Scifi

banjobongo

just a quick glance at this forum and it seems to be mostly fantasy related.....any chance of seperating them? I like some fantasy, but very little, and none of the current bunch....

ixoy

banjobongo wrote: »

just a quick glance at this forum and it seems to be mostly fantasy related.....any chance of seperating them? I like some fantasy, but very little, and none of the current bunch....

There's no need to separate them though. There's nothing stopping anyone from starting a science fiction related thread. It just happens that fantasy is more popular in literature so gets more threads.

Trojan

It's interesting, I read way more scifi than fantasy when I was a kid (in the '80s), maybe a ratio of 50:1 or more. That's almost completely reversed, probably around 20:1 fantasy:scifi now.

Anyone else the same? Is it just that the fantasy genre has grown so much in the past 30 years, or is it a downturn in the number of quality sf writers, or something else?

mcgovern

Trojan wrote: »

It's interesting, I read way more scifi than fantasy when I was a kid (in the '80s), maybe a ratio of 50:1 or more. That's almost completely reversed, probably around 20:1 fantasy:scifi now.

Anyone else the same? Is it just that the fantasy genre has grown so much in the past 30 years, or is it a downturn in the number of quality sf writers, or something else?

I used to read only Sci-Fi, but now I find it quite hard to find good sci-fi. Maybe the reason I read more fantasy now is that I have a wider range to choose from, having not read much for years though!

wyrn

Trojan wrote: »

It's interesting, I read way more scifi than fantasy when I was a kid (in the '80s), maybe a ratio of 50:1 or more. That's almost completely reversed, probably around 20:1 fantasy:scifi now.

Anyone else the same? Is it just that the fantasy genre has grown so much in the past 30 years, or is it a downturn in the number of quality sf writers, or something else?

I'm the same. Grew up reading a lot of sci-fi and a bit of fantasy, but this has completely changed. Didn't realise it till just now. I think the main reason for me is that fantasy books tend to have sagas, unlike sci-fi which are generally a one off.

Last year I decided to start the Wheel of Time series and bought/read the whole series in a row. About to start the Malzaan series, but I've been putting it off. I get way too addicted to reading series.

Nody

I've swung twice; used to be 95% SciFi, 5% Fantasy, swung to 100% Fantasy and now I'd say I'm back to 75% SciFi and 25% Fantasy again. The main reason for me to swing back to SciFi was reading a few omnibooks with short stories which rekindled my SciFi interest (while fantasy still has some interesting stories more and more I find them to be rehashes of a common theme and I'm looking for what's new/unique).

who_me

I'm kind of the same. I love Sci-fi, but find it hard to find any good books. Much of it seems to be very simplistic, perhaps targeted at a younger audience. Which, of course, becomes a vicious circle.

Dades

While two of the best series I've ever read were fantasy (ASOIAF and His Dark Materials) I still read almost all SF still.

I just find it much more difficult to embrace "magic" than laser guns and interstellar travel, especially when some thought has been put into the feasibility /mechanics of the tech involved.

ixoy

I try and keep it 50/50 but I've found there's a heavier lean towards fantasy. I think there's a few reasons:

Fantasy's gone through a bit of a revamp in the last few years with interesting authors (Erikson, Mievill, etc) whose new ideas and different style which have helped break away from some of the tired clichés.

Secondly, as mentioned above, they tend to be nearly always be series so you're more likely to read more to just get the full story. Even a trilogy doesn't suffice now for the 10 and 10+ book series.

Thirdly, those books also tend to be longer so I'm spending more time reading them. Peter F. Hamilton aside, sci-fi books rarely are door stoppers unlike the many fantasy tomes that creak in at over 700 pages (and some into the four figures!).

Manach

It used to be mostly SciFi, and then the classics like Clarke, Asimov and Heinlein but nowadays more on the Fantasy. Easier to digest after a long day at work and more relatable moral universe. Also branched out to historical fiction like Patrick O'Brian.

Dan_Solo

My current routine is

1. Classic SF
2. Classic fantasy
3. Newish SF
4. Newish fantasy

I read about 30 D+D novels in a row at one stage, so I do tend to avoid the generic fantasy stuff now as much as possible. I could never get military SF either. Don't mind a bit of fantasy/SF mixed with horror, but never horror on it's own.
I think about this too much.

