/lit/ - Literature

Fantasy is inheretly gay, at least sci-fi tries

Fantasy is wish fulfillment. Sci-Fi is dream crushing.

science fantasy

OH SNAP NOW WHAT MOTHAFUCKA

>>2570895
You know, sometimes I feel most Sci Fi is nothing but Futuiristic Fantasy, or Alternative universe Fantasy, so I guess you are right, most Sci Fi is gay as well

>>2570905
fantasy is sci fi without realism.

>>2570906
There's realism in sci-fi?

>>2570909
Yes, read any good science fiction author or any collection.
There is no realism in fantasy, hence the name.

>>2570906
My point exactly, when the so call Sci Fi lacks so much realism it becomes nothing but futuristic fantasy to me

Why not call it Sci FI Fa, Science-fictional Fantasy or something like that, it would be more acurate

>>2570911
But it's science-fiction.
Fiction.
Implies no reality either.

For example, Star Wars disgraces sci fi - it is basically fantasy in space. Shit, they even have swords.

>>2570918
George lukas refered to it as his Space Opera

Is this conversation going to end up saying both are bad?

Not that I disagree, but fantasy and sci-fi are some of my only coping mechanisms anymore.

>>2570918
star wars was just jew propaganda

>>2570924
I still like it! I do not care if GL is a Hardcore-Jew, Starwars is clearly the least Jewish of his works.

>>2570918
that's because star wars is science fantasy

>>2570913

This guy gets it. They are both pretty much the same thing, only sci-fi involves science. You could take LotR and call it sci-fi if all the various races were scientific abominations created in some laboratory a millenia ago.

Sci-fi because it has more literary merit than fantasy. Fantasy is rarely able to talk about the so called "human condition"(I know it is a loaded term). Sci-fi is able to show be a mirror to people's current suffering and are able to see a projection of future suffering.

Fantasy wins. Science Fiction has become so hard that it's basically become "hey guys let's talk about shit that'll be normal in twenty years". Edgar Rice Burroughs and the other pulp writers did Sci-Fi right, and the way they did was to have magic veiled with laser rifles.

>>2571127
There are a lot of fantasy novels that have literary worth. It's not the medium that makes something bad, it's the artist.

Fantasy can be said to incorporate magical realism and some surrealism. So, fantasy.

Sci-fi seems to be more valued because its political themes are more overt and are easily read on the surface. Fantasy often doesn't incorporate any political themes other than fetishizing the feudal system.

>Fantasy
>Not Deep
A Game of Thrones is certainly deeper than the Phantom Menace.

It all depends on the writer which one is more meaningful.

What the fuck now?

>>2571206
Game of Thrones is barely fantasy. It's mostly just drama with war and some dragons mixed in for good measure.

>>2571243

And is not deep.

>>2571243
Same could be said for any genre:

-Just some drama with dystopian societies and corrupt governments thrown in for good measure

-Just some drama with spaceships and lasers thrown in for good measure

-Just some drama with the supernatural thrown in

-Just some drama in a time

-Just some drama in a place

etc. You can't strip out components of something just to make it fit a different definition.

>>2571251
It has complex and human characters. It has an intricate story, involving each of these characters.

Just because it doesn't make you go "wow dooood, that's deeeep" doesn't mean it isn't. Not every piece of literature is didactic.

>>2571267
>thinks "deep" is synonymous with "complex"

getaloadofthisguy.avi