Fantasy vs science fiction
Gene Ward Smith
share so markedly wrt science fiction? Here are some possibilities to
start out with:
(1) Sensawunda. Maybe magic gives better sensawunder than tech.
(2) Post-humans. People like reading about recognizably human
characters with superhuman abilities, but if they become truly
post-human, they become hard to relate to. But that's the direction
science fiction is moving in. The Golden Age and the Lucky Starr books
are set at the same time--7000 AD. But how different! In Lucky Starr, a
typical product of the golden age, space travel is highly developed but
humans are still human. In Golden Age, it may take you a long time to
get to Neptune, but it doesn't matter in a way because all kinds of
weird aliens are right there already where you are, calling themselves
human--more or less.
(3) Suspending disbelief. In fantasy, you simply require a
straightforward suspension of disbelief. In science fiction, you are
given some kind of quasi-scientific language to help the process along.
This can run into trouble at both ends. If, like a certain well-known
poster to this group, you don't actually know any science, the
quasi-scientific language will fail of its purpose. On the other hand
if you know too much, the chances are excellent that you won't buy what
is being presented either.
(4) Alien psychology. In fantasy, the aliens are usually nearly human,
which makes them easier to relate to. In Tolkien, the elves are
idealized humans and the orcs degraded humans, whereas hobbits and
dwarves are human variations just different enough to amuse without
running any risk we won't be able to identify with them. Science
fiction authors however get laughed at if they make an alien race this
nearly human, and so feel obligated to give their readers ones which
are more believeable, making them less easy to identify with.
(5) Eliminating tech. In fantasy, it's common to eliminate tech by
setting everything in a pseudo-medieval environment, which allows us to
get rid of things like guns which are just not helpful from a story
point of view. Then, we may replace whatever tech we choose at will
with a suitable magic equivalent.
(6) Flexibility. In fantasy, you can do whatever you like, which makes
it easier to plot. In science fiction, there are all these scientific
constraints, which increase the more science you know, ending up with
the dreaded Science is Killing Science Fiction problem.
Michael Alan Chary
Gene Ward Smith <gws...@svpal.org> wrote:
>What are people's thoughts on why fantasy has increased its market
>share so markedly wrt science fiction? Here are some possibilities to
Part of it I think is that fantasy might just attract better writers.
I mean, I happen to like Clarke and Asimov and Hogan and Benford and Bear,
but compared to Bradbury and Gene Wolfe and Gaiman and the others, they
just look sort of wimpy. I'm not saying that Lawrence Watt-Evans is better
when he writes fanstasy than sf, but rather that when you look for new
stuff to read, you're more likely to find a better writer in fantasy.
--
An experiment in publishing:
http://www.ethshar.com/thesprigganexperiment0.html
The All-New, All-Different Howling Curmudgeons!
http://www.whiterose.org/howlingcurmudgeons
James Nicoll
Michael Alan Chary <mch...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <1123783689....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>Gene Ward Smith <gws...@svpal.org> wrote:
>>What are people's thoughts on why fantasy has increased its market
>>share so markedly wrt science fiction? Here are some possibilities to
>
>Part of it I think is that fantasy might just attract better writers.
>
>I mean, I happen to like Clarke and Asimov and Hogan and Benford and Bear,
>but compared to Bradbury and Gene Wolfe and Gaiman and the others, they
>just look sort of wimpy. I'm not saying that Lawrence Watt-Evans is better
>when he writes fanstasy than sf, but rather that when you look for new
>stuff to read, you're more likely to find a better writer in fantasy.
Wolfe writes SF.
The main reason you find more good writers in SF (leaving aside
MilSF and AH to avoid dragging the average down) is that you find more
writers in fantasy than SF. It's where the money is.
Even if you start off writing SF, agents will strongly suggest a
career move and publishers will package book as fantasy if they can, even
if, to pick a silly made up example, the books are no more fantasy than
LORD KALVAN OF OTHERWHEN.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Nicoll) wrote:
> The main reason you find more good writers in SF (leaving aside
>MilSF and AH to avoid dragging the average down) is that you find more
>writers in fantasy than SF. It's where the money is.
Exactly.
--
Read the new Ethshar novel online! http://www.ethshar.com/thesprigganexperiment0.html
James Nicoll
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:18:06 +0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>Nicoll) wrote:
>
>> The main reason you find more good writers in SF (leaving aside
>>MilSF and AH to avoid dragging the average down) is that you find more
>>writers in fantasy than SF. It's where the money is.
>
>Exactly.
And that's why SF <-> Mystery runs a lot stronger towards
the right side of the equation.
No 33 Secretary
news:1123783689....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
(7) It's easier for bad writers to write passably, so is more accepted by
less discriminating fans.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
Michael Alan Chary
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <ddg4g9$qi6$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
>Michael Alan Chary <mch...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <1123783689....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>Gene Ward Smith <gws...@svpal.org> wrote:
>>>What are people's thoughts on why fantasy has increased its market
>>>share so markedly wrt science fiction? Here are some possibilities to
>>
>>Part of it I think is that fantasy might just attract better writers.
>>
>>I mean, I happen to like Clarke and Asimov and Hogan and Benford and Bear,
>>but compared to Bradbury and Gene Wolfe and Gaiman and the others, they
>>just look sort of wimpy. I'm not saying that Lawrence Watt-Evans is better
>>when he writes fanstasy than sf, but rather that when you look for new
>>stuff to read, you're more likely to find a better writer in fantasy.
>
> Wolfe writes SF.
I agree with you, but then so does Anne McCaffrey and so did Roger Zelazny
and Ursula Leguin.
>
> The main reason you find more good writers in SF (leaving aside
>MilSF and AH to avoid dragging the average down) is that you find more
>writers in fantasy than SF. It's where the money is.
>
> Even if you start off writing SF, agents will strongly suggest a
>career move and publishers will package book as fantasy if they can, even
>if, to pick a silly made up example, the books are no more fantasy than
>LORD KALVAN OF OTHERWHEN.
Youthink it's effect rather than cause, then?
John Desmarais
easier to read. Both the writer and the reader have a large library of
tropes and cliches to fall back on - the writer therefore needs to
explain less and the reader has less explanation that needs to be
understood. (It's magic, he's and elf, the gods will it, etc, etc...)
The best science fiction is built on a foundation of plausible science
- even if it's not possible, it possible to imagine that it could be.
This demands more from both the writer and the reader (the author must
have enough of a science background to make up something plausible and
the reader much be able to understand what the writer has created).
JD
Steve
wrotD:
>What are people's thoughts on why fantasy has increased its market
>share so markedly wrt science fiction? Here are some possibilities to
>start out with:
>
>(1) Sensawunda. Maybe magic gives better sensawunder than tech.
Well, maybe it's because editors have been buying too many important
books and not enough entertaining books. Entertainment is important to
a lot of readers. Fantasy may be more entertaining...
>(2) Post-humans. People like reading about recognizably human
>characters with superhuman abilities, but if they become truly
>post-human, they become hard to relate to. But that's the direction
>science fiction is moving in.
Ummm --some science fiction is moving that way. And after all, Simak
was "moving that way" decades ago. As was Cordwainer Smith. Watch for
a rebound.
>(4) Science
>fiction authors however get laughed at if they make an alien race this
>nearly human, and so feel obligated to give their readers ones which
>are more believeable, making them less easy to identify with.
Really? I wonder if you're pointing to a particular subgenre of SF and
declaring it to represent all of SF?
>(5) Eliminating tech.
>
>(6) Flexibility. In fantasy, you can do whatever you like,
I supsect 5 and 6 are the same thing. Not sure I agree with you --
sceince fictrion can be just as much wish-fullfillment as fantasy and
can be almost as devoid of tech, too. What's most important is being
consistent.
Steve
James Nicoll
Michael Alan Chary <mch...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <ddg4ot$e15$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <ddg4g9$qi6$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
>>Michael Alan Chary <mch...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>In article <1123783689....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>>Gene Ward Smith <gws...@svpal.org> wrote:
>>>>What are people's thoughts on why fantasy has increased its market
>>>>share so markedly wrt science fiction? Here are some possibilities to
>>>
>>>Part of it I think is that fantasy might just attract better writers.
>>>
>>>I mean, I happen to like Clarke and Asimov and Hogan and Benford and Bear,
>>>but compared to Bradbury and Gene Wolfe and Gaiman and the others, they
>>>just look sort of wimpy. I'm not saying that Lawrence Watt-Evans is better
>>>when he writes fanstasy than sf, but rather that when you look for new
>>>stuff to read, you're more likely to find a better writer in fantasy.
>>
>> Wolfe writes SF.
>
>I agree with you, but then so does Anne McCaffrey and so did Roger Zelazny
>and Ursula Leguin.
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
>>
>> The main reason you find more good writers in SF (leaving aside
>>MilSF and AH to avoid dragging the average down) is that you find more
>>writers in fantasy than SF. It's where the money is.
>>
>> Even if you start off writing SF, agents will strongly suggest a
>>career move and publishers will package book as fantasy if they can, even
>>if, to pick a silly made up example, the books are no more fantasy than
>>LORD KALVAN OF OTHERWHEN.
>
>Youthink it's effect rather than cause, then?
Yes.
Damien Neil
"Gene Ward Smith" <gws...@svpal.org> wrote:
> share so markedly wrt science fiction? Here are some possibilities to
> start out with:
My personal guess is the old Science is Killing Science Fiction.
Most SF comes with an expiration date. The vast majority of SF from
fifty years ago is painfully dated today. It can be enjoyed, but only
with a firm understanding of historical context, etc, etc.
Unfortunately for SF, many of the core tropes of the genre haven't
substantially evolved since they began.
How many authors are still writing books with FTL travel and no
substantial advances in computer technology? Can you reasonably
describe these settings as being any more realistic than the average
fantasy novel? The difference is that the fantasy novel probably has
substantially more originality in it's world and "technology" than the
SF one.
There are authors who aren't writing SF with technology from the '60s
prop department, of course. It's my completely unsupported impression
that this is a relatively new phenomenon--that SF went through a period
where the development of science and technology left it behind, and is
only now starting to catch up.
Good fantasy, in contrast, is timeless. You don't need to worry about
"historical context" to enjoy Tolkien and Howard's stories are as
enjoyable today as they were the day they were published.
- Damien
Steve
> and publishers will package book as fantasy if they can, even
>if, to pick a silly made up example, the books are no more fantasy than
>LORD KALVAN OF OTHERWHEN.
The cover concepts and ad concepts we've seen for Sword of Orion make
it look like a bit like fantasy. It isn't. The book has great space
fleets and gates between worlds and ... and cellphone analogs, and
aliens of odd description. Once you read the ad or the cover you can
tell it's SF.. but not by first glance.
Steve
Crystal Soldier -- A Locus Bestseller
Balance of Trade -- Best YA novel 2004
Local Custom audio book due June 27
Ethan Merritt
> What are people's thoughts on why fantasy has increased its market
> share so markedly wrt science fiction?
