Posts from Fantasy vs. Science Fiction

Answer: No, because these two will never meet. Is the question closed? If not, we can continue the discussion in the Haven.

Reply: No, because these two will never meet. Is the question closed? If not, we can continue the discussion in the Haven.

I see, the arguments have run out... :D :p
By the way, there are universes where these two could meet.

Why do all discussions of Sci-Fi and Fantasy here boil down to stupid theorizing on the theme of "who would kill whom"??? We are comparing literary genres, not computer shooters! I believe that if you have thoughts like "are fighters better compared to dragons," "can you kill a dragon with a shotgun," or "would an army of clones defeat a host of Knight"—you read too few books and instead binge-watch stupid Hollywood movies. A literary plot is not built on mindless slaughter! And if it is, then it's glossy mass-market trash, not literature.
Let's consider two literary subgenres—science fiction and fantasy—"as is," meaning without citing computer games, MMORPGs, and other gizmos that appeared no more than twenty years ago. After all, science fiction has existed for more than a century, unlike personal computers.
Herbert Wells is rightfully considered the founder of science fiction. Certainly, there were many authors in the fantasy genre before him, but not scientific (Jules Verne was adventure, Jonathan Swift and Thomas More were social). In Herbert Wells' books, themes first appeared that later spawned a mass of calques/clichés/copies among subsequent Sci-Fi authors. Alien invasions, dubious scientific experiments to become superhuman, interplanetary flights, travels to the future and past, genetically modified creatures spiraling out of control, and much more were original ideas of the author, reproduced in millions of copies by various literary speculators.
But one must not look at things superficially—if a book mentions interstellar travel, you shouldn't call it a "cliché" or a "calque from predecessors." It is entirely possible that the author has their own, completely unique flights. For example, few would think to accuse the Strugatsky brothers and Lem of mutual plagiarism and use of clichés solely on the basis that space ships and alien civilizations appear in their books :)
But when a healthy, sane person on the threshold of the twenty-first century writes about "hyperspace" or "machine uprising," I honestly feel like vomiting. An author of Sci-fi books needs to be well-versed in science; at the very least, they should be familiar with the basics! Unfortunately, such authors no longer exist. I consider the last great writers in the same genre of science fiction to be Isaac Asimov, the Strugatsky brothers, and Stanisław Lem. Now, of course, there are good writers, even Russians, but it's unlikely their names will endure through the ages.

The fantasy genre is somewhat younger than science fiction. There are two reference points—J.R.R. Tolkien and Roger Zelazny. The former was the founder of the entire genre in general terms; the latter first created a fantasy Universe (i.e., a collection of intersecting worlds covering all available space). I won't say anything about the Professor. You may like him or not. In any case, he is a great writer; many Tolkienite fans even blindly claim that "fantasy began and ended with the Professor." Personally, his books seem painfully predictable to me, the plot dragged out, and the happy ending far-fetched. But this is only my opinion; it may be wrong and mistaken.
By the way, I voted for science fiction. Because several times more mass-market trash has been created in the fantasy genre. And I spent several thousand hours of my time on a large amount of fantasy trash. But one literary subgenre cannot possibly be better (more perfect, more interesting) than another! They are a priori equal. It's just that if you divide the number of good writers in science fiction by the number of graphomaniacs and cliché-mongers, and compare it with the same ratio in fantasy, the first number will be slightly larger. A fan of fantasy has to push through more stupid books with far-fetched plots than a fan of science fiction. But both readers will eventually arrive at the great authors of their genres; it's just that in the first case, the process will be slightly longer ;)
To anyone who slanders fantasy, I recommend reading Roger Zelazny, Robert Sheckley, and Robert Heinlein. After all, a genre should be judged by its great authors, not by various Lukyanenkos.
A principled hater of science fiction must read Herbert Wells, Stanisław Lem, Isaac Asimov, Poul Anderson, and Harry Harrison (just not the Stainless Steel Rat—he wrote that for the mass consumer to line his pockets; read his alternative history trilogy of the English-speaking world—now those are great books!).
I won't discuss Efremov or the Strugatskys. The former lacks storytelling talent, and the latter, alas, miscalculated their version of the future (though it's a pity). But if anyone wants to call them great writers, I won't protest; that is generally true.

