The Sword and Laser discussion
Why is fantasy more popular than scifi?
Kp wrote: "And my one big issue with sci fi: Newton's First Law. When ships come out of hyper/warp/really-fast-drive, why are the passengers not thrown into walls? .."I might not remember my physics correctly but I think it would depend on frame of reference... For the passengers it would seem like they didn't move at all and everything else either sped up or slowed down. - M.
Nathan wrote: "Is there such a thing as social-science fiction? If so, would not something like the Hunger Games fall into that category and meet the OP's criteria?Personally, I see no reason why books that tre..."
Check out Ursula K. Le Guin for some very excellent social science fiction.
meagh wrote:I might not remember my physics correctly but I think it would depend on frame of reference... For the passengers it would seem like they didn't move at all and everything else either sped up or slowed down. - M.
"
In reference to the ship it would not seem that they are moving but when you think of the ship as a car and you hit the breaks really hard you get thrown into your seatbelt. Everything in the car moves at the speed the car is moving and when the car slows down, everything inside the car is still going the same speed the car used to be (for a split second).
essentually, i think they need to be strapped in for decceleration.
Nathan, I can say I am now myself more than ever. Being myself have left me with less friends, but more time to pursue my interests and less frills filling up my time. I've always taken people on an individual basis and patiently waited for each person to reveal him/herself. Even any initial stereotype I may have, I patiently wait until each character is revealed. By nature and because I've been exposed to many strange and new elements since I was very little, I automatically wait and observe each new entity that comes to my radar. I am also flexible and will change my opinion with each new data. What I have found out is that the people around me are mostly concerned with prosaic matters. Whenever I put out a little bit of the topics I'm interested in, I get a blank look and an intimidated look because of lack of knowledge or interest. So I immediately switch back to the topics that I know the other person would be interested in, such as the weather, argument over Obama, local events, anything that can be seen in broadcasted news. And I talk about my pet hamster because, well, it's cute, and it's no use talking about the things I'm really interested in. Oh, and Game of Thrones and Harry Potter. Those books are in everybody's radar now.
Physically, I'm not socially backwards. I've mastered the art of conversation and people enjoy talking to me. But, realistically, I have not found a response to my interests except via the internet. Around my physical sphere, I've received no response even with a minimum of fishing to see whether people are interested in anything beyond what is broadcasted on the popular stations. Not even in art. And I live 50 mins. train ride from NYC.
Nathan wrote: "Is avoiding conflict worth not living true to who you are? Having lived a situation similar to yours, I think I might understand how you feel. I regrettably left those circumstances, but looking ba..."
Correction, I find that people watch the HBO show GoT, and not read the books GoT. If you mention the show, they will say how great it is. When you ask whether they've read the book, they will say they have not.
Kp wrote: "In reference to the ship it would not seem that they are moving but when you think of the ship as a car and you hit the breaks really hard you get thrown into your seatbelt. Everything in the car moves at the speed the car is moving and when the car slows down, everything inside the car is still going the same speed the car used to be (for a split second).essentually, i think they need to be strapped in for decceleration."
Different FTL systems work in different ways. In most of them the car analogy doesn't hold. In some it does.
In Larry Niven's Known Space, hyperspace is a dimension which has "levels" and the creatures in Known Space can only safely travel in the lowest form of hyperspace. Otherwise your ship explodes or gets eaten by things which live in those higher dimensions.
In Joe Haldeman's Forever War (and the lesser sequels), the only FTL is via wormhole, so you have to enter an acceleration tank which pumps the empty spaces of your body full of liquid to help you better withstand the g forces. (In the Forever War a character compares the experience of an unprotected internal organ to dropping a wrench in a submarine. The sub is fin in all that water, but the things inside it aren't.)
In Star Trek the ships are safe within a protective bubble of normal space while the warp drive reaches down into various levels of "subspace" to propel it faster than light.
Asimov's hyperspace was described as a different state of being. His "hyperspace" wasn't a place but a different way of existing. So you'd be in normal space, turn on the hyperdrive, and still be in normal space but have the *qualities* of hyperspace where gravity repelled and speed was infinite. It's kind of like being dry versus being wet. Except with so much math it took them thousands of years to perfect it.
Other authors employ different tricks. In one book whose title I forget they invoke Relativity and essentially say that the ship stays still while the universe shifts around it. For the passengers there's no movement at all.
Edit: the last one was the spindizzy by James Blish, I think.
