Why do people like fantasy novels? One obvious explanation is that “magic” relaxes the usual constraints on the stories one can tell. Story-tellers can either use this freedom to explore a wider range of possible worlds, and so feed reader hungers for variety and strangeness, or they can focus repeatedly on particular story settings that seem ideal places for telling engaging stories, settings that are just not feasible without magic.
Who decides what is and is not "Plausible"? Who thought it was "plausible" that the rate of expansion of the universe was increasing? Reality does not and cannot give a damn what people think is plausible. Atheists just think that lack of imagination is equivalent to intelligence and admitting ignorance is a sign of stupidity. Unfortunately agnosticism is the only logical position. LOL
Try this experiment: Invent a plausible God, such as a person in another universe who has built our universe in a simulation. Go to any person who believes in "God", describe your plausible God, and ask them if that could be God. They'll say no. A creator of the universe who was scientifically plausible wouldn't satisfy the desire for transcendence beyond reality and the possible that is what people who say they want "God" are really looking for.
Is it only two groups? How many so called SF readers think Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson is Boring. Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy is Boring when not Dumb. We should have a sub-genre called STEM Fiction that takes science seriously.
Fantasy and Science Fiction are similar in that the writer imagines something that does not exist at the time of writing. But with Fantasy the degree of certainty to which it will never exist is much greater. And then there are variations in SF in that some elements of the story conform to known science. Compare A Fall of Moondust to Childhood's End which are both by Arthur C. Clarke. Fall of Moondust is much harder SF. Oh yeah, we have been to the Moon, but no colony yet. Oh yeah, the politicians can't figure out Global Warming either.
What explains the large audience overlap? If the two genres have opposed philosophies, yet the same individuals enjoy each, then agreement with the philosophy must not be a big reason for reading.
No; science fiction and fantasy have a large audience overlap, but they're fundamentally opposed in ideology. Fans don't realize this, but authors often do.
The ideology of fantasy is that religion, tradition, and virtue ethics are correct. The universe has a rightful order which humans cannot understand or control, and which must be taken on faith, not determined by reason. Each person has a right set of virtues (or rules), and everything will work for the good if people follow those rules. That's why a traditional fantasy has a moment, like when Frodo lets Gollum live, or when Luke switches off his targeting computer, where the protagonist does something virtuous but incredibly stupid, which turns out to be just the thing needed to save the day.
Magic and God are both impossible, by definition. Electromagnetism and gravity are non-materialistic forces (or at least they were, as far as we knew, for a long time), yet nobody regarded them as magic. A graduate student who created our universe for his thesis is our God, by any reasonable definition, yet no religious person will agree. We only use the words "magic" and "God" for things whose existence is incompatible with reason, and therefore proves that humans must look to faith rather than reason or empirical observation.
The ideology of science fiction is nearly the opposite. Consequentialist ethics are correct. Everything can be understood. Problems occur from lack of information.
I have another interpretation: Science fiction is about exploring issues relating to sociology, ethics, and morality, and especially how our technology influences and changes our ethics and morality. Works of science fiction may have different levels of plausibility or different levels of 'future'-iness (in fact many are even set in the past) but they all have in common this trait that they deal with exploring the answers to how technology shapes human society and behaviour. This is true of all sci-fi that I know of, from H.G.Wells to to Asimov to Heinlein to Roddenberry.
Fantasy, on the other hand, is more diffuse and spread-out. Some fantasy may deal with questions similar to what sci fi deals with, but not all of it does. You can think of sci-fi as a subset of fantasy that deals with issues relating to technology.
Some sci-fi isn't really sci-fi though. Most people seem to agree that Star Wars is really a fantasy genre, not a sci-fi genre, although most people who say that can't explain why, it's just an intuitive feeling to them. But in the context of what I'm saying, it makes perfect sense why Star Wars is a fantasy genre - technology doesn't impact the story at all. You could replace light-sabers with sabers, space ships with ships, and planets with towns, and the story would still work perfectly.
Continuing the StarWars example, making it a fantasy film is as simple as changing the set: replace spaceship by dragons, robots by golem and planets by kingdom and you have a classic fantasy book.
I think it's a hardware limitation, too. I can turn pages and skim rather quickly on a physical book. On an e-ink reader, the page turning / scrolling speed is limited by the hardware. Maybe at some point I will be able to simply scroll through an ebook on an e-ink reader at a fast rate, but that's not possible right now no matter whose hardware it is.
That's just because Amazon's software is crappy. You're basically saying you think physically flipping through the book is "easier" than clicking a hyperlink, which would certainly be false if the interface were designed properly. When reading on a Kindle I spend way too much time trying to click tiny footnote links with my fat fingers. But this doesn't seem like an impossible problem to solve.
I'm definitely like that for non-fiction books. It's so much easier to use the index, jump around, and cross-reference things using a physical book than an ebook.
Who decides what is plausible?
