SF/Fantasy Poll

[=X=]

I've always been interested in why SF/Fantasy have always been bunched together. In my experience most people only read 1 genre either mostly SF or mostly Fantasy. Of those that read these categories which do you read?

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by =X=

I've always been interested in why SF/Fantasy have always been bunched together. In my experience most people only read 1 genre either mostly SF or mostly Fantasy. Of those that read these categories which do you read?

I think because they are all story where things happen that don't happen in our current world. In fantasy it is due to magic and in SF it is due to advanced technology. Of course, Star Wars is both SF and Fantasy.... They have tech and the force.

BOb

[Over]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

I think because they are all story where things happen that don't happen in our current world. In fantasy it is due to magic and in SF it is due to advanced technology. Of course, Star Wars is both SF and Fantasy.... They have tech and the force.

BOb

I don't see it exactly that way. There are magic-less fantasy worlds, for example.

I see fantasy as something more traditional, medieval, alternative worlds.

Sci-fi I see it as alternative realities, tecnhologies, not necessarily in the future or space.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by =X=

I've always been interested in why SF/Fantasy have always been bunched together. In my experience most people only read 1 genre either mostly SF or mostly Fantasy. Of those that read these categories which do you read?

Your experience doesn't match mine. I've been involved in SF fan activities for many years, and know a lot of people who read the genre, as well as a number of the folks who write it. We don't consider SF and fantasy to be separate genres, but rather nebulous areas within an overall genre of fantastic literature. While some writers write one or the other, many do both, and while some readers prefer one or the other, most read both.

Fantasy first got established as a separate publishing category due to Tolkien's _Lord of the Rings_, whose popularity spawned things like the Ballantine Adult Fantasy series, edited by Lin Carter, and prompted publishers to look for things like LoTR they could publish.

For that matter, SF got established as a category by Hugo Gernsbach in the pulp days. SF stories had been appearing in the pulps for some time. Hugo was the first to give the category a name - "Scientifiction" - and publish magazines devoted to it - Amazing Stories and Thrilling Wonder Stories. It got called SciFi by Forrest J. Ackerman, as a contraction of Scientifiction, and somewhat to the dismay of may fans, the term stuck. Fans tend to prefer to call it SF, which can stand for Science Fiction or Speculative Fiction. (The late Judith Merrill once suggested in an SF anthology that it might stand for Space Fish. )

A perennial question is where you draw the dividing line, and I'm not sure you can. Consider cases like Anne McCaffrey's Pern stories, or the late Randall Garret's "Lord Darcy" stories.

Pern features a feudal society with a roughly medieval level of technology, but has fire breathing dragons partnered telepathically with human riders, fighting the period falls of parasitic "threads". Pern is actually a lost colony whose human inhabitants arrived by starship, and the dragons are the product of genetic engineering on the indigenous fire lizards. Civilization had been knocked back to primitive level by the thread falls, and the populace had forgotten their origins. Folks coming to the series in later books see only the feudal trappings, medieval technology, and fire-breathing dragons, and say "Aha! Fantasy!" because it has the fantasy tropes, but it's pure SF.

The "Lord Darcy" stories are alternate history, set in a world where King Richard the Lion Hearted settled down after being wounded in the Crusades to become a very good king indeed, and founded a Plantaganet dynasty that still exists. The British Empire is locked in conflict with the Polish Empire of King Casimir. Magic has been developed instead of science, and theoretical thaumaturgists use sophisticated mathematics to develop the structure of spells that will be cast by practicing magicians. (Being able to cast spells requires the Talent, which is genetically based and possessed by a minority.) Lord Darcy is Chief Criminal Investigator for his Grace, the Duke of Rouen, and his partner, Master Sorcerer Sean O'Lochlain uses forensic sorcery to uncover evidence that will help Lord Darcy solve the crime. The Darcy stories are worked up in best "hard" SF fashion, and were originally published in Analog SF Magazine under the editorship of the late John W. Campbell.

