Poll: Fantasy or Scifi?

[happyninja42]

Just randomly curious, but which genre do you enjoy more? I ask this because I've noticed lately, when I've randomly chosen new audiobooks to listen to, I find myself quickly bored of the fantasy books, whereas the scifi ones I have enjoyed across the board. Even when the scifi stories are just as formulaic and familiar as the fantasy ones. Neither type is treading new ground for me in these stories, I've read them hundreds of times in other formats, but for some reason, I find myself drifting off and not paying any attention to the fantasy ones anymore, but the scifi ones still hold my interest. And it's not like I dislike fantasy, far from it. I just....can seem to get interested in the stories I'm hearing in that genre these days.

What about you? You have any preference one way or the other? Like them both equally? Don't like them at all?

*EDIT* Since several people have mentioned "It's all fantasy" apparently I need to clarify this, even though I used the term genre, which I thought would clearly indicate that I mean sword/sorcery when I say "fantasy". Yes, I mean LOTR clones, your Shannarra books, your anything where the main equipment is medievil era type stuff. They're using swords, not blasters. They're using horses, not hover cars. That is what I mean in this poll when I say Fantasy.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Personally, I don't see why the two must be so distinct. In your typical LOTR rip off fantasy world, science more or less still works. Gravity pulls people to the Earth, fire burns, forests grow, more or less according to scientific laws. A thousand years after Sauron was finally destroyed, what's to stop Rohan and Gondor from engaging a a race to see who can send astronauts to the moon first?

In old D&D, the elves could see in the dark because they had passive IR. Some monsters even had active IR.

My other main issue is how painfully generic readers seem to want fantasy and sci-fi to be, which is very annoying given that the point was to imagine different worlds.

If I was forced to pick one, though...I'm reading a lot of urban fantasy at the moment.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

I like them both, especially when they are mixed together. (More than the basic physics and chemistry that is supposed to work similar to reality.) Star Wars, Final Fantasy, and tons of others blend them so well, it's hard to tell which one is more dominant at times.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Ideally, they would be mixed together, but I love both and can't choose which one I prefer individually.

 

[Erttheking]

Yes.

Science Fantasy like Shadowrun or Warhammer 40k is where it's at.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

There's very little actual "science fiction". Most of it is just future fantasy.

However, generally I prefer fantasy, although I specifically like my fantasy to be low-magic and morally ambiguous. I tired of epic quests and binary good/evil narratives many moons ago. I know people like to moan about "grimdark" fantasy and I understand the fatigue, but I'm genuinely puzzled how they can NOT be fatigued by the alternative, because it's always comprised about 95% of the buffet.

Science fiction...I'm funny. I have virtually ZERO interest in far-future sci-fi. Space opera/fantasy like Star Wars I can get behind, although I can't see reading a Star Wars book. But otherwise it leaves me utterly cold. Near future sci-fi though? I eat that stuff up. Indeed, if anyone has some good near-future sci-fi recommendations I'd love to hear them. QUITE near future too. I don't consider a hundred goddam years from now "near".

This is all literature of course. In film, it tends to be the opposite. Outside of LOTR I'm hard pressed to think of any worthwhile fantasy films, while my list of sci-fi pleasures seems endless.

 

[Thaluikhain]

There's very little actual "science fiction". Most of it is just future fantasy.

However, generally I prefer fantasy, although I specifically like my fantasy to be low-magic and morally ambiguous. I tired of epic quests and binary good/evil narratives many moons ago. I know people like to moan about "grimdark" fantasy and I understand the fatigue, but I'm genuinely puzzled how they can NOT be fatigued by the alternative, because it's always comprised about 95% of the buffet.

Er, that's assuming that there's only one alternative to that, though. Now, sure, most fantasy writers seemingly want to be Tolkien, excepting those that want to be the anti-Tolkien or whatever, but there's no reason why people couldn't take another approach. In theory.

Also, there's a difference between, say, 40k grimdark, and "let's make everyone a rapist" grimdark. Again, in theory.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Er, that's assuming that there's only one alternative to that, though. Now, sure, most fantasy writers seemingly want to be Tolkien, excepting those that want to be the anti-Tolkien or whatever, but there's no reason why people couldn't take another approach. In theory.

Also, there's a difference between, say, 40k grimdark, and "let's make everyone a rapist" grimdark. Again, in theory.

