Which is better? Science Fiction or Fantasy?

[Shaun]

Let's debate it. Which literary form is better? Which is more useful or valuable? What do you think and why?

[Rafael Domination]

Well...you guys all know that I'm more into Sci-fi, so I guess, I might be only one on thi genre's side.

But, yeah...while fantasy is great, it invokes forces that are actually irrelevant in today's world. You don't see people being taught magic more than they are taught physics, biology and chemistry. Science is what has allowed us to progress as a civilizaton and sci-fi promoted the advancement of science. Take lasers for example. Back then, they all thought it was merely a concept of science fiction, but someone said, let's make it a reality. And lo...you got DEW (directed energy weapons) today. On the side of magic and myth however...while they are beautiful and arcane, it merely remains at that.

So yeah...SCI-FI! :D

[Shaun]

Good argument for SF. Space travel, medicine, technology, etc. are all facets of science fiction. We have cells phones and personal computers, all of which were invented in the minds of SF writers...

[Imelda]

Raf you're seriously closed off. You know magic exists, right? I mean, not in the forms most people think of, but it's there ...

Fantasy. I like it, there's nothing more to debate. :P

[Zombified]

I am not fond of either genre, but I do implement both into my writing.

I wrote a story about a snow monster once: Genre/ Fantasy
I wrote a story about zombie pirates: Genre/ Sci Fi
I wrote a story about Lamia's (snakewomen): Genre/ Fantasy.

You could argue that all of those examples could go both way, because in actuality, they both do coincide with eachother.

No genre is better than another, one may have a bigger fanbase, and one may have more profit, but either way, they are both very similar.

THough I myself don't read Fantasy stories, I will occasionally read a sci fi book.

Predator, or AVP books are my biggest example.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that both genres are very similar, and if you look in between the lines, are both nearly the same thing with different creatures and different ideas.

[Imelda]

*Explodes*

They're not similar. Only in the minds of morons ...

[Zombified]

But, Imelda, really think about it.

All Sci Fi is is basically a futuristic Fantasy.

[GeorgeMichael]

hmm...

Well to start it off it's a tough choice but in the end I'm gonna have to go with ... Fantasy for books, Sci Fi for movies...

I mean it's really hard, I can't think of many sci fi novels that I like but in Movies they make the Matrix, Alien, Star Wars, but in books there is LotR (I like the movies more here though...) Harry Potter, etc... Then again Fantasy does have The Princess Bride in movie form so that's a plus... it's a really hard decision for me but if I had to decide only one then I would choose Sci-Fi. :)



wait, no nevermind... :pirate: = Fantasy I think so I choose Fantasy :)

[Imelda]

Pirates are reality, actually ...

And SF and fantasy are totally different. SF deals with the could-bes, F deals with the 'never-beens-and-won't-be'.

All writing deals with what-ifs, so if SF and fantasy are similar, then genres don't in fact exist, and we've all been fooled.

[Rafael Domination]

Raf you're seriously closed off. You know magic exists, right? I mean, not in the forms most people think of, but it's there ...

Fantasy. I like it, there's nothing more to debate. :P

Yes, but Science is by far more efficient to use, more attainable, more widespread, more useful and frankly, easier to get :P

Besides, the topic is also whcih genre is more useful. We've already proven than science fiction can become a reality. Dragons, wizards and castles are a little more difficult to bring to life than robots, space travel and energy weapons :D

[ScottyMcGee]

But, yeah...while fantasy is great, it invokes forces that are actually irrelevant in today's world. You don't see people being taught magic more than they are taught physics, biology and chemistry.



Here's how I see it.

Sci-fi can be relevant to the real world through theories of new sciences and playing around with technology.

Fantasy can be relevant to the real world through none other than morality, religion, and ethics.

Imagine the discussions people have about Frodo's journey to Mordor. There were times when he didn't want to do it, but his sense of duty took over him.
There are hundreds, maybe millions, of symbolic references and allegories in fantasy story that pertain to the Bible, mythology, etc. Through this, they raise up questions on old values such as courage, loyalty, war, sacrifice, religion, etc. Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials Trilogy" is a perfect example of this.
Another example? FAIRY TALES! There's always some type of moral, some kind of epiphany at the very end.
Another thing is, where Sci-fi predicts the future, fantasy preserves the past through these mythological and religious references.
Fantasy is also used as satire. Terry Prachett is in fact a satirist, that is if you're smart enough to see the parallels. Gulliver's Travels is another "fantasy" story that satirizes the British society. Fantasy can easily be satire through strange allegories and analogies. However, this can be countered by Sci-fi's literary giant, Philip K. Dick.

A mixture of these things can be seen in "Star Wars." Star Wars is neither pure fantasy nor pure sci-fi. It's a hybrid. On one side you have an ancient religion following a Buddhist-like "Force." On the other side you have an evil Empire with the technological power to destroy a planet.

The verdict?

I'll stick with the good old fantasy :sword:

[Carraka]

Science fiction can also be connected to the real world through morality, religion, and ethics. Arguably even more so, as quite a few decent novels cover problems that the human race faces now and might in the future.

