# Fantasy or SF



## SirRob (Jan 5, 2003)

Which genre do you prefer? I'd have to say fantasy because thats nearly all the genre fiction I've read but I'm reading more sf and so far I liek it.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 6, 2003)

Sci-fi has a nice tradition of being grounded in some form of reality extended into the future and other worlds/dimensions. This is a great platform for being visionary and speculative, and at the moment it's a genre I'm trying to collect a few books from.

So far as I can tell, Fantasy is primarily escapist, but often lacking that sense of vision. Sometimes there are authors who will use it to great effect to create very believable worlds and experiences. But all too often it is lacking that grand visionary experience. 

Sci-fi could also be less formulated - it really tires myself to see fantasy writers creating yet another poor Tolkien clone of visiting evils that can only be dispelled by joining the men, elves, dwarves, etc together. I find it even more incredible that some authors even keep to this strict theme through various trilogies, where the evil keeps simply rising and falling, rising and falling, rising and falling...

I'm a cynic, though, and to be honest, not as well read as I should be through the genres.


----------



## nemesis (Jan 6, 2003)

Any genre is only as strong as the best authors. Which are the best authors will always be personal taste.


----------



## Survivor (Jan 7, 2003)

Speculative Fiction, no contest.

Of course, I define almost anything I like as being some form of "speculative fiction" (i.e. _The Laughing Sutra_--"What if Monkey [from _Journey to the West_ ] were to reprise his wacky adventures in the modern world?"), so  it may be fair to say that I like what I like and don't like what I don't like...


----------



## SirRob (Jan 7, 2003)

I'd have to say SF is probably a superior genre. As I, Brian sort of said there's far too much hack work on the bookshelves! That said, whenever I read SF (rarely) I'm very picky with what I buy. SF's advantage is its about ideas, but its been dying out for decades now. But not being original is what usually rewards authors in fantasy because many readers just want a nice comfortable, fluffy experience.


----------



## Persephone (Jan 11, 2003)

I got into the whole thing from boyfriends. But pulease it's all for fun. You shouldn't take it so seriously unless your reading Vonnegut or something :


----------



## SirRob (Jan 12, 2003)

Oh pulease, spare us whatever else you have to say. No I *don't* read for *fun*. I mean, who would do that...


----------



## mac1 (Jan 12, 2003)

Judging one genre to be better is difficult, because almost every genre of anything has its sublime and its downright unforgivably awful.

Generally I tend to prefer Science-Fiction, but only because its the genre I am more familiar with. I try not to generalise anything too much as it tends to lead to being overcritical of things. For the most part I find that the fantasy genre is far too influenced by Tolkien. I love Tolkien, but there are far too many authors who feel that through arrogance alone they can write their own Lord Of The Rings. Worse still they sometimes just copy his ideas. Having in the defense of Fantasy authors, it is easier to write Sci-Fi stuff as the subject matter is much broader, and influences are much broader. You can got to any theorectical science website and find the basis for a sci-fi novel. Unfortunatley Fantasy authors dont have this advantage.

One thing that is a shame is the decline of Fantasy on the big screen. In the 80's there was no end of great Fantasy movies, now the genre has all but died on sreen. Hopefully the Lord Of The Rings will recindle the fire.

Yes I probably prefer Sci-Fi, but only because it is more prominant in the media.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 24, 2003)

And on that point, I'm really hoping that "Gladiator" will bring a return to some of those great 1960's Hollywood historical epics.


----------



## dwndrgn (Apr 28, 2003)

Well, I like both but I disagree with what many people are led to believe...all Fantasy is Tolkien-derived.  That is not to say that most of it isn't, but if you look hard, you will find authors that take their own path - Robin Hobb, Alan Dean Foster (his Spellsinger series) are two examples.  The best part of Fantasy (besides the escapism  ) is being able to relate how cultures and people can relate to each other, seeing new views of things that our culture has done...yada yada yada...
Plus, following someone's imagination to another world, completely realized, is an absolute blast. 

Oh, and I agree that there aren't enough fantasy, history and sci fi movies out there these days.  Should we start a petition?  ;D


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 17, 2003)

I have to admit I have a soft spot for speculative fiction at the moment. Don;t feel at all like reading fantasy.


