[detritus]

I must say I prefer fantasy to sci-fi, but I am curious. Do you think fantasy can be as varied and diverse story wise as sci-fi? Does a sci-fi writer have more freedom than a fantasy writer? I tend to think yes. It seems there are less "rules" that a sci-fi novel has to adhere to. For the most part I think there are certain things that have to be present for a book to be fantasy (not that I agree thats the way things should be, I just think thats the case right now) Where a sci-fi novel doesnt really have rules. Take a book like Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go. It takes place back in the day, but is clearly a sci-fi novel (even if he doesnt want to call it that). I dont think the fantasy genre is able to produce something like that. What are your thoughts?

[Jusentantaka]

I wouldn't call Never Let Me Go sci-fi, not really, but I agree there really aren't any rules for what sci-fi can have in it. There's also the 'fact' that a sci fi writer can borrow/co opt all of the 'fantasy' things into sci fi as long as there remain the typical sci fi elements, so to my mind there's nothing that can't fit into a sci-fi universe, whereas there are things which really cant be in a fantasy one. And I have no idea if that will make any sense to anyone outside my head.

[maro]

I am in in the unenviable position of working for a Publisher. The snobbery over Fantasy and Sci Fi is hilarious. There is no distinction between non-fiction and Fantasy/Sci fi non-fiction. The author doesn't leak brains by writing it!

Admittedly, there is a lot of awful stuff written but that is true for any milieu. Snobs don't get it!

That's why I'm, a big fan of SE as his writing is top-notch regardless of which genre you put him in.

[rfjeff9]

Good question. I have tried several times to read Sci Fi, but more often than not, I just stop reading it, I do not like it (Ender's Game not inicluded in this).

I think you are correct - Sci Fi has more possibilities. Let's look at the fantasy stories. Underneath, most if not all fantasy stuff (I presume the kind we are talking about) has in essence a bunch of sword hacking and magic waving characters. Plots tend to be completely various, but still those characters are in a struggle of some kind (typically "good vs evil" or "our side vs their side") on a certain world with it's own geography. I can think of maybe one or two fantasy epics that I have read that do not really follow this, but for the most part this is true. I suppose the largest gap of difference would be Amber vs LotR.

Sci Fi, however, has the ability to draw on numerous worlds and doesn't seem confined to one world (with it's various levels of god planes). Could be a difference gap of "The Matrix vs Dune".

[detritus]

Jusentantaka, on 20 December 2009 - 10:23 PM, said:

I wouldn't call Never Let Me Go sci-fi, not really, but I agree there really aren't any rules for what sci-fi can have in it. There's also the 'fact' that a sci fi writer can borrow/co opt all of the 'fantasy' things into sci fi as long as there remain the typical sci fi elements, so to my mind there's nothing that can't fit into a sci-fi universe, whereas there are things which really cant be in a fantasy one. And I have no idea if that will make any sense to anyone outside my head.

I get what you are saying 100%. But I disagree that Never Let Me Go isnt Sci-Fi. It takes place in a world where cloning for organ harvesting is a reality. That is 100% Sci-Fi.

[Jusentantaka]

mandog, on 20 December 2009 - 11:35 PM, said:

I get what you are saying 100%. But I disagree that Never Let Me Go isnt Sci-Fi. It takes place in a world where cloning for organ harvesting is a reality. That is 100% Sci-Fi.

Haw. I completely forgot the whole cloning bit. I suppose that's a good thing, isn't it?

[Aptorian]

My distinction of Fantasy and Sci-fi is usually that one is set in a past age of technology and culture and the other is set in a futuristic, advanced setting. One relies on Magic, the other on technology.

But I don't think you need to limit Fantasy to things like sword and sorcery. It can be more than that. Like China Mievilles Bas-Lag universe. All though those stories are more like strange fiction.

[detritus]

Aptorian, on 20 December 2009 - 11:45 PM, said:

My distinction of Fantasy and Sci-fi is usually that one is set in a past age of technology and culture and the other is set in a futuristic, advanced setting. One relies on Magic, the other on technology.

But I don't think you need to limit Fantasy to things like sword and sorcery. It can be more than that. Like China Mievilles Bas-Lag universe. All though those stories are more like strange fiction.

I dont think Sci-Fi has to be futuristic. Look at Never Let Me Go. It takes place back in the day, and the technlology they use (cloning) we can do, we just dont. Nothing futuristic about it to me, but still clearly sci-fi.

