The Value of Science Fiction and Fantasy
Submitted by mwilliams on Mon, 2008-02-11 01:56.This post starts off kind of slow, but it gains momentum and is actually not a bad synopsis of the value of SF and fantasy, IMHO. It’s a reaction to the blank looks and raised eyebrows that seem to follow these two genres and a shot in the arm for what the writer prefers to call ‘imaginative literature’. And yes, it is literature. This, too, is addressed.
TAGS:
If you had a Wordsy account you could comment on this story. Get an account now!
What I find funny is that, while the world scoffs at science fiction, the science fiction lovers are scoffing at fantasy. As in life, the persecuted are the persecutors.
There is no thief like a bad book
--Italian Proverb
The line between the two can be very thin, as in space operas which describe technology so imaginative it might as well be fantasy.
Problem with badly written fantasy is that it stretches the reader's suspension of disbelief too far, doesn't explain anything and refers to general metaphysical conditions. Well written fantasy is great, authors like George R R Martin and Joe Abercrombie, it's low fantasy but it seems low fantasy is the only kind of fantasy where characters don't tend to become such shallow clichés.
There's little difference between science fiction and fantasy in any rigorous definition of the genres. It really comes down to the work itself: does it define what happens as magic or science? In reality it's all magic, however.
I'm generally not as big a fan of fantasy, just because the stories are often so much carbon copy to my eyes, and explore themes that bore me. It's not because it's fantasy though; it's because it's unoriginal or boring fantasy writers. Like romance, the genre seems to attract more than it's fair share of them, and enough fans will buy the bad ones to make them viable.
Rat's Reading - http://reading.kingrat.biz/
I'm presently reading (or trying to read) Patricia McKillip's The Cygnet and the Firebird Someone told me she was a great fantasy author. So far, however, the book is quite painful. As you say, Jakob, it doesn't explain anything, and nothing--not the characters' actions nor the metaphysical aspects--seems logical. Even magic has to have some kind of logic for it to wash with the reader. So far the book doesn't seem to be addressing any major issues. All in all, the whole thing seems quite pointless. I'm hoping my opinion will change as I get farther along, but I dunno... If there doesn't have to be any rules or logic, if the author can just throw in anything that comes to mind, whether it makes sense or not, and chalk it up to 'magic', and if people are buying this tripe, then I can see where the problem of the genre stereotype comes from.
There is no thief like a bad book
--Italian Proverb
Well you can tolerate it if the characters are believable and have flaws, just like everyone else. The problem with magic is that it's a potential "panacea" that can be used to explain everything, and allow anything to be done. Fantasy authors invent systems of magic, where magic has a price. Eddings has "the word and the will", and that exercising magic leads to mental and physical fatique, so a sorcerer isn't almighty. Jordan described magic as "channeling from the source", but the energy you channel is both wild and addictive, it can easily burn you out if you do not possess the mental discipline to control your channeling. Other authors use the more traditional idea of magic being a language and a code, something more rooted in our history and alchemy. There are also some highly imaginative forms of magic like one book I read where illuminations and writing were how you magically altered reality.
In all of these cases, the author, in order to use magic in their writing must invent a set of rules to make it believable and useful, just like in roleplaying game rulebooks. The good thing about SF is that science has rules, and that those rules are easily extrapolated into explaining high technology - which, referring to something Arthur C Clarke once said, to the uninitiated mind is undistinguishable from magic.
I'm skeptical and inquisitive and I always ask questions, I always have to know why, why, why and why. "Just because" was never good enough an answer to me, and that might be why I prefer science fiction. Perhaps it's also because I'm a dreamer and I think that SF is more likely to one day become a reality, rather than fantasy.
Well said. I only wish that in this book I'm trying to read the author had set up the rules of magic for her audience. In this case it's hard to tolerate because the characters, too, need work. *sigh* I'm off to check out one or two of the Nebula finalists next, I think.
There is no thief like a bad book
--Italian Proverb
Try some low fantasy, I think it works better. George R R Martin's A Game of Thrones is a good book.
Thanks, I'll look for that. You know, I read a ton of fantasy in my younger days, but I just don't remember it being this kind of free-for-all. Obviously I made a poor choice for my revisit to the genre.
What would Roger Zelazny's stuff be classified as? As I recall, his Amber series made perfect sense to me.
There is no thief like a bad book
--Italian Proverb
I have no idea, sorry. David Eddings and Tolkien was what I read as an adolescent.
I like Sci-Fi and Fantasy as it's often more interesting than real life. Why read about Mr Darcy swimming in a lake when you can read about Captain Kirk discovering new worlds?