Posts from Fantasy vs. Science Fiction

Dune is much better because it covers a period of 5,000 years, making it comparable to real history.

The Star Wars universe is vast and has no competitors in either Fantasy or Sci-Fi.

Dragonlance? Arda?

Pern? Amber?

That's enough for now.

Wow, this thread has really grown, and I was just here recently!
But no matter what, I love fantasy more. Exclusively because I love nature more than cans of fuel^^
Żelazny, Tolkien, Rowling, Semenov.... I didn't finish reading "The Wolfhound." I also didn't finish "The Chronicles of Amber," I didn't have enough time, although I enjoyed following the intricate plot twists, but it was too long and had too many drawn-out thoughts for me. Tolkien.... oh-oh-oh, that's a separate topic, if I hadn't watched the movie, I probably wouldn't remember anything, I don't remember "There and Back" anymore. Rowling is still my favorite, umm.... probably the only one that really resonates with me^^

by the way, I recently acquired the complete works of the Strugatsky brothers :)\nI'll reiterate why I prefer fuel canisters over dragons and dwarves:\nScience fiction is based on materialism, meaning that in most cases, it's a prediction about the future, or at least reflections on what it might be. Fantasy is a separate genre, unrestricted by anything other than "magic" and "dragons," which, unfortunately, has quickly exhausted itself, but books continue to appear on the shelves, unwilling to yield to other genres.\nNah, let's continue the debate:)\n

Really? Dune is a hundred times better because it covers a period of five hundred years; that's what you can compare to real history.

Heh-heh, what then should we say about Harrison's "The Time Machine"? Correct me if the title is wrong, but I think I've made my point :)\n

By the way, the Star Wars universe is huge, and it has no competitors in either fantasy or science fiction.\nThere are so many events in it, as in real history (well, that's an exaggeration, but...).

:)\nI wonder, what is Star Wars, science fiction or fantasy?\nWhat makes this universe special, where there are two warring factions, heroes, and anti-heroes?

:)
I wonder, what is Star Wars, sci-fi or fantasy?

It's more likely sci-fi; the only element of fantasy there is "the Force." Even lightsabers are closer to sci-fi because they are created using science.
ps In my previous post, I accidentally made a mistake; I've corrected the post.
pps Should I abbreviate "sci-fi" like that?

Regarding the exhaustion of fantasy... hehe... I think sci-fi has exhausted itself a long time ago :) they just keep going around in circles with the same old ideas about the future.
But fantasy is not exhausted :)

P.S.

no, let's continue arguing

We won!

If someone thinks that the Star Wars universe is limited to what was in the books and movies, they are deeply mistaken. :) No wonder Lucas released so much content. Games, comics, cartoons...

We won!

Not at all :D

interesting, but what is Star Wars, sci-fi or fantasy?

Sci-fi. As Am said, the Force is the only fantasy element there. And besides, even without the Jedi, the Star Wars universe is vast. :)

Ha, Star Wars without Jedi is like Heroes without Yzahn D'Alta or Lem without Pirx, or the Strugatsky brothers without Rumata Estorsky. By the way, according to the poll, sci-fi is still in the lead. I agree about Star Wars, but there's something karmic about it, like the idea of a balance of power in the universe... or something. Combined with the Force, it creates a somewhat negative impression. What makes it so huge? I could say the same about Tolkien's Lord of the Rings – everything there is colossal, the concept, the world, everything. And what does that prove? It doesn't even prove anything, let alone what comes next. For example, Lem or the Strugatsky brothers are a hundred times closer to me in spirit than Luke Skywalker. Here:

Doesn't fantasy go in circles? Ha, did they come up with new creatures? As for science fiction, it's become "action-oriented" – a superhero, like in Zadornov's works, not just a strong guy, but a super-strong guy... in a fairly fantastical world, but still... bullets bounce off his forehead... But in my opinion, there's plenty of good science fiction out there; you just need to avoid the trendy stores with flashy covers and go to the library, or at least download it online.

Ha, Star Wars without Jedi is like Harrison Ford without Jason Dean Alt or Lem without Pirx, or the Strugatsky brothers without Rumata Estorsky.

Incorrect answer :)
They even released a book about the Clone Wars.
Games and other things where there isn't even a hint of Jedi.

What makes it so huge?

Because it has a huge history. Starting from the period of the Sith Empire (5000 years before the Battle of Yavin), and ending with Legacy (100+ years after the Battle of Yavin).

For example, Lem or the Strugatsky brothers are 100 times closer to me in spirit than Luke Skywalker.

Yes, Luke isn't cool, Revan is :D

Added 1 minute ago

Doesn't fantasy go in circles?
Ha, did they come up with new creatures?
As for science fiction, it's become "combat-oriented" - a superhero, like in Zadornov's stories, not just a big guy, but a big guy with an attic... in a fairly fantastic world, but still... bullets bounce off his forehead...
But in my opinion, there is quite a lot of good science fiction, you just need to not go to trendy stores for colorful covers, but to a library, for example, or at worst, download it online...

I don't know, but I like reading historical novels much more than fantasy

Oh! A favorite topic!
In my opinion, sci-fi is still better. At least because it's easier to filter out the mediocre sci-fi... simply by looking at the summaries and authors. Lem, Harrison, the Strugatsky brothers? Bring it on, double the portion. "Death or Glory," "Dune"? Thank you, we'll give it a try. Some "super action movie"? Too much pathos, toss it! Fantasy is more complicated... Tolkien, McCaffrey, Sprague de Camp, Le Guin? Get it here immediately!!! But outside of this list... it's a problem! You can find something much better than "The Lord of the Rings," but you can also find something truly awful.
And the best thing is smart techno-fantasy... I've only encountered such wonders in the works of D. Chekalov; if anyone has any recommendations, I'll be grateful.

Regarding Star Wars. It's not Luke who rules. And not Revan. It's Han Solo and Jabba the Hutt, Cart Onasi and Etten Rand, it's Kyle Katarn... ordinary inhabitants of the "galaxy far, far away," full of color...
Star Wars loses its charm without Jedi... but not as much as the absence of Pirx diminishes Lem's works. And an excess of Jedi (and their philosophy) ruins the atmosphere of the FAIRY TALE... (its absence in parts 1 to 3 of the films is what prevents me from rewatching them - but I've seen episode 4 about twenty times).

Oh, a favorite topic!
In my opinion, sci-fi is still better. At least because it's easier to filter out the junk... simply by looking at the annotations and authors. Lem, Harrison, the Strugatsky brothers? Bring it on, double the portion. "The Stars My Destination," "Dune"? Thank you, we'll give it a try. Some "super action" novel? Too much pathos, toss it! With fantasy, it's more complicated... Tolkien, McCaffrey, Sprague de Camp, Le Guin? Get them here immediately!!! But outside of this list... it's a problem! You can find something much better than "The Lord of the Rings," but you can also find something truly awful.
And the best thing is smart techno-fantasy... I've only encountered such gems from D. Chekalov; if anyone has any recommendations, I'd be grateful...

Join my and WisTrit's experiment! Go to a large bookstore in your city, find the shelves with science fiction and fantasy. Count the total number of trashy books in each genre. Write down particularly idiotic titles. Then compare - which one has more. I was sure that more trash is published in fantasy, and it's easier for a sci-fi reader to filter out the junk - but I was wrong. It turned out that there's even slightly more trash in sci-fi. But for the sake of a clean experiment, we need to raid several different bookstores and in different cities! So come on - help us all establish the truth.
And for now, I'm on the side of fantasy ;) Although, as I said before, you can't claim that one literary genre is better than another. Both fantasy and science fiction are wonderful! I just think that the one with more trash "loses."

Ha! Will you teach me how to distinguish trash from non-trash based on the cover?
This is an amateur approach – to judge a book by its cover – your experiment is worthless!
And I already said that large stores specialize in popular literature, and it just so happens that in our country, Marinina is read more than Edgar Poe...

Ha! Will you teach me how to distinguish trash from non-trash based on the cover?
Judging a book by its cover is a dilettantish approach – your experiment is worthless!
And I already said that large stores specialize in popular literature, and it just so happens that in our country, Marinina is read more than Edgar Poe...

