Defend Your Favorite -- SF or Fantasy (split off from "Race to 100")
- Thread starter Connavar
- Start date
Culhwch
Lost Boy
Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100
And for every... wait, I can't think of a single decent SF writer to throw that statement back at you.
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.
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 ...
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
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
- Messages
- 8,411
Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100
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.
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
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
- Messages
- 8,411
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.
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.
Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100
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 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
⚡
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2008
- Messages
- 5,324
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.
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.)
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.
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
]==[]===O °
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.
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
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
- Messages
- 8,411
Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Lost Boy
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...
It's always the way, isn't it? Science fiction fans just think they're so much better than us...
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2008
- Messages
- 3,282
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.
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
Lost Boy
Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100
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.
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.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2008
- Messages
- 3,282
Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100
Cul: What do you mean - That's what I wear to work now.
Cul: What do you mean - That's what I wear to work now.
AE35Unit
]==[]===O °
Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100
Err no. I read both SF and fantasy,depending on my mood. And anyway all fiction is technically fantasy.
Err no. I read both SF and fantasy,depending on my mood. And anyway all fiction is technically fantasy.
Culhwch
Lost Boy
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.
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.
Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100
Casual readers have a prejudice against both, and read neither.
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
Casual readers have a prejudice against both, and read neither.
Culhwch said:
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
read with more attention than you guys who like six-armed aliens with green skin and ichor flowing through their veins, do you?
J-Sun
⚡
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2008
- Messages
- 5,324
Re: Science Fiction v Fantasy: Race to 100
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
Similar threads
-
the defender of the old women cant remember title need help
- Started by kyle lovell
- Replies: 0
-
-
