Why I Like SciFi over Fantasy.

[[deleted user]]

I have always liked SciFi over Fantasy but could never find the right words to explain why but while reading an interview with one of my favorite authors, Erik Wecks over at http://jeanzbookreadnreview.blogspot.... Erik gave me the answer. Just had to share this!

JB:"What made you decide to write that genre of book"?

EW:
"I have always loved science fiction because to me it feels like restricted fantasy. I like trying to stay within scientific plausibility when I imagine the fantastic future. While fantasy feels to me to be about pure escapism, well written science fiction is about human possibilities. It's about what we might become".

[The FountainPenDiva, Old school geek chick and lover of teddy bears]

Interesting analysis. I prefer the opposite because it's the oldest form of storytelling and fantasy I feel showcases the the infinite variety of humankind's imagination. That last also applies to sci-fi.

[Kevis]

Totally agree with TheFountainPenDiva. I prefer Fantasy because Fantasy is the stuff of dreams, while science fiction, as Danny says, allows us to explore our possibilities. Way I see it, without our dreams, we can never have anything to strive for in the first place.

Either way, the imagination can be boundless with Fantasy, but I can see why some would prefer science fiction where imposing some limits on the imagination make it more appealing to them.

[Laurel]

What is pure fantasy to one person is another person's science fact.

Sometimes the distinction is in the eye of the reader, how well science and social science educated they really are.

I see that in the way that science literate readers will label my books science fiction where others label them "fantasy."

[Kevis]

I think it's worth it to add that whether someone has a preference for science fiction or fantasy has little bearing on which genre produces the best art, art being subjective of course (there's good and bad in both genres). It really does come down to a matter of taste. But it is interesting to note how many science fiction tropes are borne out of mythological and fantastical elements.

[Ramsey]

Interesting interview. My own views are very similar to what Erik Wecks mentioned, but where we differ is that I don't mind some "pure escapism" every now and them. Wild, unbridled imagination is part of the human experience. Sometimes we need to cast off the ropes that bind us to reality, and go floating off into the fantastical ether. And when we do that, we do something magical, we effectively create something that can't actually exist. It's a powerful thing. That's why I write both fantasy and science fiction; I totally love how sci-fi gives a glimpse into what could be, but I'm just as enamored with the things that can never be, except in human imagination.

[Micah]

I've always been solidly in the SF over Fantasy camp. I don't claim one is superior to the other, just that my own preference is for the former over the latter.

Why? I think it's because my enthusiasm is for ideas of possible realities over realizations of the imaginary.

"It isn't real now, but it might be possible!" is much more interesting to me than "It absolutely could never be, but in this book it seems real."

Mostly because I find life now rather dull and am anxious to know/experience what could become real. But also partly because Fantasy authors usually don't do a very good job of convincing me their worlds are real. There's way too much time and energy in Fantasy put into populating the world with magical mystical creatures, which generally end up being the same old fantasy races just plopped into another world with maybe the names changed, and nowhere near enough effort put into creating an imaginitive, interesting, mysterious world concept for the reader to explore. In short, Fantasy usually fails for me because it fails to come up with any really new/good ideas...either that or the writing style obliterates what new/good ideas exist.

I also think Tolkien spoiled me on Fantasy. His world is so well realized, its history and language so deeply thought out--the whole thing so real in the author's imagination--that no one I've read has ever come close to matching his accomplishment. Most Fantasy ends up feeling very lazy to me. Lazy and derivative and disappointing.

Which is kind of odd, I suppose, coming from a guy who's been involved in Fantasy Role Playing Games since the late 1970s.

[Kevis]

Micah wrote: "I also think Tolkien spoiled me on Fantasy. His world is so well realized, its history and language so deeply thought out--the whole thing so real in the author's imagination--that no one I've read has ever come close to matching his accomplishment. Most Fantasy ends up feeling very lazy to me. Lazy and derivative and disappointing...."

I agree with that. It's one of the reasons why I don't read many modern fantasy books. I prefer the old stuff like Dunsany, Lewis, Tolkien, etc. If I read one more book where a wizard is walking upright on a wall, I'll probably lose it. Tolkien's world was realistic. No matter how magical, you could believe that a place like Middle-Earth could exist. Some of these other fantasy milieus, not so much.

