|
In general, nerds tend gravitate towards two main genres of fiction, fantasy and science fiction. I hate fantasy and I love science fiction.
Fantasy for me represents a sort of romanticizing of the past, glossing over all the terrible things such as poverty, disease, and lack of sanitation in favor of "oh look, how cool would it be if..." Fantasy brings to life all of the superstition of the past, from alchemy to straight-up magic. But none of it can ever happen.
Science fiction, on the other hand, represents for me a hope (or dread) of what might happen in the future. All good science fiction stories such as the Dune series, Foundation series, Hyperion Cantos, or even stories such as 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 are woven with the hopes, fears, and philosophies of the authors themselves as to what the future of mankind might look like. Although the specific characters of each story may never exist, the rationale behind the technologies and societies of the future make some compelling arguments. Frank Herbert, writing during the birth of the Space Age, completely skips the exploration of space by mankind, making a beeline straight for a time when mankind has colonized the galaxy and has evolved into beings with fantastic abilities. "Of course mankind will colonize the stars," I think he thinks. In 1984, Orwell depicts mankind as being totally fucked. We are pigeonholed on Earth forever, a victim of our own petty political squabbling that creates an eternal stalemate in technological and societal advancement.
Of the types of science fiction, I am more interested in the stories that represent hopes for humanity's expansion across the stars. Which brings me to my next topic, mankind and evolution, and the paradox that is science fiction. While evolution and humanity's progression have no goals, science fiction is always seeking to provide or at least predict the future of mankind, and perhaps a future goal to aim for as we continue to exist in this universe. In doing so, science fiction seems to justify the human race as a major milestone in evolutionary history. Life has advanced over billions of years to produce us. We hope to prove that we are "worth" all this time spent by spreading the wonder of life across the stars.
There is a parallel between the development of human society and the evolution of life: neither is happening according to any plan, and there is no end goal to either thing. Whatever happens happens as matters of both accident and necessity. Of course, humanity has the potential to choose a goal for itself, although with so many people and everybody thinking in different ways, this is extremely difficult and unlikely. Frankly, nobody knows for sure what will happen to mankind in the future.
We humans are unique in the history of Earth life in that we possess free will and the mental capacity to exercise it. We have the capacity for rational thought (although not the ability to maintain it consistently). We are the current dominant species because we are the stupidest creatures that evolution has produced that is capable of free will, rational thought, and the ability to advance technology to our needs. Evolution of large eukaryotic organisms has stopped at us (for now) because we had destroyed or neutralized any species that can compete against us in these capacities.
But who knows how long this dominance will last? Mankind seems incapable of uniting together to take the next logical step in our development as a species, to expand beyond our little rock that we now know is a tiny rock in the universe and fully vulnerable to the vast number of things that can kill us all at any moment.
In the worst case scenarios, mankind destroys itself. It may be a quick death, nuclear armageddon. Of course the bacteria and smaller organisms will survive. Maybe in another few hundred million years evolution will again produce a sentient species, who will have another crack at this space exploration thing. That isn't so bad, if by then the Sun's increasing heat has not pushed the Earth out of its life-support zone, not that it would even matter to us at that point.
Or it may be a slow, creeping death. That's the worst of the worst. Current trends in technology and waste management is extremely inefficient. The waste that we produce as a result of harvesting the Earth's natural resources is oftentimes in a form that is very difficult to recycle and reuse. Coupled with the rising population, mankind may reach a point where the world no longer possesses the amount of resources required for space exploration. Then, mankind will perhaps survive for millions of years, eking out a limited experience knowing forever that we would never be able to realize our potentials. Our only hope of reaching the stars then would be if another species that has reached space faring technologies finds a reason to include us into their greater civilization.
But where mankind is at now, there is still a (diminishing) window of opportunity for us to reach the stars. Hence hope, hence why I still cling onto science fiction.
But - a second and more urgent but - all space-faring science fiction possess their own folly. The problem with these fantastic civilizations is that they are all conceived through single minds, the minds of the authors themselves. All the characters and spaceships and planets of all these stories hurtle through their narratives towards their inevitable fates, driven by the single-minded force of an author's imagination. At at least some point during all of these science fiction stories, mankind had found a way to put aside its differences and its growing fear of mortality and were able to get their shit together to explore space in a way that would lead to the colonizing of other planets. Such extraordinary displays of concentrated rational thought by mankind! It happens in so many science fiction universes. It certainly has never happened in real life.
