SJG claims that the fantasy genre is more popular than the SF genre. Is this true? Which genre do you prefer, SF or Fantasy?
I voted for fantasy. I'm drawn to it as a player more strongly than SF; as a GM, I'm entirely drawn to fantasy.
While I've never quite puzzled out the reasons why, I think it might be rooted in what my tastes are as far as SF writing. The sort of SF that I'm drawn to (P.K. Dick; Delaney; Ballard; Lethem; Wolfe; et al) doesn't lend itself easily to gaming, or at least the sort of gaming that I find most usable and rewarding. Even someone like Iain M. Banks, who is closer to the sort of SF that seems to dominate RPGs, wouldn't be particularly easy to translate over.
Not that I wouldn't play a game of Traveller for old time's sake.
While I like Sci-Fi, I think SJG is correct in his assessment.
Fantasy is a much MUCH more succesful genre than Sci-fi because it has more mainstream penetration than sci-fi.
Even amongst your hardcore genre fans you just need to lok at the results of the Hugo votes. With this year as a notable exception, for years now it's been the case that if there's a fantasy novel among the final nominees then it WILL win the Hugo regardless of how good the sci-fi books are.
In RPG terms I would be astonished if non-fantasy accounted for even 15% of the RPG market.
I'm a Sci Fi man but I agree with SJ that Fantasy is more popular.
My preference varies with the direction of the wind, but in my heart, I'm a spaceships-and-lasers guy. So SF for the win, by a fin!
...
...the fin's on a rocket.
Interestingly enough, there are few Fantasy tv shows or movies, but a lot of RPGs, whereas with Sci Fi it`s reversed.
Even my fantasy game is SF in disguise. SF by a country mile. I know fantasy is a far larger market, but my heart is forever given to SF.
-clash
Does anyone have links to actual figures for the market share of science fiction and/or fantasy? I'm talking specifically about printed scifi, not games. I've always been under the impression that scifi greatly dominated the print fiction market.
Oddly, while I vastly prefer to read scifi, I vastly prefer to play fantasy RPGs.
Quote from: ColonelHardissonDoes anyone have links to actual figures for the market share of science fiction and/or fantasy? I'm talking specifically about printed scifi, not games. I've always been under the impression that scifi greatly dominated the print fiction market.
No figures, but a while back, there was a rant spread across several blogs in which SF writers were bemoaning that fantasy (which they considered inherently inferior) has come to have a bigger draw than SF. Later posters inplied that fantasy was pretty much always bigger.
There might be large sections of fantasy that you don't pay attention to, such as romantic fantasy and historical fantasy.
Here's a link to one of the blog pages on the issue that links to others:
http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/003914.html
I like both genres. Having said that, I like reading and watching sci-fi better, but I like playing fantasy. Sci-Fi settings are often a high-tech version of the society we live in now, and in such an envorinment it seems harder and less likely for independent adventurers to thrive, due to the tighter controls that modern and future governments have on society. In fantasy, however, the powers that be are not capable of exerting the same level of control, so independent adventuring seems much more likely to thrive in that environment.
Make sense?
Quote from: TechnomancerIn fantasy, however, the powers that be are not capable of exerting the same level of control, so independent adventuring seems much more likely to thrive in that environment.
This varies greatly with the details of the setting more than the genre. For example, a fairly historical fantasy might be highly restrictive. At times in Medieval Europe, China, and Japan, people were not allowed to travel without permssion - free roaming adventurers wouldn't be allowed in any town so they'd have trouble buying/selling.
Another example is Traveller where there are whole subsectors with low population systems with little effective government so ships are pretty much on their own.
Truely excellent link Nicephorus. I'd encountered the controversy from the British end a few months later but hadn't really traced it back.
I think the problem isn't so much that fantasy has suddenly become more popular than sci-fi, it's the fact that american sci-fi has essentially collapsed (as evidenced by the dominance of UK titles in recent Sci-fi award shortlists).
Americans either write fantasy or they're doing that whole alt-history thing which has exploded as a genre in recent years. The watershed was Stephenson's Baroque cycle.
In my blog (http://sfdiplomat.blogs.com/sf_diplomat/2006/09/review_the_last.html) I talk about this phenomenon a bit and link to Charles Stross' blog in which he suggests the problem is that America is suffering from a political malaise and is in the grip of a particularly nasty bout of introspection.
