# Defend Your Favorite -- SF or Fantasy (split off from "Race to 100")



## Connavar (Jul 12, 2009)

Well for every David Gemmell there are a 1000 generic fantasy writers


----------



## Culhwch (Jul 12, 2009)

*Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100*



Connavar said:


> Well for every David Gemmell there are a 1000 generic fantasy writers


 
And for every... wait, I can't think of a single decent SF writer to throw that statement back at you.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 12, 2009)

*Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100*

What I find interesting is the shift in interest from science fiction to fantasy over the last twenty years -- especially among male readers.

It makes me wonder why science fiction has been steadily losing readers ... I mean readers that it already had, not just failing to attract new ones in the same numbers that fantasy has.

Even people who _say_ that science fiction is so much better seem to be buying and reading a lot of fantasy ...


----------



## Connavar (Jul 12, 2009)

*Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100*



Teresa Edgerton said:


> What I find interesting is the shift in interest from science fiction to fantasy over the last twenty years -- especially among male readers.
> 
> It makes me wonder why science fiction has been steadily losing readers ... I mean readers that it already had, not just failing to attract new ones in the same numbers that fantasy has.
> 
> Even people who _say_ that science fiction is so much better seem to be buying and reading a lot of fantasy ...



The only reason i might buy more fantasy or similar number to sf is that its so popular and easier to get in paperback.   While sf you have to look for out of print more often.  Even 60s great and books that are legendary.

Plus the best sf writers are from 1950s-1970s to me when i read and they didnt write as many books as fantasy authors do with their series.  For every great sf book a fav fantasy writer has written 10.

Plus i dont read genre wise i read by favourite authors.  If my favs wasnt writers like REH,Lord Dunsany,Vance,Gemmell,Powers,Kearney,Tanith Lee etc i wouldnt read fantasy at all.   

I have 20-30 fav sf writers compared to that fantasy names and thats why i prefer sf.   Not cause its space or social science or something.


----------



## Connavar (Jul 12, 2009)

*Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100*

Yeah its a given the readers like fantasy more.  The heroics will always be more fun than a good serious sf book. Its not literary fantasy greats has made fantasy more popular.

I was reading an article about Lancer pastiche Conan books in the 60s who talked about how fantasy,horror went almost underground in the 50s and sf dominated.  Would be cool if it went back and forth.   Its sound almost alien that sf might be bigger again.

Not that i care cuz if you went after popularity you would read Agatha Christie,Stephen King and co only.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 12, 2009)

*Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100*



Connavar said:


> Yeah its a given the readers like fantasy more.  The heroics will always be more fun than a good serious sf book.



I don't think it's a given at all, or that readers will always be drawn to fantasy simply for the heroics.

For one thing, I can remember a time when science fiction outsold fantasy by a considerable margin.  For another, science fiction, over the years, has not been devoid of heroics.  And for yet another, I don't believe that the majority of readers choose fantasy merely for the heroics.  I think it's that fantasy stories are more character driven in a way that a lot of SF used to be, and so much of it no longer is.


----------



## J-Sun (Jul 12, 2009)

*Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100*

I disagree with most of this in at least a sense. There's been a wholesale denigration of science in the US over the last many years. And the US is probably not alone in this. So, not surprisingly, at least in the US, SF suffers. There are definitely also internal issues at work and external issues that are closer to home, such as the mechanics of the publishing industry, but the overarching issue is that science is not valued as it once was.



> Although 27 percent of Americans said scientific advances are the nation's greatest achievement, that was down from 47 percent in the group's May 1999 survey.



That, in itself, must be radically down from the results had the survey been taken in 1900 or 1950.

Survey.

This will be fatal for us ("us" being whoever values science, technology, reason, etc.) and for SF if not corrected.

(I may try to address the internal/publishing thing later.)


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 12, 2009)

*Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100*

I think it could be partly down to the fact that SF is change dependant. As new technologies come about cool fantastic ideas become reality or feasible and so SF has to change. Because fantasy is not so much technology bound but only bound by the imagination it doesn't have such a hard fight to remain original. Its fantasy,anything is possible. But SF is more dependant on things actually being possible. This may render it less marketable than the cheap and quick thrills made possible by fantasy.


----------



## Connavar (Jul 12, 2009)

*Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100*



Teresa Edgerton said:


> I don't think it's a given at all, or that readers will always be drawn to fantasy simply for the heroics.
> 
> For one thing, I can remember a time when science fiction outsold fantasy by a considerable margin.  For another, science fiction, over the years, has not been devoid of heroics.  And for yet another, I don't believe that the majority of readers choose fantasy merely for the heroics.  I think it's that fantasy stories are more character driven in a way that a lot of SF used to be, and so much of it no longer is.



I meant the high,heroic fantasy is the most popular ones in sales.  Now there is even urban,vampire. That draws in new readers much more than other types of fantasy. Not that they are  the only ones fantasy readers read.

The casual readers who dont read genre usually read heroic,YA.   Casual readers have prejudice against SF they dont have against fantasy.  Plus  fantasy has famous movies help.  
SF in film arent like the books and they are never from the books.  I, Robot, I Am Legend didnt make anyone read sf.  While HP,Twilligt books are all over the rooms of my little sisters,brother.  They will loan my heroic fantasy,S&S books but my sf is alien to them.

There are a hole different matter for us who already read SF,other genres and try fantasy because they know the rated works.

Fantasy is more popular to people who dont read the genre.  Maybe the times you remember sf had the same things going for it that fantasy does today with those kind of readers.
Yeah fantasy is more character driven but i dont think that hurts sf.  I think ideas wise sf are weaker today than before.   Thats why there isnt a big fuss of a rated sf book outside the genre.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 12, 2009)

*Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100*

So, J-Sun, are you saying that this denigration of science has even had its effect on people who used to devour science fiction but now prefer fantasy?  

I would have said that science fiction readers would have been the _last_ people to be influenced in that way.



> This may render it less marketable than the cheap and quick thrills made possible by fantasy.



Because science fiction has no access at all to cheap and quick thrills?  All those scarcely humanoid extra-terrestrials carrying off nubile earth women, so the square-jawed heroes can swoop in and save them at the last minute -- no cheap, quick thrills there!  All very cerebral.


----------



## Culhwch (Jul 12, 2009)

*Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100*

It's always the way, isn't it? Science fiction fans just think they're so much better than us...


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Jul 12, 2009)

*Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100*

Teressa:

Well I can see there might be a certain attraction in scantily clad nymphs and dryads in diaphanous gauzes and silks as opposed to your hard kevlar and steel armoured death maidens toting their Splogwand blasters (Hmmmm... well for me anyway). 

However, as I said in the thread earlier it's the 'son of Mifril', 'son of Quantruth' and his potion of newt breath that turns me cold - just as it's supposed to do. Not to mention the gleaming wraith nests in the far forests of Darkmingfol.


----------



## Culhwch (Jul 13, 2009)

*Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100*



TheEndIsNigh said:


> However, as I said in the thread earlier it's the 'son of Mifril', 'son of Quantruth' and his potion of newt breath that turns me cold - just as it's supposed to do. Not to mention the gleaming wraith nests in the far forests of Darkmingfol.


 
But these are just stereotypes that are actually difficult to find in modern fantasy (and, probably, large swags of older fantasy). Read George Martin, read Scott Lynch, read Steven Erikson, and find me anything even resembling the above. It's like me saying I don't like science fiction because I'm put off by the metallic, skin-tight jumpsuits that everyone in the future has to wear.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Jul 13, 2009)

*Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100*

Cul: What do you mean - That's what I wear to work now.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 13, 2009)

*Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100*



Culhwch said:


> It's always the way, isn't it? Science fiction fans just think they're so much better than us...



Err no. I read both SF and fantasy,depending on my mood. And anyway all fiction is technically fantasy.


----------



## Culhwch (Jul 13, 2009)

*Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100*

But even you, an admitted reader of both, denigrate fantasy as 'cheap and quick thrills'. I don't know about anyone else, but that just seems to me to be the prevalent attitude across these boards from those who tend towards SF.

Whereas, of course, I've never said a bad word about SF. Certainly not in this thread. Just don't read back through it, mind, take my word for it.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 13, 2009)

*Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100*



Connavar said:


> Casual readers have prejudice against SF they dont have against fantasy.



Casual readers have a prejudice against both, and read neither.



			
				Culhwch said:
			
		

> It's like me saying I don't like science fiction because I'm put off by the metallic, skin-tight jumpsuits that everyone in the future has to wear.



Gosh I hate those skin-tight jumpsuits.  It's like everyone in the future will have perfect figures.  As if.



Oh, and TheEndIsNigh, would it be possible for you to spell my name correctly, when all that is required is to scroll up a little bit and look at the post you are responding, too?  Or, you can cut-and-paste as I've just done with your name.  Otherwise, I'm quite happy with the abbreviation TE.  Whichever one you think will be easiest.

You wouldn't want to give the impression that readers who prefer 





> son of Mifril', 'son of Quantruth' and his potion of newt breath


 read with more attention than you guys who like six-armed aliens with green skin and ichor flowing through their veins, do you?


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 13, 2009)

*Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100*



Culhwch said:


> Whereas, of course, I've never said a bad word about SF. Certainly not in this thread. Just don't read back through it, mind, take my word for it.



Well, gosh, _I've_ never seen you do so.


----------



## J-Sun (Jul 13, 2009)

*Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100*



Teresa Edgerton said:


> So, J-Sun, are you saying that this denigration of science has even had its effect on people who used to devour science fiction but now prefer fantasy?
> 
> I would have said that science fiction readers would have been the _last_ people to be influenced in that way.



