Poll: Fantasy or Scifi?

[Darken12]

Ok, I'm sorry, but this all sounds like "Fantasy can't happen, therefore its less fanboyish and 'Squee, this is awesome'-ish than Sci-Fi", which is false.
Ignoring the fact that other types of Sci-Fi exist, and it seems to be mostly you putting the mindset of "The future will be THIS awesome" sort of mindset onto them, the exact same stuff happens in Fantasy. Same cautionary tales. Same "Wouldn't it be awesome if this could happen?" and same throwing magic into the real world sort of shit.

Sci-fi also isn't more possible to happen than Fantasy, as your last paragraph would imply. FTL - no. Pulse lasers than move so slow you can see them? No. Time travel? No.
Yeah, "If we're wrong about the laws of Physics then that could happen" is true, however if we're wrong about the laws of Physics Magic and shit could happen too, it just depends on what we're wrong about.

You're justification for your opinion doesn't really cut it for me. Seems more like your problem of looking to the future enthusiastically, and the extent of what you're willing to believe, than something wrong with Sci-Fi as a genre. Could be misinterpretting something though, but that's what it comes across as.

Any author who tries to put a cautionary tale in a Fantasy novel is out of his mind, as the entire point of a cautionary tale is to say "Beware, reader! This might actually happen!" which is quite impossible to pull off in Fantasy, as any non-child will tell you. I think you're confusing the cautionary tale with mere exploration of human fallibility and/or the inclusion of moralising in an author's writing, which isn't restricted to Fantasy, Sci-Fi or any particular genre.

As for the rest, I saw it mentioned before that there's a difference between "soft" sci-fi and "hard" sci-fi. My first flavour ("The future will be so awesome!") is hard sci-fi, which is considered to be highly plausible extrapolating from current science. The third flavour (throwing random things and seeing what sticks) is soft sci-fi, and while it's definitely better than the smugness of hard sci-fi, it's still unbearable fanboyish in its overuse of "coolness" while still trying to sell the idea of "in a galaxy far away, in the distant future" that sci-fi as a whole is so fond of.

Bottom line is, I don't like people who are certain of the future, much less those who are overly enthusiastic about their views. It stinks of insufferable, smug arrogance. This, of course, isn't reserved to sci-fi authors either. I loathe "high literature" because of its smugness and pretentiousness as well. I cannot stand authors who believe themselves to be geniuses or who think themselves superior to others.

 

[Joccaren]

Bottom line is, I don't like people who are certain of the future, much less those who are overly enthusiastic about their views. It stinks of insufferable, smug arrogance. This, of course, isn't reserved to sci-fi authors either. I loathe "high literature" because of its smugness and pretentiousness as well. I cannot stand authors who believe themselves to be geniuses or who think themselves superior to others.

Thing is, most Sci-Fi authors aren't certain of the future. You come up with an idea of "This would be cool" and roll with it. Mass Effect isn't saying we're going to meet Aliens and have ancient evil being invade from Darkspace, and fly around in spaceships using Mass Effect fields to pick people up and shit. Its saying "You know what would be cool, if [x] happened!". Its the same shit fantasy does, just in space as opposed to in generic medieval world 101 [And yes I know they are not the only settings for either one].

 

[Darken12]

Thing is, most Sci-Fi authors aren't certain of the future. You come up with an idea of "This would be cool" and roll with it. Mass Effect isn't saying we're going to meet Aliens and have ancient evil being invade from Darkspace, and fly around in spaceships using Mass Effect fields to pick people up and shit. Its saying "You know what would be cool, if [x] happened!". Its the same shit fantasy does, just in space as opposed to in generic medieval world 101 [And yes I know they are not the only settings for either one].

Mass Effect is soft sci-fi, it's definitely less smug than hard sci-fi, but it still makes me quite leery to read "Earth, year 2234..." and things like that. I just don't like it. I don't like the idea of someone portraying how the future is going to be, even if they don't think it will really happen like that. I can stomach historical fiction a lot more than sci-fi because history has already happened, and we all know it didn't happen the way historical fiction says it did (otherwise it wouldn't be historical fiction) and therefore carries the same implications of assumed unreality as Fantasy. Urban Fantasy is along the same lines; it's the present, and we all know that vampires and wizards don't exist.