Genre authors simply can't summon up the energy or the imagination to put forward a new vision of the future. It's all been said... it's all been done... so instead they write fantasy or pick over the bones of the past.
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI think the problem isn't so much that fantasy has suddenly become more popular than sci-fi, it's the fact that american sci-fi has essentially collapsed (as evidenced by the dominance of UK titles in recent Sci-fi award shortlists).
I think part of the problem is that all publishing tends to be conservative. Publishers chase trends more often than they try to start them. Military SF appears to be the only branch of SF currently doing well enough in the U.S. that publishers will try new authors.
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI think the problem isn't so much that fantasy has suddenly become more popular than sci-fi, it's the fact that american sci-fi has essentially collapsed (as evidenced by the dominance of UK titles in recent Sci-fi award shortlists).[...]Genre authors simply can't summon up the energy or the imagination to put forward a new vision of the future. It's all been said... it's all been done... so instead they write fantasy or pick over the bones of the past.
Perhaps it's not a lack of adventurous authors. Perhaps it has to do with publishing houses here in the US getting increasingly conservative and more concerned with maintaining a certain level of profitability. I've read that the publishing industry here is becoming more and more obsessed with "franchise" authors - ones that write series and/or books about the same subject - and sure things, rather than with finding and nurturing new talent. Go into a bookstore here - the ones that carry new books, that is - and the shelves are dominated by series, or by shelves of books by "sure thing" authors like Stephen King. I imagine that a lot of great writers are out there, but simply can't get into print.
Quote from: NicephorusI think part of the problem is that all publishing tends to be conservative. Publishers chase trends more often than they try to start them. Military SF appears to be the only branch of SF currently doing well enough in the U.S. that publishers will try new authors.
:ditto:
Has anyone been keeping up with what were some of the bastions of new writers, the scifi mags like Asimov's and Analog? I haven't looked at them in a while. Have they also fallen prey to what's afflicting the publishing houses, or are they still introducing new, good scifi writers?
I don't think it's just publishers (though obviously they're part of the problem).
Look at Stephenson; the guy makes his name as part of the second generation of cyberpunk authors then he writes a book set partly in the present, partly in the second world war and then he writes three phone-book sized novels set during the English Enlightenment and as a result he has a huge mainstream success and STILL manages to win loads of sci-fi prizes despite being as much sci-fi as I, Claudius.
Meanwhile Brin's been quiet, as has Benford. Greg Bear's been doing contemporary stuff (more techno/science thrillers than real sci-fi) as is Kim Stanley Robinson and Dan Simmons has been doing sci-fi with a big chunk of ancient greece in it.
Meanwhile Doctorow, Sawyer, Ryman and Wilson are all actually canadian.
Meanwhile in Britain there's Stross, MacLeod, Banks, McDonald and Reynolds.
I'm not saying this in a "we're better than you" way but simply to draw attention to the fact that the Big US Sci-fi writers have either stopped producing novels regularly or they've turned away from the sci-fi genre.
I agree that punblishers are partly to blame because the US is still pumping out short stories suggesting that there's a problem with new authors coming through but there's also clearly a problem with the US sci-fi community.
EDIT: Actually, according to Gary wolfe in Locus, if you look at the "best of the year's sci-fi" short story collections you're finding more of the same stories popping up in multiple books and they're coming from less and less magazines. There still ARE sci-fi writers producing but there's clearly some cultural phenomenon going on that means that US sci-fi types aren't finding their muse at the moment.
Quote from: ColonelHardisson:ditto:
Has anyone been keeping up with what were some of the bastions of new writers, the scifi mags like Asimov's and Analog? I haven't looked at them in a while. Have they also fallen prey to what's afflicting the publishing houses, or are they still introducing new, good scifi writers?
Not really, there are so many these days it's hare to keep track.
One book I have justt started to read lately is Scott Gamboe's Killing Frost. It's a military sci-fi book and the author's first. So far it looks like he has promise.
Another is the Kris Lingknife series by Mike Sherman. There are four books in the series, but they are all published in the last tow years.
Sci Fi. I am a Sci Fi fan. Fantasy just never really did it for me.
I am such a sci fi fan that when people talked about wanting a sci-fi rpg site I put one up that has a forum and I hope to add more to the site as we grow:
(Shameless Plug) The RPG Outpost- Sci-Fi RPG Dedicated Site. (http://ww.rpg-outpost.com)
Quote from: Geek Messiah(Shameless Plug) The RPG Outpost- Sci-Fi RPG Dedicated Site. (http://ww.rpg-outpost.com)
Cool.
