# Preference: Fantasy or Scifi?



## Alia (Aug 8, 2005)

This idea comes from another thread...


Which do you prefer: Fantasy or Scifi? Why?
Feel free to discuss...


----------



## littlemissattitude (Aug 8, 2005)

Science Fiction.

I think this is because, as I've said here before, I was actively recruited into reading/watching science fiction by my father, who started taking me to science fiction movies at the drive in when I was an infant and who began handing me science fiction novels to read when I was probably around nine years old.  And we always watched Saturday afternoon science fiction on TV, as well.  There was pretty much no way I could have avoided becoming a science fiction fan.

I didn't start reading fantasy, on the other hand, until I reached adulthood.  I like fantasy, but I much prefer urban fantasy to Tolkienesque or medieval-based fantasies.  Not that I don't read those sometimes, too, but not as often or as avidly as I read the others.


----------



## ajdecon (Aug 8, 2005)

I've got to say my preference is science fiction.  In general, fantasy seems to be like mainstream literature in that it's almost always about exploring just the characters.  Magic and the supernatural play a part, but the heart of the story is in the emotions and reactions of the characters.  The world around them is simply the stage.

A lot of SF is like that too, but there are a lot of stories (especially in "hard" SF) where the characters seem to take a back seat to their actions, and to the world itself.  It isn't written to make you care what happens to the people, but to inspire a sense of wonder in the world, and in the process of building a future.  Or: fantasy is largely about "being", and science fiction about "doing."

Not that exploring the human condition isn't important.  But especially in modern times, thinking about the world itself and what we want to do with it is just as important as what we think about us.  After all, the future won't just happen: we're the ones who build it.  I don't see that as much in fantasy.

Just my two cents...


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Aug 8, 2005)

I used to read SF and Fantasy just about equally.  But as time went on, my interest veered more and more toward Fantasy, so that now I rarely read SF at all.

I don't know why -- it's just a personal preference.  In my SF reading days I read tons of it, so it's not as though I never read enough of the good stuff to get hooked on it.


----------



## Animaiden (Aug 8, 2005)

Fantasy.
I started with fantasy.  That is what got me to read.  I loved fairy tales and the other fantasy I read.  I just loved the knights in shining armor/magic/women in distress(not so much the last one).  I have very rarely found any sci-fi that I liked.


----------



## silvermage2000 (Aug 8, 2005)

I would have to say fanasy,even though i sometimes read scifi to. It's mainly because I am really into fanasy, The thing is that the magic spell type of stories interest me just abit more. But i still like scifi tv shows to.


----------



## GOLLUM (Aug 8, 2005)

Too easy for me Fantasy No 1!!!!

Not sure why exactly just a preference thing for me. Maybe because I work in the computer field I don't want to read about stuff that has a scientific or a technological aspect to it. Also I was heavily into historical stuff when I was much younger (5-15) like Rommans, Greeks etc.. and I used to read a lot of historical fiction and had a geat love for Knights, armour and Castles, so fanatsy was probably I suspect a natural progression for me at that stage. Then again who really knows??..


----------



## shandril (Aug 8, 2005)

fantasy...sci/fi smacks too much of what might happen..... and i read to escape the real world....


----------



## kaneda (Aug 8, 2005)

Fantasy no question. 

I don't enjoy sci fi, so i dont read it. 

Fantasy was the first genre that presented to me characters that I actually fell in love with, and also characters who I got obsessed with. Also I've always wanted to be able to do magic, and not magic tricks, actual magic, and fantasy is the only genre that taps into that for me.


----------



## Loganberry (Aug 8, 2005)

its fantasy all the way for me too.  


as much as i love tv and film sci-fi, when im reading it has to be fantasy; a please were i can let my imagination run away just for a little while.


----------



## Azash (Aug 8, 2005)

i mostly read fantasy and have only read about two sci-fi books and hated them, its ironic because i prefer watching sci-fi films to fantasy.


----------



## Stargazer1976 (Aug 8, 2005)

I voted Science Fiction but must say the poll brings us back to asking where exactly is the line drawn between Sci Fi and Fantasy.


----------



## Pyan (Aug 8, 2005)

Stargazer1976 said:
			
		

> I voted Science Fiction but must say the poll brings us back to asking where exactly is the line drawn between Sci Fi and Fantasy.


 
There has to be a blurry line in the middle, surely. In one of his most-quoted lines, Arthur C.Clarke, a "hard" science-fiction writer if ever there was one, said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", and there are many sci-fi premises that would seem like magic if you didn't know how they worked.
The main question I would ask is if there needs to be a hard line drawn between the two? I realize that it's a "for-fun" poll, but I personally found it very hard to make a dogmatic either-or vote. Without a doubt, I like my favourite SF author more than my second-favourite fantasy writer, and vice versa.


BTW, it's _great _to find a site where this sort of thing can be discussed!


----------



## LadyFel (Aug 8, 2005)

Fantasy...I'm not particularly interested in science fiction, although I've read some...

I started off on fairy tales, and went on to what my mum calls 'real books', but I've always found myself coming back to books like the Neverending Story...

Admittedly, the fantasy I read now is more grisly and realistic, along the lines of GRRM and Discworld which is basically a satire of our own world, I've moved away from the realms of the sort of high fantasy like LOTR, full of elves and fairies, but I've just always felt a huge connection to madieval jousts and knights in shining armour than ti nanobots, warp speed and incoming subspace transmissions...


----------



## lazygun (Aug 8, 2005)

A vote for SF.Apart from the succinctly-put reason by Ajdecon with which i would probably have started with myself,I have found SF for _me_ to be more surprising,thought-provoking even educational.
Don't have much against Fantasy,I've read a lot of it and enjoyed it,but for me SF has always held 1st place.


----------



## Alia (Aug 8, 2005)

> The main question I would ask is if there needs to be a hard line drawn between the two? I realize that it's a "for-fun" poll, but I personally found it very hard to make a dogmatic either-or vote. Without a doubt, I like my favourite SF author more than my second-favourite fantasy writer, and vice versa.