Sci-fi? I just cannot stomach fiction that tries to "educate" the reader (like all those god-awful Dan Brown books, which are not only smug, but also poorly researched, or anything Michael Crichton ever wrote), thinks it's smarter than its audience or, as I mentioned before, is oh so certain about the future.

 

[Thommo]

Science Fiction and fantasy can be very similar to each other. Space Operas in particular can be some very similar to fantisy (Just change Magic to Science and you are done)Personally i prefer Sci-Fi because, at the moment, fantasy is a bit repetitive in its use of characters and bad guys and whatnot.

sci fi is eye-rollingly cheerful and optimistic (yes, even things like WH40K and Event Horizon, because pretty much all of sci fi is the author squeeing with delight at how awesome the future is going to be, even the dystopias)

I am not sure if you know this, or even have read this, but Orwell's 1984 was a sci-fi. there was nothing cheerful about that book.

Edit: Just realized that my point has already been made with Orwell and stuff so if you have seen it just go ahead and ignore it. (if you want; I am perfectly happy for you to rant about it)

 

[Dandark]

I tend to prefer fantasy. Not too sure why but I usually end up liking Fantasy settings more, part of it could be the extra freedom to do whatever they want, part of it could also be that I usually think guys in heavy metal armour with a greatsword look awesome.

I also really like the over the top style that things like anime and 40K do which is much easier to do in fantasy than Sci-fi.

 

[JayElleBee]

I chose fantasy.

I like both equally. I fact, I might like sci-fi more in certain situations. But, as a writer, I had to choose fantasy. When I try to write sci-fi I struggle with the scientific plausibility and just generally end up in the fetal position, sobbing with frustration, because I don't remember anything from my GCSE-level physics lessons.

Fantasy, on the other hand, lends itself much easier to creativity and storytelling. That's not to say I'm lazy about it - I almost always write fantasy with 'hard' magic systems, so a lot of work goes into crafting them and making them believable. I love creating the different cultures and political systems and factions. It's just so much easier to make things work in a world whose rules were made by me.

Plus, fantasy is just cozier.

 

[Vault101]

snip.

I dont see how portraying the future in come far fetched way is anymore ridiculous than fantasy...but then fantasy doesnt claim to be the past of out world alot of the time

EDIT: and its not like the creators of mass effect were trying to make any statment or overstating the plausability of mass effects world...they just wanted aliens and shit (and the whole biotic thing which exists for gameplay reasons)

 

[Darken12]

I am not sure if you know this, or even have read this, but Orwell's 1984 was a sci-fi. there was nothing cheerful about that book.

Edit: Just realized that my point has already been made with Orwell and stuff so if you have seen it just go ahead and ignore it. (if you want; I am perfectly happy for you to rant about it)

Yes, Orwell's 1984 was sci-fi. It was also written as a "cautionary tale" based on (at the time) current Soviet Russia policies of revising history, and what might happen if we allowed them filthy commies to win the Cold War.

As you can see, we're almost 30 years past 1984 and still no signs of any awful dystopias. Though I think that were he alive, Orwell would be patting himself on the back for writing that book in time and saving us all from Big Brother. Ugh.

snip.

I dont see how portraying the future in come far fetched way is anymore ridiculous than fantasy...but then fantasy doesnt claim to be the past of out world alot of the time

EDIT: and its not like the creators of mass effect were trying to make any statment or overstating the plausability of mass effects world...they just wanted aliens and shit (and the whole biotic thing which exists for gameplay reasons)

That's actually the point. Fantasy doesn't pretend to be more than it is, it doesn't put on airs and tries to pass as something that might happen.

But even Mass Effect tried to justify the existence of all the stuff it had. If you know basic physics, you know that a lot of the things the game portrays are impossible under our current understanding of reality, so the invention of the titular mass effect (and the game's Phlebotinum that is used to create the aforementioned mass effect) is used as a way to attempt to justify everything you see. While I applaud the desire for verisimilitude and plausibility, I probably have an acquired distaste, to coin a phrase, for all of sci-fi in general. Event Horizon, for example, was a movie I was pleasantly surprised by, but the sci-fi setting and aesthetics really detracted (in my eyes) from an otherwise excellent story (which was partly cribbed from WH40K, yes, but unlike WH40K, it exercised restraint and subtlety).

