Why is fantasy more popular than science-fiction?

[Xray the Enforcer]

Well, YMMV, but I don't find lack of dedicated websites or discussion on boards to be a silly indicator of popularity. Quality, yes, but not popularity. And if a book leaves nothing to discuss, no questions, no theories, interests absolutely no one to exchange with others about it... I don't see how it can be a popular fiction book.

but why insist on dedicated websites only for a particular book (as you did). If you read closely, I said that many of the ideas of SF lend themselves to larger philosophical questions, and one wouldn't necessarily create a website just to explore, say, the notions of gender in River of Gods. No, they'd create a website dedicated to Notions of Gender In Speculative Fiction. See the difference?

[Krafus]

but why insist on dedicated websites only for a particular book (as you did). If you read closely, I said that many of the ideas of SF lend themselves to larger philosophical questions, and one wouldn't necessarily create a website just to explore, say, the notions of gender in River of Gods. No, they'd create a website dedicated to Notions of Gender In Speculative Fiction. See the difference?

I think I do, but it seems that in this case you've slipped into philosophy, with little relation to the original sci-fi book or series. Also, I have to wonder if a book that generates mainly philosophical questions and discussions can come anywhere near the popularity of Wheel of Time, ASOIAF, Sword of Truth.

[Mister Manticore]

Yes, sci-fi does have a number of memorable characters. It's just that when I think of such characters, it's the ones from fantasy who come to mind first and leave the most vivid impressions.

Your subjective degree of impression forming is your own issue, not a proof of anything, other than your own personal biases.

Actually, I know from years of lurking there that the fantasy and sci-fi stories, at least, are pretty accurately categorized. And, yes, one may believe the Fictionpress numbers don't mean much by themselves, but when added to other indicators

But I don't. And I consider that there are only 351 Western Stories to be indicative of the bias found on that site.

(notably other posts on this thread), it doesn't seem unreasonable to arrive at the conclusion that sci-fi is in trouble.

I'm going to mention this more in a reply to another bit, as your response in another comment has more pertinence.

Thanks for the suggestion. However, I'm a bit hesitant at visiting forums of tv series I haven't seen much of.

And thus your credibility as an aware observer goes down. I don't expect you to be a trek-trivia master, but awareness of such a pervasive part of the Science Fiction culture is integral to any discussion of this subject.

[Mister Manticore]

Have I exhibited any kind of trollish behavior? I really can't see it. I just posted some possibilities to my original question, then replied to posts people made, the same I'm doing here. This is the first thread I've started here in years, and I tend to lurk elsewhere. But, if you want to know, I have no intention of copying and pasting my original post anywhere else. I looked for thoughts and comments here because I've come to realize there are many well-read book fans on this forum.

As I said earlier, I'm going to reply to this, because I think it might help to explain something. What you've brought up for discussion is not a new subject. I can go to groups.google.com and easily find discussions from the mid-90s that bring up the SF versus Fantasy popularity as a subject. For some people, this is more of a frustrating discussion that it is insightful, something which you, being unaware of the previous discourse on it, might not know.

[Krafus]

Your subjective degree of impression forming is your own issue, not a proof of anything, other than your own personal biases.

As I've said several times, what I've done on this thread is to mention possibilities that might explain why fantasy is more popular than science fiction. All I have to go on are what I've what I've found on the internet, and my own reading experiences. I expected to be contradicted or outright refuted by other posters.

If that matters, I've come to the conclusion that most of the sci-fi I've read has unfortunately been of the more technical kind, which apparently has colored my arguments.

But I don't. And I consider that there are only 351 Western Stories to be indicative of the bias found on that site.

And what bias would that be?

And thus your credibility as an aware observer goes down. I don't expect you to be a trek-trivia master, but awareness of such a pervasive part of the Science Fiction culture is integral to any discussion of this subject.

Ah, but I meant that I'm not nearly as knowledgeable about Star Trek as I am about Star Wars or ASOIAF, not that I'm a complete ignoramus when it comes to Star Trek. I am aware of Star Trek's influence on sci-fi since its debut, and I have watched a lot of its tv episodes (especially for Voyager and Deep Space 9).

