Wednesday, February 8, 2023

Fantasy vs. Science Fiction, part II

Fantasy and science fiction went their separate ways in the middle of the 20th century, but it wasn't until the fantasy boom of the late 70s and 80s that the two genres finalized their divorce. And fantasy, which up until that point was still a very wide-ranging, diverse genre, became fixated on Tolkien pastiche and, later on, subversion and deconstruction of all the tropes of the 'epic fantasy' story. Conan, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, Lovecraft, and Burroughs were tossed to the side in favor of sweeping epics and door-stopper book series. The genre of fantasy ossified until the accepted wisdom was that Tolkien had invented fantasy; his predecessors were ignored or altogether forgotten.

Meanwhile, science fiction had gained widespread boosting by two particular franchises: Star Trek in the 60s, and Star Wars in the 70s. Like fantasy, science fiction largely fell into the category of 'epic space stuff', although it never became as ghettoized as fantasy did; other types of science fiction still held sway, such as near-future cyberpunk, alternate history, and post-apocalyptic (especially those damn zombies). But for the average person on the street, sci-fi meant warp drive and lightsabers.

And while the two genres had once been linked with a common fandom of 'weird adventure stories', now there was actual disdain and even rivalry between the two; fantasy was its own separate thing, and you couldn't mix the two. This, despite Star Wars being an obvious mixing of the two genres; the Jedi were basically wizards, after all, complete with a dark overlord (first Vader, then the Emperor). But too many people of my generation saw the two genres as bein utterly and inevitably distinct from each other.

Frankly, it's time that stopped. Science fiction needs to be fantastic to be entertaining, and fantasy needs at least a grounding in a believable setting to be relatable. And there is plenty of middle ground to be covered where the two can mix. Fortunately, that re-merging of the genres has already begun; there are countless writers in Indie publishing who are mixing the two again, with space crews meeting alien wizards, and wizards and paladins running into high technology in their travels. And that is a good thing.

Fantastic adventure fiction is, and should be, about the stories, not the settings. The settings can be really cool, and lots of fun, but the most important thing is the story has to be entertaining. If the story is boring, the setting really doesn't matter, because people won't want to read it.

For an example of how science fiction and fantasy can be merged, you can take a look at Awakening, the first book of the Gilded Age series, in which magic and science combine to create a brave new world where people can suddenly do things beyond mortal capabilities. It's available at an Amazon location near you.



3 comments:

  1. I really like this post. I've been struggling with the "fantasy" genre for a while now and your thoughts here help articulate the problem. And explains why the fantasy books I tend to enjoy are 40-60 years old. Fantasy used to be a setting for adventure stories, and the writers I enjoyed were adventure story writers who just happened to write in SFF settings instead of cowboys, pirates, safaris or war zones. But now fantasy has expanded outside of the adventure story format. Authors now are trying to achieve many different things. It could be a highschool drama like Harry Potter. It could be a "character driven" story where the reader is meant to develop parasocial relationships with the characters. Some fantasy series are even "setting driven" where the book is really about the author's pet planet, not characters actually doing things. And then there's the "door stoppers and sweeping epics". Those stories are fine for the people who want them, but I don't, and it's hard to sort those out from the stories I do want when they're all lumped together as "fantasy" just because there's a wizard in it. And even stories that are intended to be adventures are damaged by trends like bloated prose and inappropriate writer's workshop advice to "show not tell", slowing the action down too much to tolerate.

    I've started reading historical adventurer's memoirs, explorers, soldiers, and old magazines on Archive like Man's Adventure. Those are giving me the feeling of exotic adventure that I want to get out of fantasy, but can't find.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with pretty much everything you said. A lot of modern fantasy ('pink slime fantasy', as some have described it) tends to be sorely lacking in adventure and action and ends up being thinly-disguised romance or character studies. There's nothing wrong with those things, but, like you, I expect to see some adventure when I read a fantasy story.

      Harry Potter worked because, even though it's a school setting, there is actually stuff going on involving adventure; basilisk petrifying students, evil master wizard trying to come back from near-death and take over the wizarding world, all that stuff. Had it been a DeGrassi Junior High kind of story with magic, it would not have been nearly as successful.

      If you're looking for suggestions, you can't go wrong with the well-known 'Appendix N' from D&D. With one exception, I've enjoyed every book I've ready from that list. That one exception was, no surprise, a dry, adventureless story about characters that really weren't all that likeable. Even the romance was pathetic. (Spoiler: It was The Blue Star by Fletcher Pratt.)

      You didn't list any authors that you had read, so I'll throw out some names; I have no doubt some of them will already be familiar to you.

      Edgar Rice Burroughs
      Abraham Merritt
      Garrett P. Serviss (more sci-fi than fantasy, but fun adventure nonetheless)
      L. Sprague de Camp & Fletcher Pratt (together they're great)
      Fritz Leiber
      Roger Zelazny
      Jack Vance
      Philip Jose Farmer
      Poul Anderson

      The grand masters of fantasy, all of them. Yes, I didn't include Tolkien, because everybody's read Tolkien.

      Delete
    2. I was ignorant of Merritt, Serviss and Farmer. Thanks.

      Delete