Aloha wrote: "What I have found out is that the people around me are mostly concerned with prosaic matters. Whenever I put out a little bit of the topics I'm interested in, I get a blank look and an intimidated look because of lack of knowledge or interest. So I immediately switch back to the topics that I know the other person would be interested in, such as the weather, argument over Obama, local events, anything that can be seen in broadcasted news. And I talk about my pet hamster because, well, it's cute, and it's no use talking about the things I'm really interested in. Oh, and Game of Thrones and Harry Potter. Those books are in everybody's radar now."This has pretty much been the experience of every science fiction nerd since forever.
I've been fortunate to have met a couple people who share similar tastes as mine and we remain friends to this day because people who like this genre stuff are few and far between.
Lots of people talk about things I have zero interest in. NASCAR, geocaching, baseball, etc. Times like those I just express polite interest and steer the conversation elsewhere. One friend of mine never bothered with genre stuff until her son got into zombies a few years ago. He's only marginally interested now that he's discovered girls, but she's still into it. So we talk the Walking Dead when we see each other.
Take it where you can.
Kamil wrote: "infinite subpoints"That depends entirely on the axioms one assumes in that space - we often assume continuous, well-behaved and isotropic without being aware of it. Or we assume discontinuities such as particle theory - also without being aware of it. Interesting paradoxes are often ignored.
Trike wrote: "Other authors employ different tricks. In one book whose title I forget they invoke Relativity and essentially say that the ship stays still while the universe shifts around it. For the passengers there's no movement at all."See, if I had read that, I probably would have lemmed it. I know that seems harsh but I guess I am really harsh when it comes to sci fi.
Aloha wrote: "Anne, I'm not saying that math and applied math are alike. What I said was that they have a symbiotic relationship. Applied math uses what was done in pure math, pure math takes the data taken fr..."A symbiotic relationship implies both benefit. To apply math typically involves curve fitting to a set of data points. So applied math benefits from having a few equations that have solutions to choose from. In what way does math benefit from applied math?
Fantasy benefits from having scientific jargon and scifi concepts to borrow from. In what way does scifi benefit from fantasy?
Think of all the newscasts, political speeches, or sermons one has heard about global warming. Now listen to this, also intended for a general audience, and see if you notice a difference in modes of thinking ... particularly with Jane.http://fora.tv/2010/11/07/Wonderfest_...
Who would you prefer to be working on the problem??
I can think off of my head the Nicolas Bourbaki school, which is on its way to being deceased because it mostly focused on abstract concepts and ignore problem solving and applications. When you ignore the holistic concept, you might as well sit there and think, while covering your eyes and ears, and other senses.I think SciFi as literature can greatly benefit from Fantasy if you want to reach more people. If you look at the bell curve, most people fall in the range of 100 IQ, prefer entertainment and escapism over rigorous logical methods, and need emotional connection to finish a book. Fantasy offers an escapist journey that makes people feel like they can identify with the hero, enter a fantastic world in which magic is possible, and defeat interesting monsters and characters. Note that the SciFis that have a huge following are actually SciFi Fantasy, the Star Wars series and The Hunger Games.
Anne wrote: "A symbiotic relationship implies both benefit. To apply math typically involves curve fitting to a set of data points. So applied math benefits from having a few equations that have solutions to choose from. In what way does math benefit from applied math?
Fantasy benefits from having scientific jargon and scifi concepts to borrow from. In what way does scifi benefit from fantasy?
"
It's 1:23:27, so I'll have to finish it later. So far, the comparison of the environmental harm to morbid obesity and needing gastric bypass surgery is interesting. I would love to squish his belly fat, though. I like soft, marshmally things. LOL.Seriously, thank you for this, Anne. I will have to look at this.
Anne wrote: "Think of all the newscasts, political speeches, or sermons one has heard about global warming. Now listen to this, also intended for a general audience, and see if you notice a difference in modes ..."
I have a wide interest, so I can talk about a lot of things. I put out a feeler to see whether there is an interest in a topic, or notice what that person is interested in and delve deeper. Since it's of no use to me to have a conversation on a topic that is of no interest to the other person, since I won't learn anything from that person regarding that topic, I see what I can learn from that person based on his/her interest. Sometimes I do get a surprise. Anyway, it's good to have companionship now and then, but I really do cherish my time delving into things that most people are not into. Thank goodness for books, movies and the internet.Trike wrote: "Lots of people talk about things I have zero interest in. NASCAR, geocaching, baseball, etc. Times like those I just express polite interest and steer the conversation elsewhere. One friend of mine never bothered with genre stuff until her son got into zombies a few years ago. He's only marginally interested now that he's discovered girls, but she's still into it. So we talk the Walking Dead when we see each other."
