The Star Wars 'scientific explanation of the force was (from the internet): "Midi-chlorians were microscopic, intelligent life forms that originated from the foundation of life in the center of the galaxy, and ultimately resided within the cells of all living organisms, thereby forming a symbiotic relationship with their hosts. The Force spoke through the midi-chlorians, allowing certain beings to use the Force if they were sensitive enough to its powers. In order to gauge an individual's potential in the Force, blood tests were used to estimate the number of midi-chlorians within the subject's cells. Anakin Skywalker, the Chosen One, possessed the highest known count in galactic history-over twenty-thousand midi-chlorians-surpassing the potential of Grand Master Yoda and all Jedi."
There you go, I knew there was something like this, but could never raise the interest to check it, given my general antipathy to 'Star Wars' and the general dumbing down of mass media SF it caused. Mind you, I do get choked up at the coda of the film when the guys get their decorations from Carrie Fisher...
Yes, it's been a while since I posted an episode, but there will be at least another 2 to come. Check out my out and about videos, I tend to talk about SF and other literature during them, plenty on the channel and when the weather improves in the UK, I'll be shooting lots more this Spring-and in Italy and France later this year (yes, International SF and Literature vids!). Thanks for your comments, Michael!
Again, great to hear that you share my dislike of fantasy and particularly the confabulation of SF with fantasy which has become a de facto joint categorisation in the last 20-30 years. It drives me mad. All those super-hero stories that claim SF status, most of all. Well done, sir! I wish your points would receive far wider coverage. I was thrown out of an SF discussion group for making this SF/fantasy point. Mind you, I didn’t make it as eloquently as you do!
Obviously not a group that valued actual discussion: I've been banned from two (admittedly rather lame) Facebook SF groups for insisting that the distinction between 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' and lazily edited editions that bear the wrong title '1984' is massively important and that if you can't see why, you've missed the point of Newspeak and Orwell's book in general. Thing is, Richard, we're up against the popular forms of genres that codified alongside visual mass-media representations- such as film and TV. These, being more accessible, are bound to dominate the popular imagination. I often think there's an equation here - Popular = Conservative. Not always true of course, but in SF over the last 30 years, it's become increasingly true, I think. I'd like wider dissemination too: I wouldn't say I'm envious of SF channels with far higher views, but I will say that hardly any of them are any good to the longterm expert eye and it's amazing how popular some commentators with no real claim to authority are. But then it's that populist thing again. There'll always be room for more reasoned examination of genre here and I'm always glad to see your posts.
Quite enjoyed this, but I feel like there's a LOT more going on in the video you linked to at the end; a lot of points made that open up avenues to discussion, so I'll head there and comment my head off. Thank you for more walks in Wales!
Yes, this is really a sidebar, looking at how the novum helps differentiate SF from Fantasy and emphasising the natural (science)/supernatural (fantastic) dichotomy. It's just for those who want to argue the 'Yes but...' interjection that Fantasy & SF are the same, when they're actually very different structurally and phliosophically.
Well, I shot and Out & About yesterday, though it won't go up on the channel for a few weeks. Weather has been terrible here and that's stopped me filming outdoors a lot, but yesterday was very fine indeed.
Thanks for the video, another fascinating discussion. I think Book of the New Sun is an especially intriguing case. It's interesting to note that Gollancz publish it in both their SF Masterworks and Fantasy Masterworks range.
Well, I'm pretty sure the Fantasy Masterworks editions are out of print and it's now in SF Masterworks. The critical consensus is that it's pretty definitively SF, which I agree with. I am going to tackle this issue a in a future video, but overall I feel that most of what used to get called Science Fantasy is actually SF.