 This thread doesn't have to be just 'for-fun' Pyanfaruk.  I struggled with this starting this topic because of that blurry line... I don't think it is clear cut at all but I didn't know exactly how to put it.  I think Scifi, much like horror is a spring off or a sprout of Fantasy.  Fantasy is the head, while everything else falls below that.  Fantasy came first... Feel free to debate (nicely, don't want Brian to get upset with anyone) about the Fantasy vs Scifi all you would like. 


I prefer Fantasy.


----------



## ajdecon (Aug 8, 2005)

Alia said:
			
		

> I think Scifi, much like horror is a spring off or a sprout of Fantasy. Fantasy is the head, while everything else falls below that. Fantasy came first...



I can definitely agree with that, Alia. SF and horror are both sort of subsets of fantasy, where the authors choose to limit themselves to following certain rules or staying in a given topic. You could say that there are more fantasy stories "out there" to be written than there are in either SF or horror.

However, I think that those limits are really strengths in both cases: being constrained to follow a set of rules can force the author to think their story out more, and be more creative. A lot of fantasy stories seem to suffer from letting themselves cover too broad an area: the more magic you allow, or the more different races you include, the easier it is for the author to solve a given story problem just by throwing in a new spell or ability. On the other hand, if you decide ahead of time that you won't break certain rules (like the laws of physics), it can make your stories richer by taking away the "easy way out".

Of course, there are plenty of "science fiction" stories that do the same thing with a convenient gadget. It's why I consider a lot of so-called SF to simply be fantasy in a futuristic setting. On the other side, there are some fantasy stories which build such self-consistent, limited universes that you can almost think of them as science fiction with different laws of physics.

And as always... quality of writing wins above all!


----------



## Alia (Aug 8, 2005)

> I can definitely agree with that, Alia.


 That just makes my day when a Scifi fan agrees with a Fantasy Fan...



> And as always... quality of writing wins above all!


 Couldn't agree more... but not just limited to books, but a well made movie too.  I have to admit that with all the new technology we have nowadays I think a scifi story can be displayed better on the big screen than a fantasy.


----------



## cyborg_cinema (Aug 8, 2005)

I like the _Rings_ trilogy more than most Sci Fi books, so how can I say, "Fantasy is second best because..."

I like how Sci Fi deals with current scientific theories and technology. Speculative science is interesting, but Fantasy touches on that also. 

I like Sci Fi and Fantasy for their similarities, diplomatically speaking.


----------



## Alia (Aug 8, 2005)

But Cyborg... if it wasn't for Fantasy, then there would be no Scifi (or horror). Therefore, Fantasy could never be second best when it's the head of them all.


----------



## cyborg_cinema (Aug 8, 2005)

Fantasy and Science Fiction are both forced to remain within the "range of what one can know or understand." Even on the planet Zenon.


----------



## finvarre (Aug 8, 2005)

A few years ago I'd definitely have voted for fantasy, as I love the genre from childhood, ever since I read The Hobbit and Narnia for the first time. But after having read my share of Dragonlance (and I don't mean the original trilogy which is a classic),Forgotten Realms, and authors like Eddings, Jordan and Lackey to name just a few, nowadays it takes a very good fantasy book to get me hooked. It seems to me this genre is a bit too repetitive, although I love to discover new authors who gainsay my words, especially if they're as inventive as Erikson or Friedman. As for the SF, I have a lot of classics yet to discover - I've recently been on Asimov and Wyndham - so maybe once I've done my homework, I'll change my point of view
         Anyway, it's fifty-fifty for me now, a very tough nut to crack...
         And as for drawing a line between sci fi and fantasy: I've always had problems with some obviously fantasy novels being classified as SF merely because of a few mentions that ie. people there proceeded from Earth or whatever. That's been the case with Anne McCaffrey's Pern cycle - at least the first novel , Dragonflight, was for me a quintessential fantasy book, with not even the usual in the later books introduction stating the scientific reasons behind the Thread phenomenon and mentioning the red star Rukbat" being included. Even the Morgaine saga by Cherryh was classified as an "SF",as well as CS Friedman's Coldfire Trilogy. I know there were several reasons for that,  such as the fact that humans are not native to Erna is crucial to the story, but it just doesn't feel like a SF.


----------



## cyborg_cinema (Aug 8, 2005)

It is ok to explore those large grey areas where F and SF overlap.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (Aug 8, 2005)

I voted for Fantasy basically for my love of history and mythology.  I think that there are so few elements that Fantasy and Sci Fi share.  Both genres are polluted with hacks and crap-artists which undermines the true quality of the genres.  I would say that there are more quality writers in the Sci Fi genre, who write books that beg bigger questions.  However, Fantasy books generally have much better characters and much better stories for that matter.  I do not know about everybody else but I just enjoy a good yarn.


----------



## Rosemary (Aug 9, 2005)

My preference is most definately Fantasy.  I think it started out as basically an escapism.  Now I read the Fantasy books mostly because I really enjoy them and occasionally because I need to escape again.

I have read some SciFi books, just for a change.  Such as the Dune series and Julian May's The Gallactic Millieu Trilogy which I thought were brilliant.  

Would anyone know into which category Ms Rawn falls into?  It seemed as if it were SciFi with a lot of Fantasy thrown in!


----------



## stencyl (Aug 10, 2005)

Alia said:
			
		

> But Cyborg... if it wasn't for Fantasy, then there would be no Scifi (or horror). Therefore, Fantasy could never be second best when it's the head of them all.


 
Without fantasy, writers would still speculate about technology, the future, and all of the things that make up science fiction.


----------



## chrispenycate (Aug 10, 2005)

Sci-Fi, no question- but sci-fi which follows the rules. If you're going to chuck the conservation laws, or causality, out of the window to make a better story, then you'd better have a very convincing explanation- a lot of the space opera stuff is magic dressed up in suitably incomprehensible technological jargon (signifying nothing). I'd read sci-fi exclusively if it weren't for the lack of adequate supplies.