Kp wrote: "Arroyo0 wrote: "Can anyone name a Science Fiction book/book series from the past 10-20 years that was 1) a breakaway best seller, 2) a cultural phenomenon, 3) has a hard core fan base, and 4) is gr..."State of Fear 2004, Michael Crichton
His Jurassic Park almost makes the time cutoff.
Andromeda Strain was seminal for many later clones by others.
Fantasy is better for marketing... it is simply more interesting for most people to not have to use the old brain and use organs of feelings instead.But scifi appeals to a number of people and makes a good steady niche market for authors who don't mess around. And sometimes somebody like PKD or van Vogt or Crichton comes along with a blockbuster. The hardest part about scifi is finding those authors - so much mislabelling and faux scifi.
PS --- forces are felt whenever one accelerates (changes velocity in a period of time). If one comes out of FTL at a reasonable time for deceleration(less than one lifetime) most likely one would resemble a puddle of catsup. :P
Kp wrote: "meagh wrote:In reference to the ship it would not seem that they are moving but when you think of the ship as a car and you hit the breaks really hard you get thrown into your seatbelt..."
I understand. what i am meaning in regard to frame of reference is that in most SF the ship isn't the car but the planet the car is moving on. Gravity is already being simulated on the ship so their ship and the simulated gravity is the frame of reference (the ship becomes the passengers planet). The passengers shouldn't feel anything unless the system / tech that provides for simulated gravity is interrupted; whatever system is providing for artificial gravity should also be accounting for any change in velocity. - M.
ps - Most SF works do take inertial force into account when dealing with ships like fighters or shuttles that wouldn't have artificial gravity.
Kp wrote: "See, if I had read that, I probably would have lemmed it. I know that seems harsh but I guess I am really harsh when it comes to sci fi."Although I have no idea what "lemmed" means (I suspect it means "hated" or something), that gambit seems the most likely, though, based on Einstein's theories. Relativity is all about the frame of reference. So to an observer outside the ship it would seem like it took off at a spectacular rate, but inside the ship it appears as if the universe moves.
The only type of FTL I currently believe is *actually* possible is the wormhole one, which will remain out of our grasp for a very long time. "Very long time" means "longer than our civilization has heretofore existed, probably".
Fantasy is not necessarily better for marketing. The popularity of fantasy follows a trend, like everything else. There was a time when poetry was more popular than prose. Now, people barely know dirty limericks. People like to do things other people are into in order to feel a part of the crowd, a sense of synergy. Marketing takes advantage of that. The trend influences marketing and marketing influences the trend. It's a back and forth movement. Symbiotic. :o)You don't need FTL travel to make catsup:
Mom Tomato and son were going for a walk. The son kept lagging behind. Mom Tomato was getting impatient and told him to hurry up. He continued lagging behind. Finally, mom Tomato spun around, stepped on him and said, "Catch up!"
Anne wrote: "Fantasy is better for marketing... it is simply more interesting for most people to not have to use the old brain and use organs of feelings instead.
But scifi appeals to a number of people and ma..."
Fantasy is always better for marketing ... fairy tales and magic have been popular since the 1001 nights and Gilgamesh.Science and math and speculative fiction are comparatively new outside intellectual circles.
Trike writes: "Relativity is all about the frame of reference. So to an observer outside the ship it would seem like it took off at a spectacular rate, but inside the ship it appears as if the universe moves."
The distinction is between "rate of change of velocity" (acceleration) and velocity. Einstein's Special Relativity is about non-rotating frames of reference not accelerating but moving with a certain velocity with respect to each other. Gravity simulation requires rotations typically, which means an angular acceleration is involved.
Einstein was never able to solve the cases including accelerations...gravity or otherwise.
Wornholes, if ever found to exist, are a maybe, depending on what one assumes about space-time. I rather like the idea of space-time-folding...it can't currently be done in a practical way but also can't be disproven. ;)
SciFi, fantasy, and horror are speculative fiction. One theory, it may be impossible for humans to travel through the wormhole, but nanobots has a better chance of doing that. Nanobots can help with the breaking down of the human component, travel through the wormhole, then rebuild.
Anne wrote: "Fantasy is always better for marketing ... fairy tales and magic have been popular since the 1001 nights and Gilgamesh.
Science and math and speculative fiction are comparatively new outside intel..."
Anne wrote: "Fantasy is always better for marketing ... fairy tales and magic have been popular since the 1001 nights and Gilgamesh.
Science and math and speculative fiction are comparatively new outside intel..."
"speculative: involving, based on, or constituting intellectual speculation; also : theoretical rather than demonstrable" ... M-WNot fantasy. Not all horror. Not all that claims to be scifi.
Speculative fiction is a "What if..." type of fiction. Certainly fantasy would fall under that, especially if the history, myths and belief systems, or anthropology of the period have been researched. Margaret Atwood's books would fall under speculative fiction though not SciFi. They have strong "What if..." elements to them.The studies of anthropology. history and myths are as intellectual as any science study.
"What if...?" has been associated with extrapolation of current trends or technologies (with a special case made for alternate history), which falls under the purview of Science Fiction rather than Fantasy. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone associate "What if" with Fantasy, actually, and I used to live on Usenet.Despite her ridiculously insulting protests to the contrary, Atwood's books are solidly Science Fiction. The ideas of The Handmaid's Tale and Oryx and Crake had been covered in SF long before she wrote about them. Atwood was perpetuating the old-think of SF as a gutter-snipe of literature, not realizing it had moved on from the D-movies of her childhood.
I also find "speculative fiction" to be a fairly useless term because it's incredibly vague. That's the sort of phrase which opens the door to someone saying, "All fiction is Fantasy." Which is true in a broad sense, but is categorically false when speaking of the specific genre of Fantasy.
Trike, this may be the first time you've heard fantasy associated with speculative fiction, but every time I do a search on speculative fiction, fantasy would be associated with it.http://www.greententacles.com/article...
Fantasy can be speculative if you imagine What if we can do magic? Or What if this happened in the history of the old kingdom? Etc., etc. Fantasy can go as far back as What if in Atlantis.
I used to label Atwood's books as Science Fiction, but since then I have changed my mind, although I haven't gotten around to changing it in my Goodreads labeling system. My reason is that I do not see the technicals of science in her work, as much as a "What if..." type of scenario. In fact, SciFi and Fantasy with their typical ideas are even considered not the best speculative fiction, since the speculations became redundant.
I think if you had stopped with the Heinlein's definition, then fantasy would not be considered speculative. But the definition has grown to even push out redundant speculations of SciFi, and to mean something edgy.
why fantasy? two words: Harry Potter. an entire generation has grown up with that series, just like earlier ones grew up on Star Trek and Dr. Who. There really isn't any good YA sci-fi to get them hooked, no modern day Wrinkle in Time (which is what got me into it)
Maybe another reason fantasy is more popular is the way the world is concieved. David Gemmell while writing " the legend" pointed out what's so alluring in fantasy: heroes never lie, evil looses etc.
Angie wrote: "why fantasy? two words: Harry Potter. an entire generation has grown up with that series, just like earlier ones grew up on Star Trek and Dr. Who. There really isn't any good YA sci-fi to get them ..."I don't know, I think The Hunger Games would be fit into YA sci-fic.
I was wondering if the seeming popularity boom with fantasy is due more to the acceptance of it as an adult form of entertainment by the general public instead of just a thing for kids or "family entertainment". I haven't done any research, but for the life of me I'm having a hard time thinking of fantasy based movies or tv shows from my youth that didn't fall under children or family.I also wonder if we're going to see a steady increase in the popularity of dystopian SF now that the first Hunger Games movie has come out.
Note: I'm speaking mainly of the types of things that the general public gets exposed to. Most people never browse the SF and F sections on a book store so they only hear about them when they have already become very popular.
btw - my brother's definition of family entertainment: "Children's programming which only makes adults slightly wish they could gouge their eyes out with a spoon instead of making them reach immediately for a sharp object." :D
Aloha wrote: "Speculative fiction is a "What if..." type of fiction. Certainly fantasy would fall under that, especially if the history, myths and belief systems, or anthropology of the period have been researc..."Only if the "what if" is followed credibly. If so, the result seldom fits fantasy for other reasons. Anthropology, history, myth CAN be studied/thought about in an objective way though it seldom is. If twisted into a personal/political agenda then it becomes fantasy.
Kevin wrote: I don't know, I think The Hunger Games would be fit into YA sci-fic."I agree but people are also very picky with what books get to be labelled under their preferred genre.
A lot of people do not like that The Hunger Games is filed under Sci Fi. Others hate that vampires are filed under fantasy (me included). They don't want to be searching their preferred section and find an interesting title but its filled with stuff the reader hates.
I think that sci fi is an umbrella term but it also needs more clarification, more classification (although others hate "labels"). Hunger Games would be Distopian Fiction, vampires Occult fiction etc.