Goldstein

100% sci-fi myself. Rarely visit here tbh because it's nearly all fantasy being discussed so would concur with the OP in that regard. The grouping of sci-fi and fantasy everywhere has always somewhat annoyed me as the crossover between the genres isn't massive considering the size of each with the vast majority of work falling into one category or the other.

There are enough top grade sci-fi books for any avid reader's lifetime. Taking the Nebula, Hugo and Loci winners and Gollancz's SF masterworks series as a foundation and expanding into other works by those authors should keep anyone happy for a few decades. The problem is not having enough time

Trojan

Goldstein wrote: »

Rarely visit here tbh because it's nearly all fantasy being discussed

Chicken and egg scenario. Start some discussions on scifi.

If you back read the "What are you reading?" thread you'll see a lot of scifi mentioned - just not so much in threads external to that one.

wyrn

I love Sci Fi but it's easier to dip into a fantasy book before bedtime rather than some Sci Fi books.

For example, I loved The Quantum Thief but the author doesn't explain some of the words/concepts at all, so it can be a nightmare trying to figure out what's going on when you are wrecked. At least in some fantasy books they sometimes give you a list at the end of the book (even if it's just a list of family names). Having said that, it's a great book, I'd highly recommend it. I'm waiting till I've a few days free to start on the sequel.

Having said all that, I'm a sucker for reading a book with a map in it.

OwaynOTT

I'd like to read more scifi books but struggle to find any information on new books online. Any chance of links to a few blogs that would review these sort of books?

banjobongo

hi all, great response to my thread and interesting reading. I just find it frustrating that every library, book shop and even Boards.ie lumps science fiction and fantasy together, I dont think they belong in the same category at all. Science fiction is about having fun with the rules of science or based on a groundwork of reason, fantasy is - whatever the writer wants to write about, no rules or logic need apply. How can they be lumped into the same category?

Dades

OwaynOTT wrote: »

I'd like to read more scifi books but struggle to find any information on new books online. Any chance of links to a few blogs that would review these sort of books?

Try Goodreads. Loads of reviews and recommendations (there's a Boards group though it's quiet). I also use Amazon's reviews to get an idea as to whether a book is well received, and to search for new stuff.

banjobongo wrote: »

hi all, great response to my thread and interesting reading. I just find it frustrating that every library, book shop and even Boards.ie lumps science fiction and fantasy together, I dont think they belong in the same category at all. Science fiction is about having fun with the rules of science or based on a groundwork of reason, fantasy is - whatever the writer wants to write about, no rules or logic need apply. How can they be lumped into the same category?

I find in general people I know who read SF have dabbled in Fantasy too, and vice-versa.

Also, there's often little to tell between the two. Take Dune, for example. It's SF that reads more like Fantasy.

Dan_Solo

OwaynOTT wrote: »

I'd like to read more scifi books but struggle to find any information on new books online. Any chance of links to a few blogs that would review these sort of books?

www.sfsite.com has no end of reviews, though they're probably slightly too enthusiastic about everything, good or bad.

ixoy

I do like when they attempt to separate them - only Waterstones in the Jervis S.C. did this (when it was there). Some people will only read the one genre although a lot of fans will dabble in both (as indicated by this thread).

I suppose we can get problems in separating them out, as above. I mean 'Star Wars' is so light on the science part of science fiction it almost falls into fantasy in some ways. Then there's authors who jump between the genres:
China Mieville's stuff is primarily fantasy so people would miss out on the excellent 'Embassytown' if they're separated out.
Similarly Richard Morgan's Kovacs fans wouldn't see his 'A Land Fit for Heroes' series as it's fantasy but, at the same time, seemingly tied into those Kovacs novels.

mewso

While I read both it's a pity there only a Best Fantasy sticky. It does kind of give a certain impression. If I made a list today I think there would be more Sci-Fi on it than Fantasy but that doesn't shape my decision making on what to read next. As has been said plenty of interesting Fantasy work these days. Takes a lot to top the likes of Hyperion and the Gap series for me even today though.

Trojan

mewso wrote: »

it's a pity there only a Best Fantasy sticky. It does kind of give a certain impression.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056964743

mewso wrote: »

Takes a lot to top the likes of Hyperion and the Gap series for me even today though.

For the record, I hated Hyperion

mewso

Trojan wrote: »

For the record, I hated Hyperion

The whole series of books or just the first one?