There is no useful distinction to be made between "fantasy" and
"science fiction". It's a marketing label, no more.
If you take that label off the spine, you're left with a continuous
spectrum spanning styles that are loosely called fantasy, science
fiction, magic realism, horror, surrealism, and so on.
You, and many others, probably have a personal working definition
of "science fiction" that matches some particular aggregate style,
theme, and era within the much broader spectrum of SF (speculative
fiction). No problem there (until you find that your definition
doesn't match the next guy's), but it is a false dichotomy to say
that science-fiction SF is decreasing, while fantasy SF is increasing.
Rather, there is a shift in the popularity of themes and treatments.
Golden Age-style science fiction is not prevalent any more, but
then neither are the styles from the same period that you would
have labeled (I'm guessing) as non-science fiction fantasy.
> (1) Sensawunda. Maybe magic gives better sensawunder than tech.
If you think "science fiction" necessarily requires a focus on
tech, then your personal definition of the genre is even more
extreme than I was guessing.
> (3) Suspending disbelief. In fantasy, you simply require a
> straightforward suspension of disbelief. In science fiction, you are
> given some kind of quasi-scientific language to help the process
> along. This can run into trouble at both ends.
Exactly. If it requires too much quasi-anything, be it technobabble
or mystibabble, then the story is IMHO heading downhill fast.
The very best stories require suspension of disbelief only in the large
things, like overall setting, because if they get bogged down trying to
explain implausible trivialities then it is a distraction at best.
"As you know, Bob, because of the local confrabulatory field,
in this story people really do eat their sandwiches with the jelly
on the outside.".
> (5) Eliminating tech. In fantasy, it's common to eliminate tech by
> setting everything in a pseudo-medieval environment, which allows us
> to get rid of things like guns which are just not helpful from a story
> point of view. Then, we may replace whatever tech we choose at will
> with a suitable magic equivalent.
I'm not sure which side you're arguing here. I would instead say that
tech is largely irrelevant, unless you're assuming some definition of
"fantasy" that necessarily eliminates tech.
> (6) Flexibility. In fantasy, you can do whatever you like, which makes
> it easier to plot. In science fiction, there are all these scientific
> constraints, which increase the more science you know, ending up with
> the dreaded Science is Killing Science Fiction problem.
In a good story, the author wrenches reality no more than the story
itself requires. That's true on both ends of the fantasy<->science
fiction continuum.
--
None so blind as those who will not see
Pete Fenelon
> share so markedly wrt science fiction? Here are some possibilities to
> start out with:
>
> (1) Sensawunda.
> (3) Suspending disbelief.
> (4) Alien psychology.
> (6) Flexibility.
7. No need to be logical or even pretend to be logical.
8. Market. EFP sells, therefore publishers buy more EFP.
9. Ridiculously low quality thresholds.
pete
--
pe...@fenelon.com "There's no room for enigmas in built-up areas"
Wayne Throop
: There is no useful distinction to be made between "fantasy" and
: "science fiction". It's a marketing label, no more.
I find it useful. It describes a series of conventions
that you can expect to be at least vaguely followed.
And since people market books to people-who-like-that-kind-of-thing,
it is entire reasonable to expect that there's a correlation
between marketing categories and recognizable preference categories.
: No problem there (until you find that your definition doesn't match
: the next guy's), but it is a false dichotomy to say that
: science-fiction SF is decreasing, while fantasy SF is increasing.
I find I agree with enough people I discuss such things with to make
it worthwhile. And it is not a false dichtomy to say that, at the
very least, the proportion of "speculative fiction" with near to medium
future settings with relatively plausible technology traceable to todays,
is getting smaller. (Note that that's a subset of what I'd call
(and what lots of people seem to agree to call) science fiction.
: Rather, there is a shift in the popularity of themes and treatments.
See? You agree with me. The fact that you want not to label
this with the terms most other people use to label it... shrug.
:: (1) Sensawunda. Maybe magic gives better sensawunder than tech.
: If you think "science fiction" necessarily requires a focus on tech,
: then your personal definition of the genre is even more extreme than I
: was guessing.
And if you think there's not a strong correlation (specifically,
enough of a correlation to explain a sales shift), then you're
simply ignoring the facts.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<jddes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I've always blamed it on laziness. Fantasy is easier to write and
>easier to read. Both the writer and the reader have a large library of
>tropes and cliches to fall back on - the writer therefore needs to
>explain less and the reader has less explanation that needs to be
>understood. (It's magic, he's and elf, the gods will it, etc, etc...)
>
>The best science fiction is built on a foundation of plausible science...
And right there you've shot your own argument in the foot.
It's just as easy to write bad SF as it is to write bad fantasy.
It _may_ be harder to write good SF than good fantasy -- a case can be
made, but I'm not entirely convinced -- but most writers of SF don't
worry about plausible science, any more than most fantasy writers can
tell a hauberk from a halberd.
No 33 Secretary
news:nscnf11i3q5hjjmkn...@news.rcn.com:
I think it's easier for a bad writer to write passable - not good, but
passable - fantasy than passable SF. In addition, I think it's easier for
the typical reader - not such well educated, discriminating folk as we have
here, but the typical reader - to slog his way through passable fantasy,
because suspension of disbelief is easier when there's no claim of
scientific plausiblity.
And I think it being easier to read is more responsible than it being
easier to write.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>Gene Ward Smith <gws...@svpal.org> wrote:
>> What are people's thoughts on why fantasy has increased its market
>> share so markedly wrt science fiction? Here are some possibilities to
>> start out with:
>>
>> (1) Sensawunda.
>> (2) Post-humans.
>> (3) Suspending disbelief.
>> (4) Alien psychology.
>> (5) Eliminating tech.
>> (6) Flexibility.
>
>7. No need to be logical or even pretend to be logical.
You clearly never read good fantasy.
>8. Market. EFP sells, therefore publishers buy more EFP.
But why does it sell?
>9. Ridiculously low quality thresholds.
Coming from a fan of the genre that gave us Lionel Fanthorpe, I find
this amusing.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<taustin...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote in
>news:nscnf11i3q5hjjmkn...@news.rcn.com:
>
>> It _may_ be harder to write good SF than good fantasy -- a case can be
>> made, but I'm not entirely convinced -- but most writers of SF don't
>> worry about plausible science, any more than most fantasy writers can
>> tell a hauberk from a halberd.
>>
>I think it's easier for a bad writer to write passable - not good, but
>passable - fantasy than passable SF.
That could be true. I'd really need to look at it in detail and give
it some thought before agreeing, but it could be.
> In addition, I think it's easier for
>the typical reader - not such well educated, discriminating folk as we have
>here, but the typical reader - to slog his way through passable fantasy,
>because suspension of disbelief is easier when there's no claim of
>scientific plausiblity.
There may be an unfortunate interaction of editor and reader here -- I
think SF editors may demand a greater pretense of plausibility than
readers need or want, and that prevents rip-roaring adventure SF that
might find an audience among the undiscriminating from getting
published in the first place.
Of course, it also weeds out tons of crap.
>And I think it being easier to read is more responsible than it being
>easier to write.
THAT part I agree with completely.
Tina Hall
(Just a general thought on the subject. Quotes mostly only left in
for some kind of context.)
>>> What are people's thoughts on why fantasy has increased its
>>> market share so markedly wrt science fiction?
[...]
> Even if you start off writing SF, agents will strongly suggest a
> career move and publishers will package book as fantasy if they
> can, even if, to pick a silly made up example, the books are no
> more fantasy than LORD KALVAN OF OTHERWHEN.
What if the insistence on realistic science in Science Fiction is to
be blamed, because it bullies all the fantastic stuff to shuffle off
to Fantasy, to stand in the corner, ashamed, with a paperbag over
its head? Maybe mundane readers (unlike some posters here) don't
want technobabble, but galaxy-sized comets (<g>), giant trees as
spaceships, and flying cities.
Btw, the 'silly made up example' sounds like the title of a Fantasy
story, not Science Fiction. (If it's a mangling of a real title, I'm
curious what that is.)
--
Tina
No internet access.
### XP v3.40 RC3 ###
Gene Ward Smith
Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> There may be an unfortunate interaction of editor and reader here -- I
> think SF editors may demand a greater pretense of plausibility than
> readers need or want, and that prevents rip-roaring adventure SF that
> might find an audience among the undiscriminating from getting
> published in the first place.
So we get stuck with stultified but scientically accurate stories such
as Red Thunder or The Getaway Special? Do you, of yhour own knowledge,
know of editors who are demanding scientific plausibility?
No 33 Secretary
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:28:09 -0000, No 33 Secretary
> <taustin...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>
>>Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote in
>>news:nscnf11i3q5hjjmkn...@news.rcn.com:
>>
>>> It _may_ be harder to write good SF than good fantasy -- a case can
>>> be made, but I'm not entirely convinced -- but most writers of SF
>>> don't worry about plausible science, any more than most fantasy
>>> writers can tell a hauberk from a halberd.
>>>
>>I think it's easier for a bad writer to write passable - not good, but
>>passable - fantasy than passable SF.
>
> That could be true. I'd really need to look at it in detail and give
> it some thought before agreeing, but it could be.
It certainly seems like it would be less work to simply make up how stuff
works, than to actually figure out how it's supposed to work to be
realistic.
Though I guess there's a trade off there, as SF can draw on real world
history for world building, where the fantasy writer has to make more of it
up.
>
>> In addition, I think it's easier for
>>the typical reader - not such well educated, discriminating folk as we
>>have here, but the typical reader - to slog his way through passable
>>fantasy, because suspension of disbelief is easier when there's no
>>claim of scientific plausiblity.
>
> There may be an unfortunate interaction of editor and reader here -- I
> think SF editors may demand a greater pretense of plausibility than
> readers need or want, and that prevents rip-roaring adventure SF that
> might find an audience among the undiscriminating from getting
> published in the first place.
There may be an historical cause there - in the past, the audience was,
perhaps, more discrimination (and much smaller). Recall the glory days of
letters to the editor at Analog, for example.
>
> Of course, it also weeds out tons of crap.
Which is scary, given how much crap gets published.
>
>>And I think it being easier to read is more responsible than it being
>>easier to write.
>
> THAT part I agree with completely.
>
Is it an evil portent, that you agree with _me_?
Richard R. Hershberger
I don't know whether I agree or disagree with your larger point, but
that library 'o tropes is what turned me off from fantasy fifteen or
twenty years ago. Fantasy in principle has no limitations, but we got
an endless string of generic watered-down Tolkien knockoffs. Better to
read the original another time. I have only recently returned to dip
my toe in that pool.
Richard R. Hershberger
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
Did I misspell "greater pretense," or omit "than readers need or
want"?
Most readers don't give a damn about plausibility; most editors do
seem to at least want a vague pretense. I know Judy-Lynn del Rey
wanted me to make it clearer that the "magic" in _The Cyborg and the
Sorcerers_ was psionics, and not really magic -- that was one of two
changes she asked for in the revision letter. (The other was a new
ending.)
