Your Fantasy Top Five?

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

What are you talking about? In Martian Time-slip they're talking about colonising and living on mars. It's pretty hard not to see PK Dick as anything but sci-fi. Sure it's not hard sci-fi, but it's definitely sci-fi.

_Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep_ is more a question of what makes us human than it is an examination of the role of technologically developed beings in society...i. e. what "science" there is isn't really important to the story, the same question could have been asked of race (and has been), gender, etc.

_The Broken Bubble_ is more realist than either fantasy or science fiction.

_Deus Irae_?

Of course, one recognizes that the lines blur. Is Star Wars sci fi because it has space ships, or fantasy because it has "magic"? Is Dick a sci-fi writer because often his stories are set in a "futuristic" context, or is he a short story writer in the classic sense because he often asks the important and essential questions that many writers have asked, or is he fantasy because his books have "fantastic" elements, not all of which are science or technologically based? Left Hand of Darkness is another case in point-it takes place on a foreign planet-is it fantsy then or sci fi?

[Falagar]

Defitions of sci-fi by some of the prominent authors:
"Modern science fiction is the only form of literature that consistently considers the nature of the changes that face us, the possible consequences, and the possible solutions."
-Isac Asimov

"Science Fiction is speculative fiction in which the author takes as his first postulate the real world as we know it, including all established facts and natural laws. The result can be extremely fantastic in content, but it is not fantasy; it is legitimate--and often very tightly reasoned--speculation about the possibilities of the real world. This category excludes rocket ships that make U-turns, serpent men of Neptune that lust after human maidens, and stories by authors who flunked their Boy Scout merit badge tests in descriptive astronomy."
-Heinlein

For me, Tolkien's LoTR is a modern novel that takes place in the real world. As Tolkien himself says what is "made up" is the historical period in which the events take place, not the world itself which is our world.

The Hobbit is a children's story that occurs in the same world and made up historical time as LoTR.

So for me, not fantastic and not fantasy, but literature.

Still, the world is made up - it's so far from our own that you can't really say it's our world. Even if Tolkien himself claimed that it's supposed to be a fictional historical time of our own earth, this is not really apparant to the reader. And anyway, fantasy can take place in our own world. There are of course many definitions of fantasy, but most of them include fiction taking place in this world (Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials, Neil Gaiman's American Gods, Clive Barker's Abarat, they're all considered fantasy).

Of course, whether fantasy, sci-fi, horror or romance: it's all literature.

[BeardofPants]

Does that make PK Dick fantasy though? Most of his works tend to examine the inner psyche (valis, ubik, Martian Time-slip, Man in the High Castle, and yes, Electric Sheep)... but this is not something that is prevalent in fantasy literature. Btw, I happen to think that science fiction as a genre is just an extension of the fantasy genre, however, there is a clear demarcation generally between the two. And in the case of PK Dick's works, they are clearly set in futuristic worlds. There's not too much about the style that sets them out as fantasy literature.

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by Falagar

Still, the world is made up - it's so far from our own that you can't really say it's our world. Even if Tolkien himself claimed that it's supposed to be a fictional historical time of our own earth, this is not really apparant to the reader. And anyway, fantasy can take place in our own world. There are of course many definitions of fantasy, but most of them include fiction taking place in this world (Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials, Neil Gaiman's American Gods, Clive Barker's Abarat, they're all considered fantasy).

Of course, whether fantasy, sci-fi, horror or romance: it's all literature.

The quotes could for example fit a lot of things that aren't considered sci-fi, and of couse Heinlein excluded a whole level of things that are typically so considered. And Asimov excluded some of his own sci-fi works!!

Perhaps I should have used Literture? Or called Tolkien the original modern epic form?

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Does that make PK Dick fantasy though? Most of his works tend to examine the inner psyche (valis, ubik, Martian Time-slip, Man in the High Castle, and yes, Electric Sheep)... but this is not something that is prevalent in fantasy literature. Btw, I happen to think that science fiction as a genre is just an extension of the fantasy genre, however, there is a clear demarcation generally between the two. And in the case of PK Dick's works, they are clearly set in futuristic worlds. There's not too much about the style that sets them out as fantasy literature.

But is the futuristic setting what is necessary to define it as SF rather than fantasy? If so, then Terry Brooks' Shanara series is SF. So what is it specificly that defines them as SF rather than fantasy for you?