[[deleted user]]

Ramsey wrote: "Interesting interview. My own views are very similar to what Erik Wecks mentioned, but where we differ is that I don't mind some "pure escapism" every now and them. Wild, unbridled imagination is p..."

Very well said Ramsey....and I feel this way at times which is why I do enjoy some fantasy in the mix.

[[deleted user]]

Micah wrote: "I've always been solidly in the SF over Fantasy camp. I don't claim one is superior to the other, just that my own preference is for the former over the latter.

Why? I think it's because my enthus..."

I think you cover my thoughts and feelings about the Fantasy issue very well Micah as that pretty much sums up my seeing it.

Thanks all for these interesting points of view.

[Micah]

Danny wrote: "Ramsey wrote: "Interesting interview. My own views are very similar to what Erik Wecks mentioned, but where we differ is that I don't mind some "pure escapism" every now and them. Wild, unbridled i..."

Bearing in mind that SF can be "pure escapism" as well, I also agree. ;)

[Judy]

Micah wrote: "I've always been solidly in the SF over Fantasy camp. I don't claim one is superior to the other, just that my own preference is for the former over the latter.

Why? I think it's because my enthus..."

I would venture to say that Fantasy (good fantasy) is one of the hardest genres to write because of the world creation and the temptation to let all laws run amuck. So I agree that it can be very difficult to find a solid read.

Unfortunately I tend to find this also true in Science Fiction. Too often a lot of bad science ruins it for me.

[[deleted user]]

I find it amusing when there is an assumption that fantasy is escapism or is just a bunch of magical races and creatures rearranged. .... To me all that was is one hasn't read much fantasy and tends to think it ranges from Harry Potter all the way to D&D.

I like fantasy and science fiction equally and find a lot in both genres that can be escapist or enlightening or plausible or trite.

[Brenda ╰☆╮]

I don't "like" science fiction over fantasy, and at this time I read a lot more fantasy books.
I prefer either over other genres.

I like them for the creativity, and the ability to create new "laws" for the universe.

Science is amazing, and with new discoveries all the time, it is fast becoming.... science fact.

Who's to say...in this possible multiverse....that "fantasy" ideas are not possible.....somewhere else.
;)

[Charles]

While I probably lean in the SF preference direction, I'm much, much more interested in craftsmanship, originality, and something meaningful to say versus which genre it fits into. While I love sci-fi with great science, that's only if it has a good story, characters, and writing to go with it. Similarly, I'm not really interested in another D&D-like story or Tokien rip-off, yet if it's done really well with perhaps some original twist, I may well quite like it.

To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "It's the writing, stupid". :-)

[Brenda ╰☆╮]

Yes. I agree Charles.
:)

Oops....I mean I agree with this part...
more interested in craftsmanship, originality, and something meaningful to say versus which genre it fits into. While I love sci-fi with great science, that's only if it has a good story, characters, and writing to go with it.

To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "It's the writing, stupid". :-)

[Jim]

I'm with Charles on this, we've had too much sub-Tolkienesque fiction or veiled write-ups of Role Playing campaigns.
Then again the problem I have when writing SF is that reality has a nasty habit of catching up on me

[Dale]

I prefer SF because it "feels" more solid. This isn't to say that I don't read any fantasy because I do.

[[deleted user]]

I agree that some SF feels solidly based in reality and (without getting into that entire debate on what qualifies as SF and what is F) some has nothing to do with reality whatsoever. For example, Alstair Reynolds' House of Suns is fantastic and one of the better SF books I've read in the past few years and is definitely not grounded in hard science but is more of a higher end Space Opera.

But that's my thing. Saying SF is this while F is that is and understatement at best as science fiction is many many things and it covers a wide range of sub-genres, styles and authors - which is really one of the reasons I love it so much. And, one of the reasons I love Fantasy so much as well.

[E.D.]

