SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

Maybe I'm reading the wrong novels, but I haven't come across a fantasy novel/series that really tackles the human condition the way that Sci-Fi does. The best Sci-Fi novels make the reader examine themselves or our world in new ways (Gender issues in Left Hand of Darkness, Violence/War in Ender's Game, Identity/Hunanity in Foundation series, etc).

But I have yet to read a fantasy novel that is anything more than a good story - and don't get me wrong: The Wheel of Time, LOTR, and others are all really good stories with complex characters and great writing. But they don't seem to extrapolate into my world.

Is fantasy as a genre limited to portraying the same few tropes over and over (the reluctant hero, the enigmatic wizard, the corrupted ruler, etc)? Or has no one taken the time to try to stretch the boundaries?

What do you all think? Have I just been reading the wrong novels? Am I reading them wrong?

This is one of the reasons I prefer science fiction. There is good fantasy out there, it's just really hard to find; and what's popular isn't necessarily going to give you what you want.

Right now, I'm reading Mistborn: The Final Empire by Brandon Sanderson. I'm finding it to be much different than the typical dungeons, dragons & wizards fantasy. It's themes are slavery, oppression, and rebellion. It reads a lot more like a science fiction novel than a fantasy novel, but it's definitely fantasy.

I also find myself more drawn to urban fantasy like the works of Neil Gaiman and Charles de Lint. I like magic in a modern setting that doesn't involve impossibly heroic characters.

I'd recommend Guy Gavriel Kay for thought-provoking fantasy that stays away from the aforementioned tropes.

I think that a lot of science fiction is based on the "what if?" premise which the author then builds a story around trying to answer. And those "what if?" questions are not always about technology, but can certainly be about societal and other concerns.

Fantasy seems to be just the opposite...build an interesting story then address an important question or questions, which adds to the complexity. Fantasy's way does not lend itself to a thorough exploration/exposition of the specific question but can still be thought-provoking for the reader.

thanks for the recommendations on new authors, sandi and brooke. I always figured there had to be authors doing new things out there.

and jens, I think you might be onto something with your "what-if" construction. My wife suggested that perhaps the difference is that Sci-Fi is inherently a genre that extrapolates from the current human condition while Fantasy is, by definition, an escape from it. (She's much smarter than I).

thanks for the discussing!

To be fair, there is a lot of Sci-Fi that is just a good story too ... and fantasy in general covers a much wider selection of talent IMHO.

There are some fantasy novels that do really make you think about the human condition (mostly I find these in what I would call dark fantasy). I would recommend the Coldfire trilogy (starting with Black Sun Rising) ... it is really a science-fantasy, but the primary emphasis is on the fantasy side. Another book that explores the human condition a fair amount is Fallen.

I love the Coldfire trilogy. In fact, I love everything by C.S. Friedman. I haven't read her latest though. It's the first book of a trilogy and it takes her years to write a book. I'll wait until the trilogy is done.

Brooke wrote: "I'd recommend Guy Gavriel Kay for thought-provoking fantasy that stays away from the aforementioned tropes. "

A thousand times yes. I can't read any of his books without having to digest what it's really saying.

In reading LOTR, didn't anyone catch commentary on uncontrolled change from an agrarian society to an industrial age? Didn't see how this could be applicable to an uncontrolled change from and industrial society to a digital age? And that's just one of the themes contained in Tolkein's vehicle for his created languages.

I look at Sci-Fi as showing possible futures while Fantasy shows possible pasts and commentary on current trends. Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar series and Bardic series contain excellent commentaries on prejudices and race relations. I will admit that fantasy does tend to contain more feminist themes than sci-fi does but then the setting does lend itself more to the down-trodden female.

I've found that Science Fiction hits me in the face with it's social commentary on the human condition. It's obvious. Fantasy tends to be subtler, focusing more on the psychological and emotional reactions of society to it's circumstances. Fairy tales were morality plays, today's fantasy is no different.

I'll also admit there is garbage on both sides of the aisle. Sometimes all I'm looking for is an escape into a different world in order to de-stress. At those times, I don't need to hear how being human is self-destructive and what I need to do to change the universe.

I've had the same problem - it seems to me like there is sooooo much bad fantasy out there, whereas bad scifi is a little more difficult to come by. (But maybe I just have a higher tolerance for scifi.)

For instance, my first intro to fantasy was Piers Anthony - boring and repetitive. My second was Robert Jordan - bloated and repetitive, though more interesting (and the first book was good). I've tried popular authors like Lackey, Goodkind and Drake, but I don't like any of them.

I've read random authors/books here and there, but I generally find fantasy to be derivative, whereas scifi seems to have different ideas and themes going on.