So we reach the "conclusion" of my ramble, or what is only called the conclusion because these are the bottommost paragraphs in this ramble. I believe that in order for human beings to realize the goal of a space-faring civilization, it will have to "get its shit together" and act as rational thinkers for long enough to work towards this massive endeavor. Millions may have to go knowingly to their deaths to push the boundaries of space exploration, just as how bold men and women had pushed the boundaries of aviation in the early 20th century. Space-faring science fiction works, whether or not their authors truly believe in them, always assuredly assume that mankind would succeed in reaching the stars. I don't think we should be as confident in real life.
P.S. I wrote this just after having finished the Hyperion Cantos, which is an absolutely fantastic story. It leaves a lot to think about. If anyone actually read the entire thing, thank you for reading.
 
|
I actually read your whole post. Haha.
As enticing as it sounds to expand into space, it's not an easy task. Sending material into space is energetically consuming because you have to break out of earth's gravity to do so. If you colonize nearby planets like mars, you have to create an enclosed, self-sustaining colony because of the unfavorable environmental conditions. Then direct exposure to cosmic rays are a huge problem, increasing the risk of diseases like cancer and developing cataracts. And we can't colonize planets in other solar systems/galaxies because we haven't figured out how to break the theory of relativity.
|
Well I'm not denying the difficulty. Putting people into space is expensive and dangerous, but it's ultimately a matter of expenditure of time, manpower, and resources. It takes the resources of an entire nation to put together a space program. There aren't enough people in the world who would risk that much to attain goals and benefits that may never be realized in their lifetime.
|
Expanding into space is a crucial step, but at this point we are still facing a few problems.
The biggest of which is faster-than-light travel. We still don't know if it is possible, and the cold hard truth is that if it isn't, all of this is meaningless. The speed of light is not fast enough to cross the universe, and generation-ships are of no value to any living person, nor are they capable of establishing an actual human space-empire.
(Just imagine trying to govern over people that are so far away that no living person can reach them, and any message you send will arrive with a 100 year time delay.)
I agree that expanding into space is very important. Simply sitting on Mars will make the human race essentially immortal, because the odds of a meteor taking out both planets would be essentially zero. Even a nuclear war on earth/mars would leave the other in tact.
But we should be prepared for the painful truth that a heat death might be everything that awaits us, and that those dreams of a galactic empire are as realistic as turning lead into gold.
|
On August 16 2012 00:09 zalz wrote:
The biggest of which is faster-than-light travel. We still don't know if it is possible, and the cold hard truth is that if it isn't, all of this is meaningless. The speed of light is not fast enough to cross the universe, and generation-ships are of no value to any living person, nor are they capable of establishing an actual human space-empire.
As things are generation ships aren't worthwhile. I doubt we will ever send any out. It is more likely we will send out frozen humans. The largest we can get back up and running again, whether it be an adult, a child, a cell that is grown to a human.
Also likely is sending out humans that are in robotic bodies to handle the ship in transit.
If we should happen to do generation ships it would be because earth is so crowded it is actually a better place to expand to another system. Or the technology becomes so cheep that interest groups would do it. Entire religious communities moved from Europe in the 16:th century. The same thing can be taken another step, to a place where nobody is coming after you, because if they do with any other plan than killing your planet you will shoot them down to keep hegemony going.
I would be willing to be part of a generation ship, even though it would bring no benefit to me. I don't doubt you can round up enough people if the cost becomes possible with "life savings" of normal people.
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9933 Posts
i think its cute how scifi generally predicts the future more accurately than religion does
|
On August 16 2012 01:59 intrigue wrote:
i think its cute how scifi generally predicts the future more accurately than religion does
Didn't most religions try to predict it 2k years ago? I think Dune will be about as accurate in predicting the future as religion has been.  (Predicting short term into the future is hard, predicting long term is pretty much impossible.)
|
Pretty crazy to stumble over this just as I myself am finishing the Hyperion books!
You seem to have a pretty bleak outlook on "humanity"(strange word) and our ability to work together.
I get the feeling like we're(humanity) on the threshold of something amazing. Regardless of all the things I read, I see tons of hints that people actually are getting more rational and that shit gets better.
It's so difficult to attempt a survey of the sum-total of humanity and then make a decree on whether or not we are getting more or less rational, since our own rationality(and general dispositions) play such a big part of how we view our fellow man.
