Fantasy or science fiction?

[drofgnal]

I voted Fantasy, that being preferred over sci-fi, although I do read some sci-fi. But both take a back seat to my normal reading. I am currently reading a sci-fi book, The Chrysalids.

[conan50]

I was just thinking about this yesterday. I grew up reading both science fiction and fantasy. I know some people over the years never liked these genres lumped together, but it has never bothered me.

[issybird]

I voted neither. Because, yuck.

That said, I’m being a little harsh and might have tempered my vote to other speculative fiction. I’ll never read fantasy which is the stuff of kidlit to me. And while I can enjoy kidlit, it’s only if I’m reading it with a kid. (I only read HP, for example, because I started it with a young nephew.) SF is more nuanced for me. It’s a rarity among the books I read, but I do like the occasional dystopian or time travel novel. But it’s got to be set in a recognizable world with no aliens or other planets, certainly no anthropomorphic furry beings. I also dislike stories of the final battle between good and evil type.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by conan50

I was just thinking about this yesterday. I grew up reading both science fiction and fantasy. I know some people over the years never liked these genres lumped together, but it has never bothered me.

I really hate SF being lumped in with fantasy. Sure, there are some "rules" in fantasy, but they get to make them up. Science has its own rules and good SF had better obey them if it wants to be credible. But when people conflate SF and fantasy, they denigrate the increased discipline that has to be maintained in SF.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

I really hate SF being lumped in with fantasy. Sure, there are some "rules" in fantasy, but they get to make them up. Science has its own rules and good SF had better obey them if it wants to be credible..

How do you classify books with time travel or faster-than-light travel?

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

I really hate SF being lumped in with fantasy. Sure, there are some "rules" in fantasy, but they get to make them up. Science has its own rules and good SF had better obey them if it wants to be credible. But when people conflate SF and fantasy, they denigrate the increased discipline that has to be maintained in SF.

Partly because so many famous comics, TV shows and Movies are only SF because they are in the future, or in space or "special powers" and labelled as SF. They use magic called technology.

Most successful SF (movies, comics, TV and many novels, but not as much as the visual media) seems to ignore not just known science, but logic and Laws of Thermodynamics. Lots of "Magic by another name" and technobabble.

Most successful material labelled as SF has less "rules" than many High Fantasy works.

There is no sharp division.
Dune and Pern Series are sold as SF, but have more Fantasy elements than SF elements.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by issybird

I voted neither. Because, yuck.

That said, I’m being a little harsh and might have tempered my vote to other speculative fiction. I’ll never read fantasy which is the stuff of kidlit to me. And while I can enjoy kidlit, it’s only if I’m reading it with a kid. (I only read HP, for example, because I started it with a young nephew.) SF is more nuanced for me. It’s a rarity among the books I read, but I do like the occasional dystopian or time travel novel. But it’s got to be set in a recognizable world with no aliens or other planets, certainly no anthropomorphic furry beings. I also dislike stories of the final battle between good and evil type.

While I respect your tastes, I feel I have to comment here. Game of Thrones or the First Law trilogy by Joe Abercrombie kidlit? Those are well-known fantasy series absolutely unsuitable for children and are meant for adult readers. And they're far from being the only ones. Good fantasy stuff for adults is by no means kidlit.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

While I respect your tastes, I feel I have to comment here. Game of Thrones or the First Law trilogy by Joe Abercrombie kidlit? Those are well-known fantasy series absolutely unsuitable for children and are meant for adult readers. And they're far from being the only ones. Good fantasy stuff for adults is by no means kidlit.

That's fair. I can only quote Whitman, "Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes)."

I have no knowledge of Abercrombie and his First Law trilogy and thus can't comment, but in fact I've read all the GoT books. A friend pushed me to try them and since I'd got the first one back in the day when you could get first books in a series for free, I figured why not? I was sucked in and momentum kept me going, but my loathing increased over the course of the books, especially the fourth and fifth, and nothing could get me to read a sixth book now even if it fantastically appeared. But no, obviously not kidlit. So in parsing my comment, I think the silliness and contradictions inherent in bad fantasy at any rate and much good fantasy as well in that they just keep making it up makes it only suitable for kidlit for me. I think it boils down to the "recognizable world" I mentioned in my post. Fantasy, at least in my experience, tends to go off the rails.

Or, TL;DR: You got me! And, ugh, dragons. You lose me with dragons.

[Sirtel]

Hmm. For me, the main attraction of fantasy and sf is an unrecognizable world, where you don't know the rules and must learn to navigate all over again. Made-up worlds, other planets (preferably with aliens, and not furry ones), far future societies. Even historical fiction falls in this category for me, but the history must be old enough so that the society no longer resembles our modern one (at least 300 years - I'm not interested in newer history than that).

An unrecognizable world is the most exciting thing about any fiction for me (except for contemporary murder mysteries, and I don't read that many of those). Funnily enough it seems to be the very thing most people who don't read speculative fiction dislike - I've read and heard that argument before, many times. One man's bread and so on...

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by meeera

How do you classify books with time travel or faster-than-light travel?

Because it's science based and not magic based. It doesn't have to be science of now or we'd never get any science fiction other then what can come of science now.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by issybird

That's fair. I can only quote Whitman, "Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes)."

I have no knowledge of Abercrombie and his First Law trilogy and thus can't comment, but in fact I've read all the GoT books. A friend pushed me to try them and since I'd got the first one back in the day when you could get first books in a series for free, I figured why not? I was sucked in and momentum kept me going, but my loathing increased over the course of the books, especially the fourth and fifth, and nothing could get me to read a sixth book now even if it fantastically appeared. But no, obviously not kidlit. So in parsing my comment, I think the silliness and contradictions inherent in bad fantasy at any rate and much good fantasy as well in that they just keep making it up makes it only suitable for kidlit for me. I think it boils down to the "recognizable world" I mentioned in my post. Fantasy, at least in my experience, tends to go off the rails.

Or, TL;DR: You got me! And, ugh, dragons. You lose me with dragons.

The worst type of fantasy is the type where it's romance trying to disguise itself as fantasy. That type is absolutely dreadful.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by meeera

How do you classify books with time travel or faster-than-light travel?

Magic by another name, especially time travel. Also any FTL that's actually travelling.

A veneer of SF.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Magic by another name, especially time travel. Also any FTL that's actually travelling.

A veneer of SF.

Time travel can be done with magic or a machine (aka The The TARDIS or The Time Machine in H. G. Wells The Time machine)

[DiapDealer]

I don't much care about trying to delineate between (let alone "protecting the sanctity of") the various types of genre fiction. I like good genre fiction. If it's speculative, otherworldly, romantic, adventurous, historical, futuristic--so be it.

The only thing I'll quickly turn my nose up at is anything that has a magic "system" that someone tries to explain to me at great (and usually tedious) length. No magic-'splaining please.

That was a vote for 'Other' in case it was unclear.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by meeera

How do you classify books with time travel or faster-than-light travel?

I guess if I had to classify them, I'd fall back on speculative fiction. I have read and enjoyed fantastic stories. I give the author a temporary suspension of reason in exchange for a good story. If the story requires a sprinkling of pixie dust, and it's a good story, I'll go along with it. If the time travel requires some eye of newt, I'll hold my nose. If the FTL requires space mushrooms, it had better be a really good story. But please don't belittle the rigor of the author who works hard to understand the science by equating them with those who tell us that a wand made from a rare and magical tree will do it.