I don't know such people but, no, I doubt this would have much effect on them except insofar as it makes high-quality hard SF hard to find, which begins to get into the internal dynamics of a fantasy dominated market place, which I was alluding to earlier. For instance, _Analog_ (a hard SF magazine) has a pitiful circulation rate but it's still larger than either _Asimov's_ or _F&SF_ (both basically fantasy magazines with a significant, but generally softer, SF mix) - larger than both combined if I'm not mistaken, but I may be. And it is completely shut out of the awards, for instance. And the Nebulas are given by that institution which has officially changed its name to the Science Fiction _and Fantasy_ Writers of America. (Oddly, it hasn't dispensed with the "America" part, which is probably just as inaccurate as the pure "Science Fiction" part was.) And the Hugos are awarded to things like Harry Potter (a rocket ship trophy to Harry Potter?) because that segment of fandom is now made up of people primarily raised on TV and movies which rarely have much to do with actual science fiction vs. science fantasy or pure fantasy.

These are probably trivial examples, but I'm just saying that I see more of a decline in SF readership than a mass migration. But, if there is a migration it would be explicable as being the case, for those who never much cared for hard(er) SF anyway, they would just insensibly slide into fantasy because that's the bulk of what's out there and it provides them something that's distinct enough from prosaic reality. In SF, one's really looking for hyper-reality, but many people may have just read SF because it was a alternate reality and fantasy also suffices for that well enough. In one sense, not to denigrate fantasy, fantasy is "easier" than SF. There are no barriers to entry because fantasy can be sort of solipsistic - it brings its rules with it and that internal consistency is all that's required. Hard(er) SF references the external world and uses those rules and doesn't necessarily explain them so may be harder for many to read. (Note, I don't exclude myself from this - I am not as scientifically literate as I ought to be, but I enjoy the exercise - many don't.)

And, like I say, I very much prefer SF, but I'm not knocking fantasy, either. Fantasy is virtually limitless on the one hand, and may contrain itself just as rigidly to external references, such as psychological "truths", as SF does to physics and chemistry, etc. I don't mean to rile up fantasy fans when I say it's "easier" - that's just in one way - it may be thematically or symbolically more difficult, for instance. Perhaps not intrinsically, but in practice.

Sorry for rambling. Anyway - I guess my main point is that there's the extreme edges of SF and fantasy and large middle ground and the bulk of that middle was (softer) SF and is now more (harder) fantasy in that there's a lot of alternate history and steampunk and crossover stuff in addition to purer fantasy. And so with the fans if you're correct - some fervent SFers, some fervent fantasy folks, a bulk who might go where the wind blows.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 13, 2009)

I've split off this discussion from the other thread.  I think I moved all the right posts here, and left all of the right ones there, so that both conversations make sense.



			
				J-Sun said:
			
		

> I don't know such people but, no, I doubt this would have much effect on them except insofar as it makes high-quality hard SF hard to find, which begins to get into the internal dynamics of a fantasy dominated market place, which I was alluding to earlier.



Well, you now have the pleasure of my acquaintance, and I've changed my reading pattern from SF to Fantasy, and my reasons bear little resemblance to those you have postulated.

And may I ask (because it may really be relevant to the discussion) how old you are, and how long you've been reading SF?


----------



## J-Sun (Jul 13, 2009)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> Well, you now have the pleasure of my acquaintance, and I've changed my reading pattern from SF to Fantasy, and my reasons bear little resemblance to those you have postulated.



Indeed, I am pleased to meet you (formally, as I believe we must have crossed paths before, anyway). 

I had no idea - I thought you were native to the fantasy camp. So what are your reasons? (BTW, my speculations weren't meant to apply to every individual - just that they might have some relation to some statistics.)



Teresa Edgerton said:


> And may I ask (because it may really be relevant to the discussion) how old you are, and how long you've been reading SF?



Um, let's say I've been reading SF for over 25 years and I began within the realms of a conventional age. If that's too vague, I could consider tightening it up but hopefully that'll do. (It's a net thing - I'm not shy about specifics like that otherwise.) And yourself, if I also may?


----------



## Xelebes (Jul 13, 2009)

To me, fantasy is just too inaccessible.  After I read The Hobbit, I was done with fantasy and moved onto Foundation and certainly found it more inspiring.  Couple this with the fact that science fiction in the other mediums - music and film - are able to draw my attention more so than what always seems contrived in fantasy.  Modern science fiction is bogged down with the contrived, but there are a few gems to keep me with it ala Scott Bakker and Neal Stephenson.

Just a personal opinion.


----------



## Culhwch (Jul 13, 2009)

Xelebes said:


> After I read The Hobbit, I was done with fantasy and moved onto Foundation and certainly found it more inspiring.


 
If you are judging the entirity of the fantasy genre by _The Hobbit_, please, please, please don't! I want to assume that you'd read more widely before that, and Bilbo's tale was merely the last thing you read before giving up. But if not, I'd really suggest trying some more modern fantasy, which really bears no resemblance, in most cases, to Tolkien. And the good stuff, or any genre, isn't contrived. Perhaps you just hit upon bad examples...

And:

Science fiction... music? Come again?


----------



## J-Sun (Jul 13, 2009)

Culhwch said:


> Science fiction... music? Come again?



Rush's 2112 and the like, I guess. Ziggy Stardust. Rocky Horror. I dunno.

Vs. Rush's By-Tor and the Snow Dog, maybe.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 13, 2009)

I've been reading SF and Fantasy for 40+ years ... well, if you don't count things like _The Wonderful Flight to the Mushroom Planet_, which I read in grammar school.  

The reason I asked your age was because the shift from science fiction to fantasy had reached a point where it was noticeable enough that people (professionals in the field and hard-core fans) were discussing it by at least 1989, when my first book was published and I first came to be discussing such things with authors and editors, which means that the drift must have been going on for quite some time byt that point.  SF was still selling better, but Fantasy was finally catching up to the point where SF writers were moaning that Fantasy writers were claiming too much of their shelf space.

So from my point of view, since I can remember a time when the most active and vocal readers in the genre were reading SF most of the time, and a time when there was (at least in some people's eyes) a perception that SF was mainly for male readers and Fantasy was mainly for female readers, and a more recent time when Fantasy is definitely in the ascendent (and very popular indeed with male readers), I do see what amounts to a mass migration.

There was a period of several years in my life when I had an enormous amount of time on my hands, to the extent that I was generally reading a book a day, four or five days out of the week, and most of those books were SF, plus I was working my way through my (new at that time) husband's large collection of Analogs, which was a magazine I was also buying as it came out each month.  After that, I was still reading a lot of SF, but I was slowly switching over to Fantasy, until finally it came to the point where I was somewhat surprised to discover that I was hardly reading any SF at all.  (Although it has never reached the point where I've stopped reading it altogether.) 

So when I say that I rarely read SF, I say this as someone who has nevertheless read a vast amount of the stuff, even though not much of that in recent years.  In fact, probably a lot more SF than many younger readers who read nothing else, but, due to that whole business of having a life, haven't had the opportunity to read as much, though no doubt they would have if they could.

Which brings us to the question of why I switched over.  I don't believe it's because there was more Fantasy on the shelves, because at the time I was switching over SF was still more easily come by.  And I wouldn't say it was because of the cheap, thrills, because action scenes are rarely my favorites.  When I was reading SF, it wasn't for the gadgets or the technology or the concepts, it was because I was interested in how people -- not necessarily human people, I love well-written aliens -- reacted to and dealt with those technologies and concepts.  Because anything that explores human nature and examines it from different angles and offers true insights into the human condition, well, to me that has a great deal more to do with reality and the possible, and the things that we really ought to know about ourselves and others, than any quantity of technology and science that might someday exist.  And eventually I came to realize that I was getting more of that in Fantasy than I was in SF, and so that was the direction in which I gravitated.

Although, of course, I do like the sense of wonder, and the visiting other worlds and other times -- which is one reason why I'm not looking for all those explorations of human nature (etc.) in contemporary mainstream fiction.


----------



## J-Sun (Jul 13, 2009)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> When I was reading SF, it wasn't for the gadgets or the technology or the concepts, it was because I was interested in how people -- not necessarily human people, I love well-written aliens -- reacted to and dealt with those technologies and concepts.  Because anything that explores human nature and examines it from different angles and offers true insights into the human condition, well, to me that has a great deal more to do with reality and the possible, and the things that we really ought to know about ourselves and others, than any quantity of technology and science that might someday exist.  And eventually I came to realize that I was getting more of that in Fantasy than I was in SF, and so that was the direction in which I gravitated.



Well, it sounds like you may have been native to the fantasy camp after all, and just didn't know it at first. Science fiction's _raison d'etre_ is the gadgets, technology and science and, to me, any literature that ignores that is missing something key about humanity. We are the tool using apes, the opposable thumbs, etc. Fantasy, it seems to me, either wishes that away, or addresses it unrealistically, or artificially halts it at some earlier stage than the present (not to mention the future).

(Not that that's all we are or that any thing has to address every thing all the time. The mosaic of partial portraits work together to present a fuller picture.)

I also find that a peculiar reason (or timing) to switch away from SF, as it's New Wave and later era SF that specifically cast out science and technology and turned to a sort of metaphysical inner space and also began promulgating the literary values that, to me, are often misplaced in SF. If anything, more recent SF more closely matches what you describe wanting than anything before. That'd be a reason to switch from fantasy to SF rather than the reverse.

In my time, fantasy was, in Bruce Sterling's words, SF's "small, squishy cousin... creep[ing] gecko-like across the bookstands," and _Star Wars_ (while the sheerest fantasy) had partially restored a fascination with gadgets and cyberpunk was exploding and you could find _Neuromancer_ in grocery store book racks (and find mention of it the mainstream press) along with reprints of Pohl and current stuff by Sheffield and so on - not to mention the bookstores. You could find SF magazines there, too, and _Asimov's_ was even mostly SF and _Analog_ could still win awards and circulation was several times higher than it is now. But all that collapsed in the later 80s and especially through the 90s. But I still don't necesarily see a mass migration. In authors, perhaps, from people back to Martin on up to people as recent as Zettel and too many more to recall, perhaps simply because that's where the sales are. But I'm not sure it's the case of readers. I think SF has probably lost many readers and fantasy has gained many more, but they aren't the same readers. The Harry Potter folks weren't generally Clement and Forward fans prior to the Pottermania.

I dunno - in the best scientific tradition, without hard statistics compiled from observed data, we're just kind of waving hands here.


