Why is fantasy more popular than scifi?

[Aloha]

And I can't think of synonyms for wonderful right now. Terrific literary arts. Cerebral, creative and mysterious literary arts. Communicative. Wait...that sounds like a disease.

[Aloha]

Or algebra. Communicative sounds like algebra.

[David]

Fantasy has within it that which can never come to pass. Dragons, orcs, wizards, gods, and magical swords could never exist, and are therefore outside of the realm of our mind's reality. Those things we embrace, those impossible things, kindle within us the ancient stories that helped shape and mold the world. From those words, those inconceivable words and ideas, we dream about bonds to the gods or entities beyond our comprehension. As Khaos herself spawned the ancient primordial beings of Gaea and her siblings, writers bring forth other beings of light and shadow that make us wish we, too, could be just like them. Science fiction has nuggets of possibility within it, although those possibilities might not exist for centuries. Computers and technological advancements seem much more attainable, and with so many people connected to the electronic work, they just see "science fiction" closer to science fact.

At least that's how I see it for me.

[Brad]

I think a distrust of science and technology might have something to do with it, or maybe it's an unclear perception of what the future holds that causes people to seek solace in fantasy that is rooted in the past.

From the 1950's into the 1980's, it was pretty clear where science was taking us. One could look at the space age and the rise of computer technology and extrapolate some sort of fantastic future. Nowadays, people distrust science and technology. Many people deny that the earth's temperatures are rising or that evolution happens. Some distrust modern agriculture, medicine, or nuclear power.

When you take that distrust and then extrapolate it into a possible future, what you get is the dystopian landscape that fills sci-fi today, and people just don't want to read about that stuff. They see the past as the golden age and look to it for some kind of comfort.

[Anne]

Paradoxically that science which people fear or distrust because they will not put in the work to understand holds the key to their salvation. The old cliches and easy beliefs about gods and magical thinking hold the key to their doom.

[Aloha]

Based on the past, as illustrated by God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, religion has proven to do more damage than science.

[Aloha]

On that note, you might be interested in this:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/art...

[Aloha]

It's funny how lasers are probably thinking swords are glorifying Holy wars as people bludgeon each other and destroy villages, while swords are probably thinking lasers are glorifying turning everybody into robots.

[Rob]

Not every belief about "gods and magical thinking" is easy. Just sayin'.

And not all technology is salvationary. Skynet anyone?

[Anne]

Not all technology is salvationary but technology is also not scientific thinking... tech is more closely related to marketing.

[Aloha]

Rob, Skynet is fiction from the Terminator movie. But "gods and magical thinking" have historically created the most deviant thinking and justification for control and destruction. I don't know which is worst, magical thinking that creates its own illogical logic to suit its purpose, or unrelenting logic that would not leave its loop.



Rob wrote: "Not every belief about "gods and magical thinking" is easy. Just sayin'.

And not all technology is salvationary. Skynet anyone?"

[Aloha]

It's all part of the same body, whether it's applied mathematics or pure mathematics. They have a symbiotic relationship. You can't say that the hand that wields the sword is not your hand.

Anne wrote: "Not all technology is salvationary but technology is also not scientific thinking... tech is more closely related to marketing."

[Kamil]

Aloha wrote: "Rob, Skynet is fiction from the Terminator movie. But "gods and magical thinking" have historically created the most deviant thinking and justification for control and destruction. I don't know w..."

technology and " magical thinking are both sides of the same coin; their original purpose was to make life easier but those that wield power used them for their gain. inquisitors used faith and magic to repress what wasn't in alignement whith their thinking, but at the same time, their tools were masterpieces of technology and science

[A.E.]

I'm going to have to take issue with something Anne said, that fantasy has no limits and no rules. Some magics are designed to be whimsical and mysterious, but I prefer those fantasy stories that introduce a new set of rules and adhere to them. As Brandon Sanderson preaches, this is required if magic is to be used as a tool in the resolution of the narrative. In this way, fantasy is similar to at least space opera, where new parameters are introduced to the reader.

[Aloha]

True. People are always trying to find ways to soothe their suffering, whether it's through prayers or medicine. The problem with magical thinking is that there is no factor that sets a limit, so abuse is easy to commit and people have no logic based system to analyze whether something makes sense. That article I posted regarding getting rid of evolutionary evidence is an example. If you have nothing to check against the creativity of the human mind, then the sky is the limit as long as your persuasive power is great. Even those in the technology fields have been accused of having religious fervor, such as Ray Kurzweil with his preaching that robotics is the best way. Scientists accuse him of bringing down the quality of the scientific process with his fervor bordering on religiosity.

