Fantasy is alive and well, SF is dying... why?

[Connavar]

I'd have to say almost the opposite is true. While SF may not have a large jump recently, true, old-fashioned fantasy is dying. When was LOTR originally written? Forty years ago or more?

I can't remember the last time I saw a new-as in, copyright of THIS DECADE, fantasy novel that didn't take place in the "real world". Incarnations of Immortality and things like that....I remember seeing one book that took place during WWII, and the only "fantasy" thing about it seemed to be gnomes helping out the Allied forces.

But no, now there's Harry Potter and stuff like that. Can't authors create their own worlds with their own laws and rules anymore?

There are many award winning fantasy that places in the real world. You might like old fashioned,Tolkien type but fantasy is much more than one type.

Historical fantasy,urban,contemporary etc there are many that are different by nature.

IMO there is too many that still try to be Tolkien and specially those long book series that dont even try to be original at times.

You just have to be good finding what you like.

 

[Winters_Sorrow]

Rodders, book sales are notoriously hard to find and when found, are very unreliable or just plain bogus. One thing is for certain, if this is a "golden age" of sf, then we wouldn't want to find out what the dark ages are like. Book sales have been way down across the board for ten years now, and we have to be honest, that trend is unlikely to change.
If not for the Fantasy part of SF & Fantasy I imagine Science Fiction would have been off the map altogether.

I know of nobody in my circle of friends who still reads science fiction, fantasy yes, sf no. It's not as if there isn't wonderfully done sf, it's out there all right, but it's not attracting a very big audience. I wish the current doldrums were part of the natural course of things, unfortunately I think this time around the doldrums are far more profound.

Er I don't mean to nitpick but you start off by saying book sales are notoriously unreliable and then 2 sentences later you are using book sales as a way of measuring sci-fi's decline.

So you say that sci-fi is in the doldrums just because your friends read fantasy and not sci-fi? Is that a bit like saying that your elder daughter is ugly because your youngest is so beautiful? Like them or loath them the financial success of books like the Harry Potter series was always going to lead to publishers seeking to promote similar works which they feel can 'piggy-back' on the crest of the wave and make them money.

Had it been "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of the Cybermen" your friends may be sci-fi readers and fantasy might be 'in the doldrums'.

At the end of the day it's a matter of taste anyway. Fantasy and sci-fi were both seen as very geeky books as I was growing up and I read both and loved both. Fantasy may be shaking off that image a bit (or maybe not) and becoming more 'acceptable' or maybe it's just easier to access.

One of the issues with science fiction is that it can occassionally have science in it. People who didn't do so well at science in school may be put off trying to follow speed of light temporal mechanics or bio-neural implants instead of unicorns and trolls.

Anyway, if the idea is to try and gain more exposure/sales for sci-fi authors then I think it'll always be a little bit less than fantasy but the core readership is usually very loyal so hopefully it all evens out!

 

[Rodders]

Surely the poll in this thread would be indicative of whether SF is in decline?

 

[Fried Egg]

One possible explanation for the decline in SF readership might be to do with a shift in the public perception of science and our vision of the future.

I believe that people generally had a far more positive view of science from the 40's to the 60's and faith in it's ability to offer hope and a solution to many of mankind's problems. With science there is almost nothing we cannot achieve. Now it is quite different. Science seems to want to lead us into danger and moral hazard. Everything we do that is man made seems to be working against nature and our long term well being.

I think our view of the future is far more gloomy now. We seem faced with almost certain and imminent environmental catastrophy. OK, we used to have the cold war and the threat of nuclear anhiliation hanging over our heads but there was the feeling that if we could somehow just get through that, the future could be great. Now, whether or not we end up killing each other in wars, environmental collapse will get us anyway, all thanks to our attempts to meddle with nature.

SF has envisaged apocalyptic futures for many years now but at first they seemed liked only scary far fetched nightmares. Increasingly they seem like our innevitable and imminent future that we have little chance of avoiding. Less people want to read about the future because they already believe that the future is most likely to be bleak. Do they want to be reminded of that? It is all very well reading about such future visions when we thought they were mere possibilities, that were avoidable as long as we didn't make the same mistakes.

Personally I think the time will come when we will get a bit more positive, hopeful again. And I think it likely that SF reading would pick up again as a result.

 

[Scifi fan]

SF is dying because there are no good stories being told by good story-tellers. But SF will rise again, because fans are making films of their beloved shows, and, eventually, one of them will create his own universe, which will become a success ... and SF will be infused with new life.

 

[j d worthington]

Well first of all Fantasy encompasses a wide spectrum of storytelling and can reach a wider audience. Scifi is actually very narrow in comparison. It's really not even a fair comparison.

Eh? Come again? In what way is sf as a field narrower than fantasy? (I'm not speaking only of the current scene, but science fiction per se.) I've been reading both for 46+ years now, and I'm afraid I don't see that at all. Could you explain how you reach that conclusion....?

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

There are many award winning fantasy that places in the real world. You might like old fashioned,Tolkien type but fantasy is much more than one type.

Historical fantasy,urban,contemporary etc there are many that are different by nature.

IMO there is too many that still try to be Tolkien and specially those long book series that dont even try to be original at times.

You just have to be good finding what you like.

Well, yes, but it seems to me like urban is taking over the fantasy scene.

Like, with me, I steadfastly REFUSE to introduce even the earliest models of guns into my worlds. I keep things at around twelfth century or so.

At least what fantasy is out there still incorporates magic. Otherwise, I honestly believe there'd be absolutely no distinction between it and sci fi, or horror/mystery/suspense.