 

[Mcupobob]

I like both, but prefer sci-fi more. I like the seeing what people think what the future is gonna be like, space and aliens and all that.

 

[AperioContra]

snip

Hi, Darken, sorry to rake you through the coals, I just found it amusing and ran with it for my explaination. First, if you don't like Sci Fi, I have no problem with that. As I said, my enjoyment of Sci Fi is purely out of personal taste. But my point was to point out that there's no real objective reason why one is better than the other.

Though it should be noted that using the same broad strokes in which you label all of Sci Fi, can be taken at Fantasy as well. To Whit, if I were to replace the optimistic idea of: "the future is awesome" with "people are awesome." You could convert that into an overall argument against fantasy. After all they do fall into three catagories. "People are awesome," LOTR, His Dark Materials, Harry Potter, that ilk. Then you have it's cousin, the moral stories, or "let's watch people" suck. The Tales of Ice and Fire, The Discworld Series, any Fairy Tale. Or the most contemptable, the fantasy because it has magic and elves, Willow, et.

Am I being hyperbolic, am I being unfair? Yes, yes I am. This is all to point out that the argument is fundamentally flawed. While The Discworld series is often times about watching people suck (one of the main character is a morally callow coward) it also is about how good we can be. While LOTR is about people (or rather the nebulous idea of "humanity") overcoming all odds against evil, it also doesn't deny that some people (ironically the humans in this case) are selfish. My point is that just because you can nail them down to these catagories doesn't make them bad, and if you look at fantasy with that same narrowminded mindset you will find the same "problems." But if you think about it for a little bit you can begin to see the flaws in it.

For instance, you mentioned 1984 as being optimistic. I don't know what 1984 you read, but the one I read was that of a frustrated man writing about growing trends in his own society and where it would eventually end up. 1984 is ultimately a pessimistic work about the dangers of English Socialism. To prove this point I will point out two things. One: The book is not about a hero who fights for what's right, but a normal man going against the rules and mores of his society to act in adulatory. Two: They lose. I'm serious, the book ends in possibly the most depressing way, Big Brother gains total victory of Winston. "They win, I love Big Brother." Is the final words of the book, that depressing fact that at this point there is no victory, no conclusion that ends well for this because the party has full control even when you think they don't control you. If you can find optimism in this, we are speaking alien languages. As for IHNMbIMS, similar scenario, an AI comes into existance by accident, and hates us for it. It's not about the achievements of man, or even a cautionary tale, because in the book we could not have forseen AM coming to sentience. It wasn't possible. It was really just an accident it hated us for. And there is no ending well, the only hope is death and for the final man, he doesn't even get that.

I could go on and point out that Sci Fi isn't that simple, that overall there may be optimism (and I don't think that's a bad thing, in our ever increasing cynical world I think we need optimism), but that, like science, comes with an evergrowing skepticism. It is now that I will say, if you prefer Fantasy, good. I'm serious about that, I'm glad that you can find something to bring joy in your life. But if you insist that there is something inherently wrong about a genre that doesn't come down to personal taste, I request that you step back for a second and reexamine and reapply your argument to what you like and see anything looks familiar, because if something is wrong with a whole genre, it might be wrong with storytelling itself. Or it might just be that it's not really a problem.

 

[Darken12]

Hi, Darken, sorry to rake you through the coals, I just found it amusing and ran with it for my explaination. First, if you don't like Sci Fi, I have no problem with that. As I said, my enjoyment of Sci Fi is purely out of personal taste. But my point was to point out that there's no real objective reason why one is better than the other.

I never claimed my reasons were objective. In fact, they were all exceedingly subjective, and I considered that to be quite self-evident. I think I even specifically typed "in my opinion" or "to me" or something along the same vein.

Though it should be noted that using the same broad strokes in which you label all of Sci Fi, can be taken at Fantasy as well. To Whit, if I were to replace the optimistic idea of: "the future is awesome" with "people are awesome." You could convert that into an overall argument against fantasy. After all they do fall into three catagories. "People are awesome," LOTR, His Dark Materials, Harry Potter, that ilk. Then you have it's cousin, the moral stories, or "let's watch people" suck. The Tales of Ice and Fire, The Discworld Series, any Fairy Tale. Or the most contemptable, the fantasy because it has magic and elves, Willow, et.