As to the primogenesis theory- so, folk music predated classical- does that imply automatic superiority? (or jazz was essential for the developement of rock, or whatever your taste is). I've been reading articles trying to make an objective definition of science fiction since the sixties (not "good" sci-fi- that will remain a matter of taste, forever,I hope, just what separates "sci-fi" from thrillers {the gadgets in James Bond don't make it sci-fi} romance {though characters in sci-fi no longer repronduce orally, and quite often even seem to become quite fond of each other, if it's sci-fi you know it's not romance} et cetera {and theres a fair amount of et cetera pretending to be sci-fi 'cause they've got an audience-eg. me- who'll buy it on trust}) but any sci-fi reader only needs a few paragraphs, a chapter at most, to recognise his fix .
On the other hand, fantasy has learnt to parody itself, while sci-fi, with a very few exceptions, still takes itself excessively seriously. When you laugh at sc-fi it looks up resentfully, ill equipped to accept a little gentle mockery (and so often deserving, yea demanding, it)
On the gripping hand various fantasy authors have learnt from sci-fi how to put limits on their powers, while sci-fi authors have learnt to write characters who are more than cardboard cut outs to hang technological gegaws from. So I read both. By the hundredweight. In the bath, train, during concerts, meals…


----------



## nixie (Aug 10, 2005)

I voted fantasy,I've always had a love of the  past and mythology,and I suppose a love of fantasy is just a natural extension of the two.

Although I do watch a lot of Sci Fi.


----------



## kyektulu (Aug 10, 2005)

I have voted for Fantasy, reading fantasy is my way of escaping the world and where I would really like to be. 
I have always had a very active imagination and all of what I imagined were fantastical beings fairys, dragons, the evil ogre.... so it was a very natural thing for me to read this genre as I grew older. I dont think I could ever love anyother genre as much.


----------



## Alia (Aug 10, 2005)

> Sci-Fi, no question- but sci-fi which follows the rules. If you're going to chuck the conservation laws, or causality, out of the window to make a better story, then you'd better have a very convincing explanation- a lot of the space opera stuff is magic dressed up in suitably incomprehensible technological jargon (signifying nothing). I'd read sci-fi exclusively if it weren't for the lack of adequate supplies.


 Who wants to read the same thing over and over.  I think the loudest complaint I've seen on this forum alone is cliches and how it's so important to come up with an orginal idea.   If you stick to the rules then your not using your imagination and your tying yourself down to 'boring'.  I'm glad there aren't strict rules to fantasy, so it's not the same old boring story over and over just written in the same way.  If fantasy lacks 'rules' then I'm glad... it means the author has an imagination and is using it.


----------



## cyborg_cinema (Aug 10, 2005)

I like both Science Fiction and Fantasy stories. There are many incredibly imaginative worlds yet to be explored.


----------



## stencyl (Aug 10, 2005)

Alia said:
			
		

> Who wants to read the same thing over and over. I think the loudest complaint I've seen on this forum alone is cliches and how it's so important to come up with an orginal idea. If you stick to the rules then your not using your imagination and your tying yourself down to 'boring'. I'm glad there aren't strict rules to fantasy, so it's not the same old boring story over and over just written in the same way. If fantasy lacks 'rules' then I'm glad... it means the author has an imagination and is using it.


 
I think that chrispenycate means that the story shouldn't break the rules of narrative or science in favor of narrative novelty or plot convienience. I'd agree. Novelty for surface appeal or flash makes for bad writing.

I think that there are many genre "rules" that fantasy tends to follow.


----------



## ajdecon (Aug 11, 2005)

Alia said:
			
		

> Who wants to read the same thing over and over. I think the loudest complaint I've seen on this forum alone is cliches and how it's so important to come up with an orginal idea. If you stick to the rules then your not using your imagination and your tying yourself down to 'boring'.



When people talk about science fiction "rules", they usually aren't talking about storytelling rules. The rules of good SF are generally the rules of the universe: the laws of physics, semi-plausible biology, etc. Granted, these can be pretty damn limiting at times; but they can give you great ideas, too.

An example I particularly like is Larry Niven's _The Smoke Ring_, about a society which forms in a completely natural zero-G environment. (A gaseous ring around a neutron star.) It's got a decently creative story, a fantastic universe, and plenty of wonderful and weird things to explore--and it's all possible! Sure, it's not particularly _likely_ that we'll find a Smoke Ring lying around somewhere, but the story doesn't break the laws of physics.  (At least not particularly obviously; I don't ask my authors to be physicists themselves.)

That's the distinguishing feature of real science fiction (as opposed to techno-fantasy) from pure fantasy: the stories could actually happen in our universe. I don't ask for something probable, just something possible. A story written in our universe.

Not to say I haven't read some awesome fantasy, or techno-fantasy, or "almost-science-fiction". I enjoy mysteries and thrillers too: the world would be dull with only one fiction genre. But SF plays an important role, especially for people like me who actually dream of making some of those possibilities come alive. It's not escapism, it's _*inspiration.*_

(God, I rant a lot, don't I?  Shouldn't have taken that stupid creative writing class....)


----------



## Alia (Aug 11, 2005)

> (God, I rant a lot, don't I? Shouldn't have taken that stupid creative writing class....)


 I don't mind... I found it enlightening... thank you.



> When people talk about science fiction "rules", they usually aren't talking about storytelling rules. The rules of good SF are generally the rules of the universe: the laws of physics, semi-plausible biology, etc. Granted, these can be pretty damn limiting at times; but they can give you great ideas, too.


 I understand what your saying. And my arguement still stands (to a point) rules limit, even those of the universe. There's only so much you can do within those rules that govern the universe, while with fantasy you can bend those rules, manuplate them, use just a few or disregard them all together and it doesn't sound corny or stupid. I have seen plenty of Scifi movies and read a few Scifi books where if it's not factual it just sounds stupid. 