David Dyer-Bennet
This is comparing the worst fantasy to the best science fiction,
though.
The *best* fantasy has to be wholely believable without the crutches
of science and such to fall back on, and wholely engaging without any
limitations beyond those the author chooses. It's like playing
without a net.
And the *worst* science fiction has a much bigger stock of cliche and
trope to fall back on, all of reality plus hundreds of years of bad
SF.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> Much of which is still down
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<taustin...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote in
>news:f5enf1pt455o3dich...@news.rcn.com:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:28:09 -0000, No 33 Secretary
>> <taustin...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I think it's easier for a bad writer to write passable - not good, but
>>>passable - fantasy than passable SF.
>>
>> That could be true. I'd really need to look at it in detail and give
>> it some thought before agreeing, but it could be.
>
>It certainly seems like it would be less work to simply make up how stuff
>works, than to actually figure out how it's supposed to work to be
>realistic.
You get to make up the magic, yeah, but not all the other trappings.
Although you wouldn't know it from a lot of what gets published, the
superior fantasy writer does make an effort to get things like
horsemanship, archery, castle architecture, and armor design right,
which takes more research than just extrapolating current furniture
into the future.
>Though I guess there's a trade off there, as SF can draw on real world
>history for world building, where the fantasy writer has to make more of it
>up.
Real-world science also provides a ready-made vocabulary for
hand-waving. I think there _is_ a trade-off, I'm just unsure how much
of one.
>> There may be an unfortunate interaction of editor and reader here -- I
>> think SF editors may demand a greater pretense of plausibility than
>> readers need or want, and that prevents rip-roaring adventure SF that
>> might find an audience among the undiscriminating from getting
>> published in the first place.
>
>There may be an historical cause there - in the past, the audience was,
>perhaps, more discrimination (and much smaller). Recall the glory days of
>letters to the editor at Analog, for example.
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking -- lots of editors came up through
fandom and are haunted by Campbell's ghost. Most readers would be
just as happy with the heirs of Planet or Startling Stories.
>>>And I think it being easier to read is more responsible than it being
>>>easier to write.
>>
>> THAT part I agree with completely.
>>
>Is it an evil portent, that you agree with _me_?
I dunno; I admit it startled me a little. (For one thing, I'd had you
temporarily killfiled to save time in skimming the
Is-John-Ringo-destroying-SF thread, and hadn't realized the killfile
expired this morning.)
Generally speaking, though, publishing is much, much more
reader-driven than writer-driven.
Carl Dershem
> Gene Ward Smith <gws...@svpal.org> wrote:
>> What are people's thoughts on why fantasy has increased its market
>> share so markedly wrt science fiction? Here are some possibilities to
>> start out with:
>>
>> (1) Sensawunda.
>> (2) Post-humans.
>> (3) Suspending disbelief.
>> (4) Alien psychology.
>> (5) Eliminating tech.
>> (6) Flexibility.
>
> 7. No need to be logical or even pretend to be logical.
> 8. Market. EFP sells, therefore publishers buy more EFP.
> 9. Ridiculously low quality thresholds.
Apparently the only fantasy you read is the low quality stuff that fits
your preconceptions. There is as much high quality fantasy as there is
high quality SF (maybe more, as there are more people working in the
genre), and the same goes for the low quality stuff, and the 'extruded'
mindless drivel.
But tarring any field (yes, even romance or westerns or testosterone-
poisoned action-adventure) with the same brush is guaranteed to be a
mistake.
cd
--
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl
Grey.
No 33 Secretary
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:04:22 -0000, No 33 Secretary
> <taustin...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>
>>Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote in
>>news:f5enf1pt455o3dich...@news.rcn.com:
>>
>>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:28:09 -0000, No 33 Secretary
>>> <taustin...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I think it's easier for a bad writer to write passable - not good,
>>>>but passable - fantasy than passable SF.
>>>
>>> That could be true. I'd really need to look at it in detail and
>>> give it some thought before agreeing, but it could be.
>>
>>It certainly seems like it would be less work to simply make up how
>>stuff works, than to actually figure out how it's supposed to work to
>>be realistic.
>
> You get to make up the magic, yeah, but not all the other trappings.
Certainly, world building is a spectrum, not a series of discrete points.
> Although you wouldn't know it from a lot of what gets published, the
> superior fantasy writer does make an effort to get things like
> horsemanship, archery, castle architecture, and armor design right,
> which takes more research than just extrapolating current furniture
> into the future.
Look at how many . . . decades Tolkein spent world building. I would
venture to guess that _good_ fantasy world building is, indeed, more work
(though not necessarily *harder* work, just far more of it) than _good_
SF future world building. But there's a *lot* that can be fudged, and
glossed over in the text, by a lazy writer looking only to meet his
deadline. And I do think there's more than can be fudged in fantasy, and
that the reader is less likely to notice it. Or perhaps more likely to be
able to fill in the missing details in his imagination?
>
>>Though I guess there's a trade off there, as SF can draw on real world
>>history for world building, where the fantasy writer has to make more
>>of it up.
>
> Real-world science also provides a ready-made vocabulary for
> hand-waving. I think there _is_ a trade-off, I'm just unsure how much
> of one.
And you'd certainly know better than me, since my world building experience
is limited to gamemastering. (Which can be quite a challenge in and of
itself, if you let it be, but is quite different in purpose and scope, and
which can be ongoing in small pieces, where a book needs to be _done_ at
some point.)
>
>>> There may be an unfortunate interaction of editor and reader here --
>>> I think SF editors may demand a greater pretense of plausibility
>>> than readers need or want, and that prevents rip-roaring adventure
>>> SF that might find an audience among the undiscriminating from
>>> getting published in the first place.
>>
>>There may be an historical cause there - in the past, the audience
>>was, perhaps, more discrimination (and much smaller). Recall the glory
>>days of letters to the editor at Analog, for example.
>
> Yeah, that's what I'm thinking -- lots of editors came up through
> fandom and are haunted by Campbell's ghost.
What a terrifying thought.
> Most readers would be
> just as happy with the heirs of Planet or Startling Stories.
Many readers are just as happy with trashy romance novels that are almost
literally written by doing a global search and replace on proper names,
from the previous novel's manuscript.
But even among sf (in the rasw sense) readers, I suspect you are entirely
correct. I know I'm rather more interesting in well drawn characters doing
interesting things than technical details of how their Space Toilet(tm)
works.
>
>>>>And I think it being easier to read is more responsible than it
>>>>being easier to write.
>>>
>>> THAT part I agree with completely.
>>>
>>Is it an evil portent, that you agree with _me_?
>
> I dunno; I admit it startled me a little. (For one thing, I'd had you
> temporarily killfiled to save time in skimming the
> Is-John-Ringo-destroying-SF thread, and hadn't realized the killfile
> expired this morning.)
Ok, that's *definitely* an evil portent.
>
> Generally speaking, though, publishing is much, much more
> reader-driven than writer-driven.
>
I would quibble to the extent of saying that it's much more _buyer_ driven,
rather than reader driven. But there is certainly a large overlap betwen
the two.
No 33 Secretary
news:Xns96AF98A5B55...@68.6.19.6:
> Pete Fenelon <pe...@fenelon.com> wrote in news:emagdd...@fenelon.com:
>
>> Gene Ward Smith <gws...@svpal.org> wrote:
>>> What are people's thoughts on why fantasy has increased its market
>>> share so markedly wrt science fiction? Here are some possibilities to
>>> start out with:
>>>
>>> (1) Sensawunda.
>>> (2) Post-humans.
>>> (3) Suspending disbelief.
>>> (4) Alien psychology.
>>> (5) Eliminating tech.
>>> (6) Flexibility.
>>
>> 7. No need to be logical or even pretend to be logical.
>> 8. Market. EFP sells, therefore publishers buy more EFP.
>> 9. Ridiculously low quality thresholds.
>
> Apparently the only fantasy you read is the low quality stuff that fits
> your preconceptions. There is as much high quality fantasy as there is
> high quality SF (maybe more, as there are more people working in the
> genre), and the same goes for the low quality stuff, and the 'extruded'
> mindless drivel.
The problem is, "as much" is a relative term. There may well be more good
fantasy than SF, but two is more than one. And since there is more fantasy
than SF being published, there's that much more drek to dig through looking
for the diamonds.
>
> But tarring any field (yes, even romance or westerns or testosterone-
> poisoned action-adventure) with the same brush is guaranteed to be a
> mistake.
>
So, what's your point?
marks...@yahoo.com
I remember a time when Science Fiction was one set of shelves and the
Fantasy was another section. Sci-fi fans snuck into the Fantasy
section when no one was looking and got the book in a plain brown
wrapper.
These days it is sometimes difficult to tell what category a particular
author is trying to serve, and occasionally I find a book that would be
better off in the mystery or romance section. (ignoring the soft-core
porn category)
Excellent fantasy stories , in my opinion , need to be internally
consistant, which means the author needs to work the rules into the
story. A fantasy story where there is not a basic rules set in place
becomes somewhat unreadable because you can never tell what is likely
to happen.
It seemed in the Midkemia series (Magician,Krondor etc) the author kept
dreaming up reasons why a main character (the very powerful PUG) was
always off somewhere when he could have ended the story with a wave of
his hand.
I suspect some of the older sci-fi books (1960-1970 s) would now be
classed as Fantasy. EE Doc Smith for one.
Christopher Adams
>
> Btw, the 'silly made up example' sounds like the title of a Fantasy
> story, not Science Fiction. (If it's a mangling of a real title, I'm
> curious what that is.)
Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen is a novel by H. Beam Piper. To quote from an Amazon
user review:
"Calvin Morrison is a Pennsylvania State Trooper who suddenly finds himself
lifted out of his (our) world, and deposited on a parallel Earth. In this other
Pennsylvania he finds a small kingdom of bearded primitives who appear to be on
the losing end of a war of conquest. The locals have so little gunpowder
compared to their enemies because the secret of making it is controlled by a
corrupt religious order, Styphon's House. Calvin, a student of military history,
finds himself proclaimed Lord Kalvan, and given the job of rescuing a seemingly
hopeless situation."
I've no idea if there's more to it than that.
--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
The geek with roots in Hell!
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatelist.html
Who do you blame when your kid is a - brat?
Pampered and spoiled like a Siamese - cat?
Blaming the kids is a lie and a - shame!
You know exactly who's - to - blame:
The mother and the father!
how...@brazee.net
On 11-Aug-2005, "Gene Ward Smith" <gws...@svpal.org> wrote:
> (6) Flexibility. In fantasy, you can do whatever you like, which makes
> it easier to plot. In science fiction, there are all these scientific
> constraints, which increase the more science you know, ending up with
> the dreaded Science is Killing Science Fiction problem.
Over the years, the constraints on SF have increased as we have been less
willing to accept that we will ever have a society that we're familiar with
on other planets. So we have to suspend our belief in order to have old
style SF. Enough so, that we might as well go to fantasy where they can
make whatever rules they want without us doing double takes.
