SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
Members' Chat
>
How do you like your scifi / fantasy
I like both types, but prefer blended. Specifically, I like a fantasy story that includes laser guns and spaceships.
Please post some examples of the blended. I'm beyond bored of the vaguely medieval settings of sword, sorcery, and quest fantasy... but otoh I did just enjoy The Forgotten Beasts of Eld.
I like science-heavy SF, for example The Martian, but the author's sophomore novel, Artemis, doesn't deserve a link, imo.
A good story can be told in either setting, but I feel more likely to be able to find them in SF.
Cheryl wrote: "Please post some examples of the blended. "Pretty much every single sci-fi movie and TV series.
I'm pretty much straight SF but I read a lot of different types of SF from Social SF to Hard SF to New Space Opera to Cyberpunk (oddly not so much William Gibson) to just weird stuff.My favorite SF authors are a mix of different styles.
For example I love Philip K. Dick and most Greg Bear books. PKD did near-pulp SF on up to meditations on insanity, religion, and the nature of (shifting) reality/realities, heavy on the mind twisting weirdness. OTOH Greg Bear's works tend to be very neutral in voice, logical and calmly narrated. He also wrote some fantasy which I have avoided.
I also like Alastair Reynolds, Iain M. Banks (RIP), and Ken McKleod a lot. All of them get lumped into the New Space Opera category though Reynolds and McKleod have done a lot of other subgenre writing as well.
Peter F. Hamilton is another one I read a lot of, also does the big New Space Opera thing but has unfortunately also tossed in a bunch of fantasy in his Void books ... which blend SF and fantasy and the thing is ... I've got a problem when sword and sorcery gets mixed into SF.
I can sometimes get with it if there is a good enough explanation but it's generally a no-no.
All that said, I did like the mix of steampunk, fantasy, and horror in Perdido Street Station by China Miéville.It was such a unique and visionary work that I was completely sucked in (which can actually be fairly horrifying!).
I love sci-fi, particularly time travel and alternate history novels. I am also partial to Urban Fantasy with a 'for adults' twist.
I like my sci-fi/fantasy like I like my women: smart with a twist ending.
I like my Fantasy, straight, no chaser. My Sci-Fi, I like it shaken not stirred.
I thought about that and I think I don't care. The worldbuilding has to be convincing for me within its own context, then I'm fine.
Phillip wrote: "I like both types, but prefer blended. Specifically, I like a fantasy story that includes laser guns and spaceships."James Cameron's Avatar?
----
If I was to add a "blend" that I've read, I'd mention this: The Story of Raiya It's a bit like Independence Day/War of the Worlds but with dragons invading earth instead of humanoid aliens. (bonus point: there is a mad scientist, yay!)
----
When it comes to my preferences, I prefer sword-and-sorcery fantasy. Dragons are nice as well. I plan to give SF a bit more attention but I admit I am not sure what kind of books I'd like the most there. Maybe I might start with some "newer classics" such as I, Robot.
I actually like blended Sci-Fi with fantasy. Though it should be set in a futuristic place, where we blend in fantasy (magic etc).The one I would recommend is Starship's Mage: Omnibus. The series of books is not finished yet, so I can't comment on how good the ending will be. But so far it's been superb.
Another one is Yesterday's Spacemage. Though it's a bit "out there". And it's basically a Mary Sue series... Take that for what it's worth.
Mod
However, when someone manages something new and it blends things we've seen a lot in new ways (like The Fifth Season or Ninefox Gambit) I'm much more prepared to get swept away.
If something stays within the tropes or wears the same skin as others of its type, then I tend to be weighing it more on the structure and composition--characters, plotting, worldbuilding, narrative structure, prose, internal consistency, etc.--which means that it is a much higher bar for me feel captivated by the story.
I read a lot more fantasy than scifi, which I think is why I'm blown away more by scifi--I'm just not as exposed to it. But I'm still drawn more reliably to something with magic than something with spaceships or virus strains.