I guess it boils down to your quote, adjecon:


> And as always... quality of writing wins above all!


 Like your example of Larry Niven's _The Smoke Ring_... but it still has it's limits.


----------



## cyborg_cinema (Aug 11, 2005)

As sub-genres, patterned after fantasy, science fantasy and science fiction naturally imitate their "mother", but are strong enough to stand on their own two feet as legitimate genres.


----------



## stencyl (Aug 11, 2005)

> If you stick to the rules then your not using your imagination and your tying yourself down to 'boring'. I'm glad there aren't strict rules to fantasy, so it's not the same old boring story over and over just written in the same way.


 
That makes it sound like fantasy, as opposed to science fiction, has no rules and therefore is less boring.

And then the following:



> And my arguement still stands (to a point) rules limit, even those of the universe. There's only so much you can do within those rules that govern the universe, while with fantasy you can bend those rules, manuplate them, use just a few or disregard them all together and it doesn't sound corny or stupid.


 
The above makes it sound like the laws of the universe are more limiting than they are. Literary fiction, science fiction, mystery, and other genres have gotten along just fine with them.

In fact, I think that any writer who has things happen in their story for no reason is setting themselves up to write a story that is corny or stupid. That goes for writers of fantasy, too.


----------



## Stormflame (Aug 11, 2005)

I have always had a love for fantasy.  It has been that way my whole life.  Lately, I have had the chance to get into a little sci-fi, and I can tell you that I really do find it cool and pretty neat.

Fantasy though, holds the key to my heart. 
I love walking through the ruins of the ancient clerics who passed from this world an eon ago.  I love slaying the great red wyrm that has pillaged the near by towns for centuries.  I jump at the chance to clash iron with the Black Orcs of Dormforge.  I love to watch a beautiful enchantress click her fingers and tame the gigantic snake that is about to bite me.  I am all for feeling the rolling muscles of my valiant steed under me, shield on one arm, and a battleaxe in the other hand as I trot through some deep swamp full of lizardmen and giant gators, as I search for the entrance to an ancient citadel hidden in the vines!

I voted fantasy.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Aug 11, 2005)

I'm going to have to disagree with you Alia.  Fantasy that is written by people who think they are discarding the rules usually ends up having a thoroughly boring sameness about it.  It's the marriage of imagination and reality that generates the most original ideas.  Fantasy that is written within certain constraints sets up problems that can force the author to dig a little deeper, think a little harder, search beyond the obvious.


----------



## cyborg_cinema (Aug 11, 2005)

What category does _Pern_ series go into?


----------



## don sky (Aug 11, 2005)

cyborg_cinema said:
			
		

> What category does _Pern_ series go into?


 Once again the blurred line between scifi and fantasy! On the one hand we have firebreathing dragons and on the other, their genetically bred from a peculiar species of lizard! It would have to fall under sci fi!

Personally, I'm a fan of Fantasy. I cant explain why I enjoy reading fantasy and watching scifi on screen(big, small, whatever)


----------



## ajdecon (Aug 11, 2005)

cyborg_cinema said:
			
		

> What category does _Pern_ series go into?



Pern's an odd case: Anne McCaffrey wrote several Pern stories before she introduced the science-fictional aspects of the story, just dragons vs Threads...  but then her later stories included quite a lot of SF stuff.  Maybe call it "retroactive science fiction"?


----------



## Stalker (Aug 11, 2005)

Science Fiction with no doubt! That, of course, doesn't meant that I don't read fantasy. 
But even if you think I am conservative, I guess Sci-fi simply has wider horizons. It is more speculative and not necessarily limited with mythology.


----------



## Alia (Aug 11, 2005)

Kelpie said:
			
		

> I'm going to have to disagree with you Alia.  Fantasy that is written by people who think they are discarding the rules usually ends up having a thoroughly boring sameness about it.  It's the marriage of imagination and reality that generates the most original ideas.  Fantasy that is written within certain constraints sets up problems that can force the author to dig a little deeper, think a little harder, search beyond the obvious.


 When a fantasy author disagrees with me, then I have to listen, especially when I respect her opinion!  





> The above makes it sound like the laws of the universe are more limiting than they are. Literary fiction, science fiction, mystery, and other genres have gotten along just fine with them.
> 
> In fact, I think that any writer who has things happen in their story for no reason is setting themselves up to write a story that is corny or stupid. That goes for writers of fantasy, too.


 Very true Stencyl!
When I view Fantasy I see it as bending rules and/or creating their own rules where Scifi has to be more strict about bending those rules or creating their own endanger of sounding stupid. 
But again... as ajdecon says 





> And as always... quality of writing wins above all!


----------



## Stalker (Aug 11, 2005)

Objection, Your Honour!  
SF is not limited with our Universe and its laws! However wild ideas you may have, you may put them on paper creating worlds of your own! 
What you say may only concern classic "conservative" sci-fi with our space-time continuum involved but even it to the known extent. Still unknown prevails, so even here you can put forth any ideas of yours on condition you "dress" them in scientific-like form.


----------



## Alia (Aug 11, 2005)

> When people talk about science fiction "rules", they usually aren't talking about storytelling rules. The rules of good SF are generally the rules of the universe: the laws of physics, semi-plausible biology, etc. Granted, these can be pretty damn limiting at times; but they can give you great ideas, too.


 Hey stalker... I'm just going by ajdecon words... which I agree with.


----------



## Stalker (Aug 11, 2005)

Many men many minds.


----------



## stencyl (Aug 11, 2005)

> When I view Fantasy I see it as bending rules and/or creating their own rules where Scifi has to be more strict about bending those rules or creating their own endanger of sounding stupid.


 
I can see your point Alia, but I still find it hard to draw any sort of hard line. For example, it is scientifically impossible to jack your consciousness into cyberspace, yet _Neuromancer_ is arguably among the great works of science fiction. Ther nothing approaching the AI that we see in much of science fiction. Nanotechnology exists, but not to the degree that we see it in _Blood Music._ The list goes on.