I can't give you a reason why I prefer fantasy. Perhaps I read more of it in my youth. Perhaps the idea of magic connects with me on an intimate level, while technology seems cold and mindless. Perhaps I like the degree of creativity involved in writing fantasy, although both genres are creative in different ways. I do enjoy science fiction, but I enjoy fantasy books more.

Both can be used as satire. Both can speak of real problems, subtly or bang-you-on-the-head-ly. For me, it's not a question of which genre is better, but which one speaks to me more.

[Rafael Domination]

Yeah, I guess its each to his/her own :P


Whatever. I'm just glad my love for Sci-fi adds another layer of unique-ness for me XD

Anyhoo...back to the topic...

Sci-fi needs a lot more research and effort (IN GENERAL). While people can make stuff up in Fantasy, people have to make stuff up in Sci-fi AND give it a place in reality - which is why I tend to favor it more. For sure we might get flying cars in the future. For sure I won't be riding a dragon any time soon. ^^

[Zaphkiel]

It's hard to say for me, I think my novel is more in the Sci-Fi category, but I write Fantasy as well. You can't really say that one's better than the other, because it all depends on opinion, and they're both used widely. Still, Raf, Fantasy isn't all about dragons and unicorns, it also about providing the reader with a new, unknown reality. Fantasy allows the reader to escape from our harsh reality, if even for a moment. So, I would say that I'm in both.

After all, Sci-Fi does deal with robotics, nanotech, biological enhancements, etc. However, that's only 20% of the story, the rest lies within the imagination and human logic. So, I would say that even though they're both something I like to write, Fantasy gives a better test on our creativity.

[Shaun]

I think everyone has missed the point of the whole thread. It's not a "what I like better" debate, it's a "which genre is better" debate with a "why" thrown in there. So which genre do you think is better and why do you think so.

Science fiction, hands down, is the better genre because it has a greater influence on individuals and society. Without science fiction we never would have thought that space ships could be real, or that we'd go to the moon, or that we'd have personal computers or cell phones or robots or talking cars, or supersonic jets, etc. Science fiction is the most valuable genre because it serves a constructive purpose in society by fantasizing things that may or may not be in a futuristic setting and challenging everything from morality to religion to ethics of science to the future of science.

Alternately, while I do like it very very much, fantasy possesses the ability of repeating itself over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. I've read the same story about the farm boy that rises up and saves the world in more books than just Eragon. Other themes are repeated too, ad naseum. I do enjoy said books, but for originality fantasy falls very short. The field is so convoluted with repetitious themes it's hard to sift through to find the good stuff. Science fiction doesn't have this problem as a good portion of 'serious' SF doesn't repeat itself, or at least repeats itself very rarely.

I will argue with Raf on the 'difficulty' of writing SF. It's not really that difficult unless you're writing really hard SF. Since SF is rooted in reality you have a world already built for you that you just have to tweak, whereas a lot of fantasy writers have to build their own worlds from the ground up. SF isn't an easy genre to write, but worldbuilding is easier for SF stories.

[Rafael Domination]

I agree: both deal with the unknown and unreal...one simply bends more on a mix of creativity and logic while the other relies on less logic and more creativity.

Anyhoo...but what about the uses for both?

Edit: slow post...I was addressing Zaph.

(But thanks for agreeing with me, Shaun :D)

[Zaphkiel]

I stated the same thing about Sci-Fi, it's not that hard.

[Rafael Domination]

But the more you try to make it realistic, the harder it gets. I mean, for Fantasy, you can simply contsruct your own laws and not even glimpse at the ones Newton wrote, and you can back everything up with magic and the supernatural. For sci-fi, IF you use a setting that already exists, you have to research, and research, and research, or your world will be a joke. This applies for alien settings that don't resemble real life as well.

But yeah, I mean it also depends on the degree of the work itself.

[Zaphkiel]

I know what you mean, Raf, and I can say that I agree with your statement. I'm doing the same thing for my novel.

[Rafael Domination]

The thing is, I'm not over combining the two genres either :D

I mean, you get the best of both world, right?

[Zaphkiel]

Yes, that's true as well.

[Imelda]

Firstly, neither is 'better'. So get over that, Shaun. :p

I think everyone has missed the point of the whole thread. It's not a "what I like better" debate, it's a "which genre is better" debate with a "why" thrown in there. So which genre do you think is better and why do you think so.

Science fiction, hands down, is the better genre because it has a greater influence on individuals and society. Without science fiction we never would have thought that space ships could be real, or that we'd go to the moon, or that we'd have personal computers or cell phones or robots or talking cars, or supersonic jets, etc. Science fiction is the most valuable genre because it serves a constructive purpose in society by fantasizing things that may or may not be in a futuristic setting and challenging everything from morality to religion to ethics of science to the future of science.

Alternately, while I do like it very very much, fantasy possesses the ability of repeating itself over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. I've read the same story about the farm boy that rises up and saves the world in more books than just Eragon. Other themes are repeated too, ad naseum. I do enjoy said books, but for originality fantasy falls very short. The field is so convoluted with repetitious themes it's hard to sift through to find the good stuff. Science fiction doesn't have this problem as a good portion of 'serious' SF doesn't repeat itself, or at least repeats itself very rarely.

