# How contemporary do you like your sci-fi/fantasy world building?



## Anna_DeStefano (Feb 28, 2011)

*There are so many high fantasy fans out there--me included!* I still rank childhood discoveries like The Once and Future King at the top of my "Best Ever" lists. That kind of world buidling is an amazing escape. In fact, I'm currently racing through David Webber's "Honor" series. Just found them through a friend. Can't get enough.

*But... I also love the near-there, fringe science we're seeing more and more. * The story concepts that are so contemporary, you could almost imagine them happening to you or someone you know. In fact, I'm digging this kind of fantasy adventure the most right now. It and non-fiction that supports the science behind these "almost here" worlds, like Michio Kaku's books.

My question for The Book Corner--*How contemporary do you prefer your sci-fi/fantasy world building? *

*Do you want other worlds and galaxies and civilzations and cultures in your escapist fiction, or is the here and know a fascinating fantasy land for you, too?*


----------



## Cindy Borgne (Mar 21, 2011)

Both can work for me as long as the world building is detailed and well done. I think in general, at least as far as worlding building, contemporary would be easier to write and may come across as more realistic. But again, I enjoy both. It just depends on the story. I hope that answers the question.


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

I write stuff that is just a little off from the world we know. I don't have to build a world, just describe what everyone sees around them. I am taking on the challenge of building other worlds now, and it is a lot harder. As for reading, I like both, but if there is a fantasy or science fiction world it has to be convincing.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

For fantasy, I'd prefer to have it not set in something like today's world. If it is too contemporary, I can't help asking myself "Does this mesh with what we know of today's world? If this fantastic element were added to today's world, would this be an accurate depiction?"

For science fiction, I don't generally like works to be set too far in the future, because then technology would get too advanced, and lead to a lot of anachronisms unless the author is very good at thinking through all the implications of technological advancement. If the story is set too close to the present, then current technology becomes anachronistic, if, for example, alien tech is introduced that would make current tech obsolete.

Making works take place in the present time eliminates world creation, as you just have to understand the current world (no easy task itself!), but you have to be able to change the world based on the implications of adding fantastic or technological additions.


----------



## ChrisHoward (May 14, 2010)

I definitely prefer contemporary--this worldly--fantasy with otherworldly aspects. I do read and like fantasy set in entirely made up worlds--Pratchett's Discworld, Abercrombie's First Law books, Lies of Locke Lamora, etc., but there's something very compelling about magic in this world.  I like near-ish future SF as well--Gibson, Richard Morgan, Stross, not a huge fan of far future stuff.

Chris


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

I don't think I have any preference, but anything "near contemporary" tends to become dated more quickly, I think, which can sometimes jerk you out of that willing suspension of disbelief thing if you don't get around to reading it soon after it's published (depending a lot on how the author wrote it and depended on current cultural and technological references).


----------



## Anna_DeStefano (Feb 28, 2011)

I'd say I'm in love with fantasy, just the "near-there" kind. I love reading all of it, but the imagination of making what we know seem like shadows with meanings we never saw before we read about them is a magical thing. Maybe I've never felt like I'm completely living in this one place and time. Maybe I've always listened for whispers and looked for things that make me gasp, sometimes wanting them there more than I do the here and now. But these are the things I love to have books help me see more clearly, so they can be more real. They make the every day enchanting


----------



## kurzon (Feb 26, 2011)

I like a range - I like high fantasy with completely unassociated worlds, and I like stories like Diana Wynne Jones' Chrestomanci series, where it's an 'almost-Earth' with possibly modern technology, but different.

I sometimes read Urban Fantasy, but not often.

I like far-future Science Fiction.


----------



## Tara Maya (Nov 4, 2010)

I like a range as well. My favorites are "second world" fantasy and far future sf, but urban fantasy and near future sf also interests me.


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2011)

I gravitate toward high fantasy and far-future science fiction (loves me some space opera), but I want the world to be relevant. Authors lose me, sometimes, when the world is so archaic or so fantastical that none of the issues the characters are dealing with are anything I can identify with.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Is there an option for "all of the above?"


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

NogDog said:


> I don't think I have any preference, but anything "near contemporary" tends to become dated more quickly, I think, which can sometimes jerk you out of that willing suspension of disbelief thing if you don't get around to reading it soon after it's published (depending a lot on how the author wrote it and depended on current cultural and technological references).