 

[Boneman]

by Manarion
At least what fantasy is out there still incorporates magic. Otherwise, I honestly believe there'd be absolutely no distinction between it and sci fi, or horror/mystery/suspense.

And I tend towards some agreement of that, and trying to classify the difference between SCiFi and fantasy is impossible, since it depends (as seen here) on one's individualviewpoint. Long may that contine. But, magic in a fantasy can just be an manipulation of energy by means not understood, in SciFi, so the line blurs all the time, in many books.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manarion
I remember seeing one book that took place during WWII, and the only "fantasy" thing about it seemed to be gnomes helping out the Allied forces.

by Ursa
And they would be in the Gnome Guard....

Of course they'd have joined up: National Elf Service.......

 

[bobbo19]

im not sure about you Americans, but there are plenty of British sf authors. Maybe there books have not been released yet in the US and the same is probably happening vice versa across the pond. I would generally say SF is getting more mainstream (District 9 is a SF film and has jsut been realeased.) The videogame and film genre are helping the SF industry grow. As so many other people have said, there are highs and low. I beleive SF is on the up at present.

 

[Moggle]

I'd have to say almost the opposite is true. While SF may not have a large jump recently, true, old-fashioned fantasy is dying. When was LOTR originally written? Forty years ago or more?

I can't remember the last time I saw a new-as in, copyright of THIS DECADE, fantasy novel that didn't take place in the "real world". Incarnations of Immortality and things like that....I remember seeing one book that took place during WWII, and the only "fantasy" thing about it seemed to be gnomes helping out the Allied forces.

But no, now there's Harry Potter and stuff like that. Can't authors create their own worlds with their own laws and rules anymore?

Huh? Are you even aware of what's actually out there? Ever heard of Wheel of Time, Sword of Truth, Mistborn, Eragon and the gazillion other fantasy titles out there that don't take place in the real world?

 

[chrispenycate]

Well, yes, but it seems to me like urban is taking over the fantasy scene.

Like, with me, I steadfastly REFUSE to introduce even the earliest models of guns into my worlds. I keep things at around twelfth century or so.

At least what fantasy is out there still incorporates magic. Otherwise, I honestly believe there'd be absolutely no distinction between it and sci fi, or horror/mystery/suspense.

Well, the latest episode in my dragon series has them helping build a railway network, and one of the reasons they started co-operating with humans in the first place was the increased effectiveness and portability of firearms.

Still, I suppose I'm a basically SF mentality and can't be expected to respect traditions…

 

[Bev Stayart]

SF is part of the larger category of Fantasy. I don't think SF is dying, just that other aspects of Fantasy are becoming increasingly popular.

 

[jojajihisc]

So the fact younger people read more fantasy cause of their fav fantasy movies don't mean anything but the fact SF in Hollywood are never based on famous SF books.

Just to make sure I understand this correctly. Are you saying there are no "Hollywood" movies based on science fiction novels?

 

[blacknorth]

As much as I hate to admit it, one only needs to look at the last few issues of Analog to realise that something is seriously wrong in SF. While the quality was always variable, I've never read such a consistent run of stinkers as recently.

 

[Sparrow]

It's not only Analog.
You need not go any further than the latest covers gracing Asimov's to know that hard-edged science fiction is no longer welcomed.

 

[rojse]

I think those that prefer fantasy fiction are going to see fantasy as being innovative, whereas those that prefer SF are going to see SF as being innovative.

I've read excellent fantasy stories published in the last decade, and I've read excellent SF stories published in the last decade. For myself, I could point out more excellent SF stories than fantasy stories, but this is only because I am more immersed in SF than fantasy, rather than difference in quality of one field over another.

In either case (and I believe both assertations are true), it is great time to be a fantasy and SF reader.

 

[blacknorth]

It's not only Analog.
You need not go any further than the latest covers gracing Asimov's to know that hard-edged science fiction is no longer welcomed.

My local store (Easons) won't stock Asimov's, yet they carry Analog, Interzone and even Black Static.

Last month's Analog is the last I'll be buying - the chick-lit (apologies in advance) story about Joan of Arc shouldn't have made it into Woman's Own, never mind Analog. The magazine seems to be apeing drivel like Time Traveller's Wife and Lost In Austen, going for the lowest part of a market which isn't their market anyway - abandoning their permanent audience for a transient one.

 

[rojse]

My local store (Easons) won't stock Asimov's, yet they carry Analog, Interzone and even Black Static.

Last month's Analog is the last I'll be buying - the chick-lit (apologies in advance) story about Joan of Arc shouldn't have made it into Woman's Own, never mind Analog. The magazine seems to be apeing drivel like Time Traveller's Wife and Lost In Austen, going for the lowest part of a market which isn't their market anyway - abandoning their permanent audience for a transient one.

You can't base your opinions of an entire genre based on a few magazines. I am sure that someone could find several lagging fantasy magazine, and point out how many stories are cliched and deriviative and about romances involving sparkly vampires.

 

[Connavar]

Just to make sure I understand this correctly. Are you saying there are no "Hollywood" movies based on science fiction novels?

No no I'm saying there is no SF film based on a popular book who became a hit that inspired new readers. A LOTR for SF.

There are no big films made about Dune and co.

Matrix isn't a popular SF book. There is only really Blade runner who was a BO failure and later on a classic.

I started reading American comics thanks to the movie Sin City. Many people does similar things but there are no SF versions that make people read the books and make them sell.

 

[jojajihisc]

I'd agree with that. Thanks Connavar.