Thanks for the recommendations on authors/books - I'll check them out!

doesn't this kind of start to get into the discussion of the definition of scifi vs fantasy?

is "fantasy" to narrowly defined?

in stephen's first post, many novels are mentioned as scifi, but i somehow feel they could easily be "fantasy" if maybe you stuck the setting in the past and threw in some dragons and put a big ancient map at the beginning :) (oh, and something to do with a sword with some kind of special power)

also i think in many ways, scifi by it's very nature tackles the human condition uniquely. my personal feeling is that (when they do so) stories can be scifi, not because they are set in the future, or deal with technologies not presently in existence, but by examining the place of humanity in the future, the "what if" is also what would we (humanity, etc) be like, how would we respond, etc.

here is a situation that is purely imagination, but extrapolated from the present scientific knowledge, and this is a story of the people who live with this situation in their lives as fact

Any book can be shallow. There's lots of shallow SF out there, too. It happens, IMO, when the book's focus is on the author's pet nut-point (a new space drive, alien race, magic system, the Quest, whatever) rather than the characters. I came up with a phrase, the 'Gizmo Effect', to describe books that focus on things rather than the people. My own first novel, The Flame in the Bowl: Unbinding the Stone, is best described as 'making lemonade with fantasy lemons.' The focus is on lemonade-making, something all of us have to do, not the lemons he's been given to do it with. I have a large collection of fantasy novels, most of which focus on the characters, because that's what I want to read and those are the books I keep. Check my profile and see the list of books I have there.

Lest I give the wrong idea, I don't think Sci-Fi is inherently better at tackling these deeper themes, I just haven't found many fantay novels that did.

And I will readily agree that there are many many "Tek Jansen" SF novels out there that don't look to do anything more than chronicle some laser gun shootouts, and have the hero bed the alien babe.

No genre has a monopoly on good writing. I'm so glad this group exists to have these discussions. Thanks again!

Excellent question Stephen. By its nature, I think science fiction is sort of forced to deal with deeper questions. It usually starts with a "what if" premise. And it easily serves as a platform for the writers. Of course, the huge part of science fiction known as space opera isn't much different than the fantasy than you are thinking of. Thrilling stories, fantastic settings, us vs. them themes. Not deep.

I will say this, fantasy does deal with larger issues, but it is not always easy to spot them. I don't think you can get much bigger (or more subversive) than taking issue with the Judeo/Christian culture of our western world such as what Mists of Avalon did. You could easily see that book as a nice little witch/warlock/magic story. It isn't a nice little fantasy story though.

Speaking of witches, think of Wicked, another story that takes a look at our western mythology (The Wizard of Oz in this case) and asks what about the other side of the story? Is this another cute story about magic etc.? I don't think so.

The politics are much more obvious in Wicked than in Mists of Avalon, but it makes me wonder how much fantasy is out there that is tackling larger issues, but is viewed as little more than nice children's stories.

Like Gulliver's Travels.

By definition sci fi is fantasy. Dune can clearly be considered fantasy. All fiction is. Science fiction in its purest form simply tries to base itself on what is possible. But keep in mind if science is sufficiently advanced it appears to be magic. I have read some fantasy that only required a minor suspension of skepticism. What is magic or science? It all flows from the group consciousness. If The group believes that mind can affect matter it can. “Waldo Inc” can’t recall the author

I would not use shallow to describe any fiction. Fiction is intended to entertain not educate or make social commentary. Its purpose is to entertain.

My favorite Neil Simon quote. "If you want to send a message use a western union."

Fiction can be escapist, or it can address social issues or deep philosophical issues or even religion.

Fiction is an art form and as such should create an emotional response. If the story and characters do not reach you on some level and it does not entertain the fiction is a failure but is it shallow.

On the other hand escapist fiction like Piers Andersons Xanth series is fun produces emotions of humor and is more likely to be called "shallow" but even as an adult it is entertaining.

I would not consider any fiction shallow. While some stories produce deep thought this does not make a story great. Even with deep thought if it does not produce an emotional resonance and ultimately entertain it is failed fiction.

Of course this is simply my humble(SIC) opinion.

This kind of question drives me crazy. It drives me crazy every time I read it, whether its someone asking if all romance novels are just porn for women, or all YA fiction is just dumbed down dreck, of it the butler did it in every mystery novel, and on and on and on...

I agree with Kevinalbee-- its what emotionally resonates with you as the reader, not whether the genre is inherently worthwhile.

Every genre has tropes and cliches, every genre has its highs and lows.

Some people read LOTR and find it incredibly moving and complex, some people (myself included- and I am an avid fantasy reader) just see wizards, fairies and trolls.

And to further explore one of your primary examples of "deep" SF: LeGuin wrote both Left Hand of Darkness AND the Earthsea books-- one a classic SF about gender, the other a classic fantasy about the balance of good and evil inside the individual.

Mfred wrote: "Every genre has tropes and cliches, every genre has its highs and lows. ..."

True ... however, my experience does seem to mirror Stephen's in that I find a greater proportion of fantasy to be more poorly done than in Sci-Fi. I have typically chalked that up to the general lack of discipline in fantasy ... I have seen magic used a fair amount to get the story out of some corner that author has stumbled into; with Sci-Fi, you have a harder time doing that.

