Why is fantasy more popular than scifi?

[William]

I'm entering the post late. So I don't know if someone has already expressed my point. But here it is. I think the reason Scifi is not as popular is because the context changes with each author. Reading the current book of the month, I still get confused when they say martian. I'm thinking little green men, not humans born on that planet. Fantasy has a more familiar setting. Many of the characteristics of fantasy books are the same which makes it easier to read, understand, and like.

[Aloha]

William, I find it boring when I read basically the same thing over and over again. I was reading paranormal romance because I got a kick out of romance with otherworldly creatures, but the same format numbed my brain. I like being challenged to understand a book. When that book delivers a whopping comprehension, I get a huge mental high.

[William]

Aloha, I completely agree. But I'm not "normal" or so says the voices in my head.

[Aloha]

Sorry to disappoint you, William, but I think you're the norm when it comes to a reading habit in which you prefer the comfort of something you recognize. I run into more people who prefer that comfort of familiarity, over reading something that makes them uncomfortable somehow.

[Bryek]

Aloha wrote: "Sorry to disappoint you, William, but I think you're the norm when it comes to a reading habit in which you prefer the comfort of something you recognize. I run into more people who prefer that co..."
Not to jump in here but I don't see anything in William's post that says he reads fantasy or things that are all the same. Or the "norm" as you have state. Mind you I don't know william and I didnt go snoop his page but your reply does come off a little attackish/elitist but I could be wrong.
What i got from William's post is that not all authors tend to explain the differences in their word choices when compared to the same word in a different book. That in itself is confusing.
Personally, I like the new stuff but I am not going to shy away from the traditional either. I think if you are bored of something, try something else but that doesn't mean that you can't come back and enjoy the same story told with different characters.

[Aloha]

I don't see how that is an attack when that is an observation that most people prefer the comfort of familiarity. William was stating that he prefers the familiarity of Fantasy.

[Aloha]

Hmmm...maybe William is stating that Fantasy is easier to follow but he prefers to be confused by SF, hence not "normal." :oD

[Aloha]

Either way, I don't find SF more difficult to understand than Fantasy. The idea of a "Martian" may change with an author, but so does "unicorn" or "ogre" or "elf", and any other magical or mythical device thrown in there. I don't get it when people say SF is hard to understand.

[Trike]

William wrote: "I think the reason Scifi is not as popular is because the context changes with each author. Reading the current book of the month, I still get confused when they say martian. I'm thinking little green men, not humans born on that planet. Fantasy has a more familiar setting. Many of the characteristics of fantasy books are the same which makes it easier to read, understand, and like."

That's a really good point. Really good.

People do tend to prefer the fmailiar over the unknown, and since Fantasy offers a lot of variations on a theme type of stories, it makes sense it would be more appealing.

[Michael]

William wrote: "I think the reason Scifi is not as popular is because the context changes with each author. Reading the current book of the month, I still get confused when they say martian. I'm thinking little green men, not humans born on that planet. Fantasy has a more familiar setting. Many of the characteristics of fantasy books are the same which makes it easier to read, understand, and like."

That is a great point, but it's actually what turns me off sometimes with Fantasy. It's all just a variation on a theme. Sometimes a third the way through a book, I don't even need to finish as I know what the ending is gonna be.

[Bryek]

Michael wrote: "
That is a great point, but it's actually what turns me off sometimes with Fantasy. It's all just a variation on a theme. Sometimes a third the way through a book, I don't even need to finish as I know what the ending is gonna be."
But at the same time a rose is still a rose by any other name. A humanoid that is tall, handsome, agile, and intelligent is an elf even if you call it a PurplePeopleEater, I think everyone will be like "its an elf, just call it an elf."

[Michael]

Kp wrote: " But at the same time a rose is still a rose by any other name. A humanoid that is tall, handsome, agile, and intelligent is an elf even if you call it a PurplePeopleEater, I think everyone will be like "its an elf, just call it an elf."

See I don't see that. Not all humanoids are tall, handsome, agile, or even intelligent. Elves usually are. But it's the plot that I'm mainly talking about. You have the disgruntled princess that hates her rich life, then suddenly she meets a nice farm boy that is destined to save her and the world. Sure there at variations of that, but most fall into that category.

In Scifi, the plots are rarely the same. There are so many different life forms, world where physics aren't the same. It just tends to be much more intricate in its plots. Just my opinion, though I do still love most epic fantasy.

