Fantasy all the way.

Sci-Fi.

Er...

all the wayer.

Hard to say. I used to consider myself a big sci-fi fan, but if I think of it, there is a lot of sci-fi I have very little interest in. I like some Fantasy and some sci-fi but if I think of it bad Fantasy revolts me more than Bad sci-fi.

It really comes down to what you consider sc-fi though. I can think of quite a few sci-fi things I like but many would argue that my favorites are not true sc-fi, but other story types set in space.

I appreciate good science fiction greatly. However, I tend to be drawn more towards fantasy.

Science fiction (not "sci-fi", you fake fans! Harlan Ellison would slap your face!).

No love whatsoever for magic and elves and dragons and swords and shit like that.

So what would you consider Science Fiction, Frank? I personally just call anything remotely futuristic or spacey to be Science Fiction but alot have people have argued with me about it to the point that it sounds like the only thing they consider to be "true" Science Fiction is Isaac Asimov and frankly he bores me to death.

I used to find the distinction quite interesting, Victoria, but these days it just bores me to tears.

But, since you asked: science fiction, to me, must incorporate some element of scientific advancement, and (possibly) said advancement's impact on society as a whole (or the human condition, on an individual basis). I do not consider STAR WARS to be science fiction because there's never any commentary on how interstellar travel or the lightsaber or droids affect anything. STAR TREK, on the other hand, deals with the moral and ethical implications of things like genetic engineering and inter-species mating and the applications of warp speed all the time.

Maybe I prefer science fiction to fantasy because the former allows for the possibility that what's written in that genre could one day become real (i.e. landing on the moon, doors that open for you when you approach them, cell phones, cloning), while the latter tends to focus on magic and other unexplainable things that are not of use, from a utilitarian point of view.

Like, say, mine.

Fair enough. That's kinda why I just consider anything remotely related to space etc. to be sci-fi...cause I'm really just using it as a discriptive word in conversation and such.

I just figured I'd ask because of the question at hand.

I don't mind some fantasy...my problem with it lies in the fact that there are sometimes unicorns in it and they are about as vomit inducing as dolphin art.

on the other hand it has dragons so it's not all bad.

...but yeah it tends to be more romantic and I have a low tolerance for the popular type of romance (To me romantic really is, that Ian knows me well enough, to buy me a Grindhouse book for our anniversary.) .

I occasionally teach a science fiction literature class at my school, and the question of the official definition of the genre comes up a lot. I always throw out the definition I just gave you, but I'm not sure that anyone's opinion is "official," as far as this subject is concerned.

If the fact that STAR WARS has ships flying through space makes it science fiction to you? So be it. To me, it's equal parts western, fantasy, and Greek tragedy.

Oh, and unicorns are absolutely teh suck.

Quite difficult to say. Ask me this ten years ago and I probably say fantasy, and would have for most of my life. These days I think I lean towards science fiction.

I grew up reading more science fiction than fantasy, but have always loved the best of both. Gotta stick up for the current fantasy scene: Stuff today has moved way beyond all that Terry Brooks rip-off-LOTR/D&D crap that everyone's referencing here. I mean... Gaiman, right? <i>American Gods</i> is brilliant fantasy set in modern-day heartland America with nary a unicorn in sight. Susanna Clarke's <i>Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell</i> -- the story of the only two "real" magicians left in England during the Napoleonic Wars. The Jeff VanderMeer-edited <i>Thackery T. Lambshead Pocket Guide to Eccentric & Discredited Diseases</i> -- a very funny fantastical compendium of the "secret medical history" of the century, with entries written by people like Alan Moore and Michael Moorcock.

It's a nifty time to be working at <i>Weird Tales</i>, which has always comprised equal parts fantasy, science fiction, horror, and general all-around bizarre crazy freakiness.

Yes there is great fantasy out there! For me I just picked the unicorn thing because I needed a deciding factor. I love good sci-fi and good fantasy, but to me bad fantasy is much harder to take than bad sci-fi.

Victoria, we can fix that... I must have some old L. Ron Hubbard sci-fi around here somewhere...
*shudder*

This is tough. I have to say science fiction, though, for pretty much the same reasons Frank described in his Star Trek/Star Wars comparison above.

I really can't stand the whole 'Half naked warrior woman and her flying unicorn defeats the evil wizard then lives happily ever after with her hairy-chested barbarian boyfriend' stuff. I tried to read some of those D&D novels years ago, and just couldn't get into it. Ditto for all the Ursula LeGuinn Dragonriders stuff.

The only 'fantasy' stuff I've ever liked has been Michael Mooorcock's Elric and Piers Anthony's Xanth novels. Oh, and Robert E. Howard's original Conan stuff. And his Solomon Kane stuff. And his Bran Mak Morn stories. And the Marvel Comics version of Conan. And Tolkien's Middle Earth stuff...

Now I'm confused.

I can't vote in this poll.

I went with fantasy, but I define fantasy as anything from 'Neuromancer' to 'The Song of Ice and Fire' books.

No, I will not argue my definition of fantasy; it works for me, that's my only concern.

I guess you have a good point there. In truth I've probably just been lucky enough to see more entertainingly bad sci-fi.

I tend to lean towards saying "sci fi", but when I think how my favorite sci fi is actually fanasy- John Carter or Mars and Star Wars-- and then you add in REH's and Thomas' Conan-- and I had to vote fantasy.

That said, I hate hate hate fanasy of the D&D/LotR variety with their fruity elves and whatnot and I also hate boring sci fi like Babylon 5 or Deep Space Nine (sorry Frank!). Both genres have their share of crap.

Thinking about it, I have to say that very little that's generally accepted as science fiction actually lives up to the label.

I like the idea of calling true science fiction 'speculative fiction', just to differentiate it from things like Star Wars (which I love) or John Carter, etc. So many things seem to blur the distinction - like REH's Almuric. It's kind of both things at once, in a way. Sort of.

Simon, I hear you. I'd actually make the case that all science fiction, good and bad, is a specific subset of fantasy rather than a separate category.

(In fact, I will probably wind up having to make that case in a couple days, at the World Science Fiction Convention, where I seem to have been assigned to talk on a panel debate titled "Is Fantasy Necessary?" Hey, I don't suppose anyone here is going...?)

Frank, would you say Star Trek is science fiction?