I tend to agree with this ... something written near time in the 1980's is often full of quaint technological or geo-political advances when re-reading today. For example, I just finished reading *Code of the Lifemaker* which was set about 20 years in our future and written in 1983 and is based on a geo-political world still in the cold war.

Most of the time, though, when I encounter that sort of thing, I take it in the same context that I take Victorian Science fiction or 1950s looks at the year 2000 .... it really doesn't lower my opinion of the book - but it is more jarring in a book written in the past 30-40 years than in one written 50 or more years ago.

But, I like both. I read urban fantasy and High Medieval Fantasy ... and future fantasy. I also read Space Opera, near future Science Fiction - including all the 'punks' ...


----------



## Colin Taber (Apr 4, 2011)

I like world building that is thorough and built from a solid base. 

Civilisations should rise and fall and be followed by new civilisations. That means politics and borders should move with time, and technology should also progress. I feel uncomfortable to read about a kingdom that has been there in much the same form for a thousand years (or worse, eight thousand years), yet not progressed at all. Too many series ignore what the passage of time does to not just the land, but peoples and nations.


----------



## Laura Lond (Nov 6, 2010)

You know, I used to wonder why science fiction and fantasy are grouped together. In my mind, there was a clear distinction: Fantasy = past (medieval-like, swords and such), Sci-fi = future (space travel and aliens). Of course, I have learned long ago that all kinds of combinations are possible, but I still tend to think this way. So for fantasy, I prefer medieval settings. I also prefer books where there is no connection to our world, the whole story takes place somewhere else.


----------



## jonathanmoeller (Apr 19, 2011)

I like swords, dammit!


----------



## John Y. Jones (Feb 19, 2011)

Do you care where and when those swords are used? 

For reading, I don't care so much about the setting as I care that setting is well-built and believable.

For writing, I set my fantasy in the modern world.  It's how I see things - as they could be, if only...


----------



## Bigal-sa (Mar 27, 2010)

NogDog said:


> I don't think I have any preference, but anything "near contemporary" tends to become dated more quickly, I think, which can sometimes jerk you out of that willing suspension of disbelief thing if you don't get around to reading it soon after it's published (depending a lot on how the author wrote it and depended on current cultural and technological references).


Like Mary Shelley's "The Last Man"


----------



## jason10mm (Apr 7, 2009)

I'm not much of a fan of contemporary fantasy because I feel that a world just like our "except magic is real" is a total cop-out. Imagine how different our world, from religious institutions, military developments, engineering feats, and social norms would be radically altered if folks could actually run around casting spells, even relatively minor ones, even if they stuck to the shadows. This is why the Harry Potter series is both intriging and infuriating. Initially the wizarding world and the mundane were essentially seperate, but as they mixed together more and more the wizarding world seemed less and less magical and more of a less efficient replica of our world.

Dan Abnett wrote a book called "Triumff:Her Magisty's Hero" where England developed along magical lines while other parts of the world developed electrical based technology. It works because it is a satire, even though I think a battleship would have blasted all their magic powered galleys into dust. The Desden "magic in the shadows" is tolerable, but even those type books eventually reach the point where you wonder why the magical have not just overrun the rest of us.

And of course I make an exception for magic/supernatural horror, which I have no problem being set in contemporary times. Hypocritical? Yes


----------



## jonathanmoeller (Apr 19, 2011)

> > Do you care where and when those swords are used?


The best part of "The Matrix Reloaded", an otherwise forgettable film, is the _wholly gratuitous_ five-minute anti-gravity kung fu swordfight in the middle of the movie.

I like swordfights. I wouldn't want to participate in one, or see a _real _one, but I enjoy reading about them and watching them in films.


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

When I read for pleasure, I prefer the far future or far past and the more extreme fantasy world-building.

But when I want to think a bit more and challenge myself, then I do like the more contemporary or near-future books.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

jonathanmoeller said:


> The best part of "The Matrix Reloaded", an otherwise forgettable film, is the _wholly gratuitous_ five-minute anti-gravity kung fu swordfight in the middle of the movie.
> 
> I like swordfights. I wouldn't want to participate in one, or see a _real _one, but I enjoy reading about them and watching them in films.


