Why is fantasy more popular than science-fiction?

[Mister Manticore]

Excellent topic. Do you know what the biggest-selling fantasy novel of all time is? Lord of the Rings with 200 million+ sales. The biggest-selling SF novel of all time? Dune, with 15-20 million sales at the absolute best. A slight disparity, as you may note.

It'd be nice if you had sources for this claim. Heck, I don't even know if you're talking about volumes sold, or dollar values...

Anyway, this discussion is not a new one. If anybody has anything new to add, I'll be surprised.

[Lord Stormbringer]

Agreed, but it seems like all the good ideas in sci-fi were put to page decades ago, and sci-fi can't manage to compensate with memorable characters like fantasy.

Just a few off the top of my head:

Paul Atriedes

HAL 9000

R. Daneel Olivaw

Hari Seldon

Michael Valentine

Arthur Dent

Zaphod Beeblebrox

Ford Prefect

Science Fiction can have plenty of memorable characters. Even with out delving into new series or television it's easy to produce a lot of memorable characters. There is nothing at all in science fiction that prevents them from having memorable characters and many do. While a lot of the authors eschewed detailed characterization, as many didn't and produced memorable characters themselves.

Those were the two hard statistics I could get my hands on. I could also add that sci-fi discussion forums generally have much lesser daily traffic than fantasy ones, that there tends to be noticeably more Amazon reviews for popular fantasy books than for sci-fi ones, etc. - all of which point out greater interest in fantasy than in sci-fi.

Unless you can get a massive run down, that doesn't mean that much I'm afraid. Personally, I know of a number of websites that are nothing but science fiction discussion and more than a few dominated by science fiction. It's not an empirical method of determining the relative popularity of either. Nor are Amazon reviews.

I have indeed missed that - all I had to go on were the stats from those two websites and my own observations from years of visiting various fantasy and sci-fi discussion forums. I don't know any kind of sale numbers.

I don't know the specific sales numbers myself. But I can tell you that as I said, there are plenty of contemporary science fiction authors that have considerable followings and who's books sell extremely well. For that matter there are a fair number of old hands that can still sell a book too. "Hard" science fiction doesn't seem to sell quite as well (though still respectably) any more but space opera, military science fiction, and sci-fi adventure are still around and well. For that matter a whole lot of cyberpunk and post-cyberpunk works are out there and popular enough as well. It doesn't have to have spaceships and aliens to be science fiction.

One thing that may be behind the decline of hard science fiction is that a number of very popular hard science fiction authors are foreign, particularly Britsh, and suffer from poor or no distribution in American, and to a lesser extent North America. Iain Banks is a big name but only two of his books have commonly available US editions. It's sadly the same case with a number of other authors and it probably has a negative impact on that particular type of science fiction.

All in all though, science fiction remains a healthy genre and competitive with fantasy.

Well, I for one hope sci-fi can quickly come up with an entertaining best-selling series than will appeal to a large number of readers. (And by that I mean a series created by a single author, not a movie- or tv-derived franchise like Star Wars and Star Trek.)

There are plenty of them actually. Maybe not quite as noticed publically as Star Wars or Star Trek derived materials but there are plenty of series with dedicated fans. If you'd like I could run down a few of them but I think it's not terribly necessary. And even the media tie ins are not necessarily a bad thing for those companies that instead do it right.

[nutinhoney]

I tend to think that there's a fallacy to the argument that fantasy is more popular than science fiction based on board postings and amazon reviews...

There are 3 possible reasons - a) sci-fi fans are antisocial and would never post, sci fi fans are conspiracy theorists and avoid using the Internet, and c) sci-fi fans are too busy putting the finishing touches on their new Chewbacca costume.

Facetiousness aside, there are all sorts of possible explanations for the stats that were found - there could be a tonne of other scifi boards out there and they just don't frequent the one that was looked at, demographics could be a reason, etc.

When I go into a book store and look around, I definitely see a lot more sci-fi books on the shelves than I do fantasy. Looking at it "raw", there's less shelf space for fantasy... now take out the multiple volume series (i.e. GRRM books) and cut the remaining shelf space in half to account for the 1200 page novels (again, looking at GRRM books). We're probably down to about a 1/4 of the shelf space we started with. All not very scientific at all, but I think you might be getting the picture.