I find anything that isn't Princess Bride levels of burbling optimism and glassy good cheer to be immediately categorized as "grimdark" by some of the denizens of this site. I think some people like their heroes to be pure as the driven snow and their black hats to be plainly labeled and easily identified. It's not exactly an uncommon theme in escapist fare in general, it just happens to be a predominant one in fantasy literature. Or so I've found over the years.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlackAndWhiteMorality

You can certainly speculate Tolkien's smothering influence on the genre he helped birth has a lot to do with this, but I don't think there's anything specifically inherent to a "Tolkienesque" template that demands the binary morality that many readers seem to prefer and consider connate to the fantasy milieu.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I find anything that isn't Princess Bride levels of burbling optimism and glassy good cheer to be immediately categorized as "grimdark" by some of the denizens of this site. I think some people like their heroes to be pure as the driven snow and their black hats to be plainly labeled and easily identified. It's not exactly an uncommon theme in escapist fare in general, it just happens to be a predominant one in fantasy literature. Or so I've found over the years.

Ah, in that case I agree then.

You can certainly speculate Tolkien's smothering influence on the genre he helped birth has a lot to do with this, but I don't think there's anything specifically inherent to a "Tolkienesque" template that demands the binary morality that many readers seem to prefer and consider connate to the fantasy milieu.

Well, yes and no. You could take a LotR style setting and make it a bit more ambiguous (hell, or read stuff into Tolkien's one), but most people when they rip off Tolkien without seemingly understanding him rip as much off as they can, including the morality.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Fantasy, always fantasy eventhough I am bored of the usual elf, dwarf and orcs etc. I don't know why but I am usually invested more in a fantasy setting than I do with Sci Fi when it come to rpg (well ok I like Phantasy Star Online).

 

[dyre]

I find that "good" science fiction writers tend to be better than "good" fantasy writers. Not necessarily because sci-fi is in a superb state these days, but rather because I haven't read a half-decent fantasy novel in ages. It's like no one in the genre aspires to write anything other than mediocre B-novels. So far, I've read GRRM, Sanderson, Jordan, Salvatore, and Rothfuss, and I've been pretty disappointed across the board. I do very much enjoy Lynch's Gentleman Bastards series, but it's probably not what most people imagine of when they think about fantasy.

There's very little actual "science fiction". Most of it is just future fantasy.

I like to think of science fiction as a genre divided by two types of authors - the ones who imagine a cool futuristic story and then make up some "science" to justify it (Frank Herbert's Dune being the worst offender. I place 40K in this group as well.) vs. the ones who seek to understand how science and society work today, and then consider how the future might be shaped by those ideas.

Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke were all strong in the science department, though of the three, I really only find Asimov to be an actually enjoyable writer. Among living writers, I'd say the likes of Neal Stephenson and Paolo Bacigalupi are also well-versed in science, though a lot of their "science fiction" focuses more on the evolution of culture, religion, etc. rather than science alone (which is a good thing imo. Their work always seems better informed than that of most other authors in the genre). Margaret Atwood also does some excellent near-future sci-fi, though it's pretty dark in general. I'd highly recommend Bacigalupi's The Windup Girl and Atwood's Maddaddam series for well-informed near future sci-fi.

Also, I agree that the good vs. evil narrative is overplayed and terrible in general.

You can certainly speculate Tolkien's smothering influence on the genre he helped birth has a lot to do with this, but I don't think there's anything specifically inherent to a "Tolkienesque" template that demands the binary morality that many readers seem to prefer and consider connate to the fantasy milieu.

Indeed, Tolkien's universe in general deals a lot with the limitations, failings, and tragedies of good men. It's just that LoTR shows Middle Earth's heroes in their finest hour. Or rather, one of their finest hours.

 

[dalek sec]

Yes.

Science Fantasy like Shadowrun or Warhammer 40k is where it's at.

*High five!*

Yeah, I'm more fond of sci-fi than fantasy to be honest. I always liked space ships and las rifles and what not over swords and shields.

(You got a favorite faction in 40K erttheking?)

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke were all strong in the science department, though of the three, I really only find Asimov to be an actually enjoyable writer. Among living writers, I'd say the likes of Neal Stephenson and Paolo Bacigalupi are also well-versed in science, though a lot of their "science fiction" focuses more on the evolution of culture, religion, etc. rather than science alone (which is a good thing imo. Their work always seems better informed than that of most other authors in the genre). Margaret Atwood also does some excellent near-future sci-fi, though it's pretty dark in general. I'd highly recommend Bacigalupi's The Windup Girl and Atwood's Maddaddam series for well-informed near future sci-fi.