I agree that speculative fiction is effective if the "what ifs" makes sense when it deviates from facts that are based on research. I don't agree that having a personal/political agenda makes it fantastic. Unless you're a journalist, writers usually write with an opinion. In fact, the best writers are persuasive in their point of views. For example, a SciFi book on robots can be a dystopian or a utopian.Anne wrote: "Only if the "what if" is followed credibly. If so, the result seldom fits fantasy for other reasons. Anthropology, history, myth CAN be studied/thought about in an objective way though it seldom is. If twisted into a personal/political agenda then it becomes fantasy. "
First, I must say thank you for all the excellent reading suggestions already given in this thread. I want to second the suggestion that political lasers-in-training should read Ursula K. LeGuin, Her _Dispossessed_ made me feel sympathy for an economic system for which I have no tolerance in real life.Now, on to the primary question. To me, science fiction {like horror} is just another form of fantasy, and as a sub-genre, it will always sell less than the genre taken as a whole. To those who say that fantasy is less rigorous than sf, I say, "piffle." Science makes up the basic rules for the writer of sf. Fantasy writers must make up their own rules. Always remember the Superman rule -- without limits, there is no real interest. Each type of writing must follow the rules imposed by is setting.
To the extent, then, that this sub-genre is shrinking, I think we should take into consideration the excellent layperson-friendly straight science writing being done by Carl Zimmer, Anne Maczulak, and the like. Richard Feynman has made even physics accessible to arts-trained people like me. A good microbiology book is just as interesting as speculative science, and takes some of my time away from reading sf (and I am definitely more laser than sword).
Furthermore, we have a lot of crossover work being done. Does China Mieville write fantasy or science fiction? Charles Stross (whom I believe to be a professor of math in his spare time, is that true?) writes some great science fiction and some great fantasy, but it's very easy to tell the two apart when he does it. Dune is such epic science fiction that it swings around and feels like fantasy. So, we have the problem of defining terms. As the genres meld, we may be giving too much credit to the one and not quite enough to the other.
Genres do have a lot of overlap. Some of us have no trouble suspending any number scientific and technical questions about how things work if we like the characters and want to know what happens next. Steampunk has a growing following. Cyberpunk is still fairly popular. We can put cowboys in space and have them attacked by vampires and some people will still like it if the story is told well. In fact, if anyone knows any books about space cowboys fighting vampires, please let me know--I'd be kind of interested. I don't really think it's a question of one genre verses the other. It's more about which stories speak to a given generation or group of people. Look at Dianne Duanne's YA books, described by the author as "A little Science. A little magic. A little Chicken Soup." They may not be as popular as Harry Potter, but many young people read them. It's always about the story.
Aloha wrote: "Trike, this may be the first time you've heard fantasy associated with speculative fiction, but every time I do a search on speculative fiction, fantasy would be associated with it."I'm not sure how what I said could be misinterpreted but I'll rephrase: I've never seen the specific phrase of "What if" associated with Fantasy. It's always used in conjunction with SF.
Aloha wrote: "I used to label Atwood's books as Science Fiction, but since then I have changed my mind, although I haven't gotten around to changing it in my Goodreads labeling system. My reason is that I do not see the technicals of science in her work, as much as a "What if..." type of scenario." Yeah, Atwood's rationale is nonsense. You're better off ignoring her, because almost no one thinks she knows what she's talking about when it comes to genre. Science Fiction is not just Hard Science Fiction just as Fantasy is not just Epic Fantasy.
There's nothing "technical" about whole subgenres of SF. Books like Vonda McIntyre's Dreamsnake or most of LeGuin's novels are about the personal and the social, not about the hardware. I *like* Handmaid's Tale, but it's not the first time anyone wrote something along those lines. Just because Atwood doesn't want to call her book science fiction doesn't change the fact that it belongs in the SF genre. Just like the other books which have talked about one extreme viewpoint or another dominating the future.
Aloha wrote: "In fact, SciFi and Fantasy with their typical ideas are even considered not the best speculative fiction, since the speculations became redundant."
I'm not sure what you mean by this, since the very heart of science fiction is speculation. You literally can not even have the genre without it. Fantasy is rarely about speculation, but extrapolation is all SF does.
"Speculative Fiction" isn't real. It's just marketing nonsense likely made to allow people to feel good they were reading that ghetto trash which isn't real lit-cha-char. I find it to be an annoying cop-out by people who are too timid to actually declare that they are reading Fantasy or Science Fiction.
Aloha wrote: "I think if you had stopped with the Heinlein's definition, then fantasy would not be considered speculative. But the definition has grown to even push out redundant speculations of SciFi, and to mean something edgy."