Definition of plausible
1 : superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious a plausible pretext
2 : superficially pleasing or persuasive a swindler … , then a quack, then a smooth, plausible gentleman — R. W. Emerson
3 : appearing worthy of belief the argument was both powerful and plausible
Before 1995 was it plausible that the universe was expanding at an accelerating rate? Reality does not care what humans think is plausible.
Who decides what is and is not "Plausible"? Who thought it was "plausible" that the rate of expansion of the universe was increasing? Reality does not and cannot give a damn what people think is plausible. Atheists just think that lack of imagination is equivalent to intelligence and admitting ignorance is a sign of stupidity. Unfortunately agnosticism is the only logical position. LOL
Try this experiment: Invent a plausible God, such as a person in another universe who has built our universe in a simulation. Go to any person who believes in "God", describe your plausible God, and ask them if that could be God. They'll say no. A creator of the universe who was scientifically plausible wouldn't satisfy the desire for transcendence beyond reality and the possible that is what people who say they want "God" are really looking for.
Is it only two groups? How many so called SF readers think Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson is Boring. Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy is Boring when not Dumb. We should have a sub-genre called STEM Fiction that takes science seriously.
How is God impossible by definition? Who can come up with a definition that can be proven either way?
Fantasy and Science Fiction are similar in that the writer imagines something that does not exist at the time of writing. But with Fantasy the degree of certainty to which it will never exist is much greater. And then there are variations in SF in that some elements of the story conform to known science. Compare A Fall of Moondust to Childhood's End which are both by Arthur C. Clarke. Fall of Moondust is much harder SF. Oh yeah, we have been to the Moon, but no colony yet. Oh yeah, the politicians can't figure out Global Warming either.
It's beyond my budget then. I don't pay more than $9 for ebooks.
What explains the large audience overlap? If the two genres have opposed philosophies, yet the same individuals enjoy each, then agreement with the philosophy must not be a big reason for reading.
No; science fiction and fantasy have a large audience overlap, but they're fundamentally opposed in ideology. Fans don't realize this, but authors often do.
The ideology of fantasy is that religion, tradition, and virtue ethics are correct. The universe has a rightful order which humans cannot understand or control, and which must be taken on faith, not determined by reason. Each person has a right set of virtues (or rules), and everything will work for the good if people follow those rules. That's why a traditional fantasy has a moment, like when Frodo lets Gollum live, or when Luke switches off his targeting computer, where the protagonist does something virtuous but incredibly stupid, which turns out to be just the thing needed to save the day.
Magic and God are both impossible, by definition. Electromagnetism and gravity are non-materialistic forces (or at least they were, as far as we knew, for a long time), yet nobody regarded them as magic. A graduate student who created our universe for his thesis is our God, by any reasonable definition, yet no religious person will agree. We only use the words "magic" and "God" for things whose existence is incompatible with reason, and therefore proves that humans must look to faith rather than reason or empirical observation.
The ideology of science fiction is nearly the opposite. Consequentialist ethics are correct. Everything can be understood. Problems occur from lack of information.
Most of the fiction stories like novel are really far from the reality but so impressive to read.
I have another interpretation: Science fiction is about exploring issues relating to sociology, ethics, and morality, and especially how our technology influences and changes our ethics and morality. Works of science fiction may have different levels of plausibility or different levels of 'future'-iness (in fact many are even set in the past) but they all have in common this trait that they deal with exploring the answers to how technology shapes human society and behaviour. This is true of all sci-fi that I know of, from H.G.Wells to to Asimov to Heinlein to Roddenberry.
Fantasy, on the other hand, is more diffuse and spread-out. Some fantasy may deal with questions similar to what sci fi deals with, but not all of it does. You can think of sci-fi as a subset of fantasy that deals with issues relating to technology.
Some sci-fi isn't really sci-fi though. Most people seem to agree that Star Wars is really a fantasy genre, not a sci-fi genre, although most people who say that can't explain why, it's just an intuitive feeling to them. But in the context of what I'm saying, it makes perfect sense why Star Wars is a fantasy genre - technology doesn't impact the story at all. You could replace light-sabers with sabers, space ships with ships, and planets with towns, and the story would still work perfectly.
That last line... so true :)
Continuing the StarWars example, making it a fantasy film is as simple as changing the set: replace spaceship by dragons, robots by golem and planets by kingdom and you have a classic fantasy book.
I think it's a hardware limitation, too. I can turn pages and skim rather quickly on a physical book. On an e-ink reader, the page turning / scrolling speed is limited by the hardware. Maybe at some point I will be able to simply scroll through an ebook on an e-ink reader at a fast rate, but that's not possible right now no matter whose hardware it is.
That's just because Amazon's software is crappy. You're basically saying you think physically flipping through the book is "easier" than clicking a hyperlink, which would certainly be false if the interface were designed properly. When reading on a Kindle I spend way too much time trying to click tiny footnote links with my fat fingers. But this doesn't seem like an impossible problem to solve.
I'm definitely like that for non-fiction books. It's so much easier to use the index, jump around, and cross-reference things using a physical book than an ebook.