Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Disconzi" data-source="post: 4361121" data-attributes="member: 43253">I strongly disagree that SF is about robots, lasers and space stuff. As I see things, SF is just like fantasy, except that SF authors aren't as lazy as fantasy authors, who run away from any setting elements that can &quot;cause&quot; industrial revolution and such -- it would make the setting much more complex than they would like, or adds more complexity than they're capable of working on. One example (which someone already mentioned) is Miéville's Perdido Street Station, which won awards on both fantasy and SF categories. Magic does exist in Bas-Lag, but it's treated like a science -- it can be quantified, explained in a satisfying way. And better yet -- there is technology build using it. Lazy fantasy authors, in the other hand, get away with the pitiful &quot;it's magic&quot;. When you join &quot;it's magic&quot; and deities that actually interfere in the world, you have the perfect deus ex machina scenario -- the ultimate life-saver for lazy authors. There can be SF with golems, elementals, necromancers and the whole shebang -- the so-called difference between fantasy and SF most people claim to exist is only based in asthetics. If you have &quot;robots&quot; that &quot;are powered by magic, period&quot; and don't even bother to explain, even superficially, how it works, it's still fantasy, be there robots or not. The real difference, in my oppinion, lies in how the fantastic/unlikely/&quot;supernatural&quot; elements are developed. *Good* fantasy world building is not different at all from a good SF world building. Bad fantasy world building, with all its elves, racial stereotyping, &quot;it's magic&quot; and ever-interfering deities, on the other hand, is.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Disconzi, post: 4361121, member: 43253"] I strongly disagree that SF is about robots, lasers and space stuff. As I see things, SF is just like fantasy, except that SF authors aren't as lazy as fantasy authors, who run away from any setting elements that can "cause" industrial revolution and such -- it would make the setting much more complex than they would like, or adds more complexity than they're capable of working on. One example (which someone already mentioned) is Miéville's Perdido Street Station, which won awards on both fantasy and SF categories. Magic does exist in Bas-Lag, but it's treated like a science -- it can be quantified, explained in a satisfying way. And better yet -- there is technology build using it. Lazy fantasy authors, in the other hand, get away with the pitiful "it's magic". When you join "it's magic" and deities that actually interfere in the world, you have the perfect deus ex machina scenario -- the ultimate life-saver for lazy authors. There can be SF with golems, elementals, necromancers and the whole shebang -- the so-called difference between fantasy and SF most people claim to exist is only based in asthetics. If you have "robots" that "are powered by magic, period" and don't even bother to explain, even superficially, how it works, it's still fantasy, be there robots or not. The real difference, in my oppinion, lies in how the fantastic/unlikely/"supernatural" elements are developed. *Good* fantasy world building is not different at all from a good SF world building. Bad fantasy world building, with all its elves, racial stereotyping, "it's magic" and ever-interfering deities, on the other hand, is. [/QUOTE]

Verification