Paul Colquhoun
| James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
|>> Gene Ward Smith <gws...@svpal.org> wrote:
|
| (Just a general thought on the subject. Quotes mostly only left in
| for some kind of context.)
|
|>>> What are people's thoughts on why fantasy has increased its
|>>> market share so markedly wrt science fiction?
|
| [...]
|
|> Even if you start off writing SF, agents will strongly suggest a
|> career move and publishers will package book as fantasy if they
|> can, even if, to pick a silly made up example, the books are no
|> more fantasy than LORD KALVAN OF OTHERWHEN.
|
| What if the insistence on realistic science in Science Fiction is to
| be blamed, because it bullies all the fantastic stuff to shuffle off
| to Fantasy, to stand in the corner, ashamed, with a paperbag over
| its head? Maybe mundane readers (unlike some posters here) don't
| want technobabble, but galaxy-sized comets (<g>), giant trees as
| spaceships, and flying cities.
Galaxy-sized comets you can keep, but the others exist in SF of reasonable
quality. Niven has 2 examples of trees as 'spaceships', Stage Trees from
Known Space, and Integral Trees from the book of the same name (OK, a bit
of a stretch there). James Blish gives us flying cities in the Okie books.
| Btw, the 'silly made up example' sounds like the title of a Fantasy
| story, not Science Fiction. (If it's a mangling of a real title, I'm
| curious what that is.)
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro
how...@brazee.net
On 11-Aug-2005, Paul Colquhoun <postm...@andor.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> Galaxy-sized comets you can keep, but the others exist in SF of reasonable
> quality. Niven has 2 examples of trees as 'spaceships', Stage Trees from
> Known Space, and Integral Trees from the book of the same name (OK, a bit
> of a stretch there). James Blish gives us flying cities in the Okie books.
Does the tree from _Rainbow Mars_ count?
Tina Hall
> John Desmarais wrote:
>> I've always blamed it on laziness. Fantasy is easier to write
>> and easier to read. Both the writer and the reader have a large
>> library of tropes and cliches to fall back on - the writer
>> therefore needs to explain less and the reader has less
>> explanation that needs to be understood. (It's magic, he's and
>> elf, the gods will it, etc, etc...)
Only writers without the ability to imagine something new do that
and no more. If there really is a ton of that out there, maybe that
just indicates that there is indeed far more junk in fantasy.
Just out of curiosity, is there a fantasy story that doesn't have:
elfs, dwarves, trolls,... , gods, knights (short for 'medieval
weaponry[*], armour, horses, royality, palaces,...'), magic that
needs gestures, spells and/or ingredients, or other rituals (also
none in general), and just for the sake of it; no ships? I probably
miss a lot of tropes... Ah, the evil grand vizier mustn't occur,
either.
As an added difficulty; no oaths/honour stuff, no fashions, and no
whores. (I'm aiming at the kind of society here, which is more or
less the same, too.)
(Wondering whether I should add 'no giraffes', for general amusement
value.)
[*] Something to hunt with is allowed, but none of it for warefare.
>> The best science fiction is built on a foundation of plausible
>> science - even if it's not possible, it possible to imagine that
>> it could be. This demands more from both the writer and the
>> reader (the author must have enough of a science background to
>> make up something plausible and the reader much be able to
>> understand what the writer has created).
> I don't know whether I agree or disagree with your larger point,
> but that library 'o tropes is what turned me off from fantasy
> fifteen or twenty years ago.
It's what I definitely don't want in fantasy, too. (But science
fiction is full of technological mumbojumbo, and I don't care about
the actual science, much less whether it's plausible. The setting
should just be consistent.)
> Fantasy in principle has no limitations, but we got an endless
> string of generic watered-down Tolkien knockoffs. Better to read
> the original another time.
I didn't get far the first time, and didn't try again. (Deadly eight
words, plus the writing style, plus it was boring. The appendix -
which I had read first - was the only interesting part.)
Konrad Gaertner
>
> What are people's thoughts on why fantasy has increased its market
> start out with:
>
I don't get much sensawunda from magic; what impresses me is
characters acting intelligently or an author who Thinks Things
Through. So in theory this shouldn't be an issue.
> (3) Suspending disbelief. In fantasy, you simply require a
> straightforward suspension of disbelief. In science fiction, you are
> given some kind of quasi-scientific language to help the process along.
I've long believed this to be why I prefer fantasy. Every time the
premise includes something impossible I can just say "That's why
it's called fantasy." Even if the author is claiming science
fiction (I'm looking at you, Ms. Baker).
> (5) Eliminating tech. In fantasy, it's common to eliminate tech by
> setting everything in a pseudo-medieval environment, which allows us to
> get rid of things like guns which are just not helpful from a story
> point of view. Then, we may replace whatever tech we choose at will
> with a suitable magic equivalent.
True, for high fantasy. But urban fantasy seems to be rapidly
growing these days.
> (6) Flexibility. In fantasy, you can do whatever you like, which makes
> it easier to plot.
AAAIIIEEEEEE!!!!!!!
I HATE that! In fantasy or science fiction. Give me a universe
with rules if you want me to read your books.
(7) People interested in robots, exploding spaceships, and hot
scientist babes can read about those in the tech journals.
(8) The same stories are being written, but publishers have
gotten better at distinguishing between fantasy and science.
[In case there was any doubt who is writing this post. :) ]
--
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - email: gae...@aol.com
http://www.livejournal.com/users/kgbooklog/
Terry Austin
news:1123804094.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
The reverse was also true.
>
> These days it is sometimes difficult to tell what category a
> particular author is trying to serve,
Often through no fault of the author, but yes, that's true.
> and occasionally I find a book
> that would be better off in the mystery or romance section. (ignoring
> the soft-core porn category)
>
> Excellent fantasy stories , in my opinion , need to be internally
> consistant, which means the author needs to work the rules into the
> story. A fantasy story where there is not a basic rules set in place
> becomes somewhat unreadable because you can never tell what is likely
> to happen.
>
Internal consistency is a feature of all good writing, in all genres. So is
proper use of the language, and an interesting story about interesting
people.
> It seemed in the Midkemia series (Magician,Krondor etc) the author
> kept dreaming up reasons why a main character (the very powerful PUG)
> was always off somewhere when he could have ended the story with a
> wave of his hand.
Can't say I've read more than one or two of those, and that was decades
ago. Perhaps now I know why.
>
> I suspect some of the older sci-fi books (1960-1970 s) would now be
> classed as Fantasy. EE Doc Smith for one.
>
And probably should have been then, but fantasy was not yet much of a
recongized market.
--
Terry Austin
http://www.hyperbooks.com/
Campaign Cartographer Now Available
GSV Three Minds in a Can
the wonderful person Gene Ward Smith <gws...@svpal.org> said
>What are people's thoughts on why fantasy has increased its market
>share so markedly wrt science fiction? Here are some possibilities to
>start out with:
>
IMO it's simply selling better because it is easier to read (the stuff
that sells, at least), and doesn't require any
scientific/engineering/math background on the part of the reader .. of
course the ScF that sells well too (Star-wars-trek-Babylon-Dr-Who) also
comes pretty well pre-digested.
Looking at the shelf space, the (IMO) 'good' Fantasy writers are not
doing very much better than the 'good' ScF writers .. Jordan, Goodkind,
Eddings, %other EFP author%, and Star-wars<etc>franchise are stomping
all over all of them. I guess it's another sign of the impending end of
civilization....
Fantasy seems to film better too. 8>.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.
r.r...@thevine.net
wrote:
>Just out of curiosity, is there a fantasy story that doesn't have:
>elfs, dwarves, trolls,... , gods, knights (short for 'medieval
>weaponry[*], armour, horses, royality, palaces,...'), magic that
>needs gestures, spells and/or ingredients, or other rituals (also
>none in general), and just for the sake of it; no ships? I probably
>miss a lot of tropes... Ah, the evil grand vizier mustn't occur,
>either.
Cherryh's _Rusalka_ doesn't have most of that. It does have a boat (a
dilapidated ferry), but that's not quite the same as a ship. And I am
taking elfs, dwarves, and trolls as literal descriptions. None of
those in the book.
The second and third book in the series do have horses, though.
Mostly because Sasha was a stableboy and likes horses.
Rebecca
Ethan Merritt
>
> Fantasy seems to film better too. 8>.
Seems to attract better acting, anyhow.
But the best SciFi movie made in the last few years has
got to be Cowboy Bebop. It's one of the few movie-format
SciFi offerings I've ever seen that managed to tell a
coherent story based on believable science without
neglecting to provide "sensawunda" and a good plot as well.
Ghost in the Shell 2 had better visuals, but the words
"coherent" and "believable" don't spring to mind :-)
--
None so blind as those who will not see
Wayne Throop
: But the best SciFi movie made in the last few years has got to be
: Cowboy Bebop. It's one of the few movie-format SciFi offerings I've
: ever seen that managed to tell a coherent story based on believable
: science without neglecting to provide "sensawunda" and a good plot as
: well.
Believable science? The gate system? Um... what?
For that matter, the spaceships show a bit too much of
"bank in space" syndrome. Mind you, they do a better job
of lots of little details than many another depiction.
So, I guess... ignoring a lapse or two, yes, quite locally hard.
But the gate system? Um... what?
: Ghost in the Shell 2 had better visuals, but the words
: "coherent" and "believable" don't spring to mind :-)
Heh!
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
John Reiher
wrote:
> : Ethan Merritt <emer...@eskimo.com.invalid>
> : But the best SciFi movie made in the last few years has got to be
> : Cowboy Bebop. It's one of the few movie-format SciFi offerings I've
> : ever seen that managed to tell a coherent story based on believable
> : science without neglecting to provide "sensawunda" and a good plot as
> : well.
>
> Believable science? The gate system? Um... what?
> For that matter, the spaceships show a bit too much of
> "bank in space" syndrome. Mind you, they do a better job
> of lots of little details than many another depiction.
>
> So, I guess... ignoring a lapse or two, yes, quite locally hard.
>
> But the gate system? Um... what?
The gate system is just a plot device to move the characters from one
locale to another. The fighter craft were in an atmosphere, Martian, but
in an atmosphere, so I have to give them that.
Cowboy BeBop the Movie is so rich with detail and angst, all wrapped up
with SF trappings, it's a delight to watch. If it wasn't for the fact
that the movie was Anime, it would have been a major motion picture.
It's one of those movies that would have gotten lots of play in
mainstream media.
If it wasn't Anime. :-)
In America, when you say "it's an animated movie..." the other non-otaku
person will probably say, "It's a _car-tooon_? Shucks, it's fer kids!"
It's the movie you pull out to show what can be done with animation and
the kinds of stories, adult stories, that can be told.
American studios try, but they keep thinking "But my kids will be
watching this!" and keep pulling back because "it's a cartoon!"
