# Are sci-fi writers better than fantasy writers?



## Zero Angel (Sep 3, 2012)

Hi Guys,

I was perusing some top 100 lists lately and I came across NPR's Top 100 Sci-fi and Fantasy Books.

I recognized many of the titles on the list, but I got to noticing that the list seemed sci-fi heavy. 

What could cause this?

Is sci-fi more popular and accepted than fantasy? Or are there simply better sci-fi authors out there? 

Obviously I am not saying that every sci-fi author is better than every fantasy author, but do you think that sci-fi in general has a better pool?


----------



## CupofJoe (Sep 3, 2012)

I think that SciFi has been more popular and more accepted. As for why... I don't know. It could be that for a long time there was only JRRT that really entered the zeitgeist. I can't think of another 30s, 40s or 50s fantasy novelist whereas I can name half a dozen or more SciFi authors for the same time.
A cod psychology answer might be that SciFi is just as fantastic as Fantasy but doesn't have the same early "fairy story" connections that as children grow up want to escape.
For bigger minds than mine to figure out...


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 3, 2012)

I'm not sure science fiction is more popular currently. I'm thinking that from the 90s onward, Fantasy has outsold it. Science fiction, however, is traditionally more likely to deal directly with socially important issues and that's the sort of thing that catches the attention of critics and lends itself to being on these kinds of lists. I like the list pretty well, overall, but keep in mind also that it is a reader/listener-based list, and it may simply be that listeners to NPR are more likely to read science fiction and what is traditionally considered more "serious" fare.


----------



## Penpilot (Sep 3, 2012)

My feeling is sci-fi has been historically less frowned upon than fantasy. If you look back at say movies, there are plenty of great sci-fi movies that are accepted as great movies period, dating as far back as far I can remember. Up until recently, I don't think fantasy has had that. Maybe it's just technology catching up and enabling a truer the translation of novel to film, but I wonder.

Maybe, it's because in the past there was less fantasy written. It'd be interesting to see what the ratio of sci-fi to fantasy books produced year by year going back in time.  Maybe it's not a better pool. Maybe it's just a larger pool. So if only 1 in 10000 are great writers and one pool has 100k and the other only 10k, that's a 10 to 1 advantage. Of course I'm totally talking out of my arse here.


----------



## Saigonnus (Sep 3, 2012)

While I would think fantasy is more popular at the moment, I think the biggest thing about sci-fi, is that it's been around longer, hailing from the days of radio programs and even before that. For example, the movie "John Carter" was based off a book "Princess of Mars" written by Edgar Rice Burroughs in the late 1800s... while Fantasy as we know it didn't start making appearances until nearly 70 years later in the 1950s. 

I think many aspects of science fiction and fantasy are the same, They have many of the same elements (aliens vs. mythical creatures for one example) but there is great appeal in imagining how thing will be in the future; what things may be possible for mankind, should we avoid the pitfalls of killing ourselves off in some grand fashion. While it may not be possible NOW to do some of the things in science fiction it MAY be possible in the future. Fantasy on the other hand are more flights of fancy, since "magic" that is ever present in fantasy will probably never be possible.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Sep 4, 2012)

SF and fantasy are both speculative fiction but in terms of genre forms don't actually have that much in common. They should be separate lists, and NPR should know better.


----------



## ThinkerX (Sep 4, 2012)

I've read the majority of the books on the list and have at least heard of nearly all of the remainder.



> It could be that for a long time there was only JRRT that really entered the zeitgeist. I can't think of another 30s, 40s or 50s fantasy novelist whereas I can name half a dozen or more SciFi authors for the same time.



There were a few that stand out.  CJ Lewis was the biggie (Narnia).  Lord Dunsay was also pretty impressive (King of Elflands Daughter).  Peake's 'Gormenghast' is a classic. James Branch Cabel's stories are marvelous and he has, or at least had, quite the following.  Lovecraft kinda sorta straddled the lines between Horror, SciFi, and Fantasy.


