We have moved to new forum software and posting here is closed!

PLEASE BOOKMARK THE NEW FORUMS

Posted By: Darkmynd Jan 05, 2001 - 12:03 am

On this forum, I've read that fantasy is formulaic and sci-fi is technobabble... Then why read it?

The thing is, all fantasy is not formulaic and all sci-fi is not just technobabble. We should be careful not to stereotype these genres too much. There are authors out there who are original and there are authors that write your typical, as they put it "farmer kills king and marries princess" stories. An example of a fantasy writer who writes to this tired formula is Terry Pratchett, yet every new book is better than the one before. David Gemmel is another example, although he doesn't go to the same extremities as Pratchett. Again, his books are brilliant, even though they have the same plot line every time. In my mind its about the characters, and Gemmel has the ability to create characters we can identify with... The characters feel real, they have the same fears and doubts that you and I would have, only associated with their environment.

Then you have the authors that don't write to any formula whatsoever. Anyone ever heard of a gentleman named L.Ron Hubbard, and I'm not talking Battlefield Earth here. His whole Invasion Earth series is new even by today's standards. Here's a writer that pushes the boundaries of even the most jaded fantasy and sci-fi reader. Then there's Umberto Echo, another gentleman that has the ability to come up with totally new material. So there are writers in both genres that can and do push the limits.

As to sci-fi being techno babble. I read somewhere here that someone said that all the new sci-fi writers try to out do one another with techno babble...hog wash!!! What is sci-fi? Science Fiction, with the emphasis on Science. Star Trek for instance is a fantasy story, not a sci-fi story, as the show has very little basis in real science. And that's what sci-fi is all about...science. For a story to be sci-fi, it has to have its basis in science and reality, in other words, the science must seem feasible in the near to far future, and the story must be realistic. You can't just write about a "warp drive" to get around the universe, as someone said. You have to, even if its only in your own mind, have some kind of idea as to how this could be done, whereas, in Star Trek, some mythical alien race gave them the warp drive after they developed some of the first principles of warp or something. It's the same as saying: I invented the wheel, so God gave me the car or Rand could fight with a sword, so some magician gave him a magic sword. The Star Trek Warp drive is just another magic doohickey, thus Star Trek is a fantasy story.

The eye in the sky was a good sci-fi story, I don't remember who the writer was, or if that was the book's actual name. The story went that the government developed these eyes that watched the people. This story has a base in science, think surveillance cameras, think an authoritarian society. Also, the story was written in the sixties, with a lot of reference to what was then a very common thing, the speak easy. Thus it also had a strong base in reality. Thus Science (and its a fictive story) Fiction.

There was a comment made about fantasy being the genre for bad writers. Actually I think the genre for bad writers is fantastic/dark fiction, or horror as its so widely known, do not classify this as fantasy, its not. And if you want formulaic, just watch any horror movie ever made. The girl from scream sums it up so nicely. "Some big breasted girl running up the stairs..." There are exception to this of course, Stephen King being one. I haven't read one of his books that I didn't like. And most of his work is new or fresh, or whatever you want to call it, The Stand, The Pet Cemetery, It, The Dead Zone and of course, one of the best fantasy stories ever written, The Dark Tower.

So, in closing, if you're going to stereotype genres, do it properly and don't discuss that which you don't understand.

Berto Brand
GV2010, Fantasy & Sci-Fi Short Stories.
http://www.darkmynd.homepad.com

Posted By: The Master Jan 05, 2001 - 02:55 pm

Point taken...but I think a lot of people are lamenting the fact that there hasn't been any great advances in ideas for a while, and that many authors have relied on formulas without any new innovations. Of course this doesn't mean ALL scifi or ALL authors, but there is a noticible lack or major originality in the most mainstream books (fair disclosure...I keep on buying it, reading it, and enjoying it!).

Scifi is NOT technobabble. Technobabble just takes the place of real science to make it sound scientific. Star Trek excels at it. I don't know if I would call it fantasy though. The PADD is becoming a reality with PDA's. Cell phones are virtually the same thing as a communicator (granted...I'm not talking to space!), and computers are on their way to voice interaction even now. Wormholes, cosmic strings, subspace, etc. are all based on theoretical physics...we haven't seen them yet, but they may (should, could) be real. Thus, there are many aspects that can be considered reasonable in the near or far future.

Warp speed (or some other kind of faster than light travel) may be possible, we just haven't discovered any evidence yet. The plot device, however, is essential to Star Trek, Andromeda, and many other TV shows, movies, and books, just to move the story along at a reasonable pace. The explanations are sort of there...but again, we don't really have a clue as to how this could be accomplished, so the explanations can't be based on real science. Books tend to use it less, but the nature of a book doesn't require it as much as a TV show that has to have a new adventure each week to stay interesting.

Horror...Dark Fantasy horror and not "slasher flick" horror...is certainly fantasy! Using magic to call some disgusting killer beastie up from the depths of hell is just as much of a fantasy as using magic to conjure a dragon. I agree that King (old King at least...he's gotten fairly tired of late) is great at this. Slasher flicks are a totally different thing, and are more "Graphic Suspense Thriller" than they are "Horror". Robert R. McCammon writes a good story (Swan Song is fantastic), and Clive Barker has put out some amazing work. I don't think the true Horror author should be lumped in with the slasher-flick writer.

Posted By: T5 Jan 05, 2001 - 03:16 pm

Technobabble is sometimes the easy method of explaining some impossible technical doodaas with long tech words that don´t really mean anything (Star Trek is full of it, but I love it), or it can be used as a means for the author to explain a theory of his/hers in the book.
If anyone has read the wonderful book; COSM by Gregory Benford, they will know what I mean.