Very interesting (as usual)! Helps my thinking... For years I've been trying to work out if Stephen Donaldson's duology 'Mordant's Need' is SF or Fantasy. It's marketed as Fantasy, but it always seemed to me to be more SF. The central part of the books are the mirrors by which travel to other worlds is possible, which seems like fantasy. But in the context of that world, the mirrors are a science. Their manufacture and use are studied, understood and repeatable - which would make it SF. Or would it? 🤔
Well, I'd have to read them to give you my judgement - know that diptych (duology is the wrong word, a made-up construct from someone recent in publishing who doesn't know the correct literary term!) but have never read it. By the sound of it, it's science - and for me to be 'science' in fiction, it has to eschew the supernatural/inexplicable and at least stand in for the scientific method (repeated experimentation that leads to consistent results), so it may actually be SF by the sound of it. I have to tackle the thorny 'Science Fantasy' issue at some point....good to hear from you, mate!
Ok, diptych - I'll have to try and remember that one! I'd certainly recommend Mordant's Need, I always thought that, whatever ever it was it was one of the best I'd read. I'd lend you my copy, but someone already borrowed it... And they still have it!
Love the Clarke and the quote , about things looking like magic when its science at work . And then there is ' The Nine Billion Names Of God ' Nice one Mr Clarke . 😁 . For me ' Star Wars ' was a fantasy quest . Then came the midi chlorines or some thing .Now its Duneish ? Bradleys DarkOver series .Among others. The powers are the result of an advance brain . Star Trek meet ' Jack the Ripper ' and even God , all bad alliens . SF seems to have the ability to take our beliefs and put a scientific spin .Some times i wonder who is trying to hitch ride on the genre.
The Force in Star Wars seems to be based on or inspired by the concept of the Cosmic Dao from Daoism but it does get a scientific explanation in the prequel movies. According to the prequel movies the reason the Jedi and the Sith can use the Force is because they have what are known as Midichlorians in their blood which allows for the manipulation of the world around them. Thank you for your in depth explanation of the two
Thanks for the video. Have you done a video on science fantasy? I like it when authors mix the two genres-and, yes, I agree, it's a subgenre of fantasy.
No, not yet. I think Science Fantasy is a useful but problematic label, but at the moment, I'm thining that most of it is actually Fantasy, but I want to analyse it by author really.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal None of the subgenre labels are without problems. Urban fantasy for example. Science fantasy is fantasy with science. Or with spaceships, as in Star Wars. I enjoy it when science and magic face come into conflict in a story.
@@markc6411 -Well, if you watch my video series 'the elements of sf' and my genre theory' playlist', you'll see I'm pretty certain of what genres exist and what their boundaries are, but science fantasy is yet to be tackled. To me, a term like 'urban fantasy' is pretty meaningless - and as for 'Star Wars', it's Fantasy, a classic example of something that appears to be SF, but because of the presence of the supernatural, is fantasy.
Well, it's sold well over 100,000 copies so you're not alone. It was, however, the book that started the Fantasy boom and set the template for everything in the genre going on forever and it helped kill the Sword & Sorcery singleton, which wasn't a good thing for Fantasy truly being the genre of imagination, contributing to it becoming a formula. But that, of course, is also a key differentiator to SF, where the singleton is still fairly predominant, despite publisher's attempts to get authors to write SF series, which, in their repetition and familiarity, makes for poor SF - unless the writer can spring a truly fresh novum each time, which they generally don't do, relying instead on familiar settings and characters- thoughts of which lead me to thinking about the next video in this series. Thanks for your continued attention, Richard.
No, as pure Steampunk is SF, not Fantasy: the term was coined by SF wrier K W Jeter as a joke in a letter to Locus (the science fiction newspaper) circa 1986 as everyone was going on about Cyberpunk then. He coined it while staying in Bath (where I live) while staying with my friend Les Escott, founder of Morrigan books and former publisher at Kerosina books (there are videos about both publishers on this channel, plus a look at Jeter's novel 'Dr Adder' -the video is called "outstandingly weird"). KW wrote something like this "Never mind Cyberpunk, my novel 'Morlock Night' - which was a late 70s sequel to 'The Time Machine'- is Steampunk,". The label was initially only applied to the collaborative works of Jeter, Tim Powers and James Blaylock in the late 1980s -the California Dreamers, I call them, who all knew Philip K Dick and worked on projects that linked up. It was hardly used until around 2000, when the later, more fake Steampunk started to appear and became a semi-subculture of Goth. I went to a Steampunk fair about ten years ago and spoke to dozens of people and NONE of them knew where the term came from. Even some of the later reference books fail to mention the important precursors of Stemapunk - Christopher Priests' 'The Space Machine' and Michael Moorcock's Oswald Bastable trilogy, both from the 1970s. Steampunk is a subgenre of Recursive SF, which is SF about SF, or that references the history of Science Fiction as a key element. I use Anachronism re Fantasy as its symbols and tropes are archaic and historical, unlike the Novums ('new things' of Science Fiction) which are innovations of the future, not the past.
