Optimistic vs. Dark SFF

Joshua Jones

When all is said and done, all's quiet and boring.
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
1,437
Location
Maryland
@JohnM, this is the thread I mentioned where we can discuss the subject of optimistic and dark SFF, and others may chime in as they see fit. Focusing our discussion on this topic here will enable us to discuss it without hijacking another thread.

Particular points of consideration:
  • Does the current market favor optimistic or darker fiction?
  • Is darker fiction a passing fad?

I'll be posting my thoughts shortly.
 
Does the current market favor optimistic or darker fiction?
Using the Amazon best seller list, filtering for the SFF category, as the metric, it would seem there is currently a solid market for both. At time of writing, the top ten are:
  1. Occupation: Rise, Book 1
  2. The Sandman
  3. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
  4. The Keeper of Lost Things: A Novel
  5. The Vine Witch
  6. 1984
  7. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
  8. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, Book 1 (audio)
  9. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Book 2 (audio)
  10. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Book 5 (audio)
Counting Harry Potter as one book (realistically, the same people are buying all of these), the split is relatively even between more optimistic stories and darker stories (for some, I'm basing my assessment off the description, so I'd welcome a fact check from a staff member here!). I think this relatively clearly demonstrates buyers 1. love Harry Potter, and 2. are relatively split between optimistic and darker stories.

You also contrasted Supergirl and Game of Thrones on the other thread. By ratings, Supergirl performed well during the one season it aired on CBS (average viewership of 9.81m), then bled viewership in season 2 to 3.12m (I worked at a CBS affiliate selling adverts during this time, and the decision to move to the CW was due to 1. being a better thematic match to the target demographic of CW, and 2. an attempt to raise the ratings of CW. This attempt failed.), and continued to lose viewers through this last season, averaging 1.58m. In contrast, Game of Thrones started with an average of 2.52m in season 1, then increased viewership every season until surpassing Supergirl's high point during season 7 (10.26m) and ending at an 11.99m.

To be honest, though, it isn't really a fair comparison between Supergirl and Game of Thrones. Game of Thrones airs on HBO, which is a paid service, while Supergirl aired first on CBS, then CW, both of which are free. As such, a fairer comparison would be The Walking Dead (AMC, which is included in most cable and satellite packages), which started at 5.35m, rose to a high of 17.30m (the range between seasons 3-8 is 10.87m-17.30m), and is currently at 4.00m. In other words, both The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones significantly outperformed Supergirl, and are continuing to do so.

But, to be fair, Supergirl isn't a very good metric, as it isn't very highly rated. Disney movies, for example, nearly always gross insane sums, and the darkest one in the canon, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, tanked. The only animated movies from any studio which could be considered dark (or at least not completely optimistic) in the top 50 highest grossing are Up (24) and WALL-E (44).

It would seem, then, that there is a difference between what different audiences are seeking. The target demographic for animated/family movies and all the aforementioned television shows is basically the same (Women 25-54 for animated movies, Women 18-49 for Supergirl, Adults 25-54 for Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead), but the movies are watched less for the target demographic's own sake, but for the children in her care. At best, it can be stated that the viewing habits of this same group, when considering their own entertainment, is mixed between optimistic and dark. Hence my point on the other thread about how depiction of evil should consider the audience and genre... because the audience is who buys, and they buy what they like, and genre helps determine the target audience.

Is Darker Fiction a Passing Fad?
Historically, it seems literature and story has always had a mix of optimistic and dark fiction, and popularity waxes and wanes on these. The Greeks, for example, had dark fiction in tragedies (no one can argue that Oedipus Rex is optimistic...). As did Shakespeare. Gothic fiction, horror, thrillers... dark genres and dark works in other genres have always been there. Even in the Hebrew Bible (not trying to make a religious argument here, but a literary one from one of the oldest works of literature in existence today), there are optimistic books like Esther (which may be the only optimistic fiction involving genocide...) and darker books like Judges. I think the contention that darker literature is a passing fad simply doesn't resonate with history. This is not to say, however, that there may be future periods where more optimistic literature is generally preferred. Anything is possible in the future. But it would be strange if there were a time where there is no market for darker fiction.
 