Trojan

The series. I forced myself to read Hyperion and half-way through The Fall of Hyperion, at which point I gave up. I just didn't like the style at all. I didn't immerse in it.

nyarlothothep

95% Sci Fi, forcing myself to read GoT book 1, nearly finished, apparently it gets better afterwards? It's weird reading it because I know what's going to happen and visualise it in terms of the series.

Poetry is apparently a distilled form of literary expression, compared to prose its meant to convey its meaning in fundamental terms, it's not a representation of meaning like the way a painting of a dog is representing a dog, or a worded description of a door is a representation of a door, it's meaning and words are supposed to be almost one and the same, it's meant to be closer music as a more essentialised form of art.

I think one good self contained book that's really well executed will convey just the same level of memorable characters/events and immersion as a door stopper saga. Like poetry compared to prose, less is sometimes more. A more self contained carefully scribed narrative will have more of an impact than a big unwiedly epic saga. It conveys the meaning/themes/characters in a more powerful sense because it's not diluted by filler. I find with sci fi that there are way too many epic battles for the fate of the universe type plots eg Peter F. Hamilton, fun to read at the time but ultimately kind of tiring. I think a book like A Scanner Darkly can be just as good as any Peter F. Hamilton saga because there is comparatively much less filler. It's harder to maintain a high quality of expression over 3/5/10 books. I think that's my main problem with sci fi/fantasy in general, too many epic battle plots. GoT is ok though because from the series I guess it's much more about the machinations of the characters and the characters themselves than a sprawling epic plot. It's more like a parable about the attainment of the power of the sovereign and what people do to get it. The character interactions and the politics are what make it novel.

Trojan

(off-topic for sf)

nyarlothothep wrote: »

95% Sci Fi, forcing myself to read GoT book 1, nearly finished, apparently it gets better afterwards?

I hated book 1 and gave up on ASOIAF about 100 pages from the end. Far too slow moving, and no characters that the reader could empathise with. It was only after I'd seen Season 1 of GOT that I decided to pick up book 2 and thankfully GRRM had picked up the pace a bit.

Dades

Trojan wrote: »

For the record, I hated Hyperion

Trojan wrote: »

I hated book 1 and gave up on ASOIAF about 100 pages from the end.

Trojan

Dades wrote: »

Hey, I call 'em as I see 'em. My tolerance for stuff that's hard to read has gone from 100% to about 5% (I read The Black Company despite book 1)

Game of Thrones (the book) was ponderous and nothing happened for about 400 pages while GRRM manoeuvred folks into position.

I just didn't like the writing style of Hyperion. I guess this ain't the right thread to say I didn't like Malazan either, right?

Oh dear, is that a pulsating vein in your temple?

Damnit, err, aliens... space invaders, star wars, lasertag!

Playboy

nyarlothothep wrote: »

95% Sci Fi, forcing myself to read GoT book 1, nearly finished, apparently it gets better afterwards? It's weird reading it because I know what's going to happen and visualise it in terms of the series.

Poetry is apparently a distilled form of literary expression, compared to prose its meant to convey its meaning in fundamental terms, it's not a representation of meaning like the way a painting of a dog is representing a dog, or a worded description of a door is a representation of a door, it's meaning and words are supposed to be almost one and the same, it's meant to be closer music as a more essentialised form of art.

I think one good self contained book that's really well executed will convey just the same level of memorable characters/events and immersion as a door stopper saga. Like poetry compared to prose, less is sometimes more. A more self contained carefully scribed narrative will have more of an impact than a big unwiedly epic saga. It conveys the meaning/themes/characters in a more powerful sense because it's not diluted by filler. I find with sci fi that there are way too many epic battles for the fate of the universe type plots eg Peter F. Hamilton, fun to read at the time but ultimately kind of tiring. I think a book like A Scanner Darkly can be just as good as any Peter F. Hamilton saga because there is comparatively much less filler. It's harder to maintain a high quality of expression over 3/5/10 books. I think that's my main problem with sci fi/fantasy in general, too many epic battle plots. GoT is ok though because from the series I guess it's much more about the machinations of the characters and the characters themselves than a sprawling epic plot. It's more like a parable about the attainment of the power of the sovereign and what people do to get it. The character interactions and the politics are what make it novel.

Agree to an extent. It's why I like Joe Abercrombie so much. After his inital trilogy he has written a number of one off novels set in the same universe.. The meta is familiar but the stories are different, the main characters change and the themes are very different. Familiar yet different. Each story has closure and I don't feel like I have to read ten books or wait years to find out what is going to happen.