Asimov Vs. Tolkin, Frank Harbert Vs. Robert Jordan, Orson Scott Card Vs. himself...

Is Sci-Fi better then Fantasy? More complicated? More involving? More boring? More technical?

I would say neither. When done well, both are excellent. When done poorly, either can be a joke. I just wish that in the publishers' minds, the two genres weren't combined into "Fantasy/SciFi".

Yes. Would someone care to define "fantasy" and "science fiction" before this discussion proceeds?
[Of course some authors intentionally confuse the two genres....]

basically science fiction deals with the effects technology has on our life. Fantasy deals with the effects of paranormal powers

In my opinion, Science Fiction is anything that deals with the future of the human race, alien beings, and holocaust - particularly as they pertain to the use of technological advances. Fantasy is more mediaeval in nature, dealing as it does with things we consider to be myth and legend: magic, demons, unicorns, etc.
As for deciding which is better...nope. Can't be done. Everytime I think Sci Fi is my favourite, I think of Eddings, Pratchett, or Lackey. So then I think perhaps I prefer Fantasy, but, of course, Weber, Asimov, and RODDENBERRY come to mind, and I realise anew that I am impossibly torn.
I like both M&Ms and Skittles, but is the one inherently better than the other?
Like Fantasy and Sci-Fi books, they are both wonderful indulgences.
And the taste really lasts.

Any good combos of the two that anyone can recommend? Or do they for the most part seem to be too incompatible? I'm not sure. You guys sure know lot more about it than I do, cuz I just read whatever I feel like when I feel like it, be it horror, fantasy, sci-fi, lawyer novels, Clancy, Ludlum, etc. Besides, with any book, or eps and movies for that matter, I can't retain much of what I've read or seen so I'm always amazed at how much of them people remember when they post on these boards.

Julian May's galactic mileau stuff is really SF, but it reads like fantasy, and is classed as such. It's really fantasy in an SF setting.

If you like the lighter side... Asprin's Myth Adventures series is kind of a cross (in the later books, at least)

I think Anne McCaffery's Pern novels have a
somewhat graceful combination of sci-fi and
fantasy. It starts off as fantasy and becomes
sci-fi by the final books. Chalker does the same
thing in the Soul Rider books, but not nearly as
well.

I read Mccaffery's short story, The Runners of Pern, and it sickened me so badly I doubt I'll ever read anything of her ever again.

I havent read that one. I cheerfully acknowledge
that her recent books are BAD (I am ill every time
I try to read an "acorna" book) and her very early
stuff wasn't that great either. However, I think
the Pern dragon novels from "Dragonquest" to "All
the Weyrs of Pern" are quite nice, you might want
to give them a try.

P.S. I am curious, do you have an opinion on
Chalker?

I will admit, shamefully, that I don't know who Chalker is, or what he/she/it wrote.

I've only read one thing by Jack Chalker. It was a series about a Giant Evil Computer of some sort and a bunch of folks are trying to find the disks that can override it (or something like that). Can't remember the name, but I thought it was awful.

You wouldn't be talking about the "Well of Souls" series, would you, Gordon?

Oh, the well of souls. Good news, notv, I did read a couple. I liked the first one I've read... all these people getting to the well world and transforming to all sorts of animals and monsters. I thought that was pretty neat.

But then there was the second book, which was exactly the same as the first. Drugs, sex, scandals - and hop, we're in the World of the well and it all starts all over again! so I don't think I rmemember much of the second book... overall, Chalker didn't leave too much of an impression on me...

He's no Octabia Butler or Orson Scott Card, to say the least.

Oh speaking of which, Butler's Wild Seed is a classic book that's scieince fiction AND fantasy. I think we have a board for it here.

I compleatly agree with your assesment. He has a
few good ideas but he never fails to beat them to
death.

I'll have to read that Butler.

I think you'd like it... I really love Wild seed. But to be honest, one of my best friends dislike it... so I guess it IS a matter of opinion, like everything in life!

Don't you guys think you need to elaborate? Before we go any further exactly what are you talking about when you say Sci-fi?

The following definitions are based on what I have seen written on the subject by several published science fiction writers.

(If you want to get technical)
Science fiction - Usually happens in a world not to distant from our own. A world which the writer created on the premise of the question "What If ....?". "What if Hitler had won WWII" Phillip K. Dick's 'The man in the high castle', "What if an unknown space vehicle came through our solar system and we sent a team to investigate?" Arthur C. Clarke's 'Rendevous with Rama', "What if in a distant future man, after colinizing the known universe, began to fall in to barbaracy and only one man can prevent most of the coming bloodshed?" Issac Azimov's immortal classic 'Foundation'.

Sci-Fi - Usually happens is a world vastly diffrent than our own ("a long time ago in a galaxy far far away..." to quote the best example). Sci-fi is technically fantasy in the future. An unreal world if you will. In these worlds science works without explination. Eventully mankind might make such fancies reality. But as far as this discussion goes it's considered fantasical.