I have 3 thoughts (at the moment... I could've sworn I had 4, but I'm tired... hehe) ... which would take all sorts of research and time to prove that I don't plan on doing so take it as you wish as they may very well be based on false premises.....

1) There is more sci fi on the market than fantasy (I'm of course excluding historical / pseudo-historical fiction.. i.e. anything with King Arthur or the Napoleonic Wars is out). If the # of sci-fi fans = # of fantasy fans, then one could conclude that there are more readers per fantasy book than there is per sci-fi book. Even if there are more sci-fi fans than fantasy fans, there's a lot of reader dilution.

2) There are more serialized fantasy novels than there are sci-fi novels and they also tend to be much longer. As a result, there's a lot more discussion and speculation about what's going to happen next, which you can see in this very board results in a lot of posts. I read a lot of sci-fi, and I have to say that when I finish reading a novel, I don't normally feel that compelled to talk about what I read. When there are "sequels", they seem to come after the fact and not planned at the outset like fantasy is.

3) Sci-fi is still trying to shake the Battlefield Earth series stigma. Ok, I'm being silly again.

For me, I never really drew a line between sci fi and fantasy. I read either if it interests me... and it generally boils down to characters and plot. A problem that I tend to come across with sci-fi is that there's a LOT of CRAP. It's tough to find a good sci-fi novel, and when I do, it seems to be the author's only novel. If sci fi is on the decline, I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the publishers rather than on the appetite of the masses or any other reason. Stop publishing crap and encourage good sci fi writers to keep on writing - and they shouldn't have to write Star Wars novels to feed themselves.

Hopefully, this makes sense... I've been studying Law and Ethics lately, and my brain is a little soupy...

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

I think it is all question of fashion. Fantasy is currently more fashionable than science fiction, that is all. I also don't buy into this theory about three generations live of genres. Fashions come and go. Horror was thought dead more than one time and managed to make successful comebacks. Also detective novels seemed utterly dead in nineties - at least where I live they were totally replaced by Ludlum-style thrillers, and now they are making a strong comeback (I am speaking strictly about Europe here, I don't really know situation of this genre in America). Considering number of many-volume epic fantasies being produced currently I wouldn't be surprised at all if fantasy genre was heading to an overproduction crisis, like horror did in eighties.

[Calibandar]

I think all of the reasons you mention are valid Krafus.

regarding popularity of SF and Fantasy, let me give you an example of a NON-English market.

In the Netherlands there are two publishers with a separate Fantasy imprint. They translate a lot of stuff from all over the Fantasy range, including the bestsellers like Hobb, Feist, Tolkien, Williams, Brooks,Gemmell but also new releases like Sarah Ash, Scott Lynch, Daniel Abraham, Naomi Novik and only excluding Erikson, Bakker and Wolfe. But their output is quite big.

In comparison, there is currently no science fiction book being published. The market for SF in the Netherlands is literally dead. Ironically I say this when I will be buying 4 SF books this month ( three of which are brand new releases by Michael Flynn, Peter Watts and Alistair Reynolds) but everyone here who reads SF buys English books. In the last 6 years, we have seen a reprint of Asimov's Foundation, Engines of God by McDevitt ( which tanked) and Ports of Call by Vance ( which tanked, even if the publisher only decided to translate it based on Vance's past success). Nothing else.

I think a lot of this has to with:

1) Accessibility of Fantasy compared to SF which tends to be hard to get into

2) SF being very low on good characterization.

3) a lot of SF ideas having been explored already in the past, making new offerings very often retreads. Of course this happens in Fantasy as well and then it doesn't seem to bother people.

[Multaniette]

Once you move into nanotechnology, artifical intelligence alogrithms, abstract post-material lifeforms and genetic modification from rocket science, space exploration, big interstellar battles and recognizably human aliens, it becomes a bit difficult for your average human to follow, empathize and 'fantasize' about the vision/idea included within the story.

I will give an example. Take hard sci-fi. Hal Clement was an author during sci-fi's golden age. Alistair Reynolds and Charles Stross are heralded as the new sci-fi giants. One of the biggest differences between them is that the former focused on fleshing a central story and presented the idea (in Mission of Gravity's case 'gravity') in a form people could relate to. You cannot relate to nanotechnology or whateevr weird futuristic concepts are being propogated in today's sci-fi in the same way as you can to gravity, space exploration, even evolution. (Heliconia cycle - Brian Aldiss) It is difficult to put yourself in the progtagonists' place and experience the euphoria that comes with imagining lofty thoughts.

Most of these new sci-fi books try to be slick, cool, smart and groundbreaking, both in terms of pagelength and acroynmistic jargon. They end up failing horribly. I had to abandon reading Accelerendo because of the overabudance of capital letter words in the text. You wouldn't find that in Clement's, Asimov's, Clarke's or even Aldiss's work.

[MinDonner]

3) a lot of SF ideas having been explored already in the past, making new offerings very often retreads. Of course this happens in Fantasy as well and then it doesn't seem to bother people.

That's a good point. Is it because fantasy depends on archetypes, so retreads are more easily forgiven, whereas SF depends on new ideas, which are harder to come up with and less forgiveable if they're copied? Not actually sure if I believe this, but I know Walter Jon Williams's Dread Empire's Fall series was panned for being too derivative, when actually it was a pretty good standard adventure story with some decent characters in

[Krafus]

Just a few off the top of my head:

Paul Atriedes

HAL 9000

R. Daneel Olivaw

Hari Seldon

Michael Valentine

Arthur Dent

Zaphod Beeblebrox

Ford Prefect

Science Fiction can have plenty of memorable characters. Even with out delving into new series or television it's easy to produce a lot of memorable characters. There is nothing at all in science fiction that prevents them from having memorable characters and many do. While a lot of the authors eschewed detailed characterization, as many didn't and produced memorable characters themselves.

I'll grant that Paul Atreides and HAL 9000 were memorable, but Hari Seldon always seemed to be the be way for the Foundation plot to progress rather than a distinctive character in his own right, with his own personality. Anyway, I'll agree that sci-fi has a lot of memorable characters, but it seems fantasy has many more. Just in ASOIAF, there are dozens of them.

Unless you can get a massive run down, that doesn't mean that much I'm afraid. Personally, I know of a number of websites that are nothing but science fiction discussion and more than a few dominated by science fiction. It's not an empirical method of determining the relative popularity of either. Nor are Amazon reviews.

Why doesn't the relative number of sci-fi and fantasy stories on Fictionpress mean much? To me it's certainly an indicator of the amount of interest by teenagers and young adults in those respective genres. Yes, when they grew up some of them may become interested in sci-fi, but even so the gap between sci-fi and fantasy looks daunting. And if it's not asking too much, could you give the links to a few of those sci-fi sites? I certainly seem to have missed them.

I don't know the specific sales numbers myself. But I can tell you that as I said, there are plenty of contemporary science fiction authors that have considerable followings and who's books sell extremely well. For that matter there are a fair number of old hands that can still sell a book too. "Hard" science fiction doesn't seem to sell quite as well (though still respectably) any more but space opera, military science fiction, and sci-fi adventure are still around and well. For that matter a whole lot of cyberpunk and post-cyberpunk works are out there and popular enough as well. It doesn't have to have spaceships and aliens to be science fiction.

Okay, aside from David Webber, what military sci-fi authors sell extremely well? I look at the sales ranks on Amazon, and aside from Webber, I just don't see it.

All in all though, science fiction remains a healthy genre and competitive with fantasy.

There are plenty of them actually. Maybe not quite as noticed publically as Star Wars or Star Trek derived materials but there are plenty of series with dedicated fans. If you'd like I could run down a few of them but I think it's not terribly necessary. And even the media tie ins are not necessarily a bad thing for those companies that instead do it right.

Well, you may be right, but until I see sci-fi message boards of popular original sci-fi series as active as those of popular fantasy series, I won't be able to help but think that sci-fi's popularity lags far behind that of fantasy.

[Krafus]

When I go into a book store and look around, I definitely see a lot more sci-fi books on the shelves than I do fantasy. Looking at it "raw", there's less shelf space for fantasy... now take out the multiple volume series (i.e. GRRM books) and cut the remaining shelf space in half to account for the 1200 page novels (again, looking at GRRM books). We're probably down to about a 1/4 of the shelf space we started with. All not very scientific at all, but I think you might be getting the picture.

