I think the success of fantasy has nothing at all to do with how we feel about technology, actually.
Because most of us who read fantasy don't take it to be in any way real or literal. It's a set of metaphors, for inward and outward journeys both, that are particularly flexible and pwoerful, is all.
I'm not talking about technology, but the locale of Space itself. We aren't as interested about seeing what's up there. I'm saying that Fantasy hearkens to more earthy and rustic elements, to simpler times. The fact that it outsells Sci-Fi nearly 2-1 is merely a reflection that we don't care as much about what's over our heads.
The fact that it outsells Sci-Fi nearly 2-1 is merely a reflection that we don't care as much about what's over our heads.
I don't know that it's a case of don't care but rather , for me anyway, a case of SF books can be really boring and dry. Too much science and not enough fiction? I couldn't care less about every nut and bolt of ship design. I'd rather watch SF, I can see the ship's design and not have to read 20 pages at a shot of dry specifications.
I grew up reading Andre Norton. Her style was a softer edged SF, more like Sci-fantasy. Then I discovered true fantasy!
You mention SF being boring and dry, which brings up an important point. We had a good discussion about that here: http://www.livejournal.com/users/arcaedia/66266.html (http://www.livejournal.com/users/arcaedia/66266.html), and I posted that very argument.
My point boiled down to this: That perhaps Sci-Fi lacked the more basic elements of Story.
"jlawrenceperry Perhaps it is the hearkening to a simpler time. Maybe when you couldn't blast your way out of a sticky situation, but instead had to get your hands dirty. I know there's something far more appealing to me about going on a journey on horseback, with naught but your wits and your sword to save you. To sleep out under the stars, roast game over an open fire, and to look your enemy in the eye when you face him. There's that communion with the earth that appeals to many people."
Yes, that is a big part of it. Not to mention what some of the others put into words: Fantasy is a warmer, lusher and more of an earthy kind of thing where as SF is cold ,clinical and sterile (boring and dry).
"I just think a lot of it is generational. Those who were intrigued by space and the stars are older and buying fewer books than the younger, more voracious readers. And the Lord of the Rings films has created a new generation of geek"
Ahem! I am older,(I've got you by nearly 10 yrs) and I AM intrigued by by space and stars but I have always preferred fantasy to SF. I'm old enough to still view SF as the dominant side. I wish we could separate them completely, apples and oranges, with a grey area for the inevitable cross-overs. (Just label the cross-overs so I don't get suckered into believing I'm getting a true fantasy, so disappointing).
Alas, the time commitments of the adults vs the young adults and voraciousness in reading habits.
It's funny, Tolkein seems to me like SF. Dry and dull. Sorry, Perry. I much preferred the movies to the books. It may have had something to do with too many characters (very confused) and too much viewing of big battles. The war thing is dull as ditch water to me. I'm not wild about guns, bullets and laser guns either. Though I am a good shot with rifle and bow. I did enjoy the first three Star Wars flicks, and I'm a huge fan of Star Trek: Original, Next Gen and Deep Space Nine.
I don't think all of Lord of the Rings is exciting, or for that matter very readable. He was, after all, an Oxford Don and a Philologist, not an exciting profession to be sure. He was no novelist, but rather a mythologist.
Give me a story that uses its cool skiffy details as background to a character's journey--in our world or way beyond it--and my interest goes up immensely.
But fantasy isn't about simpler times, at least not if done well. And can be rustic or not, depending on the specific book. And has as its concerns very much the idea of getting beyond one's own life and into the larger world.
It's not concerned with the literal details of the world beyond our own--fantasy works through metaphor, not through extrapolated specifics from our own world. But affinity for fantasy--as reader or writer--definitely doesn't mean a lack of caring about what's over our own heads, in my experience.
And there's the urban fantasies which are quite popular these days, such as SMOKE AND SHADOWS which I just finished, or STAYING DEAD, URBAN SHAMAN, the Harry Dresden series, etc. These aren't rustic settings or simpler times, yet they are still fantasy.