I completely agree. That is an excellent way to sum up Fantasy. I am not opposed to broad-strokes generalisations at all when they are useful for conveying ideas with minimal words. The difference, I think, is that Fantasy doesn't pretend that the people it portrays are the same people we know or are presently.

Am I being hyperbolic, am I being unfair? Yes, yes I am. This is all to point out that the argument is fundamentally flawed. While The Discworld series is often times about watching people suck (one of the main character is a morally callow coward) it also is about how good we can be. While LOTR is about people (or rather the nebulous idea of "humanity") overcoming all odds against evil, it also doesn't deny that some people (ironically the humans in this case) are selfish. My point is that just because you can nail them down to these catagories doesn't make them bad, and if you look at fantasy with that same narrowminded mindset you will find the same "problems." But if you think about it for a little bit you can begin to see the flaws in it.

As I mentioned before, I am quite in favour of generalisations as a way to save time and conveying your ideas as succinctly as possible. I also didn't say it made them bad, I said they represented an authorial attitude I highly disliked.

For instance, you mentioned 1984 as being optimistic. I don't know what 1984 you read, but the one I read was that of a frustrated man writing about growing trends in his own society and where it would eventually end up. 1984 is ultimately a pessimistic work about the dangers of English Socialism. To prove this point I will point out two things. One: The book is not about a hero who fights for what's right, but a normal man going against the rules and mores of his society to act in adulatory. Two: They lose. I'm serious, the book ends in possibly the most depressing way, Big Brother gains total victory of Winston. "They win, I love Big Brother." Is the final words of the book, that depressing fact that at this point there is no victory, no conclusion that ends well for this because the party has full control even when you think they don't control you. If you can find optimism in this, we are speaking alien languages. As for IHNMbIMS, similar scenario, an AI comes into existance by accident, and hates us for it. It's not about the achievements of man, or even a cautionary tale, because in the book we could not have forseen AM coming to sentience. It wasn't possible. It was really just an accident it hated us for. And there is no ending well, the only hope is death and for the final man, he doesn't even get that.

You missed the part where I explained why cautionary tales are optimistic, I presume. I'll repeat myself for your convenience: Cautionary tales are optimistic from an authorial point of view, as the author smugly believes that only they can see the perils the future brings, and by crafting a cautionary tale, they will save the world from its dreadful fate. That is painfully optimistic of them.

I could go on and point out that Sci Fi isn't that simple, that overall there may be optimism (and I don't think that's a bad thing, in our ever increasing cynical world I think we need optimism), but that, like science, comes with an evergrowing skepticism. It is now that I will say, if you prefer Fantasy, good. I'm serious about that, I'm glad that you can find something to bring joy in your life. But if you insist that there is something inherently wrong about a genre that doesn't come down to personal taste, I request that you step back for a second and reexamine and reapply your argument to what you like and see anything looks familiar, because if something is wrong with a whole genre, it might be wrong with storytelling itself. Or it might just be that it's not really a problem.

I never said there was anything inherently wrong with sci-fi. If you like sci-fi, good for you. Have fun. Enjoy yourself. Send a postcard from space, even. I was just explaining why *I* didn't like it. Personal opinion =/= objective statements.

 

[AperioContra]

snip

Ok, it seems like we've established some grounds. Now, while I can certainly see your viewpoint a little more clearly (not to say I quite agree with it, but then again I'm just human with my own biases), I still object to the idea that optimism is a) bad and b) ubiquitous to Science Fiction. Now with the first point I know I can't argue that. Optimism = not bad, is not really an argument that won't come down to "I like optimism! It's Quaint." But the second point is the one I have the most contention.

I did read your explaination of how dystopias are optimistic. It still doesn't make sense, it relies heavily on conjecture on authorial intention and is far removed from the reality of how writers write, and their viewpoints toward the subject that they're writing on. Now how do I know this? Well, I'm a writer. I've written on fantasy, scifi, satire, all sorts of things, and right now I'm writing a story about a cyberspace programmer who removes human impressions and profiles after they've died, it's fun stuff. Not once does the idea of "this is how the world will be" or "this is what it could be." Enters my mind. It's: "What would it be like to have that job?" It's a high-concept story (Fancy word for "What if" Scenario), not based in optimism of what will happen. Now that's not to say someone couldn't read it and come to their own conclusion.