One man's studio apartment is another man's Volvo hatchback. What's that old saying?: "I hate bigots. And the Dutch." :}

[Kevis]

I think for me I've had a much better experience reading science fiction as opposed to fantasy. I find there is too much repetition and copycatting going on in fantasy. Even when authors update familiar tropes such as "Sparkly" Vampires, it doesn't win me over.

However, I prefer to read about fantastic worlds where magic can happen and the setting is rustic and not very technological. There's something attractive about a band of travelers sitting around an open fire knocking back some mead and eating meat off the bone. Short of the fact that the medieval styled fantastic settings likely won't have a working toilet, I can easily imagine myself living in such a world.

On the other hand, futuristic science fiction tales are more frightening to me. It's really daunting to image what would happen if our First Contact scenario with a technologically advanced species were to go south. Imagine the horror that could be unleashed.

So in a sense, what makes me give the nod to Fantasy is the setting, and mythological elements, but my reading experience has borne out that I have fared much better reading Science Fiction.

[Charles]

Kevis wrote: "I think for me I've had a much better experience reading science fiction as opposed to fantasy. I find there is too much repetition and copy catting going on in fantasy. Even when authors update fa..."

For some reason some of your reply made me think of Poul Anderson's essay "On Thud and Blunder", which I think all fantasy writers -- at least those writing in pre-industrial settings -- should be required to read and pass a quiz on. :-)

[Kevis]

Charles wrote: "For some reason some of your reply made me think of Poul Anderson's essay "On Thud and Blunder", which I think all fantasy writers -- at least those writing in pre-industrial settings -- should be required to read and pass a quiz on. :-)"

It's been years since I read that essay. I think I'll have to go back and freshen up on it. But if I'm thinking of the right essay, Anderson talks about the silly ways that fantasy authors try to use what's come before without truly understanding the details of the genre.

One of my favorite diatribes on a similar subject is Orson Scott Card's hilarious warning about inventing character names for Speculative Fiction. There is a chapter in his guide to writing fantasy and science fiction called "My Name is Cuthbert", stressing that no matter how frightening Bram Stoker describes Dracula, that if his name was Cuthbert, he wouldn't be nearly as terrifying.

[Kevis]

Seems like an eternity since I read that essay, Charles. I'd forgotten about most of it. But there's lots of good stuff there. Thumbs up for the reminder.

[Charles]

Off the top of my head, I remember Anderson discusses stuff like you don't gallop your horse unless you really have to, how exhausting it would be to try to use huge weapons popular in fantasy stories, details about different social structures, how religion fit in, etc., etc. -- all the common everyday stuff that would have affected how characters could/would act, yet are conveniently ignored (usually through ignorance) by many heroic fantasy authors.

[Kevis]

My favorite is his mentioning of the barbarian swinging a fifty pound sword. A point well made, I think.

[Micah]

I take it Anderson was not a D&D player.

[Charles]

Micah wrote: "I take it Anderson was not a D&D player."

Err...yeah...D&D is my primary source for determining what is realistically possible and historically probable. ;-) (I love the battle with the goblins in the first part of this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_iDtC... )

[Micah]

Charles wrote: "I love the battle with goblins..."

Been there. Done that. ;)

[[deleted user]]

I love that Anderson essay, but it applies to beyond fantasy too. Think of noir stories where the hero gets clubbed on the back of the head and knocked out for a short time, then is up a ready to go. I guess some authors never heard of concussions before.

Prophecies bug me too. What ever happened to prophet who took to much hallucinogens, wrote down hooey, then have a bunch of idiots believe it for 2,000 years.

And then there is the hero who is the best x in y going after the mighty z. It could be the best swordsman in Xut fighting the immortal demon wizard of Yzzy for fate of all free worlds over the multiverse or whatever. But Heros don't need to be the BEST and stakes not so high rent.

[Charles]

Greg wrote: "I love that Anderson essay, but it applies to beyond fantasy too. Think of noir stories where the hero gets clubbed on the back of the head and knocked out for a short time, then is up a ready to ..."