Off to post there now.
Tough call, but I'm leaning towards fantasy.
Hmmm...
Option C: Neither here nor there.
One of my favorite things about alot of anime is that it's neither here nor there. It at least tries for both the "epic" "base myth" thing from fantasy and the "what if" of science fiction. Everything past those core values (whether it be the scientific theory that backs up energy weapons or the magic/elves/dragons bit) is just the tropes.... am I using the word correctly? I've only seen the word used here, so... Anyway, I like good fiction that is both epic/universal and speculative... and expect something new of the tropes. But I have to admit I'll tolerate a hell of alot more if I happen to be in the mood for it.
I think one of the major factors in play here is the readership's understanding of science. Anyone can pick up a fantasy novel and get the core concepts. Magic systems have to be explained in terms everyone can undertand. Nobody gets confused by armor and horses or even teleportation spells. science fiction, on the other hand can present a real challange for some readers. Hell, I'm fairly well educated- and sometimes when I'm reading SF when the crunchy bits start I start to skim. Some of the "best" authors in American SF are also just dead boring even when they're not throwing the science at you over and over again. I'm thinking of Brin and Bear here, both of whom bore. me. to. tears. Other American authors haven't produced anything worth reading in a couple of decades- Larry Niven anyone? Furthermore, some of the best American authors are just old and not producing- Jack Vance, for instance, should be subjected to radical life extension therapy and forced to write another 40-50 novels, for the good of us all.
And in regards to Mr. Analytical's statement about the UK not being hands down better than the US at this point, I must disagree- You guys have Banks and he is, IMO, the best thing to happen to SF in the last 30 years. You're killing us in fantasy too, btw, if you claim Ericson as one of yours, anway.
PS All of you go read The Algebraist right now.
Quote from: AosI think one of the major factors in play here is the readership's understanding of science. Anyone can pick up a fantasy novel and get the core concepts.
In John Scalzi's blog (he's an up and coming SF author, see link in earlier post), he talked about this. Fantasy tends to be more approachable by readers new to the genre. Too many SF writers tend to think "I'm going to write SF for hardcore SF readers and everyone else had better do their homework or forget about it." So, SF has a slower recruitment rate.
On the UK thing, don't forget China Mieville - a fantasy author who doesn't copy and paste from Tolkien.
Quote from: AosFurthermore, some of the best American authors are just old and not producing- Jack Vance, for instance, should be subjected to radical life extension therapy and forced to write another 40-50 novels, for the good of us all.
You have my vote here! We'll have to get cracking on it right away, though... :<
-clash
Quote from: NicephorusOn the UK thing, don't forget China Mieville - a fantasy author who doesn't copy and paste from Tolkien.
Actually i meant to mention him in my post... oops. I got The Algebraist by Banks and The Scar and Perdido Street Station by Meiville all for xmass last year, some of the best reading I've had in years.
Quote from: AosPS All of you go read The Algebraist right now.
I'm a big fan of Iain Banks but I wasn't convinced by the Algebraist. It felt to me as if it was re-visitng old themes and could really have done with an editor. Having said that, I think his best book is still The Player of Games, which puts me at odds with seemingly everyone else who tend to prefer The Use of Weapons.
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI'm a big fan of Iain Banks but I wasn't convinced by the Algebraist. It felt to me as if it was re-visitng old themes and could really have done with an editor. Having said that, I think his best book is still The Player of Games, which puts me at odds with seemingly everyone else who tend to prefer The Use of Weapons.
Well you're all wrong- his best book is clearly Feersum Endjinn. But of the culture novels Player of Games is my favorite, followed by Consider Phlebus. Use of Weapons didn't do much for me.
As for The Algebraist, I understand that lots of Banks fans don't like it, but I found it be a lot of fun, and I thought the main character was very well realized.
You mean the religious tyrant? I thought he was so preposterous as to be camp. He was like the Childcatcher from Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang he was so over the top.
I've never managed to finish Feersum Endjinn, much for the same reason that I've never read Trainspotting. I hate that tricksy style of writing.
I enjoyed the Algebraist, but I haven't read much Banks SF, so that may be just because I didn't know about better books he'd done.