For that matter, consider Melissa Campbell's "Silence Leigh" stories. Silence is a sorceress in a society that uses alchemy as the underlying science, and together with her two husbands travels the stars in a ship powered by mystical forces. In Silence's universe, magic and science are both valid paradigms to describe reality, but they are antithetical. If you use one, you can't use the other. Are the Silence Leigh books SF or fantasy?

And we have Patricia Kenneally's "Celts in Space" series, in which Brendan the Navigator of Celtic lore is Brendan the Astrogator, leading the Tuatha De Danaan off Earth to found a Celtic stellar empire, still locked in conflict with their ancient enemies the Formorians. Celtia uses computers and starships to deliver armies to the battlefields where they will engage the enemy with swords, while mages cast spells in support. (In a not entirely satisfying rationale, Kenneally posits a general agreement among all parties that combat between warriors must be mano a mano, and things like artillery are only permitted against fixed fortifications, which allows her to have things like naked broadsword wielding Fian warriors, painted with woad, delivered to the field by starship. Magic and science both work in Kenneally's universe, though this is simply presented as a given and no attempt is made to explain how or why). Is it fantasy or SF? Yes.

I'm curious. You mentioned liking SF movies, but preferring to read Fantasy books. What is it that attracts you to fantasy in written form, but puts you off SF?
______
Dennis

[Thanabur]

I voted for both... and Dennis really said it all, and quite more eloquently than I can ever hope to be.

[Richard Herley]

I too agree with Dennis, and voted for both. One of my favourite authors is Jack Vance, who bestrides both SF and fantasy -- and is also, on occasion, very, very funny. If you've never read The Eyes of the Overworld, you're in for a treat.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Richard Herley

I too agree with Dennis, and voted for both. One of my favourite authors is Jack Vance, who bestrides both SF and fantasy -- and is also, on occasion, very, very funny. If you've never read The Eyes of the Overworld, you're in for a treat.

Vance is wonderful. He writes prose that reminds me of intricately carved bas reliefs, and as you say, he writes in both categories. I prefer _The Dying Earth_ to _Eyes of the Overworld_ (which is a more or less sequel), but both are well worth the read.
______
Dennis

[=X=]

@DMcCunney; I've often ponder why I've a hard time enjoying SF. I now I've tried many times to read SF. The best answer I've come up with is that I've associated Fantasy with moden Mythology. Where the stories evole anound the individual/Community trying to overcome some aversary.
Most of the SF I've picked up focused too much on the techoloy or seemed too "every day" losing that Mythology feel. So far from my limited reading of SF, Star Wars does a good job.

[babyd]

I love my fantasy books. I am also beginning to read a little more sci-fi, but fantasy and urban fantasy are my main reads. My books shelves at home are full to bursting with these genres, and my Sony Reader is getting the same way, very quickly.
Love, love, love Robin Hobb, she is my all time favourite author, her Farseer trilogy is incredible, as is the Tawny man trilogy (a follow-on of farseer) and I have all her books in PB and ebook. I guess we can loosely tie Terry Pratchett's Discworld into fantasy, so he goes down as another favourite.
In Urban fantasy I love Jim Butcher and his Dresden files, Laurell K Hamilton and her Anita Blake series plus dozens of others.

[mazzeltjes]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Your experience doesn't match mine. I've been involved in SF fan activities for many years, and know a lot of people who read the genre, as well as a number of the folks who write it. We don't consider SF and fantasy to be separate genres, but rather nebulous areas within an overall genre of fantastic literature. While some writers write one or the other, many do both, and while some readers prefer one or the other, most read both.

Fantasy first got established as a separate publishing category due to Tolkien's _Lord of the Rings_, whose popularity spawned things like the Ballantine Adult Fantasy series, edited by Lin Carter, and prompted publishers to look for things like LoTR they could publish.

