Fantasy vs. Science Fiction Auto-translated

I agree, but in the works of Lem, the Strugatsky brothers, and many other science fiction writers, miracles were often performed by ordinary people, even against the backdrop of spaceships. But it still didn't deviate from materialism.

Marxists considered themselves chosen to spread the word about the ideal state.

Yes, of course... They also believed they were creating a good, bright future, dispossessing, imprisoning, and executing millions of their fellow citizens without trial. But they invariably spoke of the coming bright future. And I'm not just focusing on Star Wars; there are many other examples where this is expressed more clearly. Science fiction always represents a cocktail of materialism and faith, but depending on the proportion, this can change the direction of the book. Okay, I'm out – this argument really won't lead anywhere; for every argument, there will be a counter-argument. I don't want to insist that there shouldn't be "faith" in science fiction; I'm saying that there shouldn't be *too much* of it – who knew, when formulating the genre, that it couldn't be done without it? :) And abstract faith in a miracle, it seems to me, will always be shattered against the granite framework of life's materialism.

Tralosk, that's a smart idea. Now we just need to wait for a bookstore with more than three shelves to open in the city :-).
By the way, I'll join in (regarding the illustrators) with the outcry of some unknown person:
"I wonder if fantasy artists will ever learn to depict something better than absurd three-meter-long swords and half-naked female butts?" (spelling and punctuation preserved, sorry for the profanity).
Because illustrations are a scourge of books... I've seen decent quality books with the worst illustrations, not related to the theme (AST loves this. Even Sapkowski criticized them for using unrelated pictures...). It's better with science fiction; there are fewer illustrations, and the editions of "masters" are generally in superstores and with original pictures from the 60s.
ewgeniy, I agree, but almost, because Star Wars is my favorite saga, and I perceive it as science fiction (there is even an explanation for the lightsaber!!!). By the way, you could try to combine "an elephant with a goat" with the lightning, with an explanation like "mental accumulation and discharge of static energy"... that is, more of a science fiction fairy tale. Yeah, yeah...

Regarding Tolkien. I might sound like a heretic, but I mostly respect the Professor's world of Arda as a "pioneer" of artistic fantasy. In terms of development (yes, there are worlds that are less and more developed, and the languages of elves and dwarves are not the main indicator), it is not in the first place, and the plot is not that outstanding either. But I wouldn't call this world low-quality, especially since it was the first fully developed fantasy world (not counting mythology). But I, for example, prefer D&D and Warcraft in terms of fantasy.

XEL, yeah, that's true. Heh, even Kamsha is getting closer to the quality of Warhammer in terms of development.
Tolkien is definitely the FIRST. And "The Hobbit" is a very cool fairy tale :). And that's all there is to it.

Yes, Tralosk, remove "Whispering Nickel Idols" from the "trash" list; it's part of the "Garrett - Private Detective" series, almost the only fantasy detective with a good detective element. The author is Glen Cook, and all the titles in the series are characterized by idiocy; they are all related to some kind of metal.

Okay, we'll follow the rule: if even one reasonable person likes it, it's not trash. I'll remove it. Although I probably won't bother reading it myself.
As for The Lord of the Rings, it certainly has a well-developed world. For a "first attempt," it's very, very good. But the Order and Chaos universe created by Roger Zelazny, in my opinion, far surpasses the world created by the professor. Although I'm not making a completely fair comparison – Tolkien created one world, while Zelazny created an entire fantasy universe. If you take just one world from Zelazny (for example, Amber or Avalon), it falls far short of Tolkien's Middle-earth.
But in terms of sheer scale and detail, science fiction leaves fantasy far behind. Which fantasy cycle can compete with Frank Herbert's Dune or Star Wars in terms of the size and depth of the universe? None, in my opinion. I can't think of any right away.

Warcraft could have, although it doesn't quite reach the scale of Star Wars.

Of course! The Lord of the Rings is just the first attempt, and that's why it's so revered. Well, well. Considering that most attempts to create something end up being a stupid and ridiculous copy of it. The Lord of the Rings isn't perfect because it's a "pioneer," but because it's perfect.
If someone thinks that the entire world that Tolkien showed us consists of the Shire, the road to Mordor, and Lothlórien, then that's a mistake, and a rather big one.

even Kamsha is approaching the level of detail of The Lord of the Rings

:smile15:

So, why is it okay to discuss Warhammer, but not Star Wars? :< Or is Warhammer part of the discussion about "what's cooler, sci-fi or fantasy?"

Well, it’s logical that in a discussion

Fantasy VS Science Fiction

they will discuss various fantasy and science fiction worlds. Otherwise, how can we compare these genres – just based on hearsay? It goes without saying that we will mention all sorts of writers and the worlds they had the honor to describe. The Lord of the Rings is the first fantasy world ever created, and one of the best. Star Wars is one of the science fiction worlds. Just one of them.
But Arandora can also be understood – if they start discussing Star Wars here, 10-20 fans of this series will immediately show up, cluttering and flooding the entire topic, and the other participants in the discussion will simply get lost in the mountains of their posts. Moreover, there is a separate "club" for Star Wars fans on the forum. It can be expected that in this topic, a series of narrowly focused, "Star Wars" discussions will arise, and the rest of the posters will be "out of place." Although, of course, deleting posts about Star Wars is a form of discrimination.

It's a matter of taste, although I haven't been reading fantasy for a long time. Because most fantasy is either some kind of infantile nonsense, suitable for teenagers (I read that kind of stuff when I was a teenager), or complete dark and mind-bending garbage like Perumov. I'm not saying that there isn't trash in science fiction either. But you just need to know who to read. Currently, I only read Salvatore out of nostalgia and love for D&D.

WisTrit, I've read The Silmarillion, The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, and the appendices. And that doesn't mean that Arda is very well-developed or that it's the highest quality fantasy.
There are many fantasy universes that surpass Arda in terms of development and interest.

I've read Tolkien's five-book series, *The Lord of the Rings*, *The Hobbit*, and *The Red Book* (I think that's what the collection of his early stories about Middle-earth is called?). And I actually liked the last one the most. It's fresh, unspoiled by violence and hatred. Poems, songs, and even culinary recipes! All without heroic pathos and mystical mumbo jumbo.
As for *The Lord of the Rings*... well, it's epic, wonderfully described, but so predictable... I devoured the first four books, got to the middle of *The Return of the King*, and put it down. It was already clear how it would all end. Then, four years later, I picked it up again, finished it... well, I didn't regret it, but I still felt that the work lacked something. It needs more intrigue.

Why a five-book series? Isn't it a trilogy? More precisely, there are six books that are grouped into a trilogy.

Yes, that's correct. I should have counted four books (The Hobbit, The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, The Return of the King). And I seem to have counted "The Two Towers" as two books. The subconscious mind works in funny ways sometimes)))

The Red Book (I think that's what the collection of his early stories about the world of Middle-earth is called?).

I remembered - it's called The Red Book, not the Red Book :D Tom Bombadil is the main character there.

that Arda is very, very well-developed, or that it is the highest quality fantasy.

Arda is "well-developed," and there doesn't seem to be anything "more well-developed." I didn't say it's the highest quality fantasy; unfortunately, I have no idea how to divide things into "high quality" and "low quality."
There's some kind of external criterion here.

There are many fantasy universes that surpass Arda in terms of development and interest.

Well, that's just your personal opinion. I don't think that Dark Elf "surpasses" Lord of the Rings, for example. However, it's not worse or better; it's just different.

By the way, these two elements together don't really coexist well:) there aren't many examples of good technofantasy.