Why is fantasy more popular than science-fiction?

[Lord Stormbringer]

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?

I think they're with in a shouting distance of each other. Fantasy certainly has an edge right now but it's not the massive superiority that some people seem to believe.

I won't speculate too much on what is going on in those authors' minds. I've neither heard them speak on the subject nor seen any other commentary and so it would be rather foolish to speak too heavily. But my general opinion of why some people, some authors, see science fiction as dying or declining has to do with their perceptions.

I know Martin in particular was a science fiction fan at the time of the trio of greats, Heinlein, Clarke, and Asimov. Those men were Titans, the literal progenitors of much of the genre we now consider science fiction. And with the exception of Clarke, they're years dead. Even lesser but still significant authors like Frank Herbet or Harlan Ellison or Jack Campell or who ever are no longer publishing much of anything. That lack of huge authors which dominated the genre seems to leave a huge hole to them. With out these huge names (equally equivalent to a Jordan, Goodkind, or Feist) they tend to not pay attention to the leading lights of this generation. They don't see the names they recognise and assume things are the worse for it.

Another thing I think that comes into play is the direction of the genre itself. Science Fiction is no longer the novels of rocket ships, terraforming and the explortation of alien worlds. No offense meant to them but there was one type of science fiction and people didn't bother with much else. Today the science fiction genre is spread over a dozen different, significant sub-types who all have their leading lights. We have military science fiction, space opera/adventure, cyberpunk, etc, etc. To today's reader Neuromancer or Hammer's Slammers are more likely to be recongized than Fountains of Paradise or The Sentinel. Because it's not as familiar the success doesn't register in the same way.

Which brings up another point. Fantasty tends to be remarkably uniform. Sure there are those that do something radical like Michael Moorcock or China Melville, but the vast majority of the genre is fairly similar. The big ones like Tolkien, Jordan, Goodkind and Brooks all use a remarkably similar pallate. The themes may differ but the overl shape of the worlds remain quite similar. Where as science fiction has become remarkable fragmented into individual genre. Count Zero has almost nothing in common with Hammer's Slammers which has almost nothing in common with Look to Windward. Keeping in touch with all the flavors of sci-fi is hard to do indeed and if one only goes by what attracts major notice it's easy to overlook the modest success of a lot of authors.

And last but not least, even genre fans tend to overlook media tie-in works. To be fair, a lot of it is little more than mass produced crap. But it fills the same niche that the pulps did for a lot of authors back in the day. And to be fair there are some really gifted and successful authors that right genuine literature which just happens to take place in a world of media-creation. One of my favorite authors, among other things, writes a series of novels tied to a table top wargame. They've been reprinted for nearly a decade now with progressively larger runs each time but he doesn't even get the nod a Timothy Zahn does. I hate to say it but a lot of "serious" authors just disregard a fairly large market.

[Maltaran]

One of my favorite authors, among other things, writes a series of novels tied to a table top wargame. They've been reprinted for nearly a decade now with progressively larger runs each time but he doesn't even get the nod a Timothy Zahn does.

Gaunt's Ghosts? I'm guessing it's a 40k series due to your Blood Angels avatar.

Fantasty tends to be remarkably uniform. Sure there are those that do something radical like Michael Moorcock or China Melville, but the vast majority of the genre is fairly similar.

There I'd disagree. There's urban fantasy (such as China Mieville), high fantasy (Tolkien and Jordan, etc.), stuff like Anne McCaffrey's Pern series which can be classed as either fantasy or sci-fi, the faux-medieval worlds with little or no magic such as Westeros, and so on.

[Lord Stormbringer]

Gaunt's Ghosts? I'm guessing it's a 40k series due to your Blood Angels avatar.

Gaunts Ghost and his Eisenhorn/Ravenor novels.

There I'd disagree. There's urban fantasy (such as China Mieville), high fantasy (Tolkien and Jordan, etc.), stuff like Anne McCaffrey's Pern series which can be classed as either fantasy or sci-fi, the faux-medieval worlds with little or no magic such as Westeros, and so on.