Now let's consider the current state of speculative fiction. What lies on the shelves on both sides—both fantasy and sci-fi. A large number of books are written purely for making money (Perumov and Max Frye don't even hide this), while others aim to insult the weak brain of the average philistine. Yet originally, science fiction emerged as a genre for extraordinary people, written by extraordinary authors! And it requires non-trivial perception and a broad outlook. Both scientific and magical.
Sergey Lukyanenko wrote only one plot in his entire life. Then he reproduced it in several dozen copies, slightly changing the scenery. These are not books; they are waste paper. The extreme popularity of his writings is caused by low intellectual requirements for the reader of his books. Fiction that does not require you to use your brain to understand is not fiction at all. This genre is called own-market same-old ;)
However, credit must be given to Lukyanenko. He did write one good book. It's "Star Shadow." But alas, it is destined to get lost among the mountain of slag produced by its creator. "Labyrinth of Reflections" is quite decent; perhaps it's the best book about virtual reality released in the twenty-first century. But "Genome," "Spectrum," "Watch 1-2-3," and "Lord from Planet Earth" are all the same, only the main character has a slightly different hairstyle/voice, and the colors of the dilapidated scenery have been freshened up with multicolored paint. The second-rate horror "Autumn Visits" differs slightly from them, but it doesn't even compare to Stephen King. Honestly, I regret reading almost all of Lukyanenko's books (though now that list is probably half—he is terribly prolific).
Nick Perumov. Wrote one decent fantasy book, "Diamond Sword, Wooden Sword," which drowned in cumbersome, boring, and predictable "addons." Unlike Lukyanenko, Perumov decided not to bother at all and drags the same characters from series to series, from book to book. He doesn't even think it necessary to slightly "touch up" the worlds. He tried his hand at science fiction with "Empire Above All"—well, a solid plot and a good idea. It's just that the author's scientific illiteracy somewhat spoils the impression ("ships tearing through hyperspace," "race of intelligent octopuses").
There are also completely incomprehensible "authors" who crawled out of some unknown holes—for example, sci-fi graphomaniacs like Bessonov and Livadny. Both write books of 500-800 pages with a cyclical repeating plot. For the sake of trolling, I slogged through several of them. Bessonov is an abnormal being—over ten pages of his book, on average, two packs of tobacco products are smoked, a medium-sized warehouse of alcohol is drunk, and then all this good stuff is chased/shot with a healthy dose of drugs. The books are clearly aimed at teenagers; they wonderfully teach young minds ways to ruin their own health and also contain a mini-guide "first steps on the path to sexual violence."
Of modern Russian sci-fi authors, I can name only one worthy: Andrey Lazarchuk. By the way, he writes equally well in both subgenres. Read "Tranquillium," "Hyperborean Plague," and "Look into the Eyes of Monsters." You won't regret it, I assure you. Although I cannot compare him to such a titan as Stanisław Lem.

And finally, a couple of words about modern cinema. Just forget about those stupid blockbusters. They aren't required to be anywhere near the great authors whose ideas they steal. Watch them with a "light head"—not looking for deep meaning, but simply admiring the special effects. And then you won't be tormented by the absurd "problem" that sounds like: "where is the world heading?"

a lot of text.

Forget about these stupid blockbusters

Everyone doesn't care about them anyway; here, there was an attempt to consider a specific situation. Regarding Lukyanenko, I disagree; Night Watch, Day Watch, and a few other books are good, and there are no similarities between them; it's the same as saying:

For example, few would accuse the Strugatsky brothers and Lem of mutual plagiarism and using clichés just because their books feature spaceships and alien civilizations.

And I also disagree about the amount of garbage in fantasy; it's unclear on what observations this conclusion is based. If you go to any bookstore, you can see thousands of books with titles like: "Bows and swords against the king" or "20 blasters on the captain's chest," and there are a lot of them, and they are all quite similar. How one can confuse such a creation with anything else is also unclear to me.

It's clear that the arguments have run out...
Oh, by the way, there are universes where these two could meet.