--
The Kedamono Dragon
Pull Pinky's favorite words to email me.
http://www.ahtg.net
Have Mac, will Compute
Check out the PowerPointers Shop at:
http://www.cafeshops.com/PowerPointers
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
David Bilek
>GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
>>
>> Fantasy seems to film better too. 8>.
>
>Seems to attract better acting, anyhow.
>
>But the best SciFi movie made in the last few years has
>got to be Cowboy Bebop. It's one of the few movie-format
>SciFi offerings I've ever seen that managed to tell a
>coherent story based on believable science without
>neglecting to provide "sensawunda" and a good plot as well.
>
I thought Cowboy Bepop the tv series was utterly unwatchable. Would I
probably think the same about the movie?
>Ghost in the Shell 2 had better visuals, but the words
>"coherent" and "believable" don't spring to mind :-)
I'd agree with this. Beautiful movie. Lousy, lousy script.
-David
Damien Neil
David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Ethan Merritt <emer...@eskimo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
> >But the best SciFi movie made in the last few years has
> >got to be Cowboy Bebop. It's one of the few movie-format
> >SciFi offerings I've ever seen that managed to tell a
> >coherent story based on believable science without
> >neglecting to provide "sensawunda" and a good plot as well.
>
> I thought Cowboy Bepop the tv series was utterly unwatchable. Would I
> probably think the same about the movie?
Yes. If you didn't like the TV series, you won't like the movie.
> >Ghost in the Shell 2 had better visuals, but the words
> >"coherent" and "believable" don't spring to mind :-)
>
> I'd agree with this. Beautiful movie. Lousy, lousy script.
Can't argue too much there.
- Damien
GSV Three Minds in a Can
the wonderful person Tina Hall <Tina...@kruemel.org> said
<snip>
>Just out of curiosity, is there a fantasy story that doesn't have:
>elfs, dwarves, trolls,... , gods, knights (short for 'medieval
>weaponry[*], armour, horses, royality, palaces,...'), magic that
>needs gestures, spells and/or ingredients, or other rituals (also
>none in general), and just for the sake of it; no ships? I probably
>miss a lot of tropes... Ah, the evil grand vizier mustn't occur,
>either.
You mean like _Watership Down_, _Duncton Wood_, _Summon the Keeper_, or
almost anything by Charles De Lint, Robert Rankin, Tom Holt, Tim Powers
.. even quite as lot of Discworld. 8>.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
GSV Three Minds in a Can
the wonderful person marks...@yahoo.com said
<big snip>
>Excellent fantasy stories , in my opinion , need to be internally
>consistant, which means the author needs to work the rules into the
>story. A fantasy story where there is not a basic rules set in place
>becomes somewhat unreadable because you can never tell what is likely
>to happen.
>
>It seemed in the Midkemia series (Magician,Krondor etc) the author kept
>dreaming up reasons why a main character (the very powerful PUG) was
>always off somewhere when he could have ended the story with a wave of
>his hand.
I had the same problem with _Black Sun Rising_ .. Sunlight will kill the
Vampire, except ... plus a new/stronger sort of magic pops up every few
chapters, iirc. Of Course EE Doc Smith had the same approach to blasters
and shields....
Martin Wisse
<taustin...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote in
>news:f5enf1pt455o3dich...@news.rcn.com:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:28:09 -0000, No 33 Secretary
>> <taustin...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote in
>>>news:nscnf11i3q5hjjmkn...@news.rcn.com:
>>>
>>>> It _may_ be harder to write good SF than good fantasy -- a case can
>>>> be made, but I'm not entirely convinced -- but most writers of SF
>>>> don't worry about plausible science, any more than most fantasy
>>>> writers can tell a hauberk from a halberd.
>>>>
>>>I think it's easier for a bad writer to write passable - not good, but
>>>passable - fantasy than passable SF.
>>
>> That could be true. I'd really need to look at it in detail and give
>> it some thought before agreeing, but it could be.
>
>It certainly seems like it would be less work to simply make up how stuff
>works, than to actually figure out how it's supposed to work to be
>realistic.
Though there's also a comfort in having to work within established
guidelines; many writers start to sweat when confronted with just a
blank page.
>Though I guess there's a trade off there, as SF can draw on real world
>history for world building, where the fantasy writer has to make more of it
>up.
But the fantasy writer can do this as well. The stereotypical lazy
fantasy is a thinly disguised medieval England, after all.
Martin Wisse
netcat
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 03:19:00 GMT+1, Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall)
> wrote:
>
> >Just out of curiosity, is there a fantasy story that doesn't have:
> >elfs, dwarves, trolls,... , gods, knights (short for 'medieval
> >weaponry[*], armour, horses, royality, palaces,...'), magic that
> >needs gestures, spells and/or ingredients, or other rituals (also
> >none in general), and just for the sake of it; no ships? I probably
> >miss a lot of tropes... Ah, the evil grand vizier mustn't occur,
> >either.
I would suggest KJ Bishop's _The Etched City_, of recent works.
Features none of the standard zoo mentioned above. No god puts in an
appearance, though there's certainly discussion of them. Instead of
knights and royalty we get corrupted generals and slave traders. There's
a bit of explicit magic at the end, but handled in a non-cliched (IMHO)
way.
And despite the fact that the protagonists spend many days riding at the
beginning, I don't recall any horses. Hope you haven't anything against
camels, though...
R.A.MacAvoy's _Tea with the Black Dragon_ is another, much older example
of a nontraditional fantasy novel.
Set in present day (meaning, early 1980s) and featuring nothing
supernatural besides a mysterious old gentleman who thinks he's a dragon
become human.
I really like both of these works, although neither of them is a perfect
masterpiece. Can anyone recommend something similar?
rgds,
netcat
Mark
appeal is to something more fundamental. Most (not all) fantasy is of
the "I Have A Destiny To Fulfill" plotline. I think people who devour
fantasy have a deep-rooted need to feel that "Destiny" is an actual,
authentic phenomenon--just like people who look on tragedy and want to
believe "there must be a reason for it."
Science fiction tends to cut all that warm-fuzzy,
I'm-in-the-hands-of-a-greater-power junk to ribbons. As Ursula LeGuin
put it in one of her essays (which one escapes me just now) the
universe is a big, cold place; science fiction teaches us how to live
in it.
Mark
author of:
THE SECANTIS SEQUENCE
REMAINS
www.marktiedemann.com
p.s. On what basis would anyone claim that fantasy is "better-written"
than SF? They're different aesthetics, just to name one thing that
makes such a claim nonsense.
erilar
<G...@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
Maybe it's easier to write, too? I have more trouble finding good sf
than finding pretty good fantasy. Note "pretty good" qualifier.
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)
You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument
is that reason doesn't count. Isaac Asimov
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
erilar
Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
> Internal consistency is a feature of all good writing, in all genres. So
> is
> proper use of the language, and an interesting story about interesting
> people.
This is really what it all boils down to 8-)
erilar
<emer...@eskimo.com.invalid> wrote:
> There is no useful distinction to be made between "fantasy" and
> "science fiction". It's a marketing label, no more.
> If you take that label off the spine, you're left with a continuous
> spectrum spanning styles that are loosely called fantasy, science
> fiction, magic realism, horror, surrealism, and so on.
Inasmuch as I find the latter three boring, irritating, or both, I'd
appreciate such labels 8-)
Aaron Bergman
"Mark" <mtied...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> All that sounds quite plausible. However, I'm inclined to think the
> appeal is to something more fundamental. Most (not all) fantasy is of
> the "I Have A Destiny To Fulfill" plotline. I think people who devour
> fantasy have a deep-rooted need to feel that "Destiny" is an actual,
> authentic phenomenon--just like people who look on tragedy and want to
> believe "there must be a reason for it."
>
> Science fiction tends to cut all that warm-fuzzy,
> I'm-in-the-hands-of-a-greater-power junk to ribbons. As Ursula LeGuin
> put it in one of her essays (which one escapes me just now) the
> universe is a big, cold place; science fiction teaches us how to live
> in it.
I don't see any particular reason why escapist sf can't exist. There's
just very little of it on the shelves. So, I assume, either people don't
write it or editors don't buy it. I suppose it could be true that people
just wouldn't buy escapist sf, but the popularity of MilSF and tie-ins
seems to belie that a bit. But, for whatever reason, it seems like these
days sf has to be about something. Fantasy doesn't.
(And that's not a dig. At either of them.)
Aaron
No 33 Secretary
news:erilarloFRY-FDD3...@news.airstreamcomm.net:
> In article <Xns96AFD77A784B6ta...@216.168.3.50>, Terry
> Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>
>> Internal consistency is a feature of all good writing, in all genres.
>> So is
>> proper use of the language, and an interesting story about
>> interesting people.
>
> This is really what it all boils down to 8-)
>
Yep. It's a pity so few writers (present company excepted, of course) seem
to get it.
No 33 Secretary
news:6ksof19h8cs935o43...@4ax.com:
Very true. However, the lazy writer can skimp on detail, confident that the
reader's imagination will fill it all in for them.
Default User
> I thought Cowboy Bepop the tv series was utterly unwatchable. Would I
> probably think the same about the movie?
I imagine so, it's pretty much like the series. For what it's worth, I
couldn't disagree much more with you. Bebop the TV series is one I can
watch again and again. Second only to Futurama in my opinion.
Brian
No 33 Secretary
news:3m44d9F...@individual.net:
I just don't get why people like Futurama. Repetitive, juvenile,
derivative, and frankly, boring.
Bateau
"Gene Ward Smith" <gws...@svpal.org> wrote:
>What are people's thoughts on why fantasy has increased its market
>share so markedly wrt science fiction? Here are some possibilities to
>start out with:
>
>(1) Sensawunda. Maybe magic gives better sensawunder than tech.
>
>(2) Post-humans. People like reading about recognizably human
>characters with superhuman abilities, but if they become truly
>post-human, they become hard to relate to. But that's the direction
>science fiction is moving in. The Golden Age and the Lucky Starr books
>are set at the same time--7000 AD. But how different! In Lucky Starr, a
>typical product of the golden age, space travel is highly developed but
>humans are still human. In Golden Age, it may take you a long time to
>get to Neptune, but it doesn't matter in a way because all kinds of
>weird aliens are right there already where you are, calling themselves
>human--more or less.
>
>(3) Suspending disbelief. In fantasy, you simply require a
>straightforward suspension of disbelief. In science fiction, you are
>given some kind of quasi-scientific language to help the process along.
>This can run into trouble at both ends. If, like a certain well-known
>poster to this group, you don't actually know any science, the
>quasi-scientific language will fail of its purpose. On the other hand
>if you know too much, the chances are excellent that you won't buy what
>is being presented either.
>
>(4) Alien psychology. In fantasy, the aliens are usually nearly human,
>which makes them easier to relate to. In Tolkien, the elves are
>idealized humans and the orcs degraded humans, whereas hobbits and
>dwarves are human variations just different enough to amuse without
>running any risk we won't be able to identify with them. Science
>fiction authors however get laughed at if they make an alien race this
>nearly human, and so feel obligated to give their readers ones which
>are more believeable, making them less easy to identify with.