[BeardofPants]

Well, for me fantasy is about the fantastical, the allusions to fables, magic, myth, quests, and so forth. Science fiction tends to be more 'factual'; the genre usually explores the impact of science upon society. It doesn't necessarily have to be set in a futuristic world for it to be science fiction, and like-wise for fantasy - it doesn't have to be set in by-gone eras. The separation between the two is usually defined by a shift in the approach to writer takes to the material. Fantasy being more fantastical, and science fiction being psuedo-factual, or factual. The aspect of PK Dick's writing that has me being inclined to think that he should be qualified as a science fiction writer is that he often writes about mental illness, and how the individual(s) react to society, and how society reacts to them. His stories tend to be quite intro-spective, and driven by the human condition. They're usually set in futuristic dystopic worlds. Whilst it has to be said that PK Dick doesn't conform to the hard sci-fi genre (like Greg Egan) or space operas, etc, he certainly has his share of "techno-babble" going on in his novel(la)s. To reiterate, the human condition is something to be studied, under the guise of science. Time travel is an aspect of science (depending on how it is employed). So on, and so forth. Now, if you were to ask me what genre Frank Herbert's Dune series were to fall under, I'd be a bit more hard-pressed to argue it for a strictly science-fiction stance. Something like that would fit more comfortably in a science-fantasy type genre.

[Nurvingiel]

In no particular order... (once you reach the level of brilliance these five author's have acheived, ranking is impossible).

J.R.R. Tolkien, Stephen R. Lawhead, Jack Whyte, Robin McKinely, J.K. Rowling

I've been thinking about this thread on and off for a while, and that's definitely my answer. Of course, I do have some honourable mentions to hand out...

[Wayfarer]

Heh. I'd say that Frank Herbert isn't even Science-fantasy. His whole universe is quite fantastical, and it is resplendant with the myth, the quest, the fable, and despite his presentation there is clearly more magic than science at work.

Hmm... My favorite authors. Hard to say, really, I tend to categorize them more as 'good' or 'bad'. Some are 'excellent'.

Two that I can think of right away are Tolkien and Eddings. I can share my least favorite author, though - that's definitely Donaldson.

[BeardofPants]

The first book isn't really full of "technobabble", but the certainly, as the series progresses, technology becomes a more important factor

in hiding the human race (genetic breeding programmes), and certain humans in no-ship technologies. The race of Ix comes to dominate, and they're primarily a technologically driven race.

Though, upon consideration, I guess "space opera" would suffice more than science fantasy.

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Well, for me fantasy is about the fantastical, the allusions to fables, magic, myth, quests, and so forth.

What does that mean, though? Are not myths and fables and so forth examinations of the inner psyche and how it interacts with the outer world? ANd isn't the quest to be human a fantasy theme? Aren't ray guns and floating cars magical?

Science fiction tends to be more 'factual'; the genre usually explores the impact of science upon society.

Right so like Walter Miller's Canticle for Leibowitz...many of Dick's stories are not about the impact of scient on society.


It doesn't necessarily have to be set in a futuristic world for it to be science fiction, and like-wise for fantasy - it doesn't have to be set in by-gone eras. The separation between the two is usually defined by a shift in the approach to writer takes to the material. Fantasy being more fantastical, and science fiction being psuedo-factual, or factual. The aspect of PK Dick's writing that has me being inclined to think that he should be qualified as a science fiction writer is that he often writes about mental illness, and how the individual(s) react to society, and how society reacts to them. His stories tend to be quite intro-spective, and driven by the human condition. They're usually set in futuristic dystopic worlds. Whilst it has to be said that PK Dick doesn't conform to the hard sci-fi genre (like Greg Egan) or space operas, etc, he certainly has his share of "techno-babble" going on in his novel(la)s. To reiterate, the human condition is something to be studied, under the guise of science. Time travel is an aspect of science (depending on how it is employed). So on, and so forth. Now, if you were to ask me what genre Frank Herbert's Dune series were to fall under, I'd be a bit more hard-pressed to argue it for a strictly science-fiction stance. Something like that would fit more comfortably in a science-fantasy type genre.[/QUOTE]

Obviously we disagree.

[Wayfarer]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

The first book isn't really full of "technobabble", but the certainly, as the series progresses, technology becomes a more important factor Though, upon consideration, I guess "space opera" would suffice more than science fantasy.

Right. The lack of technobabble was sort of what I was trying to allude to.

In the world of Dune, I've always felt Herbert takes what would traditionally be called 'magic' and tries to present it as psuedo-science. The mind powers of the Bene Gesserit, the ability to see the future, the various cults (the Bene Gesserit, the navigators guild, the Mentats, the swordmasters) with their special powers and uncanny abilities which don't have any firm grounding in fact - they're explained away in the same way I always tease my little brothers with things they don't understand: 'Oh, it's magic' 'Oh, it's a result of breeding/special training/drug use'.

I mean... for gods sake, besides the clairsentience/future sight that drives the entire plot, we've got spirit guides left and right. In later books, Duncan Idaho appearently learns to cast 'Time Stop', and has to deal with the 'Dominate Person' spells that certain individuals cast during sex.

There's some genuine technology - the ships, the lasrifles, the shields... but by and large, most of what drives the society is essentially magic.

There is certainly a great deal of similarity to that other Space Opera (Star Wars). I'd tend to characterize them both as more fantasy than Scifi, though Dune has always seemed even less 'science-y' than SW. In the one case, we've got plenty of technology, and one instance of magic that is used by a very few people. In the other case, we've got only a few instances of technology and many instances of what I'd call magic.