I don't see that at all. The only "speculative fiction" I've ever seen is by authors from the snooty world of literature employing the phrase so it doesn't seem like they're slumming. "Oh, no, I don't write that aliens and ray-guns nonsense, I write speculative fiction." They can't possibly write anything edgier than what can already be found in Science Fiction. 30-year-old Cyberpunk and Splatterpunk would eat the average "edgy specfic" writer's face off and ask for seconds. Time to call them on that.
Robin wrote: "Now, on to the primary question. To me, science fiction {like horror} is just another form of fantasy, and as a sub-genre, it will always sell less than the genre taken as a whole. To those who say that fantasy is less rigorous than sf, I say, "piffle." Science makes up the basic rules for the writer of sf. Fantasy writers must make up their own rules. Always remember the Superman rule -- without limits, there is no real interest. Each type of writing must follow the rules imposed by is setting."Science Fiction isn't a sub-genre of Fantasy. It may have started that way, but it has evolved into something that is, in fact, the exact opposite of Fantasy.
Fantasy says that there are unknowable things in the world, while Science Fiction declares the universe is explicable. There are no viewpoints to be had which are in more opposition.
Fantasy as it exists today is rigorous, but that's a recent development. It's a subgenre called "Hard Magic". This is where the magic is a system which has rules. Lyndon Hardy's Master of the Five Magics (and sequels) is an example from the 1980s, while the Dungeons & Dragons RPG codified what many people consider to be the ultimate expression of "rules of magic."
In the past, Fantasy stories often had things which seemed to happen randomly. Whenever the author needed something to happen it just did, for no apparent reason.
But it's gotten to the point where you can't ignore the fact that science works. Science follows rules, and we are discovering the natural laws underpinning the world at a breakneck pace. Of course Fantasy is going to reflect that by authors creating worlds which obey rules.
As someone who has read Fantasy and SF for 40 years now, I can see the shift in the Fantasy genre towards more rigorous rules-based worlds. Which for my way of looking at the world has been very good indeed. Fantasy from previous decades was often just a jumble of stuff thrown together, where things happen purely by author fiat.
Robin wrote: "Furthermore, we have a lot of crossover work being done. Does China Mieville write fantasy or science fiction? Charles Stross (whom I believe to be a professor of math in his spare time, is that true?) writes some great science fiction and some great fantasy, but it's very easy to tell the two apart when he does it. Dune is such epic science fiction that it swings around and feels like fantasy. So, we have the problem of defining terms. As the genres meld, we may be giving too much credit to the one and not quite enough to the other."
Mieville writes Fantasy. I don't even know how this is a question. His books are full of things which are clearly impossible. Impossible things belong solely in Fantasy.
One can have all the tropes of Fantasy but still be writing Science Fiction. Dragons and unicorns can be genetically-engineered animals. Wizards accomplish their tasks through advanced technology -- nanotechnology or gravity manipulation or whatever.
It's all about the explanation and the world these things exist in. There's an entire discussion about the differences between the two genres here that I won't repeat, but the line between the two is pretty clearly drawn: the possible and the impossible.
I wonder whether we really need to recapture the wonder and delight behind scifi. It doesn't need magic, it doesn't need to 'escape' from science; we don't need anything more than the potential of what's there.We need opinion formers and leaders in the scifi arena to say to us stuff like this:
You know what, we are discovering habitable planets out there right now! With vision and determination we can visit them ourselves one day. Who knows what we'll find?
Here's another one - get an astronomy app for your smartphone, go out in to your backyard with a pair of binoculars (don't worry about an expensive telescope) and look carefully up in the sky on a clear night - see the moons of Jupiter, see Venus, and Mars. Look at the stars and nebula that form Orion. If you are careful you might be able to see light from our nearest galactic neighbour - Andromeda. That light hitting your eyes left Andromeda 2.5m years ago, and now you are seing it. Who knows what we would find if we managed to get to another galaxy? Anyone getting just a little bit excited by these visions, anyone?
We are all feeling the weight of the worlds problems at the moment. Sure there are economic worries, and sure we have political, social and religious issues, we always will. All we need to do though, at a fundamental level is go outside and look up at the sky and imagine....
I can't beleive some people aren't still excited by these visions of what's out there, what we could do, what we could see. This is the raw material, add to this some compelling characters, great plot lines, good writing and you have in scifi a genre with a tremendous future.
