Is fantasy more popular than science fiction? If so why?

[Nerys Myk]

DarthTom wrote:

---

There are a lot of elements of fantasy IMO in Avatar that fall outstide of the scope of ST type sci-fi. e.g. flying dragons.

Not a fan of the Pern series?

[Deckerd]

Gotham Central wrote:

---

Here's the thing about stuff like that, I view that as more of a crutch, than a decent into pure fantasy. We don't know with any certainty how to control such a reaction, so they invent something that might do just that. The same is true of the transporters, the Heisenberg Conpensators are technically fantasy, in that they don't exist. But it is more of an acknowledgement that they don't know how to fix the problem, but say this is what you'd have to have in order to make the technology work. Science Fiction is not science fact. It speculates about the technology without always having the answers.

I'm sorry but that just sounds like huge denial to me. The Heisenberg thing was put in as a joke, a nod and a wink to physicists. There was no attempt to 'answer' anything. It was the kind of rare self-mockery that saved later Trek from it's own po-facedness.

[Ian Keldon]

DarthTom wrote:

---

There are a lot of elements of fantasy IMO in Avatar that fall outstide of the scope of ST type sci-fi. e.g. flying dragons.

Large flying predator =/= dragon.

And there is nothing wrong with humanoid aliens. We're humanoids and we obviously exist, so why could life on another planet ALSO develop a humanoid?

So the assertion that avatar is full of "fantasy" fails. Every "fantastic" element of Avatar has a solid grounding in either actual science or is an extrapolation using science.

[Ian Keldon]

CorporalCaptain wrote:

---

If you want "real" fantasy tropes in Star Trek, how about referring to The Cage, in particular the castle on Rigel VII, for just one example. That was a typical fairy tail setting, with Pike even defending a princess. It was part fantasy within the story-line, but it was also based on events which Pike had just lived.

Because no one EVER builds castles in real life...

iguana_tonante wrote:

---

So, still pretty implausible. Like orcs.

No, just not "do-able"...yet. "not yet achievable" =/= "implausable" or "fantasy" or any other such word.

[Kegg]

CorporalCaptain wrote:

---

Right. There are many completely fantastic elements in the premise of Star Trek that must be accepted without reason to believe in them, in order to suspend disbelief.

How I prefer to define the science version versus fantasy argument is I consider something science fiction if it uses science and/or pseudoscience to justify its improbable or impossible elements.

Fantasy, on the other hand, while it might have scientific or use of pseudoscientific elements, will usually have elements that abandon any pretense of a scientific rationale.

Avatar falls into the latter category; even its invoking of a Gaia-like mother earth goddess is couched in pseudoscientific ideas. So does Star Trek, as even some of its most ridiculous conceits - like meeting the Greek god Apollo - are waved away with the idea that beings that thrive on worship apparently evolved organically somewhere, somehow, for some reason. Off the top of my head, the TAS episode "The Magicks of Megas-Tu" is Star Trek at its most fantastic given this description, as it's an episode where they enter a reality where magic actually works for some reason.

[Ian Keldon]

^Uh, no. They make frequent references throughout Avatar to the interconnectedness of all life on the planet down to a neural level. The process is even demonstrated between the Na'vi and their riding animals as well as with the Tree of Voices and the Tree of Souls. The implication is that in some way the entire biosphere of the planet is part of a "group mind" that may or may not be conscious in and of itself.

The Na'vi may have personalized this group mind as the "goddess" Ewa, but that does not make an entirely plausible scientific concept into fantasy.

[iguana_tonante]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

No, just not "do-able"...yet. "not yet achievable" =/= "implausable" or "fantasy" or any other such word.

The same could be argued for making "orcs" with genetic engineering. We just lack the specific genetic understanding and technological means to realize that.

[stj]

Kegg wrote:

---

To be altogether trite: Technology is playing an increasingly large role in our lives, a lot of it seemigly ripped from science fiction tales of yesteryear....
In other words, these elements are no longer fantasies we can escape into. They're the world we live.

Alternately, a lot of fantasy deals with wish fufilment based on stuff that will always be impossible (magic) and a sizeable amount also leans towards worlds which operate either on magical principles or pre-industrial principles, or places otherwise alien to our humdrum existence. Fantasy's escapism then isn't something the next technological development can catch up with...

I've been mulling this. SF is pseudorealistic, and people in this time hate reality, therefore hate pseudoreality too. Well, this seems to be another Counter-Enlightenment-lite explanation of the relative popularity of SF vs. fantasy.

However, most popular literature tends to be in some degree escapist. Some of the older SF tropes have been around long enough to be regarded as mere conventions, no more to be viewed critically than, say, the faux mediaeval social structure in most fantasies or the neo-Victorian empires of most steam punk. The question, as in my ignored example of SF romance novelists vs. fantasy romance novelists, is why real viewers can easily tell the difference? And, why they don't like the SF? Personally, I'm rather inclined to see more than just familiarity breeding contempt but an deeper commitment to irrationalism flowing from perceptions of the trend of the (social/political/economic) world.


The SF=fantasy proponents however have been arguing that 1) there is no point at all to the pseudorealism of SF, that it serves only as a story device to facilitate willing suspension of disbelief and 2) that SF is manifestly just as unbelievable as any fantasy. Formally this is completely contradictory, except their tacit presumption is that they are too superior to the SF fan to be taken in by such guff.