----------



## scifimoth (Jun 1, 2003)

I really can't pick a favorite genre...like so much else what I read at any given moment depends on my mood LOL


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 2, 2003)

Good point - there's a danger here of people wanting to lvie in pigeon-holes - and frankly they're a wee too small for myself. 

On saying that I'd rather read something that will challenge something of my view of the world, and I figure I'm more likely to see that in _speculative fiction_ than in _general fantasy_. However, each genre is very varied, and really it depends upon the focus of the author - some of which will write through both general genres, like Ursula Le Quin (sp).


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Dec 10, 2003)

This is a rather interesting topic, and i'd like to revive it.

I think it was Arthur C Clarke who defined fantasy as dealing with things we know will never happen but wish they could, while SF deals with things we feel might happen, and often wish wouldn't. I totally agree with Brian's comment on pigeonholes, but I do think that there is a fundamental difference in approach between sf and fantasy, as suggested in the Clarke definition. 

I tend to find myself more inclined towards SF, and it really is in the spirit of (yes, another quote, sorry) L Sprague DeCAmp's statement: 'Therefore, no matter how the world makes out in the next few centuries, a large class of readers at least will not be too surprised at anything. They will have been through it all before in fictional form, and will not be too paralyzed with astonishment to try to cope with contingencies as they arise.'

I really do feel that the most exciting aspect of reading sf is the attempt to peer forward through the mists of time and catch a glimpse of what may lie ahead.

In my case, in this short lifetime, I have seen gadgets and concepts first glimpsed in the works of writers like Asimov and Clarke actually becoming reality within my lifetime, even if in slightly different ways than those envisaged by these authors. That's ok - the idea is not to literally predict but to try and anticipate broad patterns. 

Also, there's no better way to raise a warning about some distressing present trend than to give an extrapolation of its possible consequences - this has been a mainstay of 'speculative fiction' ever since HG Wells' The Island of Dr Moreau.

Fantasy relies on a different set of interests or motivations. I think it serves as an allegory - in good fantasy, complex moral or philosophical themes can be played out in a setting which has no pre-concieved connotations. It's also more overtly escapist than SF - this ranges from the rather negative escapism of the cookie-cutter worlds and plots of many novels to the truly exhilirating escape into a totally different setting provided by the best fantasy. 

Nevertheless, I fnd myself unable to get as much into fantasy as sf. Part of the problem is cultural - a lot of fantasy novels constitute a sort of dream-return to an idealised mediaevel European / Celtic setting with added elements of magic and wonder. I'm not European, nor am I of European origin, and beyond a certain point this does alienate or at least leave me cold.

The more important reason is probably temperment. I tend to be the sort of person who lets the past take care of itself and get on with what lies ahead. I tend to think of fantasy as 'something that never happened' and dismiss it, while embracing sf as 'something that just may happen..'. 

I suspect this is the most important point - what sort of person does fantasy or sf appeal to? How are these people different - and alike, since there is so much overlap -  even though I claim to be more into sf I do read a certain amount of fantasy. 

Any theories?


----------



## thecripplewhoiswhole (Dec 11, 2003)

SirRob said:
			
		

> Which genre do you prefer? I'd have to say fantasy because thats nearly all the genre fiction I've read but I'm reading more sf and so far I liek it.


Science Fiction Completely obliterates Fantasy in almost every aspect.  Proof Tad Williams Otherland.  Nothing tops it including Tad William's Memory, Sorrow And Thorn, Or Christopher Paolini's Eragon.  The SF has something that Fantasy never will, interesting technology that envelopes you as you try to figure out how and why it works.


----------



## dwndrgn (Dec 11, 2003)

knivesout said:
			
		

> I really do feel that the most exciting aspect of reading sf is the attempt to peer forward through the mists of time and catch a glimpse of what may lie ahead.


This is probably why I don't read a whole lot of sci fi, I would much rather peer into the future myself than look over the shoulder of someone else.



> In my case, in this short lifetime, I have seen gadgets and concepts first glimpsed in the works of writers like Asimov and Clarke actually becoming reality within my lifetime, even if in slightly different ways than those envisaged by these authors. That's ok - the idea is not to literally predict but to try and anticipate broad patterns.
> 
> Also, there's no better way to raise a warning about some distressing present trend than to give an extrapolation of its possible consequences - this has been a mainstay of 'speculative fiction' ever since HG Wells' The Island of Dr Moreau.