[Mentalist]

Whilst it's true that Fantasy seems to have more "limitations" than Sci-fi, the opposite is also true--Sci-fi can be TOO broad. that is perhaps the reason we don't really get as many "epic science fiction" series as we do with Fantasy--the limitless potential that sci-fi concepts offer make it difficult for the author to truly convey the sense of an entire universe in a single series.

I mean, it boils down to personal preference, but with few exceptions, I haven't really read sci-fi works that would convey the feeling of "epicness" the same way a lot of fantasy could.

[Jusentantaka]

Mentalist, on 21 December 2009 - 01:30 AM, said:

I mean, it boils down to personal preference, but with few exceptions, I haven't really read sci-fi works that would convey the feeling of "epicness" the same way a lot of fantasy could.

Dune? Sure, his latter books and his son's/ect are hardly up to snuff imo, but the original three are nothing if not epic. I'm sure I'm biased on that though, since it was basically the first book I read.

[Tsundoku]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

Pretty much sums it up.

[Mentalist]

Jusentantaka, on 21 December 2009 - 01:52 AM, said:

Mentalist, on 21 December 2009 - 01:30 AM, said:

I mean, it boils down to personal preference, but with few exceptions, I haven't really read sci-fi works that would convey the feeling of "epicness" the same way a lot of fantasy could.

Dune? Sure, his latter books and his son's/ect are hardly up to snuff imo, but the original three are nothing if not epic. I'm sure I'm biased on that though, since it was basically the first book I read.

Like I said, there are exceptions

though I don't recall much of Dune, cept the first book.

I was thinking more about Hamilton's "Night's Dawn" and the Hyperion Quartet, actually.

however, my point stands: when you create a universe and use it as a setting, it's harder to create a story that encompasses all that you've created.
Fantasy, due to its limitation in this sense, can actually create the impression of a wider scope than most sci-fi settings.

[Jusentantaka]

Mentalist, on 21 December 2009 - 03:26 AM, said:

Like I said, there are exceptions

though I don't recall much of Dune, cept the first book.

I was thinking more about Hamilton's "Night's Dawn" and the Hyperion Quartet, actually.

however, my point stands: when you create a universe and use it as a setting, it's harder to create a story that encompasses all that you've created.
Fantasy, due to its limitation in this sense, can actually create the impression of a wider scope than most sci-fi settings.

Yeah, I've been up for the past 21 hours now. Comprehension seems to have fallen by the wayside, but those are good too.

yep, completely forgot what I was thinking.

This post has been edited by Jusentantaka: 21 December 2009 - 04:41 PM

[Salt-Man Z]

mandog, on 20 December 2009 - 09:20 PM, said:

Does a sci-fi writer have more freedom than a fantasy writer? I tend to think yes. It seems there are less "rules" that a sci-fi novel has to adhere to.

And I disagree with this 100%.

Sci-fi has to be based (somehow) in the real world. Once you lose that real-world basis, you've just entered the realm of fantasy. Unless you want to narrow your definition of fantasy to "dragons and magic and stuff".

[detritus]

Salt-Man Z, on 21 December 2009 - 04:39 PM, said:

mandog, on 20 December 2009 - 09:20 PM, said:

Does a sci-fi writer have more freedom than a fantasy writer? I tend to think yes. It seems there are less "rules" that a sci-fi novel has to adhere to.

And I disagree with this 100%.

Sci-fi has to be based (somehow) in the real world. Once you lose that real-world basis, you've just entered the realm of fantasy. Unless you want to narrow your definition of fantasy to "dragons and magic and stuff".

Dune is part of the real world? Star Wars too? Sweet!! There is nothing real world about either of those. and those are just the first two to pop into my head.

[Salt-Man Z]

Don't put words in my mouth, thanks. As I said, Dune is based on the real world, extrapolating it into the future. And hardcore sci-fi snobs have always been offended at Star Wars being labelled "science fiction". I'd argue further, but there doesn't appear to be any point.

[Jusentantaka]

Ok, Salt, I think I can buy that, but a question: are there any fantasy books/series/ect that aren't every bit as much based in the real world as sci fi?

[alt146]

I agree with Sombra and Apt in that I dont see much of a difference between the two. At the end of the day, fiction is about exploring the actions of (realisitic, or at least identifiable) people in situations that didnt actually happen. Genre writing just expands the scope of what that entails. Whether things happen because of magic or technology is secondary to what the reader's response to the situation and its characters is.