Yet this doesn't answer the question, why do fantasy fans, the large majority now, find it quite so easy to distinguish SF and fantasy modes, even in genres they like, such as romance? This fact gives the lie to the self-flattering assumption that hoi polloi are unable to distinguish SF's threadbare invitations to willing suspension of disbelief from the blatant appeal to the delight in the impossible and irrational in fantasy, instead seeing escape in both.

The hopelessly confused/deceptive chatter about plausibility seems to be the primary factor obscuring views here. The diversion into Avatar is a prime example. First, dragons in fantasy have been changed to suit images from paleontology of pterodactyls and pteranodons. The "dragons" in Avatar are not just a fantasy trope, not even on a literary lord's say so.

Second, the biggest implausibility in Avatar, bigger even than ignoring the effects of the suppose magnetic fields that hold up the floating rocks, bigger even than the breasts, is the body telepresence machinery. The information needed to carry all the sensory data to the human brain in the bed cannot be transmitted when the movie simultaneously depends on the impossibility of simple voice communications! But, if the machinery is supposed to copy the mind, then the avatars will never be unconcoscious. Not only is this tech implausibile, it is impossible in the context of the story. Except of course we "see" it work.

Third, as stated, the God that works is in fact plainly supposed to be natural in origin. I suppose it is possible that the sequel will reveal the natural origin to be due to the blue guys' command of natural science. We should then see Avatar pretty much as the first movie commentary on transhumanism and sustainable immortality, a kind of hard SF. But the real issue in Avatar is whether the movie would have been the same if Eywa had just turned out to exist, on grounds that another world must have different rules and magic like Gods is just as "plausible" as any gobbledygook about trillions of neurons. Would Avatar have been just the same? I think the answer should be intuitively obvious: Hell, no!

[Deckerd]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

^Uh, no. They make frequent references throughout Avatar to the interconnectedness of all life on the planet down to a neural level. The process is even demonstrated between the Na'vi and their riding animals as well as with the Tree of Voices and the Tree of Souls. The implication is that in some way the entire biosphere of the planet is part of a "group mind" that may or may not be conscious in and of itself.

The Na'vi may have personalized this group mind as the "goddess" Ewa, but that does not make an entirely plausible scientific concept into fantasy.

Interconnectedness of all fantasy life on a fantasy planet, in a way that doesn't happen on Earth? Come on, just because they put a bit of thought into it doesn't make it plausible. If they wanted it to be plausible the humanoids would have breathed through slits their throats and had 4 arms.

[Ian Keldon]

iguana_tonante wrote:

---

The same could be argued for making "orcs" with genetic engineering. We just lack the specific genetic understanding and technological means to realize that.

After having done a little research into what is being done with genetic engineering right now, it turns out that NEITHER is particularly "implausible". While we cannot make a true"pig-man", we are making pigs that have human-compatible blood, for example.

So "orcs" not do-able, but not fantasy. Same with warp drive. Both entirely plausible extrapolations of science.

[iguana_tonante]

So it turn out Star Trek is not fantasy, but Lord of the Rings is science-fiction.

I love this place.

[Ian Keldon]

Deckerd wrote:

---

Interconnectedness of all fantasy life on a fantasy planet,

Not "fantasy" in the way you are abusing the word (and, yes, I deliberately chose that term). As you are abusing the term, anything that isn't document-ably real right here and now is "fantasy".

That is not what is meant by the genre title of "fantasy" and you know it.

in a way that doesn't happen on Earth? Come on, just because they put a bit of thought into it doesn't make it plausible. If they wanted it to be plausible the humanoids would have breathed through slits their throats and had 4 arms.

And you know what is "plausible" and what is "not plausible" how exactly? The human body itself is a terrific example of millions and millions of individual parts (cells), organized into various configurations all communicating and acting together as one unified whole.

Avatar simply takes that concept up an order of magnitude and posits a planet where likewise the entire biosphere, including the complex lifeforms, are interconnected naturally.

No recourse to "fantasy" (paranatural explanation), just science.

[Deckerd]

The warp drive article depends on 'exotic material'. Therefore I could sketch out the most Amazing Fantastic Engines and provided exotic material was the essential component they would be plausible.

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

And you know what is "plausible" and what is "not plausible" how exactly? The human body itself is a terrific example of millions and millions of individual parts (cells), organized into various configurations all communicating and acting together as one unified whole.

Avatar simply takes that concept up an order of magnitude and posits a planet where likewise the entire biosphere, including the complex lifeforms, are interconnected naturally.

No recourse to "fantasy" (paranatural explanation), just science.

You completely missed the point I was making about interconnectedness. A point, I might add, that many geneticists have made since the film came out. It is fantasy not science. If it had been set in the centre of the Earth you would call it fantasy because there's no outer space down there.

[Ian Keldon]

iguana_tonante wrote:

---

So it turn out Star Trek is not fantasy, but Lord of the Rings is science-fiction.

I love this place.

If you can't stop twisting what I say, feel free to stop responding. In fact, I insist...

[iguana_tonante]

Keep insisting.