For that matter, SF got established as a category by Hugo Gernsbach in the pulp days. SF stories had been appearing in the pulps for some time. Hugo was the first to give the category a name - "Scientifiction" - and publish magazines devoted to it - Amazing Stories and Thrilling Wonder Stories. It got called SciFi by Forrest J. Ackerman, as a contraction of Scientifiction, and somewhat to the dismay of may fans, the term stuck. Fans tend to prefer to call it SF, which can stand for Science Fiction or Speculative Fiction. (The late Judith Merrill once suggested in an SF anthology that it might stand for Space Fish. )

A perennial question is where you draw the dividing line, and I'm not sure you can. Consider cases like Anne McCaffrey's Pern stories, or the late Randall Garret's "Lord Darcy" stories.

Pern features a feudal society with a roughly medieval level of technology, but has fire breathing dragons partnered telepathically with human riders, fighting the period falls of parasitic "threads". Pern is actually a lost colony whose human inhabitants arrived by starship, and the dragons are the product of genetic engineering on the indigenous fire lizards. Civilization had been knocked back to primitive level by the thread falls, and the populace had forgotten their origins. Folks coming to the series in later books see only the feudal trappings, medieval technology, and fire-breathing dragons, and say "Aha! Fantasy!" because it has the fantasy tropes, but it's pure SF.

The "Lord Darcy" stories are alternate history, set in a world where King Richard the Lion Hearted settled down after being wounded in the Crusades to become a very good king indeed, and founded a Plantaganet dynasty that still exists. The British Empire is locked in conflict with the Polish Empire of King Casimir. Magic has been developed instead of science, and theoretical thaumaturgists use sophisticated mathematics to develop the structure of spells that will be cast by practicing magicians. (Being able to cast spells requires the Talent, which is genetically based and possessed by a minority.) Lord Darcy is Chief Criminal Investigator for his Grace, the Duke of Rouen, and his partner, Master Sorcerer Sean O'Lochlain uses forensic sorcery to uncover evidence that will help Lord Darcy solve the crime. The Darcy stories are worked up in best "hard" SF fashion, and were originally published in Analog SF Magazine under the editorship of the late John W. Campbell.

For that matter, consider Melissa Campbell's "Silence Leigh" stories. Silence is a sorceress in a society that uses alchemy as the underlying science, and together with her two husbands travels the stars in a ship powered by mystical forces. In Silence's universe, magic and science are both valid paradigms to describe reality, but they are antithetical. If you use one, you can't use the other. Are the Silence Leigh books SF or fantasy?

And we have Patricia Kenneally's "Celts in Space" series, in which Brendan the Navigator of Celtic lore is Brendan the Astrogator, leading the Tuatha De Danaan off Earth to found a Celtic stellar empire, still locked in conflict with their ancient enemies the Formorians. Celtia uses computers and starships to deliver armies to the battlefields where they will engage the enemy with swords, while mages cast spells in support. (In a not entirely satisfying rationale, Kenneally posits a general agreement among all parties that combat between warriors must be mano a mano, and things like artillery are only permitted against fixed fortifications, which allows her to have things like naked broadsword wielding Fian warriors, painted with woad, delivered to the field by starship. Magic and science both work in Kenneally's universe, though this is simply presented as a given and no attempt is made to explain how or why). Is it fantasy or SF? Yes.

I'm curious. You mentioned liking SF movies, but preferring to read Fantasy books. What is it that attracts you to fantasy in written form, but puts you off SF?
______
Dennis

I love dedicated SF fans
You ask for a comment
and you end up with a lecture

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by babyd

I guess we can loosely tie Terry Pratchett's Discworld into fantasy, so he goes down as another favourite.

"Loosely tie"?

Let's see: Discworld is a flat disk, supported on the back of giant elephants, who are standing on the shell of great A'Tuan, a giant turtle swimming through the see of space. It has magic, wizards, barbarians, various non-human inhabitants like the Nac Mac Feegle...

If Discworld isn't straight up fantasy, I'd have a hard time saying what is.
______
Dennis

[tsgreer]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Vance is wonderful. He writes prose that reminds me of intricately carved bas reliefs, and as you say, he writes in both categories. I prefer _The Dying Earth_ to _Eyes of the Overworld_ (which is a more or less sequel), but both are well worth the read.
______
Dennis

I discovered Vance because of Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun series--specifically The Shadow of the Torturer. I read somewhere that Wolfe's basic idea of the dying earth of the far future was very similar to Vance's The Dying Earth.