I guess that Fantasy has a similar set of rules, in my opinion. Magic works in certain ways in certain texts. Monsters have certain abilities. But those things need to be reasoned out by the writer and for the reader. And there are very few novels at all that completly disregard the laws that ajdecon posted about.


----------



## Alia (Aug 11, 2005)

Stalker said:
			
		

> Many men many minds.


 lol... very true indeed stalker.  Doesn't make anyone's opinion or perspective any less important, only unique.


----------



## Stalker (Aug 11, 2005)

Agreed.


----------



## Alia (Aug 11, 2005)

We posted at the same time stencyl... 


> I can see your point, but I still find it hard to draw any sort of hard line.


 I think it's referred to as that grey fuzzy area. An area that isn't drawn by a fine line but rather debated by many... 
Anyways, I still view fantasy being easier to change and manipulate the rules better than Scifi without it sounding corny.


----------



## red_temple (Aug 11, 2005)

I read both quite a bit, but if I *had* to choose one or the other, I'd go with Fantasy.  Mainly because when I write or my imagination starts teaming with ideas, the main focus is almost always fantasy.


----------



## dwndrgn (Aug 11, 2005)

Alia said:
			
		

> I still view fantasy being easier to change and manipulate the rules better than Scifi without it sounding corny.


I agree.  You can make your own rules as you go along and if the story changes, you can change the rules.  With science fiction, ultimately to make it believable, you would want to follow at the very least the basics of physics and the laws of nature.

I wouldn't say either takes more or less imagination, both require it in abundance.

However, I'm definitely skewed towards fantasy - definitely my preference.  I do enjoy the odd scifi now and again, but for the most part the fantasies are better able to tickle my fancy.


----------



## Alia (Aug 11, 2005)

> I wouldn't say either takes more or less imagination, both require it in abundance


 Especially for Scifi to be any good.  (and before anyone murders me for that comment, I'm teasing)


----------



## cyborg_cinema (Aug 11, 2005)

Alia said:
			
		

> Especially for Scifi to be any good.


That was close enough to a compliment to be added to the record. This is a significant event in forum history.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Aug 11, 2005)

_You can make your own rules as you go along and if the story changes, you can change the rules _

What about internal consistency?  Going by statements like the above, one would think that didn't matter to you at all, dwndrgn and Alia, but going by the books you read and like that wouldn't seem to be true.


----------



## Alia (Aug 11, 2005)

Kelpie said:
			
		

> _You can make your own rules as you go along and if the story changes, you can change the rules _
> 
> What about internal consistency?  Going by statements like the above, one would think that didn't matter to you at all, dwndrgn and Alia, but going by the books you read and like that wouldn't seem to be true.


 Just rattling the cage a little Kelpie... 

Any scifi, except for one, I have enjoyed. I won't complain about any book that I've read. But when I go to the book store I will look at Fantasy stories... read the backs of them... put them in my basket and buy them... very rarely do I pick up a scifi book unless it comes highly recommended (or a favorite author).  

I'm sure that both sides, Fantasy and Scifi have rules that a writer needs to tend to when dealing with each genre.  Each set of rules are different, but yet the same.  As a reader, I would think it's harder for the Scifi writers than anyone else because their rules are limiting.  I could be wrong and I will accept this... it's just my thoughts.


----------



## dwndrgn (Aug 11, 2005)

Kelpie said:
			
		

> _You can make your own rules as you go along and if the story changes, you can change the rules _
> 
> What about internal consistency? Going by statements like the above, one would think that didn't matter to you at all, dwndrgn and Alia, but going by the books you read and like that wouldn't seem to be true.


Obviously you would change the rules throughout the story if you change them at all.  All I was saying was that if, unexpectedly (and I hear this happens often enough to be an expected event), the story takes an unusual turn or one minor character decides they want to be the main character or whatever; you can then go back through the story and mold it to fit this change of events.  Basically you can do this with any story you write but with fantasy, if you have created certain conditions in your world and later on your character breaks those conditions, you can rearrange your world to fit that new condition.  In scifi you have to force your story to not break any conditions.  Obviously one should strive to not break your own conditions in whatever world you've created, but if things go nutso or the story takes over your brain, you can work around it.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Aug 11, 2005)

But the kind of situation you describe, dwndrgn, is rarely an actual change in the rules the author sets up at the beginning.  It's usually more a case of the author developing a better understanding of the rules and their consequences, and going back to earlier chapters and making adjustments to characters and events so that they better reflect that deeper understanding.  

I'm not saying that what you are talking about never happens -- the going back and actually changing the rules -- but I wouldn't call it a strength of the genre, mostly because, practically speaking, it's more likely to end in a muddle and an abandoned project rather than a book that actually gets written.


----------



## stencyl (Aug 11, 2005)

I agree with Kelpie, who underscores a point that I was trying to make earlier--namely, that a story that is internally inconsistent is more likely to be really, really bad writing than anything else.

I also maintain that there are plenty of "fantasic" and even metaphysical events (imagine the entire concept of cyberspace) that are included in science fiction. And very few stories from any gernre disregard the basic laws of nature comepletly.


----------



## ajdecon (Aug 11, 2005)

stencyl said:
			
		

> I can see your point Alia, but I still find it hard to draw any sort of hard line. For example, it is scientifically impossible to jack your consciousness into cyberspace, yet _Neuromancer_ is arguably among the great works of science fiction. Ther nothing approaching the AI that we see in much of science fiction. Nanotechnology exists, but not to the degree that we see it in _Blood Music._ ... And there are very few novels at all that completly disregard the laws that ajdecon posted about.



If there is any kind of hard line, I'd put it at the point where an idea can be seen as possible as it is explained. We can't jack into cyberspace right now... but rudimentary brain-computer interfaces are being developed. Nanotechnology is in its infancy, but it is being developed. AI, despite its difficulties, still seems like a goal we can work towards. None of the ideas actually break the laws of physics. Part of the problem, of course, is that as science progresses the line moves.