In conclusion I re-pose the question. What do you mean when you say Sci-Fi since Sci-Fi is technically fantasy in a space setting.

I know I'm not the first person to ask such a question, it's just that I don't think the question was sufficiently answered.

Well, my own personal assesment is that scifi
ivolves technology, aliens, or some kind of
astronomical phenomina and fantasy involves some
kind of magic or something that has traditionally
appeared in folklore, like McCaffery's dragons.
This may be to vauge for you, but I hesitate to
get specific. The more precise you attempt to be
the more things fall outside the classifications.

I don't think there is a distinction between Sci-Fi and science fiction... it's just a short version. There's a difference between Sci-Fi and Fantasy. Fantasy - Dragons, Magic. Science Fiction - Space ships Ray guns.

BUT...

there's usually a different in stile. Science Fiction books are usually more diverse and intelegent then Fantasy, which is why I overall prefare sci-fi.
... and why, I suspect, Science Fiction isn't as popular as Fantasy.

Clarke's Law states that any advanced science
would be mistaken for magic.Just thought I'd
throw it in for what it was worth.
Basically there are elements that are common
to both.I mean for both you need to suspend your
belief long enough to BELIEVE that what you are
watching or reading is REAL for the length of
time that you are watching or reading it.
Also there are some books/movies/tv series that
are a combination Science Fiction and Fantasy.
For example Star Wars and Lost In Space are both
more properly considered Science Fantasy than
Science Fiction.

Actually, that's almost, but not quite, Clarke's THIRD Law.

From "The Lost Worlds of 2001", by Clarke:

Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he says it is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

Clarke's Second Law: The only way of finding the limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible.

Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguisable from magic. [emphasis mine]

Some authors write both sci-fi and fantasy, sometimes marrying the two. One such author was Marion Zimmer Bradley, and I was sad to find out the other day that she'd died of a massive heart attack on Sept 25. I didn't read a lot of her books (mostly some of her anthologies) but I've got a lot of them, and will read them with a bit of sadness at her passing. Likewise, Asimov and Heinlein.

Bob Asprin's "Myth Adventure" series, while certainly not serious, blends (in the later books) both SciFi and Fantasy, though much stronger on the Fantasy side.

Marion Zimmer Bradly died THIS september?
and no one knew? and no one heard?
I can't believe it!

I knew, I heard. My local newspaper ran an
obituary.

I didn't know, till I looked up locus.com, after someone here somewhere mentioned that site, and it had a story on her passing. I'll miss her.

I mean when Shatner's wife died, it was all iover the place! But Marion Bradly Zimmer is WAY more important!

Yeah, but the public won't know who she is. The paper won't sell very well if they use her in their top stories. Kirk Wife Dead Tragedy is however a much more attractive headline.

Sad but true.

That's what's wrong with the system

Sigh. I agree. Any time an actor dies, sure, we know. But it's not til we ask at the bookstore three hundred times that we're told 'Oh, that book isn't coming out because the author died.'

yep. and this wan an actor's WIFE, for crying out loud.

anyway, back to Fantasy vs. Science Fiction?

anypne else thinks movies make science fiction's image look bad? Science fiction is usually deep and intelegent, but people don't realise because they don't READ it, they watch it.

I agree, when people think of scifi what comes to
mind is often: a) Kirk or b) shooting slimy and/or
green aliens. There's not anything inherently
wrong with either a or b, but most people have no
idea that scifi is a whole lot more. Lots of
people assume that every scifi novel is just some
variation on "the mutant moth that ate Mars."
Having said that though..... I would be the
world's worst hippocrite if I didn't admit that I
find even the lowest quality scifi movies and
shows highly enteraining, bad acting, bad scripts,
it makes no difference. Some of this may be due to
the fact that I have very few oppertunities to see
this stuff (note the name), but regardless, no
matter how much it degrades the genre, I wouldn't
want to see an end to the movies.

I would... not movies, so much, but Television. I think TV has been the worst invention in the History of mankind.

Go back to New England, pinko!

As a fellow Kentuckian, I am forced to agree with Homer Simpson.

Springfield is in Kentucky? How do you know? No-one knows where Springfield is. Maybe it's hushed up by the Government? I wonder if this has anything to do with there being a FRANKfurt in Kentucky...

Well, Springfield has to be far enough north for it to snow, yet far enough south for it to be really hot in the summer. It also has to have been in a state that was part of the Confederacy in the Civil War. In addition, it has to have a radio station called KBBL. Find that station, and you've found your Springfield.

How would you define alternate history, for example Turledoves books or Moorcocks Nomads of the Time Streams trilogy?

Depends on how far back the split is, and what effect it has on modern day society.

Most Turtledove is definitely SF. However, his "alternate present" The Case of the Toxic Spell Dump is Fantasy.

How would you define alternate history? I mean, Patrick Robinson in the 1990s wrote techno-thrillers set in the 2000s. Obviously these had no reference to the Sept. 11 bombing. Does that mean they're alternate history now?