I have to say I agree. When I was reading The Dying Earth, I really felt that this book and Wolfe's New Sun series took place in the same universe. It doesn't, but I see all the similarities and am very happy to have discovered Vance.

Also, I've never read Anne McCaffrey's Pern books, but after reading this thread, I think I'm going to start tonight. I have several of them in e-book but just figured them to be the usual Tolkien knock-offs. Um, looks like I was way off!

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by =X=

@DMcCunney; I've often ponder why I've a hard time enjoying SF. I now I've tried many times to read SF. The best answer I've come up with is that I've associated Fantasy with moden Mythology. Where the stories evole anound the individual/Community trying to overcome some aversary.
Most of the SF I've picked up focused too much on the techoloy or seemed too "every day" losing that Mythology feel. So far from my limited reading of SF, Star Wars does a good job.

There are plenty of mythic elements in SF, and "the individual/Community trying to overcome some adversary" applies to an awful lot of literature, in and out of SF/fantasy.

SF with mythic elements? I suppose Star Wars qualifies, though I'm less thrilled with it as an example than others may be. Someone pointed out the thematic similarities in the original trilogy with the stuff cited by Joseph Campbell in _The Hero of a Thousand Faces_, and Lucas apparently bought into the hype. The problem with that is that I don't think it's something you can do consciously. It works because you tap in to archetypes on an unconscious level, and only realize after the fact what you've done, if you realize it at all. Try to do it deliberately, and the results will likely be disappointing. (I think the recent SW films have been execrable. Lucas is a master visual technician. If you can see it in your head, he can figure out a way to put it on a screen. But he can't write to save his life, and should never be allowed near human actors as a director.)

If you want SF that deliberately mines myth, try Roger Zelazny, particularly _Lord of Light_ (Hindu mythology) and _Creatures of Light and Darkness_ (Egyptian mythology), recast in SF terms.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by tsgreer

I discovered Vance because of Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun series--specifically The Shadow of the Torturer. I read somewhere that Wolfe's basic idea of the dying earth of the far future was very similar to Vance's The Dying Earth.

I love the Book of the New Sun series. It cemented my opinion that Wolfe is one of the best writers currently active, in any genre.

I have to say I agree. When I was reading The Dying Earth, I really felt that this book and Wolfe's New Sun series took place in the same universe. It doesn't, but I see all the similarities and am very happy to have discovered Vance.

I never felt they took place in the same universe, but I agree that both are wonderful. For a different take on a far future Earth, try _The Long Afternoon of Earth_, by Brian Aldiss. It's far enough in the future that the moon has slowed in its rotation around Earth so that it's always in the same relative position, and giant spiders have spun webs connecting moon and Earth...

Also, I've never read Anne McCaffrey's Pern books, but after reading this thread, I think I'm going to start tonight. I have several of them in e-book but just figured them to be the usual Tolkien knock-offs. Um, looks like I was way off!

They are worth reading, though they eventually ran out of steam for me. While they are SF, Anne has never been strong on science, and tends to substitute handwavium in her macguffins. She is a lot closer to a romance writer in terms of plots and characters. (And she did a romance at one point featuring a couple of gay trapeze artists.)

She does not write Tolkien knock offs.
______
Dennis

[tsgreer]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I love the Book of the New Sun series. It cemented my opinion that Wolfe is one of the best writers currently active, in any genre.

I never felt they took place in the same universe, but I agree that both are wonderful. For a different take on a far future Earth, try _The Long Afternoon of Earth_, by Brian Aldiss. It's far enough in the future that the moon has slowed in its rotation around Earth so that it's always in the same relative position, and giant spiders have spun webs connecting moon and Earth...
______
Dennis

Yes, Wolfe is my all-time favorite author. Not exactly light reading, but if one can stick it out, he has a great way with words.

Hmm, Aldiss writing about giant spiders on a future earth?! I'm so there! That gets moved up ahead of the Pern novels. Thanks for the heads up!