This was an interesting, literate & literary talk. Back in the 20th Century I read Dragon Riders of Pern & 1 other. This was pre-internet & I found it difficult to know what order to read the series in & where to buy them. Hence I stopped at the 2. Should I try again or would you have another recommendation? On a return from Plymouth to London in the remnants of a hurricane I started reading the Magician by Raymond E Fiest rather than contemplate the hideous road accident that I thought could happen imminently. Subsequently read the other 2 in the Rift war saga. Had a friend who was enamoured by the Stephen Donaldson, Thomas Covenanter books ( not read them myself). Should I stick to SciFi or am I missing out on some good Fantasy must reads?
Well, I'm not a massive fan of McCaffrey, but I'd say obviously read 'Dragonflight', the first one, as entry point. The trouble with the series is that the great idea at the heart of the series takes some time to be revealed and in the meantime, one has to put up with her rather Mills & Book romantic saga prose. Feist is important historically to 1980s Sword & Sorcery but is pretty formulaic. Fantasy and SF are actually very, very different things - I'd suggest watching my 'Elements of Science Fiction' series- check the playlist on the channel and the 'My Top 10 Classic Fantasy (Sword & Sorcery). SF is about the new - at its best -while Fantasy in its popular form (Sword & Sorcery) is long debased for commercial reasons - but is really about the past, so it has an entirely different philosophical core in my view. Look at the playlists on the channel (PC or Tv streaming is best) and watch some of the backlist and the answers you seek will appear...thank!
As SF, I'd say. It contains no magic or supernatural elements that I recall and has connections to 'On The Marble Cliffs'. There are many unspecified time/place novels like this in the history of European Modernism and some can be claimed for Fantasy purely by having an unrecognisable real world setting.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Sorry. It was a terrible joke. You had one 'like' ( which could be "seeding the pot" as it were), so i thought I'd put that till I watched the whole thing and had something intelligent to say. And I've been interrupted three times since I started. . .
Well yes, you've nailed it. SF is entirely Modernist in outlook, in terms of its appearance in the chronology of fiction's development and split into 3 genres (SF, Fantasy, Realism), historically in the rise of post-Enlightenment thinking.
You establish your discussion by discussing fantasy and science fiction. The difference between science fiction and science fantasy? Most factors of differentiation that I have encountered seem to be based around notions of plausibility. K ( :
Well, I want to cover that in an upcoming video, as it's clearly a fascinating point, a debatable point and a sticking point (arguably) for some of my theories. I'm doing some reading on this currently, so give me a few weeks- hope you are well, Keith!
No, I'd say Dick interpreted what you describe as the 'mystical' in scientific terms - i.e. once the supernatural is confirmed as existing and explained, it becomes natural and no longer Fantastic. Readings of the rest of the trilogy ('The Divine Invasion' and 'Radio Free Albemuth' - and 'Transmigration of Timothy Archer' and the Exegesis) pretty much confirm my standpoint on this. As you say, amazing stuff. There is a video on the channel about how to read 'VALIS'.
as far as i see it (sorry for my bad english), the force in star wars is only a thing that appears mystical but in reality its scientific. its mystical because the jedi order will keep it hidden so that no ordinary guy will use the force because that would be bad. you only need to look into concepts of modern science (everything is energy in different forms etc) to see that the force could very well be a scientific concept.