----------



## CupofJoe (Sep 4, 2012)

ThinkerX said:


> I've read the majority of the books on the list and have at least heard of nearly all of the remainder.
> 
> There were a few that stand out.  CJ Lewis was the biggie (Narnia).  Lord Dunsay was also pretty impressive (King of Elflands Daughter).  Peake's 'Gormenghast' is a classic. James Branch Cabel's stories are marvelous and he has, or at least had, quite the following.  Lovecraft kinda sorta straddled the lines between Horror, SciFi, and Fantasy.



thanks for the names i will look them up.
I had forgotten Gormenghast... but i had blocked out CS Lewis [a talking lion... seriously?] 
In truth i can't stand Lewis - far to preachy and christian for me [i did read TLTW&TW but couldn't finish PC]


----------



## ThinkerX (Sep 4, 2012)

Good luck finding any of Cabel's works, which is a bit of a shame - his stories are very remarkable for the most part and tie together in brilliantly bizarre ways. Puts a lot of the modern stuff to shame.  Word of warning, some of his stuff is a bit 'racy'.

CS Lewis..yes he's preachy, but some of the Narnia books shine despite that.

I've picked up Lord Dunsay's 'Pegana' series (collection of short made up religious myths in archaic form).  Got that mostly because of the Lovecraft angle.

Gormenghast...brilliant, weird characters, but a bit hard to get into.


----------



## ShortHair (Sep 4, 2012)

Speaking as someone who prefers writing fantasy to writing science fiction, I think fantasy is generally more literary, more poetic, more subtle, more humorous, and more in touch with humanity (odd as that sounds). I also think fantasy writers are better looking than SF writers.

There's a double standard here. In SF you can have a blaster rifle, while in fantasy you can have a lance that fires lightning, and they have the same effect. People are more comfortable with the blaster because it's "science," even though you can't explain it any more clearly than the lightning lance.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 4, 2012)

I think on the whole I've found science fiction to be more literary and to deal more with the human condition, at least when looking at the last fifty years or so of work. The boundary between the genres is fuzzy, though, so where you draw the line can make a difference.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 4, 2012)

ThinkerX said:


> CS Lewis..yes he's preachy, but some of the Narnia books shine despite that.



Some would say they shine _because_ of it. I might be among them. I love Lewis's work, both Narnia and the Space Trilogy, which I also recommend. His, shall we say, "message heavy" style doesn't suit my writing style, but I do love reading it. There's something about their unapologetically Christian nature that resonates with me. It's something that's very rare to find _and_ find done well. Even if you hate it, you'd have to admit it's unique. The one criticism I have of his work is similar to the one his friend Tolkien had: his worldbuilding isn't as in depth as I would like.


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Sep 5, 2012)

Being that I read both, but mainly write scifi, I doubt that the writers are really the issue.  There are good writers on both sides, but scifi is easier for some people to accept as possible than magic is.  While both rely on things that just aren't real, with scifi it is less of a stretch of the imagination to accept artificial gravity than magic (it is used in the tv shows all the time).  

I think one of the other differences that I've noticed is that scifi is not always a world ending story, where fantasy trends towards the destruction of everything.  There are some fantasy stories that don't include the end of the world in the plot, but so many of them do.  Why I have been avoiding starting any series of books that have the word 'epic' in their description, since that almost always means 'world ending'.  At least in scifi you can have hundreds of worlds to end.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Sep 5, 2012)

Better at what?


----------



## Zero Angel (Sep 5, 2012)

Lord Darkstorm said:


> Being that I read both, but mainly write scifi, I doubt that the writers are really the issue.  There are good writers on both sides, but scifi is easier for some people to accept as possible than magic is.  While both rely on things that just aren't real, with scifi it is less of a stretch of the imagination to accept artificial gravity than magic (it is used in the tv shows all the time).
> 
> I think one of the other differences that I've noticed is that scifi is not always a world ending story, where fantasy trends towards the destruction of everything.  There are some fantasy stories that don't include the end of the world in the plot, but so many of them do.  Why I have been avoiding starting any series of books that have the word 'epic' in their description, since that almost always means 'world ending'.  At least in scifi you can have hundreds of worlds to end.



You're absolutely right in that observation. I can't imagine an epic fantasy without a world-ending or at least continent-ending issue at hand to either be thwarted or encouraged.



Anders Ã„mting said:


> Better at what?



I intended it to be ambiguous. Better at being better  Although the list was a popularity contest and that has already been mentioned as one of the issues.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 5, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> You're absolutely right in that observation. I can't imagine an epic fantasy without a world-ending or at least continent-ending issue at hand to either be thwarted or encouraged.



What about Joanne Bertin's _The Last Dragonlord_? The world isn't really at stake there if I recall, nor even a kingdom. Only the continued existence of a certain group of people (the dragonlords) and the traditions they represent.


