Why do you choose fantasy over science fiction and visa versa

[Pyan]

I tend to go by author, rather that genre...as when I discovered Lois Bujold, I read all her SF Vorkosigan books, and her Fantasy Challion series as well.

 

[Nikitta]

I like both, though I might lean a bit more towards sci-fi than fantasy, but it's often a mood thing: sometimes I'm in the mood for sci-fi and sometimes I'm in the mood for fantasy and after reading one for a while, I suddenly feel like reading the other for a while.

Both are represented in my to read pile http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/43484-my-to-read-pile.html

The world I most frequently day dream myself away to is Middle Earth. I might be developing a fascination with that place.

 

[gully_foyle]

I love fantasy, and I've tried a few sci fi books and I mostly find them stripped of nature and emotion. I think Dune was the last sci fi book I read and it left me depressed, even though it was very creative and very well written. Compare this to Feist, which I am reading, where there is a sense of the unexplained fantastic, quests venturing into the unknown, and the limitations that a medieval world provides.

So your user name is not taken from the starship GSV "Hilarious Joke" in Iain M Banks' Culture novels?

Me, I read alot of fantasy in my yoof, but now I'm mostly interested in a good mind bending type SF story, with or without technology. So if you can point me to fantasy that is outside of the boy meets dragon stereotype (I can hear the knives sharpening and the claws extending) then please advise me.

 

[Lucien21]

I certainly swing both ways depending on mood I will read Sci-fi until I feel a change and switch to Fantasy or Horror.

Probably safer to say I prefer Sci-Fi as I prefer to look forward and not backwards.

Fantasy always feels limited in it's setting and gets to be a bit samey always being in a medieval/middle earth (Certainly a pretechnology world) type world.

I always feel Sci-Fi has no limitations in past, present or future within the entire span of the galaxy.

 

[Nesacat]

I don't choose per se. I read both and tend to pick up books if it's sounds interesting. Okay it helps that most of the bookstores here just lump them all together with horror as well. Some of them are making attempts to separate them but we've a long way to go.

Admittedly I'm not very good with very technical books as it often takes me a while to work all the science out and I sometimes have to re-read quite a bit. other times I skim.

But at the end of the day I'll pick up a book if the blurb and a couple of pages sink their hooks in.

 

[Taltos]

I'm in the reading everything camp - sometimes 2 to 3 fantasy or SF books in a row - but usually jumping between genres as otherwise it would get boring. After some castles I just need a good spaceship and when both castles and spaceships get boring there are urban myths, steam- or cyber-punk, thats why I love SF/Fanstasy there are so many sub-genres to choose from.

 

[nixie]

I lean more towards fantasy. Although I like to watch sci fi(Dr Who,Star Trek, Stargate etc) reading about it never really appealed .

 

[j d worthington]

I've written over 17 SF books in the past two decades, and have only gotten two of them published. Just recently my agent and I decided that the market for SF is so pityfully small, that I would stand a better chance for large house publication with dark urban fantasy or paranormal romance. It was a business decision only. Therefore, I guess you could say that I've gone fantasy, abandoning the genre that I've loved and written in for so many years.

Two things rather upset me about this thread. One is the above quote -- for someone who loves both aspects of literature, and is always glad to see the field expand and grow, this just makes me want to shake people until their teeth rattle.

The other is this perception of sf as all "techy" and fantasy as all set in a medieval or faux-medieval (or at least pre-technological -- using the phrase in its common sense) world, and featuring quests, elves, wizards, etc. Nothing could be farther from the truth in either case, and shows a sadly limited awareness of the riches to be found in either one. I really cannot strongly enough urge those who love either (and may be at all open to the other, if especially prone to one) to explore them both; please don't limit yourself to what is currently available on bookshelves, or what's hot or popular; get some older anthologies that have a wider representation; read the editors' introductions and suggested readings -- each of these tend to be great openers of doors toward discovering the vast number of writers of all stripes in either field -- two fields which really are very closely related, and often intertwine -- who offer a much, much broader range than falls into the common perception. Read some of the classics in the field; don't be put off because they're older books, or because they're not by people you've read before; the vast majority of those you can find are going to be entertaining, thought-provoking, reads, and you may find a lot of new favorites this way. Add to that the fact that doing such will also help to get rid of this stultifying perception of both branches of writing (and thereby helping to once again broaden the potential for types of stories writers in either field can write and sell), and there really is very little bad that can come of doing such....

 

[D_Davis]

Science Fiction. I enjoy well written science fiction because it offers a ton of insight into the human condition while it is also entertaining. I've never really considered sci-fi a "gearhead" genre, and it's sad that it is perceived this way. A lot of the sci-fi I read is very humanistic, and the sci-fi elements allow the author to examine things from a perspective limited only by the imagination. Authors like Alfred Bester, Theodore Sturgeon, Philip K. Dick, Simak, J.G. Ballard, and so on. I just don't get anything from typical "fantasy," except for a good story, sometimes. And this is cool, but I love the insight my favorite sci-fi gives me.