Having spent several days in a hospital and not being allowed to drive for several months afterwards after hitting the back of my head on the floor of a volleyball court, I hear you. :-)

And I, too, tend to prefer real people being heroic as opposed to super-gifted (and prophesied) whomevers -- probably why I'm not much into the whole superhero scene. Of course, there are many exceptions to that rule for me (the Amber books, for instance), but I love the Sam Vimes character in the Discworld series, who has no special ability other than a strong desire for justice, along with plenty of weaknesses.

[Thomas]

Charles wrote: "Micah wrote: "I take it Anderson was not a D&D player."

Err...yeah...D&D is my primary source for determining what is realistically possible and historically probable. ;-) (I love the battle with ..."

That's a hoot. We've all had the night where the dice are completely against us. Couldn't roll to save your life.

[Charles]

Thomas wrote: "Charles wrote: "Micah wrote: "I take it Anderson was not a D&D player."

Err...yeah...D&D is my primary source for determining what is realistically possible and historically probable. ;-) (I love ..."

Possibly my favorite line from that movie: "Bards suck!"

[[deleted user]]

D&D, now there's a flashback to my youth in the early 80s. I would have thought dice games were way past passé.

[Will]

I've always thought that science fiction and fantasy do similar things ... they both allow us to explore what would happen if the usual rules did not apply. That includes the normal rules of society plus physical rules such as gravity, the limitations of human biology and history.

Science fiction generally does this by setting the story in the future, on an alien planet or with the aid of some currently-unavailable technology.

Fantasy generally achieves the same ends by using an alternative history. Elves and hobbits, magic and destiny.

Of course there are crossovers - stories which straddle both genres. But on the whole we are left with possible future vs alternative history.

In theory ...

The problem is the massive shadow cast by JRR Tolkien. Much fantasy seems to be stuck in variants of his world, which in turn was a reworking of the Arthurian legend - Anglo-Saxon/ celtic art and architecture, kings, destiny, magic, swords, axes, bow and arrows.

Don't get me wrong - I like a good hobbit as much as the next bloke. But I do feel that there ought to be more to fantasy than Tolkien. To be fair, there is, but you need to wade through armies of elves and dwarves to find it.

[Steph]

Will wrote: "...Much fantasy seems to be stuck in variants of [JRR Tolkien's] world, which in turn was a reworking of the Arthurian legend - Anglo-Saxon/ celtic art and architecture, kings, destiny, magic, swords, axes, bow and arrows..."

I would dispute the Arthurian influence. Tolkien's work always seemed more Nordic to me. Besides, much of 'The Shire' was based on Worcestershire (in the English Midlands) and The Lord Of The Rings reflects the area's change to a more industrial landscape at the time. His peerless world building is down to having a real landscape to call upon. Writers who simply aim to emulate Tolkien can't draw on that and so fail.

I much prefer science-fiction. Fantasy seems to revel in conflict that aims to maintain the status quo - e.g. the evil lord has to be vanquished so that the land can return to its previous cosy existence. Good sci-fi revels in conflicts that create lasting change - e.g. the ship's computer went mad and killed the crew, but now we know that the big black monolith orbiting Jupiter means we're not alone...

[Will]

Well, this is why I think there are links between the Arthurian legend and Tolkien...

Both deal with an inherited destiny, where Aragorn's and Arthur's future depends on their ancestry. This is not Beowulf where the hero wins through force of arms. It is a monarchist's charter where Arthur succeeds because he is the son of Uther Pendragon.

Both have an enchanted item which drives the story - Excalibur and the One ring respectively.

Both are set in a rural England with medieval weaponry and social structures. Okay, so Tolkien added in more contemporary elements such as industrialisation and pipe-smoking. But it is pretty clear what he had in mind. We can speculate about exactly which county inspired him. I suspect it was a mixture of several.

Both deal with the ideals of fellowship and honour.

Both have wizards as prominent characters.

Of itself, there is nothing wrong with any of this. There are only so many stories that are possible. But it does seem a little limiting that much of fantasy seems to be using similar ideas.

[Steph]

Will wrote: "...Both have an enchanted item which drives the story - Excalibur and the One ring respectively..."