----------



## Xelebes (Jul 13, 2009)

Culhwch said:


> If you are judging the entirity of the fantasy genre by _The Hobbit_, please, please, please don't! I want to assume that you'd read more widely before that, and Bilbo's tale was merely the last thing you read before giving up. But if not, I'd really suggest trying some more modern fantasy, which really bears no resemblance, in most cases, to Tolkien. And the good stuff, or any genre, isn't contrived. Perhaps you just hit upon bad examples...



I've read Wallflower series back in Elementary.  I tried Piers Anthony which was my most recent sojourn into Fantasy.  Can't say I was too inspired by his writing.



Culhwch said:


> And:
> 
> Science fiction... music? Come again?



Electronic music (Jeff Mills, Carl A. Finlow, Vangelis, Richard D. James, David Flores) , modernist music (Gyorgiy Ligeti, Morton Feldman.)

Examples:

Silicon Scally (Carl A Finlow) - Proteus
Bytecon - Robots Ready For Mars
Jeff Mills - Metropolis Soundtrack
Gyorgy Ligeti - Atmospheres
Morton Feldman - Three Dances


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 13, 2009)

J-Sun said:


> Well, it sounds like you may have been native to the fantasy camp after all, and just didn't know it at first. Science fiction's _raison d'etre_ is the gadgets, technology and science and, to me, any literature that ignores that is missing something key about humanity.



It's not a matter of ignoring it, it's whether or not it's to be the centerpiece of the story.  As I said at the beginning, Fantasy is more character-driven.  That has nothing to do with a denigration of science, as you said earlier, it's about putting the focus on human nature and human relationships.

It's funny, because so many SF fans complain about the magic swords and the magic rings in Fantasy, but they're just the trappings, and that's not what Fantasy is really about.  But if the gadgets are what SF is about, as you say, maybe that's why some of the more hardcore fans are put off by Fantasy -- they're looking at the trappings and ignoring the real point.

Xelebes, when you say Piers Anthony, are you talking about the Xanth books, or some of his other books? And I've never heard about the Wallflower books; could you explain those?


----------



## Grimward (Jul 13, 2009)

J-Sun said:


> Rush's 2112 and the like, I guess. Ziggy Stardust. Rocky Horror. I dunno.
> 
> Vs. Rush's By-Tor and the Snow Dog, maybe.




Only a Rush fan would know about By Tor and The Snow Dog, J (count me among them).

Of course, Rush possibly parlays this very thread into an album's worth of content on _*Hemispheres*_ (yes, I know it's really about the battle between heart and mind, but work with me here....)

Just my two cents, but I think that, as both genres continue to mature (a better word than "age"!), authors are borrowing elements from each when weaving their tales.  Is Stephen Donaldson's _*Gap*_ series fantasy or SciFi?  And why aren't aliens (for example) in some cases simply a different way to express something that can't otherwise be expressed with science (ie, where fantasy uses magic [again, as an example] as a vehicle to express similar such content)?


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Jul 13, 2009)

Teresa:

I am unworthy.

Sincere apologies 

In my defence (pathetic scrivelling though it is) when you're tied in your chair in the dim light of a darkened, curtain drawn room, surrounded by the filth and squalor that builds up between the monthly hose downs my relatives have been reduced to arranging. I sometimes have trouble groping over the keys. Occasionally a fit will take hold as my bloated sausage like digits, grapple with the difficulty of pressing just one letter. 

These fits are becoming more frequent, though I'm assured by the medics that the drugs will not have any permanent effects, well not within the short time we all have left at least. 

I beg this explanation will, in some sad way, enable you to see it in your heart a way to forgive a low slug crawler, such as myself, for the grievous offences I have caused.

With hope, though precious little of that exists I know, I shall never offend in this manner again.

I go now to inflict several hundred harsh scourging that I'm sure will drive home the lesson that must be learnt.

Yours, with deep, unrelenting, waves of regret

TEIN.


----------



## Hilarious Joke (Jul 13, 2009)

Fantasy generally leaves me warm, science fiction generally leaves me cold. 

A pretty paltry thing to say in the context of these well thought-out arguments, but there it is, and now I'm subscribed to this thread


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 13, 2009)

TEIN, you are forgiven.  (Just don't let it happen again, or, frankly, you don't know what scourging is ...)

Naturally, I can only speak on my own behalf.  What revenge "Mifril" and his respected parent, Quantruth, may take on account of the opprobrium you have heaped on _their_ heads (and by the way, I think that ought to be Miffril, but I'll leave it to the two of you to sort that one out) I dare not say.  By all I hear, they are a hard-bitten pair.

******

Now here is a theory about why more readers have been steadily turning away from SF and toward Fantasy.


We live in a world where we are being taught more and more to depend on technology, where individuals really are convinced that they have to spend two or three hundreds dollars on a software program to wipe their noses (I was going to say wipe something else, but that would have been ... indelicate), knowing all along that in a few years time both the software and the computer will be obsolete and another outlay of hundreds of dollars will be required.

Is it any wonder, then, that so many people like to read books about people who have to depend on _themselves_, who are required to draw on their own resources of courage, determination, compassion, endurance, willpower, intelligence, self-respect, self-reliance -- books that remind us that we are not to be measured by the things that we own, but by what we are and what we do -- books that encourage us to believe that when something comes up that we _can't_ fix with a new widget or a trip to the nearest electronics store (a divorce, a death in the family, caring for an aged and ailing parent, a serious injury) we might find within _our_selves, if we dig deep enough, those same resources of courage, determination, compassion, endurance, willpower, intelligence, self-respect, self-reliance?


----------



## Hilarious Joke (Jul 13, 2009)

I _LIKE_ that theory!


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 13, 2009)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> Is it any wonder, then, that so many people like to read books about people who have to depend on _themselves_, who are required to draw on their own resources of courage, determination, compassion, endurance, willpower, intelligence, self-respect, self-reliance -- books that remind us that we are not to be measured by the things that we own, but by what we are and what we do -- books that encourage us to believe that when something comes up that we _can't_ fix with a new widget or a trip to the nearest electronics store (a divorce, a death in the family, caring for an aged and ailing parent, a serious injury) we might find within _our_selves, if we dig deep enough, those same resources of courage, determination, compassion, endurance, willpower, intelligence, self-respect, self-reliance?


 
But, Teresa, wouldn't you agree that this is one of the major themes of a great deal of sf as well? The sort of sf which put technology and the dependence on it (rather than rather ambivalent feelings about it) at the center of things -- a la George O. Smith, for instance -- is a very tiny portion of sf as a whole; and even the "hard" sf writers have always delved into the human side of things, albeit sometimes as affected by some alteration in techonology and its social implications (again, frequently with some ambivalence).

And, of course, the older writers, such as Heinlein, dealt almost exclusively with the very qualities you denote above; these are at the very core of all Heinlein's juveniles, for instance, or *Double Star*, *Stranger in a Strange Land*, *Beyond This Horizon*, etc., etc., etc.; not to mention Leiber's work, or Brunner's, or Joanna Russ', or Tiptree's, or....

As I've said before, I think that the lack of good science education and critical thinking has a lot to do with it, combined with a resurgence in general in mystical rather than rationalistic thinking... though I do think this is due, in part, to the way technology has far-too-often been used to produce destruction in the twentieth century; an aspect of things which is often magnified in such a way to obscure the even greater amount of benefit we have gained from science and technology -- longer life-span, greater quality of life (generally speaking), a sharp decline in infant and child mortality, a broadening of possibilities with education, jobs, choice of where to live, what to eat, drink, see, hear; increasing access of communication between the individual people of the world (allowing for communities of people with shared interests who are physically scattered all over the globe, and thus potential -- and frequently realizable -- friendships which would have simply been impossible before); better, safter methods of transportation; etc., etc., etc.

But... alongside all these benefits has come knowledge which questions our place in the universe, and our uniquity even here on our home planet; not to mention the undermining of traditional religious paradigms whose authority has seldom (if ever) been so seriously questioned; the very nature of what we are as human beings has been called into question by the effects of increasing understanding of evolution and the role it plays in not only our physical but our mental/emotional makeup. We are not, I think, at a point where we can yet take this sort of thing with a great deal of equanimity, so a large number of people feel threatened by it and retreat from or deny it, turning instead to that which is emotionally comforting, but not necessarily based in truth or reality.

I would say there's more than a little truth to Lovecraft's statement when, in "The Call of Cthulhu", he has his narrator Thurston say:



> The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go ma from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.


 
As has been noted before, this is not a deploring of science, but of humanity's inability to handle the implications of such knowledge; the damage such wreaks on our fragile little egos. And I would argue that this also has much to do with why we are seeing a resurgence of belief in various systems of magic and superstition which have long been proven to be without genuine basis in the workings of the physical universe. It is thus natural that such a trend would also see its reflection in the choice of reading matter, I would think.

Add to this the fact that an increasing number of readers, even, are influenced by what they see on the screen, and Hollywood -- never terribly concerned with scientific accuracy or intellectual rigour -- has always found it much easier to purvey either science fantasy (which uses many of the surface trappings of science fiction, such as spaceships, other planets/galaxies/dimensions/universes, robots, and the like) or fantasy outright; while the casual readers are influenced to an even greater degree. (And, in fact, when Hollywood has tackled "sf", it has been more guilty than any other outlet of promoting the emphasis on technology rather than the human aspect of the tale, as the "gosh-wow" aspect is much more visually exciting, however vacuous intellectually or emotionally.)

Put all these factors together, and....

As for me... I can't really say I have a favorite between the two, as I see both as perfectly valid and indeed excellent for addressing the human condition from different perspectives. (Though I will admit that I got more than a little sick of the preponderance of a limited stereotype of fantasy which virtually hijacked the field for such a period... something we now, thankfully, seem to be once again emerging from to see a wee bit more balance in allowing different types of fantasy fiction on the shelves.)