History is plastic and positive things evolve from events, even horrible events. I guess in analyzing history, we have to wonder whether the means justified the ends. Time travel books have made similar scenarios.

Kamil wrote: "technology and " magical thinking are both sides of the same coin; their original purpose was to make life easier but those that wield power used them for their gain. inquisitors used faith and magic to repress what wasn't in alignement whith their thinking, but at the same time, their tools were masterpieces of technology and science."

[Aloha]

That is why in a political revolution, among the people to be destroyed are the scientists, intellectuals and cultural elites, the free thinkers who can be persuasive in pointing out logical flaws.

[Rob]

And you're right. Skynet is fictional, though I think we're seeing more and more the dangers of unchecked technology loosed without thought on a population. I know my students have suffered at the hands of the "Cell Phone in every Pocket" and "Look at how many likes I have for this picture!" of the current technological trends. They are more prone to attention seeking then they were 10 years ago, and few realize just how little attention they pay thanks to the need to text instead of take notes.

My other thought, though, was that faith isn't always easy. I believe, or I try to believe, that every person has a redeemable soul. That no matter what one does, that there's always room for something good to grow and show eventually. This is a very very challenging belief sometimes. Could I have gotten to it without my spirituality? Sure. But I didn't. I came, originally, to believe that through my faith.

Yes faith can be used to beat people in horrible ways. I just think it's a little simplistic to suggest, and if you didn't mean to I apologize, that being spiritual, or having faith, is an inherently easy path.

[Aloha]

I wouldn't blame technology as much as human nature. Whether it's religion or technology, man either find good or bad things to do with it. In my case, I think technology have made me smarter and more knowledgeable. You don't know how ignorant you are until new facts are made to you. The internet has stimulated my mind with wanting to learn more. Forums with people of like minds made me track down information via books, YouTube, movies, or the internet. I write more because posting requires you to write, which makes me analyze issues deeply. In my physical area, most people (correction NOBODY) do not have verbal dialogues at the level I'm interested in. People's physical presence is for company and polite chit-chat.

No, I don't mean that the path of faith is an easier path. What I meant is that a path in which you do not have proof or a logical progression can be abused and delusional. But I get what you mean that in faith, you also have to have a hypothesis, much like Asimov's law of robotics. There are primary laws that cannot be broken, and everything else logically follows.

Rob wrote: "And you're right. Skynet is fictional, though I think we're seeing more and more the dangers of unchecked technology loosed without thought on a population. I know my students have suffered at th..."

[Eric]

Jason wrote: "Nick wrote: "Can you provide some sort of proof other than your personal opinion?"

The truth is all publishers are secretive with their numbers, so there isn't really any hard data to go on. io9 w..."

It was Arthur C Clarke who said that any advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, right? There are some books and movies that play with this idea, where the characters in a world believe that what's happening around them is magic when it's actually a sophisticated system of ... oh I don't know, say, a wireless network of nanobots keyed to the gestures and phrases of individuals with certain alleles.

So I don't always see a clear distinction between SF and fantasy, and regardless of how hard you make your fiction, I think a SF author necessarily takes certain principles on faith. The resulting outcry from fact-checking fans is just an expression of whether or not your science fits into their (pseduo-scientific religious) canon.

And I don't have any answers as to why the blogosphere seems to think fantasy sells more than SF. Actually I don't think there are any good answers: there are no sweeping generalizations here. A system of magic exists as a certain comforting panacea but SF relies just as much upon the same tropes. And any argument that SF is a critical thinking genre (implying fantasy is less so) just doesn't ring true to me.

OTOH, it is pretty easy to talk about why A Fire Upon the Deep sells less than, say, The Eye of the World (for the record, I love me some Vinge!) My opinion: one is a soap opera (in the style of Days of Our Lives) and the other has characters that are more difficult to relate to.

[Anne]

Aloha wrote: "It's all part of the same body, whether it's applied mathematics or pure mathematics. They have a symbiotic relationship. You can't say that the hand that wields the sword is not your hand.

Anne..."

Not at all, any more than all Latinos are alike. One of the best services sf can offer is to help people understand the differences.

The relationship between applied math and math is often misleading ... the recent financial crises or the hype of string theory or black holes or "god particles" are a few examples that pop to mind. Marketing and math do not blend well.

[Anne]

Science is open to testing, prodding, questioning and newer explanations that are more comprehensive. So are the underlying axioms which can change (light is infinitely fast vs light has a maximum speed, for example). Magic and faith, by their nature, are not.

A straight line is the shortest distance between two points for Euclid. But if one "sees" more dimensions the "facts" change. Ask any pilot.