Excalibur didn't feature much in the original myths. Arthurian legends evolved dramatically from Welsh roots (in which Merlin was the protagonist) to the medieval retellings which centred around the doomed relationship between Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot (who was invented by the French) and the Grail quest. It's not an 'English' (i.e. Anglo-Saxon) story, but is instead part of the mythology of the Britons. England as a country hadn't yet come into being at the time Arthur was supposed to have existed.

[Will]

There are two issues here - (1) the evolution of the Arthurian story as a piece of history and (2) the story as it would have been perceived by Tolkien (and is perceived by us).

(1) The Arthurian story has several sources - principally Geoffrey of Monmouth in the 1100s. His "history of the kings of Britain" has most of the elements that we would recognise as the core Arthurian story, including Merlin, Uther and Excalibur.

In the 12th and the 13th centuries, the French took over with a series of romances. They add in the soppy bits ... Guinevere, Lancelot, Tristan and Isolde and the grail quest.

The version which has most influenced our culture is arguably Thomas Malory's Morte D'Arthur in the late 1400s - probably because it was one of the first printed works. This combines the stories from the earlier Geoffrey of Monmouth book and the French romance into a single volume.

I have fond memories of ploughing through Malory many years ago for my English degree. I'm currently reading passages with my 12 year old son. The juxtaposition of medieval prose and the yoofchoob generation is often hilarious!

(2) Interesting although all that is, it doesn't alter the fact that the version of the Arthurian legend which influences most of us (and JRR Tolkien) is Malory, which has many parallels with Lord of the Rings. That is perhaps not surprising as Tolkien was professor of Anglo Saxon at Oxford and was writing an epic poem about the life of Arthur ("The Fall of Arthur") at the time that he was publishing both the Hobbit and LOTR.

The geography covered by both the Arthurian legends and LOTR may not be called England, but both are undeniably English.

To sum up, Tolkien was an expert in Anglo-Saxon literature, he was writing a 1000 line poem about the death of Arthur, and LOTR shares many elements of the most famous Grail source - the Morte D'Arthur by Thomas Malory - wizards, kings, enchanted swords, destiny, feudalism and the British/English countryside.

So, yes, I do believe that there are strong similarities between LOTR and the King Arthur stories!

[[deleted user]]

The echoes of Arthur in LOTR seem to me very faint. Arthur and Merlin are doomed figures, at least in Malory; Aragorn and Gandalf are not. Tolkien may well have been influenced by Arthurian legend, but if so, he transmuted it into something that feels very different.

Will wrote: Both have an enchanted item which drives the story - Excalibur and the One ring respectively.

I would have thought Anduril, rather than the Ring, parallels Excalibur. I don't see anything in Arthurian legend that parallels the Ring.

A major difference between Arthurian legend and LOTR is that in Arthurian legend evil comes from Arthur himself, in the shape of his son Mordred, whereas in LOTR it comes from a force external to Aragorn's kingdom, i.e. Sauron.

[Will]

Maybe. Maybe.

Frodo has a destiny he cannot escape. He is Bilbo's adopted heir and the ring bearer. A magical ring draws him through the story and eventually to his doom.

Aragorn has a destiny he cannot escape. He is Isildur's heir. An ancestral sword draws him through the story and to his destiny as the king of Gondor.

Arthur has a destiny he cannot escape. He is Uther Pendragon's heir. A magical sword draws him through the story to a destiny, first to be king then to fail.

Harry Potter has a destiny he cannot escape. He is his parents' heir. A magical school draws him through the story to a destiny which is to confront Voldemort.

Heck, even Luke Skywalker has a destiny to defeat the emperor because he is Anakin Skywalker's heir. And, guess what, here's your father's light sabre. He would have wanted you to have it.

Thrown in the feudal system of pledging allegiance to a king, a wizard or two (let's call Yoda a wizard for the sake of argument), the odd prophecy and there you have it. A standard recipe for a fantasy story. Just add seasoning.

Okay, so there are differences. In LOTR, the main magic doohickey is a ring. It could equally have been a crown, an amulet, a tie pin or a cuff link. The point is that it is a magical thingymebob which gives the bearer powers but also forces him to do things he doesn't necessarily want to do. Frodo and Aragorn's destiny may not have been exactly the same as Arthur's. The bad guy might be subtly different. But the point is that they are all driven by inherited destiny, wizards and magical trinkets. The differences are minor.