But many fantasy novels do break the laws, if only in special cases, and make those exceptions major parts of the story. For example, Harry Potter is undoubtedly fantasy when Harry waves his wooden wand and makes a heavy object move: this is action-at-a-distance in a form not allowed for by science. More importantly, Rowling does not even _try_ to explain it in terms of known forces: hence fantasy. The same applies in Star Wars (which I see as futuristic fantasy): the "Force" which allows Luke to call his lightsaber to him is explained mystically, not scientifically, and seems like an exception to the supertechnological world around him.

Of course, an author can turn a fantasy into a science fiction by attempting a scientific explanation... with mixed results. Anne McCaffrey turned her _Pern_ series into science fiction by making her heroes lost colonists of Earth on genetically engineered dragons, years after she started writing about them, and did a pretty decent job. But who here would believe J.K. Rowling if she explained in Book 7 that Harry's wand is impregnated with nanobots, or spells work because they are computer commands to the Matrix? 

And don't get me _started _on midichlorians.  GAH!


----------



## Thadlerian (Aug 11, 2005)

Fantasy or Science Fiction?

I would have to answer Science Fiction., as I have an interest in political and social matters, and I believe this genre tends to adress such terms to a greater extent than Fantasy. The latter may also hold parallels to our modern world (like *Discworld*), but I have yet to read any Fantasy novel that exists solely to explore a single idea or set of ideas, like *Nineteen Eighty-Four*, rather than a story about characters.

Also, ironically, my imagination feels more constricted in Fantasy, as it is forced to take into account page up and down of descriptions, portrayals, maps and so on, while some Science Fiction novels may just give you the names of the characters, certain accounts about themes, objects and settings, and that's all.

As for rules, I don't really mind irregularities when it comes to the physical laws. Though if the laws of the setting differ noticeably from reality, it had better have a good reason.
The rules that matter for me are human rules. Like, believeable personality traits, or plausible reactions to things that happen to the characters. You should ideally be able to push a character straight into reality (after teaching him/her some basics about contemporary life and culture), and he/she would be indistinguishable from ordinary people.

Of course, let me hastily add that now I've jumped off the S.F. vs. Fantasy question, as these rules tend to be followed (and usually broken) quite equally in the genres.


----------



## stencyl (Aug 12, 2005)

> If there is any kind of hard line, I'd put it at the point where an idea can be seen as possible as it is explained. We can't jack into cyberspace right now... but rudimentary brain-computer interfaces are being developed.


 
Great point. Agreed.



> If you stick to the rules then your not using your imagination and your tying yourself down to 'boring'. I'm glad there aren't strict rules to fantasy, so it's not the same old boring story over and over just written in the same way.


 
I guess that I was reacting to the implication that science fiction is repetative and limited by those laws to the point of boring prose. I think that there is plenty of room for the fantasic in metaphysical creative spaces like cyberspace that can be and are employed by science fiction writers. I also think that there is enough room within the laws of nature or the universe to speculate beyond or current understanding and still operate in the realm of the plausible. 



> But many fantasy novels do break the laws, if only in special cases, and make those exceptions major parts of the story.


 
It is the cases where they aren't explained, at least internally, that I think make for unearned moments in fiction or film. I guess that I can live with the Force in Star Wars because it is explained in terms of religion. It's no more foreign to me than the Asian concepts of Chi or Ki. I can live with Neo learning Kung Fu in seconds or stopping bullets in the Matrix because of the context I am given.

It's that idea that fantasy is a free-for-all because it isn't burdened with the laws of the universe that I don't agree with. Nor do I agree that fantasy allows a writer to just change the rules as they go.

First off, I can't imagine a science fiction novelist stumped in his or her great novel because of those "darn laws of physics." And second, changing the rules as you go doesn't make you a fantasy writer. It makes you a bad writer with a lot of things left unexplained, a lot of unresolved contradictions and a lot of unearned moments.


----------



## Setzertrancer (Aug 12, 2005)

This is a difficult question for me because it depends.
I prefur to read fantasy , but I prefur to watch scifi


----------



## Ash (Aug 12, 2005)

Science Fiction. 

I like both, but if I pull a random SF book and a random fantasy book off the shelf chances are I prefer the SF. 

That said if someone hands me a fantastic new Fantasy novel, I'll like it just as much as I'd like a fantastic new SF novel.


----------



## Brys (Aug 13, 2005)

Fantasy - I started reading it more recently, and ironically, SF seems to be slightly closer to its stereotype than fantasy. I've read a couple of amazing authors in SF - Frank Herbert and Isaac Asimov particularly, but they aren't as good as the better fantasy authors IMO. There also seems to be a much wider range of fantasy than science fiction, as fantasy has around 10 different sub-genres, all of which are pretty unique, but science fiction only has a few. More importantly, with science fiction, by its very nature of having some kind of plausibility to it, has to seem predictable to an extent (not in plot, but in world), whereas fantasy isn't bound by these constraints - for example, I haven't seen anything like the kind of imagination shown by Mieville in SF. That said, I haven't read much SF, so I can't criticise it much. I still prefer Science fiction to most other fiction, but I just prefer fantasy slightly more.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Aug 13, 2005)

I'd like to echo what's been said about internal consistency.  I don't find any kind of story, in any genre, it it isn't consistent internally.  So, there are rules that have to be adhered to within any story that will hold my attention.  As far as I'm concerned, if the rules within a story can break down to the point where _anything_ can happen, in 99 percent of the cases, it's a sign that the writer is cheating because he or she couldn't figure out a way for what he or she wanted to happen by adhering to the rules set up for that story.  That applies to any kind of novel, not just fantasy or science fiction.  I recently read a mystery in which the killer ended up being the brother of the person the story had set up as the probable perpetrator.  While I liked the story in general, I felt cheated when the real killer was a character that had only appeared in something like one scene half-way through the book.  It was very frustrating for me as a reader.

