Honestly, both sound really cliche. I feel like you described them that way on purpose, so we the readers would be able to easily get an idea of what each story will entail (which is one of the benefits of cliches), but descriptions like that mean that my brain says "oh, we've been there and done that A LOT".

My brain is kind of a dick but it is right sometimes. I would be interested to see what makes these stories yours, what interesting spin you put into these cliches, before I make a choice.

However, since we are talking about them, I will say that while your second story sounds like a fantasy story, your first story sounds like it could be an intriguing SF story. "If people today were transported to a circa-1800's society, what advances would they make 70 years later" is something that captures my interest. What would people who are accustomed to putting electricity into sand and making it show them cat pictures be able to accomplish if they were sent back to the 1800's?

I know my previous paragraph kind of negates the paragraph before it, but humans are a cornucopia of contrast, and I am definitely a human and not a robot typing at a keyboard, hahaha

support my junk with choking it

If my underwear choked my chicken for me, it would free up so much time in my day!

/s

Honestly, my big thing with right-wingers is that they come with no proof, and get mad when you start asking for facts and figures. Right now, I can see the effects of 40 years of trickle-down economic theory: it means that you need a degree to get just about any decent job in this country, and also unions should not exist because reasons. It really kind of biases me against right-wing talking points, to the point that I need to see proof. Treat it like a math problem and show your work or gtfo.

If you explicitly define what far-left and far-right means, you could probably have a straightforward answer. You mention holodomor skepticism and holocaust skepticism as some kind of far-left and far-right examples (unless I am misreading your comment), but I personally am not sure exactly what the holodomor was. I assume it was some genocide-level event perpetuated by the USSR, but I am not at all sure. Maybe my internet experience is in some kind of enclave composed of SF literature discussions, 8-bit computers and King of the Hill clips, but I really don't run across holodomor skepticism at all.

Of course, I know what holocaust skepticism is (the denial that millions of Jews [and a whole bunch of gays and Christians and Roma peoples) were systematically killed by the German regime during WW2, as directed by Hitler), but that's only because the types of people who would embrace (or worse) holocaust skepticism are feeling more emboldened by the current political climate.

Personally, I define far-left and far-right as being 'armed militants' and/or 'large groups of people calling for the eradication of one or more types of people.' 'Types of people', in this case, means 'people who are born with a certain characteristic that is not changeable, such as race or sexuality' Currently, we have armed militants protesting libraries (libraries, of all places!) but I have yet to see an armed militant demanding government-funded healthcare or seizing the means of production. Therefore, you will have to forgive me if I don't buy into the 'both sides' equivalence that your post requires the reader to hold.

When the far-left becomes as bad as the far-right, we can (and should!) talk. Until then, miss me with that shit.