If necessary, the entire forum will drown in my arguments; it's just that I'm a little tired of it, and Lokken isn't either; it's not as fun to argue anymore. The shotgun pellets will be deflected by magical resistance because I declare that the shotgun is magic!!!!!111111 Please, analyze, provide arguments, and so on :p

The shotgun pellets will be deflected by magical resistance because I declare that the shotgun is, in fact, magic!!!!!111111

Actually, that's exactly what I meant. The discussion about "what's cooler" continues, based on an analysis of the means and items used for… well, let's just say "taking out" opponents. In that case, the topic should be: "Whose killing tools are more ultimate – fantasy or science fiction?" But for some reason, it seemed to me that the original intention was to discuss literary genres. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

And I also disagree with the statement about the amount of "trash" in fantasy; it's unclear on what observations this conclusion is based.
If you go to any bookstore, you can see thousands of books with titles like:
"Bows and swords against the king" or "20 blasters on the captain's chest," and there are a lot of them, and they are all quite comparable. How one could confuse such a creation with something else is also unclear to me.

If this isn't obvious to you, I suggest you conduct the following experiment. Go to a popular bookstore with a large selection. Count the number of science fiction and fantasy books. Compare the results. By the way, I think it would be useful for both of us to conduct this experiment ;) Because we will visit different bookstores and get slightly different statistics. I'm already curious – what if I'm wrong, and I encounter more books like "Cosmic Wolf in the Anti-Space Hell," "Psi-Beacon of the Cryogenic Corporation," "Flying Syringes of the Aliens"? And editions like "Constellation of Black Light," "Flight in the Face of the Devil," "Wanderings of Midnight Trolls" turn out to be in the minority. Who knows what might happen! I haven't done a full-scale raid on a bookstore (including a complete inspection of all the shelves, accompanied by disgruntled muttering to myself) for six months.
Regarding Lukyanenko, I decided not to write in detail, because as you rightly noted:

very many letters.

But if you're willing to put up with me further, let's create a separate topic; I'd be happy to discuss it :)

If needed, the entire forum will drown in my arguments; it's just that it's starting to annoy me a bit, and since Lokken isn't here, it's not as fun to argue anymore.

Why didn't it "drown" when you were actively participating in the discussion between Lokken, you, and me? You did present arguments, but then all your points boiled down to a simple "dragons are powerful and invulnerable creatures."

The shotgun pellets will be deflected by magical resistance because I declare that the shotgun is magic!!!!!111111
Please, analyze, provide arguments, and so on :p

A shotgun is magic? What nonsense! (Someone, give me Lokken's ICQ, I'll quote him.) So, according to this logic, all firearms and even other weapons (that fully comply with the laws of physics, which already excludes their belonging to magic) can be classified as magic.

Tralosk, I don't quite understand what you mean by "the Strugatsky brothers miscalculated the future." Each of their universes has a different future. If you're referring to their most famous and one of their most significant series, the Noon Universe, then the entire "miscalculation" consists only in the fact that the USSR failed to build communism. But the communism of the Noon Universe quite corresponds to humanity.

Regarding Lukyanenko – I decided not to write about it in detail.

You can do that here ;)
/topic/5355/

Actually, this is exactly what I meant. The discussion continues with an analysis of the means and items used for… well, let’s just say “causing mayhem.” In that case, the topic should be titled: "Whose killing tools are more ultimate - fantasy or science fiction?" But somehow, it seemed to me that originally literature genres were meant. If I'm wrong, correct me.

You're right, but not literature genres, rather everything as a whole.
And all the rest is just pointless bickering.

very many letters.

I said that simply because there was a lot to read.

Why didn't he sink when you actively participated in the discussion between us, Lokken, and you? By the way, you provided arguments, then all your points boiled down to a simple "dragons are powerful, invulnerable creatures."

I didn't need that. When it came to whether a dragon could withstand all the forces of the empire, we still remained each with our own opinion.
When the great battle began, only Lokken argued his points somewhat; everyone else simply said "definitely," "absolutely," "it can't be otherwise," "I guarantee it," and so on. Although I also presented arguments that, from your point of view, were partly foolish "because," and partly because you look at everything exclusively from a sci-fi perspective. This is my opinion; if you don't want to agree, don't.
And it got tiresome, here’s some food for thought: Dragons are invulnerable. Do what you want with it.

A shotgun is magic? What nonsense! (someone, give me Lokken's ICQ, I'll quote him)

Quote him ;)

So, all firearms and not just weapons (fully consistent with the laws of physics, which already excludes their belonging to magic) can be considered magic.

Absolutely correct, all weapons are nothing but magic. And cyborgs are driven by magic too. And spaceships fly using magical propulsion. And the laws of physics are merely side effects of magic.