But people(humans!) are talking about the enviornment, questioning extremism, meditating(!) and on a daily basis take part of the biggest communication nexus ever made-- chatting across borders, learning from eachother. I mean, that has to be worth something, doesn't it?
Oh, and try to read Steven Erikson! He's a great fantasy writer that doesn't do all of those things you complained fantasy authors do
P.S Rewrote this so many times I'm not even sure it makes any sense anymore. D.S
|
On August 16 2012 01:59 intrigue wrote:
i think its cute how scifi generally predicts the future more accurately than religion does
I don't know, I think the whole apocalypse will be closer to the truth than space travel throughout the galaxy. 
|
|
|
On August 16 2012 01:59 intrigue wrote:
i think its cute how scifi generally predicts the future more accurately than religion does
I think it's more a game of averages at work. Most religious works have been set in stone for at least hundreds of year and are few and far in between, while there are tons of science fiction works being pumped out. At least some of them have to get it right.
On August 16 2012 05:35 CutieBK wrote:Pretty crazy to stumble over this just as I myself am finishing the Hyperion books! You seem to have a pretty bleak outlook on "humanity"(strange word) and our ability to work together. I get the feeling like we're(humanity) on the threshold of something amazing. Regardless of all the things I read, I see tons of hints that people actually are getting more rational and that shit gets better. It's so difficult to attempt a survey of the sum-total of humanity and then make a decree on whether or not we are getting more or less rational, since our own rationality(and general dispositions) play such a big part of how we view our fellow man. But people(humans!) are talking about the enviornment, questioning extremism, meditating(!) and on a daily basis take part of the biggest communication nexus ever made-- chatting across borders, learning from eachother. I mean, that has to be worth something, doesn't it? Oh, and try to read Steven Erikson! He's a great fantasy writer that doesn't do all of those things you complained fantasy authors do P.S Rewrote this so many times I'm not even sure it makes any sense anymore. D.S
Yeah, I'm fairly firmly entrenched in the "we're fucked" school of thought, although I would definitely welcome a brighter future
I hope you are right. Right now, humanity is approaching a unique point where we as a species have to do something soon (as in explore recycling technologies, ethics of population control, renewable energy sources, etc) in order to avoid being plunged into some kind of irreversible dark age. Civilization and society has progressed over time, but always at its own pace and without a specific direction. This is the first time in our history where it is possible that we are facing a permanent ceiling in our advancement.
And since you've finished (or nearly) finished the Hyperion series, I think that the TechnoCore can be seen as a metaphor for the current state of the human race, with nation states and ideologies vying for dominance and generally being parasites upon nature and the world, while the Ousters represent the full human potential, or what we can strive to become.
Lastly, I do have Steven Erikson's books on my Kindle, they're definitely going to be read sometime soon!
|
On August 15 2012 21:31 Newbistic wrote:
In general, nerds tend gravitate towards two main genres of fiction, fantasy and science fiction. I hate fantasy and I love science fiction.
Fantasy for me represents a sort of romanticizing of the past, glossing over all the terrible things such as poverty, disease, and lack of sanitation in favor of "oh look, how cool would it be if..." Fantasy brings to life all of the superstition of the past, from alchemy to straight-up magic. But none of it can ever happen.
That annoys me to no end. NO END.
I am a fantasy writer on my way to getting published. I read both fantasy and science fiction.
Yes, fantasy does contain some of the tropes you talk about. There is a lot of romanticizing the past, because that is what fantasy uses as the means to tell a story. However, fantasy as a genre will ALWAYS be more fluid, open-ended, and allow for more possibilities than SF. And it is the amount of possibilities which gives the genre the most opportunity for exploration.
I do have to say that "glossing over all the terrible things such as poverty, disease, and lack of sanitation" reeks of ignorance. A couple points.
1. Fantasy (most modern fantasy) has fallen further and further away from medieval tropes/backgrounds. What we are seeing in modern development of the genre is the creation of more and more world/systems that are extremely intricate and refined. Once again - amazing depth of possiblity.
2. "Glossing over terrible things." This is independent of genre. It is a major style choice of writing to focus on positive things and neglect certain more depressing/realistic elements. Happy or sad book, no? It helps a lot with catharsis if we don't have the whole arc be depressing. However, as I said - it is a style choice.
