Fantasy vs Science Fiction: A Poll

[BAYLOR]

The thing about science fiction is that what was science fiction 100 years ago is the reality we live in. There's a lot of dystopian science fictions though and that's scary. They always have dark undertones.

1984 by George Orwell
Brave New World by Huxley
We by Zamyatin
The Iron Heel by Jack London
Limbo by Bernard Wolfe
The Caverns Below a .k a. The Hidden World by Stanton Coblentz

and others.

 

[althea]

The word dystopian seems to be all the rage at the moment. I hope some more positive sci/fi themes will start to become popular soon.

 

[Hilarious Joke]

The word dystopian seems to be all the rage at the moment. I hope some more positive sci/fi themes will start to become popular soon.

Me too!

 

[Lafayette]

I read some science fiction, but I mainly read fantasy. The reason for this is because I'm not scientifically or mathematically inclined.

When SF writers start throwing out scientific formulas or jargon I start zoning out.

One of my other quirks is when I'm reading the promos for Ray Bradbury that boast that he is the Greatest Science Fiction writer I get bent out of shape and want to yell at someone for telling such a whopper.

I have read Heinlein and Asimov and Bender's Game and enjoyed them and for the most part understood them. However, I have read Tolkien, Donaldson, Brooks and Guy Gavriel Kay and have enjoyed them a whole lot more.

 

[Ronald T.]

Although I love certain SF, most particularly 'DUNE", I can identify far more with the characters and worlds that are created in Epic Fantasy. I suppose it can be attributed to the fact that conflict is carried out on a more personal level: hand-to-hand and sword-to-sword. For the most part, no advanced technology or machinery stands in the way of a face-to-face confrontation. However, I will admit there were some great close-up fighting scenes in Dune. I guess that's why I enjoyed it so much.

 

[RX-79G]

Although I love certain SF, most particularly 'DUNE", I can identify far more with the characters and worlds that are created in Epic Fantasy. I suppose it can be attributed to the fact that conflict is carried out on a more personal level: hand-to-hand and sword-to-sword. For the most part, no advanced technology or machinery stands in the way of a face-to-face confrontation. However, I will admit there were some great close-up fighting scenes in Dune. I guess that's why I enjoyed it so much.

Which is interesting, because as a modern person I'm willing to bet you have used your intellect and technological prowess to solve problems, and you have probably never been in a true physical altercation.

It seems like hand to hand combat is more wish fulfillment than the kind of methodical process a sci fi character (like in The Martian) steps through to vanquish their antagonist.

 

[Ronald T.]

Rx, you're absolutely correct on your first point. Because I am a modern person, and I do use intellect and technical prowess to solve problems. I think all sane people do. I agree wholeheartedly.

But you're wrong on your second point. I've been in more than one physical altercation. And because of that, I studied and practiced Kung Fu for more than fifteen years. Hand-to-hand, on-on-one, face-to-face, combat -- or sparring if you prefer -- was always a part of that. It was a battle of one fighter's abilities against another. And there was not technology separating the combatants.

So, in my post, my references were based on my own experiences. I've never killed anyone with a sword or a dagger, so can't speak about that sort of experience. I can only say what I find enjoyable in the books I read.

I hope you understand I was making no judgement call on Science Fiction. I was simply stating my preference, and why I have it.

If I offended you in some way, you have my most sincere apology. That was never my intent.

 

[RX-79G]

But you're wrong on your second point. I've been in more than one physical altercation. And because of that, I studied and practiced Kung Fu for more than fifteen years. Hand-to-hand, on-on-one, face-to-face, combat -- or sparring if you prefer -- was always a part of that. It was a battle of one fighter's abilities against another. And there was not technology separating the combatants.

I was treating your post as a general statement, rather than a personal one. We all respond to the physical stuff as you describe, despite most of people not having any experience fighting at all. It is clearly something built into us to be excited by impulses that we largely have abandoned by inventing civilization.

 

[J Riff]

SF is turning back into Fantasy, if you watch recent movies, that is. The new Hugo Gernsback must save us. * )

 

[RX-79G]

SF is turning back into Fantasy, if you watch recent movies, that is. The new Hugo Gernsback must save us. * )

When was this not the case? When were the "good" sci fi movies that aren't simply adventures or horror movies?