There are tons of ways to raise a warning about a distressing trend, most of them better than in a work of fiction.  While I agree, this is a nice part of a lot of fiction but for the most part other people don't see it this way.  People don't take those warnings, they are too subtle and hidden in a work of fiction that most won't take seriously as 'silly books read by geeks and nerds' (I've heard that from a professor at college before).  Unless some sort of huge controversy surrounds the book or it gets banned, nobody will pay any attention to it other than the group of readers who pretty much already know the type of warning being given.  Unfortunately, it just isn't a practicable way to get a message out.



> Fantasy relies on a different set of interests or motivations. I think it serves as an allegory - in good fantasy, complex moral or philosophical themes can be played out in a setting which has no pre-concieved connotations. It's also more overtly escapist than SF - this ranges from the rather negative escapism of the cookie-cutter worlds and plots of many novels to the truly exhilirating escape into a totally different setting provided by the best fantasy.


Absolutely.  Most fantasies (along with other types of fiction, including sci fi) tend to explore human emotions, morals and philosophical ideals.  I have a strong belief that my personal morals and beliefs have a strong tie to the fiction I read when I was younger.  I find that the more people I meet, the more alone I feel when it comes to 'right and wrong'.  I learned very early that the bad guys get it in the end and the good guys win - even if they had to pass through a whole lot of crap to do so.  A great deal of fantasy deals with moral right and wrong and usually comes out on the 'idealistic' end, but I find that to be refreshing in this day of 'screw everybody, every man for himself'.


> Nevertheless, I fnd myself unable to get as much into fantasy as sf. Part of the problem is cultural - a lot of fantasy novels constitute a sort of dream-return to an idealised mediaevel European / Celtic setting with added elements of magic and wonder. I'm not European, nor am I of European origin, and beyond a certain point this does alienate or at least leave me cold.
> 
> The more important reason is probably temperment. I tend to be the sort of person who lets the past take care of itself and get on with what lies ahead. I tend to think of fantasy as 'something that never happened' and dismiss it, while embracing sf as 'something that just may happen..'.


I'll also agree that a great deal of fantasy seems to base their culture on the European scale.  However, there are quite a few that use African and Asian cultures as well as a base (a good example of this is the Daughter of Empire series by Feist).

So I guess I think of fantasy as an ideal that I wish could have happened and sci fi as a possible future I wouldn't want to happen.  Maybe that is another reason I tend to like fantasy better.  If I'm going to escape reality, why not escape it into something enjoyable and not into something that isn't?

It is an interesting topic.  It is also interesting to compare it with the male/female equation.  Another thread discusses the fact that it seems there are more male sci fi fans than female, but that fantasy seems to be gaining more and more female authors.


----------



## dwndrgn (Dec 11, 2003)

Did I ramble on or what??  Sorry.


----------



## thecripplewhoiswhole (Dec 12, 2003)

dwndrgn said:
			
		

> Did I ramble on or what?? Sorry.


Yeah, a little, but you brang up several interesting points.
Quote: 
This is probably why I don't read a whole lot of sci fi, I would much rather peer into the future myself than look over the shoulder of someone else. 
While you may be "looking over the shoulder of someone else" it still is an amazing thing to comprehend.  Thing that I love most about fiction books, movies and games is the freedom.  The ability to do anything you want.  Yes you could do this on your own and those imaginings may be more vivid, but for me atleast it is easier to put all of the pieces of a story or another world when I can look at from the outside.  To let my self be fully encompassed in a world my mind has to be constantly active trying to find flaws in it, prove to it self that it isn't real.  That to me is one of the many things that make SF better than fantasy, a story that can keep you thinking and guessing when you aren't reading.  Even after you've finished the book it's principles and theories on future technologies can add to your's and enable you to dream bigger, or on a broader amount of things.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Dec 12, 2003)

Ah, this is getting interesting.

It's pretty clear that I'm more of an SF person - I think tempermant is the key, here. Having said that, I must second much of what thecripplewhoiswhole has said. But that's just me. 

Honestly, I am a little dissapointed with the fantasy genre. It seems subject to far too many cliches, too many elves, quests, swords and trilogies...ok, trilogies are looking good now that we have decalogies and still counting. 

