Why is fantasy more popular than science-fiction?

[Mister Manticore]

Since you're unwilling to accept people's observations and theories as valid bases for discussion - which must leave you out of a lot of threads about ASOIAF here on this board - I don't see the need to pursue this argument. Especially since it seems that even if I did go to the trouble of coming up with stats, you'd dismiss a number of them because the people they represent seem too well-read and knowledgeable.

Believe it or not, I'm not hostile to you, I'm just trying to get you to realize something about your observations, and I'm doing so as politely as I can. I'm sorry, but you just don't seem to realize the problems in using what you're looking at to make conclusions, you don't seem to even consider that their might be a problem with the accuracy of what you're saying as applies to the real world.

If this frustrates you, if this upsets you, well, I'm not surprised. It's hard to realize that you're not a perfect observer, it's hard to realize that a lot of work goes into any opinion poll(and there are still major criticisms about them).

Is it really so hard to acknowledge that you are only exposed to a limited perspective, and that it may not be accurate? It's something that is truly helpful to know, just like it's helpful to know that this is an old discussion that has been making the rounds of the net for over a decade.

Speaking from my own preference, I think the SF genre lends itself better to the motion picture medium, and conversely, that the fantasy genre comes to its own in books rather than on the silver screen.

I think rather the opposite myself. I think SF motion pictures and television shows fail to fulfill the potential of a book, and often end up being empty pictures.

And with the increases in CGI, I think that the question of epic battles, sprawling scenery and whatnot in Fantasy being fairly depicted are being more and more satisfied. Not that it means much, mind you, as far as I'm concerned, as that is not really what interests me about Fantasy.

Also, yes, this is an old topic -- but that doesn't make it any less worthy. How many people still revisit Sandor, Brienne, R+L=J, etc?

The problem is, when people are just repeating the same old-same old, there's a certain amount of lameness to it, it gets boring, and eventually worn out.

[Krafus]

Believe it or not, I'm not hostile to you, I'm just trying to get you to realize something about your observations, and I'm doing so as politely as I can. I'm sorry, but you just don't seem to realize the problems in using what you're looking at to make conclusions, you don't seem to even consider that their might be a problem with the accuracy of what you're saying as applies to the real world.

If this frustrates you, if this upsets you, well, I'm not surprised. It's hard to realize that you're not a perfect observer, it's hard to realize that a lot of work goes into any opinion poll(and there are still major criticisms about them).

Is it really so hard to acknowledge that you are only exposed to a limited perspective, and that it may not be accurate?

It's not that my observations and theories may or may not be accurate that frustrates me - that I've acknowledged all along. My observations and theories are just that - my own, coming only from my perspective, and people are of course free to agree or disagree with them. What upsets me is that you dismiss them as being unworthy of discussion outright, simply because they're not backed up by loads of statistics. Do you want to censure all discussions of Christianity and religion because it can't be proven objectively that God exists? Must everything you like and talk about be backed up by hard, verifiable, professionnally compiled facts?

[Mister Manticore]

It's not that my observations and theories may or may not be accurate that frustrates me - that I've acknowledged all along. My observations and theories are just that - my own, coming only from my perspective, and people are of course free to agree or disagree with them. What upsets me is that you dismiss them as being unworthy of discussion outright, simply because they're not backed up by loads of statistics. Do you want to censure all discussions of Christianity and religion because it can't be proven objectively that God exists? Must everything you like and talk about be backed up by hard, verifiable, professionnally compiled facts?

Actually, I think you're missing the point, which I suppose I should have gotten a bit more into. The problem is that all such personal observations contribute to a discussion becoming a contentious dispute, as opposed to an effective discussion. And yes, those problems DO happen in discussions about religion too, and often lead to some pretty heated arguments. IME, this is exactly where a discussion falls part, and I'm sorry if this offends, but your reaction to what people have been saying is nothing new. I've seen it before, and I expect to see it again. (Heck, it's going on in some other threads here at this board).

[Rhaco]

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?