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Sep 5, 2012)

My point is that not all fantasy is world ending, but it is a very common theme.  To me, the world ending plot is so cliche I really can't find the desire to care.  The only reason I'll bother with the last book of the wheel of time is because I've already endured the others, might as well finish it.  

Andre Norton whom I have read many of her fantasy novels, tended to restrict the devastation to the main characters or the general place they lived, and I have enjoyed a great number of them.  Other authors have managed to not have the world hanging in the balance in fantasy, but all to often....the fate of the world hangs in the balance as the brave hero's search for the sacred thing that was created thousands of years in the past (usually on a very nicely rounded even number...one thousand, five thousand..ect) just to fight the evil that is threatening the world.  If not for different characters it would be all but pointless.  If you ever want to see one of the nicest mockeries of the standard fantasy end of the world template, check out bard's tail.  It's a video game they made for pc, xbox (original) and ps2.  I picked it up from one of the online game stores for a couple bucks not to long ago....and it is still as hilarious as I remembered.   

Not all fantasy has this problem, but I've read a few dozen that the world was going to end and evil rule supreme if not for the heros...ect.  I just wish more authors would find new plot to abuse that excluded the end of the world.


----------



## ThinkerX (Sep 6, 2012)

Hmmm...

Cooks 'Black Company'...dominated choice between 'light evil' (the Lady) or the Dominator

Elliots 'Crown of Stars'...yes, the merging was cataclasmic, and could have been worse, but there were a whole host of other issues.

Feists 'Riftwar'...yep, the return of the Dragonlords would have been real bad news for the whole planet..

Eriksons 'Malazan'...I have yet to come across anything definitively world ending, but there are so many really powerful really nasty characters I wouldn't be surprised if one of them did try to destroy it all...

Kerr's 'Devrry'...no, no grand apocalypse.  Some nasty people and some serious change and challenges, but no earthshattering doom.

Lackey's 'Valdemar' series...lots of bad guys, and a sort of cataclasmic 'echo', but fairly mild as these things go.

LeGuin's 'EarthSea'...again, some bad guys, but the apocalypse is more of a slow philosophical thing than ought else.

Logstons 'Shadow' books...some nasty individuals, and there is a tsunami in one book, but mostly fairly tame.

Lovecraft 'Ctuhulu mythos'...you are already doomed, you just don't realize it yet.

Martins 'Game of Thrones'...political intrigue, a nasty civil war, and far off menaces.

Moons 'Paksennarion' series...bad guys yes, threat way in the distance yes, but nothing real immediate.

Nortons 'Witch World'...big catastrophe was in the distant past, challenge is dealing with the strange creatures and people crawling out of the wreckage.

Tolkiens 'Lord of the Ring'....life under Sauron - not good at all.

I could go on (and left a bunch out), but I'll cut it off here.  Yes, imminent doom in the form of a Dark Lord or other catastrophe is an unfortunately common theme in much fantasy, to the point where I don't usually care for such anymore.  But there are excellent works that do well without such massive threats.


----------



## Zero Angel (Sep 6, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> What about Joanne Bertin's _The Last Dragonlord_? The world isn't really at stake there if I recall, nor even a kingdom. Only the continued existence of a certain group of people (the dragonlords) and the traditions they represent.



I've never read this, but from the description on Amazon, etc, it appears to be non-epic. Do you consider it epic?

But still, since I've never heard of it, my point stands. I've never heard of an epic fantasy where the world (or continent or region or whatever) was not in peril. Of course, I think that's kinda' part of the definition of "epic". The issues and conflicts have to affect more than just the mundane. 

Even so, although this has made me incredibly self-conscious of my own epic fantasy, it hasn't dissuaded me at all from it.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 6, 2012)

Lord Darkstorm said:


> My point is that not all fantasy is world ending, but it is a very common theme.  To me, the world ending plot is so cliche I really can't find the desire to care.  The only reason I'll bother with the last book of the wheel of time is because I've already endured the others, might as well finish it.
> 
> Andre Norton whom I have read many of her fantasy novels, tended to restrict the devastation to the main characters or the general place they lived, and I have enjoyed a great number of them.  Other authors have managed to not have the world hanging in the balance in fantasy, but all to often....the fate of the world hangs in the balance as the brave hero's search for the sacred thing that was created thousands of years in the past (usually on a very nicely rounded even number...one thousand, five thousand..ect) just to fight the evil that is threatening the world.  If not for different characters it would be all but pointless.  If you ever want to see one of the nicest mockeries of the standard fantasy end of the world template, check out bard's tail.  It's a video game they made for pc, xbox (original) and ps2.  I picked it up from one of the online game stores for a couple bucks not to long ago....and it is still as hilarious as I remembered.
> 
> Not all fantasy has this problem, but I've read a few dozen that the world was going to end and evil rule supreme if not for the heros...ect.  I just wish more authors would find new plot to abuse that excluded the end of the world.