I know there are lots of reasons why people read and enjoy fantasy novels, but I can only speak for myself. As a reader, I like character driven stories. I don't need magic or quests, I'm not looking for FTL drives or quantum theory. I want characters, and these days the genre that most often caters to my tastes is fantasy.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-09 04:13 pm (UTC)Because most of us who read fantasy don't take it to be in any way real or literal. It's a set of metaphors, for inward and outward journeys both, that are particularly flexible and pwoerful, is all.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-09 05:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-09 05:50 pm (UTC)I don't know that it's a case of don't care but rather , for me anyway, a case of SF books can be really boring and dry. Too much science and not enough fiction? I couldn't care less about every nut and bolt of ship design. I'd rather watch SF, I can see the ship's design and not have to read 20 pages at a shot of dry specifications.
I grew up reading Andre Norton. Her style was a softer edged SF, more like Sci-fantasy. Then I discovered true fantasy!
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-09 06:44 pm (UTC)My point boiled down to this: That perhaps Sci-Fi lacked the more basic elements of Story.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-09 07:27 pm (UTC)Arcaedia String
Date: 2005-08-09 07:43 pm (UTC)Perhaps it is the hearkening to a simpler time. Maybe when you couldn't blast your way out of a sticky situation, but instead had to get your hands dirty. I know there's something far more appealing to me about going on a journey on horseback, with naught but your wits and your sword to save you. To sleep out under the stars, roast game over an open fire, and to look your enemy in the eye when you face him. There's that communion with the earth that appeals to many people."
Yes, that is a big part of it. Not to mention what some of the others put into words: Fantasy is a warmer, lusher and more of an earthy kind of thing where as SF is cold ,clinical and sterile (boring and dry).
"I just think a lot of it is generational. Those who were intrigued by space and the stars are older and buying fewer books than the younger, more voracious readers. And the Lord of the Rings films has created a new generation of geek"
Ahem! I am older,(I've got you by nearly 10 yrs) and I AM intrigued by by space and stars but I have always preferred fantasy to SF. I'm old enough to still view SF as the dominant side. I wish we could separate them completely, apples and oranges, with a grey area for the inevitable cross-overs. (Just label the cross-overs so I don't get suckered into believing I'm getting a true fantasy, so disappointing).
Alas, the time commitments of the adults vs the young adults and voraciousness in reading habits.
It's funny, Tolkein seems to me like SF. Dry and dull. Sorry, Perry. I much preferred the movies to the books. It may have had something to do with too many characters (very confused) and too much viewing of big battles. The war thing is dull as ditch water to me. I'm not wild about guns, bullets and laser guns either. Though I am a good shot with rifle and bow. I did enjoy the first three Star Wars flicks, and I'm a huge fan of Star Trek: Original, Next Gen and Deep Space Nine.
Re: Arcaedia String
Date: 2005-08-10 01:03 pm (UTC)I don't think all of Lord of the Rings is exciting, or for that matter very readable. He was, after all, an Oxford Don and a Philologist, not an exciting profession to be sure. He was no novelist, but rather a mythologist.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-09 07:35 pm (UTC)Give me a story that uses its cool skiffy details as background to a character's journey--in our world or way beyond it--and my interest goes up immensely.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-09 07:34 pm (UTC)It's not concerned with the literal details of the world beyond our own--fantasy works through metaphor, not through extrapolated specifics from our own world. But affinity for fantasy--as reader or writer--definitely doesn't mean a lack of caring about what's over our own heads, in my experience.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-09 07:43 pm (UTC)I know there are lots of reasons why people read and enjoy fantasy novels, but I can only speak for myself. As a reader, I like character driven stories. I don't need magic or quests, I'm not looking for FTL drives or quantum theory. I want characters, and these days the genre that most often caters to my tastes is fantasy.