Anyway, I don't honestly think that science fiction is as bound to the known laws of the universe as some people suppose.  Extrapolations can be made in which the known laws of physics in the universe are found to be not exactly what they seem.  I think this is completely permissible within science fiction because as much as some scientists try to make people think that they know exactly how the universe works, there is still a lot that we don't understand and some of what appears to be settled law, physically speaking, might well not be so settled and understood after all.  Is that where science fiction and fantasy can blur?  Maybe.


----------



## cyborg_cinema (Aug 18, 2005)

some days I'm in an apple mood, and some days I'm in an orange mood.


----------



## Leto (Aug 18, 2005)

although I do indulge into some fantasy novel (Cook, Pratchett, Lieber, Zelazny and a few others) I'm more a sci-fi kind of girl. Or the science fantasy trend (Tim Powers, Storm Constantine).


----------



## Teir (Aug 21, 2005)

Although i don't mind the rare Scifi evenin, I'm definitely a fantasy girl through and through


----------



## Salazar (Aug 21, 2005)

Sci-fi or Fantasy?  The big question.

I like sci-fi in movies more than fantasy ones but I do find fantasy more instresting over all.
So my votes with Fantasy


----------



## kyektulu (Aug 21, 2005)

*You read my mind Salazar I love fantasy books there is no contest there but there is something about a good sci fi movie isnt there... 
*


----------



## BINKY (Sep 9, 2005)

I tend to read more fantasy than anything else...................I like all the fact that you can lose yourself in a world of things that can never happen in the real world.


----------



## sanityassassin (Sep 9, 2005)

fantasy in books although when i was younger i prefered scifi. In films id have to say scifi because a lot of the fantasy films were better in my head than in visulisation


----------



## BINKY (Sep 9, 2005)

Gotta agree with ya in that one...............fantasy films really don't come off very well, they always end up looking really cheesy!


----------



## Arkangel (Sep 9, 2005)

I prefer SF, fantasy to is great but for some reason falls short. Writing fantasy is a tough job, people already know what to expect. Magic and castle. A shiny knight and all sorts of demons. The only way you can write one is to build good characters and a nice plot. I am stuck in the first chapter of my fantasy story for a few months now.

A SF is something new. You can bring in new sets of ideas but it all depends on how you present it. Though i love SF. I choose to write fantasy. I have no idea why. but the story just poped into my head. And i am stuck in chapter 1.


----------



## Rane Longfox (Sep 10, 2005)

I prefer fantasy, but I read more sci-fi. I know I'm wierd


----------



## Thadlerian (Sep 11, 2005)

My real reasons for preferring Science Fiction are of course these:

1. Central heating.
2. Water closets.


----------



## Allanon (Sep 11, 2005)

for me it has to be fantasy, its more exciting. people may disagree, but i feel that you can do more with fantasy, you can create a lot more creatures and beings.


----------



## Tim Bond (Sep 11, 2005)

Thadlerian said:
			
		

> My real reasons for preferring Science Fiction are of course these:
> 
> 1. Central heating.
> 2. Water closets.


 
Ditto...heh

I read them (phantasy and sci-fi) pretty equally.
I prefer the veiw into the future though sci-fi provides.

I get very particular about sci-fi and 
prefer some feasible hard science to it.

For fantasy my tastes get less finicky and I will eat up even
Dragonlance novels and call it all good.


----------



## Milena (Sep 11, 2005)

For me, SF is the ultimate 'what if' writing that has been used to question reality ever since Verne. It has often been subversive, a way to question the 'authorities' (in russi during the cold war). There was a whole raft of feminist SF in the 70s  - a bit dated now, the 50's US paranoia strand (the 'alien commies' are invading) the cyberpunk revolution - fantasy can be great, but SF seesm to be able to go futher. When it isn't being garbage of course


----------



## iratebeaver (Sep 18, 2005)

i prefer fanatasy just because i like swords and magic. i'm not into guns.


----------



## goblinQueen (Sep 30, 2005)

I also prefer fantasy over science fiction, mainly because I feel it is more of an escape. I do, however, enjoy reading cyberpunk whenever I am in the mood for something different.


----------



## GOLLUM (Oct 1, 2005)

caladanbrood said:
			
		

> I prefer fantasy, but I read more sci-fi. I know I'm wierd


You're not weird Cal just different...

Much prefer Fantasy to Sci Fi.


----------



## Culhwch (Oct 1, 2005)

GOLLUM said:
			
		

> You're not weird Cal just different...


 
I'd say 'special'....

I much prefer fantasy to sci fi, too. When it comes to sci fi, I'm not a big fan of hard sf, much prefer space operas and lightweight stuff.


----------



## The Master™ (Oct 1, 2005)

My reading preference is fantasy, but most TV series and Movies that I watch are Sci-Fi (as the Fantasy tend to be fairly poor)...


----------



## Rane Longfox (Oct 4, 2005)

GOLLUM said:
			
		

> You're not weird Cal just different...


 
  

Sorry, that particular phrase aint wise to use around me 
I would, also prefer "speshjul"


----------



## polymorphikos (Oct 4, 2005)

I prefer science-fiction overall. The ideas and conceptual design is usually very detailed, partially because it often has to be detailed, and I'm a great fan of wild technological specultion. That said, I do like fantasy authors of the weirder persuasion as much as sf. _The Etched City_, for example, was a great little book. It had gunslingers _and_ crocodile-people. 

But yes, since my favourite parts of reading involve fanciful imaginings, I prefer sf. They tell you why it happens, instead of a lengthy monologue about witch-kings and warrens that makes less sense than a pound note.


----------



## Taltos (Oct 4, 2005)

I like SF better, although dark fantasy (or fantasy containing hard core detectives) comes very close. This said, I have to admit, that rarely read more than 2 or 3 books of the same type in a row, to prevent monotony. I.e. if I've read 3 fantasy books in a row, the next will be SF, cyberpunk,etc. and vice-versa.