2XEL:
I didn't specifically mean the collapse of the USSR. As you rightly pointed out, the Strugatsky brothers predicted a much more global, supranational Community. But, unfortunately, they miscalculated in determining the dominant morality and spiritual idea in the society of the future. Already at the beginning of the twenty-first century, the spirit of progress, solidarity, and the desire to learn new things are overcoming the inertia and contentiousness of humanity. In reality, this will not happen – society cannot quickly abandon its values and acquire new ones. Wild capitalism, with "legalism" instead of conscience, will be the fate of Earth for several more decades. What will happen next? I cannot answer this question. But it certainly won't be a naive, just, and energetic Community of innovators. If we speak the language of the Strugatsky brothers, we should expect a future similar to the one described in the story "The Predatory Things of the Century." This may be related to the high popularity of virtual reality (and the improvement of methods for creating virtual worlds), or it may be related, as in the original, to the discovery of an accessible substance that alters consciousness.
...I may be wrong; after all, I'm not some kind of "prophet," but I hope you understood my main point. A society with moral foundations corresponding to the books of the Strugatsky brothers is unlikely to be created in the twenty-first century.
And by the way, in the books of the Strugatsky brothers, there is a detailed chronology of the future, compiled by the authors. Here is an excerpt:
<...2004 - A communist president is elected in the USA; 2005 - dissolution of the "Atlantic Pact." Law on freedom of movement; 2005 - the first starship; 2006 - Completion of the nationalization and demilitarization of the USA; 2007 - Creation of the World Council of the UN as an advisory body to the UN; 2009 - Coup in the Zone of Padania...>

2WisTrit:

I just said this because I had to read a lot.

I'm not blaming you for anything ;) I really should express myself more concisely :)
And we'll discuss Lukyanenko.

I agree about the amount of low-quality fantasy out there. There's a lot of just plain idiotic writing. So much so that it discourages me from buying books by unfamiliar authors. And I also agree about Lukyanenko. Although "Draft" is not bad. But "Watch" is just annoying and boring fiction.

I conducted the experiment, as promised. I'll provide a detailed report to my "Trash-Control" raid:
Setting: Saint Petersburg, "Las-Knigas" bookstore. For reference, it's not the most prestigious/popular one out there (leadership is held by "Snark" and "Bukvoyed"), but it was brilliant for the experiment. To be honest, my head hurts a bit after digging through the kilograms of trash I discovered. So, the tally by quantity:
Science Fiction: 885 units of scrap paper
Fantasy: 713 units of scrap paper.
Thus, I admit WisTrit was right. Trash publications indeed predominate in science fiction. For the sake of a pure experiment, of course, it would have been worth doing a few more raids in different stores, but the general picture is already clear—the amount of trash is roughly equal, and readers of both subgenres are suffering equally. I probably thought trash fantasy predominated because of the brighter and flashier cover art—that's where I made my mistake. As far as I understand, the "revote" option is missing—well, just keep in mind that I'm now on the side of fantasy. And strictly speaking, literary genres are not any worse than one another, and I like them equally.

Now for the fun part: I've noted the most idiotic titles of trashy booklets in both genres. Meet the top list of gibberish:
Fantasy
1). "Brotherhood of the End." What did you think? It's just another Tolkien rip-off. But for some reason, more imaginative associations came to mind—I must be a corrupted and cynical person :)
2). "Teeth Wide Open." (Probably going to be a trilogy soon—"Eyes Popping Out" and "Nose Inside" are coming next) :smile41:
3). "Pandora's Stash." (Ancient Greek mythology has always been popular with gopniks :smile10: )
4). "When Zombies Come Back to Life." Beyond competition. The zombies were just dying, minding their own business, and then someone came along and forcibly brought them back to life :smile39:
5). "Through Violet Eyes." This is not a hallucinogenic novel. It's just a fantasy horror story ;)
6). "Narcotics Commissariat of Enlightenment." (Strangely enough, the author is American—perhaps a translation blunder produced this title).
7). "Harvest of the East Wind." Uh-huh. Diamond interest on the northwestern slope of Mount Fuji. Couldn't have named the book any simpler.
8). "The Wizard Out of His Mind." Something is definitely wrong with the wizard. Otherwise, why write four hefty volumes in glossy covers about him?
9). "Dance with a Voodoo Voyageur." It seems this sci-fi writer consulted Daria Dontsova regarding the book title.