----------



## nj1 (Jul 13, 2009)

Why is Sci-fi not as popular as it once was? the cold war is over, the space race has slowed, scientists are looking in instead of up, biology is the new trend. IMO


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 13, 2009)

nj1 said:


> Why is Sci-fi not as popular as it once was? the cold war is over, the space race has slowed, scientists are looking in instead of up, biology is the new trend. IMO


 
But science fiction has _always_ had a large element of the sociological and biological to its makeup, from the stories of mutant supermen (A. E. van Vogt and Co.) to stories about different societies (Ursula K. LeGuin), to the moralistic/ethical tale (C. M. Kornbluth), to the religious paradigm (Walter M. Miller, Jr., James Blish). (These are, of course, only a random selection of examples; there are a myriad others to choose from....)


----------



## J-Sun (Jul 13, 2009)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> It's funny, because so many SF fans complain about the magic swords and the magic rings in Fantasy, but they're just the trappings, and that's not what Fantasy is really about.  But if the gadgets are what SF is about, as you say, maybe that's why some of the more hardcore fans are put off by Fantasy -- they're looking at the trappings and ignoring the real point.



That's not what I meant. I wasn't saying that gadgets were what SF was about. I was including gadgets as the concrete realizations of science and technology and saying that SF was a fiction about a reality in which that worldview was paramount. Contrariwise, fantasy is not about orcs and spells, but is about a worldview in which that reality is denied (or transmuted into a higher truth as some fans might insist).



Teresa Edgerton said:


> Now here is a theory about why more readers have been steadily turning away from SF and toward Fantasy.
> 
> We live in a world where we are being taught more and more to depend on technology, where individuals really are convinced that they have to spend two or three hundreds dollars on a software program to wipe their noses (I was going to say wipe something else, but that would have been ... indelicate), knowing all along that in a few years time both the software and the computer will be obsolete and another outlay of hundreds of dollars will be required.
> 
> Is it any wonder, then, that so many people like to read books about people who have to depend on _themselves_, who are required to draw on their own resources of courage, determination, compassion, endurance, willpower, intelligence, self-respect, self-reliance -- books that remind us that we are not to be measured by the things that we own, but by what we are and what we do -- books that encourage us to believe that when something comes up that we _can't_ fix with a new widget or a trip to the nearest electronics store (a divorce, a death in the family, caring for an aged and ailing parent, a serious injury) we might find within _our_selves, if we dig deep enough, those same resources of courage, determination, compassion, endurance, willpower, intelligence, self-respect, self-reliance?



I don't buy that one tiny little bit. If you don't get "courage, determination, compassion, endurance, willpower, intelligence, self-respect, self-reliance" out of Heinlein then you haven't read Heinlein. And while Heinlein turned his hand occasionally to fantasy, he was one of the foremost exemplars of pure quill SF. Ditto Clement. Ditto most SF in which man's reasoning power and ingenuity and capacity to comprehend are praised. Thinking otherwise seems to come from an essentially passive view in which non-scientifically inclined people think science is something done to them. Unlike fairy godmothers who do things for them and the magic trinkets people _find_ in fantasy, space ships and rayguns (to keep the stereotypes even) are things _made_ by us and understood by us and within our control. That is very much intelligence and self-reliance. To be prepared to "boldly go where no one has gone before" (to borrow a phrase) is very courageous.

Incidentally, your software reference makes me think of an interesting parallelism: Windows is fantasy (or horror) and Linux is SF. But that's a _whole_ other subject.

Edit: sorry about repeating some of what j.d. said - I seem to have a problem keeping up with prior posts.

Edit2: Great post, BTW, j.d. - despite our identical Heinlein invocations, I think we're coming at slightly different angles, but it's still very interesting.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 13, 2009)

j. d. worthington said:


> But, Teresa, wouldn't you agree that this is one of the major themes of a great deal of sf as well?



Of the kind of SF I used to read, and loved to read, and that was to be had in abundance ... yes.

But that science fiction did not have as its _raison d'etre_ the gadgets, technology and science.



> But... alongside all these benefits has come knowledge which questions our place in the universe, and our uniquity even here on our home planet; not to mention the undermining of traditional religious paradigms whose authority has seldom (if ever) been so seriously questioned; the very nature of what we are as human beings has been called into question by the effects of increasing understanding of evolution and the role it plays in not only our physical but our mental/emotional makeup.



Along with all these benefits has come a dependence on technology that makes us feel helpless if we lose our cell-phones, that is breeding up a generation that believes it is too much trouble, when they want to research a subject, to go to a library or pick up a book when they can get some half-baked information off a website suggested to them by a perfect stranger on the internet, that increasingly believes technology will fix _all_ the problems they might face, if they can just wait around for someone to come up with the right software.

This is a perilous misconception by which to live.  We are, at this moment in our evolution, neither tool-making apes nor yet machines.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 13, 2009)

J-Sun said:


> If you don't get "courage, determination, compassion, endurance, willpower, intelligence, self-respect, self-reliance" out of Heinlein then you haven't read Heinlein.



Ah, but I _have_ read Heinlein.  Please remember that when Heinlein was writing, I was reading science fiction on a daily basis.

My whole argument has been that this is what I used to look for in Science Fiction and that when I discovered there was more of it to be found in Fantasy (at least as regards the new SF and Fantasy that was coming my way) the more I turned toward Fantasy and away from Science Fiction.

You have said that in preferring stories that were character-driven I was probably always in the Fantasy camp to begin with.  I don't think so, but I'm not going to argue that point.  I _will_ insist that whatever camp it is that I am in, my reasons for being there are for me to explain, and nobody else.


----------



## J-Sun (Jul 13, 2009)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> Along with all these benefits has come a dependence on technology that makes us feel helpless if we lose our cell-phones, that is breeding up a generation that believes it is too much trouble, when they want to research a subject, to go to a library or pick up a book when they can get some half-baked information off a website suggested to them by a perfect stranger on the internet, that increasingly believes technology will fix _all_ the problems they might face, if they can just wait around for someone to come up with the right software.



But without science we _are_ helpless before the dark of night, the cold of winter, the assaults of disease - things the medieval period, in which much fantasy seems to revel, had in abundance. Darkness, cold, and death. Science doesn't make us helpless, but empowers us. As far as it goes, fantasy has its technology - just arbitrarily arrested or invented. The wizard would be helpless without his spellbook; the warrior without his sword.

The misuse or over-reliance on relative trivialities like cellphones and software is one thing, but wanting to tell people to "hang up and drive!" isn't really a great reason to condemn science or read fantasy.



Teresa Edgerton said:


> Ah, but I _have_ read Heinlein.



I was sure you had. That was a figure of speech trying to underline the presence of the qualities you say SF lacks.



Teresa Edgerton said:


> You have said that in preferring stories that were character-driven I was probably always in the Fantasy camp to begin with.  I don't think so, but I'm not going to argue that point.  I _will_ insist that whatever camp it is that I am in, my reasons for being there are for me to explain, and nobody else.



Well, I guess we're at an impasse at this point. It has been stimulating but I somehow doubt we're going to convince one another and I think we've shared enough of our points of view to know where the other is coming from. If you and j.d. and others continue on, I look forward to that.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 13, 2009)

*Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100*



Culhwch said:


> But even you, an admitted reader of both, denigrate fantasy as 'cheap and quick thrills'. I don't know about anyone else, but that just seems to me to be the prevalent attitude across these boards from those who tend towards SF.
> 
> Whereas, of course, I've never said a bad word about SF. Certainly not in this thread. Just don't read back through it, mind, take my word for it.



No no thats not what I meant at all! I'm just not good with words. What I meant was with both fantasy and SF you can get cheap thrills but with fantasy its easier because its not dependant on the latest technology. Now you Cul say you've never said a bad word about SF and yet you had your little dig at Con earlier by saying you couldn't think of a  good SF author to have a go back. But of course if you don't read SF then you won't be familiar with any authors!


----------



## Rodders (Jul 13, 2009)

Ohhh. This will deteriorate quickly. I don't see much defending going on, just scrapping an point scoring between the opposing forces. LOL.

I couldn't say why i like SF. I just do.


----------



## Urien (Jul 13, 2009)

I don't know whether I'm with the People's Judean Front, or the People's Front of Judea, but certainly not the Popular Front of Judea.


----------



## Interference (Jul 13, 2009)

Have to confess skip-reading most of the forgoing, so profound apologies for any repetition, deviation or ... um ... hesitation ...

First, I'm not claiming expertise, and you're unlikely to find any evidence for what I'm about to suggest, it's purely gut-reaction.

Post war, the big question was How is Science Going to Affect Us All?  It was a question that resided in the _common unconscious_ in the wake of the technologically scary progress made during the war which had given us jet engines, radar and world-destroying weaponry.  The question was addressed by futurists and Scifi writers, warning us, alerting us and consoling us in pretty much equal parts.

Since the early days of Scifi, real-world technology has seemed unstoppable, the thirst for scientific knowledge unquenchable, but all the questions and concerns have remained essentially the same, and it's hard to keep writing the same questions without seeming repetitive.  Hence the vogue for adventure stories with future-science accessories.  Isaac Azimov could write about robots.  Now we have robots.  Clarke could write about space flight and planetary expeditions.  They're a daily occurence now.  It's getting tougher for people to think of what the next great techonolgical advance is going to be, because we seem to have them all already.

In a world where science is running ahead of itself, where all the doubts and concerns are familiar to every toddler, people are now starting to wonder exactly which values are important.

I think the search may be leading us back to human values and the power of Self.  Modern thinking is definitely more biased towards the New Age than before.  From the grottiest housing estates to the proudest castles, you can't throw a stone without hitting someone who knows someone who's a Reiki Level 1.  Try it and see - and don't worry, they'll heal themselves.  By the same token, and perhaps counter-intuitively, the groundswell is away from religious and theistic pursuits.

I think it's unlikely that humanity will eschew the technological in their real lives, but I think they might like to have a break from it occasionally in their fantasy (small f) lives.  They look for heroes, as they always did, but maybe now they wish to find them in historical novels, in biographies and in fantasy fiction.  Perhaps especially now, when scientists have explanations for everything and everyone is carrying around with them a computer more powerful than the mainframe at NASA in 1968, people need something to be amazed about, in awe of, shocked by and utterly perplexed by.