And before anyone else brings it up: I've never bought into the 'advanced technology is the same as magic' explaination. I think that's a lame excuse. Technology is external and mechanical, and takes advantage of natural laws to produce a predictable result. It can be explained and understood. Magic just happens.

So... er... anyway. Not that we're off-topic, has anybody read Jack Vance? I haven't, actually, but it's appearently from his writing that we get one word for what I just did to this thread - to pnume.

[Manveru]

my favs are:
JRR Tolkien
CS Lewis
Lloyd Alexander

[Lief Erikson]

I agree with BoP on this, Forkbeard. Fantasy to me is involving normally a more medieval type setting. Industry isn't involved. Rifles are rarely permitted. Cars, space ships, ray guns and such aren't permitted. Magic, quests, a general medieval type format, perhaps some strange monsters and races that are of a mythological/legendary nature. High technology is normally not permitted, unless perhaps it's highly bonded with magic. This is perhaps not the correct definition of fantasy, but it is the definition of fantasy that is normally accepted. Sci-fi is more technology based. Normally it is based on the future. Fantasy is more medieval based. Normally it is based on the past. Those are the images that come into most people's minds when they think of fantasy or sci-fi. They may not be correct, but that's just the normal.

Of course, my view may not be important to you . Though it should be! I mean, duh! Who's broadly acknowledged as the smartest person on Entmoot?

Anyhow, I leave you to attempt to respond to my post .

[Iboen]

Dah! I hate it when people do this to me! I try to think of my favourite writers...and they disappear...hmm
In no order:
Chris Paolini
Garth Nix
Tim Bowler
Philip Pullman
Cornelia Funke
Gail Carson Levine
Woo! Go me!

[Rosie Gamgee]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I agree with BoP on this, Forkbeard. Fantasy to me is involving normally a more medieval type setting. Industry isn't involved. Rifles are rarely permitted. Cars, space ships, ray guns and such aren't permitted. Magic, quests, a general medieval type format, perhaps some strange monsters and races that are of a mythological/legendary nature. High technology is normally not permitted, unless perhaps it's highly bonded with magic. This is perhaps not the correct definition of fantasy, but it is the definition of fantasy that is normally accepted. Sci-fi is more technology based. Normally it is based on the future. Fantasy is more medieval based. Normally it is based on the past. Those are the images that come into most people's minds when they think of fantasy or sci-fi. They may not be correct, but that's just the normal.

Of course, my view may not be important to you . Though it should be! I mean, duh! Who's broadly acknowledged as the smartest person on Entmoot?

Anyhow, I leave you to attempt to respond to my post .

Sounds right to me.

[Pytt]

my alltime favourite is J.R.R. Tolkien. all of his works.
C.S Lewis and Robert Jordan afterwards. thats all the fantasy authours I have read something of.
and besides I think Lief is right about what is fantasy.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

Um...

Tolkien
John Ronald Reuel Tolkien
John R.R. Tolkien
John Tolkien
J.R.R. Tolkien

That's about as far as it goes.

Hm... can I put more than 5, since those would be at the top of the list...?

in order (I think...)

6) Terry Brooks
7)Anne McCaffrey
8) George RR Martin & Robert Jordan
10) Ursula LeGuin


oh! I'll respond to Lief.

I agree completely. It seems to me that good sci-fi tends to romanticise a futuristic world, while good fantasy usually romanticises a world of the past.

My brother and I look at sci-fi as the dreams of the mind; and fantasy as the dreams of the soul.

Elemire!!! You put Brooks ahead of Jordan??? How could you??? And over Earthsea? TRAITOR!!!!!!!

Oh; my top 5
1: Norse, Celtic and Greek Mythology. The earliest sources of brilliance
1: Tolkien (who else) (tie)
3: Lucas (Star Wars has both fantasy and sci fi elements)
4: Robert Jordan
5: Ursula K. Leguinn
6: Terry Brooks
7: George R.R. Martin
8: Salvatore
9: Piers Anthony
10: someone I forgot about

honorable mention: Terry Pratchett.

[BeardofPants]

At least she can spell "LeGuin"...

[Elemmírë]

Nice one, Boppy.

You got that, Finnrodde?

By the way, Finnrodde, my name is Elemmire, not Elemire.

Also known as Amarie, Ungoliant, 'Mire, LM, Ellie, and.... Boggy.

(didn't leave anything out, did I?)

And I happen to like Brooks better than Jordan. I can't recall one of the books that disappointed me at all... though I could be wrong.

The LeGuin... I don't know. I was having trouble putting them in order. And I completely forgot Star Wars. Everyone, bump that up to #2 behind Tolkien. Well... #6, I guess it was...

By the way, everyone, Finnrodde is my brother.

Hopefully he will have the sense eventually to start a new account using the name "Finrod" since it by itself is still untaken...

Or a new name altogether... how about Orondil or Orondur? I think that would translate well enough from your real name, Highlander.