[[deleted user]]

Well, if you're now claiming that the Arthurian legends and LOTR are both parts of a hero-and-magic-object tradition that reaches way back, then of course I agree. You seemed to be claiming a much more direct influence by one on the other, which I can't quite detect.

I think one of the great things about LOTR is the transmutation of these standard elements into something fresh. Tolkien takes what ought to be tired old props, and makes something really terrific out of them. C.S.Lewis raided the same prop-cupboard for his Narnia stories, and made something at least as fresh as LOTR, but totally different. Every so often, somebody comes along who similarly brushes the dust off the old things and shows us them in a new light: LeGuin, Crowley, Beagle... Though I'm a fan of SF, I would never say I'm a bigger fan of SF than fantasy, because these old fantasy elements always seem to be capable of being renewed in the hands of a really good writer.

[Will]

We're getting there!

I fully agree with your sentiment about "tired old props". Yes, a skilled writer can make something fresh out of a limited genre. But that doesn't alter the fact that the genre has limitations - or more accurately that we (as authors and readers) are limiting the genre through our expectations.

There is nothing that says that a fantasy story has to be rooted in concepts of destiny, monarchy, feudalism or be set in a pre-Christian celtic-romano Britain. There are other ideas to explore, other landscapes to use, other periods of history to choose as backdrops.

The more interesting fantasy stories for me are the ones that try something different, like the His Dark Materials trilogy.

As to which I prefer - science fiction or fantasy - I sit on the fence. I read both and write both. A well written story transcends genre. What I am trying to do, in a small and humble way, is to nudge fantasy on a bit. As wonderful as Tolkien is, it would be good if we could get out of his shadow and explore some other fantasy landscapes. That might also help to encourage some non-fantasy readers to join us.

[[deleted user]]

Agreed. Perhaps the problem is the conservatism (or perceived conservatism) of fantasy's readers. It's hardly surprising that writers and (still more) publishers don't venture far from the Tolkienesque if they think that's what readers want.

It's difficult. The movies of the books, good as some are, aren't helping to fight the conservatism, especially since Peter Jackson's have been so much better than, say, 'The Golden Compass'.

[Nicolas]

Kevis and Micah, give Tad Williams' Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn a try. The world is very, very thoroughly realized, and the mystical elements are built in in a pretty restrained manner. No walking on walls or that crap. I'm still trying to work my way through it.

[Kevin]

Nicolas wrote: "Kevis and Micah, give Tad Williams' Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn a try. The world is very, very thoroughly realized, and the mystical elements are built in in a pretty restrained manner. No walking on..."

My problem with Tad Williams is that he writes long books with nothing going on for over a 100 pages as the plot goes nowhere.

[[deleted user]]

Kevin wrote: My problem with Tad Williams is that he writes long books with nothing going on for over a 100 pages as the plot goes nowhere.

The plot of 'Memory, Sorrow and Thorn' doesn't go nowhere: it quite definitely goes somewhere, but it takes its time, following several threads at once, and, as Nicolas says, thoroughly realizing all its elements - characters, species, places, and themes. It's a book to lose yourself in for several evenings, like LOTR and 'Little, Big'. Personally I loved it.

[Scott]

Kevin wrote: "Nicolas wrote: "Kevis and Micah, give Tad Williams' Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn a try. The world is very, very thoroughly realized, and the mystical elements are built in in a pretty restrained manne..."

The reason I think Memory, Sorrow and Thorn is a great series and Wheel of Time is crap is because even though Williams takes a long time to get anywhere, every single page does move the story forward and things are happening (slowly I will agree). There are very few pages you would be able to cut from these books and not harm the story (whereas Robert Jordan's series you could cut whole books out and not harm the story).
Yes I do understand that the books aren't for everyone because they are slower moving then let's say R.A. Salvatore but that's why there are so many books, authors and genres - so we can pick the one we like the best.