Have you read Roger Zelazny's "Amber" series (the original 5 books)? Many good sword fights, and apparently Zelazny actually knew something about fencing and wasn't just making things up off the cuff. (Unfortunately, _still_ not enKindled [see my sig].  )


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

Anna_DeStefano said:


> *Do you want other worlds and galaxies and civilzations and cultures in your escapist fiction, or is the here and know a fascinating fantasy land for you, too?*


I'm not really interested in the here and now. I love high fantasy and the older the world feels, the happier I am. I'm particularly fond of medieval or ancient world type societies. Love them sword-wielding heroes.


----------



## Colin Taber (Apr 4, 2011)

Dara England said:


> I'm not really interested in the here and now. I love high fantasy and the older the world feels, the happier I am. I'm particularly fond of medieval or ancient world type societies. Love them sword-wielding heroes.


I agree, I'd put it this way: Everyday I live in this world and deal with its dramas. If I'm going to be entertained, I'd rather it be by something of a different flavour like historical, fantastic or sci-fi fiction.


----------



## Tamara Rose Blodgett (Apr 1, 2011)

I love urban fantasy and futuristic. Sometimes fantasy set in the past but "real-world" is also interesting...the high fantasy concepts just don't capture my interest as much.

I have to agree with the post from Kenyon: taking my chances with the setting of my book (DW) being fifteen years in the future when our cell technology goes "viral" and becomes "pulse," tech. Who really knows what it will morph into (in 2025) but it was fun to pretend!


----------



## jason10mm (Apr 7, 2009)

Yeah, near future has some complications. Even William Gibson struggles with it, and he was never a tech guy to begin with. I think near-future works best when it changes or adds just a few tech developments and leaves everything else the same (the most extreme example I can think of off-hand had a world that dealt with overpopulation by having each person only awake every 7 days. There were some story relevant societal changes but for the most part thinks worked like they do now, despite the fact that things would be DRASTICALLY different if we had to adopt such a lifestyle). 

We also benefit from a generational gap the limits how quickly new tech shows up in pop culture. Heck, I'm just now seeing web searches replacing library visits in media, cell phones replacing land lines (and the corresponding hoops to jump through to disable cell phone "911" calls from prematurely resolving the problem), and the leaps in surveillance rendering most spy thrillers quaint relics (though some shows, like "24" jump too far in the opposite direction with omnitech).

But I think we just have to accept that pop culture exists in its own world. Consider a show like Stargate:SG1. By the third season those guys discovered so much advanced tech that life on Earth should have been totally changed. Sure, they eventually had protective battle fleets and space battles in Earths gravity well, but for some reason the vast majority of Earth's population cruised along in blissful ignorance, because the point of the show wasn't how Susan the cashier reacts to alien life, but rather how a team of scientists and soldiers do so. Same thing with contemporary sci-fi/fantasy. It is usually about ordinary folks who experience the fringe while the masses hum along in a bubble.


----------



## Sean Cunningham (Jan 11, 2011)

tkkenyon said:


> If nothing else, most of the characters now would have cell phones, and most of those cell phones text and surf the web.


And even text messaging is on its way out. We'll all be IMing each other on our smartphones pretty soon by default via native client software, rather than sneaking it through Facebook. Who can blame William Gibson for drifting slowly into the past?



Colin Taber said:


> Civilisations should rise and fall and be followed by new civilisations. That means politics and borders should move with time, and technology should also progress. I feel uncomfortable to read about a kingdom that has been there in much the same form for a thousand years (or worse, eight thousand years), yet not progressed at all. Too many series ignore what the passage of time does to not just the land, but peoples and nations.


I tripped over the same problem in the Belgariad. I sat there at age fourteen trying to figure out how these civilisations could have had zero technological advancement in three thousand years.

One of the most peculiar science fiction novels I ever read is _Vurt_ by Jeff Noon. He just went ahead and created a whole different world, built from bits and pieces of ours but reconstructed around Vurt itself and the different kinds of humans that had come to exist. I suppose that one was so different it needed a little contemporary in it, just to ground it. Amazing book.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

jason10mm said:


> But I think we just have to accept that pop culture exists in its own world. Consider a show like Stargate:SG1. By the third season those guys discovered so much advanced tech that life on Earth should have been totally changed. Sure, they eventually had protective battle fleets and space battles in Earths gravity well, but for some reason the vast majority of Earth's population cruised along in blissful ignorance, because the point of the show wasn't how Susan the cashier reacts to alien life, but rather how a team of scientists and soldiers do so. Same thing with contemporary sci-fi/fantasy. It is usually about ordinary folks who experience the fringe while the masses hum along in a bubble.


