Is fantasy more popular than sci fi?

nyarlothothep

It seems to me the average person is less inclined to write off fantasy as silly/ridiculous etc compared to sci fi, maybe because the latter genre is partly rooted in reality? But I also think that fantasy appeals to the innately traditionalist/conservative aspects of the human mind and therefore is more popular, as Sideshow Bob once said, deep down you all yearn for a Republican to rule you like a king! Not only that I think sci fi is too intellectual at least in my experience, most people don't want to think about stuff, they want simple, parochial narratives, political intrigue would fit well here whereas sci fi explores the limits of human understanding, seen from space, the political feuds that transpire on earth would seem utterly irrelevant. Fantasy is more grounded in what already is, people like this, they don't want progression, they want the status quo and fantasy fulfills this, especially a show like GoT which has a profoundly nihilistic message about the nature of human beings. Discuss.

Nody

You over simplify things to the nth degree by claiming that fantasy is simple and basic and scifi is some pillar of excellence esp. if you are going to use a tv show as a basis for your argument. I'd argue there's more trash scifi than fantasy books for example and there are plenty of scifi books that are focused on the human nature (see Dune or Foundation series for example) which are widely acclaimed as among the best of the genre. Want to talk about exploring possibilities then talk about for example the Wheel of Times and the alternate dimensions hinted at, or how about the human remore in the white gold series that's nothing to do with politics.

If anything Scifi have a tendency to go "it's technology" to deal with complex subjects as an excuse rather than dealing with the concepts at hand. Also most "grandiose" scifi books are simply taking what you call political intrigue" and throw in aliens as replacement for other nations and say it's played over worlds rather than countries. All it's done is rename the sides but in reality it's really the same thing painted with slightly different names but the end narrative ends up the same.

nyarlothothep

The Foundation series was much more than just about human nature but what was great about it was that it didn't hammer home the incredibly tired though massively popular sentiment that human nature fundamentally equates to selfish/evil. I find this to be the case with GoT. Of course sci fi that uses techno-babble or magic to solve all its problems is even worse than the worst fantasy. Voyager is the worst sci fi show ever made because of this and the way in which is raises issues but never confronts them in an intelligent manner instead resorting to justifying Janeway's atrocities. I think fantasy taps into yearning of people for a return to a strictly heirarchical agrarian based economy/society. People love to know their place and expect others to do so as well. People are parochial and want a return to the old certainties of feudalism. This is the appeal of fantasy. Perhaps in this sense fantasy reflects a subconscious dissatisfaction with democracy and enlightenment principles. Also fantasy appeals to the emotions rather than the intellect much more so than sci fi or at least that's how it's perceived, it's more associated with romanticism.

Nody

nyarlothothep wrote: »

The Foundation series was much more than just about human nature but what was great about it was that it didn't hammer home the incredibly tired though massively popular sentiment that human nature fundamentally equates to selfish/evil. I find this to be the case with GoT.

Really? Should we talk about how the old empire acted? The Strong Emperor / Strong General etc. combinations discussed? The actions of the second colony? The reaction of the freak? Heck we can go back to the first crisis, what was the trigger and solution that was NOT human nature related? The Foundation series is about human nature, it's about how the fundamental humanity as a group is acting (hence the statistics possible) and how to get away from the human nature (to avoid the million lost years of chaos). I love the series but don't claim it's about technology.

Of course sci fi that uses techno-babble or magic to solve all its problems is even worse than the worst fantasy. Voyager is the worst sci fi show ever made because of this and the way in which is raises issues but never confronts them in an intelligent manner instead resorting to justifying Janeway's atrocities.

No; they are simply using the tools at hand to explain something away; how well it is done drives the quality in itself.

I think fantasy taps into yearning of people for a return to a strictly heirarchical agrarian based economy/society. People love to know their place and expect others to do so as well. People are parochial and want a return to the old certainties of feudalism.

Sorry but no, just no. Let's take Tolkien as a classic fantasy example, what does that have to do with feudalism compared to the fact it's a hero story in the style of old (think Troy)? Or how about Pratchett which is one of the greater fantasy authors in late years; how does his stories relate to feudalism and "knowing your place"? The simple fact is you're cherry picking to try to fit your argument rather than look at the full spectrum of fantasy and let that drive to the conclusion. The simple fact is even in the bread & butter fantasy such as Edding's Belgarion series shows a rejection of your ideas from the mocking of kings & gentry to the strong female lead characters and that's before you talk about the likes of the engineer trilogy etc. which contains no magic at all for example.

This is the appeal of fantasy. Perhaps in this sense fantasy reflects a subconscious dissatisfaction with democracy and enlightenment principles. Also fantasy appeals to the emotions rather than the intellect much more so than sci fi or at least that's how it's perceived, it's more associate with romanticism.