I enjoy Sci-fi/Fantasy/Techno-Thrillers that are earth-based only.....no space operas for me! Time slip/time travel elements are fine, too.The first Sci-fi I ever read was my mom's Doc Savage paperbacks~
The Darkness-(After The EMP) survival series is a FAV.
the Apocalyptic- (Stranded) series.
the time travel trailer series.
the Breakthrough series.
Cheryl wrote: "Please post some examples of the blended."One semi-recent example is Jemisin's Broken Earth Trilogy.
"I'm beyond bored of the vaguely medieval settings of sword, sorcery, and quest fantasy..."
Newer fantasy is doing a pretty good job of moving outside blindingly white cod-medieval lords 'n' ladies stuff, imo. One might have to dig a little deeper than highly hyped best-sellers but they aren't that hard to find.
I like everything except for hard sci fi. I don't mind sci fi that's plausible and well explained, but I don't want to read a text book on how this or that minute detail of space travel/robotics/whatever would work.For fantasy, I'll take anything from pure fantasy with no gadgets to absolute unapologetic space fantasy with magic that is called magic, but spaceships that are flown with technology.
One thing I really like about superhero fiction is that it blends sci fi and fantasy so well. Depending on the book, you can have magic users fighting alongside aliens, geniuses with advanced technology, and people who "naturally" developed super powers. On the other hand you could have super powers only be naturally occurring, or only be based off of aliens, and you have two very different levels of fantasy to sci fi ratio.
Bobby wrote: "I like everything except for hard sci fi. I don't mind sci fi that's plausible and well explained, but I don't want to read a text book on how this or that minute detail of space travel/robotics/wh..."Agreed, Bobby, hard pass on hard SF. As mentioned in another thread, I'm a character-centered reader and, to me, if an author is lavishing all their love on believable science, and their characters are pure cardboard, they might be better off writing an essay instead.
Other than that I'm not all that picky and like a lot of things, and it's okay to mash things together as long as it's interesting and immersive and the world-building doesn't fall apart with the gentlest of skeptical prodding.
One example of blending SciFi with fantasy... Star Wars!You have wizards (Jedi masters) and padiwans (apprentices) interwoven with tech.
Chris Fox has a series of tech and fantasy that include dragons... in space.
After giving it some thought I think I'd like to try my hand at doing a fantasy, scifi blend. For me the most important thing, at the start, is to build the world (create the rules). World building can be very complex, but doing that work up front means it flows more naturally on the page.
It's weird but I think I like reading fantasy stories more. But watching series on TV... Well then I'm more of a science-fiction person. Although when it comes to movies... I'm more of a fantasy person.
This is nuts. How can that be true? Now I have to track my watching too just because it will drive me bonkers if it isn't true...
What the heck, lets complicate things, Ada. What do you watch on your tablet and phone?
Cheryl wrote: "Please post some examples of the blended. I'm beyond bored of the vaguely medieval settings of sword, sorcery, and quest fantasy... but otoh I did just enjoy [book:The Forgotten Beasts of Eld|939..."
really there are so many fantasy books that aren't based on medieval settings. John Conroe's demon accord set in today, Laurell Hamilton's anita blake series
just find an author you like and ask google for any authors the same , goodread will give you a list of them
Charles de Lint's books are Fantasy, but they're urban FantasyMercedes Lackey also has some Urban Fantasy books
OMG ,I can't wait to read the "Stranger Things books! :D
I like my fantasy HIGH. Of course, I'm talking about World Building.High-Fantasy is becoming so watered-down lately. It seems everyone thinks everything is high fantasy. The bar has dropped so low.
No, George R.R. Martin does NOT write high fantasy. Medieval Fantasy is his category. Rothfuss's work do not qualify as high-fantasy even in the loosest sense of the word. Real-world settings with no attempt at world building = Low fantasy. Rowling is just a notch above Rothfuss.
I find myself turning to "pre-internet" authors like Donaldson (The Master of High Fantasy) Tolkein, Feist, Hickman, Brooks, Weis, and others. Time and time, they deliver.
Low fantasy has its place. It's not that it's sub-par, it's just that when a 700 page "Must Read, 5 stars, The best book of the last 50 years, etc, etc" gets touted as an epic High Fantasy novel, but it's a slow, plodding, observational narrative of everyday events with a touch of magic thrown in, I become irate.
For Sci-Fi, I like all genres but prefer plausible sci-fi (that of Ben Bova or Asimov or Clarke) to space opera. But with sci-fi, you know what you're getting. No one's going to mistake the fluff writing of James S.A. Corey (not even a real person) for hard sci-fi. Likewise, you're not going to find a "Cantina Scene" in Arthur C. Clarke's works.
Overall, I think Sci-Fi is a cut above fantasy. Far better chance of picking up a cruddy fantasy book than sci-fi. And once you see a copyright date from the late 90s onward, your odds of getting pure crap increase exponentially. You can thank the internet for that.
I have a pretty wide taste, but I want stories where there is some nuances to the conflict(s) that is going on. Some will of course be more nuanced than others, but a pure good vs. evil, black vs. white conflict bores me.
I want science fiction to be rooted in science, not fantasy. King Kong, flying horses, magical swords are not science fiction. Fantasy fiction and that is a wonderful genre, but not science fiction. In fact, one could argue (and I know this is going to be controversial) that space travel as depicted in Stars Wars and Star Trek is really fantasy fiction.
I like fantasy with sci-fi elements, like Star Wars for example. I don't care if genres blur, I like also when there is solid science in sci-fi but to me quantum whatever explanations and magic are pretty much the same thing, only that the writer took one or another way of telling the story.I always think on the most famous of Clarke's three laws:"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Jan wrote: "Cheryl wrote: "Please post some examples of the blended."The old Dragonflight classics by Ann McCaffrey read as fantasy but in fact are science fiction, with 'scientific' explanations eventually ..."
Not so much. The dragons’ abilities are pure Fantasy. There’s no way to fit known science, even in 1968, around a creature being able to travel across space and time just because it wants to. That doesn’t mean the stories are excellent (The White Dragon was probably my favorite book as a teen), but they aren’t SF.
Leticia wrote: "I like fantasy with sci-fi elements, like Star Wars for example. I don't care if genres blur, I like also when there is solid science in sci-fi but to me quantum whatever explanations and magic are..."loved your comments and fully agree, as long as they make sense in the story I will accept either science or fantasy. My hassle is when they change the rules throughout the story, whoops suddenly someone can do this ***** just to make the story skip am awkward moment
I like stories that keep moving and don't get bogged down in description of characters or scenery. I dislike books that spend the first chapter ":setting the scene"
Robert wrote: "In fact, one could argue (and I know this is going to be controversial) that space travel as depicted in Stars Wars and Star Trek is really fantasy fiction."That's an interesting perspective. What makes their space travel fantasy?
Someone once told me "if it doesn't have Dwarfs in it, I don't care to read it." There are times when I feel I'm not far off from that reader. If I was dropped on an island with only 10 books I'm pretty sure most of them would be High Fantasy. So far I haven't been dropped on an island with 10 books. So why choose?
Jan wrote: "Trike wrote: "Not so much. The dragons’ abilities are pure Fantasy. There’s no way to fit known science, even in 1968, around a creature being able to travel across space and time just because it wants to. That doesn’t mean the stories are excellent (The White Dragon was probably my favorite book as a teen), but they aren’t SF. "Yeah OK. But there are pseudo-scientific explanations. There are many such sci-fi books, where the 'science' isn't real, but we go along with it anyway. The old 'willing suspension of disbelief'..."
Yeah, I’m just talking about the technical definition in that it’s primarily academic where we draw the line. If a slight handwave acknowledgement towards science allows someone to more fully buy into the Fantasy world, that’s cool. But that’s very different from saying that a creature like a Pern dragon, who can violate all the known laws of physics simply by wishing to, is in any way scientifically plausible.
