Hard Sci-Fi vs Medieval Fantasy? - Magic vs Theoretical Science.

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Title.

  • Hard Science Fiction

    Votes: 41 53.9%

  • Medieval Fantasy

    Votes: 35 46.1%
  • Total voters
    76
CivilianOfTheFandomWars said:
Foundation is great. I read all of them and enjoyed even the latter ones. The characters of The Mule and Hari and so many others were great, the core ideas were well executed, and the plots were engaging. I'm honestly surprised that it's not brought up more often when people talk about Asimov. It might be the length.
Click to expand...

I think it's the length and the dubious sequels (if memory serves, there was a well-received initial trilogy plus a bunch of followups that were less well-received) combined with the fact that Asimov was at best middling as a fiction writer. His ideas were good and inventive, as only a real scientist's could be, but his characters were unengaging and his prose style unremarkable. And, honestly, the original Foundation trilogy (I don't know about any of the follow-ups) has aged like hell; the futuristic technology described feels like something out of Forbidden Planet, so if you don't buy into the buttery-soft "psychohistory" premise, there's just not a lot there.
 
Krokodil Overdose said:
And, honestly, the original Foundation trilogy (I don't know about any of the follow-ups) has aged like hell; the futuristic technology described feels like something out of Forbidden Planet,
Click to expand...

I dunno, I think stuff like Forbidden Planet actually ages better as time goes on. The minimalistic aesthetic makes me think of technology that can do more and more without having any outwardly visible equipment, kind of like how your smartphone doesn't need a visible radio antenna anymore. Forbidden Planet is kind of cheating though, as the Krell machine can literally do anything and the audience can chalk up the limitations of things like Robbie the Robot his creator's lack of understanding of the technology he was working with.

This is what I mean by Classic SF not being very "hard". It often featured very cerebral plots that required a lot of imagination on the part of the audience and generally in no way resembled what we know of actual spaceflight.
 
Krokodil Overdose said:
I think it's the length and the dubious sequels (if memory serves, there was a well-received initial trilogy plus a bunch of followups that were less well-received) combined with the fact that Asimov was at best middling as a fiction writer. His ideas were good and inventive, as only a real scientist's could be, but his characters were unengaging and his prose style unremarkable. And, honestly, the original Foundation trilogy (I don't know about any of the follow-ups) has aged like hell; the futuristic technology described feels like something out of Forbidden Planet, so if you don't buy into the buttery-soft "psychohistory" premise, there's just not a lot there.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. The sequels were less well received, but I liked them enough to keep reading. The ways people solved the various problems was fun, the Mule is one of the coolest parts of the entire series, and the concept of an entire planet being one was pretty neat to me.
And I'd argue that the "psychohistory" was more of a thing to get the ball rolling, and the actual premise was about one shitty little planet rising to power through sheer tenacity and surviving the fall of an empire.
And I have a soft spot for old sci-fi with the vacuum tubes and spaceships where the most advanced data storage is microfilm. But that's just me, and I get it's not for everyone.
 
CivilianOfTheFandomWars said:
the Mule is one of the coolest parts of the entire series
Click to expand...

Definitely agree here; I wanted him to win.
CivilianOfTheFandomWars said:
And I'd argue that the "psychohistory" was more of a thing to get the ball rolling, and the actual premise was about one shitty little planet rising to power through sheer tenacity and surviving the fall of an empire.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, then the "psychohistory" set-up really undermines the actual premise, given how much of what they accomplished was planned for in advance. Especially when you consider the revelations about the Second Foundation (I'll try to avoid too many spoilers) it takes a lot of the mickey out of what they accomplished. This is why prophecies almost always are vague, or a some kind of twist built in that still allows the plot to develop in unexpected ways.
 
Krokodil Overdose said:
If that's the case, then the "psychohistory" set-up really undermines the actual premise, given how much of what they accomplished was planned for in advance. Especially when you consider the revelations about the Second Foundation (I'll try to avoid too many spoilers) it takes a lot of the mickey out of what they accomplished. This is why prophecies almost always are vague, or a some kind of twist built in that still allows the plot to develop in unexpected ways.
Click to expand...
True, but then again, that was part of why the Mule was so awesome. He fucked up everything Hari worked for, and that had the impact because of the idea that psychohistory already predicted everything. And also how psychohistory morphed from a general plan to basically a religion was neat to see. I think it was worth the pay off in the end.
And as for the Second Foundation, I don't really have much feelings either way on them. Gaia was a much better concept and more interesting in the end anyways. A planet that is all psycically linked, that the Mule actually came from? And it wants to make the entire universe like it but isn't unambiguously evil? Let's go lads, that sounds like a good story for me.
The Second Foundation were just kind of there, though the part where the First Foundation is hunting them was pretty neat. And that one poor motherfucker who had his brain rewired like, three times or some shit.
The end twist of the big robot on the moon or something was kind of dumb, though. Felt anticlimactic.
 