Still, there are good works out there- just that very few reach me. Perhaps I should get a little more in touch with fantasy before saying all these things. 

While Sf started as a sort of arm of the great American expansion into everything, over the years it has proven that it can be much more. Ultimately, I find much more variety in SF, and that, more than anything else, may be what keeps me hooked.

As to literature not being a valid forum for warnings - that brings us to the whole debate of whether art can and should have utility at all. Oh, boy...


----------



## dwndrgn (Dec 12, 2003)

knivesout said:
			
		

> As to literature not being a valid forum for warnings - that brings us to the whole debate of whether art can and should have utility at all. Oh, boy...


I'm not saying it isn't a valid forum for warnings, just that it isn't paid attention to as such.  I get the warnings loud and clear.  How many others do?  How many act on those warnings?  How many dismiss them as the ramblings of ultra liberal anarchists?

Art definitely has utility - even if it isn't meant to.  We have a use for beauty, it makes us feel.  Even if by glancing at a favorite painting, a smile is brought to our faces, that is useful.  Should it?  Why not?  Should utilitarian objects be artistic?  Why not?  If we've got to use the darned washing machine, it might as well look good while we're at it.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Dec 15, 2003)

> I'm not saying it isn't a valid forum for warnings, just that it isn't paid attention to as such.


Sad, but true. History teaches us nothing, and art, even less, it would seem. Still, I'm idealistic enough to hope that if even one person reads something and gets to thinking, some purpose has been served, after all. 

It's odd, though, that I should associate generes usually associated with escapism with this sort of purpose. I guess, at least on the face of it, it's fair to expect most people to take any such use of sf/fantasy as rather ludicrous. Still, some sort of invented setting does seem to be the favoured way for people since the time of Plato and his Republic to convey serious messages. And it's worth recalling that George Orwell and Aldous Huxley, both of whom had previously written realistic novels set in contemporary times, chose to wander into territory since claimed by speculative fiction to express their deepest fears about the future. On the other hand, Tolkien claimed no allegorical subtexts for his work - but then again, I think the very act of crafting what he admitted was meant as a mythology for his country, is in itself a sort of message, underlining the importance of legend and the fantastic in forming a basis for everyday real life. 

We've always lived on collective dreams dreamed for us by priests, prophets and shamans. I see fantastic fiction at it's best as a modern, secular alternative or addition to that. At it's worst, it's still entertainment, and that is a great good too,I think.


----------



## dwndrgn (Dec 15, 2003)

You are right - if even one person takes a morality message to heart then it has done some good.  It's the same concept that police officers work under.  There may be more and more crime but each criminal stopped is just that, one more out of commission, thus some good has been done and their existence is justified.

It is funny you mention 'collective dreams'.  I just read a book, The Heretic by Bernard Cornwell and it showed an interesting part of religion - humanizing it.  The fact that a person can be excommunicated by another person, a person who may be the 'servant of God' but still human and flawed, is amazing to me.  I found myself yelling at the main character to realize that faith cannot be taken away, it is a part of you.  Of course, the book was set in a period long ago when priests had much more power over individuals than what you would see today - their words were _from God_, no matter what they said.  In any case, I won't discuss more here, that is for the religions forum.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Dec 16, 2003)

Bernard Cornwell...the name is oddly familiar. Tell me more?


----------



## dwndrgn (Dec 16, 2003)

knivesout said:
			
		

> Bernard Cornwell...the name is oddly familiar. Tell me more?


He writes historical fiction - very battle oriented.  His most famous series is the Sharpe series which was also televised on PBS.  This series focuses on a British soldier, Richard Sharpe, who joins the army in order to escape a charge of murder and becomes one of their sharpshooters, using a rifle as opposed to a musket.  It follows his career as a soldier, through many famous (and some not so famous as the author likes to take a little bit of artistic license with the actual battles themselves although most everything else is very historically accurate as far as I can tell.) battles.  I'm not sure why I enjoy these (not typically my style) but I picked up one of his other stories out of pure curiosity as it was in the new releases section and was about archery (a favorite subject).  I loved his work and then read all of the rest that I could get a hold of.  I can't recall which one is first of the series but they all have titles such as 'Sharpe's Trafalgar' or 'Sharpe's Eagle' and suchlike.  I'm sure that you can find more on Amazon to figure out any titles you might be interested in or at least might look for when next in the used book shop.