I didn't say that it was all indentical but that there was much less of a difference between the typical fantasy best-seller than there is from science fiction. The fantasy best seller tend to crowd rather heavily into high fantasy with a fairly well understood palette and child/young adult fantasy with an equally well understood palette.

Oh and to those pointing out that there have been no best selling science fiction authors: I would point out to you Michael Chricton and Stephen King as examples. While neither is explicitly a science fiction author both have had major best seller which is overtly science fiction.

[williamjm]

Oh and to those pointing out that there have been no best selling science fiction authors: I would point out to you Michael Chricton and Stephen King as examples. While neither is explicitly a science fiction author both have had major best seller which is overtly science fiction.

That is a good point. In my experience most bookshops (in Britain anyway) seem to have more Fantasy books than Science Fiction books in the main "Science Fiction" shelves, but I guess if you add in all the tie-in books (which often get a separate section next to the normal SF/F books and tend to be dominated by Science Fiction) and books from authors such as Crichton and King (or the likes of Margaret Atwood) that might be Science Fiction but aren't shelved in that section then the picture might change. Of course, there are also Fantasy books shelved in other categories as well.

[mormont]

I think they're with in a shouting distance of each other. Fantasy certainly has an edge right now but it's not the massive superiority that some people seem to believe.

But it's not just 'some people': it's pretty much the default assumption in the 'wider genre' of speculative fiction. I named half a dozen major authors and editors above who I have either read or heard comment in person to that effect. I could probably find many more with some searching.

I know Martin in particular was a science fiction fan at the time of the trio of greats, Heinlein, Clarke, and Asimov. Those men were Titans, the literal progenitors of much of the genre we now consider science fiction. And with the exception of Clarke, they're years dead. Even lesser but still significant authors like Frank Herbet or Harlan Ellison or Jack Campell or who ever are no longer publishing much of anything. That lack of huge authors which dominated the genre seems to leave a huge hole to them. With out these huge names (equally equivalent to a Jordan, Goodkind, or Feist) they tend to not pay attention to the leading lights of this generation. They don't see the names they recognise and assume things are the worse for it.

This is kind of a weak argument. I mean, a couple of the above people edit major sci-fi magazines and short-story collections, and you're saying that they 'don't pay attention to the leading lights of this generation'? That they have a false impression of the strength of the genre based on nothing more than the absence of the 'big names' they grew up with?

Another thing I think that comes into play is the direction of the genre itself. Science Fiction is no longer the novels of rocket ships, terraforming and the explortation of alien worlds. No offense meant to them but there was one type of science fiction and people didn't bother with much else. Today the science fiction genre is spread over a dozen different, significant sub-types who all have their leading lights. We have military science fiction, space opera/adventure, cyberpunk, etc, etc. To today's reader Neuromancer or Hammer's Slammers are more likely to be recongized than Fountains of Paradise or The Sentinel. Because it's not as familiar the success doesn't register in the same way.

Weaker still. I've never met a fan who doesn't 'register the success' of cyberpunk. And Heinlein wrote quite a bit of military sci-fi. There has always been variety in the genre, it's one of its strengths.

Which brings up another point. Fantasty tends to be remarkably uniform.

Weaker yet, and simply not true. There is easily as much variance in the fantasy genre as in sci-fi. A genre that includes American Gods, Earthsea, The Dark Tower, Temeraire, ASOIAF, Locke Lamora, Alvin Maker, Perdido Street Station, and The Sarantine Mosaic is 'remarkably uniform'?

And last but not least, even genre fans tend to overlook media tie-in works. To be fair, a lot of it is little more than mass produced crap. But it fills the same niche that the pulps did for a lot of authors back in the day. And to be fair there are some really gifted and successful authors that right genuine literature which just happens to take place in a world of media-creation. One of my favorite authors, among other things, writes a series of novels tied to a table top wargame. They've been reprinted for nearly a decade now with progressively larger runs each time but he doesn't even get the nod a Timothy Zahn does. I hate to say it but a lot of "serious" authors just disregard a fairly large market.

Fair point, but fantasy has a lot of this too. Forgotten Realms, for example.