Stories that add tech or magic to a contemporary setting, yet leave the setting essentially unchanged are problematic. It is difficult to imagine how such a change would affect society, but it has to be done.

In Stargate, in order to not have the culture of Earth diverge from our Earth, the producers decided to write it so that the project is secret, and tech is only very slowly leaked. But that is problematic as well. This fictional Earth has NASA and rockets, but rockets would be rendered obsolete by the tech they would have discovered. They could 1) continue to launch inefficient rockets to put satellites into space, 2) openly use the discovered tech to launch satellites or 3) secretly launch satellites using the discovered tech.

It seems they do #1, although this would be highly wasteful. The waste seems to be a highly expensive price to pay to keep the Stargate secret from the people of Earth (It is known to the governments of the world). Consider also our space probes. New Horizons will take years to reach Pluto. One of their top secret ships could be there by lunch.


----------



## Bogbuilder (May 26, 2011)

I'm not so big on 'high' fantasy myself - it's okay, but I can do without it. I generally do prefer a contemporary twist.

The best contemporary fantasy I read recently was Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, by Susannah Clarke - which posits a Napoleonic era England where magic has been a very real part of its history for centuries. Fantastic story - oh, it's got fairies in it, btw, but they're really feckin creepy ones.


----------



## Amera (May 22, 2011)

I'm somewhat odd in that I like ancient worlds that are more "modern." By which I mean, I'm not really interested in reading about a truly medieval society where almost everyone is illiterate, pestilence and famine run rampant, and women have no rights. But I do like swords, bows, castles, and all that stuff. 

Part of this is my history/politic science background, but in an alternate world with magic, let alone different religious traditions, there’s no reason societies would develop exactly the same socially (or technologically) as ours has. I enjoy authors who are willing to play with that and make a different ancient society. 

In the Kushiel series, for example, Carey is really able to play with this notion of “love as thou wilt” and how it has completely shaped a different society – free love, no unwanted children, etc. I think that is a pretty interesting twist.


----------



## Tara Maya (Nov 4, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> I tend to agree with this ... something written near time in the 1980's is often full of quaint technological or geo-political advances when re-reading today. For example, I just finished reading *Code of the Lifemaker* which was set about 20 years in our future and written in 1983 and is based on a geo-political world still in the cold war.
> 
> Most of the time, though, when I encounter that sort of thing, I take it in the same context that I take Victorian Science fiction or 1950s looks at the year 2000 .... it really doesn't lower my opinion of the book - but it is more jarring in a book written in the past 30-40 years than in one written 50 or more years ago.


I gotta admit, I get a kick out of reading retro futures... where the year supposedly set in the future has already come to pass. I like to compare the predictions to what actually happened. I have a special soft spot for Cold War futures. It seems like one of the few spots where literature wildly underestimated the bizarreness of reality.


----------



## Colin Taber (Apr 4, 2011)

tkkenyon said:


> And another thing that I found in a short story from four years ago: I said that "a gas of tank for a van costs $30."
> 
> LOL! I drive a minivan. It's more like $70-80 in 2011!
> 
> Ouch!


There's a lesson in that for writers; not to give details that don't matter.


----------



## Kathelm (Sep 27, 2010)

The farther away from now a sci-fi or fantasy story takes place, the most likely I'll read it.  The exception would be super-hero fiction.

My suspension of disbelief when it comes to new worlds and rules is directly proportional to the distance between that world and our own.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Geoffrey said:


> I tend to agree with this ... something written near time in the 1980's is often full of quaint technological or geo-political advances when re-reading today. For example, I just finished reading *Code of the Lifemaker* which was set about 20 years in our future and written in 1983 and is based on a geo-political world still in the cold war.


Geoffrey it takes me forever to finish a thread where you are.....I have to keep looking up books on Amazon! We seem to have some tastes in common.

I looked up Code of the Lifemaker tho, and it sounded like a completely different book than you described....is Hogan the author?


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

What is 'urban fantasy?'


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Laura Lond said:


> You know, I used to wonder why science fiction and fantasy are grouped together. In my mind, there was a clear distinction: Fantasy = past (medieval-like, swords and such), Sci-fi = future (space travel and aliens). Of course, I have learned long ago that all kinds of combinations are possible, but I still tend to think this way.