Andrew wrote: "I wonder whether we really need to recapture the wonder and delight behind scifi. It doesn't need magic, it doesn't need to 'escape' from science; we don't need anything more than the potential of ..."Most of the questions you propose are things scifi writers have treated for some time, life and settlement on other planets, intergalactic travel?
And no, to be a complete curmudgeon, I am not really excited about those questions you raise, because more than likely you will find allot of empty space with dead rocks in it.
IMHO, this is why the more entertaining scifi has to do with people and societies, what is down here, instead of the cosmos, what is up there.
Trike wrote: "Mieville writes Fantasy. I don't even know how this is a question. His books are full of things which are clearly impossible. Impossible things belong solely in Fantasy."
I think this would eliminate most things in the Scifi genre, including Star Tek, making it a truly small and pitiful genre indeed.
I am confused on why some scifi folks want to define scifi so narrowly. When I get told that a work I like that I think of scifi is not, it leads me to the conclusion I must not like scifi, e.g. right now anything that is labeled "hard scifi" is dead to me, because the "scifi" I like is supposedly not in that group.
On the other hand, I do not really see discussions on what is Fantasy, although a similar what is X conversation goes on within its subgenres. Perhaps the “what is Scifi conversation” speaks to insecurity in the genre, perhaps it is a sign of its decline or change in standing, but it is interesting that the dialectic is one more similar to a subgenre than a full blown secure genre.
When I look back to when scifi, horror, and fantasy were all under the pulpy, “weird fiction” umbrella, the authors and readers cared more about good stories that creating finely divided genres, which, more or less, were an invention of people who wanted to sell us books.
When you look at the three things coved by that antiquated “weird fiction” label as a whole, they are alive and vibrant and continue to cross-pollinate in interesting ways, which is why I read them.
Nathan wrote: "I am confused on why some scifi folks want to define scifi so narrowly.."Hi Nathan
I think all of this is another approach to a well discussed topic. I actually agree with a lot of what you say. Specifically:
- YOu are right of course to say that impossible things don't solely belong in scifi. As a rough definition I think stuff that is broadly believable as the potential fruits of scientific advancement (eg the teleporters, FTL travel, personality transfer from one body to another etc) can be in science fiction. Performaing a supernatural act that within the story is not presumed to be based on scientific method (basically magic) belongs in fantasy.
- sure there's a lot of empty space and a lot of dead rocks outthere but as far as scifi goes I'd like to think there's a broad tent. In the tent there is room for those who are fasdicnated by space and rocks and planets in and of themselves, as well as those who want to look at people, cultures, societies, as well as people who want all of the above (like me). Rocks and space don't make a story of themselves, but they are a great backdrop for story invention.
- For the record China Mieville defines himself as a writer of 'weird fiction'; but having read most of his work, I'd say that China has pretty much ploughed his own furrow and gone whereever he wants to go.
My point is not that scifi should only be about going to the stars etc. it's more a defense that this sort of subgenre still has a place in the scifi cannon. No one shoudl be saying to you "if it ain't hard scifi then it aint scifi" but neither should anyone say that all that space and rockets and stuff is finished as a part of the broader genre.
Nathan wrote: "Trike wrote: "Mieville writes Fantasy. I don't even know how this is a question. His books are full of things which are clearly impossible. Impossible things belong solely in Fantasy."I think this would eliminate most things in the Scifi genre, including Star Tek, making it a truly small and pitiful genre indeed."
Exactly on the nose about Star Trek. As soon as you have the impossibility of Spock walking around, your story shifts from Science Fiction to Fantasy. People get hung up on the props without thinking about the underlying intent. Star Trek works great as allegorical fantasy and always has. But it's no more sci-fi than Star Wars or books by Edgar Rice Burroughs.
That's why people call it Science Fantasy. It looks like Science Fiction but it works like Fantasy.
I want to stress that this isn't prejudicial against either genre. I'm just talking about where one draws the line between the two.
Trike, if I go by a true hard science based criteria, I haven't read scifi since way back when I was a kid reading Jules Verne and the like. Even then I thought the characters were a little weak and I wondered where all the interesting women were in his world. I think the reason why fantasy is more popular than old school hard science fiction is that people read primarily for stories, characters and ideas. Any scientific extrapolation would just be an extra bonus if it were interesting.Despite the impressive advances we make in science, when was that last big game changing "Life Will Be Different" breakthrough you can think about? I'm still waiting for my flying car and robot servant. I'm pretty sure that I've seen a variation of any hard science extrapolation, and at this point it's going to take more than that to grab my attention.