Mfred wrote: "whether the genre is inherently worthwhile...."

I never meant to imply that I think SciFi is a more worthwhile genre or that Fantasy has no value. I wouldn't begin to get into that discussion, since I agree with you and Kevin that "worthwhile" is relative to the reader.

I'm an avid Fantasy reader, which is why it struck me that there are few fantasy books that I've read that make me feel like I've explored the larger themes that my SF reading seems to bring often.

It was in the hopes of finding examples that disproved my experience that I started the thread, and I'm happy to see it worked.

Sue wrote: "...makes me wonder how much fantasy is out there that is tackling larger issues, but is viewed as little more than nice children's stories..."

interesting take on classifying Mists, Wicked, and Gulliver's Travels as fantasy. I personally hate the way things get classified, but never thought to put mythology in the fantasy realm.

In another discussion, someone suggested calling them all (Mythology, Historical Fiction, SF, Fantasy) Speculative Fiction and being done with it.

I believe that if you averaged out the 'depth' of the 500 best selling Fantasy Stories and 500 best selling SF stories you would find that the Fantasy scores lower. The reason for this is 1) A mediocre writer can write a Fantasy novel with a lot less effort just by following the formula and 2) Fantasy being very popular means that publishers are more likely to publish a mediocre Fantasy book because the demand from the public for new Fantasy is so high. I would also say that in general Fantasy is not trying to be a deep commentary on society or the human condition, it is an adventure like James Bond/Jason Bourne/Dirk Pitt. Nothing wrong with that; my favourite films include both Die Hard and Magnolia.

Now before I get totally flamed I should say that despite 90% of my reading before the age of 20 being SF, I probably read more Fantasy now. I like the comfort of knowing that if I really enjoy the book I can probably read another six in the same series :-) On the other hand having read a fantasy series I often find I cannot face reading another until I have cleansed my palate with some good SF. As soon as I pick up a new fantasy book and the back reads 'The Dark Lord/God XYZ has awoken/invaded and only lowly farm boy Spud can fulfil the prophesy and banish him' I put the book right back, and that is 75% of the stuff on the shelves! Still it did not stop me watching Star Wars which is that same classic fantasy plot :-) Strangely two fantasy series that have broken the mold very comprehensively and succesfully are Young Adult books ie Phillip Pullmans 'His Dark Materials' series that starts with The Golden Compass and Garth Nix's Abhorsen trilogy that starts with Sabriel. Both are every original but I still can't believe they are going to get away with filming the remaining books in Pullmans series which is essentially anti-religion. Especially when you consider the fuss religious people made about Harry Potter (I should make it clear here that I think Harry Potter is overrated though the first couple made good films and 'The Golden Compass' was a crap film)

Getting back on point, I kind of agree with Stephen that there is very little fantasy that explores deep themes as well as SF but I do believe it could. As an example, surely fantasy with its different races and classes could do a great job of exploring racial intolerance. How about the politics of warfare? Sure many fantasy novels include elements of these topics but none really explore it in the way that SF does ie in a way that makes you re-examine your own ingrained beliefs. Sometimes it seems that even SF writers 'dumb down' when they try fantasy; just look at C J Cherry who writes deep harrowing SF about politics and warfare and mental stress then writes shallow fantasy about big breasted half-naked women with huge swords :-)

Fantasy tends to explore somewhat more abstract topics, such as the claiming of power and using it responsibly, psychology and sexuality as expressed in magic and psionics, sacrifice and evil, religion, etc. I don't often see SF books that have real religions in them. Try Terry Brooks' Knight of the Word series, Patricia McKillip's books, especially the RiddleMaster of Hed, just about anything by Nina Kiriki Hoffman or Lawrence Watt-Evans, both of whom focus on people who are stuck with power they don't want. Dave Duncan wrote the Seventh Sword trilogy, about the impact of technological change upon a deeply traditional society, as well as the Great Game trilogy, in many respects the Bible reinterpreted as a fantasy novel.

First, I'll just say that I read pretty much all the speculative fiction subgenres with relish, but I honestly read a great deal more fantasy, so I'm moved to defend it the most in this discussion. (And I just read all the previous posts this morning, so this might go all over the place.)

Since people brought up LOTR earlier, and then the politics of warfare, I'll point out that Tolkien had quite a few points to make about the brutalities of war and its effects on the survivors. They were just probably more obvious in the immediate aftermath of WWI, when he was writing the books, than they are to us today. Perhaps SF takes on warfare are more resonant with some people because they can more clearly see how they apply to modern day warfare, but I'd argue that the social, personal, and political implications of war have been dealt with many, many times in fantasy settings.

For a couple other concrete examples of fantasy series/authors that touch on larger issues, here are some that popped to mind. While I'm sure that a lot of people are tempted to lump Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel novels in with erotica, I really do think they do an excellent job of exploring social attitudes toward sex and sexuality, and pondering the "what if" of how society could be if it were more accepting of love in a variety of forms.