"No creo en brujas, pero que las hay, las hay..." Basically, "There are more things between Heaven and Earth..."etc. I get how the distinction between SFiction and Fantasy works, I guess it's necessary to properly label the genres and all. But to me, materialistic science just can't encompass ALL there is, or even the totality of human experience. It's like trying to fit an elephant in a shoebox; it won't work. Oh, I don't want to get into a lengthy epistemological argument, either; let's just say I've seen things... In any case, isn't it odd how many of the top SF authors have dabbled with religion in their work? Frank Herbert, Blish, Gordon Dickson, PKD. I've seen Dick's interest in religion(s) throughout his books, and not always in 'plain sight', so to speak, like in The Transmigration or Divine Invasion and Valis. Remember the machine used by Deckard in Do Androids Dream? The one that gave him an almost religious experience? That's what I mean. I think PKD knew that there's another 'level' to our existence, one that may be attained through what we understand as the religious experience, which some attain through peak experiences or by ingesting mind-expanding substances---Dick certainly tried that approach! In the end,I suppose religion in its elementary form(more mystical) can offer a way to deal with that transcendental aspect of the cosmos. In a sense it's like a journey to another world.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I don't disagree- I am an open-minded skeptic if you like - but as you grasp, I'm making a distinction here between Fiction Genres based on how different philosophies-ways of looking at and explaining the world - evolved out of the cauldron of Story, hence my breaking Fiction down into three genres -Realism, SF and Fantasy. I have discussed Religion in SF here briefly and with Matt at Bookpilled and we are both fascinated by how examinations of faith, belief and evidence arise in SF- I've been a PKD reader since the late 1970s - and I've come to the conclusion that its not odd at all- SF, using the scientific method of repeated experimentation to prove theories or disprove them will naturally look at the line between religion and science, looking for evidence. I've also spoken recently of Colin Wilson's writing on the peak experience and psychedelic drugs in SF in another video. Really, what I'm trying to do here is put a philosophical argument to underlie simple misconceptions like 'well there are spaceships in it so it must be SF' when such a story also includes the unadulterated supernatural, which by default pushes it into the Fantasy genre. It's as much a technical point to discourage muddled usages like 'Science Fiction Fantasy'- the two things are quite different, I feel and my experience of selling both over many decades shows the two things separating from each other with ever-increasing relative escape velocities as the way publishing has evolved creating two very distinct readerships.
So, if your world has magic, with set rules, and there are bodies of learned people actively doing research in an effort to find out why it works, then it becomes science fiction. 🙂
This is the usual question that arises here, so let's look at it - loads of authors have 'systemised' magic in novels, especially hard SF scribes like Larry Niven in 'The Flying Sorcerers'. There's no doubt that magic/the occult is often described and codified as a system, but if it is supernaturally powered, then it remains Fantasy. If that magic is revealed to be a natural, newly discovered system, it becomes science, so yep, it's SF. It also ceases to be 'magic' in this instance. In my video where I interview Gavin Chait - posted a week or so ago here- he says he draws the line between SF & Fantasy using the law of the conservation of energy: "If you get more out than you put in, then it's Fantasy,". I thought this was clever, elegant and properly scientific.
The Star Wars 'scientific explanation of the force was (from the internet): "Midi-chlorians were microscopic, intelligent life forms that originated from the foundation of life in the center of the galaxy, and ultimately resided within the cells of all living organisms, thereby forming a symbiotic relationship with their hosts. The Force spoke through the midi-chlorians, allowing certain beings to use the Force if they were sensitive enough to its powers. In order to gauge an individual's potential in the Force, blood tests were used to estimate the number of midi-chlorians within the subject's cells. Anakin Skywalker, the Chosen One, possessed the highest known count in galactic history-over twenty-thousand midi-chlorians-surpassing the potential of Grand Master Yoda and all Jedi."
There you go, I knew there was something like this, but could never raise the interest to check it, given my general antipathy to 'Star Wars' and the general dumbing down of mass media SF it caused. Mind you, I do get choked up at the coda of the film when the guys get their decorations from Carrie Fisher...
@@outlawbookselleroriginal But why doesn't Chewbacca (the Wookie) get a medal?
@@captainnolan5062 Shocking, right?
Interesting views. Enjoyed this.
Thanks Paul!
Love this series. Hope there's many more to come. I enjoy the walking by the way, there's an immediacy I find appealing.
Yes, it's been a while since I posted an episode, but there will be at least another 2 to come. Check out my out and about videos, I tend to talk about SF and other literature during them, plenty on the channel and when the weather improves in the UK, I'll be shooting lots more this Spring-and in Italy and France later this year (yes, International SF and Literature vids!). Thanks for your comments, Michael!
@@outlawbookselleroriginal ooh. I speak French, looking forward to some french SF reccies! So easy to find cheap books there as well.
Again, great to hear that you share my dislike of fantasy and particularly the confabulation of SF with fantasy which has become a de facto joint categorisation in the last 20-30 years. It drives me mad. All those super-hero stories that claim SF status, most of all. Well done, sir! I wish your points would receive far wider coverage. I was thrown out of an SF discussion group for making this SF/fantasy point. Mind you, I didn’t make it as eloquently as you do!
Obviously not a group that valued actual discussion: I've been banned from two (admittedly rather lame) Facebook SF groups for insisting that the distinction between 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' and lazily edited editions that bear the wrong title '1984' is massively important and that if you can't see why, you've missed the point of Newspeak and Orwell's book in general.
Thing is, Richard, we're up against the popular forms of genres that codified alongside visual mass-media representations- such as film and TV. These, being more accessible, are bound to dominate the popular imagination. I often think there's an equation here - Popular = Conservative. Not always true of course, but in SF over the last 30 years, it's become increasingly true, I think.
I'd like wider dissemination too: I wouldn't say I'm envious of SF channels with far higher views, but I will say that hardly any of them are any good to the longterm expert eye and it's amazing how popular some commentators with no real claim to authority are. But then it's that populist thing again.
There'll always be room for more reasoned examination of genre here and I'm always glad to see your posts.
Quite enjoyed this, but I feel like there's a LOT more going on in the video you linked to at the end; a lot of points made that open up avenues to discussion, so I'll head there and comment my head off.
Thank you for more walks in Wales!
Yes, this is really a sidebar, looking at how the novum helps differentiate SF from Fantasy and emphasising the natural (science)/supernatural (fantastic) dichotomy. It's just for those who want to argue the 'Yes but...' interjection that Fantasy & SF are the same, when they're actually very different structurally and phliosophically.
These oot n aboot videos are great!
Dont stop making them.
I like a bit of out and about :) Some beautiful scenery there.
Well, I shot and Out & About yesterday, though it won't go up on the channel for a few weeks. Weather has been terrible here and that's stopped me filming outdoors a lot, but yesterday was very fine indeed.
Love hearing your thoughts on this stuff. Also, I think the out and abouts are great. Something a bit different. Cheers.
Cheers Barrie!
Thanks for the video, another fascinating discussion. I think Book of the New Sun is an especially intriguing case. It's interesting to note that Gollancz publish it in both their SF Masterworks and Fantasy Masterworks range.
Well, I'm pretty sure the Fantasy Masterworks editions are out of print and it's now in SF Masterworks. The critical consensus is that it's pretty definitively SF, which I agree with. I am going to tackle this issue a in a future video, but overall I feel that most of what used to get called Science Fantasy is actually SF.
Fascinating explanation. And we love your out and about videos. This channel is unique.
Many thanks!