[Kamil]

Anne wrote: "Science is open to testing, prodding, questioning and newer explanations that are more comprehensive. So are the underlying axioms which can change (light is infinitely fast vs light has a maximum ..."

you do realise that between two points there aare infinite sub-points? it's the famous story of the race between Achilles and a turtle

[Stefan]

I would contest that this isn't totally true, but one argument for why fantasy might be popular is the escapism aspect. People might be more interested in reading about a world that they cannot relate to. A world that doesn't follow the laws that their own does.

[Trike]

There's a strong anti-science attitude going around these days, and that trickles down to literature.

Also, sometimes certain things go in spurts. With the one-two punch of Harry Potter and LotR, Fantasy is the "in thing".

Plus, it's hard to be wowed by "day after tomorrow" types of stories when we can hold amazing things like iPhones and people are having full face transplants. At some point we started living in the future, so books about the future fail to impress.

Plus, there's a certain despair going around today that is quite similar to the early 1970s feeling. Even the super-popular science fiction like The Hunger Games is dystopian in nature, because people are pessimistic in general.

[Nathan]

Rachel wrote: "My theory is that, when science fiction was really popular, back in the 50s and 60s, our society tended to be more optimistic about the future. Science was going to solve all our problems, take us ..."

I agree. Scifi, arguably began to loose it's luster, IMHO, in the seventies with the rise of (forgive the LitCrit terminology here) postmodernism.

BTW what is an anti science attitude? Would scepticism that scientists are free from the influence of ego and/or money count? Just asking.

[Trike]

Should also point out that Science Fiction book sales are down when compared against the rise in Fantasy sales, but are up overall, according to someone who has access to BookScan.

[Zach]

I'd say this is a direct result of shows on primetime channels. True Blood, Borgia, Game of Thrones. What science fiction show is popular? Eureka? Doctor Who? all the great science fiction gets canceled or is older than most would care to admit. (star wars, star trek, even doctor who.)even bring in movies to it. Prometheus? and what? Hunger Games? that barely qualifies as science fiction. I guess maybe that space prison movie whatever its called, clearly made quite an impression... plus sword fighting and magic is way romanticized, comparatively, to gunplay. Hence the creation of lightsabers. Need I say more?

[Arroyo0]

Can anyone name a Science Fiction book/book series from the past 10-20 years that was 1) a breakaway best seller, 2) a cultural phenomenon, 3) has a hard core fan base, and 4) is groundbreaking to the genre?

Think Harry Potter, A Song of Ice and Fire.

[Trike]

Arroyo0 wrote: "Can anyone name a Science Fiction book/book series from the past 10-20 years that was 1) a breakaway best seller, 2) a cultural phenomenon, 3) has a hard core fan base, and 4) is groundbreaking to ..."

Hunger Games for most of those. "Groundbreaking" is hard to qualify for HP or SoIaF.

[Aloha]

Anne, I'm not saying that math and applied math are alike. What I said was that they have a symbiotic relationship. Applied math uses what was done in pure math, pure math takes the data taken from applied math in the real world for its own use. Math came about because man needed a system with which to measure things, and became more complex as society became more complex. Applied math cannot do without pure math, and pure math cannot do without applied math. Otherwise, it'd be a disconnection of reasoning and facts, like what you think of religion. Marketing is a real world application. Whether you like it or not, it has always been and always will be, and is an integral part of what moves society.

Anne wrote: "Not at all, any more than all Latinos are alike. One of the best services sf can offer is to help people understand the differences.

The relationship between applied math and math is often misleading ... the recent financial crises or the hype of string theory or black holes or "god particles" are a few examples that pop to mind. Marketing and math do not blend well. "

[Aloha]

It's too bad that people don't take the trouble to know the details of non-fiction. Whenever I delve into a subject, I find curioser and curioser things, things that are more interesting than any author can come up on his own. In fact, authors based their fiction on facts. I enjoy literature for the imagination and mastery based on those facts, and the artistry with which they are presented. If there is no artistry, then I prefer to read about the facts rather than the author's interpretation.

Stefan wrote: "I would contest that this isn't totally true, but one argument for why fantasy might be popular is the escapism aspect. People might be more interested in reading about a world that they cannot relate to. A world that doesn't follow the laws that their own does. "

[meaghs]

Arroyo0 wrote: "Can anyone name a Science Fiction book/book series from the past 10-20 years that was 1) a breakaway best seller, 2) a cultural phenomenon, 3) has a hard core fan base, and 4) is groundbreaking to ..."

