>
> Here's a theory I think I'll toss in and see
>what everyone has to say. Science Fiction is set
>in a world (used generically to mean "setting"
>without having to say "set in a setting") that is
>decaying over time, while fantasy is set in a
>world that's improving. Admittedly, of course,
>fantasy worlds have their downs and sci-fi worlds
>have their ups, but the generaly state of one is
>decay and the other is advance.

No, I rather think that fantasy worlds are often decaying. Every fantasy world had it's "Great Wizards Of The Past" or it's past "Golden Age" that was ended by some cataclysm. In fact, I don't think I've *ever* seen a fantasy novel that had wizards in which the wizards of the present are actually *more* powerful than the wizards of the past. Except my novel, strangely enough. Hrm.

Science Fiction worlds are often building towards a golden age, too. But, most often, both types of novels (when they deal with or at least mention long periods of time) are cyclical. Things were better before, they're crappy right now, and hopefully by the end of the book they'll be better again. That's just natural story telling. The story is in the conflict--and Golden Ages don't tend to lend themselves to much conflict. That's why people and civilizations are most often either in decline or on the rise in SF.

-- Dave