[Kamil]

Michael wrote: " Kp wrote: " But at the same time a rose is still a rose by any other name. A humanoid that is tall, handsome, agile, and intelligent is an elf even if you call it a PurplePeopleEater, I think ever..."


actually elves are five feat tall, I wouldn't call it being tall

[William]

For the record.. I am a laser who enjoys the occassional fantasy. I enjoy the differences in universes created by different authors. But most people do not like trying the new thing... they stick to what is familiar and easy.

[Aloha]

Okay, so you do fall in the not "normal" group. LOL. Well, I guess we're both in the same group, then.

[Aloha]

It is fun being a hunter for a treasure of a book that is smart, creative and different. It also may be a book that I may not like at first but end up loving it after I can't stop thinking about it. It's become my recent hobby.

[Aloha]

I am more a laser than a sword, but I don't believe that fantasy is in general familiar and easy. I also don't believe that all SF's are smart and creative. Neil Gaiman's writing is terrific in its mastery. There's also a series that seems like it would be unique and fun, Glass Books Of The Dream Eaters. Parallel universes and time travel can get as old as kings and queens.

[Trike]

Aloha wrote: "I am more a laser than a sword, but I don't believe that fantasy is in general familiar and easy. I also don't believe that all SF's are smart and creative.."

This is true, but there's a reason why the pejorative "Extruded Fantasy Product" has been around so long and still applies to so many works.

For years it was Lord of the Rings knock-offs. Nowadays it also includes various schools of magic and tough heroines who are more than they appear.

[Bryek]

Michael wrote: " Kp wrote: " But at the same time a rose is still a rose by any other name. A humanoid that is tall, handsome, agile, and intelligent is an elf even if you call it a PurplePeopleEater, I think ever..."

There was supposed to be a pointy ear description in there but it seems it got lost somewhere between my mind and my fingers. lol

[Bryek]

Michael wrote: " Kp wrote: " But at the same time a rose is still a rose by any other name. A humanoid that is tall, handsome, agile, and intelligent is an elf even if you call it a PurplePeopleEater, I think ever..."

To be honest though, the settings may be different in SF, but they really are the same stories, just told differently. I would give real book examples but I haven't read any SF in a while mainly because it annoys me by its lack of detailed explanation.

[Bryek]

Kamil wrote: "actually elves are five feat tall, I wouldn't call it being tall "

I really have no idea what elves you are talking about but generally, any tolkien and later are tall (5'5" to 6'5"), Lithe, agile, intelligent, live for a long time (length dependant on the author), are great archers and have pointy ears and if magic is concerned, they accel at it.

[Bryek]

Trike wrote: "For years it was Lord of the Rings knock-offs. Nowadays it also includes various schools of magic and tough heroines who are more than they appear. "
But let us be honest, some of those knock-offs are awesome!
My current want from a fantasy book is so hard to find in our current fad of heroines (which to be honest, is the larger fad. You would have to have a pretty amazing book if it did not include at least one heroine in it) and it unfortunately has put me in a reading rut, so to speak.

[Chris]

SF is difficult when trying to maintain a balance of high-tech science and pure entertainment. The "geek" factor has always hurt SF, whereas fantasy has always been a bit more accessible and an easier read.

[Ken]

I think N.K. Jemisin kind of summed up my slide away from fantasy when she said in her interview (and I paraphrase and probably embellish) "First you need to get an elf, and a dwarf, a thief and a couple of fighters, then you travel, travel, travel." The Lord of the Rings was one thing, then the whole slew of Stephen R. Donaldson finally broke me of it.

I think a lot of scifi has been absorbed into what are now thrillers (Michael Chrichton, Dan Brown, ...) and even some fantasy gets absorbed into new agey stuff (Richard Bach) So, I think some artificial divisions have been created. (e.g. Galatea 2.2 and The Gold Bug Variations) tend towards scifi, but since the author goes for complicated language, it winds up on the literature shelves.

[Jim]

Rob wrote: "Off Topic: Seeing the Avengers movie did not inspire me to buy Avengers comics or read Avengers books. It did inspire me to buy schwarma."

It did make the sale of Schwarma raise, but Avengers comics are actually seeing a decent uptick in sales with the current storyline and film. Every comic movie has an impact on the sales of the comic. Even the duds like Elektra make a few people go look at the book to compare and see how bad it failed. I count Avengers and Comic Book movies as SF in genre, as most of them get their powers from science or space men falling from space.