Posted By: Iznardi Jan 09, 2001 - 09:45 am

I think there is a prejudice among some publishers of science fiction for stories that are heavy on jargon. Science Fiction Age comes to mind. Frankly, I get tired of having to learn an entirely new vocabulary everytime I pick up a novel, and maybe that's why I now read more historical fiction than science fiction. True, historical novels tend to have a vocabulary that has to be acquired (sea adventures in particular) but the vocabulary doesn't change--you see all writers in this genre using it. Some science fiction and fantasy writers seem to spend more time on linguistics than they do on plot or character. It worked for Tolkien, it was getting kind of tiresome by the the time Frank Herbert brought out Dune, and now it can be a real drag on the narrative.

Posted By: T5 Jan 10, 2001 - 11:56 am

Dune was a great series...

Posted By: Gablety Mar 29, 2001 - 11:04 am

How about this: Witches call several aspects of their Craft "Science" and "Technology". Why can't people recognize not only the technology has a magical quality, may be ispired by magic, and may be thought of as magic, but that some magic is technological?

When the first poster called Star Trek fantasy, because it treats its technology like magic, the master tried not to sound as offended as he looked to me, and insisted that all of those things were in theoretical physics! Well, yeah, they are in theoretical physics, but we're treating them like magic here. In fact, some magical principles are made clearer by technological advances!

What i would like to read is some REAL fantasy, where technology and magic are wonderfully intertwined and explained, and the protagonist doesn't know what is real.

Posted By: The Master Mar 29, 2001 - 02:11 pm

Not offended. Merely offering a different viewpoint!

I agree that you can have a technological aspect to magic (i.e. the technology can help you bring the magic about). Technology also could be viewed as magic if the viewer doesn't understand the technology, but that doesn't make it magic.

However, once you introduce magic to technology I believe it ceases to be Science Fiction and becomes Fantasy.

Part of the debate is, and probably will remain, how much of the Science has to be "real". Hard SF fans often insist on a detailed scientific basis with little if any artistic license allowed. I don't think that's always necessary. For a story set in the near future, I do think there should be more science basis than in a story set in the far future or in another galaxy/universe/etc.

Conventions such as warp drive just don't bother me. How do you travel through space? Faster than light travel is one idea, suspended animation is another. Is either possible? Who knows? We don't currently have any evidence that either can be done...does it really make the story any less enjoyable? Not for me. Star Trek is hundreds of years in the future. Do you know what will happen then? If so, I need some stock tips...

Technology and magic already have been combined to great succes...Star Wars. Probably the single most successful fantasy story ever. Many people wrongly assume it sci-fi because of its "advanced" technology and space setting, but its clearly a fantasy story. However, I don't think it possible for the protagonist to not know whats "real". If you create a story where technology and magic coexist, than both ARE real. Its also worth pointing out that Star Wars also relies on FTL travel to move its story along. Is it because the Force makes it so? No, its because they have a technology that makes it possible!

Posted By: Sindatur Mar 29, 2001 - 02:56 pm

Actually, for the B5 fans we have the Technomage Trilogy being produced now. The first book came out February 27 and the other 2 will probably be around end of June and End of October.

Technomages make magic through scientific means or at least boosted by scientific means. For anyone who isn't familiar with the book it's called:
The Passing of the Technomages, Book 1: Casting Shadows by Jeanne Cavellos

Posted By: DblUgly Dec 29, 2001 - 08:18 pm

My two cents into the well,

All litturature is forumalaic, except that odd french school where nothing really happens except the reader getting a headache trying to figure out what they missed when nothing really happened, actualy it is forumalic just a verry diffrent formula.

In trying to define SIFI or Fantasy one is , correct me here if I am worng,really debating setting. Of course with setting goes many expetations the reader wil bring with them. If you start a story with "Once upon a time." Every one expects a Fairy tale. Lucas starts this way and we get Star Wars, and Star Wars is a fairy tale quite in the tradition of Briar Rose, Rip Van Winkle and many others. ( Oh my did I just say that? Why do I think that a match was just put to a powder keg?)

I usualy define the two in terms of a pair of conditions

1. SIFI usualy deals with fears or ideas of our socity as a whole while fantasy tends to look back within the indiviual. ( Yes both aspects are present in both types of story but the emphisis changes.

2. Fantasy has trees SIFI Dosent.

A message from Pair'o' Dice

Posted By: faeriegirl Dec 31, 2001 - 05:44 am

Well we're all gonna have to write a SciFi novels with trees in now just to throw your theory! Biosphere's maybe?
The distinction between Hard SF and Soft SF is quite necessary I think, as the Master said Hard SF tries to have all it's scientific concepts based in reality whereas Soft concentrates more on the plots, characters and societies. Would this make Arthur C Clarke's work 'Hard SF' then?
Also isn't 'technobabble' a sort of technique in it's own right? Take ER for example, all their "Give him 30 mils of benzophyloximalophine and CLEAR!" stuff goes completely over my head but it isn't designed to be understood - it's designed to add to the atmosphere of the scene. Therefore, for all we know, they could be making it all up! SciFi is to entertain us not to teach us about astrophysics, just as fantasy isn't to teach us about Ancient history.
Personally I think that (as we are all writing FICTION at the end of the day) scientific facts are not particularly important. Making what you are writing about/inventing SEEM believable is the main thing surely? Whether it's a journey into an alternate universe or telekenisis or a shaman calling down rain, if you can make your audience feel like what you are writing about is actually happening, even if it's only for a little while, then isn't that all that matters?