>
>(5) Eliminating tech. In fantasy, it's common to eliminate tech by
>setting everything in a pseudo-medieval environment, which allows us to
>get rid of things like guns which are just not helpful from a story
>point of view. Then, we may replace whatever tech we choose at will
>with a suitable magic equivalent.
>
>(6) Flexibility. In fantasy, you can do whatever you like, which makes
>it easier to plot. In science fiction, there are all these scientific
>constraints, which increase the more science you know, ending up with
>the dreaded Science is Killing Science Fiction problem.
Michael Stemper
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Even if you start off writing SF, agents will strongly suggest a
>> career move and publishers will package book as fantasy if they
>> can, even if, to pick a silly made up example, the books are no
>> more fantasy than LORD KALVAN OF OTHERWHEN.
>
>What if the insistence on realistic science in Science Fiction is to
>be blamed, because it bullies all the fantastic stuff to shuffle off
>to Fantasy, to stand in the corner, ashamed, with a paperbag over
>its head? Maybe mundane readers (unlike some posters here) don't
>want technobabble, but galaxy-sized comets (<g>),
I can't offer any of those (was that Hamilton?), but I did recently
read one about a solar-system-sized (at least) space ship. _Marrow_,
by Robert Reed. This ship was sooo big..
"How big was it?"
It was so big that, millenia after people had set out on it, somebody
discovered a tunnel that led to a planet hidden inside it.
> giant trees as
>spaceships,
Aside from the refs that Paul Colquhoun gave, there are some of these
used in _Hyperion_ by Dan Simmons.
>Btw, the 'silly made up example' sounds like the title of a Fantasy
>story, not Science Fiction.
Whether _Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen_ is science fiction or fantasy will
depend upon where you draw your personal line between them.
> (If it's a mangling of a real title, I'm
>curious what that is.)
It's not the mangling of a real title; it *is* a real title. Somebody
else has already posted a precis of it.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
This email is to be read by its intended recipient only. Any other party
reading is required by the EULA to send me $500.00.
Shadow Wolf
news:tjUKe.4598$WD....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> On 11-Aug-2005, Paul Colquhoun <postm...@andor.dropbear.id.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Galaxy-sized comets you can keep, but the others exist in SF of
>> reasonable quality. Niven has 2 examples of trees as 'spaceships',
>> Stage Trees from Known Space, and Integral Trees from the book of the
>> same name (OK, a bit of a stretch there). James Blish gives us flying
>> cities in the Okie books.
>
> Does the tree from _Rainbow Mars_ count?
Not to mention the Jurain tree-ships of Tenchi Muyo.
--
Shadow Wolf
shadowolf3400 at yahoo dot com
Stories at http://www.asstr.org/~Shadow_Wolf
AIF at http://www.geocities.com/shadowolf3400
Tina Hall
>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 03:19:00 GMT+1, Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina
>> Hall) wrote:
>>>Just out of curiosity, is there a fantasy story that doesn't
>>>have: elfs, dwarves, trolls,... , gods, knights (short for
>>>'medieval weaponry[*], armour, horses, royality, palaces,...'),
>>>magic that needs gestures, spells and/or ingredients, or other
>>>rituals (also none in general), and just for the sake of it; no
>>>ships? I probably miss a lot of tropes... Ah, the evil grand
>>>vizier mustn't occur, either.
> I would suggest KJ Bishop's _The Etched City_, of recent works.
> Features none of the standard zoo mentioned above. No god puts in
> an appearance, though there's certainly discussion of them.
> Instead of knights and royalty we get corrupted generals and
> slave traders.
That's just the same thing in green, and part of the tropes I forgot
(apart from 'corrupt generals' being just another version of 'evil
grand vizier')..
> There's a bit of explicit magic at the end, but handled in a
> non-cliched (IMHO) way.
I wasn't saying 'no magic', just 'not trope-magic', implying that it
should be executed differently, and thus there be plenty of it.
I am talking about the very epic fantasy that normally has elves,
dwarves,... after all. Suggesting, for example, a vampire story,
while possibly considered fantasy, too, is missing the point.
> And despite the fact that the protagonists spend many days riding
> at the beginning, I don't recall any horses. Hope you haven't
> anything against camels, though...
I would consider that the same thing, if they're used like horses.
Same if they were riding giant goats, unless the goats chose to be
ridden rather than being forced to the task.
> R.A.MacAvoy's _Tea with the Black Dragon_ is another, much older
> example of a nontraditional fantasy novel.
> Set in present day (meaning, early 1980s) and featuring nothing
> supernatural besides a mysterious old gentleman who thinks he's a
> dragon become human.
That's a good example of not being the type of fantasy that's
targetted with 'being full of tropes'.
--
Tina
No internet access.
### XP v3.40 RC3 ###
John Schilling
>
>"John Desmarais" <jddes...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I've always blamed it on laziness. Fantasy is easier to write and
>> easier to read. Both the writer and the reader have a large library of
>> tropes and cliches to fall back on - the writer therefore needs to
>> explain less and the reader has less explanation that needs to be
>> understood. (It's magic, he's and elf, the gods will it, etc, etc...)
>>
>> The best science fiction is built on a foundation of plausible science
>> - even if it's not possible, it possible to imagine that it could be.
>> This demands more from both the writer and the reader (the author must
>> have enough of a science background to make up something plausible and
>> the reader much be able to understand what the writer has created).
>
>This is comparing the worst fantasy to the best science fiction,
>though.
>
>The *best* fantasy has to be wholely believable without the crutches
>of science and such to fall back on, and wholely engaging without any
>limitations beyond those the author chooses. It's like playing
>without a net.
>
>And the *worst* science fiction has a much bigger stock of cliche and
>trope to fall back on, all of reality plus hundreds of years of bad
>SF.
Yes, but a bigger stock of cliche and trope means more work familiarizing
one's self with the inventory. Not just knowing what's in stock, but how
they all fit together - most random assemblages of science-fictional cliche
will have mutually incompatible elements. Or at least, elements that take
no small ammount of skill to fit together.
The easiest fiction to write, IMO, would be that which needed only a
*small* stock of cliche and trope, all of it mix-and-match, to produce
saleable work.
Science fiction, once upon a time, could be written in saleable form using
only the limited "Space Adventurer" toolkit at a journeyman skill level,
but that doesn't seem to be the case any longer. At least, I don't see
much of it being published; maybe I'm not looking in the right places.
And, fortunately, cyberpunk seems to have died before it could fill the
same niche.
In terms of what can actually be sold and published here and now, I do
believe that "small stock of cliche and trope, all mix-and-match, minimal
skill required" points more solidly at the bottom of the fantasy genre
than anywhere in SF.
Obvious exception, across all genres, is media tie-in fiction. If you're
writing franchise novels based around a popular movie/TV/game/whatever
series, anywhere inside or outside the SF genre, you more or less get
issued a prefabricated story kit on day one, and an audience much of
which will accept anything assembled from that kit. There are skilled
tie-in writers, but they clearly don't *have* to be skilled to be sold.
But if we're including media tie-ins, the claim that science fiction
is dying looks pretty ludicrous. And if we're excluding the McNovels,
I would argue that minimally saleable fantasy is significantly easier on
both the authors and the readers than minimally saleable science fiction.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Wayne Throop
: I'm inclined to think the appeal is to something more fundamental.
: plotline. I think people who devour fantasy have a deep-rooted need
: to feel that "Destiny" is an actual, authentic phenomenon--just like
: people who look on tragedy and want to believe "there must be a reason
: for it." Science fiction tends to cut all that warm-fuzzy,
: I'm-in-the-hands-of-a-greater-power junk to ribbons.
Hm. Interesting. That seems to be a common thread that connects
the "it's easier to write" and "it's less demanding to read"
and "simpler disbelief-suspension" and "all-human psychology"
notions mentioned earlier.
And, it can explain why fantasy written without a destiny-with-a-
capital-D and/or underlying superpowered beings (superpowered beans?
no, that's Jack and the Beanstalk, but I digress) pulling threads,
*feels* more like "science fiction" even if it's got dragons
and castles and landed gentry and all.
Hm again. Have to think on it some more, but it's an appealing
underlying issue for lots of the stuff already mentioned, IMO.
Wayne Throop
: I just don't get why people like Futurama. Repetitive, juvenile,
: derivative, and frankly, boring.
That's what I thought early on, and avoided it like the plague. But a
fair amount of subtlety and genre-fun-pokery is hidden under that crass
veneer, once I noticed it by chance. At least, so it came to seem to me.
Perhaps I just been hyp-mo-tized.
Gene Ward Smith
Wayne Throop wrote:
> : "Mark" <mtied...@earthlink.net>
> : Science fiction tends to cut all that warm-fuzzy,
> : I'm-in-the-hands-of-a-greater-power junk to ribbons.
>
> Hm. Interesting. That seems to be a common thread that connects
> the "it's easier to write" and "it's less demanding to read"
> and "simpler disbelief-suspension" and "all-human psychology"
> notions mentioned earlier.
What connection? If you have science fiction with an Eschaton in it,
suddenly it becomes easier to write, less demanding to read, simpler to
suspend disbelief of, and entails only human psychology? Oh, and is
warm and fuzzy?
Wrong on *all* counts.
Konrad Gaertner
>
> Just out of curiosity, is there a fantasy story that doesn't have:
> elfs, dwarves, trolls,... , gods, knights (short for 'medieval
> weaponry[*], armour, horses, royality, palaces,...'), magic that
> needs gestures, spells and/or ingredients, or other rituals (also
> none in general), and just for the sake of it; no ships? I probably
> miss a lot of tropes... Ah, the evil grand vizier mustn't occur,
> either.
>
> whores. (I'm aiming at the kind of society here, which is more or
> less the same, too.)
>
> (Wondering whether I should add 'no giraffes', for general amusement
> value.)
Megan Lindholm, _Wizard of the Pigeons_
--
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - email: gae...@aol.com
http://www.livejournal.com/users/kgbooklog/
Default User
> I just don't get why people like Futurama. Repetitive, juvenile,
> derivative, and frankly, boring.
You are entitled your opinion, I disagree. That's all I have to say in
response to you.
Brian
Gene Ward Smith
Wayne Throop wrote:
> And, it can explain why fantasy written without a destiny-with-a-
> capital-D and/or underlying superpowered beings (superpowered beans?
> no, that's Jack and the Beanstalk, but I digress) pulling threads,
> *feels* more like "science fiction" even if it's got dragons
> and castles and landed gentry and all.
So what does the Lensman series "feel like", in your view?
Mike Schilling
"Gene Ward Smith" <gws...@svpal.org> wrote in message
news:1123876298.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The opposite: it requires significant research to avoid all of the cliches
surrounding the subject, it's brutally frigid, and in addition to human
psychology requires an intimate knowledge of the habits of polar bears ...
Oh, Escha-*ton*, I thought you said Escha-mo. Never mind.