Sorry but you can claim exactly the same of scifi stories; they usually have clear hierarchies on the ship/planets/military with clear leaders who has to make the tough calls etc. letting the reader not have to make the tough calls.

The simple fact is fantasy & scifi is simply taking the same story and placing them in two different worlds; either you have magic as the answer or you have technology as the answer to explain away items. In fantasy you roll up with your sneaky gang of dwarfs, elves and a mystical old person while in scifi you're a random gang of outcasts from several races lead by an old man and you have magic/technology to help with overcoming stuff you don't want to explain. The one main difference though is that fantasy can easier get away with things because it's "in the past" so to speak while scifi are placed in the future and the assumptions made tend not to hold up over time (as things progress and we get more advanced gadgets); how ever the real good stories that don't rely on magic/technology overcome this no matter which universe they are in.

nyarlothothep

Nody wrote: »

Really? Should we talk about how the old empire acted? The Strong Emperor / Strong General etc. combinations discussed? The actions of the second colony? The reaction of the freak? Heck we can go back to the first crisis, what was the trigger and solution that was NOT human nature related? The Foundation series is about human nature, it's about how the fundamental humanity as a group is acting (hence the statistics possible) and how to get away from the human nature (to avoid the million lost years of chaos). I love the series but don't claim it's about technology.

No; they are simply using the tools at hand to explain something away; how well it is done drives the quality in itself.

Sorry but no, just no. Let's take Tolkien as a classic fantasy example, what does that have to do with feudalism compared to the fact it's a hero story in the style of old (think Troy)? Or how about Pratchett which is one of the greater fantasy authors in late years; how does his stories relate to feudalism and "knowing your place"? The simple fact is you're cherry picking to try to fit your argument rather than look at the full spectrum of fantasy and let that drive to the conclusion. The simple fact is even in the bread & butter fantasy such as Edding's Belgarion series shows a rejection of your ideas from the mocking of kings & gentry to the strong female lead characters and that's before you talk about the likes of the engineer trilogy etc. which contains no magic at all for example.

Sorry but you can claim exactly the same of scifi stories; they usually have clear hierarchies on the ship/planets/military with clear leaders who has to make the tough calls etc. letting the reader not have to make the tough calls.

The simple fact is fantasy & scifi is simply taking the same story and placing them in two different worlds; either you have magic as the answer or you have technology as the answer to explain away items. In fantasy you roll up with your sneaky gang of dwarfs, elves and a mystical old person while in scifi you're a random gang of outcasts from several races lead by an old man and you have magic/technology to help with overcoming stuff you don't want to explain. The one main difference though is that fantasy can easier get away with things because it's "in the past" so to speak while scifi are placed in the future and the assumptions made tend not to hold up over time (as things progress and we get more advanced gadgets); how ever the real good stories that don't rely on magic/technology overcome this no matter which universe they are in.

How long did it take you to multiquote all that, honest answer please? I would just ask if you could refrain from multiquote as it's a chore to address points in that way. Not that you have to but I won't bother replying otherwise.

Well in relation to Foundation, I haven't read the books in almost 20 years, but I do remember technology playing an important role and there were many themes, human nature being one of them and even then it wasn't depicted in a lazy Wall Street way, but from an objective exploratory standpoint.

No, if you use techno babble to solve a problem you've failed as a scriptwriter, saying otherwise is just trying to win points.

The beauty of sci fi is that even if you do have heirarchical structures you still have the memory of pluralistic democracy overshadowing the events. LOTR, in fact all fantasy brings out the insular, tribalistic nature that defines the majority of human beings. It provides people with strong narratives of certainty rooted in traditionalism. In fact it could be more science fiction that science fiction itself, as once our brief window of technological progress and prosperity ends with resource depletion we will enter a new dark age, knowledge will be lost and we'll go back to wearing loin clothes. And secretly most people will welcome the prospect as most people are at heart insular, backwards, conservative and superstitious . Fantasy plays into all that.

Nody

nyarlothothep wrote: »

How long did it take you to multiquote all that, honest answer please? I would just ask if you could refrain from multiquote as it's a chore to address points in that way. Not that you have to but I won't bother replying otherwise.

It takes less then 3s per quote; you simply copy [/QUOTE] and paste it in as required (removing the slash at the start for the first one of the quoted section). That also helps to ensure you address the individual points and create a clear coherence over all to which point you're talking about.

Well in relation to Foundation, I haven't read the books in almost 20 years, but I do remember technology playing an important role and there were many themes, human nature being one of them and even then it wasn't depicted in a lazy Wall Street way, but from an objective exploratory standpoint.

It spent less time talking about technology then it did talking about human reaction. It explains why the colony has small items (low metal world) but does not go into any discussion how it evolved beyond that. Take that to the whole story itself which is about human reaction (as a group and as individuals) when faced with something to overcome and how they evolve due to the challenges that they meet. There's no discussion going on about the Empire's nuclear pistols; they simply have them but there is a discussion on why the Empire would give said pistols to a petty dictator on the fringe and what's the implications are for the Empire's mentality doing it etc.