I think the issue is that in an epic story you want the conflict to have gravity. You can get deep conflict and drama even if all that's at stake is a tiny corner of the map, but it's going to be harder because you have to put in extra effort to get the reader invested in the main characters and their little corner of the map. That takes a lot more effort from the author. The "end of the world" is an easier, or some might say cheapter way to get the reader invested. But it can also backfire if the author assumes the larger stakes alone will invest the reader and neglects character development and worldbuilding.

Having said that, I don't think the world-ending plot is completely dead. I plan to use it. Just not for my first work.

I plan to start the conflict relatively small in the first book, then gradually increase the scale while scaling back occasionally. Only at the very end do I plan to use the "end of the world" card, as a grand finale of sorts.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 6, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> I've never read this, but from the description on Amazon, etc, it appears to be non-epic. Do you consider it epic?
> 
> But still, since I've never heard of it, my point stands. I've never heard of an epic fantasy where the world (or continent or region or whatever) was not in peril. Of course, I think that's kinda' part of the definition of "epic". The issues and conflicts have to affect more than just the mundane.
> 
> Even so, although this has made me incredibly self-conscious of my own epic fantasy, it hasn't dissuaded me at all from it.



When I read it I thought it was pretty epic. But that's using the pedestrian definition of "epic." As far as stories go, I think there's two kinds of "epic". There's depth or gravity "epic" and there's size or scale "epic." The Last Dragonlord is, I feel, very depth-epic, but it's not very scale-epic. 

Depth-epic is harder to do. It takes more effort from the writer. It means the reader really has to be invested in the characters, worldbuilding, and plot. Possibly in that order. Depth-epic requires more writing skill to achieve. Because of this, if a book has the depth-epic but not the scale-epic, it can still be very good, even great. Good examples of depth-epic would be The Last Dragonlord or Jim Butcher's Furies of Calderon, although the latter has shades of scale-epic as well. Scale-epic, on the other hand, is very easy to do because it has a much lower skill floor than depth-epic does. All one has to do is increase the size of the story or artificially increase the stakes. Because of this, stories that have scale-epic without the depth-epic to support it tend to fall flat. Examples of scale-epic without much or any depth-epic at all behind it would be Eragon and Transformers 2. However, when a writer can pull off depth-epic and scale epic together, the result is glorious. Lord of the Rings and the latter Codex Alera books would be examples.


----------



## Zero Angel (Sep 6, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> I think the issue is that in an epic story you want the conflict to have gravity. You can get deep conflict and drama even if all that's at stake is a tiny corner of the map, but it's going to be harder because you have to put in extra effort to get the reader invested in the main characters and their little corner of the map. That takes a lot more effort from the author. The "end of the world" is an easier, or some might say cheapter way to get the reader invested. But it can also backfire if the author assumes the larger stakes alone will invest the reader and neglects character development and worldbuilding.
> 
> Having said that, I don't think the world-ending plot is completely dead. I plan to use it. Just not for my first work.
> 
> I plan to start the conflict relatively small in the first book, then gradually increase the scale while scaling back occasionally. Only at the very end do I plan to use the "end of the world" card, as a grand finale of sorts.



I don't think it's dead either--or at least I am betting on it not being dead. I start relatively small as well and build up to a multiverse ending event over the course of 12-16 books. But even then, I think one of the appeals of the "end of the world" books, or maybe why it is done so often, is that you have all of these people with secondary creation. That is, they made up an entire world or universe! If they are going to write stories in that world or universe, isn't the end possibly one of the most exciting times? Or at least the time with the most on the scale? Once you make a world, it is pretty easy to see its end.



