Which do you prefer? I read much more fantasy. I've always been more of a history than a science person, so a lot sci fi goes right over my head, or seems to spend countless pages describing some scientific process that I couldn't care less about.

Fantasy tends to be based more in history, and is generally more character-driven than sci fi. That said, the lack of originality in a lot of fantasy is frustrating. Orson Scott Card has built a career on telling Messiah stories, both in fantasy (Alvin Maker) and sci fi (Ender Wiggin, Songbird, the Home series), and it also pops up in the work of CS Lewis, Robert Jordan, and JK Rowling. Even worse than that is the Arthur analog, showing up in books by Tolkien, Jordan, Brooks, Eddings, etc.

Because of this, I've been reading a lot more urban fantasy, by folks like Neil Gaiman, and Charles DeLint (who draws on everything from Celtic mythology to Native American folklore in his Newford series).

Conceptually, I like the idea of a fantasy environment. A whole world with magic, dwarves, elves, little medieval towns, etc, etc. I am drawn to those ideas, but seldom do I find the work itself as satisfying as my imagination led me to hope.

Scifi, on the other hand, usually bores me to think about, yet I find myself more entertained by the end results! I can't explain this dichotomy.

I guess I'll just play Morrowind some more.

I read more fantasy. Nothing wrong with a good SF story, though!

Despite everything I said, my favorite novel is Ender's Game, a character-driven sci fi book about the Messiah-like figure, Ender Wiggin. Go figure.

I've read good and bad witih both. Most good sci-fi, for some reason, doesn't spend endless pages explaining stuff.I don't need to know how a time machine works or the intricacies of interstellar travel to enjoy H.G. Wells, and I think good writers know that. All you need to do is establish believablity. No one explains how magic work, yet there goes Gandalf and all the rest. Did William Gibson explain how Cyberspace worked? I don't remember, but they were good books.
(Imagine the joy of being able to write science fiction before we actually "knew" anyting, I'm thinking War of the Worlds).

I don't know how to read.

I'm sci-fi all the way, but the further from reality it gets, the less interested I am. I don't read books about far off futures with big intergalatic ships traversing through far off galaxies. I'm much more interested in Michael Crichton style speculative fiction. About as far into the future that I've gotten (and enjoyed) is "Ender's Game".

I am not into Fantasy at all, unless like sci-fi, it is rooted in reality. Like the Harry Potter series. Or has a tongue in cheek sense of humor to it, like Piers Anthony's Xanth stuff.

That's just for books. I'm almost the exact opposite when it comes to TV and movies. Conan, Excalibur, Star Wars and Star Trek are huge faves in that medium. I just don't like reading about it.

I used to read a lot of science fiction. In recent years I've read little. Recent sci-fi doesn't do much for me. My sci-fi tastes are old-fashioned, I guess. I really don't read a great deal of fantasy either nowadays. Mostly I read non-fiction.

I've got limited time for fiction reading, so I'm reluctant to get into big fantasy series (LOTR and the Potter books being conspicuous exceptions). My favorite fantasy stories are shorter ones, especially ghost stories. I can always get into a good ghost story!

He really didn't. He's said in interviews that he knows very little about science, and it always surprises him when folks describe his stuff as visionary.

I think good sci-fi is harder to make compared to fantasy. Fantasy is kind of like pizza. Even when it's bad it's still worth trying. Bad sci-fi is just pathetic.

I don't know that sci-fi in general is harder. "Hard" sci-fi that takes the science seriously probably is, since there is a lot of real-world knowledge that the writer must master.

I read lots of Fantasy. Though LOTR is not a series I cared much for. Way too slow...but, without Tolkien...there may have been no modern Fantasy. Of course, though everything is derivative of Tolkien, he had his own sources, so I don't think that's bad. For onstance, you either have an Elf that's similar to Tolkien, or you make up your own race it seems. But Tolkien got that Elf from classic myth and legend...

Terry Brooks remains my favorite Fantasy author. He has the Tolkien type but does the high adventure with it, making the characters and action take the focus. I find that I understand and care about his characters more often than not.

And that's what it comes down to, I think, no matter what you're writing. If you can make characters that the reader can identify with, you will most often be sucessful. That's what gets me into Brooks, Rowling, or Lloyd Alexander. Even some Piers Anthony, though his writing tends to ramble, I've liked because I liked the stories about the characters.

That brings up the next point. I tend to like author who plan things ahead of time, not those who (obviously) make everything up as they go along. But perhaps that's another thread.

I haven't read nearly as much science fiction, but it tends to be more all-over-the-place than fantasy. In Sci-Fi you make up the future, whereas Fantasy has a basis in myths and legend.

With fantasy it is easier to make your own rules. Sci-fi you have to have some grounding or background and use the rules. Even if you do something that defies established logic you have to know what's going on to do that.

I enjoy a lot of science fiction. I usually hate fantasy.

I have tried, I swear, to get into Tolkien. It ain't happenin', man. Elves and hobbits and magic and singing and such just don't appeal to me.

Read his translation of 'Sir Gawain and the Green Knight', Frank. It's still the only thing of his that I've read. Very good indeed.

I enjoy good science fiction much more than good fantasy, however, there are so few good science fiction novels being written lately that I read fantasy much more often. Ender's Game is also my favorite novel, followed closely by James P. Hogan's Giant's series. I read a lot of Heinlein as a kid. To me though Frank Herbert fits Sisko's description of Tolkien, "worms, messiahs and crazy mutate travellers" it ain't happenin for me.

That's a good point about Herbert, at least as fas the DUNE series goes. I still like DUNE a lot, though, for some reason. Hmmm.