No 33 Secretary
>: No 33 Secretary <taustin...@hyperbooks.com>
>: I just don't get why people like Futurama. Repetitive, juvenile,
>: derivative, and frankly, boring.
>
> That's what I thought early on, and avoided it like the plague. But a
> fair amount of subtlety and genre-fun-pokery is hidden under that crass
> veneer, once I noticed it by chance. At least, so it came to seem to me.
>
> Perhaps I just been hyp-mo-tized.
>
I think one of us is brain damaged. Unfortunately, it's more likely me than
you.
No 33 Secretary
Humor is a very personal taste. Far be it from me to criticize how other
people amuse themsleves.
Wayne Throop
: What connection? If you have science fiction with an Eschaton in it,
: suddenly it becomes easier to write, less demanding to read, simpler to
: suspend disbelief of, and entails only human psychology? Oh, and is
: warm and fuzzy? Wrong on *all* counts.
Yeah, what was I thinking; if Singularity was a way to get fantasy-like
elements, why then you'd expect singularity-style SF to be growing,
relative to traditional-style SF. Silly me.
Wayne Throop
: So what does the Lensman series "feel like", in your view?
Borderline fantasy, with locally-hard nuggets embedded.
Mmmmm, yummy.
Default User
> "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:3m4egaF...@individual.net:
>
> > No 33 Secretary wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I just don't get why people like Futurama. Repetitive, juvenile,
> >> derivative, and frankly, boring.
> >
> > You are entitled your opinion, I disagree. That's all I have to say
> > in response to you.
> >
> Humor is a very personal taste. Far be it from me to criticize how
> other people amuse themsleves.
I think I came across as more brusque than I intended. Taste in most
things is very subjective, and it normally doesn't do much good to
argue about, because it's almost impossible to change the other
person's opinion. If I don't like "Desperate Housewives", no amount of
telling me it's great will change that. Sometimes, revisiting something
you thought you didn't like will cause you change your mind, but that
isn't too frequent in my experience.
Brian
No 33 Secretary
> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>
>> "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:3m4egaF...@individual.net:
>>
>> > No 33 Secretary wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> I just don't get why people like Futurama. Repetitive, juvenile,
>> >> derivative, and frankly, boring.
>> >
>> > You are entitled your opinion, I disagree. That's all I have to say
>> > in response to you.
>> >
>> Humor is a very personal taste. Far be it from me to criticize how
>> other people amuse themsleves.
>
>
> I think I came across as more brusque than I intended.
Perhaps. However, I have a think skin, and am in a reasonable mood today.
> Taste in most
> things is very subjective, and it normally doesn't do much good to
> argue about, because it's almost impossible to change the other
> person's opinion.
If only more people on Usenet understood that. :)
> If I don't like "Desperate Housewives", no amount of
> telling me it's great will change that.
From the experience of a friend of mine, however, an otherwise perfect new
girlfriend will. (Which is to say, he thinks that particular show is quite
funny - now.)
> Sometimes, revisiting something
> you thought you didn't like will cause you change your mind, but that
> isn't too frequent in my experience.
>
Or cause you to realize you changed your mind long ago, but didn't realize
it. Tastes certainly do change with time.
David Bilek
>news:3m4egaF...@individual.net:
>
>> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I just don't get why people like Futurama. Repetitive, juvenile,
>>> derivative, and frankly, boring.
>>
>> You are entitled your opinion, I disagree. That's all I have to say in
>> response to you.
>>
>Humor is a very personal taste. Far be it from me to criticize how other
>people amuse themsleves.
Terry, this is one of the most deadpan hilarious things I have read
all week. Thanks.
-David
No 33 Secretary
news:o15qf1p6dj85k5vte...@4ax.com:
Don't think for a second that wasn't the intent. Yes, I'm a complete and
utter asshole, but one of my few virtues is that I'm the first to say so,
and I really do mean it.
Mark
Good fiction of any kind is not easy to write. Good fantasy is simply
hard to write in a different way than good science fiction.
On the other hand, the thing that makes all fiction hum along winningly
is how well the human element is done, which is a matter of telling the
truth about the way people are, and that's equally difficult no what
genre. And usually the thing that gets botched in fantastic fiction,
because so many writers want to make their humans "other" than the way
people really are--in both fantasy and SF. People with destinies are
not, in my opinion, plausible, so fantasy rarely reads like truth.
Now, people who *believe* they have destinies...they exist and their
honest depiction can make compelling fiction.
Mark
author of:
THE SECANTIS SEQUENCE
REMAINS
www.marktiedemann.com
Default User
> "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:3m4hmkF...@individual.net:
> > I think I came across as more brusque than I intended.
>
> Perhaps. However, I have a think skin, and am in a reasonable mood
> today.
Well, if you're thinking with your skin . . . har har.
> > Taste in most
> > things is very subjective, and it normally doesn't do much good to
> > argue about, because it's almost impossible to change the other
> > person's opinion.
>
> If only more people on Usenet understood that. :)
Yes, the problems of people on usenet are many, and there would be far
fewer posts if everyone were rational and reasonable. But not everyone
can think just like me, although they really should try harder.
> > If I don't like "Desperate Housewives", no amount of
> > telling me it's great will change that.
>
> From the experience of a friend of mine, however, an otherwise
> perfect new girlfriend will. (Which is to say, he thinks that
> particular show is quite funny - now.)
Perhaps.
> > Sometimes, revisiting something
> > you thought you didn't like will cause you change your mind, but
> > that isn't too frequent in my experience.
> >
> Or cause you to realize you changed your mind long ago, but didn't
> realize it. Tastes certainly do change with time.
One can even hold divergent opinions at the same time after a fashion.
One of my favorite pizza toppings is anchovy (sure elicit gasps from
many). I have in my memory of a trip to a pizza parlor when I was a
child, and eating some pizza. HORRIBLE pizza. Gastly tasting pizza with
weird wormlike strips that tasted foul. I shudder to recall.
Now, intellectually I know that those awful things were anchovies. The
same anchovies I love today. That, however, doesn't erase the memory of
the horror.
Brian
No 33 Secretary
> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>
>> "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:3m4hmkF...@individual.net:
>
>> > I think I came across as more brusque than I intended.
>>
>> Perhaps. However, I have a think skin, and am in a reasonable mood
>> today.
>
> Well, if you're thinking with your skin . . . har har.
It works as well as any other organ.
>
>> > Taste in most
>> > things is very subjective, and it normally doesn't do much good to
>> > argue about, because it's almost impossible to change the other
>> > person's opinion.
>>
>> If only more people on Usenet understood that. :)
>
> Yes, the problems of people on usenet are many, and there would be far
> fewer posts if everyone were rational and reasonable. But not everyone
> can think just like me, although they really should try harder.
Heh. Keep talking like that, and you'll be getting death threats by
tomorrow. This _is_ usenet, after all.
>
>> > If I don't like "Desperate Housewives", no amount of
>> > telling me it's great will change that.
>>
>> From the experience of a friend of mine, however, an otherwise
>> perfect new girlfriend will. (Which is to say, he thinks that
>> particular show is quite funny - now.)
>
> Perhaps.
He's not usually that type, either. Nor is she, for that matter.
>
>> > Sometimes, revisiting something
>> > you thought you didn't like will cause you change your mind, but
>> > that isn't too frequent in my experience.
>> >
>> Or cause you to realize you changed your mind long ago, but didn't
>> realize it. Tastes certainly do change with time.
>
> One can even hold divergent opinions at the same time after a fashion.
Especially when girlfriends are involved.
>
> One of my favorite pizza toppings is anchovy (sure elicit gasps from
> many).
Gasps, or projective vomiting. But who am I to complain, I like pinnapple
on my pizza.
>I have in my memory of a trip to a pizza parlor when I was a
> child, and eating some pizza. HORRIBLE pizza. Gastly tasting pizza with
> weird wormlike strips that tasted foul. I shudder to recall.
>
> Now, intellectually I know that those awful things were anchovies. The
> same anchovies I love today. That, however, doesn't erase the memory of
> the horror.
>
Large dose of alcohol might help. Whiskey pizza?
No 33 Secretary
news:1123883986.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> I would like to point that the "easier to write" cliche is misleading.
> Good fiction of any kind is not easy to write. Good fantasy is simply
> hard to write in a different way than good science fiction.
I would like to point out that I, at least, when talking about "easier to
write," have never, not even once, been referring to _good_ fiction. I said
that _bad_ writers, aiming for _passable_ fiction, might find fantasy
easier to write.
W. Citoan
>
> IMO it's simply selling better because it is easier to read (the
> stuff that sells, at least), and doesn't require any
> scientific/engineering/math background on the part of the reader ..
> of course the ScF that sells well too (Star-wars-trek-Babylon-Dr-Who)
> also comes pretty well pre-digested.
A good science fiction story doesn't have to require the reader to have
a scientific/engineering/math background. Even a hard science fiction
story can be readable by a non-technical person if it avoids the
infodumps. Technical mumble jumble is not the key to a good story.
- W. Citoan
--
Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And
therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.
-- John Donne
Default User
> "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:3m4kh0F...@individual.net:
> > Yes, the problems of people on usenet are many, and there would be
> > far fewer posts if everyone were rational and reasonable. But not
> > everyone can think just like me, although they really should try
> > harder.
>
> Heh. Keep talking like that, and you'll be getting death threats by
> tomorrow. This is usenet, after all.
If at least some people don't hate you, you aren't trying.
> > One of my favorite pizza toppings is anchovy (sure elicit gasps from
> > many).
>
> Gasps, or projective vomiting. But who am I to complain, I like
> pinnapple on my pizza.
Anchovies seem to have little middle ground. People seem to either
really like them, or hate them with a passion.
I don't really care for pineapple on pizza, although I like in almost
any other context. I bring fresh pineapple in my lunch sometimes. It
wouldn't keep from eating the pizza though, unlike onions. Those I
won't eat.
> > Now, intellectually I know that those awful things were anchovies.
> > The same anchovies I love today. That, however, doesn't erase the
> > memory of the horror.
> >
> Large dose of alcohol might help. Whiskey pizza?
Always worth a try.
Brian
W. Citoan
>
> I don't see any particular reason why escapist sf can't exist. There's
> just very little of it on the shelves.
Eh? You must have a different definition of escapism than I do or we're
not looking at the same stuff.
- W. Citoan
--
Calvin: "Sometimes when I'm talking, my words can't keep up with my
thoughts. I wonder why we think faster than we speak."
Hobbes: "Probably so we can think twice."
-- Bill Watterson from Calvin & Hobbes
No 33 Secretary
> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>
>> "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:3m4kh0F...@individual.net:
>
>> > Yes, the problems of people on usenet are many, and there would be
>> > far fewer posts if everyone were rational and reasonable. But not
>> > everyone can think just like me, although they really should try
>> > harder.
>>
>> Heh. Keep talking like that, and you'll be getting death threats by
>> tomorrow. This is usenet, after all.
>
> If at least some people don't hate you, you aren't trying.