Me too. And the 'the magic factor.' Not into that.

I think I prefer (even semi) plausible future technology to be my 'magic'


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Amera said:


> I'm somewhat odd in that I like ancient worlds that are more "modern." By which I mean, I'm not really interested in reading about a truly medieval society where almost everyone is illiterate, pestilence and famine run rampant, and women have no rights. But I do like swords, bows, castles, and all that stuff.


Have you read S.M. Stirling's "Dies the Fire" and the rest of his "Change" series? Sounds like something you'd really like.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Anna_DeStefano said:


> *There are so many high fantasy fans out there--me included!* I still rank childhood discoveries like The Once and Future King at the top of my "Best Ever" lists. That kind of world buidling is an amazing escape. In fact, I'm currently racing through David Webber's "Honor" series. Just found them through a friend. Can't get enough.
> 
> *But... I also love the near-there, fringe science we're seeing more and more. * The story concepts that are so contemporary, you could almost imagine them happening to you or someone you know. In fact, I'm digging this kind of fantasy adventure the most right now. It and non-fiction that supports the science behind these "almost here" worlds, like Michio Kaku's books.
> 
> ...


It can be both for me, contemporary or not. I just like well-built alternate cultures, civilizations, societies and engaging stories built upon them.

Not really into mainstream fantasy....magic and medievel...nah. Like sci-fi, apocalyptic scenarios, and am investigating alternate history novels.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

9MMare said:


> Geoffrey it takes me forever to finish a thread where you are.....I have to keep looking up books on Amazon! We seem to have some tastes in common.
> 
> I looked up Code of the Lifemaker tho, and it sounded like a completely different book than you described....is Hogan the author?


OK, first of all, I'm glad I can be a book enable .... and *blush* .

And to be fair, there are two worlds in question in _Lifemaker_ - Europa which is a robotic world with a medieval level society and Earth which is set in our future where the Cold War between the US and USSR still exists .... but most everything happens on Europa itself.


----------



## Ben Dobson (Mar 27, 2011)

Fantasy wise, I like both, though I read much more high fantasy--mostly because a lot of more modern urban fantasy or the like these days tends to go in the paranormal romance direction, which isn't really my thing.  I have read near-future and contemporary fantasies that I loved, though.  

On the flip side, if we're talking Sci-fi, I prefer the more contemporary take to unrecognizable weird distant futures.  Cyberpunk stuff like Neuromancer that I could almost see happening, or just stories about our actual society but with some scientific advance or difference that mixes things up--I find them more interesting than like, space ships and whatever.  But there are exceptions to that too--there are high tech alien future space opera stories that have captured my imagination.

So, basically all of it is good, I guess is what I'm saying.


----------



## MarionSipe (May 13, 2011)

Colin Taber said:


> I like world building that is thorough and built from a solid base.
> 
> Civilisations should rise and fall and be followed by new civilisations. That means politics and borders should move with time, and technology should also progress. I feel uncomfortable to read about a kingdom that has been there in much the same form for a thousand years (or worse, eight thousand years), yet not progressed at all. Too many series ignore what the passage of time does to not just the land, but peoples and nations.


*points upward* That, I totally agree with!

I like all kinds of fantasy, from secondary world fantasy to urban to steampunk (which I need to read more of). They all fit different moods and sometimes I want one or the other. But the worldbuilding has to be self-consistent, and it has to show me that the writer has thought about the world, even in a contemporary sort of setting with a lot of parallels to our world.

What I'd really like to read is more secondary world urban fantasy!


----------



## Jeff Rivera (Jun 22, 2011)

I usually prefer contemporary, although I'm not against picking up something that's out of the ordinary. Contemporary is easier to relate to, and often the explanations for why the world is the way it is is intriguing.


----------



## KateEllison (Jul 9, 2011)

I like both. To use sci fi movie examples, I'm a huge fan of stuff like Firefly, Battlestar Galactica, and Star Wars, which are pretty far off from contemporary society. But on the other hand, I adored the movie TiMER, which was essentially contemporary society with a single twist--a gadget has been invented that allows you to know the exact day that you will meet your soulmate. 

As far as books go, I like it either way as long as the characters and stories are done well. Maybe I lean a tad towards fantastic over contemporary.


----------



## Victoria J (Jul 5, 2011)

If the story is well told and the characters are interesting it doesn't matter to me.


----------