There is no reason why lack of sanitation/depression/war/disease/genocide/corruption/poverty/murder/torture/chaos/war cannot happen in a fantasy setting. It does, in fact, happen in many novels. There are some writers who create a serious setting, and some that prefer not to dwell on some issues. I have written books, read books dealing with these issues. They are most definitely considered.
What I find that many people seem to disregard the elements most crucial to storytelling, most especially in the SF genre.
I have read so many terrible books by SF authors who come up with some idea that they think is wonderful but do not have the skills in fiction to execute it. NO IDEA in genre writing takes precedence over one's ability to write a well written story.
If you want that sort of shit, go read hard SF. Most of it isn't even a story, just exploration of future tech/ideas (OBVIOUSLY there are exceptions to this). Read it too, boring as W&P. But hey, if that's your thing, go ahead! Just remember that in the SF genre almost everything has been done to death, so it comes down to your fundamentals as a writer and not so much the idea.
But in terms of ideas - fantasy is wide open. A good fantasy writer leaves nothing to chance. Systems are carefully mapped. Magic is merely Earth's current ruleset redefined. Everything within said system is affected by alterations to the ruleset. But it all comes down to fundamentals. A good writer can take a horrible, overused idea and create a book worth reading. Wonderful ideas executed by terrible writers are not worth the read. They can be forgotten, or called a literary masterpiece. But they're definitely not worth my time (or yours).
And that, is independent of genre. Good books are timeless. Good books have plots, characters, and worlds worth remembering. Happy reading!
|
I'm SAD!
I wrote a really nice post, it was long (as mine tend to be), then I lost it because I didn't Ctlr + C hard enough on this crappy office keyboard. Summary :
BBCode like a baus- I like science fiction for the science part, breaking the current constraints of technology (which I'm stuck by as well, being a scientist). I like imagining their cool ideas and dreaming about how the world could be, especially since most of the stuff won't be around in my earthly life-time (heck and people complain Heaven'll be boring ^^).
- What really does it for me is when authors skip all the technical limitations, and just assume that we've solved all the science barriers to implementing fantastic things. Then you really start examining the moral and ethical questions and implcations of implementing those advances. I really like the SF that manages to convincingly make it this far. Also, thinking about this sort of thing just gives me kicks.
We may never reach that specific technology, but as analogies, it is SO crucial (for science-makers) to avoid doing abominable wicked things with inventions, by properly thinking through their implications and consequences BEFORE developing them. It helps us safeguard from perversions of development by training our ethical discernment, no matter what we're creating. Scientists REALLY need to do this more!
How would Alfred Nobel have acted if he had forseen how his dynamite invention for mining would be used to revolutionize (artillery) warfare? He would likely have worked to prevent the lost lives, rather than strive to atone for them with his Prizes. Dem implications man, they matter.
- Those are the things I look for in SF mainly. If it has a dramatic, far-sweeping, betrayal love adventure dystopia style, and they're well-executed, GREAT! But the point is, those are secondary to my primary purpose for reading them, detailed above.
If I wanted "[i]OMG human nature[i], dis storiee sooo truuuuuuu!!1!" I'd go read something else. For the most part, I don't (actually its more like never)! <:
I don't invest my time into it to revel and worship the masterful work of art the author has crafted. I'm not a writer or an English major. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate when its done better, but I'm mature enough to not get overly caught up and scared away from these cool science ideas, because "it'ts not good litterature"
[/list]
|
Space expansion certainly seems one good outlet for humanity's survival in an increasingly hostile environment. However, I'd argue it's not the only way (population control, dedicating crazy amounts of resources to protecting our planet, establishing mandatory controls on emissions and pollution at the cost of personal freedom, etc) but we are nonetheless taking tiny baby steps in the attempt to achieve any of them, because they are expensive, both in terms of cost of wealth, freedom, or just comfort. It is good to see nations cooperating on helping our Earth, but it's also very very disappointing to watch them squabble over minuscule percentage points on an issue that is likely to cost everything.
As for Fantasy vs Sci-Fi, they both overlook specifics for the sake of the story, I really can't fault Fantasy authors to ignore the lack of running water or a good sewerage system or the existence of rabies to get on with what's important.