I will argue with Raf on the 'difficulty' of writing SF. It's not really that difficult unless you're writing really hard SF. Since SF is rooted in reality you have a world already built for you that you just have to tweak, whereas a lot of fantasy writers have to build their own worlds from the ground up. SF isn't an easy genre to write, but worldbuilding is easier for SF stories.

Yelling point: FANTASY IS NOT REPETITIVE IF YOU DO IT RIGHT GOSHDARNIT!!!!!!!!!!!! You need to widen your reading horizons and quit passing judgement on an entire genre just because YOU'VE read the wrong stuff. Do I diss SF because I haven't read enough? No, I just say that I personally don't adore it, and I'll read a bit, but in the end the magic draws me back.

Secondly (yes this is the third thing, whatever) who's to say SF caused the spaceship etc to be invented? That's crazy. People didn't write fiction about it before they invented the wheel. People didn't just sit down and think 'hmm, ok we've read this story about the moon and want to go there, but we haven't invented any kind of engine yet and have no clue about anything so LET'S JUST GUESS! *frolic*' Science is a natural progression from wheel to cart to wagon to car. It's not based on fiction, it's based on what we need. People wanted to add numbers more easily--they started working on machines that would do that for them, which led to the computer, and in a world with diminishing space, they got smaller and smaller until we could fit them in a tiny splodge of stuff and carry music, games, pictures, and all sorts in our pockets (which have got smaller).

SF is also a relatively new genre. People were working on science and such well before fiction was even established beyond folk tales and spoken traditions.

And if you're going to pull that out for SF, I might as well go ahead and say that fantasy thought of it way before SF. Daedalus and Icarus? Flew. Projected images? Used in magic for a long time before science existed. People often say that science replaces magic in SF, and in some ways it's true (though I would say they're vastly different and it's like saying the murder weapon in a mystery replaces magic) and now I lost the thread of what I was saying because I was gazing out of the window and I really have quite a short attention span, which isn't good ...

:pirate:

[Shaun]

Yelling point: FANTASY IS NOT REPETITIVE IF YOU DO IT RIGHT GOSHDARNIT!!!!!!!!!!!! You need to widen your reading horizons and quit passing judgement on an entire genre just because YOU'VE read the wrong stuff. Do I diss SF because I haven't read enough? No, I just say that I personally don't adore it, and I'll read a bit, but in the end the magic draws me back.

Even Tolkien wasn't original. He imitated people before him who were already fantasists. We simply attribute fantasy to Tolkien for dragging the genre into the mainstream.
I've read more than enough fantasy. It repeats itself. The only reason fantasy works is because people learn how to repeat things in a way that doesn't feel like repetition. That's being clever and creative...but there's very little 'originality' in fantasy.

Secondly (yes this is the third thing, whatever) who's to say SF caused the spaceship etc to be invented? That's crazy. People didn't write fiction about it before they invented the wheel. People didn't just sit down and think 'hmm, ok we've read this story about the moon and want to go there, but we haven't invented any kind of engine yet and have no clue about anything so LET'S JUST GUESS! *frolic*' Science is a natural progression from wheel to cart to wagon to car. It's not based on fiction, it's based on what we need. People wanted to add numbers more easily--they started working on machines that would do that for them, which led to the computer, and in a world with diminishing space, they got smaller and smaller until we could fit them in a tiny splodge of stuff and carry music, games, pictures, and all sorts in our pockets (which have got smaller).

Many of the scientists back in the day who were dealing with 'theoretical science' such as space travel were also writing science fiction. SF writers, by and large, are actually degree holding scientists. In fact, many of the things invented in science fiction have become real due to an SF author coming up with it.
Hard SF authors, especially, do excessive amounts of research to make sure anything they create is rooted in reality and not entirely made up.

SF is also a relatively new genre. People were working on science and such well before fiction was even established beyond folk tales and spoken traditions.


SF has been around since the 1700s. It's not that new.

And if you're going to pull that out for SF, I might as well go ahead and say that fantasy thought of it way before SF. Daedalus and Icarus? Flew. Projected images? Used in magic for a long time before science existed. People often say that science replaces magic in SF, and in some ways it's true (though I would say they're vastly different and it's like saying the murder weapon in a mystery replaces magic) and now I lost the thread of what I was saying because I was gazing out of the window and I really have quite a short attention span, which isn't good ...

The difference is that when fantasy does something like make people fly it isn't rooted in reality, it's rooted in magic and a world of stuff that can't exist. Science fiction uses realistic approaches to phenomenon like flying and projected imagery, etc. That's the difference. You don't have to have a logical explanation for something in fantasy. You can simply say "it's magic", but in SF you can't have a man fly without a logical reason.

[Imelda]

Even Tolkien wasn't original. He imitated people before him who were already fantasists. We simply attribute fantasy to Tolkien for dragging the genre into the mainstream.
I've read more than enough fantasy. It repeats itself. The only reason fantasy works is because people learn how to repeat things in a way that doesn't feel like repetition. That's being clever and creative...but there's very little 'originality' in fantasy.

Did I say Tolkien was original? He took things from myths etc, which have been around a LONG time. Had anybody used the myths like that before? No.

Define originality.



Many of the scientists back in the day who were dealing with 'theoretical science' such as space travel were also writing science fiction. SF writers, by and large, are actually degree holding scientists. In fact, many of the things invented in science fiction have become real due to an SF author coming up with it.
Hard SF authors, especially, do excessive amounts of research to make sure anything they create is rooted in reality and not entirely made up.