Doctor Who, on the other hand is Space Fantasy, and is popular now because there is no science in the modern version of the show. I mean the entire concept of time travel and paradox has been thrown out the window in favor of "Wibbly wobbly timey wimey" which never would have worked in the first incarnation of the series. Old Who always "tried" to stay sciency. In the end, it may be a contributing factor for it's 16 year hiatus. For example... The Sonic Screwdriver was created to actually explain the concept of acoustics and sonics back in the day. It showed that a properly tuned acoustic pulse could be powerful enough to screw things into(or out of) things. Now It's a magic wand with settings that can expedite whatever a writer needs to expedite in a story, like re-attaching barbed wire, of all things. It is Fantasy draped in Space.

It's funny that Seannan McGuire brought this up in her interview. Mira Grant is the one who "Shows her Work" and is IMHO, actually a hard SF writer, as oposed to McGuire Who unabashedly writes Urban Fantasy. Her latest book Discount Armageddon is playing a nod to the Science by having her main character be a Cryptobiologist (or whatever) but doesn't actually get textbooky with Cryptid(Monster) anatomy the way a Grant Novel would.

[Aloha]

Comparing the list of top fantasy books to the list of top science fiction books, I'd have to agree fantasy is basically you get the characters together and watch them go, go, go. Whereas the top SFs deal with complex and relevant issues, and interesting what-ifs. I discovered that I'm laser when I find fantasy boring with repetitive elements, even with different authors. The difference is how well-crafted the prose is. I couldn't be sword if I wanted to. I'd rather go back to paranormal romance and get the hot sex and sexy male bods thrown in. PNR is part of fantasy.

http://www.bestfantasybooks.com/top25...
http://top-science-fiction-novels.com/

Ken wrote: "I think N.K. Jemisin kind of summed up my slide away from fantasy when she said in her interview (and I paraphrase and probably embellish) "First you need to get an elf, and a dwarf, a thief and a ..."

[Leslie]

Fantasy on the other hand... no such problems. It's magic. It works because it's Magic./i>

That's why I like sci-fi and speculative fiction, which I consider The Hunger Games to be. Fantasy always seems random and it's hard for me to get ahold of the characters. The last books that I read that I considered fantasy were The Lord of the Rings trilogy.

[Bryek]

you know, I kinda get the feeling in this thread that SF people think that their genre is far superior than fantasy. Almost like they look down on fantasy as if it and their readers were below them.

[Bryek]

Leslie wrote: "Fantasy on the other hand... no such problems. It's magic. It works because it's Magic./i>

That's why I like sci-fi and speculative fiction, which I consider The Hunger Games to be. Fantasy alway..."

what other fantasy have you read?

[Leslie]

Any story that involves characters dealing with difficult circumstances that is consistent with that character's personality (age, social status, species) is going to be compelling. Any writer who pays more attention to the tropes than to the overarching theme and character development is going to produce substandard product. Sci-FI or Fantasy either one is supposed to teach you something.

[Leslie]

Kp wrote: "Leslie wrote: "Fantasy on the other hand... no such problems. It's magic. It works because it's Magic./i>

That's why I like sci-fi and speculative fiction, which I consider The Hunger Games to be...."

I did read the Harry Potter's once upon a time (which I really enjoyed). His Dark Materials, Bartimaeus trilogy, Clive Barker (most), Terry Pratchet (a lot), Neil Gaiman (most). I re-read Lord of the Rings because I was hankering for some good fantasy. . . . .
Also, The Chronicles of Narnia, and the Ransom trilogy.

[Dustin]

Just look at what they stand for.

Science and technology has left the realm of bettering mankind and the personal experience, and has instead given the powerful, god like powers. Leaders can now destroy countries with a few clicks of the keyboard and use satellites to watch everyone scurry about.

Fantasy instead is themed around the power of a individual or the hero. With magic he could change the world and challenge the evil.

Science Fiction / Reality says you have to be rich and influence to change the world. Fantasy says you can be a farm boy who found a dragon egg.

Where would you live?

In an odd comparison. Who would the technologically powerful be in a fantasy novel. Microsoft, EA, Google, Facebook.

[Bryek]

See, i really enjoy magical systems that the author actually explains. Like Name of the Wind, its magic system is pretty damn cool. Harry Potter magic i didn't like because there was no cost to the person preforming it. I did enjoy the books though.

And this is where my problem with SF comes in. They don't explain the technology very often. It seems hypocritical to think that way because i am sure some actually do a good job of defining their hyperdrive and decceleration of interior persons/cargo when coming out of it. but I don't give it as much leeway i think because it is Science and it has to make sense to me.