As I said earlier, I'm going to reply to this, because I think it might help to explain something. What you've brought up for discussion is not a new subject. I can go to groups.google.com and easily find discussions from the mid-90s that bring up the SF versus Fantasy popularity as a subject. For some people, this is more of a frustrating discussion that it is insightful, something which you, being unaware of the previous discourse on it, might not know.

You're right, I didn't know. However, I might point out that discussions dating some 10 years ago might be not be relevant today, or at least that the situation might have changed. And in any case, your apparent frustration with the subject is, to use your words, your own issue, not a proof that this discussion is without merit, as your initial post on this thread alluded to.

[Mister Manticore]

As I've said several times, what I've done on this thread is to mention possibilities that might explain why fantasy is more popular than science fiction. All I have to go on are what I've what I've found on the internet, and my own reading experiences. I expected to be contradicted or outright refuted by other posters.

If that matters, I've come to the conclusion that most of the sci-fi I've read has unfortunately been of the more technical kind, which apparently has colored my arguments.

Indeed, a lot of authors who write science fiction are frequently criticized for their lack of identifiable characters. Asimov for one.

And what bias would that be?

That the people who post are not an accurate representative of the creative endeavors found in the world, or the interest thereof.

Ah, but I meant that I'm not nearly as knowledgeable about Star Trek as I am about Star Wars or ASOIAF, not that I'm a complete ignoramus when it comes to Star Trek. I am aware of Star Trek's influence on sci-fi since its debut, and I have watched a lot of its tv episodes (especially for Voyager and Deep Space 9).

Ok, then I'm afraid I don't understand your concern at all. I merely suggested those forums as a place for observation, not for you to go in search of discourse on Trekkiness.

You're right, I didn't know. However, I might point out that discussions dating some 10 years ago might be not be relevant today, or at least that the situation might have changed. And in any case, your apparent frustration with the subject is, to use your words, your own issue, not a proof that this discussion is without merit, as your initial post on this thread alluded to.

Oh, I'm not quite frustrated, per se, rather closer to blase, but I was concerned that you didn't know that the topic you've brought up has a quite a bit of history, and thus unaware that there are some people who have treaded the paths of these discussions so often that to them, it is frustrating. In fact, this sort of thing has been used as a tool for trolling in the past, so that's why I felt it worth bringing up, so you didn't feel you were being unfairly attacked. It's not you, but the history of the subject.

And to be honest, no, I haven't seen anything new come up yet. Sure, the details change, but believe it or not, the comment Werthead made about copies of LOTR versus Dune? See this:

Six year old article that puts Dune versus LOTR

[Krafus]

That the people who post are not an accurate representative of the creative endeavors found in the world, or the interest thereof.

They're not an accurate representative of the creative endeavors found in the world, I'll grant you, but IMHO they're generally indicative, if not entirely accurate, that today's youth have little interest in westerns - and a lot more interest in fantasy than in sci-fi, which doesn't bode well for sci-fi.

Ok, then I'm afraid I don't understand your concern at all. I merely suggested those forums as a place for observation, not for you to go in search of discourse on Trekkiness.

My concern was that you apparently perceived my reluctance to venture into those forums as indicative of lack of any substantial knowledge about Star Trek. Looking at my original post on the matter, I realize I did misstate myself. I should have posted "However, I'm a bit hesitant at visiting forums of tv series I haven't seen much of in comparaison to hardcore fans."

Oh, I'm not quite frustrated, per se, rather closer to blase, but I was concerned that you didn't know that the topic you've brought up has a quite a bit of history, and thus unaware that there are some people who have treaded the paths of these discussions so often that to them, it is frustrating. In fact, this sort of thing has been used as a tool for trolling in the past, so that's why I felt it worth bringing up, so you didn't feel you were being unfairly attacked. It's not you, but the history of the subject.

And to be honest, no, I haven't seen anything new come up yet. Sure, the details change, but believe it or not, the comment Werthead made about copies of LOTR versus Dune? See this:

Six year old article that puts Dune versus LOTR

Ah, I see. Well, as I've said, I had no idea this topic had been exhaustively discussed before, or that it had been used for trolling. And, frankly, your suggestion that I would go trolling if I had the addresses of sci-fi websites did feel like an attack. I assure you that trolling never been my intent - I just wanted to see what the denizens of this forum, whose opinions I consider worthwhile, thought of the subject.

[Calibandar]

I'm reading this thread mouth open. I really hadn't expected that people would get defense over this at all. Surely no one is actually maintaining that Fantasy isn't a far more popular genre right now than SF, and has been so for quite some time now?

Also, why ask for stats when something is this blatantly obvious? Plus some of the arguments for why this fact is in clear and present existence are really quite valid.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Well I'm convinced.

Seriously, the thread started out with good intentions and even a decent premise. But the minute someone starts using "lack of dedicated discussion boards" as some kind of valid meterstick to argue popularity, the game is up. You people have big brains, so feckin' use them.

I agree with Stego that fantasy, right now, is better than SF. The quality of writing is much higher. (Although I do have a quibble: I would ecstactically rejoice the day when humanity becomes smart enough to actually warrant Bakker being considered "entry level." ) But merely stating shit like "well looky-here at teh Intarrwebs" (oh, and not a comprehensive survey of teh Intarrwebs, either) is a piss-poor way to argue for any points.

If page-views were the sole factor to judge popularity, Cory Doctorow would Win@Life.

[Stego]

yeah, ok. First day of work.

Heh.

[Mister Manticore]

They're not an accurate representative of the creative endeavors found in the world, I'll grant you, but IMHO they're generally indicative, if not entirely accurate, that today's youth have little interest in westerns - and a lot more interest in fantasy than in sci-fi, which doesn't bode well for sci-fi.

Eh, I don't see Fictionpress as anything other than a fansite. It certainly doesn't touch my radar. I've never read a story on it, and I don't consider myself lacking anything.

IOW, you haven't established that site's importance.

Now maybe if you were talking television, that might be convincing, but that is clearly in favor of Science Fiction. Battlestar Galactica? Sci-Fi. Lost. Very Sci-Fi, even if not Space Sci-Fi. Dr. Who? Sci-Fi. Jericho? Post-Apoc is usually Sci-Fi, though I suppose it could go another direction. Heroes? It seems to be going Sci-Fi to me. Smallville? Very Sci-Fi to me in its presentation.

Can't really think of any current Fantasy series on Network TV. Several children's cartoons, sure, but that's something different.

My concern was that you apparently perceived my reluctance to venture into those forums as indicative of lack of any substantial knowledge about Star Trek. Looking at my original post on the matter, I realize I did misstate myself. I should have posted "However, I'm a bit hesitant at visiting forums of tv series I haven't seen much of in comparaison to hardcore fans."

Oh no, I just wondered if you were completely ignorant of them.

Ah, I see. Well, as I've said, I had no idea this topic had been exhaustively discussed before, or that it had been used for trolling. And, frankly, your suggestion that I would go trolling if I had the addresses of sci-fi websites did feel like an attack.

Ahem, that wasn't my suggestion, I didn't even mention it, it was actually Lord Stormbringer who brought that up. I merely offered an explanation as to why he might have reacted that way. I figured from the first post though, that you simply didn't know, and that's why I replied with my comment about this being nothing new.

I assure you that trolling never been my intent - I just wanted to see what the denizens of this forum, whose opinions I consider worthwhile, thought of the subject.

Yes, but I hope you understand why some people might be a little on edge about it. It's like R+L=J is here, a subject that to some people has been done to death.

I'm reading this thread mouth open. I really hadn't expected that people would get defense over this at all.

Seriously.

Your response here made me outright fall out my chair laughing.

It's like I have this visual image of a guy pushing a button to launch a nuclear missile instead of making popcorn.

Also, why ask for stats when something is this blatantly obvious? Plus some of the arguments for why this fact is in clear and present existence are really quite valid.

Well, IMHO, it is because that which is blatantly obvious may not be so to another person. Subjective observations are often criticized like that. I can imagine a number of times or another somebody says some feature/character/storyline in a given comic or magazine gets some negative response on a letters page, and the reply by the editors is to print a dozen or so letters in rebuttal.