I mean, McCaffrey’s dragons can’t even fly. They don’t make sense, biologically. Which doesn’t bother me any more than the ESP, the teleporting, or the breathing fire does. I don’t care, I still love those books.
But SF? Nope.
another reason to blend sci fi with fantasy. a good story shouldn't depend on reality
Chris wrote: "Robert wrote: "In fact, one could argue (and I know this is going to be controversial) that space travel as depicted in Stars Wars and Star Trek is really fantasy fiction."That's an interesting p..."
Energy. The energy required to attain speeds sufficient to leave a planet are such that most the vehicle has to be fuel. Think of the Atlas spaceships used to propel us to the moon. I think 90% was just fuel. Most of the ship was jettisoned as waste. Yet Star Wars has ships smaller than most commercial aircrafts taking heros to one different star system or another. You can't get around the limitations imposed by energy. Not to mention the relativistic problems encountered when you travel near the speed of light. As an object approaches the speed of light, the energy goes up such that it seems that the mass of the ship is growing exponentially. When a ship is within 1% of the speed of light, its mass would have increased by a factor of at least 10! At 0.1% more than 100! Then, of course, there is time dilation when traveling near the speed of light. Luke might leave Altair to get to another star system and age only a few hours, but the folks on those planets would age 200 years if they were 200 light years apart.
Robert wrote: "Chris wrote: "Robert wrote: "In fact, one could argue (and I know this is going to be controversial) that space travel as depicted in Stars Wars and Star Trek is really fantasy fiction."That's an..."
You make some good points. Before I go on I need to say that I recognize we're talking about science 'fiction', so a readers suspension of disbelief about things like aliens, transporters, etc., fall into the category of 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. Meaning, we're simply exchanging thoughts about things that aren't real.
Fuel, in the world of Star Trek is entirely different than modern day rockets. A tiny amount can generate tremendous thrust. In reality, our contemporary rockets fuel to thrust ratio is hugely different.
We know that the faster you go, the more energy is required is partially based on friction. In Star Trek (I'm not sure of the physics of Star Wars) they get around friction by creating a warp bubble around the ship which allows them to slip between space. Friction and mass are no longer an issue.
While much of science is grounded in proven fact, there's a lot that is simply made up, or theory. Gravity is a perfect example. Science can see the effects of gravity, but it see what causes it. They made up a thing called a graviton. It's not real. It's just a place holder to build theories from. The reason I bring this up is because our current physics model is based on our limited knowledge. There was a time when science said the sound barrier can't be broken.
What happens when someone proves there is something faster than light? Fantasy becomes science.
Chris wrote: "We know that the faster you go, the more energy is required is partially based on friction. In Star Trek (I'm not sure of the physics of Star Wars) they get around friction by creating a warp bubble around the ship which allows them to slip between space. Friction and mass are no longer an issue..."I don't want to get too far in the details but the faster you go the more energy you need to use to go even faster has nothing to do with friction. It's a fundamental part of special relativity. The faster you go, the more massive you have; the more massive you have, the more energy is required to make you go faster.
So the warp drive in ST isn't about eliminating friction, it's about sidestepping special relativity. (Look up the Alcubierre drive for a real world theoretical example of this.)
Technically when using this kind of drive you are not actually moving faster than light. You are compressing space itself in front of your ship, and expanding space behind your ship. You're essentially surfing on space-time rather than moving through it. From an external observation point you are traveling faster than light, but from your perspective you are not traveling fast at all.
Now, the technology to construct such a drive is theoretical at best, impossible at worst. You need something called exotic matter with negative energy. No one really knows what that is. Also, some theoretical mathematics have been done that indicate such a drive would make survival inside the warp bubble ... difficult. (And potentially massively detrimental to anyone close by when the bubble ends.)
In my mind that's the speculative fiction of ST, not really the fantasy.