Very interesting (as usual)! Helps my thinking... For years I've been trying to work out if Stephen Donaldson's duology 'Mordant's Need' is SF or Fantasy. It's marketed as Fantasy, but it always seemed to me to be more SF. The central part of the books are the mirrors by which travel to other worlds is possible, which seems like fantasy. But in the context of that world, the mirrors are a science. Their manufacture and use are studied, understood and repeatable - which would make it SF. Or would it? 🤔
Well, I'd have to read them to give you my judgement - know that diptych (duology is the wrong word, a made-up construct from someone recent in publishing who doesn't know the correct literary term!) but have never read it. By the sound of it, it's science - and for me to be 'science' in fiction, it has to eschew the supernatural/inexplicable and at least stand in for the scientific method (repeated experimentation that leads to consistent results), so it may actually be SF by the sound of it. I have to tackle the thorny 'Science Fantasy' issue at some point....good to hear from you, mate!
Ok, diptych - I'll have to try and remember that one! I'd certainly recommend Mordant's Need, I always thought that, whatever ever it was it was one of the best I'd read. I'd lend you my copy, but someone already borrowed it... And they still have it!
Love the Clarke and the quote , about things looking like magic when its science at work . And then there is ' The Nine Billion Names Of God ' Nice one Mr Clarke . 😁 . For me ' Star Wars ' was a fantasy quest . Then came the midi chlorines or some thing .Now its Duneish ? Bradleys DarkOver series .Among others. The powers are the result of an advance brain . Star Trek meet ' Jack the Ripper ' and even God , all bad alliens . SF seems to have the ability to take our beliefs and put a scientific spin .Some times i wonder who is trying to hitch ride on the genre.
The Force in Star Wars seems to be based on or inspired by the concept of the Cosmic Dao from Daoism but it does get a scientific explanation in the prequel movies. According to the prequel movies the reason the Jedi and the Sith can use the Force is because they have what are known as Midichlorians in their blood which allows for the manipulation of the world around them. Thank you for your in depth explanation of the two
Yeah, I heard that about the prequels.
Thanks for the video. Have you done a video on science fantasy? I like it when authors mix the two genres-and, yes, I agree, it's a subgenre of fantasy.
No, not yet. I think Science Fantasy is a useful but problematic label, but at the moment, I'm thining that most of it is actually Fantasy, but I want to analyse it by author really.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal None of the subgenre labels are without problems. Urban fantasy for example.
Science fantasy is fantasy with science. Or with spaceships, as in Star Wars. I enjoy it when science and magic face come into conflict in a story.
@@markc6411 -Well, if you watch my video series 'the elements of
sf' and my
genre theory' playlist', you'll see I'm pretty certain of what genres exist and what their boundaries are, but
science fantasy is yet to be tackled. To me,
a term like 'urban fantasy' is pretty meaningless - and as for 'Star Wars', it's Fantasy, a classic example of something that appears to be SF, but because of the presence of the supernatural, is fantasy.
I did enjoy The Sword of Shannara. I was only 17 when I read it, though!
Well, it's sold well over 100,000 copies so you're not alone. It was, however, the book that started the Fantasy boom and set the template for everything in the genre going on forever and it helped kill the Sword & Sorcery singleton, which wasn't a good thing for Fantasy truly being the genre of imagination, contributing to it becoming a formula. But that, of course, is also a key differentiator to SF, where the singleton is still fairly predominant, despite publisher's attempts to get authors to write SF series, which, in their repetition and familiarity, makes for poor SF - unless the writer can spring a truly fresh novum each time, which they generally don't do, relying instead on familiar settings and characters- thoughts of which lead me to thinking about the next video in this series. Thanks for your continued attention, Richard.
_Anachronisms_ ...adding this new word to my vocabulary.
I looked up the definition. Would this concept be applied to steampunk?
No, as pure Steampunk is SF, not Fantasy: the term was coined by SF wrier K W Jeter as a joke in a letter to Locus (the science fiction newspaper) circa 1986 as everyone was going on about Cyberpunk then. He coined it while staying in Bath (where I live) while staying with my friend Les Escott, founder of Morrigan books and former publisher at Kerosina books (there are videos about both publishers on this channel, plus a look at Jeter's novel 'Dr Adder' -the video is called "outstandingly weird").