[Leslie]

Dustin wrote: "Just look at what they stand for.
Fantasy instead is themed around the power of a individual or the hero. With magic he could change the world and challenge the evil."

That's one of the things that I think is bad about any kind of story. One person who is implicitly better than than everyone else, with no chance of anyone ever being able to accomplish what they have. This is a dangerous illusion in many stories, science fiction or fantasy.

Reality, if you want to compare the two, requires scores of people working countless hours to accomplish ANY goal, whether the figurehead of that goal be wealthy or powerful or both.

[Leslie]

Kp wrote: "See, i really enjoy magical systems that the author actually explains. Like Name of the Wind, its magic system is pretty damn cool. Harry Potter magic i didn't like because there was no cost to the..."

I think the best science fiction is mostly consistent. I mean, honestly, if any Sci-Fi explained the science of every technology, the books would be twice as big and basically textbooks. The rules in a sci-fi world should make sense according to the rules in our own world, pushing the boundaries of the known just into hypothetical theories. That was the original purpose of sci-fi; to encourage the public to find out about the latest scientific hypotheses and theories.

Fantasy, on the other hand is partially based on mythology and lore, and partially based on the limits of what I call emotional imagination. Fantasy NEVER has to follow any rules, and if it does, expect the rules to change like the weather. That seems to be the rule. I don't think that's bad at all. I just have a hard time following the story when stuff like that is going on. My personal limitation.

[Bryek]

Leslie wrote: "Dustin wrote: "Just look at what they stand for.
Fantasy instead is themed around the power of a individual or the hero. With magic he could change the world and challenge the evil."

That's one of..."

but that is what draws people to fantasy. and no, it is not always like that. Some times it is just two people who are drawn into something that they would never have gone on their own except for a certain chain of events.

[Leslie]

Kp wrote: "Leslie wrote: "Dustin wrote: "Just look at what they stand for.
Fantasy instead is themed around the power of a individual or the hero. With magic he could change the world and challenge the evil."..."

Oh yeah, that's why people like superheroes, why we have kings, queens, representatives, and presidents. That's what the story of Saul was about in the bible, and ultimately what the story of Jesus and God are about. I just don't see the world in that way, and find it disconcerting when we place power in the hands of one "infallible" person. It's a strange place for a social creature like a human being to go.

[Aloha]

Before you accuse the Lasers of being snooty about SF, note the inflammatory nature of the title of this thread. Whether fantasy or SF is more popular changes with the trend, so that statement is not only inflammatory but nebulous. "Popular" means most liked. What can we do but pop in and say why we like SF over Fantasy. Unless somebody is willing to post scientific data containing sales of movies, books, etc., and the right categorization of SF and Fantasy, then the argument is conjecture and personal preference.


Kp wrote: "you know, I kinda get the feeling in this thread that SF people think that their genre is far superior than fantasy. Almost like they look down on fantasy as if it and their readers were below them."

[Trike]

Darren wrote: "Kamil wrote: "actually elves are five feat tall, I wouldn't call it being tall "

The Keebler Elves are much shorter than that."

Maybe they live in a sequoia and are actually Green Giant-sized.

[Trike]

Kp wrote: "To be honest though, the settings may be different in SF, but they really are the same stories, just told differently. I would give real book examples but I haven't read any SF in a while mainly because it annoys me by its lack of detailed explanation."

I'm not really sure what you mean by this. When you boil everything down to the basics, there really are only two stories: man leaves town, stranger comes to town. That goes for everything in fiction.

But SF does sport much more variety in setting and character, if not in theme or tone. There are, of course, a seemingly endless parade of books written in the Star Wars or Warhammer universes, but I would argue that those are Fantasy in much the same way the ever-increasing Forgotten Realms tomes are.

I'll bet I could come up with a good two-dozen books that are virtually indistinguishable from one another in the Fantasy bookshelf if I typed "supernatural bad-ass chick" into Google. I was just at B&N and the covers for these books are all essentially the same. (Which isn't to say some aren't good. Just that there are tons of them and they are minor variations on a theme.)

I don't get that same feeling from Science Fiction as a whole.

[Star]

I have found that fantasy is simply better written than most SciFi. More importantly, they generally do characterization better. Obviously, there are exceptions, Miles Vorkosigan for one. However, to take David Brin as an example, his books are full of cool ideas, but don't have a single character with whom I fall in love. Fantasy seems more character driven and scifi is more idea driven. When reading a book a good character is going to pull me in faster and be more enjoyable. Now, when we get it all, quality writing, good characters and good ideas, then we have a perfect storm for a great book.