The fantasy element in Star Wars, OTOH, as far as spaceships go, is that they break the laws of physics all the time during space battles. When a fighter's engine gets knocked out or shut down ... they stop. Uh, no. In this universe there's such a thing as conservation of momentum. Once you go so fast, you keep going that fast as long as no external forces act against you. There is so little stuff in space to create friction that a "dead" X-Wing will just keep going in a straight line until it smacks into something or a gravity well sucks it down.And then along those lines there's also the whole dog fight flying style. At the speeds they're going, a super quick turn will just basically raspberry jam the pilot.
Not to mention the real physics of light sabers ... there's a youtube video that looks at that. Spoiler Alert: If you turn on a laser so powerful that it will melt through solid steel, the heat of that laser would be so immense that everything flammable in a huge area would go FOOM! and suck all the oxygen out of the air. Not that you'd notice because you would have gone FOOM! too.
SW is just comic book SF fantasy with a swashbuckling flair.
John Conroe's Demon accord series explains vampires and werewolves in mitochondria and DNA, and quantum physics. Does that make the series science fiction?brilliant series, entertaining and who cares if it could ever be real. There is a lot of "sci fi " books that now years later we kow are wrong. Sorry Clarke and Asimov
Chris wrote: "Robert wrote: "Chris wrote: "Robert wrote: "In fact, one could argue (and I know this is going to be controversial) that space travel as depicted in Stars Wars and Star Trek is really fantasy ficti..."Chris, just a few more scientific points. First, aliens don't necessarily lie in the realm of fantasy. Science certainly allows for the possibility of other planets (or moons) having the right conditions for life. Most scientists believe that if the temperature range is near ours and there is water, life will insinuate itself into the world.
Now, a "warp bubble" would be what I would call fantasy since there is no science to support the notion. Also, the energy factor that I was referring to was not related to friction. Yes, we need even more energy to break through the atmosphere, but compared to the entire journey this is extra energy is insignificant. The main problem is that when anything moves, it has kinetic energy... 1/2 m v2. A payload still has some mass and to get to some planet in a short amount of time, it still has some speed. Hence, it is shackled with an energy constraint. As an object approaches the speed of light (if you want a trip like Star Trek suggests), the mass appears to increase exponentially thus explaining an incredible increase in energy. This is a restriction of science.
Chris, I love both Star Trek and Star Wars, but in the same way that I love Lord of the Rings. They are wonderful stories of fantasy. Maybe I'm tilting at windmills, but they are not science fiction... in my "jaundiced" eyes.
Chris wrote: "Robert wrote: "Chris wrote: "Robert wrote: "In fact, one could argue (and I know this is going to be controversial) that space travel as depicted in Stars Wars and Star Trek is really fantasy ficti..."One more point. All fuel derives, at some level, of turning mass into energy. Most of our fuel does this chemically. There is a slight, very slight loss of mass when electrons alter orbits in a chemical reaction. The amount of mass lost is less than the mass of an electron. Much less. So, the energy proferred is small. The most efficient form of energy is the annilihation of mass altogether. For example, when an anti-electron meets an electron, all of their combined masses are turned into energy: E = mc2. So, if a ship had a container of anti-matter, say a few pounds, and we could combine this anti-matter with matter, then we would have the ultimate energy source... allowed by science (knowledge as we know it). Neither Star Trek or Star Wars use this form of energy. Willy, nilly they pop off into warp drive with no worries about mass expansion. Now, even if we could harness anti-matter (we have to artificially produced it electron by electron, proton by proton, etc), we still don't zip around like those two shows depict. It would still take at least times a bit more than the light years separating two planets. Want to get to Alpha Centauri Proxi... the trip will take over four years. That is why they are fantasy, not science fiction.
I would give anything to hang out in a Starbucks and talk with you guys for HOURS about this stuff. We'd have some truly satisfying conversations. You've made really good points and almost, nearly, oh so closely proven your point... BUT... it is called science "fiction" for a reason. I have no doubt that when they coined that phrase, they had anticipated sharp minded individuals like you would deftly pick apart the science used in their books, so they tacked "fiction" on the end of it as a blanket disclaimer. Sort of a 'we said fiction, therefore anything goes' with perhaps a subtle 'nay nay' at the end of it.