Strange, that was the other way around in a bookstore I used to know, with fantasy having accounting for about 2/3 of that section's shelf space. However, since that bookstore closed in 2001, things may have changed.

2) There are more serialized fantasy novels than there are sci-fi novels and they also tend to be much longer. As a result, there's a lot more discussion and speculation about what's going to happen next, which you can see in this very board results in a lot of posts. I read a lot of sci-fi, and I have to say that when I finish reading a novel, I don't normally feel that compelled to talk about what I read. When there are "sequels", they seem to come after the fact and not planned at the outset like fantasy is.

Good observation. And God knows long-running sci-fi series have generated a lot of talk. But I wonder if the same would apply to a long-running sci-fi series? (Maybe I need to look closely at Honor Harrington.)

3) Sci-fi is still trying to shake the Battlefield Earth series stigma. Ok, I'm being silly again.

For me, I never really drew a line between sci fi and fantasy. I read either if it interests me... and it generally boils down to characters and plot. A problem that I tend to come across with sci-fi is that there's a LOT of CRAP. It's tough to find a good sci-fi novel, and when I do, it seems to be the author's only novel. If sci fi is on the decline, I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the publishers rather than on the appetite of the masses or any other reason. Stop publishing crap and encourage good sci fi writers to keep on writing - and they shouldn't have to write Star Wars novels to feed themselves.

In the interest of fairness, I feel compelled to point out that there's a lot of crappy fantasy, too. But, yeah, it could be that a lot of good sci-fi doesn't get published because publishers also believe that sci-fi is on the decline.

[Sir Thursday]

2) There are more serialized fantasy novels than there are sci-fi novels and they also tend to be much longer. As a result, there's a lot more discussion and speculation about what's going to happen next, which you can see in this very board results in a lot of posts. I read a lot of sci-fi, and I have to say that when I finish reading a novel, I don't normally feel that compelled to talk about what I read. When there are "sequels", they seem to come after the fact and not planned at the outset like fantasy is.

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

[Lord Stormbringer]

I'll grant that Paul Atreides and HAL 9000 were memorable, but Hari Seldon always seemed to be the be way for the Foundation plot to progress rather than a distinctive character in his own right, with his own personality. Anyway, I'll agree that sci-fi has a lot of memorable characters, but it seems fantasy has many more. Just in ASOIAF, there are dozens of them.

And Frodo was a plot device to move the Ring. A carboard stand up of Elijah Wood has about the same amount of genuine, distinct personality as the character. I love Lord of the Rings but it's not exactly in depth characterization either. And the point is, a science fiction buff will probably recongize and remember Hari Seldon.

As for ASOIAF, it's certainly a rare treat. But it's a stand out series it self. Compare it to Hitchhikers and you'll find that both have a ton of memorable characters.

Why doesn't the relative number of sci-fi and fantasy stories on Fictionpress mean much? To me it's certainly an indicator of the amount of interest by teenagers and young adults in those respective genres. Yes, when they grew up some of them may become interested in sci-fi, but even so the gap between sci-fi and fantasy looks daunting. And if it's not asking too much, could you give the links to a few of those sci-fi sites? I certainly seem to have missed them.

The FictionPress site numbers don't mean all that much because a singular website is not a scientific survey. People may avoid a website for a reason and we'd never know it. It's an indicator, perhaps, but not a terribly reliable one.

I'd rather not give you the site addresses if you're just going to troll the sites with this.

Okay, aside from David Webber, what military sci-fi authors sell extremely well? I look at the sales ranks on Amazon, and aside from Webber, I just don't see it.

You might not see it because you're hopelessly anamored of websites, perhaps? There's more to the world than the internet and spending too much time looking at just the internet tends to be... distorting. It's not terribly suprising if an author isn't currently on top of Amazon, not all of them even have new books out (cant sell a product that isn't there)! But any way, I can tell you there are a number of well selling military science fiction authors.

David Weber is a stand out for the genre right now. So it's not terribly suprising he's high up.

David Drake is an institution when it comes to military science fiction. From Hammer's Slammers to his current Cinnabar Navy series he's been a staple of the genre.

Eric Flint is another big name. He comes and goes on the charts, partly do to his personality. But his books have done remarkably well.

Orson Scott Card while not an avowed military science fiction author has had a lot of success with his military orientied works set in the Ender's Game universe. I do believe that all of his Shadow Series were New York times bestsellers.

John Ringo is another. Personally I dislike a lot his stuff but he's got several high selling series of his own.

S.M. Stirling used to be a big time best seller sort of guy but he's gone into a sort of semi-retirement.

Harry Turtledove. He's done a lot of scienc-fiction alternate history stuff that's been reasonably popular as well as putting together a number of anthologies of military science fiction that have done well.

Dan Abnett's work for the Black Library have been selling well too. A tie in to a tabletop wargame but a very big seller considering the publishing house. A lot of his stuff has been enjoying strong sales for close to a decade or more which is really something.

Well, you may be right, but until I see sci-fi message boards of popular original sci-fi series as active as those of popular fantasy series, I won't be able to help but think that sci-fi's popularity lags far behind that of fantasy.

Then may I suggest that you look to something beyond internet message boards? They're great but the internet has a wonderful ghetto effect. It's remarkably easy for small communties to effectively shut themselves in and keep others out.

[MinDonner]

Hmm, the words "chip" and "shoulder" spring to mind. Dude, it's not a competition, most of us like SF as well as fantasy. No-one's saying one is better than the other, we are arguing popularity and availability here.

[Lord Stormbringer]

Hmm, the words "chip" and "shoulder" spring to mind. Dude, it's not a competition, most of us like SF as well as fantasy. No-one's saying one is better than the other, we are arguing popularity and availability here.

It's not a chip on my shoulder. I just tend to be blunt and some times rude. It's the way I am.

[Mister Manticore]

I'll grant that Paul Atreides and HAL 9000 were memorable, but Hari Seldon always seemed to be the be way for the Foundation plot to progress rather than a distinctive character in his own right, with his own personality.

This would probably be because the story didn't directly involve him a lot. Heck, Daneel wasn't in the story either until Asimov started adding to the series.

Anyway, I'll agree that sci-fi has a lot of memorable characters, but it seems fantasy has many more. Just in ASOIAF, there are dozens of them.

Impressions like that aren't that objective though. It could just be that you're not reading the Science Fiction books that are rife with memorable characters, but instead reading the ones where the authors are good at ideas, but not people. (and yes, I'd include Asimov as one of those kinds of authors).

Try Lois McMaster Bujold. Tell me you don't find Miles Vorkosigan and the rest of his family memorable. Or whatabout Doctor Frankenstein and his monster? There's also Larry Niven, with Louis Wu, Beowulf Schaeffer, and Gil the Arm.

(And that's not even considering the memorable characters from Star Wars, Star Trek, and other media. I might even be persuaded to count comics like Superman, Spiderman and the X-men....)

Why doesn't the relative number of sci-fi and fantasy stories on Fictionpress mean much?

It's due to sampling. For one thing, we don't know how many stories are accurately catergorized. For another, we don't know how accurate Fictionpress is a representative of anything. Look at the number of Western stories. 351.

Yes, Westerns have faded a bit, but are they really less than 1% of Fantasy? And is Romance smaller than Fantasy?

Well, you may be right, but until I see sci-fi message boards of popular original sci-fi series as active as those of popular fantasy series, I won't be able to help but think that sci-fi's popularity lags far behind that of fantasy.

Well, you could hit the various Trek forums.

[oneeye]

I disagree I think scifi is still much more mainstream. Not to mention some highy religious people in this country boycotting harry potter and such.

Finding good fantasy is harder than finding good scifi, and I like fantasy better.

[Krafus]

The FictionPress site numbers don't mean all that much because a singular website is not a scientific survey. People may avoid a website for a reason and we'd never know it. It's an indicator, perhaps, but not a terribly reliable one.

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'd rather not give you the site addresses if you're just going to troll the sites with this.

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.

You might not see it because you're hopelessly anamored of websites, perhaps? There's more to the world than the internet and spending too much time looking at just the internet tends to be... distorting. It's not terribly suprising if an author isn't currently on top of Amazon, not all of them even have new books out (cant sell a product that isn't there)! But any way, I can tell you there are a number of well selling military science fiction authors.

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 Drake is an institution when it comes to military science fiction. From Hammer's Slammers to his current Cinnabar Navy series he's been a staple of the genre.

Eric Flint is another big name. He comes and goes on the charts, partly do to his personality. But his books have done remarkably well.

Orson Scott Card while not an avowed military science fiction author has had a lot of success with his military orientied works set in the Ender's Game universe. I do believe that all of his Shadow Series were New York times bestsellers.

John Ringo is another. Personally I dislike a lot his stuff but he's got several high selling series of his own.

S.M. Stirling used to be a big time best seller sort of guy but he's gone into a sort of semi-retirement.

Harry Turtledove. He's done a lot of scienc-fiction alternate history stuff that's been reasonably popular as well as putting together a number of anthologies of military science fiction that have done well.

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

Then may I suggest that you look to something beyond internet message boards? They're great but the internet has a wonderful ghetto effect. It's remarkably easy for small communties to effectively shut themselves in and keep others out.

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.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Do they have active discussion boards dedicated to their series?

OK -- this is a silly indicator of "popularity." Maybe SF people don't like to discuss the books. Maybe there's nothing to discuss? Or perhaps SF gets wrapped into discussion of other topics like nature of consciousness or nature of self, which really doesn't happen on a book forum?

So just judging it on "lack of dedicated websites" is pretty suspect.

ETA: I don't have a horse in this race. I mean, I don't really care which genre is more popular. But using dubious yardsticks to prop up any claim is going to make me cranky.

[Krafus]

Try Lois McMaster Bujold. Tell me you don't find Miles Vorkosigan and the rest of his family memorable. Or whatabout Doctor Frankenstein and his monster? There's also Larry Niven, with Louis Wu, Beowulf Schaeffer, and Gil the Arm.

(And that's not even considering the memorable characters from Star Wars, Star Trek, and other media. I might even be persuaded to count comics like Superman, Spiderman and the X-men....)

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.

It's due to sampling. For one thing, we don't know how many stories are accurately catergorized. For another, we don't know how accurate Fictionpress is a representative of anything. Look at the number of Western stories. 351.

Yes, Westerns have faded a bit, but are they really less than 1% of Fantasy? And is Romance smaller than Fantasy?

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

Well, you could hit the various Trek forums.

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

[Krafus]

OK -- this is a silly indicator of "popularity." Maybe SF people don't like to discuss the books. Maybe there's nothing to discuss? Or perhaps SF gets wrapped into discussion of other topics like nature of consciousness or nature of self, which really doesn't happen on a book forum?

So just judging it on "lack of dedicated websites" is pretty suspect.

ETA: I don't have a horse in this race. I mean, I don't really care which genre is more popular. But using dubious yardsticks to prop up any claim is going to make me cranky.

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.

[Stego]

There are a number of answers to this question.

A lot of people truly believe that Neuromancer killed Science Fiction.

But even punching people in the face with the fact that not everything will be peachy in the future is not the complete answer.

My take, as I stated loudly and not-so-well at the aforementioned panel at Worldcon is that, simply put, fantasy is better right now.

The last truly great accessible SF novel was what? Ender's Game? (1985) Hyperion? (1990)

I believe the true answer to this question is Altered Carbon (2001) by Richard Morgan, but the world ignored it for the most part. It didn't even get hardcover treatment in the US. Alas for the world.

Charlie Stross and Vernor Vinge and Stan Robinson and Ian McDonald all write high quality SF, but it's not accessible to muggles.

Now compare this to fantasy and all the books we've had since Hyperion in 1990:

-Tigana by Kay

-Good Omens by Gaiman and Pratchett

-Farseer Trilogy by Hobb

-The rise of Robert Jordan

-A Song of Ice and Fire

-American Gods by Gaiman

-Bujold switching to fantasy.

-Harry bloody Potter

-LOTR movies

-Erikson

-Bakker

-Pratchett hitting the stratosphere in popularity

-The inundation of childrens lit with fantasy to try to reap rewards from the Potter craze. *Building new fantasy fans*

-China Mieville

-Susanna Clarke

I need to look at my library to list books, but there have beenat least ten noteworthy entry-level books released in fantasy in the past 16 years. There has been one in SF, and it was criminally overlooked.