 

[Lafayette]

I agree to some extent with Ronald T that swinging a sword is more personal. With me it's not a matter of technology getting in the way it's a matter of less satisfaction. In my mind a three year old can just as easily pull or press the trigger of a ray gun just as easily as I can. Who in their right mind wants the satisfaction of being a mightier warrior than a three year old? Swinging a sword or an ax you can say I did it and not the stupid trigger.

 

[Ronald T.]

I was treating your post as a general statement, rather than a personal one. We all respond to the physical stuff as you describe, despite most of people not having any experience fighting at all. It is clearly something built into us to be excited by impulses that we largely have abandoned by inventing civilization.

Well said, RX. And I agree wholeheartedly. And as I said, that trait is still strong in me. That's why I love the heroes who can stand up and make a difference by the strength of their arm, the depth of their honor, and their unwillingness to give up, even when continuing might mean death. And that goes for all protagonists -- male and female.

And although I wasn't upset by your first post, I appreciate your clarification all the same.

 

[hopewrites]

You guys got me thinking, perhaps it's the objective distancing that SF prefers that puts me off.

The wish fulfillment aspect being interacting with one's environment. To talk to trees and people and animals. To be understood, or able to fight for understanding.

Perhaps I don't care for SF because I do relate to it, and prefer fantasy because I want to learn how to relate to my world better.

 

[Abernovo]

You guys got me thinking, perhaps it's the objective distancing that SF prefers that puts me off.

The wish fulfillment aspect being interacting with one's environment. To talk to trees and people and animals. To be understood, or able to fight for understanding.

Perhaps I don't care for SF because I do relate to it, and prefer fantasy because I want to learn how to relate to my world better.

Then, may I suggest some different sf? Have you tried Doomsday Book, by Connie Willis? Time travel novel which dealing with huge social events, but in relation to personal interactions and their environment. There's also Ursula K LeGuin's classic The Left Hand of Darkness, basically a travel novel through a wintery planet, the intrepid adventurer exploring issues of society and gender as he goes; and the novels of Nancy Kress and Octavia Butler, who write beautifully, and often about people in environments - some like our own, others not so much. You could also check out the new kids on the block, Becky Chambers, and our own Jo Zebedee (she's not so much nature-orientated, although there is some, but definitely centres on people).
Just some of my preferred authors.

But, if you prefer to read fantasy, then nor is there anything wrong with that.
EDIT: I like both and, although I tend to read more sci-fi, I don't think of it as an either/or choice. Sometimes, it just depends upon my mood. Sometimes, I read romance, or poetry, or detective fiction. Even magazines in the dentist's waiting room.

 

[J-Sun]

You guys got me thinking, perhaps it's the objective distancing that SF prefers that puts me off.

The wish fulfillment aspect being interacting with one's environment. To talk to trees and people and animals. To be understood, or able to fight for understanding.

Perhaps I don't care for SF because I do relate to it, and prefer fantasy because I want to learn how to relate to my world better.

But it's better to relate to the world on a rational, realistic, objective basis. When people operate on wishful thinking and emotions we end up in the disastrous mess we're actually in, which includes a direct assault on science in the US and throughout the world (and a coinciding rise in the popularity of fantasy and dystopian sf). Granted, most of these emotions people are operating on are hate and resentment and so on, and the wishful thinking (while it may be to further their own lives) usually entails tearing other people down and that's not what you're talking about, but the Terror of the French Revolution and the Third Reich and possibly whatever we're in or headed towards now derive from outbreaks of unreason. It's possible to get too emotionally invested reason as well, ironically. The French Revolution's madness initially manifested in hyper-rationalism and the Soviet revolution was utterly deluded pseudo-science but an even-keeled, skeptical reason and a methodical rigorous science is probably the best path, IMO. Intuition and emotion are also important (and dangerous) but I'd want fellow humans to be able to talk to each other (which has proved impossible so far) before I'd worry about trees.

 

[RX-79G]

But it's better to relate to the world on a rational, realistic, objective basis.

This is true, for dealing with real life. I can understand why people up to their eyeballs in rationality would like to take a break from it when pleasure reading with fantasy or romance.

Personally, I find the real world fairly banal, so I look forward to reading something where people are doing something more adventuresome than shooting third world insurgents and more technologically thrilling than programming better cross-marketing platforms.

 

[hopewrites]

Trees are easier to talk to imo than humans.

 

[RX-79G]

Trees are easier to talk to imo than humans.

But they're crummy dancers.

 

[hopewrites]

True enough!

 

[J-Sun]

I dunno - pines can shimmy pretty well.

(Good point about the "fiction as an alternative/change of pace," btw.)