And the first hyperion novel is probably one of the most epic single books of any genre I have ever read, so I agree with Ment on that point too.

[Tarcanus]

Mentalist, on 21 December 2009 - 01:30 AM, said:

Whilst it's true that Fantasy seems to have more "limitations" than Sci-fi, the opposite is also true--Sci-fi can be TOO broad. that is perhaps the reason we don't really get as many "epic science fiction" series as we do with Fantasy--the limitless potential that sci-fi concepts offer make it difficult for the author to truly convey the sense of an entire universe in a single series.

I mean, it boils down to personal preference, but with few exceptions, I haven't really read sci-fi works that would convey the feeling of "epicness" the same way a lot of fantasy could.

The bold is mine.

I just wanted to draw attention the idea that either SF or F have limitations. I would contest that neither are limited in their scope. You can write any scenario in either genre.

Take, for instance, a character getting surgery. In SF land, they would use various tools and technology to cut open the person, root around inside, and carefully pull out the offending tumor or organ and place it into a cryo chamber/stasis module/etc. for study. In F land, a character is getting surgery, but it is mages or magic that is used to do the procedure. They use basic reverse restoration threads to open the body and extract the offending tumor or organ or whatever, then place the mass into a container held in time by chrono mages or whatnot.

Everything is limited, sure, but limited based on the author's imagination and the feel and themes they are using in their works. IMO, talk of the limitation of either genre is pointless.

This post has been edited by Tarcanus: 21 December 2009 - 08:26 PM

[Salk Elan]

I don't think Fantasy is really more limited in it's variety than sci-fi, because IMO in both genres an author is only confined by what he himself can imagine.
But the point of view one takes to this topic depends, I think, a lot on what definition a reader has on what exactly is sci-fi and what is fantasy and where to draw the line. By the standard definition fantasy = past, sci-fi = future it definitely applies to a certain point.

But I, for example, have been reading fantasy for 20 years now and dare to say I came across quite every possible setting of fantasy from the classic "Elves, Dragons & Magic"-settings to the more eccentric ones such as those created by Bakker or Ricardo Pinto, and in this time I discovered that many 'fantasy'-books have sci-fi elements in them (even space-ships and a 'classic' sci-fi-background sometimes) that work out very well when added in a subtle, elaborate way. And it's often those 'sci-fi elemets that give those fantasy-books the real 'polish'. So I see no limitation in that direction. It always depends on the writing-quality of the author, if a story seems coherent in the eyes of the reader (no matter what is invented).

My personal sci-fi experience is somewhat more limited (mainly TV-series and movies, and as for books Frank Herbert's Dune-cycle) but based on this it seems to me, that for all the alleged freedom the genre provides, the stories created are in no way richer or more varied than fantasy-stories.
For example, in fantasy you have (most often) one planet… but different countries and different people in it. – In sci-fi (as I know it) you may have more that one planet and also different people (usually one people or at the most two peoples for one planet). So it's basically the same setting, only in a bigger territorial frame.

As for the possible use of technology in sci-fi… yes it may be possible to create weapons, means of communication and whatnot, one could never plausibly implement into a fantasy book, but that's no advantage too IMO, because in fantasy one can easily compensate it with magic…

("Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology." Terry Pratchett - derived from Arthur C. Clarke… Sorry, I couldn't resist… )

mandog, on 21 December 2009 - 05:54 PM, said:

Salt-Man Z, on 21 December 2009 - 04:39 PM, said:

mandog, on 20 December 2009 - 09:20 PM, said:

Does a sci-fi writer have more freedom than a fantasy writer? I tend to think yes. It seems there are less "rules" that a sci-fi novel has to adhere to.

And I disagree with this 100%.

Sci-fi has to be based (somehow) in the real world. Once you lose that real-world basis, you've just entered the realm of fantasy. Unless you want to narrow your definition of fantasy to "dragons and magic and stuff".

Dune is part of the real world? Star Wars too? Sweet!! There is nothing real world about either of those. and those are just the first two to pop into my head.

Yes indeed, at a closer look.

Dune (and Star Wars at that) may not be 'part of the real world', but the technology used in it (or in sci-fi in general by it's very definition) must be based to a certain extent on existing theories (Such as the bio-engineering and cloning stuff of the Tleilaxu, faster-than-light-travel, worm-holes or the often used tachyon as the ultimate energy-particle…).

So the résumé for me is, that both genres are quite equal in their variety, as both must follow certain specifics and both are IMO limited by the human imagination (and the authors talent to make it believable ) only.