Terry Pratchett's Discworld series could be seen as simply humorous entertainment, I suppose, but if you read them that way, you have to completely ignore all the elements of utterly brilliant satire and social commentary, and then you miss more than half the book.

I'll also say that I thought Melanie Rawn's Exiles series had a very interesting take on the "what if" exploration of a matriarchal society, but I don't really encourage anyone to start that series, because she's apparently abandoned it.

If one is looking for modern social commentary, great deal of urban fantasy has that, especially commentary on homelessness, drug use, and the disconnection of people from the world.

And as a last disconnected thought, it also occurred to me that maybe the reason so much SF seems to deal with blatant, gritty social commentary is because it has grown out of or is part of various "-punk" movements, which are pretty much defined as a rejection of or protest against a movement that came before.

I tend to read far more fantasy than sci fi. I would like to read more sci fi but there realy is not that much of it that is not just about war.

It seems to me that sci fi writers have lost their abiltiy to create a conflict that does not involve war or chase scenes.

Were are the stories like demon seed by kontz. the robot stories by asimov. Or the stories of exploration by Clark.

An many have hit on heinlein's sexism and his use of a single charcter who knows all is extremely compentent in a world of idiots. but he did address topics of conflict that did not end in war fair.

It is not that fantacy addresses different questions. it is that those who want to address those questions are drawn to fantasy. Relgion and ethics and cultural change and addressing great power used to be the bread and butter of scifi

Terry Pratchett's Discworld series could be seen as simply humorous entertainment, I suppose, but if you read them that way, you have to completely ignore all the elements of utterly brilliant satire and social commentary, and then you miss more than half the book

No argument here. Some wickedly cutting satire on government, religion, politics etc.

Hmmm...

I've just skimmed through all the posts here and I do tend to agree with the view that good SF is deeper than most fantasy. When I say "good SF" I am thinking not of space operas or Tek Jansen or the gizmo effect, typical of much of the 50s and 60s writing, but of the deeper exploration of the human psyche - addressing questions such as what it means to be human (Stranger in a Strange Land for example), what if ... there was a spice that prolonged human life and gave extra-sensory powers, what if you're stranded on the moon because you have nannites inside you which are illegal on earth, what if the UN demanded the immediate closure of the Moon colonies - would you go independent, what if... and so it goes.

Whereas, in too many cases, fantasy is just farm boy Spud seeking the Sword of Power to defeat reawakened avator of X, carried on over 6 volumes where he gains powers, quirky or interesting companions, character foils and the skills needed to confront his nemesis - usually on page 932 of Volume 6! I think that the Wheel of Time series by Robet Jordan is a good example of this - overlong, two-dimensional characters who are so - juvenile (OK, I know they are all under 20 at the start but even so). That's just my opinion by the way. Bits of it are quite entertaining.

The best fantasy however - LOTR and Thomas Covenant for example - have fully realised, coherent worlds that work linguistically, economically and politically. I agree that LOTR harks back to an agrarian past and a moneyed, leisured minority (Bilbo, Frodo, Merry and Pippin) who have more in common with a vanished Victorian society than anything we could now recognise. The contrast between the industrial slave society of Mordor and rustic idyll The Shire couldn't be plainer.

While I agree that books should be primarily entertaining, only secondarily thought-provoking, there is no reason why good SF and fantasy can't do both.

BTW, for a balanced viewpoint on warfare, read Heinlein's Starship Troopers, Harrison's Bill the Galactic Hero and Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse 5.

Great discussion though!

How true! The best of any genre is good because it is deep, profound, moving ... pick an adjective. I think though that the point I came to in my ramble is that there is more good SF then good fantasy. The mean of the SF genre outweighs the mean of the fantasy genre in the deepness stakes because there is every chance that the SF offering will contain something thought-provoking (like plausible science perhaps, or the viewpoint of a truly alien race).

The average SF work will, mostly, contain either solid extrapolation (likely to be in the soft than the hard sciences, but never mind) or an acceptable plot device like the reductio ad absurdum. The average fantasy work is more likely to rely on unacceptable plot devices like deus ex machina, or unpredictable (and hitherto unrevealed) properties of magic or talismans or swords or...

As before, this is my opinion. I know I'm on fairly solid ground when it comes to discussing SF, because I've read so much of it. I know less about the fantasy genre, but I've seen examples of good, bad and medioucre that tend to confirm my position. It may well be of course that I've read too little good fantasy simply because I don't know who to look for.

So I think we've all come to the conclusion that no, Fantasy is not inherently shallower than SF, that both deal with "deeper" issues equally well. But it just seems that most of us encounter less "high brow" (for lack of a better description) Fantasy than SF out there, on the whole. So either there's less of it out there, or it is being marketed incorrectly.