Now for the second, equally "stellar" list.
Science-Fiction
1). "Legends of the Black-Void." Most likely, the book tells of the difficult daily routine of intergalactic sewage cleaners.
2). "Moon Sonata for a Blaster." With such "poeticism," you could practically fly to Mars.
3). "Ammo Never Runs Out." Well, we didn't actually doubt that. This is the fundamental postulate of all trashy space action movies.
4). "Stainless Steel Toad." Probably the main character is an elderly female mayor of the city of Solingen suffering from obesity.
5). "Tyutyunin vs. the CIA." Honestly, I laughed so hard I forgot to open it :smile03:
6). "Round Edges of the Earth." The author clearly demonstrates to us that he had a solid 'F' in geometry at school.
7). "Hunting Wild Trucks." It's actually time to stop with the moonshine.
8). "Spring Cleaning on the Sun." Daria Dontsova visited here too, giving valuable advice to the author.
9). "Dark Force of the Universe." Epochal. Except that "Universe" is written with a lowercase letter.
10). "A Pistol with Music." Imagine that. Try releasing a "dancing intergalactic turbo-transformer"—then we'll read it, but for now, keep studying!

...2XEL: I have the 1996 joint edition: "Ast" (Moscow) and "Terra-Fantastika" (St. Petersburg). "Worlds of the Strugatsky Brothers." Includes novels and novellas: The Guy from the Underworld, Anxiety, The Beetle in the Anthill, Waves Extinguish the Wind, Predatory Things of the Century, Extraordinary Incidents, Noon: 21st Century. By the way, I only have two volumes—there are more in the series. Preface by Sergey Pereslegin, notes by Boris Strugatsky.

I am restoring a post that was accidentally moved and deleted by a moderator.
Tralosk, I agree that HWW (Heroes of Might and Magic III: The Shadow of Death) presents a more achievable society. Even BNS (the game developer) himself admitted that, in his opinion, a future in the style of HWW is the most likely scenario. This is the so-called "Consumer Society."
I believe that the creation of a Theory of Education is the factor that made it possible to start building communism in the 21st century.

And by the way, the Strugatsky brothers' books contain a detailed chronology of the future, compiled by the authors. Here is an excerpt:
<...2004 - A communist president is elected in the USA; 2005 - The "Atlantic Pact" is dissolved. Law on freedom of movement; 2005 - The first starship; 2006 - Completion of the nationalization and demilitarization of the USA; 2007 - Creation of the World Council of the UN as an advisory body to the UN; 2009 - Coup in the Zona Padana...>

Interesting. I remember seeing a chronology in one of the books from the "Worlds of the Strugatsky Brothers" series a long time ago, and it had something similar. But now I can't find anything similar, and in the books of this series (from those that I have now) and on the internet, I only find chronologies compiled by "fans" and other authors, very reliable, but without such background information. Can you tell me where I can find this chronology?

I didn't need that. When it came to whether a dragon could withstand all the forces of the empire, we still remained each with our own opinion.
When the great battle began, only Loken somehow argued his points, while everyone else just said "yes, definitely," "certainly," "it can't be otherwise," "I guarantee it," and so on. Although I also provided arguments that, from your point of view, were partly silly, and partly because you look at everything exclusively from the point of view of science fiction. This is my opinion, if you don't want to agree, don't.
And I got tired of it, here is some food for thought: Dragons are invulnerable. Do with it what you want.

Lol. Read those posts. Both I and Loken argued our point of view. And you tried to :)
And the fact that I agreed with Loken, and he with me, does not mean that either of us was just agreeing with the other ;)

Quote it ;)

Give me your ICQ number. Do you think I would tell you if I knew which number to quote from? ;)

That's right, all weapons are nothing but magic. And cyborgs are also driven by magic. And spaceships fly on magical propulsion. And the laws of physics are just side effects of magic.

And this phrase of yours is such a product of magic that it's just awful. Magic that causes a lack of arguments..

Tralosk, understood. I'll try to find it on the internet.

By the way, I need to get a decent camera and create a collection of the most ridiculous and awful covers of science fiction literature. During my search, I came across some real masterpieces of idiocy. It's a shame I can't share this "wonder" with the forum users. But don't worry, there's still time ;)

By the way, the Star Wars universe is vast, and it has no rivals in either Fantasy or Sci-Fi.
There are so many events there, as in real history (well, that's an exaggeration, but...).