I just felt that if it had been about 400-500 pages instead of 800 it would have been fantastic. It had that feeling of bloat that books get when writers become so succesful that they don't really need to listen to editors anymore and editors lose the balls to stand up for themselves.
It was also marked by the hardback having this fantastic cover which was like a zoom in on a single feature of a gas giant done in oil paints. But when the paperback came out clearly someone went "people won't know it's sci-fi so what if people can see stars through the gas giant?" and promptly ruined the effect.
His next sci-fi one is a Culture one though so that's worth looking forward to even if the last one was pretty weak.
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI just felt that if it had been about 400-500 pages instead of 800 it would have been fantastic. It had that feeling of bloat that books get when writers become so succesful that they don't really need to listen to editors anymore and editors lose the balls to stand up for themselves.
I'd agree with that, the Neal Stephenson effect I now think of it as.
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalYou mean the religious tyrant? I thought he was so preposterous as to be camp. He was like the Childcatcher from Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang he was so over the top.
I've never managed to finish Feersum Endjinn, much for the same reason that I've never read Trainspotting. I hate that tricksy style of writing.
RE: the algebraist: no, the protaganist, he reminded me of a physicist friend of mine.
RE: Feersum Endjinn- the "trick style" bothered me at first, but it eventually grew on me quite a bit.
I think science fiction in the U.S. declined suddenly because the standbys have passed away, by and large, of late, and there was a long stretch in the '80s and '90s where the "hard stuff" detoured into near future social dystopian fiction and transhumanist esoterica.
Me, I've always loved the sci-fi about advanced alien races and strange new worlds, but it seemed like that got very lost for a good long stretch.
Kind of in the same way Star Trek turned inward from being outwardly-focused over much the same stretch of time--instead of "strange new civilizations" we got long dystopian conspiracies and pablum-matic hegemonic characters (who ironically were battling an even more homogenous hegemony much of the time).
Right now, the book I'm most interested in reading is "Boundary" by Eric Flint... I like the crypto-scientific genre.
(Oh, one more thing: does anyone else find "military science fiction" to mean David Weber? I think Honor Harrington in particular might just belong to the other team--she seems a perfect representation of a *paladin* more than anything else...)
I voted for science fiction.
I don't read science fiction; at least not the novels. I like scifi comics well enough and scifi anime has been a real blast for me (Uchu Senkan Yamato, Macross, Planetes (which is too hard SF for you), and countless other shows with SF trappings.) Battlestar Galactica needs no introduction.
Fantasy's had a few winners in its corner (Tanith Lee's stuff, LotR, Record of Lodoss War,) but not really enough for me to say I'm a big fantasy fan.
Quote from: BalbinusI'd agree with that, the Neal Stephenson effect I now think of it as.
Neal Stephenson's an interesting example of the bloat phenomenon. Stephenson's by and large terrible at writing plot; his books start, go on for a bit and then suddenly end. Admittedly he's taken to padding out these plots with hundreds and hundreds of pages of useless historical detail but I think this is worthy of more credit than your average fat fantasist's bloat simply because it is real historical detailing rather than stuff he's just made up.
So when he goes off on a tangent about 18th C science I'm more likely to be forgiving because it's based on research. But someone who goes off on a hundred page tangent about some aspect of their own mythology is just a self-indulgent cunt who deserves a kerb stomping.
Having said that, I've never gotten further than the first part of the Baroque cycle.
I say FANTASY is the BEST :bow: :respect: :ninja: :unicorn: :scorpion: :domokun:
Quote from: Netwyrm(Oh, one more thing: does anyone else find "military science fiction" to mean David Weber? I think Honor Harrington in particular might just belong to the other team--she seems a perfect representation of a *paladin* more than anything else...)
To tell the truth, I like Moon's Marque and Reprisal series much more than Honor Harrington. Mil SF =! Weber. Drake has been at it for years, as well as Pournelle.
Alt history SF is booming now as well.
I do miss the stories that really inspired me, though. Niven's still around but he hasn't written a non-Ringworld Known Space book in decades. Instead he's puttering around with fantasy and vanity projects. Cherryh's still going strong, but her Invader series is far more closed off than her Alliance/Union/Earth Space novels, or the related Compact Space novels, neither of which has seen anything new in ages either. Brin's output has fallen off dramatically. Vance is ancient - though everything he writes is a precious pearl of style and wit, there are too few new books, and they will all too soon stop forever. The rest of the greats are dead and gone, and no one new writes in this style anymore.
-clash