[Ken]

TheFountainPenDiva wrote: "Interesting analysis. I prefer the opposite because it's the oldest form of storytelling and fantasy I feel showcases the the infinite variety of humankind's imagination. That last also applies to ..."

I appreciate both varieties. Most of all, I adore the rare breed known as "Speculative Fiction" which dissociates itself with both Fantasy and SF, but encapsulates both and more. It truly exemplifies the power of human imagination tempered by reason and wit.

Concerning those mentioned already, Tad Williams I gave a couple tries to. The only series I enjoyed was Memory, Sorrow, Thorn. Even then, I felt it included too many fantasy tropes, despite some original ideas. As a whole it was entertaining, but in the way that going to a movie is entertaining. It did not capture me as some great novels do.

Robert Jordan's story is just so vast that the whole is not the sum of its parts, and that any section could be removed without detriment to the reader. This is not a great thing for establishing character empathy or driving the plot forward.

Pullman's His Dark Materials was to me as Williams' tale was. Entertaining, occasionally fresh and original, but as a whole, limnal. It couldn't penetrate the deeper questions of humanity because it presumed to answer many of them rather than posit originally insightful questions. Questions are always much more interesting than answers.

R.A Salvatore again is a good fantasy trope author with some original ideas. His subversion of the elvish schema was intriguing, but as a whole his creation appears to harbor so many of the same elements as other fantasy tales, such that nothing truly remarkable lifts it above its contemporaries.

Tolkien, Lewis, LeGuin, I have no need to write of. They are legendary.

Someone mentioned Orson Scott Card's warning about invented names. I once read an xkcd.com comic which graphed the frequency of invented names in a book vs. how good such a book is likely to be. It was a logarithmic relationship. Negative, in fact. I tend to agree with Randall Munroe, the artist. There is too much invention in SF/F which is unnecessary. This may seem like a contradiction, but it is not. While it is the very core of the genre to delve the imagination for original concepts and fantastic components, artificially and unceremoniously changing names to exude an exotic semblance is not the spirit of SF/F. It is the mimicry of art, in a form which debases itself. Calling your character something unpronounceable because it sounds alien does not make that character seem alien to the reader if all of their actions and mannerisms are Earthly. This subtle point is often missed. Similarly, a tale involving ray guns and space ships need not be SF. It could be mystery, fantasy, history, or romance. The props do not make the story. The set does not make the play, no less is "Avatar" than a repainted "Pocahontas". The relationships, interaction of characters, and the words between lines are what determine genre in my mind.

For me, the pinnacle of genre border-crashing and Speculative Fiction is Gene Wolfe's The Book of the New Sun. I rave about him constantly, but here is a man who tells a story of a protagonist in a far-future Earth, wielding a sword and walking for much of the book. He lives in a time where the average technology level of the populace is that of the fantasy world, with castles and ships. But the officers in the army carry energy weapons, aliens wearing human masks consult with rulers, battles are fought between continents, and ultimately the story goes beyond the disk of the universe and into another. Is this fantasy? He carries a sword, whetstone, and most people are ignorant of technology. Is it SF? Great ships sail the void between the stars and even the edge of time itself. Is it romance? Certainly he meets many lovers and attaches specific emotions to them. Is it adventure? There are elements of the hero's journey. Is it mystery? It is said, even within the text, that only by reading the whole book closely several times will some truths be revealed.

I've gone and gotten carried away again. But my point is this: What separates fantasy from SF is a very thin veil.

[Nicolas]

Kevin wrote: "Nicolas wrote: "Kevis and Micah, give Tad Williams' Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn a try. The world is very, very thoroughly realized, and the mystical elements are built in in a pretty restrained manne..."

That's my problem, too. I've been working on Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn for two years, and only a bit of that is because I haven't really wanted to put my full attention into it. I'm enjoying the direction it's going, but I wish that some of the worldbuilding had been introduced in little chunks when it was relevant, rather than being frontloaded. All of that is operating on my wife's word that the information IS relevant, later in the story. Still, I'm inclined to trust her, since this series, and Brandon Sanderson's work are her "fantasy authors to beat" barholders.