Why does it seem like fantasy, in particular High Fantasy, seems

>>50287604
The last few times we had this thread, it was because sci-fi writers usually at least have a passing interest in science and technology, making them slightly more worldly authors than the fantasy writers who had a dream about a talking rabbit.

Or maybe it's because there are so many more fantasy books being produced compared to sci-fi books, so you have more targets to point at and mock.

I think personally it's harder to craft a good fantasy book. That's me though.

>>50287653
I'd say it's more because Sci-fi more often than not relates to possible philosophic(or whatever you want to call it) issues that arise from modern and soon to be modern existence. Fantasy is more often than not totally divorced from the real world and make little attempt to be relevant to issues that people can relate to.

With "high fantasy" the problem is even more magnified, more often becoming about the things that define it as high fantasy, rather than doing anything novel.

File: Early Hive Catacombs.jpg (1MB, 2500x1359px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2500x1359px

>>50287604
It's a matter of taste I guess. Personally I dislike Sci-Fi in general and think 90% of it is tryhard crap that's trying to "reimagine" or be "commentary" on modern society BUT WITH SPACESHIPS AND ALIENS.

Compare this to high fantasy which usually doesn't even pretend to have anything to say about the real world, and I find scifi to be the more tiring unoriginal of the two.

Different stroke for different folks.

>>50288019
>Different stroke for different folks.

Nope, sorry anon, your opinions are objectively and literally bad wrong.

File: 1455690822906.jpg (17KB, 680x383px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 680x383px

>>50288093
This is the part where we each call eachother faggots while pretending to be different people so we can see who's e-peen (or free-time) is bigger.

>>50288190
Let's skip to the part where I say something insulting, call your opinions shit once more, then pretend to take the high road by stating that ' I don't have time for this childish arguing anymore, I have a life to be living!'

Then I insult you again, faggot.

Both genres do have something in common. In another forum I go to from time to time, sometimes authors lurk or even show up and self-identify, and more than one has said, "Yeah, well, it sells, and that pays the bills."

The proper response to avoid the propagation of shitty writing in both genres is to not buy shitty books. Also, instead of getting your niece/nephew whatever book is popular in 'young adults', get them the classics. Or stuff by authors who are actually good.

>>50288322
>Instead of getting your niece/nephew whatever book is popular in 'young adults', get them the classics
Yeah, I'm sure my 13 year old niece really will be happy instead of harry potter or the hungry games I got them The Brother's Karamazov.

Most people don't give a hoot about literature, prose, philosophy or any of that stuff. They buy 'shitty writing' because they like 'shitty writing'. They have fun reading a easily digested escapist fantasy/mystery/romance/whatever-popular-crap-genre book, just because it's not good from a literature angle or from the point of view of an elitist, doesn't mean it's bad for them and we shouldn't try to force them into what we like. I mean hell we are on /tg/, how would you feel if someone tried to convince you to stop playing (insert your preferred P'n'P here) and instead enjoy some media with real merit instead of these games with "shitty writing' ?

>>50288435
Here's your (you). Nice strawdogs bro.

>>50288228
you, sir, are a hhhhhomosexual

>>50288524
Sorry but I don't understand what you are saying, can you use less slang or shorthand or whatever you are using?

>>50287604
Bad fantasy suffers from the same problem bad scifi does (Or even every bit of media). The authors main or even only inspiration is other works in the genre they are writing for. A piece of works lineage should not look like a wreath or bush.

>>50288435
You don't have to go full pretentious literaturefag. Getting the kids Harry Potter is still orders of magnitude than some irredeemable shit like The Name of the Wind.

>>50288435

An important thing to remember is that something being a classic just means it was really influential, and it is therefore useful to understand literature in that era. It doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be a really engaging read. In fact, very often, classics are so immersed in their time that it's hard for modern people to read them.

It's a thing I have a lot of arguments about, as an elementary school teacher. I don't care what the curriculum says, a modern twelve year old that has never been 10km away from his big city just doesn't have the fucking context necessary to enjoy and fully understand a novel about the struggle of 19th century farmers.

>>50288734
Out of curiosity, what do, -or would, you have your students read?

>>50287604
Both produce the same percantage of drivel and shit, Fantasy just gets published a lot more. I mean, Maze Runner and Hunger Games are SciFi, after all.
Reading Circles, letterlists and D&D groups in the 80s and 70s probably complained about SciFi turning out so much crap and praised Fantasy for its much better constructed worlds and stories.

>>50289540
I don't think so anon, those were actually really good times for sci-fi. In the decades preceding and up to the 80s you had the big 3 publish a good chunk of their works, had the tail end of the golden age of sci-fi just end, had magazine publishing become nearly respectable and attract a lot of attention, had a lot of good underground sci-fi comics comeing out as "true-ish" stories to skirt around the CCA.

By that time Fantasy's golden age of pulpy goodness had already been over for a good while, and the silver age was more or less on the way out. (Though maybe that's just my bias speaking, I know less about fantasy writing than sci-fi so if anyone can mention names that refute this time table, please do.


Anyways I think the shit they produce is a bit different, sci-fi is 90% shit (sturgeons rule), high fantasy specifically is 98% shit just because the more you define exactly what your setting is going to be in terms of genre and the less freedom writers give themselves to explore, the less good stuff it's going to produce.