However, I do really like some urban-fantasy, with stuff like Stephan King and Clive Barker and others, and one of my favorite stories of all time is the Elric Saga, so go figure. The fantasy genre is open up to a lot more than just Tolkien-esque stuff, it is a shame that this stuff isn't more popular and widely available.

 

[elvet]

to j.d. - thank you for the recommendations. I'll check them out on my next trip to Chapters.

There are so many good comments posted:

The other is this perception of sf as all "techy" and fantasy as all set in a medieval or faux-medieval (or at least pre-technological -- using the phrase in its common sense) world, and featuring quests, elves, wizards, etc. Nothing could be farther from the truth in either case, and shows a sadly limited awareness of the riches to be found in either one. I really cannot strongly enough urge those who love either (and may be at all open to the other, if especially prone to one) to explore them both; please don't limit yourself to what is currently available on bookshelves, or what's hot or popular; get some older anthologies that have a wider representation; read the editors' introductions and suggested readings -- each of these tend to be great openers of doors toward discovering the vast number of writers of all stripes in either field -- two fields which really are very closely related, and often intertwine -- who offer a much, much broader range than falls into the common perception. Read some of the classics in the field; don't be put off because they're older books, or because they're not by people you've read before; the vast majority of those you can find are going to be entertaining, thought-provoking, reads, and you may find a lot of new favorites this way.

Well put. Time to check out the beginning of the genre bookshelves where the anthologies hang out.

Probably safer to say I prefer Sci-Fi as I prefer to look forward and not backwards.

A nice way to put it, and perhaps another reason why I like F better. I like the connection to the past that most fantasy brings. I never was much of a history buff, but I now find myself watching BBC shows about midieval history and weaponry . Once technology comes on board, history loses its appeal. I'm also not very interested in space travel, either current or projected. I do like time travel but only when it's backwards in time. I loved Crichton's Timeline.

I tend to go by author, rather that genre...as when I discovered Lois Bujold, I read all her SF Vorkosigan books, and her Fantasy Challion series as well.

I've thought about this. I'm actually looking for Stephen Donaldson's Gap books and Julian May's Pliocene Exiles. I like Bujold's fantasy works, thanks for the heads up about her SF series.

 

[Lith]

Okay it helps that most of the bookstores here just lump them all together with horror as well. Some of them are making attempts to separate them but we've a long way to go.

Bad idea! Bad idea!

JD, those definitions certainly don't represent the breadth of either field, or the best, but you have to admit that both fields are dominated by such? A quick look through library shelves has me putting most things right back where I found them, because the fantasy so frequently is just another pseudo-medieval world with magician's guilds, dragons, and evil dark lords.

But as my New Year's resolution was to knock a number of "Top 50 SF&F" titles off my unread pile, I will be reading more SF this year, and trying out new authors.

 

[Werthead]

Why do you choose fantasy over science fiction and visa versa

I don't. I cut my teeth on SF as a ten-year-old when I started reading Asimov and Clarke, and got into fantasy later through Pratchett, Brooks, Eddings and Tolkien. I also read historical fiction and factual histories and science books. I don't see the logic of limiting myself to one genre, although I admit a preference towards SF and Fantasy.

That said, I think it's very, very hard to write engaging science fiction. Harder than it is to write entertaining 'stock' fantasy. SF tends to rely on ideas and technologies that have to be communicated to the reader without swamping them with detail at the expense of character or story. It's very easy for SF books to get caught up in their gizmos and forget about creating decent, empathic characters (see Gregory Benford or late-period Greg Bear). I find it interesting that the most popular SF novel of all time - Dune - is basically an epic fantasy with some spaceships and chemicals to justify magic thrown in.

The best modern SF authors - Peter F. Hamilton, Alastair Reynolds, David Brin, Richard Morgan - understand how to combine characters, storylines and technology to create excellent works, whilst the best modern epic fantasy writers usually can concentrate much more on the characters and storylines and rely less on creating amazing new scientific ideas or pieces of technology.

My favourite authors of the moment - George RR Martin, Steven Erikson, Scott Bakker, Peter F. Hamilton, Richard Morgan - interestingly all dabble in both genres quite successfully.

 

[Connavar]

For me its simple i find okay/good SF much more interesting than Fantasy of the same quality. I prefer the different types of SF much more than many of the types of Fantasy.

Only really good fantasy work for me. The "stock" Fantasy Werthead is talking doesnt work for me. I cant enjoy generic Epic Fantasy etc I want more original stuff than most of the fantasy that dominate today.

The fantasy i like are dark,supernatural,more real characters(ala Gemmell).

Small subgenres like Heroic Fantasy,Urban Fantasy,Historical Fantasy i like to read.

Also the reason i enjoy SF much more is the so called Golden Age SF, there are so many great authors from yesterday. I cant get enough of them.

Ultimately its like someone said in earler pages i follow authors and not genres. The reason i love SF so much are cause most my fav authors are SF writers. Dick,Heinlein,Vance and co

Fantasy only favs are Gemmell,Robert E Howard,Vance,Powers.