Last edited:
It's a very close call for me. I read a ton of fantasy as a kid and teen. I've been playing D&D since I was ten, and tabletop games have been a huge passion of mine for over twenty years.

As I get older, I don't read much fantasy anymore. At the risk of sounding snobby (I'm not intentionally trying to) I feel like I've "outgrown" fantasy. Classic magic and dragons and warriors just doesn't interest me anymore, gritty realistic fantasy seems like it just tries too hard to be edgy, and urban fantasy seems solely catered to YA. I've gotten more into hard sci-fi as I get older, I used to dismiss it as boring when I was younger.

With all that said though, I've gotta give my vote to fantasy, mostly because of my history growing up with it and the genre helping to foster my love for tabletop games. I might not read it anymore, but I still play fantasy oriented games and have a blast, and although I've started to appreciate sci fi more now, it just doesn't have the history and impact fantasy has had with me.
 
I prefer medieval fantasy. The problem with Sci-Fi, is that at a certain point, whatever story you're making is confined to at least some degree of realism. In medieval fantasy, you can ignore all of this because anything can be explained by "magic."
 
Both. At the same time.
829484
 
CivilianOfTheFandomWars said:
Foundation is great. I read all of them and enjoyed even the latter ones. The characters of The Mule and Hari and so many others were great, the core ideas were well executed, and the plots were engaging. I'm honestly surprised that it's not brought up more often when people talk about Asimov. It might be the length.
Click to expand...
Foundation is what, 200 or 300 pages long? It's not a long book, it's just not a very interesting one. Asimov did his best work in his short fiction IMO. I recognize some of its far reaching inspiration for other books, but it never grabbed my attention as much other early masterworks like The Martian Chronicles and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I feel like my problem with Foundation is that it covers too huge a stretch of time in a small amount of detail and without a clear focus. It's patched together from novellas and it shows.
 
Grinrow said:
Maybe I haven't paid attention but fantasy seems a lot more oversaturated than Sci-fi. Fantasy battles are cool but I wanna see massive space battles
Click to expand...
Both are over saturated imo. Sci-fi doesn't seem as oversaturated because there's a fuck ton of sci-fi movies, and shows which never get attention. I think you run into more cliches with fantasy though. Especially if you're talking fantasy mangas, and animes.

For instance, these two despite having different back-stories, have almost identical scenes, and general themes.

Marked for Failure, the World's Strongest Sage Reincarnates for a Do-Over!

In a certain world, there was someone who excelled in magic combat, people called him "Sage". Seeking the strongest combat art, he devoted himself to research every magic and combat arts in existence.　 And the conclusion he arrived at was very cruel: "My body is not fit for magic combat". Yet...
mangarock.com mangarock.com

Kenja No Mago

In the modern world, a lonely man dies in a terrible accident...and is then reborn in another world! Saved by a brilliant sage named Merlin, the baby is raised as “Shin Walford,” and undergoes training in both magic and martial arts in order to kill the monsters that rampage the land. All the...
mangarock.com mangarock.com
 
Being perfectly honest, I think both have their merits and can be fun.

But if we're talking like, a tabletop RPG? I'd prefer Sci-Fi. You can only deal with so many orcs and elves before it gets to be boring. I will, however, make an exception for any campaign that's more 'dark supernatural fantasy' than actual standard fantasy.
 
Sword and sorcery stuff like Robert. E Howard's Conan stories have always been my kinda thing, the setting he created basically inspired much of modern fantasy tropes that we enjoy today. It makes me happy that his work continues to inspire spin offs long after he committed suicide.

In terms of something like tabletop I prefer fantasy because its easier for me to create scenarios because I know far more about history than I do about science.
 
Locomotive Derangement said:
Horror is where its at bitches.
Click to expand...

I have found my people.

I'm not really a hardcore fan of things in the hard sci-fi or medieval fantasy genres, but as soon as you bring horror into the mix I'm there - especially if it's cosmic, survival or psychological horror (bonus points if you can combine all three!). Yeah, horror might be over saturated too in its own way, but if you can pull it off it can work amazingly well.
 
As Mike Stoklasa says - I like my sci-fi to be plodding and boring. I also like my fantasy to be filled with adventures and fun. I'll happily read fantasy or sci-fi, I don't care which, but only as long as they fit into those molds.
 
I mean, what is considered Hard sci-fi? I haven't read a lot of Sci-Fi, but I like Neuromancer, which I'm currently almost done with. Is that considered Hard sci-fi?

But in general I really enjoy fantasy. I'm a big fan of Dragonlance. I mean it's not deepest thing ever, but it's generally just a lot of fun, also I like Dragonlance's magic system a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom