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.
![[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 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.