KW wrote something like this "Never mind Cyberpunk, my novel 'Morlock Night' - which was a late 70s sequel to 'The Time Machine'- is Steampunk,". The label was initially only applied to the collaborative works of Jeter, Tim Powers and James Blaylock in the late 1980s -the California Dreamers, I call them, who all knew Philip K Dick and worked on projects that linked up. It was hardly used until around 2000, when the later, more fake Steampunk started to appear and became a semi-subculture of Goth. I went to a Steampunk fair about ten years ago and spoke to dozens of people and NONE of them knew where the term came from. Even some of the later reference books fail to mention the important precursors of Stemapunk - Christopher Priests' 'The Space Machine' and Michael Moorcock's Oswald Bastable trilogy, both from the 1970s. Steampunk is a subgenre of Recursive SF, which is SF about SF, or that references the history of Science Fiction as a key element.
I use Anachronism re Fantasy as its symbols and tropes are archaic and historical, unlike the Novums ('new things' of Science Fiction) which are innovations of the future, not the past.
This was an interesting, literate & literary talk.
Back in the 20th Century I read Dragon Riders of Pern & 1 other. This was pre-internet & I found it difficult to know what order to read the series in & where to buy them. Hence I stopped at the 2. Should I try again or would you have another recommendation?
On a return from Plymouth to London in the remnants of a hurricane I started reading the Magician by Raymond E Fiest rather than contemplate the hideous road accident that I thought could happen imminently. Subsequently read the other 2 in the Rift war saga.
Had a friend who was enamoured by the Stephen Donaldson, Thomas Covenanter books ( not read them myself).
Should I stick to SciFi or am I missing out on some good Fantasy must reads?
Well, I'm not a massive fan of McCaffrey, but I'd say obviously read 'Dragonflight', the first one, as entry point. The trouble with the series is that the great idea at the heart of the series takes some time to be revealed and in the meantime, one has to put up with her rather Mills & Book romantic saga prose.
Feist is important historically to 1980s Sword & Sorcery but is pretty formulaic. Fantasy and SF are actually very, very different things - I'd suggest watching my 'Elements of Science Fiction' series- check the playlist on the channel and the 'My Top 10 Classic Fantasy (Sword & Sorcery).
SF is about the new - at its best -while Fantasy in its popular form (Sword & Sorcery) is long debased for commercial reasons - but is really about the past, so it has an entirely different philosophical core in my view.
Look at the playlists on the channel (PC or Tv streaming is best) and watch some of the backlist and the answers you seek will appear...thank!
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Very helpful & informative. As I'm new to the channel, plenty to catch upon. Thanks for the reply.
How would you classify Heliopolis by Ernst Jünger?
As SF, I'd say. It contains no magic or supernatural elements that I recall and has connections to 'On The Marble Cliffs'. There are many unspecified time/place novels like this in the history of European Modernism and some can be claimed for Fantasy purely by having an unrecognisable real world setting.
First? I think Modernism plays a great role in this tri-fold issue of sf/fantasy/ and the disapproval of the fantastic.
Yeah, you're the first commenter, if that's what you mean...
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Sorry. It was a terrible joke. You had one 'like' ( which could be "seeding the pot" as it were), so i thought I'd put that till I watched the whole thing and had something intelligent to say.
And I've been interrupted three times since I started. . .
@@waltera13 -That's the nature of the contemporary world - constant interruption!
Well yes, you've nailed it. SF is entirely Modernist in outlook, in terms of its appearance in the chronology of fiction's development and split into 3 genres (SF, Fantasy, Realism), historically in the rise of post-Enlightenment thinking.
You establish your discussion by discussing fantasy and science fiction. The difference between science fiction and science fantasy? Most factors of differentiation that I have encountered seem to be based around notions of plausibility. K ( :
Well, I want to cover that in an upcoming video, as it's clearly a fascinating point, a debatable point and a sticking point (arguably) for some of my theories. I'm doing some reading on this currently, so give me a few weeks- hope you are well, Keith!
I love Philip K Dick in valis he certainly seems to arrive in the mystical realm, couldn't you argue that is then a work of fantasy? Love that book!