If you are into historical fiction, they are a good read.  If you are into military history they are also a very good read.  Cornwell always ends each book by outlining what parts he has embellished, created whole and what bits are actual fact when it comes to the battles - a major bonus for me as I'm not well versed in military history and I tend to learn a bit accidentally this way 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Dec 17, 2003)

Ah, yes! Now I remember. I have read one of the Sharpe books - Sharpe's Tiger, because it was set in Srirangapatnam (Seringapatnam, as it's spelled in the book) which is in the same state I live in, Karnataka. it was quite a thrilling book. Anyway, we're way off topic now, but that's OK, I guess.


----------



## jerchar (Dec 29, 2003)

Well in what genre would you put Ann McCaffrey's Pern Saga???? It has ingredients of sf and fantasy.
I admit that I prefer fantasy because what I need is magic and not technology, but I don't understand why people try to pull one or the other genre through mud, just let people read what they hunger for and don't judge them. Believe me, I know what it means to be judged by what you read and by what you belive in, it just hurts people and it is completely gratuitous. Personally I think that the important thing is that someone reads and gets his/her brain working.


----------



## thecripplewhoiswhole (Dec 29, 2003)

I don't think anyone here is trying to insult anyone else's preferences in reading merely expressing their own inclinations towards reading.  These forum atleast to me are friendly arguements.  As to your question about the Pern Saga its really your own choice seeing as different people have different ideas about what is included in the genres.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Dec 30, 2003)

> Personally I think that the important thing is that someone reads and gets his/her brain working.


Cheers to that!


----------



## dwndrgn (Dec 30, 2003)

knivesout said:
			
		

> Cheers to that!


I'll raise a glass to that!  (Actually a cup of coffee, but who's checking?!)


----------



## SDNess (Jan 4, 2004)

I can't really chose. I am mixed between the two. Truthfully, I group the two genres together as one. I read from both. 



> The SF has something that Fantasy never will, interesting technology that envelopes you as you try to figure out how and why it works.


That is not always the case in SF. It does not have to deal with technology. It can deal with many other factors: society, morality, etc.

Maybe _hard_ science fiction is what you are talking about.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jan 5, 2004)

Here is a quote from Ursula Le Guin that is relevant to the discussion:




> Space travel and other-world beings are wonderful ideas, very useful to story tellers; you can say things about us and our world by talking about other beings and other worlds -- imaginary ones -- that you couldn't say any other way. But it has nothing to do with predicting an imminent possibility, and nothing to do with belief. You know, I write about dragons, too, for the same reason, but I don't think dragons exist outside the human mind ... The imagination is our most useful tool, and it's most useful when it isn't taken literally!


It does more or less destroy some of my points in favour of SF earlier, but dwndrgn pretty  much refuted them too, and I'm willing to accept this is more realistic.


----------



## dwndrgn (Jan 5, 2004)

Nice quote!  Imagination is everything, and everyone's is different.  That's what makes it so fun.


----------



## nemogbr (Jan 25, 2004)

It would have to be Sci Fi for me, although I tend to switch between the two depending on whether any of my favourite authors write another book.

Here's a question would you think of Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champions series more fantasy or sci fi?

In sci fi I have started seeing a trend to go more forward in time than before. They did tend to settle for something about a hundred years from now rather than a few millenia.


----------



## Dale (Feb 2, 2004)

Sure; there are big rip off's of Tolkien. But most of them surfaced and died around 20 years after LOTR. You'll continually find less and less elves in books until eventually something else gets ripped off.

That said, a lot of writers base their works on history. But I like fantasy writing, it generally involves a lot of religion in most cases, and although the swords and sorcery style storys have been done to death, you'll still find great pieces of fiction.

Science-fiction really doesn't float my boat. Most SF I've encountered has been Cyberpunk stuff, and that seems less original than Tolkien rip-offs. Take a city, give it hover cars and plasma rifles, and you've got yourself a lousy piece of un-original fiction.

Theres unoriginality and rip-offs in every genre.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Feb 2, 2004)

nemogbr - I'd place Moorcock's Eternal Champion right on the intersection of fantasy and sf. Hard to pin it down more than that.