[Alaerien]

I think Earthsea, American Gods, and Alvin Maker(and even parts of ASOIAF) all have very similar storylines, with the one kid who grows up to save the world

Can you explain in a bit more detail how exactly American Gods has this storyline? There is no kid, it's not a coming-of-age story, and the world isn't saved. I admit, I've only read it once, but I can't see even a passing resemblance between your summary and the actual plot of the book.

[Stego]

Time I jumped in, becaus there is some craziness being spouted.

Quickly:

Malataran said: "Also, which category does McCaffrey fall in with the Dragonriders series?"

Good question, and one deabted at length in many places by many people. It's a question worthy of it's own thread. Anne herself maintained that it was science fiction for decades, but that didn't stop her from putting a Pern story in Legends.

Now to the crux:

Lord Stormbringer said: "Fantasty tends to be remarkably uniform. Sure there are those that do something radical like Michael Moorcock or China Melville, but the vast majority of the genre is fairly similar."

This is a vastly, vastly ignorant statement that only goes to show how little you know and understand about fantastic literature.

To you it's fairly obvious that fantasy = Tolkienesque fantasy. Which is ok for someone who has just stumbled across fantastic literature, but ought not be spouted around these parts.

Are you saying that Graham Joyce's The Tooth Fairy is in essence similar to Michael Chabon's The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay? How similar is Charles DeLint to Susanna Clarke? Is Jeffrey Ford standard fare? John M. Ford? Is Terry Pratchett similar to George Martin? Have you even read Kelly Link? Or Lucius Shephard? Or Life of Pi by Yann Martel?

Ever read any Umberto Eco? How about Ramsey Campbell? Perhaps some John C. Wright? Sean Williams? Haruki Murakami? Gabriel Garcia Marques?

The Legend of Bagger Vance?

The Antelope Wife?

The Lovely Bones?

How about The Odyssey?

The Bible?

L'Morte D'Artur?

Musashi?

Or is fantasy just Goodkind and Bakker and Erikson and Jordan and Feist and Salvatore to you? Cause you're stuck in a niche, man, and I'd hate to be trapped in your library.

[Stego]

"Kid who grows up to save the world"

Oh!

Were you talking about Ender's Game, Spin, Have Spacesuit -- Will Travel, or Dune?

[Stego]

Manticore:

Everything used in my post until those final four books was recent, as in the past 7-8 years. I simply pushed it beyond those boundaries at the end to expand upon the absurdist notion he makes.

And if you question any of the choices I made as fantasy, then you either have not read the books, or fail to understand the word fantasy. Either way, it's your own failing, not mine.

[Werthead]

I would suggest people cool their heads a little here and try not to stray into the area of getting personal.

Btw, Manticore, there are plenty of genre magazines and sites that do count the Bond movies, at least, as SF, due to the preponderence of SF gadgets and storylines in them (and the fact that one of them takes place in space). However, it is a very arguable distinction.

[Stego]

Manticore:

Which example of mine do you think fails as fantasy? I'm perplexed.

(I'm missing Storm Bringers point? His point was that the majority of fantasy is the same. I'm not only questioning this assertion, I'm denying his premise that he is aware of most fantasy.)

[Stego]

Then you and I disagree as to whether he actually made a point. Certainly I don't believe you have, either, and you're not even willing to support your assertions.

You simply are saying that I don't understand.

Gotcha.

I'm not upset or 'hot' in any way. I just believe -- how to put this nicely -- that you and LS have no idea of what you speak. That's ok.

But arguing these points with you fella's is a waste of my time when you won't even argue back, hiding behind a Goodkindesque "You just don't get it."

(While the assertion is both as simple and absurd as anything ever utterred.)

Have fun, guys. I'm out.

[Galactus]

Manticore:

Which example of mine do you think fails as fantasy? I'm perplexed.

(I'm missing Storm Bringers point? His point was that the majority of fantasy is the same. I'm not only questioning this assertion, I'm denying his premise that he is aware of most fantasy.)