That isn't at all what you said. You said writers thought of it, and scientists followed. It's natural that scientists of a literary kind would want to write about their expectations and dreams of whatever they're working on.

If you actually read my post, you'll see that I said it's rooted in reality.


SF has been around since the 1700s. It's not that new.

To you, Mr American. Three hundreds years is NOTHING. It's a speck in human history. Fantasy has been around since people could think of stories and articulate them. Possibly before (after all, what are dreams?). Pushing aside fantasy, the 1700 date puts it bang after science began. Therefore science and invention begat SF, not the other way around.

The difference is that when fantasy does something like make people fly it isn't rooted in reality, it's rooted in magic and a world of stuff that can't exist. Science fiction uses realistic approaches to phenomenon like flying and projected imagery, etc. That's the difference.

Of course it uses a realistic approach ... now. Back when it started (The Time Machine, for instance) there was no precedent for anything of that nature. The machines weren't thought-out (or if they were they had no chance of working). Time travel is a bad example but you know what I mean. :P

You don't have to have a logical explanation for something in fantasy. You can simply say "it's magic", but in SF you can't have a man fly without a logical reason.

And again, you haven't read enough fantasy and that is THE most irritating thing you could possibly have said. Have you ever talked to Andrew or I about how much work we've put into making our magic logical? Good fantasy writers NEVER say 'it's magic'. That is the mark of a rank amateur with no regard for the genre and not a single book on my shelf EVER says 'it's magic'. It might not be logical in relation to our world, which isn't really open to magic in a broad sense :glare: but it works in the world we've created.

[Shaun]

Did I say Tolkien was original? He took things from myths etc, which have been around a LONG time. Had anybody used the myths like that before? No.

Define originality.

Creating something wholly new and 'original'. Writing a story about elves isn't original. Writing a story that follows a familiar fantasy trope, isn't original. Writing a story about evil butt demons who use the magic stored in poo, well, that's not quite original, but it is quite crude and creative. Tolkien stole a lot from other writers too, by the way, namely Wagner, who took his work directly from myth. Wagner did it before Tolkien :P and there were others before them. The Brother's Grimm, etc.

To you, Mr American. Three hundreds years is NOTHING. It's a speck in human history. Fantasy has been around since people could think of stories and articulate them. Possibly before (after all, what are dreams?). Pushing aside fantasy, the 1700 date puts it bang after science began. Therefore science and invention begat SF, not the other way around.


Yeah, well 300 years is a long time for something, considering the human lifespan isn't quite one century.

And again, you haven't read enough fantasy and that is THE most irritating thing you could possibly have said. Have you ever talked to Andrew or I about how much work we've put into making our magic logical? Good fantasy writers NEVER say 'it's magic'. That is the mark of a rank amateur with no regard for the genre and not a single book on my shelf EVER says 'it's magic'. It might not be logical in relation to our world, which isn't really open to magic in a broad sense :glare: but it works in the world we've created.

You might not think it says magic because you're so close to the work, but to the reader it says "magic". Magic isn't logical, that's why it's part of fantasy. If it was logical you'd see it in science fiction as such. It doesn't have to directly say "it's magic" to imply the same meaning. Once you use magic, even if you try to create a logical basis for it, it still cries "it's magic".

[Lykaios]

I don't think you can say which genre is 'better' because it's really a matter of opinion. Different people have different ideas on what's good and what's not, like I can't say Manchester United is the best football team because it's an opinion.
However in my 'opinion' fantasy rules. :)

EDIT: The Brothers Grimm were story collectors, they gatherd stories from people's experiences and superstitions on their travels and listened to the local folklore.

[Andy]

Creating something wholly new and 'original'. Writing a story about elves isn't original. Writing a story that follows a familiar fantasy trope, isn't original. Writing a story about evil butt demons who use the magic stored in poo, well, that's not quite original, but it is quite crude and creative. Tolkien stole a lot from other writers too, by the way, namely Wagner, who took his work directly from myth. Wagner did it before Tolkien :P and there were others before them. The Brother's Grimm, etc.
Oh, sheesh, not this again. For a second I thought I accidentally entered the Paolini thread. :rolleyes:

There are different levels of originality, and they exist in all genres. Saying that a story isn't original just because it's about elves is absurd. Almost as absurd as saying writing a story about people isn't original.

A truly original work is one that takes aspects from lots of other stories, and real life, and the authors own mind, and creates a story that has not been written before. The less predictably and less familiar-ly a plot takes all those things and binds them together, the more original a work is.

[Shaun]

The problem is that fantasy doesn't do that. Fantasy relies on good writers to take familiar things and make them feel new.

[Imelda]

You might not think it says magic because you're so close to the work, but to the reader it says "magic". Magic isn't logical, that's why it's part of fantasy. If it was logical you'd see it in science fiction as such. It doesn't have to directly say "it's magic" to imply the same meaning. Once you use magic, even if you try to create a logical basis for it, it still cries "it's magic".

I was using Andrew and I as an accessible example for you. No decent fantasy ever uses the 'it's magic' excuse. They might not proclaim their exact logic behind everything either, but it's there, and someone with a splash of intelligence can see it.