----------



## riffraff (Feb 19, 2004)

dwndrgn said:
			
		

> It is an interesting topic. It is also interesting to compare it with the male/female equation. Another thread discusses the fact that it seems there are more male sci fi fans than female, but that fantasy seems to be gaining more and more female authors.


well how many times do you see attractive nubile young female alians compared to the number of times you see attractive nubile young male alians? compare the outfits of borg and counciller troy for sex appeal and it may become apparant why there is a large male interest in sci-fi  

soz- thats not a proper reason but it is kind of amusing


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Feb 19, 2004)

Well, if you're going to talk about SF films and serials... 


Seriously though, I take your point, but I would point out that, for instance, Sigourney Weaver's character in the Alien movies was certainly a quantum leap forward in this respect.


----------



## riffraff (Feb 19, 2004)

have not seen those yet.  to be honest I've only seen star trek once because someone wrote a rocky horror parody of it and I wanted to know what the charactors looked like  .  I prefer reading, and yeah most of the authors of sci-fi are male, so most of the main charactors are male, so most of the readers are male.  If females appear in sci-fi books they tend to be relegated to the role of attractive female companion.  bit of a bummer if you're a female sci-fi addict


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Feb 19, 2004)

I can imagine. On that note, a quick couple of reccomendations:  
Theodore Sturgeon: Venus Plus X

Joanna Russ: The Female Man 

Both are sf novels that take the whole gender conundrum head-on, with interesting results.

Classic Sf is perhaps overtly male in its concerns - exploration, conquest, that sort of thing - but I think things are more varied now. Fantasy novels do seem to have a greater number of strong female characters though, for whatever reason. I could be wrong on that.


----------



## riffraff (Feb 19, 2004)

thanx


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Feb 23, 2004)

This will be very contentious (I hope!) but check out autor China Mieville's very interesting views on fantasy: http://www.panmacmillan.com/Features/China/debate.htm 
In some ways, he parallels Michael Moorcock's views, especially on Tolkien. 


-I agree with much of what he says. What do you think?


----------



## Whoknew5 (Feb 23, 2004)

> Any genre is only as strong as the best authors. Which are the best authors will always be personal taste.


Nemesis, I agree. Each genre has its own highlights and downfalls. I like sci fi for its creative thinking which is often science based. But I love the way some fantasy writers are able to create an entire world based on nothing we are familiar with.


----------



## tschurter (Feb 26, 2004)

For my 2 cents, I really enjoy both COMPLETELY dependent on the quality of writing.

Great Fantasy - Grrrreeeeaaaat!

Great SciFi - Grrrreeeeaaaat!

Of course, the definition of great is completely determined by the individual reader - long live individual choice and opinion!

PS - SciFi really falls into two categories: Hard Science Fiction and everything NOT hard science fiction. Personally I prefer the later though I do enjoy both.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Feb 27, 2004)

Interestingly, I have recently been alternating between SF and fantasy, and I find that life is much more fun this way. 


Although, I have to be a lot more careful in picking my fantasy reads, as I tend to prefer the darker, more offbeat works in the genre.


----------



## Ahdkaw (Mar 5, 2004)

Interesting thread this. I'm more into Science Fiction myself, but then I have read Fantasy in the past, although LoTR bored me to tears and now cannot stand anything by Tolkien. I really enjoyed the Thomas Covenent series (the first set, second set were rubbish IMHO), and a couple of others, but that's the only one that really stands out in my mind.

When it comes to Science Fiction though, I have read as much as I can over the years, and for one specific genre, it sure has a hell of a lot of sub-genres to it (Detective, Humour, etc). My favourites (to name a few) include The War Against The Chtorr by David Gerrold, Babylon 5: Legions of Fire by Peter David, Nights Dawn Trilogy by Peter Hamilton, and quite a few more that I can't carry on listing like some kinda drone.

But then there is the Fantasy/Science Fiction crossover that a certain authoress by the name of Julian May did so well with The Sage of The Exiles (Fantasy with hints of Science Fiction) and The Galactic Milieu Trilogy (Science Fiction with a hint of Fantasy). So, it's best not to write the genre off completely, it has it's uses after all... 