But don't take my word on this, I'm a jackass poster who could be saying anything to prove my point. So Take William Gibson's word on this. William Gibson is probably most famous for inventing the term: "Cyberspace" and many people credit him for "predicting the internet." But Gibson would laugh at you if you claimed that. He once said that: I think that least important thing about sci fi for me is it's predictive capacity. What he mean is that prediction is not the point of Sci Fi, (nor is postering morality the point of fantasy) even though it tends to come up. But as Gibson put it, the strike in the dark that ends up predicting something, is the same strike that ends up predicting nothing at all. While he predicted the internet, technically, every other aspect of Cyberspace was so completely off that it's laughable that this an actual prediction. And Gibson seems to be the man most in on the joke.

I would also point out that making the claims that fantasy doesn't have the same pretensions of Sci Fi, is well... plain wrong. I've pointed out that fantasy may not predict things like magic in our universe (outside of say Shadowrun), their own pretensions are just as glaring and hubris of the author. I mean, is it really worse that one author tries to predict the stuff we'll have in the future, than say: an author talking about how awesomely awesome human (or the idea of "humanity") is, and how it can overcome all odds? This isn't to point out your taste, just to point out that fantasy just has the same pretensions, ideals and authorial attitudes, afterall, Science Fiction is a subsect of Fantasy, carrying with it all of the problems and strengths.

Now, I would also like to set the record straight on my tastes. While I tend to prefer Sci Fi (Because I am in erotic love with Science), I read all books, I like all stories. As long as their good. So, yeah, I might send you a post card from the USS Enterprise, or the Planet Arrakis, but the chances are just as likely that I might send one from the grand city of Anhk-Morpork, or the palace of Amber.

As a final point I want to address this.:

Which one do you like better?

I think the fantasy world feels more organic. It also has magick and dragons, which make it automatically cool.

Better Idea. A mix of BOTH! Magiscience FTW! XD

That. Sounds. AWESOME. Somebody get to work on that.

 

[Mr.Squishy]

Well, I've been on a binge of both Dark Souls and Star Trek DS9 as of late, and I can't say which genre I like better. Apples and oranges and all that. Although both have the potential to fail spectacularly if not handled properly. Although I more often than not prefer my sci fi to be cyberpunk-y rather than a giggly joyride through space (like Original Trek, which is kind of seriously awful), with DS9 being the exception seeing as it's masterfully written.
'course, Shadowrun is a pretty cool compromise.

 

[Tuxedoman]

I've always seen sci-fi as an offshoot of fantasy. Fantasy is a very broad genre after all, and it pretty much covers anything that has something unreal in it as a driving force. Sci-fi is the same, except in SPEHS.

 

[Darken12]

I did read your explaination of how dystopias are optimistic. It still doesn't make sense, it relies heavily on conjecture on authorial intention and is far removed from the reality of how writers write, and their viewpoints toward the subject that they're writing on. Now how do I know this? Well, I'm a writer. I've written on fantasy, scifi, satire, all sorts of things, and right now I'm writing a story about a cyberspace programmer who removes human impressions and profiles after they've died, it's fun stuff. Not once does the idea of "this is how the world will be" or "this is what it could be." Enters my mind. It's: "What would it be like to have that job?" It's a high-concept story (Fancy word for "What if" Scenario), not based in optimism of what will happen. Now that's not to say someone couldn't read it and come to their own conclusion.

I'm a writer too. I also help out other writers. And let me tell you, authorial intention is, most of the time, clear as day on any text, for anyone with a discerning eye. I only advocate Death of the Author when people try to tell others how something is "intended" to be experienced, but in any other instance? I think that an author's ideologies and personality almost always shines through in their writing.

And like I said before, even the "soft" sci-fi (or, equivalently, the "what if" scenarios), while much less arrogant, are still at the very least pretending to happen in the distant future. This pretension, no matter how loosely supported by the author, still irks me quite a bit. I have no problem with a technological setting in an alternate universe where there's no Earth (though I still wouldn't enjoy it as much as I would if it was pure fantasy. I find that high-tech aesthetics kill the mood for me), but that's not what sci-fi usually is. In practically all the sci-fi I've heard of, there's always an Earth somewhere.