I think his point was that fantasy is relatively coherent *compared to Science Fiction*

[Lord Stormbringer]

But it's not just 'some people': it's pretty much the default assumption in the 'wider genre' of speculative fiction. I named half a dozen major authors and editors above who I have either read or heard comment in person to that effect. I could probably find many more with some searching.

And while their opinions carry a lot of weight, that doesn't necessarily make them right. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, in the early 1990s the biggest of big names in the spy genre all said it was dead, there was nothing left to write. They derided the few people that did keep publishing as hacks and warming over a corpse. Well, it changed rapidly as terrorism took hold of the world conciousness. Writers and genre fans are not always right, there tends to be at least a measure of the "can't see the forst for all these damn trees."

This is kind of a weak argument. I mean, a couple of the above people edit major sci-fi magazines and short-story collections, and you're saying that they 'don't pay attention to the leading lights of this generation'? That they have a false impression of the strength of the genre based on nothing more than the absence of the 'big names' they grew up with?

I think that has a lot to do with it. When you consider that a great many of these writers are presently in their fifties, sixties, and seventies then yes, a certain amount of nostalgia is inevitable. I don't find it at all inconcievable that they might not recognize the importance of authors that broke out after they started their own careers. Having actually talked to some on messages boards, I can say that's certainly the case for some of them.

Weaker still. I've never met a fan who doesn't 'register the success' of cyberpunk. And Heinlein wrote quite a bit of military sci-fi. There has always been variety in the genre, it's one of its strengths.

It's one thing to know it's a success, another to realize that in a lot of ways it's become a touchstone in the same way that Heinlein or Clarke or Asimov was to them.

Nor is it that far fetched to suggest that the success of science fictions works by authors that have kept that paritcular label at a distance doesn't register either. Authors like Michael Chrichton or Stephen King and a few other write material that's heavy on the science fiction but aren't labelled as such or confined to it. So it's easy for people to miss the fact that they're enormous success, on a par with the big names of fantasy.

Weaker yet, and simply not true. There is easily as much variance in the fantasy genre as in sci-fi. A genre that includes American Gods, Earthsea, The Dark Tower, Temeraire, ASOIAF, Locke Lamora, Alvin Maker, Perdido Street Station, and The Sarantine Mosaic is 'remarkably uniform'?

And if you'll note, I'm talking about the best selling commerical market. I've acknowledged that there is variation in the fantasy genre. But the top end of commerical fantasy is still dominated by high fantasy and children's fantasy. Don't try to tell me that there's a huge difference between Tolkien and Jordan and Goodkind. Even lower sellers like Martin, Tad Williams, R.A. Salvatore, Terry Brooks, and others all use a very similar pallette. There is more variation the further one gets from the top of the charts, but not as much as can be readily found in sci-fi.

Fair point, but fantasy has a lot of this too. Forgotten Realms, for example.

Quite but even Forgotten Realms and the other D&D tie ins aren't nearly as popular as their science fiction equivalents. Star Trek and Star Wars are simply huge compared to anything else.

[mormont]

Earthsea??

Earthsea??

A series that started in the late sixties?

A bit out of context, IMHO, since we're talking about modern trends, not historical.

Actually, LS did not specify that he was talking only about 'modern' fantasy.

Not that you really responded to the point about similarity in the big names, and you didn't recognize how LS did say that there were exceptions.

Sorry? Every one of those authors is a big name in fantasy, and every one is different.

And yes, he said there were exceptions. But at some point when you have enough exceptions they stop being exceptions.

And to be frank, I think Earthsea, American Gods, and Alvin Maker(and even parts of ASOIAF) all have very similar storylines, with the one kid who grows up to save the world, so while the details may be different, the basic plot is the same. This may be true of some of the others too, at least in part, I don't know because I've not read them. So honestly, your own examples aren't that good.

This is called 'shifting the goalposts'. You got an answer that showed that fantasy isn't all that similar overall, so you shift the goalposts to make the criterion 'similar in the basic plot'. It's a tactic you use repeatedly and habitually in debates on forums across this board, unfortunately, and it's one good reason why debating with you is a waste of time. So I won't bother to do so further.