Which makes me think about why that is true. Is it because SF has an elevated place in our society? I'm thinking that both genres were born as commercial vehicles at about the same time (Tolkien and Asimov). But since then, SF has become more prevalent, culturally: think of all of the movies and TV shows that are SF vs those that are Fantasy. And I know Fantasy seems to be making a surge right now, but it hasn't enjoyed the same run as SF has. SF seems to have established itself as an adult genre, while Fantasy seems to be struggling to make that leap (in terms of mainstream audiences).

So is it just that publishers wouldn't know how to market "adult fantasy?" Do potential authors shy away from the genre because they don't want to be pigeon-holed as a young adult author?

That's it, I'm starting a publishing company that will only put out high brow adult Fantasy novels. Send me your drafts, people.

(and my To-Read list is now experiencing a glut of fantasy to check out. Thanks again!)

Stephen wrote: "So I think we've all come to the conclusion that no, Fantasy is not inherently shallower than SF, that both deal with "deeper" issues equally well. But it just seems that most of us encounter less "high brow" (for lack of a better description) Fantasy than SF out there, on the whole. So either there's less of it out there, or it is being marketed incorrectly."

My guess would be that you are more likely to encounter good science fiction than good fantasy simply because fantasy is so very popular right now. I suspect it's harder to get a science fiction book published than a fantasy one. Therefore, it's the better books getting published in SF. I think there was a lot more SF dreck when SF ruled.

Thank you to all those who are so eloquently defending fantasy! I'm not very well versed in sci fi, so am hesitant to take part in the debate. However, I love fantasy to my core and have always found that there is well written, thought provoking, beautifully written fantasy out there. I steadfastly avoid the fluff, and have never been without a good book to read.

I'm trying to learn more about sci fi - so far it seems great. But, I'll always be a fantasy fan at heart. There is a ton of good stuff out there!

Also, there was a deliberate effort to avoid the Bat Durston story in the early days of SF. The idea was to distinguish SF from Westerns or other adventure novels by refusing to publish stories that read like them. I think it was Hugo Gernsback who created a parody of a hero named Bat Durston, who rode spaceships to the equivalent of the Gunfight at the OK Corral.

Galaxy Science Fiction ran an ad on its back cover, "You won't find it in Galaxy", which gave the beginnings of make-believe parallel Western and SF stories featuring a character named Bat Durston. From this ad stemmed the derisive term "Bat Durston" to refer to the subgenre. A Bat Durston is always a derogatory term, indicating that the entire story could be transplanted to the West without more than cosmetic changes. If the story uses Western motifs but contains a speculative element that can not be removed without redoing the plot, it may be a space Western but not a Bat Durston.



A small group of people basically forced the writers of SF to write better stories by refusing to publish anything else. I think I read about in a collection of essays about Firefly and Serenity. Then Firefly got the Hugo, which must have made him spin.
There isn't anything like that in fantasy.

I read a lot of both fantasy and sci-fi. I agree that there is much more quality sci-fi out there than fantasy. Maybe fantasy is harder to create? If you want truly high quality fantasy, you can't do much better than Charles de Lint, Guy Gavriel Kay, and of course Tolkein.

How would you categorize something like Spider Robinson's "Callahan" series? Fantasy or sci-fi? He always makes me think, even while he's making me laugh.

I read a lot of both fantasy and sci-fi. I agree that there is much more quality sci-fi out there than fantasy. (many people have said)

I would have to beg to differ. There is far more fantasy good and bad than sci fi. There is very lttle scifi being published now. the vast majority is simple war in space.

Of the sci fi that is not war in space most of it is very good because it has to be to get published.

If you stack up the truly good (not war based) sci fi published in a year next to the realy good fantasy your fanticy pile would be huge sci fi very small.

In addition. Much of what is classifice as Sci fi is truly fantacy without the dragons or magic.

My first love is true hard core SCI fi. To get my fix I am stuck reading war war and more war.

Fantasy is my in second choice. I read far more of it because it is all that seems to be available.

Kevinalbee wrote: " I read a lot of both fantasy and sci-fi. I agree that there is much more quality sci-fi out there than fantasy. (many people have said)

I would have to beg to differ. There is far more fantasy ..."

Hard to disagree! I also dislike the war theme of sci-fi and am a fan of hard sci-fi. I find myself reading more of the cyber stuff or going back and reading older sci-fi these days. Do you read Robert J. Sawyer, Neal Stephenson, John Varley, Vernor Vinge, Kim Stanley Robinson?

Kevinalbee wrote: " I read a lot of both fantasy and sci-fi. I agree that there is much more quality sci-fi out there than fantasy. (many people have said)

I would have to beg to differ. There is far more fantasy ..."

Hard to disagree! I also dislike the war theme of sci-fi and am a fan of hard sci-fi. I find myself reading more of the cyber stuff or going back and reading older sci-fi these days. Do you read Robert J. Sawyer, Neal Stephenson, John Varley, Vernor Vinge, Kim Stanley Robinson?

I have read books from each of these authors.