_*rubs chin*_


----------



## BlueSkelton (Jun 17, 2004)

When you write something as immensely popular as the saga Tolkien 
wrote it inevitably becomes an institution.  Everyone wants a little peace 
of the pie so the hacks circle and exploit anything they can get their hands 
on.  It is the same way with George Lucas (by that i mean old star wars not 
the braindead crap he puts out these days). I ve read at least 3 novels containing huge moonlike structures with the capacity to destroy an entire 
planet.  There are hack writers in ever genre seeking to make a living off other 
people's sucess.  It is far better to adapt and add aspects of a truly creative and talented writer as your own.  In the long run it is better to pay tribute than to emulate.  For every good sci/fi fantasy book out there, there are about 100-1000 poor imitations of those books.  Unless im in the mood for some pulp sci fi or fantasy (bad writing will teach you far more about writng than anything u can emulate from the masters).  If you become a disciple of one of the masters you will forever be trapped by their writing style.  You will be judged according to their standards rather than your own.  It is far better to let them influence you and write in your own style.  Quentin tarantino is the writer i most admire (i would argue that he is a fantasy writer even thou his realms and characters are semi-realistic)  Science Fiction and Fantasy both have excellent novels and stories to offer.  It really just depends on what genre you prefer.  I prefer the gritty hard hitting novelists like heinlein, tolkien, early Elron Hubbard (final blackout).  Burt Cole (the Quick) or phillip k dick.  I am a sci fi fantasy nut and i really prefer it when they mix the two genres together.  i feel that will become more prominent in the future.  Serials like shadowrun can be an amusing experience.  The storylines of shadowrun can be a little trite but the world is rich and entertaining.  Post apocalyptic Fantasy is a genre i feel has not been explored fully and i am looking forward to reading more of it.  I just wish the filmakers wouldnt botch good sci fi books and tarnesh its reputation.  Starship Troopers was a mockery that made Heinlein roll over in his grave i am sure.  There are so many good novels in both genres it really is tough to argue which genre is superior.


----------



## thecripplewhoiswhole (Jun 17, 2004)

BlueSkelton said:
			
		

> ...I am a sci fi fantasy nut and i really prefer it when they mix the two genres together. i feel that will become more prominent in the future. Serials like shadowrun can be an amusing experience. The storylines of shadowrun can be a little trite but the world is rich and entertaining. Post apocalyptic Fantasy is a genre i feel has not been explored fully and i am looking forward to reading more of it... There are so many good novels in both genres it really is tough to argue which genre is superior.


As a shadowrun player, I can say that yes the storylines may be horribly unoriginal sometimes, but that just encourages us to make our own storylines.  That makes the immense world of SR even more interesting.  I too look forward to seeing the combinations of both SF and Fantasy, things both strange and wonderful happen when the worlds of magic and technology collide.


----------



## rune (Jun 17, 2004)

I prefer Fantasy, especially dark fantasy


----------



## BlueSkelton (Jun 17, 2004)

Im glad to know people still play shadowrun. I played 

it often when i was a kid and thought maybe it had died 

off. Is there new material coming out or is it just based off 

the older stuff? And i dont want to put a negative spin

on shadowrun. Any series of books with multiple authors contributing

(what do you call this kind of book series? If you could tell me I would

apreciate it greatly if not i will check the bookstore when i go.) is bound to 

have authors who arent as good as others.Do You know of any shadowrun fan 

fiction? But i would like to say that

some of the Shadowrun stories are excellent and exemplify the rich 

creative world of Shadowrun. Thanks for responding to my post Crip


----------



## Ivo (Jun 25, 2004)

I prefer Sci-Fi over Fantasy for the most part.  However, it seems that there is a weird balance between the two.  

There are plenty of Sci-Fi shows around but very few are any good imo.  There really isn't much Fantasy made but they tend to be better or maybe LOTR just tipped the scales a bit.  I don't know.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jun 9, 2021)

I like both but do have tenancy to gravitate towards fantasy .


----------



## psikeyhackr (Jun 14, 2021)

We live in a world where decisions must be made about what to do with e-waste not dragon poop. I had a conversation with a man who carried an Automobile magazine around and said he loved cars. He didn't know a crank shaft from a cam shaft.

So now we have a sub-genre called cli-fi. I bet we will be over 3 degrees C by 2100, but I think all discussion of economics since 1960 that didn't mention planned obsolescence is bullsh**.





__





						Economic Wargames
					





					www.spectacle.org


----------