But, back to your points. They are relevant, but I have an ace up my sleeve. Of course I'm talking about the Improbability Drive from Hitchhickers Guide to the Galaxy.
Iow, almost everything labeled SF is actually fantasy...
Joseph wrote: "Well written."Artesian or wishing?
Trike wrote: "Joseph wrote: "Well written."Artesian or wishing?"
Either way ... DEEP
Chris wrote: "BUT... it is called science "fiction" for a reason. I have no doubt that when they coined that phrase, they had anticipated sharp minded individuals like you would deftly pick apart the science used in their books, so they tacked "fiction" on the end of it as a blanket disclaimer. Sort of a 'we said fiction, therefore anything goes' with perhaps a subtle 'nay nay' at the end of it. .."The trouble is, the "we said it's fiction" argument can be used to excuse poor research and poor writing - I don't think anything should go. Yes, space travel is often written in a way that is a massive stretch beyond today's physics, but I am always looking for consistency and where the science being referenced is understood (e.g. momentum, g forces) then I think the author should get it right - which can be tricky for authors who don't have much scientific knowledge.
The same goes for fantasy in a different way - if there is a medieval setting, then I'd expect the details to be as right as possible - a lot of people miss the economic aspects and how vastly more expensive in relation to earnings some things were back then (e.g. metal, cloth and clothing). Authors go into detail they'd have better avoided, because they get it wrong.
On the flip side if authors go into detail and not only get it right, but it's new to me I'm ecstatic - I love learning new things. One example is a description of a cross country march by cavalry The Deed of Paksenarrion with two different types of horses and all the logistics of it - had me going "of course" and wondering why I hadn't thought of that kind of detail before.
Other than that I am looking for characters I'd want to meet again.
For me, it's all about the quality of the writing. Does it carry me along with it, or does it drag its feet? Can I suspend my disbelief because of the author's turn of phrase? Ever since Frank Herbert's Dune, the line between sci fi and fantasy has been blurred. Vive le blur.
Jan wrote: "Cheryl wrote: "Iow, almost everything labeled SF is actually fantasy..."Ha ha. Yes, exactly. The point is, the pseudo-science or 'imagined' science needs to be 'believable' in the context of the ..."
So long as it doesn’t pretend to be something it isn’t, I’m not terribly bothered.
Robert wrote: "Chris wrote: "Robert wrote: "In fact, one could argue (and I know this is going to be controversial) that space travel as depicted in Stars Wars and Star Trek is really fantasy fiction."That's an..."
Yes, if ou like your stories limited in that way, have at. I'll stick with galaxy-busting space opera, thankyewverymuch.
I like SF and I like fantasy, but I don't care to see them mixed together. And I find the notion that SF is basically fantasy laughably wrong. (BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!) it is very easy to distinguish SF from fantasy, one deals with the world as we know it or as it might be in the future under the constraints of what we know of the physical universe, the other invokes supernatural phenomena that are outside the scope of the rules of nature as we know them.The fact that FTL, teleportation and other phenomena which are common tropes in SF are not possible via natural law as we now know it, does not mean that in the future these limits will not be overcome by more advanced science than we have now. I understand that this will be impossible according to our present understanding.
I also understand that knowledgeable people did not believe that human beings would ever be able to fly, and that continents did not move about, but were in fixed locations, with species spreading among the continents via no longer extant land bridges.
Keep the supernatural out of my SF, thankyewverymuch, but don't turn SF into a dreary rumination on the perpetual limitations imposed by the universe as we now understand it, also thankyewverymuch.
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Deed of Paksenarrion (other topics)Suspicious Minds (other topics)
Breakthrough (other topics)
The Man of Bronze (other topics)
Land (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Charles de Lint (other topics)Mercedes Lackey (other topics)
Some only liked books that mix fantasy and scifi, while someone else was like, 'no way, straight up fantasy. Keep the technology and space stuff out of my books.'
Are you more of a purist when it comes to your taste in books, or do you prefer mixing up a bit of magic with your tech?