Hi! I personally think that the Darker Fiction will become more constant as the years go by. The proof is that very few utopias are published compared to dystopian or prospective fiction novels. The only sub-genre where I dare say we will continue to see happy or relatively satisfying endings is that of the Space-Opera. But that is due to its intrinsic nature as adventure fiction.
I think this started earlier, actually, more or less with the disenchantment of the space promise. This made the authors' eyes turn to the present and the problems of our society. A pessimistic look, by the way. Furthermore, the boom in The Hunger Games and its inevitable clones triggered a whole series of dystopias, making them an editorial phenomenon.
Nor can we forget the authors of the mainstream. Writers who, without belonging to the sci-fi genre (Philip Roth, Michael Chabon, Houellebecq, for example), have dispatched during the last couple of decades a considerable battery of works that, even more than dystopian, are very close to the literature of anticipation or, as some call it, prospective.
 
Hi! I personally think that the Darker Fiction will become more constant as the years go by. The proof is that very few utopias are published compared to dystopian or prospective fiction novels. The only sub-genre where I dare say we will continue to see happy or relatively satisfying endings is that of the Space-Opera. But that is due to its intrinsic nature as adventure fiction.
I think this started earlier, actually, more or less with the disenchantment of the space promise. This made the authors' eyes turn to the present and the problems of our society. A pessimistic look, by the way. Furthermore, the boom in The Hunger Games and its inevitable clones triggered a whole series of dystopias, making them an editorial phenomenon.
Nor can we forget the authors of the mainstream. Writers who, without belonging to the sci-fi genre (Philip Roth, Michael Chabon, Houellebecq, for example), have dispatched during the last couple of decades a considerable battery of works that, even more than dystopian, are very close to the literature of anticipation or, as some call it, prospective.
Good thoughts! Thanks for sharing.

I think your explanation of SF going darker is spot on. The Hunger Games, Handmaiden's Tale, et.al. have definitely been drivers of the female demographic being more interested in more dystopian fiction (and the former, apparently, has driven a resurgence of female archery...), and space disenchantment is definitely at least one driving factor in SF becoming darker. I would only add the success of Game of Thrones is one of the big driving forces on the Fantasy side. Also, while discussion on this topic is verboten on this forum, there are decidedly social and political realities which cause many people to feel less optimistic about the future generally, which surely also contribute.

So yeah, I think you're spot on with your analysis!
 
Hi!
So is. Everything goes by epochs. The obsolescence of the pulp genre was followed by the New Wave as soon as it was evident that it was going to hell. Although that, in the words of García Márquez, was the perfect "Chronicle of an Announced Death". In fact, poor quality has been discussed for decades, that is, in strictly literary terms, present in many New Wave or soft sci-fi works. Naturally, with few exceptions such as the always notable K. Dick, Ursula K. Le Guin, Ballard, Orwell, and the examples begin to finish.
Although, with a hand on chest, we have to admit this never worried us too much, let us say. Because, as far as I see it, this quality issue (the eternal form / content discussion), although we were all aware to one degree or another (evident in Asimov, for example; even he himself knew that the stylistic treatment of his works was at least naive, and the authors of the Hard only concerned themselves with the scientific aspect), it only began to become evident, as if it were an alarm signal, with the advent of "the invaders", so to speak. Authors who did not belong to the genre, but were from the mainstream, and who began to raze year after year with the Nebula and Hugo awards.
At this point it is a bit obvious to talk about Cormac McCarthy and The Road, but it serves as a perfect example to graph the huge tantrum that it caused in the fandom. The lack of originality of his premise was criticized endlessly. But it is a forceful sample of all those authors from the mainstream who pose uchronias, dystopias and prospectives for a bleak future for humanity more typical of the field of sci-fi. Something we expected our authors to do following Dick's guidelines was ended by others who were not from fandom. And with an impressive quality.

I personally think Game of Thrones is a rare gem that fired a whole series of similar productions, but it is quickly depleting it too. And Netflix is going to finish it off. Netflix is in fact one of the main responsible for the exhaustion of the market precisely because it is causing a script crisis. Too many parallel series. But that is the subject of another thread. :sneaky:
 
Well, I can't intelligently comment as to market trends. I just hope the market remains open to darker visions--if or when--I can ever publish what I'm working on as it doesn't get much darker.