People always have and always will need to feel a sense of wonder; that there is Magic/Magick still in the world, however advanced we may wish to seem as a species.  For a time the improbabilities of Scifi provided some hint of that.  Now, though, the once-improbable is as real as a quark.

So send in the Orks.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 13, 2009)

Rodders said:


> Ohhh. This will deteriorate quickly. I don't see much defending going on, just scrapping an point scoring between the opposing forces. LOL.
> 
> .



Sounds like Star Wars


----------



## Rodders (Jul 13, 2009)

Hey!!! I'd be insulted if i didn't know what you were getting at.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 13, 2009)

Rodders said:


> Hey!!! I'd be insulted if i didn't know what you were getting at.



No worries Rod, I'm a Star Wars fan myself remember. And I'm not in the habit of insulting people,especially those I'm fond of. That would be,illogical!


----------



## Xelebes (Jul 13, 2009)

As for shifts in readership, it can be easily explained by the fact that we have no technology wars going on.  There is no race anymore so it doesn't hold one's interest for too long.  Nowadays, the best sci-fi is written in the almost present sense because that is how fast we are racing.


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 13, 2009)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> Along with all these benefits has come a dependence on technology that makes us feel helpless if we lose our cell-phones, that is breeding up a generation that believes it is too much trouble, when they want to research a subject, to go to a library or pick up a book when they can get some half-baked information off a website suggested to them by a perfect stranger on the internet, that increasingly believes technology will fix _all_ the problems they might face, if they can just wait around for someone to come up with the right software.
> 
> This is a perilous misconception by which to live. We are, at this moment in our evolution, neither tool-making apes nor yet machines.


 
Again, Teresa, isn't this exactly what happens with turning our backs on science, and relying on some mystical form of aliens, or gods, or spiritual forces, or fairies, or... what-have-you, rather than the rationalistic basis of science, which is that we _can_ learn, and _can_ understand, and therefore _can_ make informed and beneficial choices and be empowered and in control of our lives and what sort of future we want to have. (Granted, we will never know or understand everything, but science -- and, by extension, _science_ fiction -- offers a much more viable, workable, alternative in the long run than does the retreat to that which is based on what is comforting but -- also in the long run -- _dis_empowering in the true sense.)

Again, this isn't a swipe at fantasy, which I also love dearly, and which I believe offers a great deal in better understanding ourselves, albeit from a different perspective than sf; but, as the question has arisen as to _why_ the shift has come about, it is an attempt to investigate into the possible causes... and those causes, I think, go a lot deeper than this reliance on technology... which is something humanity has had since there has _been_ any technology, from use of simple tools on. I still say it has more to do with: a) our feeling threatened because of the vastness of the picture we're beginning to get both of the universe and how it works and of our own evolutionary background and what it means about our place within the spectrum of life; and b) the increasing evidence that, while it will always be impossible to _prove_ that no such thing as the supernatural actually exists, it is quite possible now to prove that, _if_ such exists, once it enters into the physical universe and begins to have an effect, it would become subject for genuine scientific investigation... and that therefore, given that all such phenomena which have been rigorously investigated have proven to be lacking in substance, the likelihood of the supernatural (including gods, fairies, demons, devils, witches, ghosts, etc. -- and therefore _souls_, in the accepted sense) is becoming vanishingly small, and this, too (rightly or wrongly) tends to have the effect on people of making them feel somehow diminished; as, for one thing, it does make death _final_ for the individual consciousness... and that's something that most people simply find too uncomfortable or frightening to accept.

Thus, you have a retreat from the picture the evidence presents -- which most find so unpalatable, not quite "getting" the point that it actually makes life and individual choice both richer and more meaningful within the human sphere (the only one which can ever _truly_ count with us) -- and the preference for the more traditional, supernatural (and therefore fantastic), views of the universe... at very least aesthetically, and quite often within their "real" lives as well. (Which, I suppose, has a great deal to do with why _both_ genres -- as well as all other genres, really -- tend toward the stereotype: in the end, the desire for "comfort food" in reading, as in everything else, is more strong in the majority than is the desire to be challenged, to grow and expand and come to grips with fundamental issues -- which invariably requires a questioning, at least, of favored stereotypes and traditional models.)


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 13, 2009)

I'm sorry, but I'm getting the impression that I am being told that because people are no longer so interested in _reading_ about futuristic (and often imaginary) science for their leisure reading this constitutes a wholesale rejection of science.

This is like saying that people who don't read romance novels have rejected romantic love and sex.

Reading about people who ride around on horses does not make people any less likely to use a car for their own transportation.

And postulating that people are turning away from science fiction because society is increasingly turning toward mysticism?  Back in the sixties, when everyone was reading Tarot cards, and joining ashrams, and believing in fairies, science fiction was far more popular than it is now, when these same people have grown older and work in IT.  (Back when _I_ was reading Tarot cards and crystal balls, science fiction was far more popular with _me._)

And the implication that people who don't read science fiction and prefer fantasy are all some sort of Luddites who have rejected the march of technology -- I don't buy it.  Most of them are running around clinging to their little ipods and electronic devices. They _adore_ technology. (I, on the other hand, _am_ a bit of a Luddite.  But I was no less so, and possibly more, back when I was reading science fiction every day.)

In the last thirty years technology has been steadily creating "needs" that weren't there before.  It is creating dependencies that weren't there before.  (And some of them complete trivialities, without which a growing generation would nevertheless feel stripped bare.)  Far from rejecting these technologies, the vast majority of people are madly _in love_ with them, and buying the latest electronic devices, the latest software, the latest digital what-have-you as fast as they can.  It is not rejecting these things to seek some reassurance that, even though they love these things and will continue to buy them, they MIGHT be able to survive without them if they had to.  

_And I really _don't_ understand why it is that science fiction people feel it necessary to explain why people read fantasy, here, on a forum where there are plenty of fantasy readers to explain it *ourselves*._

Can we not simply, each of us, say what it is that we find to delight us in our favorite genres, without sneering at the tastes of the people who find delight elsewhere?

Wouldn't this be a pleasanter thread if we could confine ourselves to that?


----------



## Interference (Jul 13, 2009)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> This is like saying that people who don't read romance novels have rejected romantic love and sex.



Probably correct.



Teresa Edgerton said:


> And postulating that people are turning away from science fiction because society is increasingly turning toward mysticism?  Back in the sixties, when everyone was reading Tarot cards, and joining ashrams, and believing in fairies, science fiction was far more popular than it is now, when these same people have grown older and work in IT.  (Back when _I_ was reading Tarot cards and crystal balls, science fiction was far more popular with _me._)



Not quite that many.  Just a lot of kids, really.



Teresa Edgerton said:


> And the implication that people who don't read science fiction and prefer fantasy are all some sort of Luddites who have rejected the march of technology -- I don't buy it.  Most of them are running around clinging to their little ipods and electronic devices. They _adore_ technology. (I, on the other hand, _am_ a bit of a Luddite.  But I was no less so, and possibly more, back when I was reading science fiction every day.)



Familiarity breeds contempt.



Teresa Edgerton said:


> _And I really _don't_ understand why it is that science fiction people feel it necessary to explain why people read fantasy, here, on a forum where there are plenty of fantasy readers to explain it *ourselves*._
> 
> Can we not simply, each of us, say what it is that we find to delight us in our favorite genres, without sneering at the tastes of the people who find delight elsewhere?
> 
> Wouldn't this be a pleasanter thread if we could confine ourselves to that?



Now you're 'aving a larf


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 13, 2009)

My experience with the (younger than me)lads I work with is they'd rather read fantasy than SF! There's a sense that SF is full of technical details and you can only understand it if you're like James May. A geek. Of course it aint all like that. Mind you I am a self confessed geek and proud of it!


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 13, 2009)

First, I'd like to clarify: No, I am not saying that 



Teresa Edgerton said:


> because people are no longer so interested in _reading_ about futuristic (and often imaginary) science for their leisure reading this constitutes a wholesale rejection of science


 
I am saying that _it is a symptom of a larger issue_: the rejection of science (not technology, but scientific, rationalistic thinking; not at all the same thing), or at very least the denigration and grave distrust of it, fostered by numerous things mentioned in previous posts (as well as the media, which tends more and more to pander to exactly those lowest aspects of the human condition).

Nor am I saying that reading fantasy is bad; I am addressing the shift in popularity over the last 2-3 decades, and what I see, after a lot of thought, as probable _causal links_ for that shift in interest. There are always reasons for such a sea-change in the arts, though they sometimes are difficult to identify, or may not be possible to identify until long afterward. But these are things I see as connected to that and (as I said before) since the question of "why" surfaced, I am adding my input to that part of the discussion.

There was never a sneer intended there; as you know quite well, the bulk of my reading tends to be in the weird or supernatural field these days and, though this is in part because it is all connected to that massive research project, I wouldn't be pursuing that project did I not find such literature _worthy in its own right_!



> And postulating that people are turning away from science fiction because society is increasingly turning toward mysticism? Back in the sixties, when everyone was reading Tarot cards, and joining ashrams, and believing in fairies, science fiction was far more popular than it is now, when these same people have grown older and work in IT. (Back when _I_ was reading Tarot cards and crystal balls, science fiction was far more popular with _me._)


 
But the predominant society was still in the rationalistic, scientific paradigm at that point; the shift was appearing, but was by no means the majority until later. And, as I've noted, reliance and even an attraction for technology is not the same as science; modern electronic technology is a product of science, but the way it is viewed and used is much less so; it is itself often viewed in an almost anthropomorphic (and at times even with an air of the mystical and, to be honest, of mystification) way rather than with an understanding of the principles involved in either why or how it functions.