Also  Fantasy is the best BW player. :D
|
On August 16 2012 23:03 Mobius_1 wrote:Space expansion certainly seems one good outlet for humanity's survival in an increasingly hostile environment. However, I'd argue it's not the only way (population control, dedicating crazy amounts of resources to protecting our planet, establishing mandatory controls on emissions and pollution at the cost of personal freedom, etc) but we are nonetheless taking tiny baby steps in the attempt to achieve any of them, because they are expensive, both in terms of cost of wealth, freedom, or just comfort. It is good to see nations cooperating on helping our Earth, but it's also very very disappointing to watch them squabble over minuscule percentage points on an issue that is likely to cost everything. As for Fantasy vs Sci-Fi, they both overlook specifics for the sake of the story, I really can't fault Fantasy authors to ignore the lack of running water or a good sewerage system or the existence of rabies to get on with what's important. Also Fantasy is the best BW player. :D
That's an interesting thought, staying on Earth for a long period of time. But if humanity is ever able to reach the status quo you talk about, they might as well have reached the point where they can pool resources for space-ward expansion. I think it is instinctive for us to want to continue to expand and grow, rather than maintain a plateau in terms of population.
But for Brood War... didn't Jangbi beat Fantasy, twice, in 2 OSL's in a row?
|
Isn't the goal of evolution to create the best organism for reproduction in it's environment? Which humans are since we are no longer experiencing "net" evolution?
Also I hate to be a pessimist but I don't think mankind is ever setting foot on any planet besides earth.
Anyway I like science fiction too as I guess most TLers do since we all play starcraft so I rated 5/5.
|
On August 16 2012 13:47 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 21:31 Newbistic wrote:+ Show Spoiler +In general, nerds tend gravitate towards two main genres of fiction, fantasy and science fiction. I hate fantasy and I love science fiction.
Fantasy for me represents a sort of romanticizing of the past, glossing over all the terrible things such as poverty, disease, and lack of sanitation in favor of "oh look, how cool would it be if..." Fantasy brings to life all of the superstition of the past, from alchemy to straight-up magic. But none of it can ever happen. That annoys me to no end. NO END. I am a fantasy writer on my way to getting published. I read both fantasy and science fiction. Yes, fantasy does contain some of the tropes you talk about. There is a lot of romanticizing the past, because that is what fantasy uses as the means to tell a story. However, fantasy as a genre will ALWAYS be more fluid, open-ended, and allow for more possibilities than SF. And it is the amount of possibilities which gives the genre the most opportunity for exploration. I do have to say that "glossing over all the terrible things such as poverty, disease, and lack of sanitation" reeks of ignorance. A couple points. 1. Fantasy (most modern fantasy) has fallen further and further away from medieval tropes/backgrounds. What we are seeing in modern development of the genre is the creation of more and more world/systems that are extremely intricate and refined. Once again - amazing depth of possiblity. 2. "Glossing over terrible things." This is independent of genre. It is a major style choice of writing to focus on positive things and neglect certain more depressing/realistic elements. Happy or sad book, no? It helps a lot with catharsis if we don't have the whole arc be depressing. However, as I said - it is a style choice. There is no reason why lack of sanitation/depression/war/disease/genocide/corruption/poverty/murder/torture/chaos/war cannot happen in a fantasy setting. It does, in fact, happen in many novels. There are some writers who create a serious setting, and some that prefer not to dwell on some issues. I have written books, read books dealing with these issues. They are most definitely considered. What I find that many people seem to disregard the elements most crucial to storytelling, most especially in the SF genre. I have read so many terrible books by SF authors who come up with some idea that they think is wonderful but do not have the skills in fiction to execute it. NO IDEA in genre writing takes precedence over one's ability to write a well written story. If you want that sort of shit, go read hard SF. Most of it isn't even a story, just exploration of future tech/ideas (OBVIOUSLY there are exceptions to this). Read it too, boring as W&P. But hey, if that's your thing, go ahead! Just remember that in the SF genre almost everything has been done to death, so it comes down to your fundamentals as a writer and not so much the idea. But in terms of ideas - fantasy is wide open. A good fantasy writer leaves nothing to chance. Systems are carefully mapped. Magic is merely Earth's current ruleset redefined. Everything within said system is affected by alterations to the ruleset. But it all comes down to fundamentals. A good writer can take a horrible, overused idea and create a book worth reading. Wonderful ideas executed by terrible writers are not worth the read. They can be forgotten, or called a literary masterpiece. But they're definitely not worth my time (or yours). And that, is independent of genre. Good books are timeless. Good books have plots, characters, and worlds worth remembering. Happy reading!
