturally occurring"... but the term itself still has overwhelmingly negative connotations, and might be better espressed as the more neutral "without thought".


----------



## Urien (Nov 21, 2006)

FANTASi is nott fer kydz. I hav draw a piktur off a dINooSaw


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 21, 2006)

andrew.v.spencer said:


> FANTASi is nott fer kydz. I hav draw a piktur off a dINooSaw


 
OUCH!


----------



## Allegra (Nov 22, 2006)

Childish? 'A child within' may be the proper wording. Without the 'childish' imagination and curiosity mankind wouldn't have progressed so far.


----------



## Steve Jordan (Nov 24, 2006)

Let's face it: Ending a discussion with "SFF is childish" is simply uninformed and insulting.  I would have simply _told_ the person so, and moved on (literally or figuratively), as there was clearly no point in discussing it with them further.

I can't believe I just skimmed through 6 pages of people either saying "SFF is _not_ childish," or "Sure SFF is childish, and that's OK!"  It's not like there is anyone like the guy who made his "childish" declaration here, so who are we debating this with?  Shouldn't we be on a general books forum on Yahoo or something, where we can find people of the opposite ilk to really discuss the matter?

This may be one of the biggest reasons that others consider SFF "childish": Instead of discussing and making our point, we retire to our rooms and quietly agree with ourselves that they were wrong, as we hug our Yoda dolls for support... when what we should have done is to make a few examples of why they don't know what they're talking about, and end the conversation the right way:  

_1984.  Solaris.    2001.  Soylent Green.  Brave New World.  Blade Runner.  Akira.  Ghost In The Shell.  Fahrenheit 451._

Argue.  Or argue not.  There is no ranting.


----------



## steve12553 (Nov 24, 2006)

Eating, sleeping, earning a living and functioning in life are essential. *Everything else is childish*. All forms of recreation and things to occupy oneself are childish. Depending on what you personally enjoy, it is either good childish(fun) or bad childish(immature). When we criticize the _downtime_ activities of others (and we all do) we need to rememmber this. Remember how you felt the last time you saw someone "wasting" their time on a video game or participating in a sport that they will never be good enough at to make any money. We're guilty, too, of looking down on others. I don't know if "doing unto others" first will cure the problem but it might help.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 24, 2006)

steve12553 said:


> Eating, sleeping, earning a living and functioning in life are essential. *Everything else is childish*. All forms of recreation and things to occupy oneself are childish. Depending on what you personally enjoy, it is either good childish(fun) or bad childish(immature). When we criticize the _downtime_ activities of others (and we all do) we need to rememmber this. Remember how you felt the last time you saw someone "wasting" their time on a video game or participating in a sport that they will never be good enough at to make any money. We're guilty, too, of looking down on others. I don't know if "doing unto others" first will cure the problem but it might help.


 
Again, I have to disagree. With the exception of earning a living everything listed above is also applicable to a child, therefore childish/childlike (take your pick). It is in the other things that we grow as human beings ... in our interactions with others, in our studies, our learning, in arts that help us to understand better what it means to be human, how to expand that definition, how to better understand and interact with others, how to live up to our potential creatively/intellectually/ethically. Those things are not childish or inessential. They are what make the distinction between being human and being a slug, or a rabbit, or a whale, or a goat. The portions of the brain which deal with these things are the most recently developed (and therefore likely to be the most highly evolved), not the others, which are very basic to simple existence for any lifeform within its ecological niche.

And nor are all pastimes and recreational activities on a par. Yes, some video games can be stimulating to the imagination, can aid with manual dexterity, quickness of perception, etc. But a huge number of them also contribute (in either subtle or broad ways) to a blunting of the ethical sensibilities, and nearly all tend to encourage isolationism and are extremely flat compared with the complexities of life and (genuine) art. (And lest the "isolationism" charge be leveled against reading -- yes, it can have that aspect. However, this tends to be much less so than something like video games because the characters in books are often complex and intricate, and good literature, like any good art, also tends to prod the reader into a better understanding of one's fellows; it encourages bridging the gap when you put down the book ... video games do not.) There are many other "recreational" activities that fit on either side of this. But the extreme pragmatism of the view above, though a fairly common view I know, is based on the mistaken idea that simple biological functioning or fulfilling an economic niche in society's machinery is the definition of being human. It is not. It reduces life to only those things we share in common with even the lowest forms of life (especially if one takes "earning a living" to be analogous to fitting a prescribed place within the "economy" of one's biological type. That's not a life. That's barely existence, and any human being who is simply reduced to those aspects will quickly cease to function at all ... period. Which rather pointedly demonstrates that it is the other aspects which are at least equally, if not more, important, to the functioning of a human, as opposed to any other, type of being.


----------



## Urien (Nov 24, 2006)

"or a whale, or a goat." JD

I always wanted to be a whalegoat and bleat my way about the seven seas butting battleships to Davey Jones locker. 

Alas it was not to be.

But it could be. And that's the point.

Aesop was here!


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 24, 2006)

andrew.v.spencer said:


> "or a whale, or a goat." JD
> 
> I always wanted to be a whalegoat and bleat my way about the seven seas butting battleships to Davey Jones locker.
> 
> ...


 
You know, Andrew ... you keep inserting comments like this one (and the one in the Mountains of Madness thread) that are quite frankly gems of sheer exuberant lunacy, very imagistic. You should really do something with these... The one above might even provide a great idea for a tale, should you choose to follow it up.... A "whalegoat"... makes me think of the old maps and bestiaries....


----------



## The Upright Man (Nov 26, 2006)

Galas said:


> I was having a chat with fellow friends last night over a a pint or two and we got into the discussion about what makes fantasy/sci-fi fans tick! They simply didn't get it and bound the discussion up in one foul swoop by stating that it's simply childish.
> 
> Is it purely to escape? Is it to feel enriched by a world that opens our eyes to something magical and unique? Personally, i love it all because it engulfs my whole in something that makes me feel even more individual, yet part of a collective. So sod those silly friends. What do you all think?


 
1 word.   TOOL

SFF childish? you got a deathwish, SFF is better than sliced bread, a better invention 2


----------



## Sibeling (Dec 1, 2006)

Isaac Asimov in his story *Kid Stuff* made one of the characters say the following words: _Modern fantasies are very sophisticated and mature treatments of folk motifs. Behind the facade of glib unreality there frequently lie trenchant comments on the world of today. Fantasy in modern style is, above all, adult fare._

The fact that there are dragons and wizards does not make a book childish, because fantasy is mainly about people. It is about how people behave in unusual cirscumstances, about what people do when they face a moral dilemma and about how people overcome problems. So fantasy is not more chldish that any other book that deals with these subjects.


----------

