Why is Fantasy so much more popular than SciFi?

[Colleen]

Yes! That's a bogus claim. IF there is a theme of good v evil running through the book THEN good usually triumphs, etc, etc. But there doesn't have to be, and it's a disservice to all of the really good offerings in the fantasy genre to consider it that way. (ALL of Guy Gavriel Kay, Kate Elliot, some of Jacqueline Carey.) While yes, most stories do tend to have an antagonist, this creates conflict, not necessarily a good v evil duality.

It's just as innacurate as if I had said "Is it bogus to say that sci fi is long descriptions of science that detract or eliminate true character development?" SURE, there are plenty of those out there, but they are not the only stripe of the genre, and the whole genre should not be judged by their existence. Or if you presume that all fantasy is magical handwaving that gets the characters out of tough spots. Yeah, that exists, but every genre has the relative it wishes would dress up a bit more for dinner and not belch at the table ...

[John]

If Leslie thought she was coming to this discussion late, then I'm coming *really* late. I think a lot of great points have been made and plausible ideas brought up, and I don't want to rehash them just to say "I agree." I'd like to try to build off some of them to suggest another idea.

Back in the old days, sf was king and just about anyone could write sf. All that was really required was a veneer of science and it could be called sf. It was the best of writing, it was the worst of writing. Now, there seem to be overall higher standards for the science in science fiction. As a consequence, I imagine sf is a bit intimidating to write: readers are often quite discerning and no doubt will call writers on bad science. Therefore, sf tends to select for writers who can manage their science ably... which I think sometimes leads to the emphasis on the science and the plot rather than character, which was at least suggested by earlier comments here.

Fantasy, I suspect, is in something like the situation I suggested for the golden age of sf: it's the popular genre, so everyone's writing it (and, honestly, it's an "easier" genre to write in, so everyone *can*), with the result that there's some real shlock being written and published... but there's also some amazing, amazing stuff being done in the genre.

To some extent, I feel like I've skirted the issue, not really getting at a hypothesis as to *why* fantasy is the more popular genre. Perhaps because it's more things to more people? Some readers go in for the mindless escapism or want to identify with the grandiose main characters that prevail in a certain slice of fantasy. But there's also room in the genre for great writing, for deep pyschological insight, for the big questions, and even just for good story telling.

Oh, and incidentally, I feel like I should clarify my remark about fantasy being an "easier" genre to write in. I think it's just as hard to write great fantasy as it is to write great science fiction--maybe even harder in some ways. But it's probably easier to write merely acceptable fantasy than science fiction (i.e. stuff that can get published, that can attract readers, etc).

[Michael]

I agree with a lot of people that these things go in cycles.

I also wonder if part of this isn't that a lot of fantasy these days are these epic series. One turnoff for some fantasy for me is simply how far behind I am on the reading. I don't mind doing it, but I feel intimidated if I want to start a series and find out I'm 10,000 pages behind.

It seems to me that the whole "we must have a series" concept is spilling over to SciFi as well.

And it kind of drives me nuts when publishers don't at least put on the cover or title page that said entry is part of a series and where in the sequence it is. I am not a fan of reading things out of order if I can avoid it.

[Gbina]

Yes, series play a huge role in fantasy's popularity. A series can be like an addiction. Once you start you can't stop. Even when you find out this thing is going to be 12 books long (Wheel of Time), you can't walk away and reclaim your life.

I agree with Michael, in that I find it annoying when publishers don't indicate that a book is actually book 5 in a 10 book series. I recently discovered this lack of info on the cover is actually a marketing technique.

Most readers don't like to read a series out of order. Therefore, publishers (and book store owners) don't want to put the book number on the cover because it discourages impulse buying. If a reader sees "Book 5", he/she will look for "Book 1". If the store doesn't have Book 1, he/she will decide to wait and maybe purchase Book 1 online or just totally forget about it. However, if Book 5 is NOT on the cover, the reader buys the book and finds out it is Book 5 later. Well, the reader already has Book 5 so now he/she must buy Books 1-4. It's a dirty dirty trick.

I will additionally add this last departing thought. I am getting tired of all the epic fantasy series. At this point, Sci-Fi is becoming more appealing for the simple fact that I know it will be good and actually have an end.

[Leslie Ann]

Going way back to Ethan's comment about how he got tired of read a story in which a boy grows up in an adoptive family, has to go on a journey, etc.--What that scenario describes is THE classic plot on which virtually all fantasy fiction and arguably all fiction is based--The Hero's Journey.

This concept was clarified by no less a scholar than the late Joseph Cambell, world-renowned expert on folklore. He showed in his own academic work how all folk stories are structured in this very specific way and codified the steps involved in The Hero's Journey.

A fantastic book on writing, one which I highly recommend for all aspiring writers of fiction, no matter the genre, is 'The Writer's Journey' by Christopher Vogler. He demonstrates how all fiction can be written according to Joseph Cambell's formula, and this includes screenplays. It's especially fun to see how the Star Wars saga fits so perfectly into the formula.