Yeah, agreed.

I don't need to bring in a team of scientists to tell me that the sky is currently blue, nor do I need Zogby to conduct a survey to tell me that fantasy is currently doing better than sci-fi.

Happily, I don't really care why that's the case so I'll now walk away from this thread without actually having contributed anything.

[Krafus]

Actually, I think you're missing the point, which I suppose I should have gotten a bit more into. The problem is that all such personal observations contribute to a discussion becoming a contentious dispute, as opposed to an effective discussion. And yes, those problems DO happen in discussions about religion too, and often lead to some pretty heated arguments. IME, this is exactly where a discussion falls part, and I'm sorry if this offends, but your reaction to what people have been saying is nothing new. I've seen it before, and I expect to see it again. (Heck, it's going on in some other threads here at this board).

Well, it's my turn to be sorry if this offends, but your dismissal of all personal observations and theories on the basis that they're not backed up by numbers and statistics seems pretty narrow-minded. And when you say "people," I must point out that there's only you who's so extreme. Yes, several other people have disagreed with me on this thread. However, when they disagreed, they told me why they did so, often backed by observations and theories of their own concerning science-fiction. You, OTOH, just seem to be saying "Everything you've posted is worthless because you don't have numbers and stats."

[Altherion]

Well, it's my turn to be sorry if this offends, but your dismissal of all personal observations and theories on the basis that they're not backed up by numbers and statistics seems pretty narrow-minded.

He has a point though (and he's being more skeptical than narrow-minded). Personal observations and theories are a good start, but if you want someone to believe you regarding a general trend, you should have something more. If you think about it, a whole lot of ideas based on personal observations and theories (both social and scientific) turned out to be just plain wrong upon closer inspection (e.g. if you only had your personal observations to go on, I'd wager you'd conclude that the night-day cycle is caused by the Sun going around the Earth). Sometimes it is good to be skeptical.

[Krafus]

He has a point though (and he's being more skeptical than narrow-minded). Personal observations and theories are a good start, but if you want someone to believe you regarding a general trend, you should have something more. If you think about it, a whole lot of ideas based on personal observations and theories (both social and scientific) turned out to be just plain wrong upon closer inspection (e.g. if you only had your personal observations to go on, I'd wager you'd conclude that the night-day cycle is caused by the Sun going around the Earth). Sometimes it is good to be skeptical.

I agree that personal observations and theories alone can't convince all by themselves, but I don't have only that. There are the numbers from Fictionpress and sffworld - but Mr. Manticore dismisses them outright because they don't fit his standards. There are also the posts made by people on this thread supporting what I initially said. Looked at alone, all of those might look unconvincing, but when taken together, they IMHO point to a trend - that original fantasy books are indeed more popular than original sci-fi books at the moment.

[Werthead]

I agree that personal observations and theories alone can't convince all by themselves, but I don't have only that. There are the numbers from Fictionpress and sffworld - but Mr. Manticore dismisses them outright because they don't fit his standards. There are also the posts made by people on this thread supporting what I initially said. Looked at alone, all of those might look unconvincing, but when taken together, they IMHO point to a trend - that original fantasy books are indeed more popular than original sci-fi books at the moment.

I'm still pondering why on Earth anyone is disputing this. What was the last SF novel to get to Number 1 on the New York Times bestseller list? What was the last SF novel to get to Number 1 on the UK Times bestseller list? I can't even remember. I think 3001 by Arthur C. Clarke got pretty high in 1997 but that's it. On the other hand, Rowling, Jordan, Martin, Gaiman, Goodkind and Eddings have all hit the Number 1 spot in the USA (with Brooks, Salvatore and KJA making it into the Top 10 as well, probably Feist as well), and Rowling and Pratchett have done it in the UK (and Jordan and Martin made it into the Top 10). That should be enough of a sign for anyone.

[Mister Manticore]

Well, it's my turn to be sorry if this offends, but your dismissal of all personal observations and theories on the basis that they're not backed up by numbers and statistics seems pretty narrow-minded.