And I'm done arguing about this because you never capitulate to anything, even solid fact. :rolleyes:

[Andy]

Magic must be logical. It must follow the rules you've created in your world, otherwise anything can happen. And if anything can happen, then any plots or struggles in your story are meaningless. What's there to strive towards if your characters have limitless omnipotent magic at their fingertips?

Fantasy doesn't mean a world with no rules. Fantasy is about worlds with different laws of physics and nature and elements than in real life. Different rules, but rules nontheless.

Orson Scott Card: "With magic, you must be very clear about the rules. . . You don't want your readers to think that anything can happen" (How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy, 47).

[Shaun]

Just because something has rules does not, by a long shot, make it logical. Magic isn't logical, even if it has specific rules that prevent it from being super powerful. That's why it is a part of fantasy.

[Imelda]

Magic is logical. I don't know about anyone else's, but my magic system is based on physics and energy. The only (XD) leap I take is assuming that some humans can extend the power of their souls to control it. It's done in an entirely logical way, but it isn't the logic of OUR world. That's why it's a part of fantasy.

[Shaun]

I can't do magic in the real world and never will be able to do magic in the real world, no matter how hard I try, no matter how hard I study, no matter how hard I want it to be. Something that is logical is something that is within the realm of possibility. Magic is not. Again, as you said, that's why it's a part of fantasy. If it were logical it would be part of the real world.

[Andy]

Something that is logical is something that is within the realm of possibility.
...in the world that it exists in. :rolleyes: Different rules means different systems of logic.

My characters don't make decisions based on the logic of our world, they base decisions on the logic of their world. The same applies to us. This must be taken into account.

[Shaun]

Such worlds don't exist, though. That's the whole point. They're not real in any fashion, not even modeled on something that is real, so they are illogical.

[Imelda]

...

Magic exists. :rolleyes:

[Andy]

They're not real in any fashion, not even modeled on something that is real, so they are illogical.
Whaaaaaaaa?? I think you'll find many similarities between my world and the real world. Two-legged people, for instance.

[Shaun]

Elves aren't real Cal. People who can use magic are not real. People that live in fantasy worlds are not real. They never will be real no matter what you do. You just have to fake people out long enough to finish whatever it is they are reading. That's what fantasy does. Just because you give them two legs doesn't make them remotely real, because they are not part of a world that exists.

[Imelda]

You know, if there were neg reps here, I'd be sorely tempted to give Shaun one for his stubbornness. :angel:

[Andy]

Elves aren't real Cal. People who can use magic are not real. People that live in fantasy worlds are not real. They never will be real no matter what you do. You just have to fake people out long enough to finish whatever it is they are reading. That's what fantasy does. Just because you give them two legs doesn't make them remotely real, because they are not part of a world that exists.
The more you think that, the more your storytelling will suffer. :P It's hard to describe something when you can't see it as having a life of its own.

[Shaun]

The more you think that, the more your storytelling will suffer. :P It's hard to describe something when you can't see it as having a life of its own.

Yeah, but not thinking about it makes you do what Paolini did :P. So, if that's what you want, go for it :P.

[Imelda]

You like Paolini, so I don't know why you just said that ...

[Andy]

Yeah, but not thinking about it makes you do what Paolini did :P. So, if that's what you want, go for it :P.
Um....yeah. You see, that actually supports my argument. I said you should think about it, you say NOT thinking results in a book like Paolini's.

So...no, that's not that I want, and it's the opposite of what I'm saying, too. :rolleyes:

[Shaun]

Andy, what you said was that the more you think 'that' the more your work will suffer. Well, when you don't think about fantasy and magic and the fact that it's not real in any way you end up writing a book that may be good but has very little actual originality to it. It follows a common theme, a common story, and uses common ideas. You have to think about fantasy because the one thing that fantasy has to be is real, because you're up against a world of people who already know "this isn't real" and if you can't make it feel real to them, you've failed.

[Andy]

Elves aren't real Cal. People who can use magic are not real. People that live in fantasy worlds are not real. They never will be real no matter what you do. You just have to fake people out long enough to finish whatever it is they are reading. That's what fantasy does. Just because you give them two legs doesn't make them remotely real, because they are not part of a world that exists.

Andy, what you said was that the more you think 'that' the more your work will suffer. Well, when you don't think about fantasy and magic and the fact that it's not real in any way you end up writing a book that may be good but has very little actual originality to it. It follows a common theme, a common story, and uses common ideas. You have to think about fantasy because the one thing that fantasy has to be is real, because you're up against a world of people who already know "this isn't real" and if you can't make it feel real to them, you've failed.

You've gone and contradicted yourself. Not to mention, you've just started arguing the same thing I'm arguing.

I said that if you keep thinking about fantasy like it's all fake, then its quality will suffer. I didn't say that thinking about the world itself was bad, just constantly thinking about what you said in the first paragraph is bad.

[Shaun]

You've gone and contradicted yourself. Not to mention, you've just started arguing the same thing I'm arguing.

I said that if you keep thinking about fantasy like it's all fake, then its quality will suffer. I didn't say that thinking about the world itself was bad, just constantly thinking about what you said in the first paragraph is bad.