And while their opinions carry a lot of weight, that doesn't necessarily make them right. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, in the early 1990s the biggest of big names in the spy genre all said it was dead, there was nothing left to write. They derided the few people that did keep publishing as hacks and warming over a corpse. Well, it changed rapidly as terrorism took hold of the world conciousness. Writers and genre fans are not always right, there tends to be at least a measure of the "can't see the forst for all these damn trees."

Well, I'm not saying that sci-fi is dead or denying there might be a shift so that sci-fi again outsells fantasy (and neither are any of the above people), so I think most of this is irrelevant to our discussion, I'm afraid.

The part that is relevant, though, is my original point: no, they're not necessarily right. But it's damned peculiar for so many of them to be so wrong, surely?

I think that has a lot to do with it. When you consider that a great many of these writers are presently in their fifties, sixties, and seventies then yes, a certain amount of nostalgia is inevitable. I don't find it at all inconcievable that they might not recognize the importance of authors that broke out after they started their own careers. Having actually talked to some on messages boards, I can say that's certainly the case for some of them.

However, saying that people who edit sci-fi magazines and collections for a living don't recognise the importance of authors whose stories they publish is kind of a big claim. I mean, they helped launch the careers of some of these guys, right? Heck, they voted for their stories to win Hugos and Nebulas (in fact at Worldcon, Dozois publicly explained why he voted for a 'modern' author over Howard Waldrop this year in one category, and the reason was precisely that he felt Waldrop had been nominated only from nostalgia: he also criticised another nominee for writing a story that 'could have been published in the '50s').

It's one thing to know it's a success, another to realize that in a lot of ways it's become a touchstone in the same way that Heinlein or Clarke or Asimov was to them.

But again, I don't know any sci-fi fans who don't recognise William Gibson as such a touchstone.

Nor is it that far fetched to suggest that the success of science fictions works by authors that have kept that paritcular label at a distance doesn't register either. Authors like Michael Chrichton or Stephen King and a few other write material that's heavy on the science fiction but aren't labelled as such or confined to it. So it's easy for people to miss the fact that they're enormous success, on a par with the big names of fantasy.

OK, this is the second time you've mentioned King as a sci-fi writer of sorts, and I have to say: I can really only think of one novel that is unarguably sci-fi. The reason King doesn't register as a successful sci-fi author is that he really isn't one. (Crichton is, to be fair. But I think even King would be puzzled to find himself classed as a sci-fi writer.)

If you're going to count stories featuring psychic powers, or stuff like the Dark Tower, as sci-fi, you've broadened the definition rather a lot. I'm not going to say that's wrong, but at the same time you're narrowing the definition for fantasy by limiting it to Jordan, Goodkind and Tolkien. Seems like you're setting the boundaries to suit your point, including as many people in 'sci-fi' and as few in 'fantasy' as you can.

Besides, if you can count King as a sci-fi writer, you can certainly also count him as a fantasy writer. So that kind of cancels out his contribution sales-wise.

And if you'll note, I'm talking about the best selling commerical market. I've acknowledged that there is variation in the fantasy genre. But the top end of commerical fantasy is still dominated by high fantasy and children's fantasy. Don't try to tell me that there's a huge difference between Tolkien and Jordan and Goodkind. Even lower sellers like Martin, Tad Williams, R.A. Salvatore, Terry Brooks, and others all use a very similar pallette. There is more variation the further one gets from the top of the charts, but not as much as can be readily found in sci-fi.

This, again, looks like setting the boundaries to suit your argument. You omit King as a top seller and Gaiman as a lower seller, for example. You've set the boundaries for fantasy much more narrowly than for sci-fi.

[Stego]

Since Lord Stormbringer is actually arguing the point still, I'll be happy to jump on in again.

Off the top of my head, some of the best sellers in fantasy from recent years that show the scope and diversity of the genre:

1. The Thirteenth Tale by Diane Setterfield (number 5 on the NYTB list right now. ) A ghost story in the mold of Rebecca.

2. Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke (number one on NYTB list last year.) An Historical fiction novel set during the Napoleonic wars w/magic.