I have been called a reading snob. I have a hard time giving new writters a chance. Without a strong recommendation. (I hope this club will change that)
I never buy a series that does not have at least the first 3 books published.

I have a very large library. 10-15 thousand books. I have read most of them. I read 4-5 books at a time. One in the bathroom 2 in my car, 1 at the office. one by my bed etc.

There is so little time and so much I want to read, i hate to waste time on a bad book.

I'm not sure I can say anything new here but I think the main thing I'm hearing from those who choose a side in this debate is a difference in which themes a reader likes to see explored. I find myself gravitating more towards Fantasy because it is more likely to explore interpersonal themes. I find sci-fi more concerned with man's interaction with his environment. Both have value for me but I find interpersonal issues more interesting. In fact, my favorite sci-fi (with the exception of Starship Troopers) deals more with interpersonal themes than environmental themes such as LeGuin's The Word for World is Forrest and any of Butler's works.

Although I do have to agree with several previous posters that after viewing the list of fantasy read by the original poster, it was no wonder he came to the conclusion that fantasy is less "deep". I find Martin's Fire and Ice work and Shinn's Angel and Mystic series to have depth of theme. And if you are interested in the philisophical question of what makes a hero, I'd look into Gemmel's Legend or Nix's Abhorson works.

(apologies for any spelling, I'm awful at it and this compy seems to be lacking a checker)

I guess I would say that I also like the exploration of interpersonal themes, and look for that in hard sci-fi; it can be hard to find, but the most satisfying hard sci-fi still has the human relationship aspect. I don't know if Kim Stanley Robinson's "Forty Signs of Rain" and the two other books in the trilogy would be considered by some to be hard sci-fi, but they do have an incredible amount of science, and really compelling science since it is very nearly present-day and related to global climate change, and yet there are huge amounts of interpersonal themes as well. Same with his Mars trilogy, lots of good science and relationship, and also little or no war.

Maybe I'm jumping in on this one a little late, but I don't think there is one genre that is shallower than another. I've read plenty of truly crappy sci-fi, too. :) I think it depends on the story, the author, the reader's preferences, etc. A lot of sci-fi does address social issues and seems to be more complex than fantasy, but there are fantasy novels that address the same social issues, too, just dressed up a little differently.

When it comes right down to it, I think it mostly depends on what each individual wants to read more. I tend to prefer fantasy because I have little patience for detailed explanations of warp drives or weapons or whatever. That said, Heinlein remains one of my favorite authors, despite his detail, and his dated, rather chauvanistic writing style. :)

Well, if one were to look up fantasy on, say wikipedia.org you would see that there are many different subgenres of fantasy. All weve seemed to talk about here is what is technically known as "high fantasy" (elves, dragons, wizards, swords, and faeries). I will never read any of that ever. As soon as I see any of those keywords, I put the book down immediately. With "high fantasy", its ruled out as being non-intelligent because the writer can say "this magic wand does xxxxx because I said so". I agree with the people who write it off as such.

Im a SF reader first and foremost. PKD is my favorite and I enjoy stuff by writers who feature good character development and plots rooted in culture and sociology/psychology.

As for other forms of fantasy, I do love *some* things that can be considered "fantasy" such as The Fountain (film directed by Darren Aronofsky). That is fantastical (a tree of life cant be explained in any scientific way. A man living parallel lives in different times cant really be explained either)

For me, the difference is the plausibility *AND* how the characters in their world consider the element of fantasy or science. Here are my examples as I see them. For these examples, I will use the same situation of a man and a talking dog. Please feel free to criticize:

Fantasy = Man walks out to get the paper in the morning, sees his dog, the dog says "good morning John!". The man replies "good morning. have a great day!"

SF = Man walks out to get the paper and his dog says "good morning" and John notices that the dog's voice calibration collar is in need of repair and so makes it a note to get that fixed soon.

Magic Realism = Man walks out to get the paper and is greeted by his dog and John replies to his dog only to have the neighbour give him a really funny look as to why he is having a conversation with his dog.

In the first example, the characters in that world think it nothing but natural that a dog can talk and no explanation is given, therefore thats fantasy.

In the second, the top scientists in the world may not have any plans in mind for a special collar to translate dogspeak to humanspeak, but *if* it were to exist, and a good writer can make this plausible, then it settles right in our minds as readers and is therefore SF.

In the third example, its harder to explain (maybe someone can put it into better words than I can). But I consider Magic Realism to be kinda like "literary surrealism". Try watching The Phantom Of Liberty by Luis Bunuel and youll kinda have an idea of what Im talking about. Its kinda like Fight Club: weird shit might be happening, but you dont question it. Jonathan Carroll is a prime example of Magic Realism and The Wooden Sea: A Novel being a perfect example.

I'm finally going to wade into this deep thread after monitoring it for several days. This has been an excellent discussion thread, everyone.