I was just looking at this list of USA Today 100 best-selling books for 2011, and there seems to be about equal amounts of sci-fi and fantasy on the list. Maybe a little more fantasy overall. Hard to say without knowing the actual numbers.http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/ne...
However, BookScan shows only a single Fantasy novel in the adult list with a mixed bag in the YA market.
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/m...
Interesting. I'm not sure I see the "hard science" scifi on those lists. I see some classic fantasy though. Thanks.
i did not think of hunger games as scifi either. it also does not have the rabid following of HP - there are not thousands of kids dressed up waiting in lines for the next book. it's good, but not a game changer in popular culture. hp really did bring fantasy to non-fantasy readers and movie-goers. i don't know of any scifi that's doing that right now, not on that scale
Tangled wrote: "Trike, if I go by a true hard science based criteria, I haven't read scifi since way back when I was a kid reading Jules Verne and the like. Even then I thought the characters were a little weak and I wondered where all the interesting women were in his world. I think the reason why fantasy is more popular than old school hard science fiction is that people read primarily for stories, characters and ideas. Any scientific extrapolation would just be an extra bonus if it were interesting."I get from this comment you feel I'm arguing that only Hard SF is SF. That's not so. I think anything which might be *possible* is fodder for the genre. I am constantly arguing in favor of FTL, time travel and the like because there are actual physicists who think these things are theoretically possible.
Plenty of people claim that time travel is impossible, but the math says it *is* possible. (Not probable, but that's a different kettle of fish.) I say that as long as it's possible, then it should be in the genre.
Going back to The Handmaid's Tale, there's no hard science in that book at all. It's pure speculation on social mores, an extrapolation of societal trends. And it's that extrapolation which puts it solidly in the genre. That's really all it needs.
I'm also an easy sell: if you can throw some convincing-sounding technobabble at me, I'll buy into it. But if you tell me you're talking to the ghost of Elvis, then you don't get to be in the SF genre because that's not possible. If China Mieville has people-sized bugs walking around (and he does) then he's writing Fantasy, because insects simply can not be people-sized. It's a biological impossibility.
Tangled wrote: "Despite the impressive advances we make in science, when was that last big game changing "Life Will Be Different" breakthrough you can think about? I'm still waiting for my flying car and robot servant. I'm pretty sure that I've seen a variation of any hard science extrapolation, and at this point it's going to take more than that to grab my attention."
The last really big "life will be different" breakthrough? That's easy: the way we're communicating right now. The internet has quite literally changed everything about our lives. I've often heard people who have no interest in technology as a topic of discussion or read science fiction say things like, "How did we find restaurants before the internet?" When my 78-year-old father uses the web to trade stocks and keep up on sports -- and doesn't find that activity odd at all -- that's a complete change from how he lived just 15 years ago.
::: cut other stuff, post is too long :::
What "math" says time travel is possiblle?
Trike wrote: "I was just looking at this list of USA Today 100 best-selling books for 2011, and there seems to be about equal amounts of sci-fi and fantasy on the list. Maybe a little more fantasy overall. Hard ..."Not much I would read except maybe the book on Jobs and the one by Grisham...from the library.
Trike wrote: "Tangled wrote: "Trike, if I go by a true hard science based criteria, I haven't read scifi since way back when I was a kid reading Jules Verne and the like. Even then I thought the characters were..."Trike I'm really more in the "It's all weird fiction" camp. I was commenting on "hard science" because you seemed to be delineating between "science fiction" and "science fantasy" before I posted. Personally, I think there is a lot of overlap. For example, I'm fine with UF vampires in the sci fi/fantasy section instead of in Horror (though the purely PR vampires with no plot between the sex scenes should be over in Romance.
I think the Internet (and resulting smartphones/tablet etc that grew out of it) was the last society changing breakthrough, but we've been getting sci fi that addresses that for at least 30 years now. I am sure we live in an exciting age, but in terms of really unique tech that writers may break new ground by extrapolating on, I don't see much that hasn't already been done at the moment. That's not to say I don't like sci fi--but I probably like a lot that you consider science fantasy (from your earlier comments).
The Sword and Laser
Books mentioned in this topic
Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea (other topics)The Hunt for Red October (other topics)
Tigana (other topics)
Stranger in a Strange Land (other topics)
Silver Moon (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Kelley Armstrong (other topics)Patricia Briggs (other topics)
Neil Gaiman (other topics)
N.K. Jemisin (other topics)
Stephen R. Donaldson (other topics)
More...
Your right because I recommanded Song of Ice and Fire to many people the years between A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons, and everyone I recommanded to looked at me funny, even some people who read EPIC FANTASY.