I'm not trying to say that fantasy objectively sucks, just why I don't like it. I guess the more accurate way to describe it is that (good) science fiction can be more easily related to the current world than fantasy. Fantasy is always (I think, unless you know differently) set in the past, not even necessarily of Earth's past, so there isn't any real point in trying to trace it forward in time to present day. Science fiction is more philosophically driven than fantasy, which allows it to be analyzed in terms of mankind's eventual development from its current state.
What would you personally recommend as some good fantasy books or series? Something that isn't A Song of Ice and Fire, which unfortunately for me falls into the "wonderful ideas executed by terrible writers" group.
|
But global warming guys ...
|
On August 17 2012 10:12 Newbistic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 13:47 Qwyn wrote:On August 15 2012 21:31 Newbistic wrote:+ Show Spoiler +In general, nerds tend gravitate towards two main genres of fiction, fantasy and science fiction. I hate fantasy and I love science fiction.
Fantasy for me represents a sort of romanticizing of the past, glossing over all the terrible things such as poverty, disease, and lack of sanitation in favor of "oh look, how cool would it be if..." Fantasy brings to life all of the superstition of the past, from alchemy to straight-up magic. But none of it can ever happen. That annoys me to no end. NO END. I am a fantasy writer on my way to getting published. I read both fantasy and science fiction. Yes, fantasy does contain some of the tropes you talk about. There is a lot of romanticizing the past, because that is what fantasy uses as the means to tell a story. However, fantasy as a genre will ALWAYS be more fluid, open-ended, and allow for more possibilities than SF. And it is the amount of possibilities which gives the genre the most opportunity for exploration. I do have to say that "glossing over all the terrible things such as poverty, disease, and lack of sanitation" reeks of ignorance. A couple points. 1. Fantasy (most modern fantasy) has fallen further and further away from medieval tropes/backgrounds. What we are seeing in modern development of the genre is the creation of more and more world/systems that are extremely intricate and refined. Once again - amazing depth of possiblity. 2. "Glossing over terrible things." This is independent of genre. It is a major style choice of writing to focus on positive things and neglect certain more depressing/realistic elements. Happy or sad book, no? It helps a lot with catharsis if we don't have the whole arc be depressing. However, as I said - it is a style choice. There is no reason why lack of sanitation/depression/war/disease/genocide/corruption/poverty/murder/torture/chaos/war cannot happen in a fantasy setting. It does, in fact, happen in many novels. There are some writers who create a serious setting, and some that prefer not to dwell on some issues. I have written books, read books dealing with these issues. They are most definitely considered. What I find that many people seem to disregard the elements most crucial to storytelling, most especially in the SF genre. I have read so many terrible books by SF authors who come up with some idea that they think is wonderful but do not have the skills in fiction to execute it. NO IDEA in genre writing takes precedence over one's ability to write a well written story. If you want that sort of shit, go read hard SF. Most of it isn't even a story, just exploration of future tech/ideas (OBVIOUSLY there are exceptions to this). Read it too, boring as W&P. But hey, if that's your thing, go ahead! Just remember that in the SF genre almost everything has been done to death, so it comes down to your fundamentals as a writer and not so much the idea. But in terms of ideas - fantasy is wide open. A good fantasy writer leaves nothing to chance. Systems are carefully mapped. Magic is merely Earth's current ruleset redefined. Everything within said system is affected by alterations to the ruleset. But it all comes down to fundamentals. A good writer can take a horrible, overused idea and create a book worth reading. Wonderful ideas executed by terrible writers are not worth the read. They can be forgotten, or called a literary masterpiece. But they're definitely not worth my time (or yours). And that, is independent of genre. Good books are timeless. Good books have plots, characters, and worlds worth remembering. Happy reading! I'm not trying to say that fantasy objectively sucks, just why I don't like it. I guess the more accurate way to describe it is that (good) science fiction can be more easily related to the current world than fantasy. Fantasy is always (I think, unless you know differently) set in the past, not even necessarily of Earth's past, so there isn't any real point in trying to trace it forward in time to present day. Science fiction is more philosophically driven than fantasy, which allows it to be analyzed in terms of mankind's eventual development from its current state. What would you personally recommend as some good fantasy books or series? Something that isn't A Song of Ice and Fire, which unfortunately for me falls into the "wonderful ideas executed by terrible writers" group.
Just to break down a few assumptions you have about Fantasy.
Dresden Files series by Jim Butcher. That is urban/contemporary fantasy. It is now with a twist, one of the genres I like the most.