Therefore, as I have repeatedly attempted to make clear: No, they don't reject technology, but there is a general turning away from the rationalism behind the science which (among many other functions) provides the technology. This, in turn, is connected to the resurgence of various forms of mysticism, the increased acceptance of claims of "psychics" and the like (rather than being met with scepticism -- _not_ the same as outright rejection, but rather needing good, thorough investigation before being given acceptance... the "extraordinary claims" bit); the "alien abduction" phenomenon, which is, in all essentials, simply a restating of the old "incubi/succubi" experiences of earlier times; the misunderstanding of even the basic facts of evolution and how it works -- let alone how it is supported not only by biology, but by dozens of other scientific disciplines, from paleontology to stratigraphy to medicine and genetics; and, most of all, the diminishment of rationalism and critical thinking themselves for a "populist" approach to science. Science ain't a democracy, and never can be. It isn't a matter of opinion, but of opinion based on demonstrable, verifiable fact (and which is open to falsifiability -- an uncomfortable paradigm at a time when people increasingly want certainty in their lives).

I am sorry if you feel offended by my posting my views on the matter; but, as I said, these are not off-the-cuff statements, but the result of many years of examining this shift -- not out of a wish to denigrate one genre or another, but out of a curiosity as to _why_ such a shift was taking place. And the fact is that, as supported by numerous studies, the scientific method has been on the decline in education, and understanding of it, as well as critical thinking, has been seriously derailed over the past few decades, resulting in a lot of damage, such as (to pick one glaring example) the rejection of innoculations for various diseases based on false information, resulting in the resurgence of such diseases as smallpox and the like (with consequent rise in child mortality in regions where this has taken place).

Now, I'm sorry, but I'd be a liar if I didn't say that I see all these things as part of a larger pattern: the shift in preference for fantasy (which relies on the supernatural and mystical for the very structure of the universe involved) over science fiction (which stresses the ability of human beings to understand and influence, possibly even control, the world and universe around us by working within the framework of natural physical laws) is a relatively small and unimportant part of that pattern, but I do see it as such a part. It isn't intended as an insult, but an observation on relationships between larger cultural shifts and tastes in literature. That is all. In my posts, I've been attempting to examine some of the causes for such shifts in the larger sphere, and where they may be having an effect on these tastes.

As I have also said repeatedly, I cannot claim a favorite between the two, as I love them both equally; they provide varying approaches to the human condition, and neither is _intrinsically_ to be more valued than the other; each has its faults and poor (or outright bad) writers, just as each has its sterling examples raising it to the heights of great literature. So I would hardly be issuing a sneer at lovers of fantasy, as I very much happen to _be_ one! But this does not prevent me from wanting to understand these changes, or keep me from investigating them to the best of my ability; nor do I feel I need to apologize for posting my thoughts on the matter, as neither disrespect, insult, nor any other sort of invidious reflection was intended on anyone who reads either form of what is, after all, under the larger umbrella of fantastic literature.....


----------



## Connavar (Jul 14, 2009)

AE35Unit said:


> My experience with the (younger than me)lads I work with is they'd rather read fantasy than SF! There's a sense that SF is full of technical details and you can only understand it if you're like James May. A geek. Of course it aint all like that. Mind you I am a self confessed geek and proud of it!




Thats what i was trying to say when i became a thread starter with this thread.   

SF is too technical bias is why younger readers prefer fantasy.  People who dont read SFF will read fantasy 9/10 before sf.    Thats what i said with my siblings who i have made read several fantasy books but ONLY Dune has been tried by them of all the books i recommend.

Why ?  Because its sounds like fantasy in synopsis, Paul the future hero of Arrakis.

The fact there is social science stories,action sf,military sf,space opera etc is hard to make them understand.

Sadly some people let the movies decide if they are gonna read sf or fantasy.  Fantasy has much better films about famous book series.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 14, 2009)

AE35Unit said:


> My experience with the (younger than me)lads I work with is they'd rather read fantasy than SF! There's a sense that SF is full of technical details and you can only understand it if you're like James May.



But then there are (and they may be the same lads) readers who won't read any Fantasy with too much worldbuilding because they don't like to read about _those_ details, either.

JD -- You have been researching this for a number of years. Before that, of course, you were a reader and a keen observer of events around you.

I, on the other hand, have been _immersed_ in this, I have been living this, I have been deeply, deeply involved in this for decades -- and before that, as you, a reader and an observer. You know somewhat of the experience I have had within the writing, publishing, and fan community, so we need not go into detail about that.

So regardless of which one of us may be right, you surely, surely, _surely _cannot believe for one moment that you can convince me that what you feel you have learned by your research and your objectivity is correct, and that what I feel I have learned through living and experiencing is wrong.  Vile empiric that I am, you cannot convert me -- no matter how eloquently you express yourself -- to any such idea that what I have seen and heard and felt and spoken was _not_ what I thought it was.  You are an excellent debater, but even you are not that good.

Instead, why don't you tell us that which I am more than ready to believe, and which I would be fascinated to hear:  your own _personal_ attraction and reaction to the two genres, what it is in each of them that draws you, and what you do not like.


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 14, 2009)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> So regardless of which one of us may be right, you surely, surely, _surely _cannot believe for one moment that you can convince me that what you feel you have learned by your research and your objectivity is correct, and that what I feel I have learned through living and experiencing is wrong. Vile empiric that I am, you cannot convert me -- no matter how eloquently you express yourself -- to any such idea that what I have seen and heard and felt and spoken was _not_ what I thought it was. You are an excellent debater, but even you are not that good.


 
Not so much interested in attempting to convert as to have my observations given consideration as worthy of serious thought. I may be wrong, certainly; but these observations are backed by a considerable amount of evidence from numerous sources, so I would contend they shouldn't be dismissed at all lightly. On the other hand, as I noted earlier, sometimes it isn't possible to note the reason(s) for such shifts until long after the fact -- sometimes decades, sometimes even longer -- but that doesn't mean it isn't worth attempting to find answers to such a question, nonetheless.

And before I leave this behind, as a bit of serendipity, I read this afternoon an article (actually, the text of a speech as Guest Scholar at the International Conference of the Fantastic in the Arts in March 2003) by S. T. Joshi on the subject of "Establishing the Canon of Weird Fiction" which, in the first few pages, is as much a good, thoughtful look at the entire idea of a literary canon and the reason thoughtful criticism is so important, as about weird fiction itself.

Amongst other things, he discusses the fact that of the "proliferation of the weird tale" in the period 1880-1940, and ponders the possible reasons for this -- something which I think also applies to this discussion:



> Purely literary considerations do not seem to provide an adequate answer: to be sure, the influence of Poe on Ambrose Bierce, H. P. Lovecraft, and many others is patent; but I am convinced that cultural factors played a significant role. For one thing, orthodox religious belief declined significantly among the intellectual classes during the later nineteenth century, as Darwin's theory of evolution appeared to provide the final element in the fashioning of an entirely secular conception of the universe. If Lovecrat is correct in asserting that supernatural fiction is "coeval with the religious feeling and closely related to many aspects of it," then a case could be made that a decline in religious belief would result in the augmentation of a need for aesthetic outlets for it.[...] When God is removed from both the intellectual and aesthetic landscape, the rationale for such entities as the ghost, the witch, and the werewolf -- all resting at least indirectly upon a religious conception of the universe -- is suddenly lost. Is it any wonder that such eccentric monsters as Lovecraft's Cthulhu, or the sand-entities that Algernon Blackwood evoked out of the hoary depths of Egypt, came to be? In any event, it is undeniable that such writers as Lovecraft, Blackwood, Arthur Machen, Lord Dunsany, M. R. James, and a host of others not only gave voice to the myriad terrors facing a rapidly changing Anglo-American culture (the terror of the untenanted wildernesses, the terror of unholy antiquity, and, perhaps most poignantl of all, the terror of the cosmic oid suddenly emptied of its comforting and benevolent Creator), but also showed how weird fiction could be made to serve as the complex expression of the most intimate philosophical conceptions and a relevant commentary on social, cultural, and even political institutions.


 
Now, as I have argued above, the challenges to traditional religious and mystical views have caused them to be either reaffirmed even more stridently, or replaced by newer modifications of these same supernaturally-based paradigms, not only in literature, but in life in general. Thus the shift to fantasy as a way to confront many of the issues which are too emotionally threatening to face head-on through either realistic fiction or a more rationalistic approach such as sf.

Which, in part, answers at least a little what I find so valuable in fantasy: it can approach these things from a somewhat distanced, mythic perspective in an emotional way which is not constrained to the rationalistic view of science fiction; it can, in this way, often have a more immediate emotive -- and thus cathartic -- impact when done well. Science fiction, on the other hand, while still having this emotional component, filters it through the rationalistic approach, wedding the emotional/aesthetic to the intellectual/rational, but with something of a diminution of immediate, visceral impact. Both can, and often do, help to confront the various issues facing us in one guise or another, but they approach them from different angles, different perspectives, and using different parts of the brain; making a combination of the two a good way an even better way to reach some understanding of these underlying anxieties and finding ways in which to cope with (or perhaps alter) them.

This is not a division that works across the board (there are exceptions on both sides), but I'd say in general it is a good description of what I find in each and why I say I really can't choose a favorite between the two....

As for what I do not like... I don't like hackneyed stereotypes (something any genre fiction is prone to, unfortunately); I don't like lazy or poor writing; I don't like easy, simple solutions being offered me to complex situations -- it's a cheat and a lie, and I tend to treat the writer accordingly; and I don't like simplistic philosophies concerning the world, the universe, or the human condition, as these are childish and wrong-headed, more prone to create problems and misunderstandings rather than resolve them and help us understand each other and communicate.

Of course, these things are by no means relegated to the two genres being discussed, or even genre fiction in general; one can find them just as easily in "mainstream" fiction (though seldom in truly great literature, unless one or more of them is compensated for by even greater strengths in the other areas). But genre fiction is somewhat more prone to have them in more obvious guise, and that is the aspect I dislike intensely. There is no reason why fiction from within a particular genre cannot be as deep, thoughtful, mature, and perceptive as the best of literature in the broader sense, but it will be likely to be individual pieces (or authors) rather than the genre itself, as generic fiction will as a whole, by its nature, tend toward the things mentioned above in order to appeal to a wider, often less literate or thoughtful audience.