I think that the reason this is difficult now is that most science fiction isn't delivered in the paperback medium. The science fiction works that are the best selling cultural phenomenon you speak of come packaged in epic works like the Mass Effect series by Bioware (which was imho the most epic science fiction work of this decade). - M.

[Joe Informatico]

meagh wrote: "I think that the reason this is difficult now is that most science fiction isn't delivered in the paperback medium."

There's something to that. A big part of the science fiction market before the 1980s was short (less than 300 pages), pocket-sized paperbacks from imprints like Ace and Ballantine, sold in supermarkets and drug stores. For a variety of reasons this market dried up in the mid-80s, just as doorstopper Tolkien clones were becoming popular.

[Tassie Dave, S&L Historian]

Trike wrote: "There's a strong anti-science attitude going around these days,"

I don't see that. I would argue that the opposite is true.

As a society we are now more likely to look to science for answers than to pseudo-science, the paranormal or religion.

[Trike]

Tassie Dave wrote: "Trike wrote: "There's a strong anti-science attitude going around these days,"

I don't see that. I would argue that the opposite is true.

As a society we are now more likely to look to science for answers than to pseudo-science, the paranormal or religion."

I meant the US in particular. We are leading the world in not leading the world in science these days.

46% of Americans believe in creationism, which means nearly half this country is clinically insane. Belief in global warming is likewise dipping despite the mounting evidence. The US is actively turning its back on the two things scientists agree the most about, and these aren't isolated issues.

[Jason]

These anti-science attitudes aren't confined to the US. The US may be leading the world in creationism, but the UK is leading it in Homeopathy and CAM.

[Aloha]

I've lived in different regions of the U.S., and I believe that based on the quality of knowledge I've encountered, especially in the south and small towns. The worst thing is that people are very happy in their ignorance because the U.S. is happily segregated in a continent that it dominates. Religion also runs on peer pressure and anything that promotes group thinking. If you're raised in a region heavily influenced by that kind of thinking, then most likely it will become ingrained in you. I was fresh on Louisiana soil when people came knocking on the door and persuaded my mom to force me to go to Sunday school to make "friends". I guess I should be thankful for that experience, since it made me see early on how crazy it was. When I see countries that became strongly Christian due to invasion by the west, I find it sad that they didn't think of the history of coercion, domination and force that made their country that way.

Trike wrote: "I meant the US in particular. We are leading the world in not leading the world in science these days.

46% of Americans believe in creationism, which means nearly half this country is clinically insane. Belief in global warming is likewise dipping despite the mounting evidence. The US is actively turning its back on the two things scientists agree the most about, and these aren't isolated issues. ."

[Nathan]

I admit, I was trained as a Historian and not a scientist, but at least we were trained to try to understand those different in time and/or culture from us.

Often people I have seen take on the mantle of "science" seem better at understanding things than people. Like a fundamentalist preacher, some talk in absolutes, when nuance is perhaps shows more understanding.

46% of Americans believe in creationism, which means nearly half this country is clinically insane. Belief in global warming is likewise dipping despite the mounting evidence. The US is actively turning its back on the two things scientists agree the most about, and these aren't isolated issues.

[Aloha]

Two wrongs don't make a right, but it's refreshing to finally reveal you don't believe. For the longest time, I've had to make sure I don't say the Lord's name in vain, when there is no Lord. I've had to pretend that being invited to church was such a nice invite, when it's an insult to not check what my belief is first. Now, I'm having to deal with people who thinks I should take my child to church. I've kept my belief silent to avoid conflict, but somehow believers always managed to foist their belief on me.

So, I don't think, historically, there was any "nuance" when it comes to religious belief.

[Trike]

Saw a great bumpersticker in Wisconsin a few years back: "If you don't pray in my school, I won't think in your church."

[Nathan]

Is avoiding conflict worth not living true to who you are? Having lived a situation similar to yours, I think I might understand how you feel. I regrettably left those circumstances, but looking back, perhaps I hid too much of myself and thus did not give others the chance to really treat me the way I wanted to be treated, partially because I stereotyped them.

I have since learned, to a greater extent than then, one truly can disagree without being disagreeable, and if people are disagreeable back, you probably do not want them around. It is just better to know now than later.

I am not trying to preachy, just sharing my own experience.

BTW there is plenty of nuance in religion, it is just a matter who, what, when, where, why, and how.

