Skip to main content

Fantasy vs Science Fiction

On my other blog, Popular Science, I review both popular science books (duh) and science fiction. I squeezed SF into that blog because I reckoned that many people who are interested in science also read science fiction (as, indeed, I am). And if you were to ask me until recently whether I preferred SF or fantasy I would have proudly stated 'science fiction'... but I'm starting to wonder if it's true.

If I had to list my favourite fiction authors, I would certainly mention some SF writers, from Fred Pohl to Adam Roberts, but there would be a strong showing from fantasy novelists. Throughout my teens, my 'go to' author was Alan Garner, and since then the likes of Gene Wolfe, Neil Gaiman and Ben Aaronovitch have featured regularly amongst my best-rated fiction. Recently I’ve rediscovered Robert Holdstock’s remarkable Mythago Wood and picked up on outstanding fantasy titles from current writers, such as The Night Circus. For that matter, some authors more frequently associated with SF, such as Ray Bradbury and Roger Zelazny, probably wrote better fantasy.

There is one big proviso here. Apart from The Lord of the Rings, which I loved from about age 12, I’m never been a fan of swords and sorcery. You know - the humans, wizards, elves and dwarves in a magic world stuff. For me, a really good fantasy has to be anchored in the everyday world. It's the way that normal life and normal people are exposed to something strange and unexpected that makes it great. It’s one of the reasons that Buffy the Vampire Slayer was such good TV. 

I appreciate fantasy isn't everyone's cup of tea, and because it's another step removed from popular science, the reviews will stay here on Now Appearing. But given the proviso that I only really mean a subset of fantasy, I suspect I will have to admit in future that while I'll always love SF, it's possible that I get more enjoyment out of fantasy.

Incidentally, a subscriber to my free weekly email recently complained about what they considered rather a lightweight set of articles, I suspect because there wasn't much on popular science. I make no apology for this post being published in a slightly fantasy-heavy week, as it also features my review of Holdstock's Lavondyss - but please be reassured, I have no intention of abandoning the popular science and SF. The reason fantasy and crime have appeared rather more often recently is that it was my birthday not long ago and I tend to read more non-science titles as a result of what I'm given. This will happen occasionally - but it's not a drift away from my core topics.

Image by Robert Lukeman from Unsplash

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex
116 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
24 comments
Read more

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope
23 comments
Read more