I didn't mind Windup Girl, but that is definitely NOT what I consider "near future". It's far future. Bacigalupi's Water Knife is more what I refer to as "near future", and even that is pushing against the boundaries of just how far out I want to get. Something like Stephenson's Reamde or Cline's Ready Player One would constitute an ideal "near future" for me. I want to see slight evolutions of tech and culture in a world I still basically recognize. I'm an ideal cyberpunk reader, but unfortunately I find Gibson impenetrable, and the genre seems to have enjoyed its heyday in the 80's, so a lot of it feels charmingly antiquated now.

I'm a very fussy reader. =\

 

[Casual Shinji]

Fantasy, I guess.

Because in a way, sci-fi is also fantasy. All genre fiction is just make-believe in the end.

But if we're talking the pure magic Fantasy... then still Fantasy. Whether it's hardcore grimdark like Berserk (the manga), or just simple feelgood like Miyazaki movies. I somehow have an easier time buying into dragons and wizards then I do humanoid alien societies like in Star Trek. Since the latter seems to want make me believe like it's actually possible. I've also seen very little sci-fi that isn't just 'Look, it's future tech, just roll with it, okay?' Which is fine, but to me that doesn't give it more credit than some fantasy quest. All that really matters in any story is that it properly presents its theme(s).

 

[Erttheking]

Yes.

Science Fantasy like Shadowrun or Warhammer 40k is where it's at.

*High five!*

Yeah, I'm more fond of sci-fi than fantasy to be honest. I always liked space ships and las rifles and what not over swords and shields.

(You got a favorite faction in 40K erttheking?)

The Eldar Harlequin. They get shit done, they're creepy as hell, they got awesome tech and abilities, and the concept of them just fascinates me.

 

[Dizchu]

I enjoy fantasy (I quite like Tolkien's works), it has nice imagery and often draws upon folk stories, and in its broadest form has zero boundaries. But most of the time it really is just swords, magic, elves and contrived spiritual nonsense. Stories tend to have excessively simplistic themes with an over-elaborate context (even The Lord of the Rings amounts to little more than "good vs. evil"). Sometimes that's great though, it's cathartic and compelling when done right, Star Wars is a whole load of fun and is (was? will be?) surprisingly bold with its more complex emotional content (the Empire Strikes Back was especially daring).

But really I prefer sci-fi because it usually requires some sort of social commentary to even exist. There's not much of a story if all you have is "wow flying cars are cool". Pretty much every popular sci-fi story is a reflection of the period the writer lived in. Some fantasy does this too (The Lord of the Rings was influenced by the two World Wars), but with sci-fi it tends to be a crucial and explicit element. For less plot-driven media such as most action games, it can usually be used solely as set dressing (I think Doom is the best game of all time but really the only point of the sci-fi setting is to have space marine armour and plasma rifles). But in games such as System Shock and Mass Effect the sci-fi-ness is explored in-depth.

Though to be honest, personally I just find speculation about future technology, politics, societies, etc. a thousand times more interesting than the Big Bad's Sceptre of Necromancy or the Ancient Kingdom of Sky Fairies and Mana Clouds.

 

[Erttheking]

(The Lord of the Rings was influenced by the two World Wars)

I think Tolken denied basing his stories off of WW II. I know for a fact he based Frodo and same on officers and their servants in WW I and how the two kept each other going though.

 

[dalek sec]

Yes.

Science Fantasy like Shadowrun or Warhammer 40k is where it's at.

*High five!*

Yeah, I'm more fond of sci-fi than fantasy to be honest. I always liked space ships and las rifles and what not over swords and shields.

(You got a favorite faction in 40K erttheking?)

The Eldar Harlequin. They get shit done, they're creepy as hell, they got awesome tech and abilities, and the concept of them just fascinates me.

I like them too, they also aren't raging dicks to everyone and actually try and be civil. Plus the whole warrior/performer thing was always cool to me.

My other fave factions are the Necrons (my first army) and now Chaos which I'm doing a warband of the Emperor's Children.

 

[DementedSheep]

Why not both? No reason you can't mix them.

I'll enjoy a good sci fi and I'm reading more of those lately.
Fantasy I like if it's done well and I've read more fantasy than anything else but I'm bored of your typical fantasy story. If it's got some ultimate evil, a chosen hero, is set in medieval Europe inspired setting and has names with unnecessary apostrophes I'll put it down. That really wasn't an interesting base in the first place!