As a writer of fantasy that can be classified as "high" (sorry you feel the way you do about so-called high fantasy, Ubik) AND a writer of sci-fi as well, to me, it doesn't matter which genre I'm creating in. When I create a world for a story, whether it be a traditional fantasy world or a plausibly extrapolated world for sci-fi, I write about themes which are very important to me as a modern-day citizen of this planet. I care deeply about imperialism, racism, the destruction of the environment, the loss of our rights as citizens, the plight of women and girls around the world, to name the big ones. All of my writings involve one or more of these themes, and I use characters and situations to illustrate my views on them. To me, all my work is deep--and I recognize people's right to disagree with me!

Traditional fantasy does not have to take the easy, 'shallow' road and rely on magical talismans, wizards, etc. to solve problems.
In my Griffin's Daughter series yes, there is magic, but it alone doesn't solve the problems. In the end, it is the courage and sacrifice of the people involved that really counts. The magic is incidental.

I agree that there seems to be a surge in popularity for fantasy these days, I think due in part to the phenominal success of the Harry Potter series. There is bound to be a lot more dreck out there because there is just more fantasy out there period.

It all comes down to what a reader likes, just as Sidhe says. I'll always be partial to fantasy as reading material, but enjoy writing fantasy and sci-fi equally. Neither genre, nor all their many subgenres can be said to be shallower or deeper on average than the other(s).

As Leslie and several others have brought up, some of the best authors cross the lines and write in both genres. Roger Zelazny, Ray Bradbury, C.S. Lewis, and Clive Barker come to mind as well as Pratchett and Gaiman (Agnes Nutter, anyone?).

I'm glad to see that the supporters are on both sides of the aisle. Usually good fantasy is classified as a woman's genre - Menolly found the firelizards, Cinderella goes to the ball, Lucie finds Narnia, Talia got chosen, and Dorothy went to OZ. Fewer are the Harry Potter's and Frodo's.

Yet in Science Fiction there are more heros than heroines - after all "It's the final frontier where no MAN has gone before."

I'm enjoying the listing of author's here too.

Jensownzoo wrote: "I think that a lot of science fiction is based on the "what if?" premise which the author then builds a story around trying to answer. And those "what if?" questions are not always about technolog..."

I concur with Jensownzoo - Sci-fi is tending to answer or probe a question where fantasy is more - carrying you off to a different place and time. That's why something like StarWars - is - IMO more fo a fantasy than sci-fi because it really wasn't dealing with "issues" so much as a "romp".

And I agree that Fantasy tends to deal more with the interior realms...the external trappings tend to be a bit sillier because that is not the point of the story.

Also, insofar as fantasy's ignorance of the rules of the world is concerned, I've noticed that good fantasy tends to be about creating a new world with new rules, but the same interior realms as our own. Yes, sometimes, it is about creating a world that is unlike ours in order to escape, but more often it is about creating a world dissimilar to our own in order to look at the human condition through a new lens. It's rarely the magical talisman that saves the day, but the person. So Fantasy can become about understand humanity by removing all that is non-essential and looking at what it means to be human or not human in a different environment.

Full disclosure - I read both Fantasy and Sci-fi and have always preferred Fantasy. I will read most fantasy novels, but pretty much refuse to read any Sci-fi that is not the cream of the crop, because I have always identified more with the psychological puzzle posed by fantasy than the speculative puzzle posed by Sci-fi.

It seems that both Fantasy and Sci Fi succeed when the author is able to create characters that are recognizably like "us"... people who function in a recognizable manner, who have realistic desires and motivations. The world in which they are living is fantastical, but they should not be, even if they are half-robot, or elven on their mother's side, or whatever.

A lot of great non-genre fiction doesn't do anything more profound than that - address human issues and present human characters in a way that seems true-to-life. Why should fantasy be required to do more in order to be worthy? Of course one problem is that fantasy is so mired in stereotypes that characters are often more like an archetype than they are like you or me... and any change or growth that occurs is likewise mired.

I have thoroughly enjoyed the recent postings here.

Kiri, I partly agree with you. However, if you consider books like Dragon's Egg by Robert L Forward, or Footfall by Niven and Pournelle, you are given the opportunity to empathise with sentient creatures that are not at all like "us" - they will have their own alien drives and needs.

As far as I'm aware, only SF has explored the alien psyche. I cannot recall any fantasy written from the viewpoint of an elf or a dwarf or a dragon.

You can see that I'm falling into the stereotypical trap here of thinking that fantasy must contain elves, dwarves, dragons and magic.

People read non-fiction to be informed.

They primarily read fiction to be entertained.

But reading is not a passive process. When you read good fiction (any genre), you will be, one one level, entertained. On a different level, you will be engaged in a duel with the author - what is he/she trying to say here? What am I, the reader, being asked to think about myself; someone else; society; the human condition. So far, only SF has challenged us to think about the alien condition. (If I'm being ignorant here, please feel free to inform me.)