[Aloha]

LMAO!

Darren wrote: "Trike wrote: "Darren wrote: "Kamil wrote: "actually elves are five feat tall, I wouldn't call it being tall "

The Keebler Elves are much shorter than that."

Maybe they live in a sequoia and are actually Green ..."

We can calculate their relative size from the cookies. .."

[Trike]

Darren wrote: "Trike wrote: "Darren wrote: "Kamil wrote: "actually elves are five feat tall, I wouldn't call it being tall "

The Keebler Elves are much shorter than that."

Maybe they live in a sequoia and are actually Green Giant-sized.

We can calculate their relative size from the cookies."

With nothing else to give them scale, how do you know they're making the cookies that we eat? Those could be enormous prototypes which are later scaled down via Wonkavision.

I just don't want to jump to conclusions and look silly later.

[Bryek]

Trike wrote: "Kp wrote: "To be honest though, the settings may be different in SF, but they really are the same stories, just told differently. I would give real book examples but I haven't read any SF in a whil..."

That is because SF is less popular. there are not as many books Published as fantasy (in my local bookstore there are 10 shelves of fantasy and only 5 of SF). That does not mean that that is a bad thing either.
I think Star is right though, Fantasy IS character driven and SF is more idea driven and people relate more to character than to Idea. Hence why fantasy is more popular.

Cause we all gotta remember that the topic isn't about what is better or what we prefer, its about why fantasy is more popular.

[Tamahome]

Star wrote: "I have found that fantasy is simply better written than most SciFi. More importantly, they generally do characterization better. Obviously, there are exceptions, Miles Vorkosigan for one. Howev..."

Heaven's Shadow has pretty good characters.

[Trike]

Kp wrote: "Trike wrote: "Kp wrote: "To be honest though, the settings may be different in SF, but they really are the same stories, just told differently. I would give real book examples but I haven't read an..."

I think your premise is faulty, though. Fantasy books share far more similarities than SF books do.

I had a (bad) teacher in college who blamed the Beatles for ruining music for a decade. Which was ludicrous, because the Beatles didn't force people to imitate them: others emulated their success. So I'm not blaming the authors for writing derivative stuff. But Fantasy really has a huge amount of copycat work in it.

After The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo became popular, suddenly there were a dozen imitators and there was even a fake "movement" of "Swedish noir", which was really just a bunch of crime books set in Sweden suddenly translated into other languages. Same thing happens everywhere... except in sci-fi.

Sure, some people follow a trend, but fads in SF are short-lived and burn out quickly. Even the biggest ones of the past 50 years -- the New Wave, Cyberpunk, Space Opera -- tend not to last. But in fantasy, the trends hang on for decades.

It's been nearly 60 years since LotR was published, and every year there are new variations on that. Harry Potter's first book came out 15 years ago, and "wizard school" books as as popular as ever. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is also 15 years old, and we keep getting echoes of that.

I don't think this is a question of increased variety, but rather the opposite. William made a very good point about people seeking the familiar. We like what we know, and Fantasy has been very good at giving us that.

[Aloha]

Well said, Trike. That is why Fantasy with a different twist, such as Neil Gaiman's, appeal to me more than another take on kings and queens.

[Bryek]

Trike wrote: "Kp wrote: "Trike wrote: "Kp wrote: "To be honest though, the settings may be different in SF, but they really are the same stories, just told differently. I would give real book examples but I have..."

I would say that that is most likely because SF doesn't make as much of a splash as fantasy. Not as many big hits, not that many books that line up with it.
btw you forgot to mention the dystopian societies (which is SF) and a TON of comic books.

SF readers really get bent out of shape when people generalize their genre... I am not attacking your preferred genre, just observing the same things you observe in a different genre. Its all butterflies and rainbows inside your own genre. Heck I am even temped to argue against all of your generalizations against fantasy but I understand that, as someone who does not enjoy the genre as I do that you would be more able to generalize it as you have.
I am willing to admit to current fads: Tough Girl Heroine, Assassin's, etc but to say SF does not have the same thing I think is pretty niave.

[Rick]

First, we need to define the segments we're talking about. When you say fantasy does that include urban fantasy and epic fantasy and what Felicia Day, Veronica and others are calling vaginal fantasy (which seems to be romance+fantasy)? Are we concluding or excluding SF comics? My take is that we're talking about novels, not comics and probably not graphic novels.