The beauty of sci fi is that even if you do have heirarchical structures you still have the memory of pluralistic democracy overshadowing the events. LOTR, in fact all fantasy brings out the insular, tribalistic nature that defines the majority of human beings. It provides people with strong narratives of certainty rooted in traditionalism. In fact it could be more science fiction that science fiction itself, as once our brief window of technological progress and prosperity ends with resource depletion we will enter a new dark age, knowledge will be lost and we'll go back to wearing loin clothes. And secretly most people will welcome the prospect as most people are at heart insular, backwards, conservative and superstitious . Fantasy plays into all that.

Once again with your assumptions; you're argument boils down to this "I think people are stupid and that's why they like fantasy". You don't actually back up any of your arguments with any references beyond "I think", "People do", "People want" etc. but that's all making references to outdated models of humanity and lack correlation to your argument.

It would be like me stating well because 50 shades sold so well it proves women likes to be tied up and whipped but that's not actually backed up by anything relevant beyond my opinion. It would also be drawing conclusions from two points that have no relation to each other; I might as well state that because it was raining today women like to be whipped as well because the correlation between the two are about as strong. Because A happened before B does not make A rely on B.

nyarlothothep

I know how it works, but it doesn't take me 3s to do it. I find it laborious but it obviously suits the neat and tidy approach which I personally wouldn't have time for.

So what does 50 Shades say about women?

beauf

nyarlothothep wrote: »

It seems to me the average person is less inclined to write off fantasy as silly/ridiculous etc compared to sci fi, ...

I've not found that to be true. Probably the opposite.

In the past sci-fi and fantasy were kinda lumped together. I'd guess people tend to dislike or like both, more often rather than one or the other.

I wouldn't drag GOT into it as I don't think its representative of the genre as a whole. I think its a different issue. Ditto, Voyager which I like, was ruined by the horrible Janeway character. But it really piggy backed on the success of the other Trek Francise. So again I don't think its representative of the genre.

The popularity of TV and movies being quite different to books. Especially in terms of marketing and promotion.

Foundation is part of the classic Sci-Fi where it was more about the idea's and concepts. Something that is difficult to translate to popular fast media.

nyarlothothep

There aren't any good new sci fi shows on TV atm. I think this is attributable to the fact that space travel no longer inspires people and everyone knows AI is a far off dream. (Actually I think the AI/dystopian apocalypse thing has been done to death at this stage, yes you could say the same thing about space settings I guess, I just find them more interesting with more scope for exploration. The reason that space based shows are unpopular is that we all know we're never going to explore space, it's impossible, as a species we're not smart enough to travel beyond our own solar system which is our backyard and certainly not "deep space". Or it could be just that the laws of the universe forbid any way of travelling ftl. Originally when there was a motivation to go into space, the appeal of science fiction was much stronger, particularly in relation to space. Now all NASA can do is send up an ugly vehicle that isn't even deep space capable, it's just meant to one step of many on an overly cautious and glacially paced pointless mission to Mars which even though cool and even though it will bring about many scientific advances isn't really solving the problem of how do travel through space efficiently and cheaply like we would sail the oceans of Earth? So people don't want sci fi as it no longer inspires their imaginations, that and also wanting to be ruled by kings.

beauf

Humans starts this week

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4122068/

nyarlothothep

Yet it's set in the present and just involves robot servants, meh, I dunno, I crave another show like BSG.

ixoy

Another reason space shows are unpopular is just that they're expensive: People expect Hollywood level effects and that's just not possible on a TV budget. Even 'Game of Thrones', with its ~€6m an episode struggles with effects at times.

beauf

Remember Bab 5

Foundation Imaging houses 24 Amiga 2000s, 16 of which serve as dedicated rendering engines. Each of the 16 packs 32 megabytes of RAM, a Fusion 40 accelerator, and a Toaster. All the Amigas share data through a Novell network and offload data to a 12-gigabyte 486 PC file server. Beigle-Bryant's home-brew task manager parcels out rendering work to each of the Amigas in the rack and ensures that no machine sits idle. Thanks to his clever resource management, the rendering time for a frame of "Babylon 5" animation averages 45 minutes, not too much more than that required for the less complex models used in the pilot episode. A true technologist, Beigle-Bryant takes pride in the fact that no machine sits through a day without working. Even the animation workstations double as serious data crunchers when the animators themselves take a break.

http://www.atarimagazines.com/compute/issue166/68_The_making_of_Babylo.php

nyarlothothep

On the subject of Babylon 5 I distantly remember it had a song where this guy was like "Babylon fiiiivvveeee Babylon fiiiiiiiiiiivvvvvvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeeeeeee". I thought it was the theme song until I checked but I can't find it anywhere on youtube.