Another point is that the primary distinction between SF and fantasy is that, in SF there are laws - physics, maths, genetics - that are obeyed. Even if the work is set in another universe, where those laws are different, they are known and explained and adhered to; in fantasy, there seems always to be an element that is not explained - magic being a typical example. What are the laws of magic? How does it work? Why does it work? If you don't care, then read the book as a rollicking good escapist read. If you do care, you will be left feeling disappointed.

I view all fiction as escapism - from the mundane, from your cares and troubles - for as long as you are reading, you are immersed in a world where you have someone else's viewpoint and trials. In fact, it's much like drinking a bottle of JD. You forget your troubles for a while. The only difference between JD and reading is that reading doesn't leave you with a headache the next morning.

On a final note, if LOTR is to be believed, since I am short, stout, bearded, love beer and red meat and would happily wield a battleaxe, I must be a dwarf:-)

The problem is that you must care, regardless of the story, and a story in which a character can do anything is not a story people will care about. Magic is all well and good, but the story requires sacrifice and conflict. So the story requires limits, otherwise known as laws, that bound what the people may accomplish with whatever powers they have. If SF has an advantage here, it is that we know pretty much what the laws are and it's harder to stray from them. Fantasy is riddled with authors who create worlds with rules that they proceed to violate without noticing.

Jabenami wrote: " I will read most fantasy novels, but pretty much refuse to read any Sci-fi that is not the cream of the crop..."

I hear you Jabenami...I love fantasy and can't even think of titles that I would say I'm sorry for reading but I have tried a few of the "less than top" sci-fi and greatly regretted it. But Asimov and even Jules Verne have some of my favorites in their work.

-- Wife of GR author Michael J. Sullivan: The Crown Conspiracy (10/08) | Avempartha (04/09)

Also, it seems to me that, in Science Fiction, a character from another planet or some sort of future who is mostly human except for...i don't know, telekinesis, is usually described as an alien and viewed as such. However, in a fantasy novel, a human with magic is just, well, a human with magic in the same way that some people are smart or good athletes.

This might just be because, in Science Fiction, we are far more attuned to spotting these differences and expecting them to make all the difference, while one of the tropes of fantasy is that magic never solves anything and isn't about to start doing so now.

I haven't read much fantasy? Hmmm, let me think:
Homer, Ovid, The Nibelungs, the Prose Edda, the Mabinogion, Beowulf, Eschenbach, Chretien de Troys, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Chaucer, Mallory, Tennyson, Samuel Butler, Jonathan Swift, Walpole, Wilkie Collins, Poe, Bierce, H P Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith, Arthur Machen, Sheridan le Fanu, Lord Dunsany, Algernon Blackwood, Saki, August Derleth, Frank Belknap Long, Henry Kuttner, Keith Roberts, Piers Anthony, L Sprague de Camp, Robert E Howard, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Michael Moorcock, Stephen Donaldson, T H White, Robert Jordan, Stephen Lawhead, Raymond Feist, Nikolai Tolstoy, Gogol, Terry Pratchett, Ray Bradbury, William Morris, William Hope Hodgson, J G Ballard, J K Rowling, C S Lewis, Stephen King, Anne McCaffrey, Anne Rice, Richard Adams, Roald Dahl, Roger Zelazny, Ursula K Le Guin, Lewis Carroll, Clive Barker, Andre Norton, Mervyn Peake... no, perhaps I haven't.

As for Tolkien, I first came across LOTR in 1972 and have read it, and the Hobbit, at least once a year ever since. You could consider the protagonist to be either Frodo or Sam, with some justification. The rest of the fellowship, and the other characters are mentors, companions and foils, although they do sometimes carry the action themselves for substantial periods.

BunWat says that the protagonists are not human - well, they are called hobbits, but apart from the furry feet, hobbits are indistinguishable in modes of thought, actions and speech from middle and working class southern Englishmen from between the 2 world wars. Aragorn, Gandalf and the other Numenoreans could be called aristocrats. Gimli behaves like a human who happens to be short and bearded, possibly from Northern England or Scotland. Even the elves, who, being immortal, one might expect to show significant differences in thought and behaviour from we mere mortals, could be described as a thoroughly human blend of Welsh and mystic. None of them exhibit any signs of actually being non-human or alien, at least in the occasional glimpses we are given of the workings of their minds.

Having just looked over my list of Fantasy authors above, I can, however, add one work of fantasy that has well-realised and thoroughly believable alien creatures - Watership Down.

Paul wrote: "What are the laws of magic? How does it work? Why does it work? If you don't care, then read the book as a rollicking good escapist read. If you do care, you will be left feeling disappointed...."

I'd agree with Marc's follow up to this that the best Fantasy explains the laws of magic, but they tend to do so implicitly by showing the personal cost of using that magic. Since magic is an internal experience it can't be codified like the tech that SF relies on to alter its world. Saying that the "warp drive uses dilithium crystals" is as validly ambiguous as saying "the fireball requires the memorization of an incantation."

Again, there are examples in both genres of deus ex machina writing where the tech nor the magic are explained enough to sufficiently make the world believable.