----------



## digs (Jul 14, 2009)

I agree with AE35Unit in that SF seems (to me anyway) quite daunting. I've read very little science fiction (in fact the only ones that really come to mind are novels that I read in school, like _Cyteen_ and _Fahrenheit 451_ - and school books are forever tainted), but I always envision the genre as a somewhat grim and complex prediction of the future. Not that either of those things are necessarily bad in a story, but sometimes I just crave sunshine and puppies.

I like reading about people's experiences in the present world as well as fantasy. I feel that science fiction is, in some ways, a compromise between these two things; a compromise which, for me, does not work. I want something that is firmly grounded in recognisable society or something that is far removed from it (though of course with recognisable human interaction and themes) - science fiction distances itself from the real world, but not far enough for my tastes.

Then again, I'm sure there is some science fiction that I would really enjoy. I just don't want to give up valuable fantasy-reading time to try it.


----------



## reiver33 (Jul 25, 2009)

I started off with UK 1970's SiFi although it always had a much stronger psychological element than its US counterpart - tending to be more driven more by character than (external) plot. 

Unless you are into epic world-building as a background to your fantasy novel (and I know you are out there, lurking), then it is easier, I feel, to root a fantasy novel in characterisation first and foremost - the characters psychopathology becomes the 'mainspring', as it were.

Hards SiFi tends to date more rapidly than fantasy in terms of 'style over content' - the 'High Frontier' ethos of the 1950's & 60's doesn't stand up well, as a body of work, against something like LOTR - a timeless classic.


----------



## Professor 0110 (Jul 25, 2009)

> What I find interesting is the shift in interest from science fiction to fantasy over the last twenty years -- especially among male readers.
> 
> It makes me wonder why science fiction has been steadily losing readers ... I mean readers that it already had, not just failing to attract new ones in the same numbers that fantasy has.
> 
> Even people who say that science fiction is so much better seem to be buying and reading a lot of fantasy ...



I attribute the shift from science fiction to fantasy primarily because of the hype surrounding recently released movies and books centering on the dramatic theme of good and evil. Many readers _love_ high fantasy stemming back from the Lord of the Rings, and with the success Harry Potter and Twilight shooting through the roof and the media attention the fantasy genre has obtained, its no wonder science fiction is slowly fading into obscurity. 

"The time of the elves is over. The age of man has come"

The above quote is a metaphor for the rising of the fantasy genre (men) and the decline of science fiction (elves).


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 25, 2009)

digs said:


> I agree with AE35Unit in that SF seems (to me anyway) quite daunting. I've read very little science fiction (in fact the only ones that really come to mind are novels that I read in school, like _Cyteen_ and _Fahrenheit 451_ - and school books are forever tainted), but I always envision the genre as a somewhat grim and complex prediction of the future. Not that either of those things are necessarily bad in a story, but sometimes I just crave sunshine and puppies.
> 
> I like reading about people's experiences in the present world as well as fantasy. I feel that science fiction is, in some ways, a compromise between these two things; a compromise which, for me, does not work. I want something that is firmly grounded in recognisable society or something that is far removed from it (though of course with recognisable human interaction and themes) - science fiction distances itself from the real world, but not far enough for my tastes.
> 
> Then again, I'm sure there is some science fiction that I would really enjoy. I just don't want to give up valuable fantasy-reading time to try it.



Not all SF is all doom and gloom tho, Clarke's books are on the whole uplifting and the tech is not overpowering. And there are many dark,dystopian fantasies out there too,the recent film Franklyn is a good example of that. Very dark and miserable.


----------



## J-WO (Jul 27, 2009)

One of the reasons SF grinds my gears is the sheer sense of trepidation I get before opening the cover- good's victory is _never_ promised.  I see the hero/heroine on the cover of a fantasy and my instincts tell me it is.  

  Sure, evil wins in a lot of horror but most times its supernatural agencies.  With sf the evil's all too often human.  Our morality is so damn easy to cave in and the best SF holds a mirror up to that.

_'They see Kennedy and its how they wanna see themselves, they see me and its how they really are.'
                                      -President Nixon_

Kennedy= Fantasy   Nixon= sf


----------



## Pyar (Aug 9, 2009)

Open Book: Philip Marchand on how fantasy took over science fiction - The Afterword

Here's an article on the supposed deterioration of SF into fantasy.


----------



## AE35Unit (Aug 9, 2009)

J-WO said:


> One of the reasons SF grinds my gears is the sheer sense of trepidation I get before opening the cover- good's victory is _never_ promised.  I see the hero/heroine on the cover of a fantasy and my instincts tell me it is.
> 
> Sure, evil wins in a lot of horror but most times its supernatural agencies.  With sf the evil's all too often human.  Our morality is so damn easy to cave in and the best SF holds a mirror up to that.
> 
> ...



Not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that in SF the evil is always human? Err what about Alien,or Voyage of the Space Beagle,or in fact most sF I've read


----------



## J-WO (Aug 10, 2009)

AE35Unit said:


> Not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that in SF the evil is always human? Err what about Alien,or Voyage of the Space Beagle,or in fact most sF I've read



If it wasn't for the corporation, those alien eggs would have sat in that wrecked ship for eternity.  The aliens are killers yet essentially innocent, a force of nature.
   'They don't screw their own kind to make a buck,' as Ripley says in the sequel (or words to that effect).

Haven't read _Space Beagle_ but I'll bet there's a goddamsonofabitch causing trouble in it somewhere and that his/her ancestors a primate.

The evils not always human in SF but you've got to admit there's a notable tendency.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Aug 10, 2009)

J-WO: not so I seem to recall one getting it in the neck to allow his fellows to escape from the cell on in the third episode was it.


----------



## Fried Egg (Aug 10, 2009)

My personal story has been one of a gradual transition (from when I started reading SF&F in the mid 80's) from predominantly fantasy to predominantly SF. And I can't put that change down to any change in the kind or quality of books on offer, it reflects a change within me.

When I first started reading fantasy, it was very much about escapism. Wanting to escape reality and immerse myself into the rich worlds that I was reading about. I literally wanted to transport myself into these worlds, imagining that life would be so much better. Long series were good; I never wanted the stories to end. Gradually I soured of it though. Getting to the end of Edding's "Malloreon" series, Weis & Hickman's "Death Gate Cycle" series and not even finishing Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series, I began to realise much of this was bumph and just dragged out as an easy way of making money.

I turned towards more older fantasy that tended to be less formulaic but also towards SF as for me it became less about escapism and more about exploring interesting ideas and concepts. Somebody said (Teresa I think) that fantasy is more character driven and I agree. And that also helps explain my change; quite simply characters have become less important for me; I am less concerned about empaphising with the protagonists where it used to be very important for me.

But I still love both SF and fantasy. I think they can and should tell us about people. Even hard SF it is not the technology itself which is most interesting, but how it affects the people that use it and society in general.


----------



## J-WO (Aug 10, 2009)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> J-WO: not so I seem to recall one getting it in the neck to allow his fellows to escape from the cell on in the third episode was it.



I could argue the hive mind instinct angle but there's no way I'm going to defend _Alien Resurrection_.  Its big bad monster looked like the Michellin man gone to seed.

There's also the argument that its man who locks them in an unnatural env- oh, why am I bothering? The films like _Carry on xenomorph_.

 (_Puts fingers in ears closes eyes_) The franchise ended with _Aliens_, the franchise ended with _Aliens_...


----------



## AE35Unit (Aug 10, 2009)

J-WO said:
			
		

> (_Puts fingers in ears closes eyes_) The franchise ended with _Aliens_, the franchise ended with _Aliens_...



Oh no it didn't!


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Aug 10, 2009)

J-WO said:


> I could argue the hive mind instinct angle but there's no way I'm going to defend _Alien Resurrection_. Its big bad monster looked like the Michellin man gone to seed.
> 
> There's also the argument that its man who locks them in an unnatural env- oh, why am I bothering? The films like _Carry on xenomorph_.
> 
> (_Puts fingers in ears closes eyes_) The franchise ended with _Aliens_, the franchise ended with _Aliens_...


 

Funny I always thought Big Bird from Sesame Street on a bad makeup day


----------



## J-WO (Aug 12, 2009)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> Funny I always thought Big Bird from Sesame Street on a bad makeup day



Yes, I heard that rumour, too.  They say he lost his feathers due to a crack habit and consequently took any work he could.


----------



## JRV (Aug 25, 2009)

Science fiction and fantasy can both be incredibly enjoyable if the writer knows his/her business. I go back and forth with regularity and have no prejudices either way. I have to admit that the science fiction genre has become a bit thin of late, and I usually go through a two or three year wait for the authors I like.  Fantasy authors certainly seem more prolific than science fiction authors, but it is quality not quantity!


----------



## ChrisQ (Aug 25, 2009)

I tend to go through spurts as to what I enjoy reading. For a few years it was Fantasy, then Sci-fi, then Horror, then back again. I like Fantasy, so long as it's not the overdone elves and King Arthur times era. It's overdone, and I'm so sick of Tolkien remakes, I could choke. Same goes for the stereotypical sci-fi, that clones Star Wars or Star Trek. So my answer is both and neither, depending on my mood, what I happen to find that's not the same story with different characters that happens to interest me.


----------



## chongjasmine (Aug 27, 2009)

My favourite is fantasy. I like a make-believe world of magic, dragons, medieval things and such. 

I love science fiction, too and its technology, but I prefer fantasy in the end over science fiction.

I think fantasy has room for very vivid imagination.

I also find fantasy story to be more character driven.


----------



## J-WO (Aug 28, 2009)

I've been listening to BBC radio 7's _The Seventh Dimension _(An hour of SFF and Horror _every_ day of the week- check it out!) and I've got to say, high fantasy comes across as absurdly funny on Radio.  Maybe I'm biased, but sci-fi 'radios' a lot cooler (Well, most of the time...) and more believable.

I turned it on the other day to hear a voice with a treble effect on it and claiming to be a demon saying- 'Looook! I'm buuurning hiss fleshhh! Seee how it smolderssss!'

I felt for the poor actor who had to deliver that one.


----------



## Connavar (Aug 28, 2009)

I think people should be careful of too big generalizations....