Aloha wrote: "Two wrongs don't make a right, but it's refreshing to finally reveal you don't believe. For the longest time, I've had to make sure I don't say the Lord's name in vain, when there is no Lord. I'v... So, I don't think, there was any "nuance" when it comes to religious belief"

[Bryek]

Not sure if these reasons have been mentioned here yet but I think Scifi's small decline is more to blame on our culture. As Tom and Veronica talked about with Mr. McCaffrey, our science now is focusing on making things smaller instead of new things. We are redeveloping our current technology and not looking into the future.
I think as a culture we have stopped looking forward and our interest in the future has become stunted. We don't look any farther than the next Ipod that has 5 TB of memory (not that I have ever used up my 16GB Ipod) or a safer car (where are our flying cars!). With our stunted view on the future its harder for some of us to imagine a sci fi future.

For me I am very hard on sci fi books. The science [i]has[/i] to be perfect and things [i]need[/i] to have good explanations (I have issues with aliens being able to use a translation device even when its the first time aliens and humans have met).
Fantasy on the other hand isn't based in science. as long as the author can explain how their magic works, its easier to believe. Fantasy also has elements of things I can easily imagine experiencing (ie horses, swords, armour, castles, general life with less tech).

And my one big issue with sci fi: Newton's First Law. When ships come out of hyper/warp/really-fast-drive, why are the passengers not thrown into walls?

[Bryek]

Arroyo0 wrote: "Can anyone name a Science Fiction book/book series from the past 10-20 years that was 1) a breakaway best seller, 2) a cultural phenomenon, 3) has a hard core fan base, and 4) is groundbreaking to ..."

A Song of Ice and Fire is hardly a Cultural Phenomenon without the aid of HBO. Nor was Harry Potter at first.
It takes years for many of these to become as big as they are (book three fore HP and 15 years for ASoIaF). A sci fi book could already be published and just starting to gear up to be the "Next Big Thing"

[Michael]

Nathan wrote: "Is avoiding conflict worth not living true to who you are? Having lived a situation similar to yours, I think I might understand how you feel. I regrettably left those circumstances, but looking ba..."

Very true...It's like what Neil Degrasse Tyson says about the American space program: We stopped dreaming. The big idea is missing. But I think we can turn this around.

It is something of an issue where we end up being a bit harsher in our criticism of the science in science fiction. But I think that's a good thing.

As for space passengers coming out of hyperspace...um, they have some inertial dampening whatzits? ;)

[Eric]

Aloha wrote: "... they have a symbiotic relationship. Applied math uses what was done in pure math, pure math takes the data taken from applied math in the real world for its own use. ... Applied math cannot do without pure math, and pure math cannot do without applied math. Otherwise, it'd be a disconnection of reasoning and facts, like what you think of religion."

Well said. Could SF and fantasy have the same sort of symbiotic relationship?


Kp wrote: "... Newton's First Law. When ships come out of hyper/warp/really-fast-drive, why are the passengers not thrown into walls? "

This is why I think there isn't much difference between SF and fantasy: "hyper/warp/really-fast-drive" is a technology that current science cannot describe. The fictional physics aren't based on science either, because the physics is completely unfathomable! Otherwise we would already have warp drives. Who is to say, then, that passengers should be thrown into walls when a ship exits hyperspace? :)

[Michael]

Interesting thoughts on the subject:

ON THE GROWTH OF FANTASY AND THE WANING OF SCIENCE FICTION BY BRAD TORGERSEN

http://www.writersofthefuture.com/wri...

[Nathan]

Is there such a thing as social-science fiction? If so, would not something like the Hunger Games fall into that category and meet the OP's criteria?

Personally, I see no reason why books that treat issues from the "soft" sciences should not be grouped under scifi.

[Arroyo0]

Michael wrote: "Interesting thoughts on the subject:

ON THE GROWTH OF FANTASY AND THE WANING OF SCIENCE FICTION BY BRAD TORGERSEN

http://www.writersofthefuture.com/wri...-..."

Great article! thanks Nathan

[Bryek]

Eric wrote: "This is why I think there isn't much difference between SF and fantasy: "hyper/warp/really-fast-drive" is a technology that current science cannot describe. The fictional physics aren't based on science either, because the physics is completely unfathomable! Otherwise we would already have warp drives. Who is to say, then, that passengers should be thrown into walls when a ship exits hyperspace?"

But that is the problem for me reading those kind of books. I stop reading and go "what? why can they walk around like nothings happening?" if it were magic, it is easier to understand. when it comes to sci fi, I need to have a solid science-y reason.

[Kevin]

Kp wrote: "Arroyo0 wrote: "Can anyone name a Science Fiction book/book series from the past 10-20 years that was 1) a breakaway best seller, 2) a cultural phenomenon, 3) has a hard core fan base, and 4) is gr..."

Yeah, and book four of Harry Potter just got even more of the balls rolling. Its where I jumped on the bandwagon.