[Werthead]

This is a very good point, but consider for example Peter F. Hamilton - he plans series, either trilogies or duologies, yet there isn't really a major discussion board for him. I believe this stems from the fact that as an SF writer the dynamics of the universe are fairly well defined - you have to work within the constraints of the universe that we are living in. Compare this to fantasy in which the author can develop his/her own rules for their universes. Look at discussion on Malazanempire.com, for example - a lot of the discussion there is regarding the way in which Erikson's world works (the system of warrens, the genetic backgrounds and ancestries of the different races, etc.). There can be no similar equivalent in sci-fi because the setting is our own, just a bit in the future.

Sir Thursday

Interesting point. Hamilton is now the biggest-selling SF author in the United Kingdom. His books are critically lauded (the mainstream press love him, even though some of his science is reasonably advanced) and get major publicity and get hardcover editions and paperback editions ship only 6 months after the hardcover, because the hardcovers sell out. Yet mention his name to a layman and they'll have never heard of him, whilst they'll have easily heard of Rowling and Pratchett.

That said, Hamilton has a fan forum here which seems to slowly be attracting fans. Only 17 of them after several months, though.

[kcf]

I've never been a fan of seperating sci-fi from fantasy (or vice-versa if you prefer). I simply consider sci-fi to be a sub-genre within the very broad genre of fantasy. While categorizing books according to genre serves some useful purposes, it is also a very limiting way to do things, and I tend to dislike it.

[Lord Stormbringer]

Yes, one can believe it's an unreliable indicator. But when combined with other indicators - notably the posts of people here mentioning GRRM's opinion on the state of sci-fi, or a mention that publishers actually ask authors to write fantasy stories instead of sci-fi ones - one can infer that sci-fi literature isn't doing well right now.

I respect Martin, he's paid his dues as a writer. But I don't think he is entirely right about the state of science fiction. I don't see the evidence out there for a major decline in science fiction over all. In fact I'm reminded of the prediction that the spy genre would die off after the end of the Cold War, a lot of big name authors of the genre like John LeCarre were predicting it was dead. But after a lull of a few years things bounced back and as a matter of fact he started writing spy novels again.

As for publishers, I'd say that some indeed may be prefering fantasy to science fiction. There are always a lot of companies that try to ride every little trend. But it's note worthy in and of itself that they're talking to science fiction authors indicating that these authors still have a major draw in their name alone. And there are no few that go back and forth and do it well. Again such as George Martin. But I digress. There are a number of publishers, like my favorite Baen, that are expanding their science fiction lines and signing new authors to new series. Baen, Del Rye, and Tor all publish a goodly amount of science fiction with no sign of abandoning the genre.

Science fiction may be down relative to fantasy at the particular moment. But I guarentee that both remain fairly popular and viable genres. Neither is going away.

Have I exhibited any kind of trollish behavior?

Fair enough but I warn you if you come in making dumb arguements, you'll get torn a new you know what. I spend a fair amount of time stardestroyer.net's bulletin board, spacebattles.com's forums, ocassionally put in at Baen's Bar, and a few others that I won't mention because they're rather private about membership. Most of them are diversified forums but have a whole lot of science fiction content and started out as purely sci-fi sites, obviously.

Well selling, yes. But do they come anywhere near the big fantasy sellers like Jordan, Martin and Goodkind? Do they have active discussion boards dedicated to their series?

David Weber's works generally are that popular. Some of David Drake's works have. Eric Flint has had some good selling books but tends to be hit and miss. All of them post regularly at the Baen's Bar forum and I'm sure there are dedicated forums though I've never really looked.

Thanks for the names, I'll check out those I haven't read once I can free up money.

The Baen Free Library (here) has a lot those particular author's works for free download.

And Joe Buckley's site maintains an archive (here) of the Baen Free CDs which you can also download. Both are completely legal, completely free open distributions of their work.

I'm afraid I don't have much more than the internet to go on. I'm not in a good financial situation right now, so my leisure money has been pared down to essentials.

I'm on Ramen Noodle and Powdered Macaroni and Cheese levels here so I can relate. But there's more to life than internet discussion forums and the like. (Though saying that on an internet discussion forum has a certain amount of irony).

