Amph Science Fiction versus Fantasy

Depends on how well its written... either can be entertaining, but I tend to read more Star Wars than Terry Brooks

 

Just in these few posts I seen several different definitions for science fiction and fantasy. By my understanding (I am old and I look wise) science fiction is any fiction base on scientific principal, extrapolations or interpolations of the same. In other words it's possible (maybe just barely) eventually [maybe]. Fantasy is fiction but we are (or the author is) fantasizing. We know it can't or didn't happen but WE DON'T CARE. WE don't believe in dragon but we'd like to. Star Wars is sometimes so close to the edge it could go either way. But WE DON'T CARE. Both can take place in the past or the future. Both can take place in alternate time lines or alternate dimensions. If it has fantasy in it it is generally fantasy. If it takes place in an alternate dimension where magic exists, call it what you like. I like either one depending on my mode. Both can be good and both can be boring. That's why I'm sitting in my den surrouded by 600 books.

 

Deathstalker, you say?

 

Excellence: I wasn't recommending them (I only read the first but I believe there's about six or eight of them) but if you want to spend your money on this derivative, laugh-out-loud, derivative, predictable (I guessed who the betrayer was as soon as it was hinted that they might have been betrayed - it was SO obvious) mediocrity then feel free to join the financially violated. On the plus side, women weren't subclassed or just there to provide a romantic subplot which is sadly the only good thing I can remember about it.

NYCitygurl: Your explanation makes sense, maybe it was just his non-Shannara fantasy that they were referring to.

Does The Man In The High Castle count as sci-fi because it's by PKD or is that faction? That, and City of Illusions by Ursula K LeGuin are probably the only two sci-fi books I'd risk recommending to anyone.

 

Excellence, I thought that Spin State was pretty good. The concepts were nice, the book could have used a bit more editing for clarity, but it was good overall.

 

I prefer Fantasy over Sci-Fi.

However I would choose the future over the past cause of the technology(hopefully). I would hope that a time machine could be built to let people actually go in to the past(but not be able to have any effect on history). I would love so much to see Ceasar killed or Wild Bill Hickock shot down. Just to see everything that has made us exactly how we are today. ONe of the biggest things I would like to see is just the era and the state of things during WWII, Civil War times.

 

Good to know. I ought to try at least one cyber book. I can get Spin State cheaply. I think I've read just 5 science fiction books this past year, all but one Star Wars. I've gotten to like fantasy, but I aside from a severe mathamatical insufficiency I was born to be an astronaut, and sometimes you just have to return to the roots.

 

On the whole I prefer to read sci-fi rather than fantasy, but there's no hard and fast line. I love Tolkien and Robin Hobb's Six Duchies trilogies.

Sci-fi doesn't have to be set in the future, just look at Anne McCaffrey's Pern. There's dragons, yes, but they're genetically engineered by humans, not mythical beasts. Much as I love AMC and Pern, they're admittedly romances in a soft sci-fi setting. She has a rudimentary knowledge of science at best, and her treatment isn't as rigorous as, say, Asimov, Heinlein or Clarke managed. However, the three greats mentioned were all scientists and/or engineers. Of course, some of their novels are very outdated, given that they were written some 50+ years ago.

 

I'd want to live in the future, but I perfer fantasy over science fiction.

Fantasy feels more mythic to me while sci-fi is too techinical.

 

I prefer SciFi, mainly because it can rely on a fairly realistic priciple, and thus be more relatable. But I do enjoy a number of selections from both.