Fantasy has more room for vivid imagination ?   Is a fantasy set in another clichè pseudo medieval European world more imaginative than reading a far future SF where the writer has to invent many things, when he does it well it can be so much imagination.

*With sf the evil's all too often human.*   Not in the super science stories with bug eyed monsters...

There are many examples for both genres to make a lie of those big generalizations.


----------



## J-WO (Aug 29, 2009)

Yeah, but the very nature of this thread presupposes big generalizations.  If we avoided that we'd end up comparing book to book and- regardless of common opinion- I _do_ have a life outside of this forum!


----------



## thepaladin (Sep 2, 2009)

I just read and skimmed through the last 6 pages of posts (had to be honest there...skimmed some). I've got to say that if we have "camps" I'm largely in MS. Edgerton's. (I shall henceforth use your first name, as you haven't actually given me permission to do so I offer a tacit apology. Well. it's not exactly tacit now as I have expressed it...) 

Teresa and I are only about 2 or 3 years apart age wise and it sound as though in some ways we had a similar experience. Then again there are differences. As you are I believe a child of the west coast I grew up in the foot hills of the Smoky Mountains on a small farm. There were no public libraries within "walking distance" so during my youth I was limited to what I could find in the library of my elementary school and what could be obtained from news stands where I'd beg my dad to stop on weekend trips to the grandparents. Beside this I asked for books on "occasions" (birthdays etc.) but usually got "abridged classics for children" until I managed to break people of that. 

I however read all the SF I could lay my hands on. 

When I was 13 however we moved to Dayton Ohio and there I had easier access to a wider variety of books. Also on my next birthday I got my dad to allow me to join the science Fiction Book Club. $1 each and almost no fantasy in sight....depending on what you may call fantasy. My dad at that time worked for McCall Corp. (McCall's Magazine...one many here may not remember). Among their "sub-mags" was Analog and he had subscribed me to it knowing my preference for that type of reading...there I found the add for the book club. 

Not to belabor my reminisces here but I seem to have noticed a change in the caliber of the Science Fiction I read then and what I find now. While there are notable exceptions to this I wonder if maybe the quality in the books (on the whole) may be lower? 

I mean I know there are good SF books out there but there is a glut of simple space opera type reads. There is certainly nothing wrong with this type of read, I love brain candy...but I'm just not into space pirates and so on. (of course there is also a glut of simple fantasy works out there also....)

There is also the "break" in agreement on what is Science Fiction as opposed to Fantasy. Remember Clark's admonition that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." A lot of what some may think of as Science Fiction may be pegged by others as Fantasy. Science is advancing at such a rate that now it can literally be difficult for "fiction" to stay ahead of "fact". Everyone has heard the discussions on the computers or communicators in the original Star Trek and the ones we actually use. 

I don't know, I just don't see many Stand on Zanzibar s , 1984s, or Do Androids Dream of Electris Sheep any more. There are some good books I'm sure, not saying there aren't. I just wonder if maybe the bar in SF has not come down somewhat??​


----------



## J-WO (Sep 3, 2009)

thepaladin said:


> I don't know, I just don't see many Stand on Zanzibar s , 1984s, or Do Androids Dream of Electris Sheep any more. There are some good books I'm sure, not saying there aren't. I just wonder if maybe the bar in SF has not come down somewhat??​



If you look at a 2nd hand bookshop's sf shelf you might find one of these three genuine classics (Though most likely someone would have put 1984 in the 'proper book' section), but you may not see it amid all the rubbish paperbacks that were first released at the same time. I had to trawl through a lot of dreck before I happened on _Zanzibar. _

Truth is, theres a reason SF has got a reputation as poor quality. Fantasy too. A policy of stack 'em high and sell 'em cheap throughout much of the twentieth century. We remember the good stuff because it clings to the inside of our skulls whilst the rest slides off.

That said, If I have one problem with modern SF is that everyone's got their eye on doing a series or a trilogy. Sometimes I'll be half way through a book and I'll know that's exactly what the writer is thinking and suddenly its all very conceited. For some things it works- undoubtedly, it does- but in the case of Paladin's examples it would have been a disaster (1984 especially!). Those books are beautiful because they are final. At least, that's part of the reason.


----------



## Hilarious Joke (Sep 3, 2009)

> That said, If I have one problem with modern SF is that everyone's got their eye on doing a series or a trilogy.


 
I don't know, I think it's fair that Fantasy and SF books are seldom stand-alone, given that a lot more exposition has to be done in these genres than in others.


----------



## Connavar (Sep 3, 2009)

What J-Wo said is funny to me that fact that i read more SF is because  i can find more stand alone by quality authors than fantasy where even the best authors write series.  

Trilogy is usually my limit for modern heroic,epic fantasy series.  Heh i read Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn series only because it was three books and not more.  

SF isnt much better than fantasy when its series books but its hard to name rated new fantasy that isnt series.


----------



## Hilarious Joke (Sep 3, 2009)

That probably aligns with your dislike of Epic Fantasy, Conn.

And I probably like longer series because I love Epic Fantasy.

Different strokes.


----------



## Granfalloon (Sep 3, 2009)

Hey folks, Sorry to butt in, or whatever, but I asked a question in the original thread, and was apparently ignored. I REFUSE TO BE IGNORED!!!  Yes, I'm joking, but I am generally an SF reader. I've read some J.K. Rowling, as well as a fantasy book I quite enjoyed called "The Mists of Avalon." by Marion Zimmer Bradley. Still, I am an SF person, and I would like to know the answer to this question:




Granfalloon said:


> Just curious - Is there such a thing as "future fantasy"? (or would that just be another branch of SF?)


----------



## Fried Egg (Sep 3, 2009)

> Just curious - Is there such a thing as "future fantasy"? (or would that just be another branch of SF?)


Well, there's the _dying earth_ sub-genre which is usually thought of as science-fantasy but I think it's generally more fantasy than SF really as the technology is usually depicted as at a lower level than ours and it's set in a time so distant from our own that it bears little resemblance to our current world. I think that it's usually only associated with SF attall _because_ it's set in the future but I don't see why something set in the future has to be SF (anymore than something set in the past has to be fantasy).


----------



## Granfalloon (Sep 3, 2009)

Thanks for the answer FE. It brings another question to my mind. Would you differentiate between the "Dying Earth" sub-genre, and the "post-apocalyptic"  sub-genre (i.e. would Dying Earth be post-"post-apocalyptic"?  )


----------



## Urien (Sep 3, 2009)

Future fantasy? I guess The 'Elf and Safety Stones of Shannara are set in the future... but a future that by the judicious use of nuclear weapons has managed to create Muddle Earth (a close cousin to that which must not be named)... ergo it's just standard (though very popular) fantasy via an imaginative back door.

Gemmell's Jon Shannow books are in a future where the magnetic poles reversed... there is magic there too (jolly good books they are).

I suspect there are others (experts around the forum will know); but as to wizards fighting a Stealth bomber... I don't know.


----------



## thepaladin (Sep 3, 2009)

Much of the "future placed fiction" would probably be better placed in the fantasy catagory rather than SF. That's part of the discussion realy. Often we can't agree on whether a book ins fantasy or science fiction. There are a lot of "post apocoliptic" novels that can go either way. On the Beach, Alas Babalyon...solidly SF but Dies the Fire or Lamentation would probably fall in the fantasy catagory (particularly the first). I've heard the term "science fantasy" used and that would probably apply to a great many novels today.


----------



## Fried Egg (Sep 4, 2009)

Granfalloon said:


> Thanks for the answer FE. It brings another question to my mind. Would you differentiate between the "Dying Earth" sub-genre, and the "post-apocalyptic"  sub-genre (i.e. would Dying Earth be post-"post-apocalyptic"?  )


I would say that the difference between "dying earth" and "post apocalyptic" is that in the former, there has been no catastrophy or global disaster. In the latter, it is this major event that causes a sudden decline of civilization whereas in the former, the decline is gradual over many millennia. The decline, not caused by any singular event, is more due to social stagnation and/or the gradual slow death of the sun, or other natural phenomena.

Also, post apocalyptic is usually in the near future, postulating some disaster that science can explain (or at least is rationalised in some way). They often focus on the impact of the sudden environmental change on society and how people must adapt to their new circiumstances. Far less _fantastical_ usually...


----------



## Marlon (Sep 13, 2009)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> ...snip...
> 
> The reason I asked your age was because the shift from science fiction to fantasy had reached a point where it was noticeable enough that people (professionals in the field and hard-core fans) were discussing it by at least 1989, when my first book was published and I first came to be discussing such things with authors and editors, which means that the drift must have been going on for quite some time byt that point.  SF was still selling better, but Fantasy was finally catching up to the point where SF writers were moaning that Fantasy writers were claiming too much of their shelf space.
> 
> ...snip...



This did affect me.  At the time I didn't notice anything other than the decrease in shelf space that the SFF books had at the supermarket.  But looking back, I realized that I had gradually shifted to reading F almost exclusively, because that's what was there.  LOTR certainly influenced me to include F books in my reading lists, but it was SF that really drew me in and got me to the library every week, along with perusing the local bookshop and supermarket shelves.  

A few years back realizing how far my reading had shifted to F, I made a conscious decision to go back to SF.  I still love the old ones I read, and have been rereading those as well as filling in some gaps with some of those classic authors.  My impression of some of the newer trendy stuff hasn't been so good: Vernor Vinge's Hugo winner -- I gave up on, just couldn't make it through trying to keep track of everything -- too much worldbuilding that made it too fantastic.  Charles Stross' Accelerando took me a long time to get through.  A lot of interesting ideas but just slow going, and although I can't remember why, I didn't like the ending.  I do like most of the work from Greg Bear, David Brin, Jack McDevitt who all tell more traditional tales I guess.  I'm also enjoying the stories (and introductions) in The Hard SF Renaissance with mostly stories of the previous decade from it's publish date of 2002.  

I'm also trending away from F because of the increasingly seemingly repetitive and _lengthy _stories.  There's something to be said for good concise writing with an end.


----------