I will. First, you should only consider modern editions. This isn't difficult, as most books in a bookstore are modern. Before starting the count, you should carefully examine the shelves for familiar authors. I can confidently say that I know 95% of the worthwhile authors in both genres, or at least I've heard of them. If opinions about a book and its author are contradictory (i.e., I've met at least one person in my life who liked it), then the book doesn't count and isn't included in the "trash catalog." After the "exclusions" are marked, I proceed with the counting. When the counting is complete, I take each book off the shelf one by one and check the cover. In some cases, I open it. But this is usually unnecessary. Tell me, have you ever seen a book cover by Stanislaw Lem featuring giant steel cyber-robots adorned with six-barreled plasma cannons, collectively embracing a half-naked girl against the backdrop of a gaping black hole? I doubt it. Therefore, I reserve the right to judge an unfamiliar book by an unfamiliar author based on the cover.
Of course, there is some margin of error in the calculation. But it doesn't exceed 5-10%, which I think is quite acceptable.

What are you talking about? Star Wars is sci-fi, so don't argue.
If you're going to move it to another section, move it instead of just deleting it.

Heh. Well, it's true, but bluntly said.
Star Wars is indeed pure science fiction. There's no need to claim that it doesn't belong to any genre and therefore "has no place here." It definitely does. The Force in Star Wars doesn't contradict the concept of science fiction. It's pure mental energy, not ancient spells and witchcraft from frog guts! By the way, Isaac Asimov's classic sci-fi saga "Foundation" devotes significant attention to people with mental superpowers. Suggestion, telepathy, communication with each other across the galaxy, zombification, emotional suppression, prediction, and foresight – all in pure science fiction. Herbert Wells also features people with unusual abilities – albeit caused by technical inventions. The Invisible Man is very similar to a magician if you think about it in a simple way.
And Star Wars doesn't cross the line for a science fiction universe. The only thing that deviates somewhat from scientific justification is the lightning controlled by powerful Sith. This is no longer a trick with levitation and psychic pushes, but something more serious. But since this is the highest form of Sith mental development, and since the application of this mental weapon doesn't require performing magical actions characteristic of fantasy (chanting spells, making gestures, doing finger exercises, drawing runes, rummaging in a pocket for witch's potions), we can conclude that Star Wars stays within the bounds of science fiction. And mental superpowers fit very well into the concept of sci-fi. Sci-fi is a rational, logical prediction of the future. It is quite likely that in the future, the brain and its capabilities will be studied in great detail. And it is perfectly natural that new, newly discovered mental abilities will be distributed unevenly – that is, there are beings who possess the Force, and there are those who are incapable of manipulating it.

The covers don't reflect the essence of the book – I'm willing to argue this quite strongly. In the time when Lem's works were published, a different style of design was accepted. And if we're talking about Lem, there are about a dozen stories about Jon Tichy, for example, where you could put the most absurd picture on the cover.
Regarding Star Wars – it's not so much the fact of the Force that bothers me, but how it's presented to the reader. I'm not saying it's a hint of fantasy; I'm saying it's not typical for science fiction.
Do you reserve the right to judge? Well, I think further discussion on this topic is impossible – I'm somewhat conservative, so I won't judge a book by its cover – when you're dull, someone else's wisdom always comes to the rescue ;)
In general, science fiction has one characteristic – it embodies a materialistic point of view, where everything should have its explanation. And conversations about "destiny," "the chosen one," any fatalism – I believe all of this calls into question whether a work belongs to science fiction.

In general, science fiction has one characteristic: it embodies a materialistic point of view, where everything must have an explanation. And conversations about "destiny," "the chosen one," or any fatalism – I believe all of this calls into question whether a work belongs to the science fiction genre.

I perceive all these conversations as mythology. Simply. An abstract belief in miracles exists and will always exist. In the world of science fiction, this belief is transferred to the world of starships and lightsabers. The meaning remains the same. Why deprive the world of the right to create myths on the grounds that it supposedly "contradicts the materialistic view of the world"? After all, the developers of this very materialism were very religious people, possessed quite unattainable ideals, and had an unwavering belief in the future that "will appreciate their work," "justify the efforts expended." Marxists considered themselves chosen to spread the word about the ideal state. Humanists considered themselves chosen to spread the word about the beautiful and rational human being. The Enlightenment thinkers predicted a world full of personal freedom and lived for the future. Why shouldn't this exist in the world of Star Wars? How is the belief in the destiny of the "Nordic race" worse than the belief in "Luke, the savior from the Sith"?