----------



## Leto (Oct 4, 2005)

caladanbrood said:
			
		

> I prefer fantasy, but I read more sci-fi. I know I'm wierd


No, you just need to come out of the closet and profess your love of science-fiction.


----------



## Rosemary (Oct 5, 2005)

Why is Cal reading Fantasy in the closet?


----------



## terryweide (Oct 5, 2005)

For me, it depends on the author and how good of a story they tell. If the story is well written and engaging, I don't have a preference as to genre. For example, I like a lot of Heinlein's novels, but I also appreciate fantasy authors like Tolkein. My favorite author, Roger Zelazny, often wrote novels in which magic and sci-fi overlapped and which were dubbed "science fantasy" by many fans and critics. So it isn't always a case of either/or, "If I have fantasy, I can't have sci-fi." Sometimes you can have both--if the writer is skillful enough.

Terry


----------



## Elyssandrel (Oct 5, 2005)

Fantasy for me.
Although sci-fi is a close second.


----------



## Rane Longfox (Oct 7, 2005)

Rosemary said:
			
		

> Why is Cal reading Fantasy in the closet?


 
What can I say? Its cosy


----------



## Dean (Jan 12, 2006)

I grew up with science fiction so I will only be able to speak to that genre, but I have chanced to read a little fantasy so I dont dispute its validity. what is best is when SciFi and Fantasy are artfully combined. I would speak to the concept that in (some) future world, A scifi world, there are issues of magical powers in the form of 6th sense (the fantasy aspect). I think that sort of story can attract readers of both. And if it does combine them well they are stronger for it.   I know that FireFly and Serenity are hotly commented on but after the series and the movie, I can see where the two were joined successfully, (In the River character). When the government pushes the envelope using Rivers Powers of Mind, and She then turns out to be a pivotal component of plot by discovering "Miranda" and turning the course of the story by answering basic questions raised by the episodic series. Untill that definition her character seemed like a thin plot component. So I have to say I prefer Science Fiction, but there is room for Fantasy concepts in that genre.


----------



## hermi-nomi (Jan 12, 2006)

I prefer fantasy myself. The action/adventure elements really appeal to me ~ I've recently realised that most of the fantasy novels that I really enjoy include wayferers, traveling, living on the road ... (recently: Daggerspell and The Language of Stones) I have read sci-fi books that I have enjoyed, but not nearly as many as the amount of fantasy I read. I've read the ninth Doctor Who novels and I guess some people might say that they are sci-fi (especially 'The Devient Strain' and 'The Clockwise Man') But they are not the technical, science stuffed books that you sometimes expect sci-fi to be. 'Factoring Humanity' , 'British Summertime' and 'Empire of Bones' are another couple of 'sci-fi' books that I've read, and combine elements of sci-fi with fantasy (or v/versa) As Dean says: 





> what is best is when SciFi and Fantasy are artfully combined


 I agree with this, on the whole ~ but fantasy, for me should be foremost.


----------



## the_faery_queen (Jan 12, 2006)

fantasy. i don't really like sci fi at all! i tend to find it rather cold, its too vast, there are no limits,t hings can go off into space forever, and i dont' like that. i sort of like the one world, with its limits, thing. and being a historian, not a scientist, i am more interested in past cultures, in castles over spaceships and metal type things. technology doenst' interest me.


----------



## Carolyn Hill (Apr 8, 2006)

Science fiction.

One reason I prefer science fiction, although I love both genres, is because (generalizing wildly) science fiction can (more easily) incorporate aspects of fantasy, but fantasy can't (as easily) incorporate aspects of science fiction.  

But if I poke at that reason, it starts to fall apart.  So maybe it's just the intriguing aliens and the unexplored frontiers and the mysteries of the future--not the hardware so much as the heart of science fiction--that satisfies me.  I grew up during the Kennedy administration, I wanted to be an astronaut, and I _believed_ the dream of shiny space ships going to the stars.  And Tiptree's "The Only Neat Thing to Do" made me cry.


----------



## steve12553 (Apr 8, 2006)

I've always favored Science Fiction because my strengths were always Science and Math. Science Fiction is taking those fields and carrying them all beyond the known limits. On the other hand Fantasy is taken things beyond limits in another direction. They're both a lot of fun and worth reading.


----------



## Quokka (Apr 9, 2006)

Till a few years back I would have definately said Fantasy, now I like to bounce back and forth between the two. But I do prefer hard sci-fi (things like _Timescape, Darwin's Radio or Red Mars)_ to most space opera/ alien warzone storys.


----------



## Jives (Apr 10, 2006)

littlemissattitude said:
			
		

> Science Fiction.
> 
> I think this is because, as I've said here before, I was actively recruited into reading/watching science fiction by my father, who started taking me to science fiction movies at the drive in when I was an infant and who began handing me science fiction novels to read when I was probably around nine years old.  And we always watched Saturday afternoon science fiction on TV, as well.  There was pretty much no way I could have avoided becoming a science fiction fan.
> 
> I didn't start reading fantasy, on the other hand, until I reached adulthood.  I like fantasy, but I much prefer urban fantasy to Tolkienesque or medieval-based fantasies.  Not that I don't read those sometimes, too, but not as often or as avidly as I read the others.



Change "9 years old" to "6 years old" and I could have written this myself!


----------



## Thunderchild (Apr 12, 2006)

I am most definatly in the sci fi camp - i still read fantasy but it doesnt stimulate me in the sam way as sci fi does, mainly beacause i love all things technology


----------



## Lissa (Apr 12, 2006)

Fantasy...Just do, don't really know why.  I haven't really read much SciFi.  Maybe i should try it.


----------



## Razorback (Apr 12, 2006)

I'm definately in the Sci-Fi camp. My background is pretty similar to those of littlemissattitude and Jives. I partake in fantasy every now and then, but I've got a big backlog of Sci-Fi to read before reading a lot of fantasy. So many books, so little time.


----------