The Bloody Sun by Marion Zimmer Bradley (another case of great ideas bad author), chapter one is among the openings to a book that I have liked the most, the rest of the book falls a bit short. The Darkover universe is probably the most developed of the sci fi clashing with fantasy universes. (It can be interpreted as magic being science step 2 as it is explained as well. Or Science being magic step 2, many different viewpoints over the plenty books in the universe.)
The Blade Itself by Joe Abercrombie has some nice characters and humor I loved. If laughing is something one likes the most famous author for comedy in Fantasy is probably Terry Pratchett.
An example of popular normalish fantasy is The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss. Probably the most popular up and coming series.
|
On August 17 2012 10:12 Newbistic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 13:47 Qwyn wrote:On August 15 2012 21:31 Newbistic wrote:+ Show Spoiler +In general, nerds tend gravitate towards two main genres of fiction, fantasy and science fiction. I hate fantasy and I love science fiction.
Fantasy for me represents a sort of romanticizing of the past, glossing over all the terrible things such as poverty, disease, and lack of sanitation in favor of "oh look, how cool would it be if..." Fantasy brings to life all of the superstition of the past, from alchemy to straight-up magic. But none of it can ever happen. That annoys me to no end. NO END. I am a fantasy writer on my way to getting published. I read both fantasy and science fiction. Yes, fantasy does contain some of the tropes you talk about. There is a lot of romanticizing the past, because that is what fantasy uses as the means to tell a story. However, fantasy as a genre will ALWAYS be more fluid, open-ended, and allow for more possibilities than SF. And it is the amount of possibilities which gives the genre the most opportunity for exploration. I do have to say that "glossing over all the terrible things such as poverty, disease, and lack of sanitation" reeks of ignorance. A couple points. 1. Fantasy (most modern fantasy) has fallen further and further away from medieval tropes/backgrounds. What we are seeing in modern development of the genre is the creation of more and more world/systems that are extremely intricate and refined. Once again - amazing depth of possiblity. 2. "Glossing over terrible things." This is independent of genre. It is a major style choice of writing to focus on positive things and neglect certain more depressing/realistic elements. Happy or sad book, no? It helps a lot with catharsis if we don't have the whole arc be depressing. However, as I said - it is a style choice. There is no reason why lack of sanitation/depression/war/disease/genocide/corruption/poverty/murder/torture/chaos/war cannot happen in a fantasy setting. It does, in fact, happen in many novels. There are some writers who create a serious setting, and some that prefer not to dwell on some issues. I have written books, read books dealing with these issues. They are most definitely considered. What I find that many people seem to disregard the elements most crucial to storytelling, most especially in the SF genre. I have read so many terrible books by SF authors who come up with some idea that they think is wonderful but do not have the skills in fiction to execute it. NO IDEA in genre writing takes precedence over one's ability to write a well written story. If you want that sort of shit, go read hard SF. Most of it isn't even a story, just exploration of future tech/ideas (OBVIOUSLY there are exceptions to this). Read it too, boring as W&P. But hey, if that's your thing, go ahead! Just remember that in the SF genre almost everything has been done to death, so it comes down to your fundamentals as a writer and not so much the idea. But in terms of ideas - fantasy is wide open. A good fantasy writer leaves nothing to chance. Systems are carefully mapped. Magic is merely Earth's current ruleset redefined. Everything within said system is affected by alterations to the ruleset. But it all comes down to fundamentals. A good writer can take a horrible, overused idea and create a book worth reading. Wonderful ideas executed by terrible writers are not worth the read. They can be forgotten, or called a literary masterpiece. But they're definitely not worth my time (or yours). And that, is independent of genre. Good books are timeless. Good books have plots, characters, and worlds worth remembering. Happy reading! I'm not trying to say that fantasy objectively sucks, just why I don't like it. I guess the more accurate way to describe it is that (good) science fiction can be more easily related to the current world than fantasy. Fantasy is always (I think, unless you know differently) set in the past, not even necessarily of Earth's past, so there isn't any real point in trying to trace it forward in time to present day. Science fiction is more philosophically driven than fantasy, which allows it to be analyzed in terms of mankind's eventual development from its current state. What would you personally recommend as some good fantasy books or series? Something that isn't A Song of Ice and Fire, which unfortunately for me falls into the "wonderful ideas executed by terrible writers" group.