Werthead: Richard Morgan hasnt actually realesed a Fantasy book yet until he shows he can do it well he is still SF only

He is a fav of mine too. I was alittle dissapointed when i heard him releasing a Fantasy, i wanted a TK type SF book.

 

[D_Davis]

I must be reading the wrong (read: right!) science fiction, because rarely do I come across a story captivated by technology and gizmos. Out of all of the genres and literature I've read, I feel as though science fiction is the most humanistic in its approach because it is able to evaluate and examine humanity and our current situations through a lens pointed at the future and a perspective removed enough from the present to allow for greater and more interesting insight. It can examine topics in ways unrestricted ways - it is, perhaps, the only genre where there are no boundaries of what can happen.

I mean, sure, cyber-punk is often mired in techno-babble and jargon, and there are outlandish technologies found in a lot of sci-fi, but rarely do I come across an author or a story in which these things are more important than the very real, emotional, and humanistic theme of the narrative.

I guess I should consider myself lucky to have avoided all this gearhead sci-fi. It's strange to me how vastly different other people's perception of science fiction is. Just by reading some of the greats like Sturgeon, Bester, Ballard, Dick, Le Guin, Simak, and others should negate any kind of perception that sci-fi is technology based.

I guess it is the same as people who thing of "fantasy" and immediately think of Dungeons and Dragons or Tolkien, rather than thinking of something like The Dark Tower, The Talisman, or Weaveworld, and other fantasy stories not confined by the limits often thrust upon the genre.

 

[Urien]

I find that I gravitate more to fantasy than sci-fi these days.

However, very few fantasy works grab me, there seems to be a great deal of "filler", politically/emotionally, court intrigue dense. This is not my cup of tea; a lot of fantasy these days veers perilously close to the romance genre.

Then there are the mechanical LotR rip offs. Some of these can be entertaining to me, as I fundamentally enjoy the quest/problem resolve story structure.

Top of the pile for me: Good heroic fantasy, David Gemmell (sadly missed), some Glen Cook. Intelligent and complex fantasy, Erikson and the like.

I can read well written urban or weird fantasy, though I struggle through the unlikley juxtapositions.

On Sci-fi I tend to go for the space opera of Hamilton, Asher and Banks. I find the B's, Baxter, Benford and the like as dry as old toast and their characters shuffling human cut outs. Their purpose merely to illustrate, the often very interesting, central ideas.

Gah I need new writers. Please Helllllllp.

 

[Connavar]

I must be reading the wrong (read: right!) science fiction, because rarely do I come across a story captivated by technology and gizmos. Out of all of the genres and literature I've read, I feel as though science fiction is the most humanistic in its approach because it is able to evaluate and examine humanity and our current situations through a lens pointed at the future and a perspective removed enough from the present to allow for greater and more interesting insight. It can examine topics in ways unrestricted ways - it is, perhaps, the only genre where there are no boundaries of what can happen.

I mean, sure, cyber-punk is often mired in techno-babble and jargon, and there are outlandish technologies found in a lot of sci-fi, but rarely do I come across an author or a story in which these things are more important than the very real, emotional, and humanistic theme of the narrative.

I guess I should consider myself lucky to have avoided all this gearhead sci-fi. It's strange to me how vastly different other people's perception of science fiction is. Just by reading some of the greats like Sturgeon, Bester, Ballard, Dick, Le Guin, Simak, and others should negate any kind of perception that sci-fi is technology based.

I guess it is the same as people who thing of "fantasy" and immediately think of Dungeons and Dragons or Tolkien, rather than thinking of something like The Dark Tower, The Talisman, or Weaveworld, and other fantasy stories not confined by the limits often thrust upon the genre.

Good point people that say SF is only about gizmo and techs havent read much SF and authors who are famous for social oriented SF like many of the greats.


It is dissapointing when people say something like that.

I can understand mainstream people that dont read alot of books and that think SF is only what they see from hollywood but to hear it from an actual book reading fan......

 

[elvet]

Good point people that say SF is only about gizmo and techs havent read much SF and authors who are famous for social oriented SF like many of the greats.

Which is why I asked for some suggestions .

 

[Connavar]

Which is why I asked for some suggestions .

I didnt mean you i meant Werthead post.


Which kind of SF are you interested in ?

 

[D_Davis]

Which is why I asked for some suggestions .

1. Theodore Sturgeon - check out More Than Human and To Marry Medusa, or anything by him really. Except for Godbody - I don't know if I can recommend this, yet.
2. Alfred Bester - read Virtual Unrealities (short stories) or The Demolished Man
3. Philip K. Dick - A Scanner Darkly, UBIK, The Transmigration of Timothy Archer, The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch
4. Ursula K. Le Guin - The Lathe of Heaven
5. Clifford D. Simak - Waystation
6. Harlen Ellison - I Have no Mouth and I Must Scream
8. Walter M. Miller Jr. - A Canticle for Leibowitz


There are a lot. These are just some of the authors I can remember off the top of my head.

 

[Rane Longfox]

I enjoy gizmo-ey sci-fi, personally. Nothing like a bit of kick-ass technology to spice up a story