Second, when we talk about popularity are we counting sales of established series as individual novels? While SF has series, they're fewer in number as a percentage of the output (or at least it seems like that to me... any one have Bookscan data?). That matters because a new entry in a popular series has an immediate audience. Fantasy seems comprised of long, 4+ book series a LOT.

Third, are we talking about YA too? Or just stuff shelved in the actual genre sections?

My take on this is several-fold...

First, it seems that fantasy tends to generate an outsized number of 'me too' trend followers... think of all of the books that are basically "hot chick in tight leather kicking ass with sword" and that those seem to sell really well for some reason. Trends happen in SF, but not to that extent.

There's also a good chunk of fantasy that seems to be a cross with romance (see the VF podcast...). That brings in a whole huge new potential readership, something SF doesn't have and from what I've seen romance readers are voracious in their consumption of books.

Adding on to that, there are the series... Fantasy readers seem to be more attracted to wanting to revisit the world and characters than SF readers. I skimmed some reviews for the highly rated books on Veronica's fantasy list and even those that were 4 and 5 star often mentioned things like how nice it was to catch up with the main characters, etc as main reasons to like the novel (vs plot, characters, etc). I'd imagine that this makes for a lot of loyalty to a series... if you like the world, you'll buy a new novel in part to just revisit the place. Some of this exists in SF (Banks' Culture series for example), but less so.

Finally, I looked through Veronica's shelves as a quick proxy for good books in both genres. There are 111 books on her generic Fantasy shelf and 43 on the SF shelves. From looking at those, fantasy readers seem less critical of their reading and more prone to rating things highly. For example, I was about 2/3 of the way down her fantasy list before the GR average rating dropped below 4 and the low rating was, IIRC, 3.76. The SF list dropped below 4 MUCH more quickly and the low score was 3.31 if memory serves. Does this mean fantasy readers are less critical? Doubtful. What it probably means is that people who are reading book 2 and beyond in a series are already fans... they're predisposed to like what the author's doing. But I wonder if that very positive word of mouth draws in people too.

[Trike]

Darren wrote: "But saying books about wizards or elves are all "copycats" is like saying that sci-fi should stop mentioning relativity as it applies to spaceflight. Because that's been done already."

I'm mainly talking about trends and fads. And the truth of the matter is that success *does* breed imitation. I went to Amazon and typed in a random phrase that sounded vaguely "supernatural bad-ass chick"-like: "Silver Moon." The sheer volume of similar books that turned up in that search surprised even me.

17-year-old Candra is shipped off to her aunt's house and discovers she's a werewolf who has fallen in love with her sworn enemy.

16-year-old Perdy is bored in her Irish village until dreamy Nathan moves in. Trouble is, he's a werewolf.

Teenage Kentucky girl Scout is all about logic until she meets Alex, who belongs to a group of shifters, people who turn into wolves and coyotes.

17-year-old Caia is an outsider with the kids at school... AND her werewolf pack! What's a Scottish lass to do? Discover the secrets of her pack -- that is, if she's not distracted by the sexy alpha Lucien.

17-year-old Calla is a werewolf and she's fine with it, especially ruling the pack with her alpha guy. Then she saves a human hottie and dares to risk everything for his love.

Tara isn't a teenager, she's in her early 20s, and she's a werewolf SLAYER... until she meets the sexy Wes who is a... oh FFS I can't even finish that sentence.

Those took me less than 2 minutes to find (since they're directly under the "Silver Moon" page), and they're just the tip of the iceberg. You should see the huge number of "fallen angel forbidden romance" novels there are. I've seen them on the best seller rack at B&N, so there was probably some hit that set them off, but they're like black mold in a wet basement.

Maybe some of those are good books. I don't know. The Nightshade one seemed competently written, anyway. But my point is that there are tons of them, even beyond the Mercy Thompson series by Patricia Briggs or the Women of Otherworld novels by Kelley Armstrong.

If you type the currently-hot Space Opera Leviathan Wakes, you get a few other Space Opera novels, but not nearly in the numbers you get when looking for YA werewolf books. And many of those Space Opera suggestions aren't even new -- Ender's Game, Star Carrier, Old Man's War -- whereas all of the werewolf books are from the last few years.

I'm just saying, one's a fad, the other isn't, and the Fantasy readers seem to consume the same sort of thing in enormous numbers, whereas Science Fiction readers don't read the same story over and over again.