Well, your reaction seems defensive to me.

And when you say "people," I must point out that there's only you who's so extreme.

And now you're getting even more defensive, by calling me extreme.

This is not making your argument better.

It's turning this discussion into a personal attack.

Why the bitter acrimony?

Yes, several other people have disagreed with me on this thread. However, when they disagreed, they told me why they did so, often backed by observations and theories of their own concerning science-fiction. You, OTOH, just seem to be saying "Everything you've posted is worthless because you don't have numbers and stats."

Well, forgive me for being doubtful and pointing out that your data is based on some pretty questionable observations Sorry, but they are. Fictionpress? Who does it matter to in the great scheme of things? How accurate is its representation as the story-writing public, let alone the public in general? Same with SFFworld. And those are the two you keep going back to, as if there was some real substance f to your observations on them.

Sorry, but there just isn't.

There are the numbers from Fictionpress and sffworld - but Mr. Manticore dismisses them outright because they don't fit his standards.

No, I offered explanations as to why I didn't consider them important, primarily your lack of support for why I should consider them important.

There are also the posts made by people on this thread supporting what I initially said. Looked at alone, all of those might look unconvincing, but when taken together, they IMHO point to a trend - that original fantasy books are indeed more popular than original sci-fi books at the moment.

You should read Altherion's post again. Many times the herd consensus has decided something, but turned out wrong.

[Maltaran]

I'm still pondering why on Earth anyone is disputing this. What was the last SF novel to get to Number 1 on the New York Times bestseller list? What was the last SF novel to get to Number 1 on the UK Times bestseller list? I can't even remember. I think 3001 by Arthur C. Clarke got pretty high in 1997 but that's it. On the other hand, Rowling, Jordan, Martin, Gaiman, Goodkind and Eddings have all hit the Number 1 spot in the USA (with Brooks, Salvatore and KJA making it into the Top 10 as well, probably Feist as well), and Rowling and Pratchett have done it in the UK (and Jordan and Martin made it into the Top 10). That should be enough of a sign for anyone.

But so did Goodkind, which asks a lot of questions about the tastes of certain fantasy readers.

However, he said himself in his first book that people are stupid, and this is now self-evidently true

As for sci-fi on the bestseller lists, I think Tad Williams did reasonably well with the Otherland series, but I could be wrong. Also, which category does McCaffrey fall in with the Dragonriders series?

[Mister Manticore]

I'm still pondering why on Earth anyone is disputing this. What was the last SF novel to get to Number 1 on the New York Times bestseller list?

As I said before, the exceptional performers don't represent the base trend. They're the rare ones that stand out, not the norm. In effect, looking at them produces a distorted picture. This is not just a problem for fantasy versus sci-fi, but an industry problem.

See this old article:

Grey Lady down

Speaking for myself, I can't think of the last time I cared about the list.

[Krafus]

Well, your reaction seems defensive to me.

And now you're getting even more defensive, by calling me extreme.

This is not making your argument better.

It's turning this discussion into a personal attack.

Why the bitter acrimony?

That's something I've realized looking over the last pages, too. This thread has devolved into little more than a running argument between the two of us, which threatens to become ugly soon and in any case adds nothing constructive to the thread's original premise. I now wish I'd never started it. I'm off to ask a mod to lock it.

EDIT: I'm sorry if I offended anyone with my arguments, observations or theories. That was never my intent.

[Werthead]

As I said before, the exceptional performers don't represent the base trend. They're the rare ones that stand out, not the norm. In effect, looking at them produces a distorted picture. This is not just a problem for fantasy versus sci-fi, but an industry problem.

Correct me if you are wrong, but your argument is that Fantasy is not more popular than SF at the moment and this 'trend' does not exist. Therefore the fact that Fantasy has produced a half-dozen writers who have sold exceptionally well in the last decade and that SF has not produced a single one is, as Stego pointed out, highly relevant to the argument. The 'base trend' is that Fantasy has more shelf space now than SF on the shelves of major booksellers (a simple look in my local two Waterstones and WH Smith confirms that, although that only speaks for the UK). Same for Amazon. SF certainly is not dead and probably never will be, but it is nowhere near as popular as Fantasy at the moment based on available data.