[Brooke]

sufficiently different one from the other that its possible to enjoy both without feeling like you're sitting through a rerun

As long as a story is well written and the characters are interesting, I could care less if the IDEAS are original. A lot of people argue that we ran out of original ideas long ago, but whether or not that's true, that certainly doesn't mean we've run out of stories to tell in any genre.

[Brooke]

Heck, we all are born, grow, learn, interact, change, strive, become old, die. Every day the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Every year the days lengthen and the weather warms, the days shorten and the weather cools. I'm not bored with it.

I like that! Nice point.

[Amy]

I also wonder if part of this isn't that a lot of fantasy these days are these epic series.
I like trilogies - three is a good number, you can get attached to a world and characters, but you know there's an ending. Five or seven or twelve is too much ... and then, to be waiting for an author to finish writing...

I have really enjoyed reading this discussion thread. Now I really want to read those Joseph Campbell books I picked up at the Goodwill a few months back - if only I had not already committed myself to A Song of Fire and Ice, I might have time...

[Jeffrey]

Bunny

Its a red herring to state that since a sf author writes a few books in fantasy that make that person a fantasy author. All of the people I mentioned started in sf and then went to fantasy. I still do not know anyone who went the other way.

Star Wars by the way is space opera.

[Alex]

He demonstrates how all fiction can be written according to Joseph Cambell's formula, and this includes screenplays. It's especially fun to see how the Star Wars saga fits so perfectly into the formula.

George Lucas read Campbell's The Power of Myth prior to writing Star Wars. And Campbell said that Lucas was his best student. I know this is heresy, but Star Wars is a horrible film when judged solely on its technical merits. It's the strength of its underlying archetypes (i.e. The Hero's Journey) that gives the movie its power and popularity.

Ok, back on topic...

I agree with what was said earlier about series and trilogies being a drawback in any genre. The last fantasy book I read was Forging the Darksword when I was about 14. It left me feeling very unsatisfied, because you've essentially come to the end of Act I in a three act play. Some amount of initial conflict has been settled, but larger events have been set in motion. Of course, you want to know how those events are going to play out, but you have to go buy another book (or wait for it to be published). It's very off-putting.

On the other hand, I've very much enjoyed the two Honor Harrington books I've read. Yes, they're part of a series. But each stands on its own. Over the series (from what I can tell), you can watch Honor progress personally and professionally, and some characters appear in multiple books. But the plots aren't interconnected. You could read them out of order or leave the series for a while and come back to it. There's no hook, nothing to bring you back other than the quality of the writing and the strength of the characters.

And I think that's a much harder feat than a three-act play.

Obviously, these are limited examples. I do tend to stay away from trilogies in science fiction for the same reasons as fantasy trilogies. And there are probably good series in fantasy.

[Michael]

With fantasy (and all genres, for that matter), it's more about the author giving us a new spin or some different take on the classic archetypes. I recently read Peter David's Tigerheart, which is his pastiche of the Peter Pan narrative. It doesn't really break any new ground in the story, but it's the way David tells the story and presents the characters that won me over. He "re-invents" the story in some ways, but is still true to the overall roots of the story.

I have noticed a trend with SciFi. The books are getting thicker. Just look at your average new book and compare it to a novel by Heinlein or Asimov or Clark in their prime. Due to the lesser budget in the older days, scifi novels were shorter. Yes, there wasn't the emphasis on character we have today, but we still had the get in, get out, tell the story, present your idea and head to the house. I think today that many writers go for an overabundance of words and pages in order to make the reader feel like he or she is getting "value" for their money. And sometimes that lead to ponderous subplots that have little place in a story and serve as an overall distraction.

[Shannon]

Star Wars is a good example of the Quest formula, the "Hero's Journey". But I wonder how old it really is. Fables, fairy tales and legends were often used to give advice, a warning or a moral. "Little Red Riding Hood" warned young girls to beware of the seducing ways of the men at court, for instance.

While science fiction arguably posits hypotheses about the human condition, among other things, through one perspective, fantasy easily does the same in another way. Books like Lynn Flewelling's The Bone Doll Twin explores issues of gender, for example - that's not to say that this is it's only purpose, only that it is a theme of the story. Eric van Lustbader's Pearl Saga (which I read more as fantasy than sci-fi - though it's a blend, the sf aspects are minor details) also deals with this theme. Whatever formula a fantasy book is using, it is still possible for it to explore certain issues at a deeper level.

I don't agree with the dismissive argument that all fantasy is purely escapism. To various extents, all fiction is escapism, in that it takes you to a place other than where you are, and lets you involve yourself in a fictional character's fictional life - just because a fantasy world is usually "make-believe" doesn't mean it's always frivolous play. It can definitely be read that way, but so can any other book. What you choose to take away from a book, fantasy or otherwise, is up to the individual.