No, I'd say Dick interpreted what you describe as the 'mystical' in scientific terms - i.e. once the supernatural is confirmed as existing and explained, it becomes natural and no longer Fantastic. Readings of the rest of the trilogy ('The Divine Invasion' and 'Radio Free Albemuth' - and 'Transmigration of Timothy Archer' and the Exegesis) pretty much confirm my standpoint on this. As you say, amazing stuff. There is a video on the channel about how to read 'VALIS'.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Yes I haven't got round to the others in the trilogy sounds fascinating!
as far as i see it (sorry for my bad english), the force in star wars is only a thing that appears mystical but in reality its scientific. its mystical because the jedi order will keep it hidden so that no ordinary guy will use the force because that would be bad.
you only need to look into concepts of modern science (everything is energy in different forms etc) to see that the force could very well be a scientific concept.
"No creo en brujas, pero que las hay, las hay..." Basically, "There are more things between Heaven and Earth..."etc. I get how the distinction between SFiction and Fantasy works, I guess it's necessary to properly label the genres and all. But to me, materialistic science just can't encompass ALL there is, or even the totality of human experience. It's like trying to fit an elephant in a shoebox; it won't work. Oh, I don't want to get into a lengthy epistemological argument, either; let's just say I've seen things...
In any case, isn't it odd how many of the top SF authors have dabbled with religion in their work? Frank Herbert, Blish, Gordon Dickson, PKD. I've seen Dick's interest in religion(s) throughout his books, and not always in 'plain sight', so to speak, like in The Transmigration or Divine Invasion and Valis. Remember the machine used by Deckard in Do Androids Dream? The one that gave him an almost religious experience? That's what I mean. I think PKD knew that there's another 'level' to our existence, one that may be attained through what we understand as the religious experience, which some attain through peak experiences or by ingesting mind-expanding substances---Dick certainly tried that approach! In the end,I suppose religion in its elementary form(more mystical) can offer a way to deal with that transcendental aspect of the cosmos. In a sense it's like a journey to another world.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I don't disagree- I am an open-minded skeptic if you like - but as you grasp, I'm making a distinction here between Fiction Genres based on how different philosophies-ways of looking at and explaining the world - evolved out of the cauldron of Story, hence my breaking Fiction down into three genres -Realism, SF and Fantasy.
I have discussed Religion in SF here briefly and with Matt at Bookpilled and we are both fascinated by how examinations of faith, belief and evidence arise in SF- I've been a PKD reader since the late 1970s - and I've come to the conclusion that its not odd at all- SF, using the scientific method of repeated experimentation to prove theories or disprove them will naturally look at the line between religion and science, looking for evidence. I've also spoken recently of Colin Wilson's writing on the peak experience and psychedelic drugs in SF in another video.
Really, what I'm trying to do here is put a philosophical argument to underlie simple misconceptions like 'well there are spaceships in it so it must be SF' when such a story also includes the unadulterated supernatural, which by default pushes it into the Fantasy genre. It's as much a technical point to discourage muddled usages like 'Science Fiction Fantasy'- the two things are quite different, I feel and my experience of selling both over many decades shows the two things separating from each other with ever-increasing relative escape velocities as the way publishing has evolved creating two very distinct readerships.
So, if your world has magic, with set rules, and there are bodies of learned people actively doing research in an effort to find out why it works, then it becomes science fiction. 🙂
This is the usual question that arises here, so let's look at it - loads of authors have 'systemised' magic in novels, especially hard SF scribes like Larry Niven in 'The Flying Sorcerers'. There's no doubt that magic/the occult is often described and codified as a system, but if it is supernaturally powered, then it remains Fantasy. If that magic is revealed to be a natural, newly discovered system, it becomes science, so yep, it's SF. It also ceases to be 'magic' in this instance. In my video where I interview Gavin Chait - posted a week or so ago here- he says he draws the line between SF & Fantasy using the law of the conservation of energy: "If you get more out than you put in, then it's Fantasy,". I thought this was clever, elegant and properly scientific.