Indeed.
>
>
>> > One of my favorite pizza toppings is anchovy (sure elicit gasps from
>> > many).
>>
>> Gasps, or projective vomiting. But who am I to complain, I like
>> pinnapple on my pizza.
>
> Anchovies seem to have little middle ground. People seem to either
> really like them, or hate them with a passion.
That would appear to be the case.
>
> I don't really care for pineapple on pizza, although I like in almost
> any other context. I bring fresh pineapple in my lunch sometimes. It
> wouldn't keep from eating the pizza though, unlike onions. Those I
> won't eat.
Not fond of cooked onions myself. But I love onion greens in a salad. One
thing I can't abide on a pizza, though, is black olives. Not that I object
to the taste, mind you. But when the oil cooks out into a little puddle
around it, they look like small roaches that have been stepped on, to me.
Not exactly my idea of tasty.
>
>> > Now, intellectually I know that those awful things were anchovies.
>> > The same anchovies I love today. That, however, doesn't erase the
>> > memory of the horror.
>> >
>> Large dose of alcohol might help. Whiskey pizza?
>
> Always worth a try.
>
Maybe beer pizza.
Mike Schilling
"No 33 Secretary" <taustin...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96B0A1374E56Ata...@216.168.3.50...
> Maybe beer pizza.
Mixing some flat beer into the pizza dough seems very feasible (not that
I've ever tried it.)
No 33 Secretary
news:HcaLe.1963$dk5...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:
Perhaps I should mention that I do not consider any alcoholic beverage fit
for human consumption, and beer should be classified as toxic waste on a
level with plutonium. Moose pee, every drop of it, so far as I'm concerned.
W. Citoan
>
> On the other hand, the thing that makes all fiction hum along
> winningly is how well the human element is done, which is a matter of
> telling the truth about the way people are, and that's equally
> difficult no what genre. And usually the thing that gets botched in
> fantastic fiction, because so many writers want to make their humans
> "other" than the way people really are--in both fantasy and SF.
I don't buy this. Many comedy and satire works (for a specific example)
don't use realistic characters and yet read quite well.
Konrad Gaertner
>
> Mark wrote:
> >
> > On the other hand, the thing that makes all fiction hum along
> > winningly is how well the human element is done, which is a matter of
> > telling the truth about the way people are, and that's equally
> > difficult no what genre. And usually the thing that gets botched in
> > fantastic fiction, because so many writers want to make their humans
> > "other" than the way people really are--in both fantasy and SF.
>
> I don't buy this. Many comedy and satire works (for a specific example)
> don't use realistic characters and yet read quite well.
In fact, I'd use comedy and satire as evidence that most people
*aren't* looking for realistic characters.
Tina Hall
> Tina Hall wrote:
>> Just out of curiosity, is there a fantasy story that doesn't
>> have: elfs, dwarves, trolls,... , gods, knights (short for
>> 'medieval weaponry[*], armour, horses, royality, palaces,...'),
>> magic that needs gestures, spells and/or ingredients, or other
>> rituals (also none in general), and just for the sake of it; no
>> ships? I probably miss a lot of tropes... Ah, the evil grand
>> vizier mustn't occur, either.
>>
>> As an added difficulty; no oaths/honour stuff, no fashions, and
>> no whores. (I'm aiming at the kind of society here, which is
>> more or less the same, too.)
>>
>> (Wondering whether I should add 'no giraffes', for general
>> amusement value.)
> Megan Lindholm, _Wizard of the Pigeons_
Where's the hook?
--
Tina
No internet access.
### XP v3.40 RC3 ###
how...@brazee.net
elves. We aren't discovering new things about the world or about ourselves
with that setting.
We get the sense of wonder by exploring. Science Fiction used to be good
at giving us a nice exploring novel where we can experience the delight in
discovery. But that only works when we believe in what we are reading.
We no longer believe in ancient Martian civilizations. It's hard to
believe in interstellar civilizations. This big advantage that Science
Fiction had over fantasy is gone.
lclough
> Konrad Gaertner <gae...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Tina Hall wrote:
>
>
>>>Just out of curiosity, is there a fantasy story that doesn't
>>>have: elfs, dwarves, trolls,... , gods, knights (short for
>>>'medieval weaponry[*], armour, horses, royality, palaces,...'),
>>>magic that needs gestures, spells and/or ingredients, or other
>>>rituals (also none in general), and just for the sake of it; no
>>>ships? I probably miss a lot of tropes... Ah, the evil grand
>>>vizier mustn't occur, either.
>>>
>>>As an added difficulty; no oaths/honour stuff, no fashions, and
>>>no whores. (I'm aiming at the kind of society here, which is
>>>more or less the same, too.)
>>>
>>>(Wondering whether I should add 'no giraffes', for general
>>>amusement value.)
Well goodness, I've written one. In HOW LIKE A GOD the hero's
valiant steed is a Plymouth Voyager, the ones with the fake wood
paneling on the sides.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
Recent short fiction: PARADOX, Autumn 2003
http://home.nyc.rr.com/paradoxmag//index.html
Upcoming short fiction in FIRST HEROES (TOR, May '04)
http://members.aol.com/wenamun/firstheroes.html
Wayne Throop
: We get the sense of wonder by exploring. Science Fiction used to be good
: at giving us a nice exploring novel where we can experience the delight in
: discovery. But that only works when we believe in what we are reading.
: We no longer believe in ancient Martian civilizations. It's hard to
: believe in interstellar civilizations. This big advantage that Science
: Fiction had over fantasy is gone.
Um. I didn't *ever* believe in ancient Martian civilizations
when I read about them. So I really don't think that analysis
applies to me, and I suspect I'm not as unusual in this as all that.
W. Citoan
> It's hard to have a gee wiz sense of wonder when we read about
> wizards and elves. We aren't discovering new things about the world
> or about ourselves with that setting.
>
> We get the sense of wonder by exploring.
You're writing as if you're speaking for everyone. I doubt everyone
obtains the sense of wonder from the same things (I know I don't). I
would imagine that for many people, _LotR_ invoked a sense of wonder in
exploring a world of "what if". The same with Alternate History, etc.
> Science Fiction used to be good at giving us a nice exploring novel
> where we can experience the delight in discovery. But that only
> works when we believe in what we are reading. We no longer believe
> in ancient Martian civilizations. It's hard to believe in
> interstellar civilizations. This big advantage that Science Fiction
> had over fantasy is gone.
Since most science fiction readers seem to be fine with non-hard science
fiction, I really doubt this generally applies.
Christopher Adams
>
> Just out of curiosity, is there a fantasy story that doesn't have:
> elfs, dwarves, trolls,... , gods, knights (short for 'medieval
> weaponry[*], armour, horses, royality, palaces,...'), magic that
> needs gestures, spells and/or ingredients, or other rituals (also
> none in general), and just for the sake of it; no ships? I probably
> miss a lot of tropes... Ah, the evil grand vizier mustn't occur,
> either.
Anne McCaffrey's Pern novels.
Though they're "really" science fiction.
About the only typical fantasy thing they contain are dragons, and they're not
too similar to Tolkienesque dragons (they live in a symbiotic relationship with
the humans who ride them).
There are some boats around but they don't feature much. Also maybe horses, or
they could have all died out.
--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
The geek with roots in Hell!
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatelist.html
Who do you blame when your kid is a - brat?
Pampered and spoiled like a Siamese - cat?
Blaming the kids is a lie and a - shame!
You know exactly who's - to - blame:
The mother and the father!
Christopher Adams
>
> In America, when you say "it's an animated movie..." the other non-otaku
> person will probably say, "It's a _car-tooon_? Shucks, it's fer kids!"
>
> It's the movie you pull out to show what can be done with animation and
> the kinds of stories, adult stories, that can be told.
Pity it's done in that particular aesthetic.
I'll admit I'm not very interested in animated films *anyway* - I find them
incredibly less interesting than the same story told in live action. Western
animation probably tends to be less interesting as stories, but I can't stand
the anime aesthetic.
Mark
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: "W. Citoan" <wcit...@NOSPAM-yahoo.com> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 23:56:15 -0000
Local: Fri, Aug 12 2005 6:56 pm
Subject: Re: Fantasy vs science fiction
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
Mark wrote:
> On the other hand, the thing that makes all fiction hum along
> winningly is how well the human element is done, which is a matter of
> telling the truth about the way people are, and that's equally
> difficult no what genre. And usually the thing that gets botched in
> fantastic fiction, because so many writers want to make their humans
> "other" than the way people really are--in both fantasy and SF.
--I don't buy this. Many comedy and satire works (for a specific
example)
don't use realistic characters and yet read quite well. --
Lots of "bad" fiction reads well--look at Dan Brown, for goodness sake.
But the comedy and satire that I've read that works best relies on the
realism of the characters--they have to be honestly portrayed,
otherwise it's just slapstick and farce rather than comedy and satire.
What examples do you suggest that work despite the unrealism of the
characters?
W. Citoan
> > W. Citoan Aug 12, 6:56 pm
>
> > > On the other hand, the thing that makes all fiction hum along
> > > winningly is how well the human element is done, which is a matter
> > > of telling the truth about the way people are, and that's equally
> > > difficult no what genre. And usually the thing that gets botched
> > > in fantastic fiction, because so many writers want to make their
> > > humans "other" than the way people really are--in both fantasy and
> > > SF.
> >
> > example) don't use realistic characters and yet read quite well.
>
> sake.
Uh, no. "Reads well" means more than just pretty language to me. It's
a story that would "hum along winningly" per your words.
> But the comedy and satire that I've read that works best relies on
> the realism of the characters--they have to be honestly portrayed,
> otherwise it's just slapstick and farce rather than comedy and
> satire. What examples do you suggest that work despite the
> unrealism of the characters?
Perhaps your view of "realism" is a lot broader than mine, because I'd
say there's tons. Caricatures are common in humor and satire. There's
the on-going thread on _Gulliver's Travels_ - that's one example of a
book which distorts characters beyond realistic portrayals. Terry
Pratchett, Harry Harrison, and Douglas Adams are another example of
authors who are generally well received and yet have characters that are
way over-the-top.
Christopher Adams
> Mark wrote:
>
>> sake.
>
> Uh, no. "Reads well" means more than just pretty language to me. It's
> a story that would "hum along winningly" per your words.
Dan Brown reads "easy for people who don't read very often", not "well".
Ethan Merritt
> Ethan Merritt <emer...@eskimo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> I thought Cowboy Bepop the tv series was utterly unwatchable. Would I
> probably think the same about the movie?
Depends on what it was about the tv episodes you didn't like.
FWIW, I only liked about half of the tv episodes. The rest were too
contrived. And all but a few were short, single episode plots.
The movie plot, by contrast, was a single long arc that didn't
feel at all contrived. It was a really solid SF story, and would
have worked well even if it hadn't used the Bebop characters to
tell it.
On the other hand, if you hated the characters on tv you are
unlikely to look at them any differently in the movie.
--
None so blind as those who will not see