In any case, whatever the prevailing trend is, it will never shut out--let alone end--the other. I am of the opinion that there are consistently two vacillating groups pushing for each side of the coin, neither embracing dark or light. Again, just my opinion, but you have those who embrace the current state of the world and wish to promote the world to continue trending that way by painting a rosy picture of whatever world. On the other side, you have those pushing against the current state of things. They seek to point out the darkness they're feeling by promoting a darker take.

So, each of those two sides of countless varied opinions will shift their tastes back and forth to whatever degree. Though neither or even both groups together make up the lions share of the population. That group argumentatively either enjoys both sides, or just one or the other to feed their consistent need to tweak their own mood either high or low.

K2
 
Well, I can't intelligently comment as to market trends. I just hope the market remains open to darker visions--if or when--I can ever publish what I'm working on as it doesn't get much darker.


Hi! A fashion usually does not last beyond a decade, it has a boom and a decline. A trend is much longer in time and, contrary to fashions, it begins in a way that goes almost unnoticed, usually never hatching, but instead stays, matures and evolves.
A fashion is more associated with momentary enthusiasm, while a trend by itself is capable of generating an entire thematic corpus that unfolds in many ramifications.
That is the way they can be identified.

For example, IMO, something that is going to become a trend, at bird view, are certain things:

1. The fandom's response to the mainstream invasion.
In the same way that quality writers who usually do not write sci-fi have been interested in problems more typical of sci-fi, the response of fandom is already appearing in the form of sci-fi novels whose treatment in terms of form, characters, development of plots, arcs, etc., unlike the New Wave, which except for the exceptions indicated above, completely missed the shot, it is a lot, but by far more thoughtful, consistent and concerned with all those details that we only believed that people studying Literature should care. I mean, now we still care about shooting a blaster or wielding a mystical sword. But now we also want to show the reader the motivations behind an orc invasion or the separation of the Republic or the use of an ancient spell that will decide the salvation of a world.

2. The border is diluted.
Derived from the previous point, we should expect an increasing number of cases of sci-fi writers going across the river. Mr. Philip Roth, Mr. Michael Chabon, Mr. Houellebecq, etc., we found your novels excellent, but thank you, we already learned the lesson.
Because it turns out that we are who have been playing with laser guns and magic swords all our lives. We are the ones with the imagination. In fact, that is the great criticism that outside writers have always made of the fandom, the reason for an indulgent smile and a caress on the head as if we were pets. That we have a lot of imagination, but we don't know how to write. That we do not know how to develop a plot, or our characters, when at least they are not cardboard or maquets, are poorly planned.
Well, okay, we already learned. (I hope)

But, coupled with the above, something else is already happening:

3. The fandom expands.
And it evolves. It is no longer the closed fandom of the past where people looked you bad if you wrote a story that could not be clearly framed within sci-fi or fantasy. In the past, fandom was much more radical. You were one thing or the other. A mixture, nor dream it.
However, now we have, apart from cyberpunk and all its children (diesel, atomic, gaslight), flint fantasies, futuristic fantasies, dark or gothic space operas, medieval thrillers, etc. That makes it possible for Predator to go wandering into the far West, that the Lovecraft's cosmic horror suddenly appear as a portal in a trench from the Great War, or there are orcs manning spaceships.
And also now those stories are being written well, with a reasonable literary quality.

4. But the need for catharsis is eternal.
The human being grows in adversity. And although Joshua Jones's example of Oedipus is of absolute precision, the truth is that nobody liked it too. Oedipus, I mean. Don't shot me you guys. Somehow we accept that the MC sees them fall gray and black throughout the story. But we need a happy ending. Or at least moderately satisfactory. At least a tie.
The stories will tend to get darker and darker anyway, and we will often have strong criticism even against the MC, whose behavior may never be entirely honorable (but who, surrounded by so much wolf?). But we still need it to survive. Also, if the bad guy does not lose in the end, catharsis does not occur. We would demand that the money be returned to us.

5. The advent of video game developers like the new Hollywood.
I left it for the end. There is also an evolution worth considering, the treatments are more mature, there is a plot (there is plot, that is!), and in development capacity, the matter will even advance towards the people in their homes. I don't think it's a fashion. Because, when we will can all access the cloud, and we can feel and experience all the fantasies virtually, and I think that's five years from now at most, we are not going to be here discussing these issues anymore. We will be dreaming. All the time.

I dont know. I suppose it is a news in development.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads


Back
Top