Change in SFF readers demography

[Oleksandr, a.k.a. Acorn]

Edit: I made a copy of the text without popup here https://medium.com/@oleksandrzholud/e...

An interesting article I've met the other day: https://www.libraryjournal.com/?detai...

In short, "The SFF audience is "changing from an audience of megabuffs (20-30 SFF purchases per year) to younger…readers buying 10-20 books per year, of which two to four may be SFF." This leads to less clearly defined genres

[Silvana]

Not sure why the website keep asking me for personal details but based on that summary, I am fine with the trend as long as it keeps SFF books more available and appealing to everyone for whatever reason. I love it when more of my friends who love Game of Thrones suddenly decide to read the ASOIAF books even though they are not SFF readers and barely read a dozen books in a year.

I just hope the trend does not sacrifice the quality of published books (storytelling, plotting, worldbuilding, characters, speculative fiction side), just so it could be popular.

[Oleksandr, a.k.a. Acorn]

Silvana wrote: "Not sure why the website keep asking me for personal details"

offtopic: my way around it is to use "clearly" chrome extension https://chrome.google.com/webstore/de...

It also helps on sites with register/subscribe popups

Silvana wrote: "I just hope the trend does not sacrifice the quality of published books (storytelling, plotting, worldbuilding, characters, speculative fiction side), just so it could be popular."

I guess it potentially can 'simplify' some aspects. Like in SF old readers know what a space lift/elevator is, no need to reintroduce the concept

[Antti]

I can see upsides and downsides.

I'm sometimes very bored with writers who are desperate to invent something completely new, since their audience is so full of old SF buffs who have already read tons of space adventures and will now give scathing comments to any writer who is seen as "derivative". That's a situation where the stupidest things get published and awarded if they are seen as "new and fresh". I'm looking at you, Gun, With Occasional Music, and don't think this isn't about you too, Brooke Bolander. Hell, basically any Nebula winner for the last 30 years is guilty at this at least on some level.

The downside, of course, is the potential for Second Age of the Pulp. "Quickly produced series designed for mass appeal" sounds... ominous.

[Oleksandr, a.k.a. Acorn]

I'm more worried that the combination of "fewer SFF books per year" and "series binge reading" trend may mean that there will be just several popular series and drop in sales of SFF outside the series. It is interesting that in his early 1990s essay on fantasy Andrzej Sapkowski says that fantasy at the time is plagued by hardcore fans, who push for longer series even when author's ideas are exhausted.

I personally prefer stand alone books - less commitment and no slippery slope of 'yet another book

[Cynthia]

I'm with Z on this one. I've worried about the takeover of long series for a couple decades now. I refuse to get started on established series and I'm always a bit dismayed to read a new novel only to find that it was the first of a series.
Even if a book in a series is nominated or a Hugo/Nebula winner I will not vote for it as book of the month and I will not read it if it wins.

[Eva]

What I like about series is that the world only needs to be built and established once, and then the rest of the novels can focus on complex characters and plots - something that tends to have to take a backseat when a book needs to do a lot of world-building. And not every book in a series ends on a cliffhanger - most are self-contained and have satisfying endings. It's not like with tv series that always leave you unsatisfied so you'll watch the next and the next, etc.

Plus, the article actually said MORE SFF is being published, not less. ;-)

[Cynthia]

Well, that explains it a bit. the world building is what I most enjoy.

[Oleksandr, a.k.a. Acorn]

Eva wrote: "What I like about series is that the world only needs to be built and established once, and then the rest of the novels can focus on complex characters and plots - something that tends to have to t..."

True. At the same time I usually assume that with each book an author wants to deliver some message. After it is done but fans call for more, the author often re-opens the story and doesn't start with a message, so such sequels are like junk food - tasty but not nutritional.

To quote Andrzej Sapkowski

"The authors fall in love with their "worlds" and their maps. If on
such a map are the Gray Mountains, and five volumes were not enough for the protagonists to say that gold is not there, writes volume six. And in the next, seventh, we will see the neighboring map sheet and find out what is north of the Gray Mountains - and this is undoubtedly - pardon my french - Shit-grey Plateau.

[Sarah]

Thanks for this link. Very interesting reading.

"streaming TV has given readers a taste for binging content"

I find this to be especially true with teenagers, and they tend to get stuck on specific authors or series.

For many students, movie adaptions are the only thing that pique the interests. As long as it gets them reading, I call it a victory.

[Oleksandr, a.k.a. Acorn]

Sarah wrote: "For many students, movie adaptions are the only thing that pique the interests. As long as it gets them reading, I call it a victory."

in reading/no reading choice anything which pushes toward reading gets my vote. However, I ain't sure that movies could lead to a significant boost in reading beyond adaptations. Usually passively watching is an optimal choice for 'quick rest' after a week of work/study - most books cannot be read as fast as the movie made on their basis and thus watching wins over reading :(

[Sarah]

It can go either way for sure.

It can be a nice kick-start for people who do no reading at all, to remind them how fun it can be to read and how easy it is to start a reading habit. Alone, it's not so effective, but in combination with other influences, movie adaptions are a great support.

Personal anecdote: I read The Shining in my teens, then watched the movie shortly afterwards. I have never been so disappointed in a movie in my life! I vowed to always read the book before watching any movie adaption.

I've also heard the opposite, where students have told me they don't want to read the book because they would rather watch the movie with no spoilers. This sentiment is more likely to come from students who have very little interest in reading whatsoever; I feel it's more of an excuse that a real reason *shrug*

[Ed]

Antti wrote: "... the stupidest things get published and awarded if they are seen as "new and fresh". I'm looking at you, Gun, With Occasional Music, ..."

Hey! Don't you go dissin' that!

[Antti]

Ed wrote: "Antti wrote: "... the stupidest things get published and awarded if they are seen as "new and fresh". I'm looking at you, Gun, With Occasional Music, ..."

Hey! Don't you go dissin' that!"

I'm sorry if I offended you or any other people who like bad books.

;)

[Kateblue, 2nd star to the right and straight on til morning]

I couldn't get through Gun, With Occasional Music, either. In fact, it went back to the library so unread that I remember nothing. BUT I don't care if things are "derivative" because I just want someone to tell me a story in a concise, logical way, with good charactarizations. I can even overlook plot holes if they are not too glaring.

You'll see what I mean when we get to the middle of the Vorkosigan books, which are my favorites. Barrayar, though, number 2 is close to the top of my list.