OTOH, if your point was merely that Krafus' sources were not terribly representative, than fair enough. But I think that point could have been made more succintly.

[MeanMrMustard]

As I said before, the exceptional performers don't represent the base trend.

A rather incoherent argument. The publishing industry is defined by bestsellers. There's a few of them and a lot of books that basically don't sell at all (literally, there are heavily promoted books reviewed in the New York Times that don't sell 5,000 copies -- below the radar is really below the radar). It's insane to consider superstars outliers when that's what the business model is based on.

Essentially, there is no "base trend" beyond the "exceptional performers."

[Mister Manticore]

OTOH, if your point was merely that Krafus' sources were not terribly representative, than fair enough. But I think that point could have been made more succintly.

I tried. Others tried. It wasn't getting through.

A rather incoherent argument. The publishing industry is defined by bestsellers. There's a few of them and a lot of books that basically don't sell at all (literally, there are heavily promoted books reviewed in the New York Times that don't sell 5,000 copies -- below the radar is really below the radar). It's insane to consider superstars outliers when that's what the business model is based on.

Well, I think it is insane to base the business model on the few rare mega-performers.

That applies to TV and films as well.

[MeanMrMustard]

Not my choice.

Publishing sucks.

[Mister Manticore]

Publishing sucks.

I disagree entirely. Publishing blows, not sucks.

[SeriousMite]

Here's another little stat to add to the argument. I just went through the latest Science Fiction Bookclub flier, and I came up with 71 fantasy versus 49 science fiction, give or take a few which could go either way.

[Lord Stormbringer]

Correct me if you are wrong, but your argument is that Fantasy is not more popular than SF at the moment and this 'trend' does not exist. Therefore the fact that Fantasy has produced a half-dozen writers who have sold exceptionally well in the last decade and that SF has not produced a single one is, as Stego pointed out, highly relevant to the argument.

Just take a hypothetical for a second here, say there are a half dozen fantasy authors that sell really well, and then there are a dozen science fiction authors that sell only half as well. So which is more popular? If we take just the bestsellers then obviously fantasy comes out ahead. But is it really more popular just because it has more big sellers? I think that's the point that is trying to be made about extreme best sellers not being a decisive measure.

I'm not saying that's the exact case. But talking about just the chart toppers is a bit deceptive when discussing whole genres.

The 'base trend' is that Fantasy has more shelf space now than SF on the shelves of major booksellers (a simple look in my local two Waterstones and WH Smith confirms that, although that only speaks for the UK). Same for Amazon. SF certainly is not dead and probably never will be, but it is nowhere near as popular as Fantasy at the moment based on available data.

For what it's worth, and I think it's very little, there is by far more science fiction on the shelves of the book chains I visit. I can find the most mediocre of science fiction novels but find it difficult to even find the big names of fantasy on the shelves unless it's a new book. A lot of these things go from market to market; stores in the same chain can carry a radically different sort of selection just depending on the local market.

Overall, I don't think shelf space is necessarily the be all, end all of deciding which is more popular. Businesses try to ride trends and as often enough that means finding a clone of something popular and producing oodles of generic copies. Fantasy has had some big hits lately and people are trying to cash in. If some one writes the next Dune or Stranger in a Strange Land tomorrow then no doubt we'll see a rush of copies with the serial numbers filed off.

[mormont]

LS: one question only.

You are contending that fantasy is not more popular than sci-fi at the moment, right?

In that case I'd like to ask how you explain the fact that if you talk to fans, writers, and editors involved in either or both you will generally find that they take it as a given fact that fantasy is more popular? Where does this view (that you claim is inaccurate) come from? How do people like George RR Martin, Gardner Dozois, Norman Spinrad, Kate Elliott, and Lou Anders come to be fooled into thinking this?