Hmm. That's difficult, let's see. Atm I am reading the Malazan Book of the Fallen series (series finished up, had to restart) and it is probably one of the best dark military fantasy I have read, ofc there are magic elements in it (quite a bit) but the characters are pretty damn good. Unlike most fantasy authors he doesn't baby you at all. Bewarned, he came from a D&D background so he is pretty geeky, but he has a great attention to detail and the books get more and more serious as you go along (first book is good, but after that he definitely grows into his capabilities). This is pretty dark, and there is a lot of death in it. It's the opposite of G.R.R.M. in that there is a whole interplay with gods and mortals. At first it might be easy to throw off themes but there are definitely many involved - one of the most obvious being the deep feelings of depression/futility of war. There are a lot of strong characters in this series.
I can get a better list but I read so much shit that it's hard to recall specific series (lol). There are a lot of so-sos.
I do have to agree with your assessment of Martin. I do love his prose (there are a lot of little mini series that he has written and short stories that are fucking amazing - there is a limited edition compendium of Martin before he went major that is just spectacular, he wrote in all sorts of fucking genres SF, horror included), but what happened with Song is the classic case of too much butter scraped on too little bread.
Here's something interesting. You say that good science fiction can almost always be related to the current world than fantasy. This is true, but it's actually a reverse of cause and effect. I've had some great discussions with my aunt (great SF/fantasy reader, runs major conventions all the time) who majored in ancient civilization studies, and in the case of fantasy, the cultures that have been created are in 99% of cases so modern that they don't resemble ancient cultures at all (obv. most cases refer to gender roles). This has to do a lot with connectivity, though there some really good authors that really do explore this.
So in the end, you have a modern world setting (author's point of view) that stacks ancient ideas on top of it. Takes a lot of thinking and preperation to actually construct ideologies and the like from the ground up. People don't realize the wide reaching consequences of beliefs (let alone magic systems). So that's why a lot of fantasy series feel so contrived. But if we remove the modern world view from the equation the whole setting becomes so alien that it takes a great author to really make you feel connected.
Now, in the case of SF, yes it does relate more to the current world than fantasy b/c it is the current world abstracted to the future. Much easier to go forward than to go back (much easier to change the top of the pyramid than the base). And as we are increasingly more liberal in our definition of society we have a good path to follow for the future and good ideas of conflict that might arise.
Marion Zimmer Bradly (as Yurie stated) has some good books and bad books - she was definitely a professional writer in that before she died she had written a lot of books. She is best known for the Darkover series, which is probably her best - she has unique sort of prose that takes some getting used to.
One of the series that I enjoyed just for the story was Jim Butcher's Codex Alera, I actually recommend this over Dresden b/c prose wise it comes out better and it is for the most part more entertaining and concise. Dresden is his money machine, and so he writes the books in an isolated fashion instead of having an overall arc (which I prefer). Quite entertaining, and a good modern twist on the lost legion of Rome (you'd never believe how he started out the series, lol).
I DO NOT recommend The Name of the Wind. For many reasons, most of all being that it is total idle wish fulfillment and one of the worst cases of modern from the bottom up fantasy, and the vibe I'm getting from you is the opposite. It's basically a book where nothing happens, and you could extrapolate the plot to about half a sentence (imagine a book about going to and from the store, repeatedly).
As Yurie also said Joe Abercrombie focuses a lot on humor in his books (does it the best too), those are good reads.
I wold also recommend Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn series. Not only for the first series but for what comes after, the Alloy of Law, as it is one of the most successful attempts at merging magic and technology. It 's really great. Normally I would recommend some more of his series (he is definitely modern, concise, and enjoyable if you just like good stories). But I would say that the one other you should read is his Elantris - it's a great standalone novel and is pretty damn unique.
Now, I would NOT recommend venturing near the Wheel of Time (not your thing). If you have a turnaround, it's there (lol). Good beginning, slow middle, amazing end.
Lastly, the one author I would recommend the most to you is L.E. Modesitt Jr. (you've probably heard of him, c'mon) he writes both fantasy and sci-fi and has written 50+ fantasy books, I have read almost all of them (new Recluse novel, lol). He is the author that above all manages to take fantasy elements and give them a sci-fi feel. I recommend any of his sci-fi books, and of his fantasy series I definitely recommend you read some of the Saga of Recluse (some of them are repetitive, and it is actually written out of chronological order, but they are great to poke around with and my favorite example of magic/tech). His Imager series is also pretty cool.
Wow previewed this post and it's fucking long. F- for being concise, lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
