Why do you choose fantasy over science fiction and visa versa

[elvet]

I'm a fantasy reader. I've tried some science fiction, but I just can't find it appealing. I thought about it, and my best explanation is that science fiction is set in the future, or at least in what seems to be a technically evolved world. It seems to have more gizmos and gadgets, and for some reason often seems set in sterile environments. Fantasy holds more wonder for me, and I like the simplicity of the settings. I also like the idea of magical or spiritual power rather than guns, bombs or biological warfare.
I am just generalising, of course. I'm sure that there is some SF that doesn't fit this mold, and would appeal to me. The closest I've come to reading SF was Tad Williams' Otherworld series. Perhaps you have some suggestions to sway me .

[Rane Longfox]

I much prefer sci-fi to fantasy. Or at least I read a lot more of it - probably the engineer in me trying to force it's way out.

The vast majority of fantasy I try always seems to be set in medieval worlds, and for some reason I just can't stand reading them. Don't really knwo why, but it's a fairly hard and fast rule for me to stick too - if it's medieval, I won't like it. Martin being the obvious exception. If more fantasy was renaissance-era or dark ages then I'd probably read more of it...

[nj1]

I'm more for fantasy, cos i'm not into technology at all, my mobile is for making/recieving calls and thats the way i like it! It's also the most technical thing i own.

[Ursa major]

I prefer SF to Fantasy mainly because there is a limit to how much belief I'm prepared to suspend. (I'll admit it: I'm picky.)

This limit isn't fixed, by the way. An author with a real talent for writing will get me to accept all sorts of things; a bad one will make me doubt that planes can fly. I can also accept unlikely things if they are incidental to an intriguing main idea (and are not too numerous**).

An example: I can accept most, if not all, of the magic in China Miéville's Bas Lag novels because his writing draws me along. (It is this that makes me read the somewhat politicised stuff in the books as well.)



** - There is a tendency in both sub-genres to lob unlikely or fantastic things into the story every now and then simply on the basis that all of their readers are of the "Ooh: shiny new things" persuasion; some of us are not.

[Switchback]

I prefer fantasy as I was a history major in school, and even though it's a fantastic history, fantasy books offer more of a feeling of the past. I dig that...

[Tillane]

I think this comes down to habit. I've read far more sci-fi than I have fantasy, and I think that's because I've grown up reading sci-fi. It seems odd reading fantasy these days - I like fantasy (GRRM's Song of Ice & Fire being a prime example) but I just find SF more fulfilling. Not sure why...

[Lith]

It seems to have more gizmos and gadgets, and for some reason often seems set in sterile environments.

This is what tends to steer me away from SF as well. SF may have food for the brain, but I don't find it as fully engaging as fantasy.

That and I'm fairly firmly in the "Ooh, shiny!" camp, and I'm a card-carrying member of the "whoa, I think my brain exploded contemplating that" club.

That and I love, just LOVE, elves and castles, in spite of how frequently I dislike the author's treatment of them. SF tends not to have them.

Rane, can you elaborate on the difference between Dark Ages and Medieval?

[Switchback]

I don't want to speak for Rane, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Dark Ages was the period of European history before the "High" Middle Ages. I'm thinking like 500 - 1000 AD???

[Rane Longfox]

Well, the Dark Ages were earlier than the Medieval era. The definition is the time when they didn't record much of what happened. It was generally wilder, there wasn't the order and organisation that typefies medieval fantasy... and that I find particularly tedious to read about. Nothing quite like a bit of chaos to make a good book

[Lith]

I find any distinction problematic- mostly because the closer you look at history, the less anything can actually be considered "medieval"- it depends very much on which corner of Europe you are looking, and which aspects of society you look at (such as the feudal order not forming distinctly until much later than we usually think). I was always taught that medieval generally covers 500-1500, basically everything Post-Roman and Pre-Renaissance.

But I agree that the "medieval" order (lords, ladies, peasants, etc.) can get a bit tedious. And often superficial.

[Rane Longfox]

Yes, when I say medieval, I mean a very specific thing - the chivalric knights, pompous lords and their prancing sons, peasents all being very heroic beneath the harsh rule of the baddies, and loving their kind and generous goodie lords. Every cliche I loath about fantasy, really. No doubt they'd be a quest in there somewhere too

[DeepThought]

Originally Posted by elvet

...The closest I've come to reading SF was Tad Williams' Otherworld series...

Yes and a great series, that! and no, I do not prefer one over the other (not necessarily, in any case), rather, I alternate between the two; its like when I read too much fantasy (which I tend to do from time to time) I develop a huge craving for SF and visa versa, this goes on and on to infinity . To be honest, cant think of another one myself (or read, for that matter) that exists in limbo (if you will) between the twin genre's so nicely such as Tad Williams' one does, though I'm quite sure there is a lot.

Cheer's, DeepThought

[Hilarious Joke]

I love fantasy, and I've tried a few sci fi books and I mostly find them stripped of nature and emotion. I think Dune was the last sci fi book I read and it left me depressed, even though it was very creative and very well written. Compare this to Feist, which I am reading, where there is a sense of the unexplained fantastic, quests venturing into the unknown, and the limitations that a medieval world provides.

[clovis-man]

I generally prefer SF to F. And not because I'm a gearhead. While I enjoy "hard" science fiction, it isn't the technology per se which has the most appeal. Rather, I like to see tales woven in a context of something that may, in some way or other, be achievable (if only remotely). This goes for societal speculation as well as for scenarios that deal with travel through time & space. It just seems to make more "sense" to me.

Not that I dislike fantasy. Take Tim Powers as an example. I find most of his stories to be fascinating. And I have to admit it may be because he generally does some homework before putting a yarn into a specific context. And the way he mixes the fantastic with the commonplace is highly entertaining. I have also liked Sean Russell and others of his type. Not big on Goodkind. You draw the inferences.

Jim

[Wiglaf]

I got to thinking, which I realize is dangerous, and think that perhaps I like fantasy because I like quests. You can have a fantasy quest about darn near anything. SF can sometimes be more about technology or a political cautioning against some practice. Also, I may over analyze technology more than magic. A magic pill is hard to argue with. A pill that makes you fly based upon technology? I do not remember an increase in serotonin and dopamine to produce this effect.