Mindfire said:


> When I read it I thought it was pretty epic. But that's using the pedestrian definition of "epic." As far as stories go, I think there's two kinds of "epic". There's depth or gravity "epic" and there's size or scale "epic." The Last Dragonlord is, I feel, very depth-epic, but it's not very scale-epic.
> 
> Depth-epic is harder to do. It takes more effort from the writer. It means the reader really has to be invested in the characters, worldbuilding, and plot. Possibly in that order. Depth-epic requires more writing skill to achieve. Because of this, if a book has the depth-epic but not the scale-epic, it can still be very good, even great. Good examples of depth-epic would be The Last Dragonlord or Jim Butcher's Furies of Calderon, although the latter has shades of scale-epic as well. Scale-epic, on the other hand, is very easy to do because it has a much lower skill floor than depth-epic does. All one has to do is increase the size of the story or artificially increase the stakes. Because of this, stories that have scale-epic without the depth-epic to support it tend to fall flat. Examples of scale-epic without much or any depth-epic at all behind it would be Eragon and Transformers 2. However, when a writer can pull off depth-epic and scale epic together, the result is glorious. Lord of the Rings and the latter Codex Alera books would be examples.



I see. Thanks for clarifying. I agree that successful "scale-epics" need to have depth as well or else they end up being quite trashy. I managed to make my way all the way through the first Eragon, but I couldn't get more than halfway through the second book.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 6, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> I don't think it's dead either--or at least I am betting on it not being dead. I start relatively small as well and build up to a multiverse ending event over the course of 12-16 books. But even then, I think one of the appeals of the "end of the world" books, or maybe why it is done so often, is that you have all of these people with secondary creation. That is, they made up an entire world or universe! If they are going to write stories in that world or universe, isn't the end possibly one of the most exciting times? Or at least the time with the most on the scale? Once you make a world, it is pretty easy to see its end.
> 
> I see. Thanks for clarifying. I agree that successful "scale-epics" need to have depth as well or else they end up being quite trashy. I managed to make my way all the way through the first Eragon, but I couldn't get more than halfway through the second book.



I must be a masochist, because I finished the first three. xD I have yet to touch the 4th one though. I feel like just reading the inheritance cycle causes my writing skill to take a dip. Then I have to spend time practice writing just to shake off the effects. Of course when I read Brisingr, my style was still developing and thus more malleable. I might be more hardened now that I'm starting to find my voice.


----------



## Zero Angel (Sep 6, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> I must be a masochist,



...there's a difference between being a masochist and subjecting yourself to something that is unnecessarily frustrating for a story that is subpar at best.

Is Paolini even doing anything anymore? Or has his age surpassed his skill level so he's not marketable anymore?


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 6, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> ...there's a difference between being a masochist and subjecting yourself to something that is unnecessarily frustrating for a story that is subpar at best.
> 
> Is Paolini even doing anything anymore? Or has his age surpassed his skill level so he's not marketable anymore?



There are murmurs and whispers of a fifth book in the works, but so far nothing solid.

I think I'm gifted with a magical imagination, because my mind can somehow take that subpar-at-best story and transform it into something tolerable. Those books even manage some so-bad-its-good moments. At the part in Brisingr where Eragon waxes poetic about his new mentor's naked body, I must've thought, "what in the frozen wastes of Hel am I reading?!"


----------



## Bloodywake (May 8, 2022)

Honestly I have to say you can even look it up, H,g Wells even though he was famous for the time machine and war of the worlds (sci-fi) he  also wrote lesser know fantasy fiction like food of the gods and even horror genre the twelve frights of Christmas and several other things too.

Heck Jules Verne was even a very successful writing plays before he authored the books around the world in 80 Days, 20,000 leagues under the sea, once again he was also pegged a Sci-Fi writer because of the submarine of captain Nemo's

  But once a author gains notoriety for one title or another they are permanently branded as the genre that gained them notoriety and only that.


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (May 8, 2022)

Well, I think one of the things many people don't take into consideration is the social state of the people doing the reading.  Back over a 100 years ago, fantasy was more for children's stories, not for grown adults.  While people would still read them, it wasn't as socially accepted to talk about them in the same way as a science fiction work.  Since science fiction, as absurd as some of it was, even more fantastical than fantasy, was in the realm of possible one day, maybe, while magic just doesn't exist so dreaming of magic is just a waste of time.  As time passed fantasy, and I think Tolkien deserves a bit of credit for helping, started to be less of 'for children' and was able to be accepted as things adults could read.  

Most writers who are looking to sell books will write for what people are buying, which is why whenever there is a top selling book in a specific genre we get so many copy cat themes.  Harry potter spawned many wizard school or similar themed books (some of them were actually quite good), Then I forget which series got us the vampires and werewolf books by the droves, but it got hard to find good books not including one or several of that subset.  So, being that books that sell make money for all involved, people will write what the current readers want to buy, and be remembered for what sold the best.


----------