I'm arguing the opposite of what you're arguing. If you don't think about the fact that fantasy is fake then your work will suffer. If you do think about it and utilize that thought process you can avoid the things that make your work feel completely phony. You have to address the fact that fantasy isn't real before you can successfully write a fantasy story, else the quality does suffer and falls apart because you will ignore certain facets of fantasy that have to be addressed. This mostly addresses adult level fantasy as children's fantasy tends to completely ignore all the conventional rules established after Tolkien pioneered the genre.

[Carraka]

Although I do believe that magic needs a degree of logicalness, why does it need to be real? Why does it need to be so logical that it can be backed by science? The "nonexistence" of magic is what makes it magic. If it is difficult to write fantasy because of this, doesn't that make a successful fantasy novel so much the better?

[angela]

Although I do believe that magic needs a degree of logicalness, why does it need to be real? Why does it need to be so logical that it can be backed by science? The "nonexistence" of magic is what makes it magic. If it is difficult to write fantasy because of this, doesn't that make a successful fantasy novel so much the better?

i agree. magic doesn't and/or shouldn't have science to prove that it's real. okay, from my perspective, magic isn't real, but when it's written or directed in a movie it seems real; i think it is better when there isn't evidence of non-existent magic. it doesnt need to exist! that's why people have imaginations... all that I think about in particular, is how the world's lifestyle would change, if magic were to exist. i doubt most people would think if science can explain all the 'misshaps' or actions that is done by magic.

(i don't think my say makes any sense at all)
anyway, what im trying to say, is that magic is what it is; i think it isn't some topic that one should incorporate science with :)

[Shaun]

As soon as you associate science with magic it ceases to be magic.

[angela]

yes. now that is very true.

[Shaun]

Okay, so I think we got off the original topic...back to it. What's better? SF or F?

[angela]

fantasy!!
weeeeeeeee~
ok that was random :D
what would you prefer?

[Shaun]

I don't prefer one over the other, really. I enjoy both almost equally, but for different reasons. I think SF is the better genre, though, because it is more relevant in society as a literary form.

[angela]

i see..

[Rafael Domination]

I stand by Sci-fi for the following reasons besides the ones Shaun already mentioned...

1) They have cooler armies. Deathstar vs. Eragon...no contest

2) It has more room for settings. I mean, you've got a whole universe you can use. Fantasy is mostly limted to one world, and it can get boring pretty quick. In Sci-fi, there's always new places to see (and before Imelda descends upon me like some hawk, please note that the big titans of the Fantasy genre are usually set in less areas)

3) Darth Nihulus can so totally pawn Voldemort

4) (Most) of the names of the characters, places, etc, don't irritate me as much.

5) Science rules over Magic! :D

[Andy]

1. They do not necessarily have cooler armies. Fantasy races and aliens are usually pretty similar. And you can't judge the entire fantasy genre on a (crappy) book like Eragon. Guns and laser beams can get old fast. Fireballs, dragons, and magic have near-limitless possibilities.

2. Yeah, the universe is bigger, but how much of it do you get to see? How much of each planet do you get to see? Probably not much more than how much of a single fantasy world you get to see. There's plenty of room for amazing visuals in both genres.

3. The Force has a lot more in common with fantasy than sci-fi. :P

4. Um....Yuuzhan-tar. You'll find that in Star Wars. Most good fantasy doesn't have absurd names for no reason. Same with sci-fi.

5. Magic could blow you up before your science could even reach my body. Magic can defy physics. That's right....:devious:

Anyway, I like both genres, but I hope Rafael will think twice before saying less-than-positive things about fantasy. :D

[Rafael Domination]

:rolleyes:


Oh, I don't mind fantasy...I just like sci-fi better! :D


5. Magic could blow you up before your science could even reach my body. Magic can defy physics. That's right....

How? Try stopping a space station the size of a solar system (Marvel Comics...some villain's lair). It has a death ray that could vaporize any fantasy world before the wizards could blink :P

Anyhoo...I guess Shaun stated most of my points already. I don't really want Fantasy gone either...I'm working on a genre that has both elements...

[Carraka]

Nah. Through the power of prophecy, the world realizes it is about to be dematerialized, and then it creates magic that will reflect energy from the space station, so the space station ends up imploding.

Meh. I don't think one genre has more powerful things than another. I could easily invent a world-exploding spell and -- whoa, I just did! Where as you could easily have a character invent a world-exploding space station and -- whoa, you just did! I won't bother refuting your other four points -- Andy did a nice job of it.

To be serious, I do think science fiction is more relevant to real life, but I don't know about whether it has had more effect or actually caused any inventions. And I think "better" is being very loosely defined. If better means, "more relevant," then it might be science fiction, although both can deal with moral issues and ambiguous characters and ground-breaking ideas. Supposedly. Yet if I don't think better means "more relevant" -- then what does it mean?

This is why I don't debate.

[Andy]

Anyhoo...I guess Shaun stated most of my points already. I don't really want Fantasy gone either...I'm working on a genre that has both elements...
I'm trying to make my fantasy more like sci-fi. My magic isn't limitless. A person can only do so much with it before running out. I'm also thinking about having a black hole in one of the later books. It would certainly make for a convenient plot device. :)

[Shaun]

1. They do not necessarily have cooler armies. Fantasy races and aliens are usually pretty similar. And you can't judge the entire fantasy genre on a (crappy) book like Eragon. Guns and laser beams can get old fast. Fireballs, dragons, and magic have near-limitless possibilities.

Most SF doesn't use laser beams or guns. A lot of SF is avoiding the iconic stuff of the 30s, 40s, and 50s, hell even the 60s, for more interesting and politically oriented stories dealing with real world issues such as global terrorism, cyber terrorism, human habitation, etc.
Dragons are already old. I'm about fed up with all the damned books about dragons out there. Enough. They're not that cool.
Fireballs are lame after being done once. That's why hardly anyone does it anymore, the same reason why most SF these days doesn't use hokey things like laser guns.
Aliens are different from fantasy races because they, in theory, follow a certain biological logic--except in Star Trek, in which all the rules of biology are ignored.

2. Yeah, the universe is bigger, but how much of it do you get to see? How much of each planet do you get to see? Probably not much more than how much of a single fantasy world you get to see. There's plenty of room for amazing visuals in both genres.

Generally SF only moves off planet if it has to. This gives it more time to deal with things not central to world building--i.e. dealing with characters and plot. Fantasy is burdened with having to make a world that doesn't exist feel real by building that world from the ground up. SF tends to use a world that is already familiar and expands upon it so that things that are more important can be addressed.


3. The Force has a lot more in common with fantasy than sci-fi. :P

Not really. Midichlorians...remember? Yeah, scientific basis for Star Wars fed conveniently through cheese wiz...Granted, Star Wars is not an iconic example of SF...if you want something that is very much an SF invention, then go with Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics, which are actually used in robotic companies today who are dealing with increasing robotic intelligence (we have robots that can evolve to learn now, by the way).

4. Um....Yuuzhan-tar. You'll find that in Star Wars. Most good fantasy doesn't have absurd names for no reason. Same with sci-fi.

Again, you're using the most 'fantasy' of the SF lot here. Star Wars is not a good example of the leading in SF ideas. Star Wars is media. It's not even a print medium, so if we're going to argue fantasy against SF using this as a basis, then we should look at some of the worst fantasy movies made: Dungeons & Dragons, Eragon (which was far worse than the book), and a host of equally terrible movie franchises...
As far as names are concerned, that's not really an argument...we name people weird stuff in real life too. My friend's grandfather was named Dooridge...

5. Magic could blow you up before your science could even reach my body. Magic can defy physics. That's right....:devious:

No, because MAGIC DOES NOT EXIST IN THE REAL WORLD. If it did, I'd expect to see very little scientific development. Magic defies physics because it doesn't exist. Science is bound to the laws of the universe because it's REAL, not fake and made up junk.

[Hollyflight]

I personally find fantasy books more interesting. In the case of movies, I do find some science fiction interesting such as Star Wars. As far as books go, though, I think fantasy is by far more interesting. I find it interesting because the author has to create different creatures(unless they're using common fantasy creatures such as dragons, witches, etc.) and sometimes they have to create a whole new world from scratch! I find the author's effort one of the things, although science fiction authors do put much effort, fantasy just seems to be so complicated, so I admire the authors. Also, in science fiction it's more like alien end-of-the-world dude-goes-invisible thing and it gets pretty dull. At least, that's my opinion.

[Shaun]

You're clearly not reading the right science fiction. Some of the best SF ever written is complex, imaginative, and powerful in ways that fantasy is incapable of doing. Fantasy simply does different things that science fiction, generally speaking, doesn't do, but there are things that science fiction can do that fantasy simply can't.

[Rafael Domination]

I personally find fantasy books more interesting. In the case of movies, I do find some science fiction interesting such as Star Wars. As far as books go, though, I think fantasy is by far more interesting. I find it interesting because the author has to create different creatures(unless they're using common fantasy creatures such as dragons, witches, etc.) and sometimes they have to create a whole new world from scratch! I find the author's effort one of the things, although science fiction authors do put much effort, fantasy just seems to be so complicated, so I admire the authors. Also, in science fiction it's more like alien end-of-the-world dude-goes-invisible thing and it gets pretty dull. At least, that's my opinion.

Here's something from a sci-fi author. ^^

1) Creatures: I have had to invent several new species and make them scientifically valid, as compared to friggin' fvorkas (they look like pigs, but they have six feet instead of two, with yellow horns and a red tail) which fantasy authors can simply cook up and give no valid reason why the hell the exist and how they can exist, and the only way they can exist is because 'it's a fantasy novel'.

Creating a world from scratch: I had to create an OMNIVERSE (that's a universe of universes with all possibilities existing, even when negating each other, etc) out of scratch. I had to create entire civiliztions, how they look like, their unique flair, and even their fashion styles, out of nothing. Add the wildlife, which had to fit in, and the building styles, and the government system, and even the bloody terrain and weather, and I think I rest my case on this point.

Complexity: trust me. You don't want me to go there. Besides the philisophical aspect of sci-fi, there are so much things that span from time travel (which inadvertedly caused a crapload of paradoxes you have to wrap your mind around) to quantum physics, to twists in the plot that don't revolve around a deus-ex-machina, and you've got a hell of a roller-coaster ride. Note: sci-fi writers have to use wit and logical thinking to get their characters in and out of a conflict. We can't just rely on 'magic' to suddenly butt in and save the day.

So yeah...just a few thoughts on Holly's points :crazy:

But yeah, what I do for some of my genres is involve two world together: science and magic. In one dimension, the laws of physics might be different from the other (it is an Omniverse I've cooked up, after all; if all things have existed, then why not magic?). That way, I tend to leech of the good things both fantasy and sci-fi have.

[Shaun]

In all honesty, Raf, what you're doing is very rare in science fiction. Most of the world building in SF is in making sure things are logical and scientifically possible. The result is the vast majority of SF is highly human oriented, with aliens playing bit roles...we don't see a lot of real in-depth looks into alien civilizations.
But fantasy doesn't give us that either. In fact, most fantasy races are nothing more than physically altered humans. They almost always possess very human cultures, religious systems, etc. So yeah.

[Crocolyle]

On that note, one thing that annoys me about alien and fantasy races is that they look and act like caricatures of humans. I find this more annoying in science fiction. For example, Vulcans are humans with pointy ears and a fondness for logic and Klingons are humans with a ridge on their forehead and an aggressive disposition. I mean most star trek races, with a few exceptions, are humans with a couple features altered and a couple distinctive aspects to their personalities, making it appear that humans are the standard from which all the other races are based, because regardless of the alterations made to one specific race most other races with have that feature very human. Like except for the Klingons, most (but not all) the other races have human foreheads. Except for the Vulcans/Romulans all the other races have rounded ears.

And now for an opinion that contrasts with yours, Shaun. Not all authors of science fiction make sure things are logically and scientifically possible. Orson Scott Card, in particular, comes to mind particularly in the later Ender books when they need a way to travel instantly and have to redesign a virus... if you read the book, you'll know what I'm talking about... talk about improbable science (and deus ex machina for that matter!) Also Heinlein in Starship Troopers clearly does not understand evolution with his talk of the importance of radiation. I mean, "scientific possibility" often is really "unscientific improbability hidden in a layer of space-aged technobabble."

That being said, I tend to prefer science fiction over fantasy. I personally consider both of them just different branches of virtually the same genre of "speculative fiction," just one tends to make the impossible possible (i. e. prophecies, magic, dragons, angels, monsters etc), whereas the other makes the improbable probable (strange inventions, laboratory born creations, aliens, etc). I also like fantasy, though.

[Shaun]

On that note, one thing that annoys me about alien and fantasy races is that they look and act like caricatures of humans. I find this more annoying in science fiction. For example, Vulcans are humans with pointy ears and a fondness for logic and Klingons are humans with a ridge on their forehead and an aggressive disposition. I mean most star trek races, with a few exceptions, are humans with a couple features altered and a couple distinctive aspects to their personalities, making it appear that humans are the standard from which all the other races are based, because regardless of the alterations made to one specific race most other races with have that feature very human. Like except for the Klingons, most (but not all) the other races have human foreheads. Except for the Vulcans/Romulans all the other races have rounded ears.

Star Trek is just fantasy in a science fiction suit. It's simply amazing how unrealistic Star Trek is on all fronts. If you want to talk about Technobabble you need to go no further than ST :P. The problem with trying to portray significantly alien races on television is that a) there isn't a lot of time to make them interesting as anything beyond being "animalistic" and b) people don't have the patience to deal with trying to de-humanize alien races when episodes are only an hour long, or half an hour. Star Trek is simply the biggest breaker of the rule, except back in the day of the original series it wasn't a rule. It is sort of hard to go back and change who the Klingons or Vulcans are :P.

And now for an opinion that contrasts with yours, Shaun. Not all authors of science fiction make sure things are logically and scientifically possible. Orson Scott Card, in particular, comes to mind particularly in the later Ender books when they need a way to travel instantly and have to redesign a virus... if you read the book, you'll know what I'm talking about... talk about improbable science (and deus ex machina for that matter!) Also Heinlein in Starship Troopers clearly does not understand evolution with his talk of the importance of radiation. I mean, "scientific possibility" often is really "unscientific improbability hidden in a layer of space-aged technobabble."

That being said, I tend to prefer science fiction over fantasy. I personally consider both of them just different branches of virtually the same genre of "speculative fiction," just one tends to make the impossible possible (i. e. prophecies, magic, dragons, angels, monsters etc), whereas the other makes the improbable probable (strange inventions, laboratory born creations, aliens, etc). I also like fantasy, though.

No doubt that some science fiction isn't realistic. Some of this is because the authors simply accept that some of the things they use can't be considered real (as in today where FTL travel is, generally speaking, impossible) and some of this is because authors were writing in times when certain technologies were believed to be possible (a lot of what Clarke and Asimov wrote about are now known as impossibilities, but in the lens of the past they were very real).
But I agree that there is a lot of SF that isn't "real" in the sense of actual scientific possibilities. I love both genres, but SF is my favorite.

[Paradox]

Both science fiction and fantasy are useful and have literary value, but my personal opinion is that they are best when combined. Science fantasy.

Science fiction makes the probable possible.

Science fantasy makes the impossible probable.

Think of the creative possibilities!


*Paradox*