But don't take my word on this, I'm a jackass poster who could be saying anything to prove my point. So Take William Gibson's word on this. William Gibson is probably most famous for inventing the term: "Cyberspace" and many people credit him for "predicting the internet." But Gibson would laugh at you if you claimed that. He once said that: I think that least important thing about sci fi for me is it's predictive capacity. What he mean is that prediction is not the point of Sci Fi, (nor is postering morality the point of fantasy) even though it tends to come up. But as Gibson put it, the strike in the dark that ends up predicting something, is the same strike that ends up predicting nothing at all. While he predicted the internet, technically, every other aspect of Cyberspace was so completely off that it's laughable that this an actual prediction. And Gibson seems to be the man most in on the joke.

Yes. I know not all authors genuinely believe what they write might come to happen. Doesn't matter one bit. Even the most benign and humblest of sci-fi writers will put me off with the futuristic aesthetics and the connection with our planet.

I would also point out that making the claims that fantasy doesn't have the same pretensions of Sci Fi, is well... plain wrong. I've pointed out that fantasy may not predict things like magic in our universe (outside of say Shadowrun), their own pretensions are just as glaring and hubris of the author. I mean, is it really worse that one author tries to predict the stuff we'll have in the future, than say: an author talking about how awesomely awesome human (or the idea of "humanity") is, and how it can overcome all odds? This isn't to point out your taste, just to point out that fantasy just has the same pretensions, ideals and authorial attitudes, afterall, Science Fiction is a subsect of Fantasy, carrying with it all of the problems and strengths.

I completely disagree. I would never assume anything I read in a Fantasy story might come to happen because I have plenty of evidence that it isn't so. Every instance of humanity triumphing and overcoming all odds can be summarily dismissed with the story of cancer patients, genocide, hate crimes and so on. This isn't the same with sci-fi. While I can readily point out the impossibilities of Fantasy without a second thought, sci-fi always has that incredibly annoying rationale that any criticism levied against it is met with a "you don't know! It hasn't happened yet! For all we know, it may well could happen" and no matter how much you argue, how much evidence you bring to bear, the ultimate truth is that the future is uncertain and the sci-fi defenders are ultimately right: even if the possibilities are astronomically low, it could happen, and that pisses me off.

Now, I would also like to set the record straight on my tastes. While I tend to prefer Sci Fi (Because I am in erotic love with Science), I read all books, I like all stories. As long as their good. So, yeah, I might send you a post card from the USS Enterprise, or the Planet Arrakis, but the chances are just as likely that I might send one from the grand city of Anhk-Morpork, or the palace of Amber.

Meh. There is no such thing as "good" or "bad", it's only a matter of personal taste and meeting agreed-upon standards depending on the medium.

 

[Vault101]

I never said there was anything inherently wrong with sci-fi. If you like sci-fi, good for you. Have fun. Enjoy yourself. Send a postcard from space, even. I was just explaining why *I* didn't like it. Personal opinion =/= objective statements.

its just your reasons for disliking it seem quite....odd...not wrong, just odd

hence why your geting alot of argument over it

 

[Darken12]

I never said there was anything inherently wrong with sci-fi. If you like sci-fi, good for you. Have fun. Enjoy yourself. Send a postcard from space, even. I was just explaining why *I* didn't like it. Personal opinion =/= objective statements.

its just your reasons for disliking it seem quite....odd...not wrong, just odd

hence why your geting alot of argument over it

Doesn't speak well of the forum's tolerance for the harmlessly unusual, then.

 

[DanielBrown]

Always preferred fantasy myself. Especially medieval or ancient Greek/Roman settings... Which I suppose cover at least 90% of the genre. Sci-fi doesn't really work for me. I like some games and movies, but I never actively look for sci-fi stuff.

 

[Vault101]

Doesn't speak well of the forum's tolerance for the harmlessly unusual, then.

no ones attacking you,

like my reasons for liking/disliking things may seem odd to others....

 

[Darken12]

Doesn't speak well of the forum's tolerance for the harmlessly unusual, then.

no ones attacking you,

like my reasons for liking/disliking things may seem odd to others....

Not to me. I have no problems with your reasons for liking or disliking the genres, or with anybody else's on this thread. I think they're all quite all right.