3. The Dark Tower by Stephen King (Top Ten on NYTB list) The penultimate entry in the western fantasy saga.

4. A Feast For Crows by George Martin. (Number one on NYTB list) Is a description required?

5. Anything by Terry Pratchett. (All reach top five in UK.) Comedy set in the ridiculous Discworld. He takes on current events, god, war, and human nature.

6. The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold (Top 5 on NYTB list) The story of a little girl telling about her own murder.

7. The Glass Books of the Dream Eaters by Gordon Dahlquist ( Top Ten) A magical dream novel of eroticism and lies.

8. Only Revolutions by Mark Z. Danielewski (Top Ten) A neverending, time encompassing, world covering, travel novel telling of a couple who don't so much love, but need each other.

9. A Dirty Job by Christopher Moore (Number 1) A comedic take on death.

10. Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell (Top ten in UK) Interwoven dreamlike existences.

11. A Breath of Snow and Ashes by Diana Gabaldon (Number one) Magical time travel romance.

12. The Stolen Child by Keith Donahue (Top ten) A story of lost childhood a la Graham Joyce, with Changelings in a forest.

13. Labyrinth by Kate Mosse (Top 5) A female search for the holy grail across time.

14. The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova (Number 1) A search for Dracula.

15 The Penelopiad by Margaret Atwood (Top ten) a retelling of the Oddyssey by way of Penelope.

16. The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana by Umberto Eco (Top 10) A man can only remember the things he reads, nothing else. Flares of flame remind him of things.

This is off the top of my head, and only using the past two years. Want me to do some research or are you willing to concede the point?

[Werthead]

It's one thing to know it's a success, another to realize that in a lot of ways it's become a touchstone in the same way that Heinlein or Clarke or Asimov was to them.

Has it? Are Bruce Stirling, Neal Stephenson and William Gibson as recognisable names to the casual reader as Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, Arthur C. Clarke or Frank Herbert? I severely doubt it.

Quite but even Forgotten Realms and the other D&D tie ins aren't nearly as popular as their science fiction equivalents. Star Trek and Star Wars are simply huge compared to anything else.

I don't think so. Weis and Hickman's Dragonlance novels and anthologies have sold something like 10 million copies between them. That's not counting the other Dragonlance books, many of which were NYT bestsellers as well. That amount is probably the total number that all 500+ Star Trek novels have sold in 40 years, and at least as many as all 50+ Star Wars novels put together. Forgotten Realms has shifted an enormous quantity thanks to New York Times bestselling authors like Athans, Denning, Salvatore and Cunningham, although probably not as many as Star Wars. Sales figures are difficult to confirm for tie-ins.

Earthsea is an acknowledged 'classic' of the genre and an early example of the crossover book, a kids' book which adults enjoy reading as well. I think that's why it's been mentioned.

Pratchett's use of satire and his high and inventive use of mythology and literary references is interesting and somewhat unusual in the genre ('funny' fantasy books are usually more out-and-out pisstakes taking the mickey out of the genre rather than working within it), plus his exceptional popularity as the world biggest-selling living fantasy author whose name doesn't have the word 'Rowling' in it were relevant to your point (interesting that Stego should list him, since I know he's not a fan).

[Stego]

But wait ....... haven't we proved the premise that fantasy is more popular now, though? I mean.... beaten it into the ground?

You can jump on new words like 'innovation' to redirect the argument if you like, but the basic premise has been proven over and over. (As if it were ever in doubt.)

Just as an interesting tidbit:

Charles Stross is considered one of the next big SF authors. To make money to support this, Stross is writing a fantasy series because it will sell enough copies to keep him writing the books he wants to write.

Shit like this you can argue with. You can.

But you look silly doing it.

[Werthead]

George RR Martin created the githyanki in Dying of the Light. Charles Stross merely nicked it for his D&D book.

[Werthead]

Christ, the Flumph. I remember Dragon Magazine printing letters from deranged DMs who were trying to humiliate their players by getting them killed by Flumphs, but it being impossible due to them basically being Furbies, only less aggressive.