[Celtigo]

Just thought I'd add that I'm curious if the decline and general panning of last few entries in Sci-Fi's heavy hitters has anything to do with the precieved maliase or decline. The new Star Wars movies its generally agreed ranged from terrible to decent, but nothing resembling the classsic movies. I've never been a Star Trek Fan after TNG and I haven't seen the last three movies, but thats partly b/c the reviews and comments by people who'd seen them were fairly negative, same goes with Voyager and the Scott Baio series. Finally, Sci-Fi's great new hope for a modern day classic, the matirx, collapsed like Michigan State in the fourth quarter. The Matrix trilogy is the prime example of quit while your ahead (unless your talking about box office rev)

Sci-Fi seems like its always depended and benefitted more from major franchises than fantasy and with LOTR and Harry Potter rolling up sales in all mediums, it seems like fantasy has even crossed into traditional Sci-Fi heavy territories other than TV.

[Grim Too]

I prefer Fantasy for the chicks, man!

Fair maidens dressed in linen/silk vs. Cyborg hoochi-mamas dressed in metal exo-skeletons...hmm tough call!

Seriously though, for me personally it's reason no. 3. Sometimes the sci-fi jargon just distracts me from what I'm reading. I would love to come across a good new massive space opera series but then I'd kinda just be reading more fantasy set in a futuristic setting as opposed to a midieval one. I guess I just don't like the sciency sci-fi books. But I do love me some sci-fi movies and tv shows. I guess I like to see the technology instead of just reading its description. With a midieval fantasy story I don't have to be told what the siege weapons are or what a dragon is I can focus on the story. With sci-fi I get told about the propulsion technology and the atmospheric processors. Boooring!

Nuke the site from orbit...it's the only way to be sure.

[Mister Manticore]

Sci-Fi seems like its always depended and benefitted more from major franchises than fantasy and with LOTR and Harry Potter rolling up sales in all mediums, it seems like fantasy has even crossed into traditional Sci-Fi heavy territories other than TV.

You know, a large number of folks think Harry Potter is "bad" fantasy, and are as perplexed by its sales as anything else. (And there are some big criticisms of LOTR too...)

Oh, and it wasn't Scott Baio. It was Scott Bakula.

I prefer Fantasy for the chicks, man!

Fair maidens dressed in linen/silk vs. Cyborg hoochi-mamas dressed in metal exo-skeletons...hmm tough call!

Pft. No, what you go for is the Green alien slave-women. They'll rock your world.

Or the aliens with SIX BOOBS! COME ON! SIX OF THEM! In ZERO-G!!! You can't have that in Fantasy. Ok, so technically the rat women of Lahkhmar have the boobies, but they don't do the Zero-G thing.

[Werthead]

David Weber's works generally are that popular. Some of David Drake's works have. Eric Flint has had some good selling books but tends to be hit and miss. All of them post regularly at the Baen's Bar forum and I'm sure there are dedicated forums though I've never really looked.

None of these authors are anywhere near as popular as Feist, Goodkind or Eddings, let alone Jordan or Pratchett. I understand Weber has sold well in the USA, but even so I'd be surprised if he'd sold any more books than GRRM, as his profile is very low by comparison.

This news report suggests Dune's sales as a healthy 12 million, which is great for a single novel but small-change for overall sales compared to the big selling fantasy authors. I don't think Herbert's other Dune novels have sold anywhere near as much as the original, and his other novels are pretty obscure. However, sales figures for overall SF series seem very hard to find (they're tricky for fantasy, but it's possible to come to some general figures, but for SF it's more difficult for some reason) making direct comparisons difficult.

[Mister Manticore]

This news report suggests Dune's sales as a healthy 12 million, which is great for a single novel but small-change for overall sales compared to the big selling fantasy authors.

Looking at the top end of a market is a very skewed perspective IMHO, as the big sellers tend to distort the picture heavily. Harry Potter? Lord of the Rings? Your typical fantasy book is nowhere near the number of copies of those books sold. They are the exception, not the rule.

[Stego]

Looking at the top end of a market is a very skewed perspective IMHO, as the big sellers tend to distort the picture heavily. Harry Potter? Lord of the Rings? Your typical fantasy book is nowhere near the number of copies of those books sold. They are the exception, not the rule.

Of course. But lately there are no science fiction exceptions. At all.

That's the whole point.