SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

Quote from Tobias Buckell (source):

I work in the niche field of science fiction, which is being overshadowed by fantasy right now. I love it, it’s my field of choice, but having done a survey a few years back where I compared the average [book] advances for science fiction and fantasy, I knew the fact that I chose to work in science fiction meant that I’d have probably halved my average advance and readership.

Why is fantasy so much more popular?

Personally, I'm one who vastly prefers sci-fi, but I know there are plenty of people on here who mainly or exclusively read fantasy. Why do you think its appeal is wider?

I, too, prefer sci-fi. I used to like fantasy when I was younger. Loved the Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan. Nowadays, I'd rather read almost anything than fantasy. I don't have any good insights into why I loathe fantasy but love scifi, but "magic" is just a big turnoff. I'll admit that one book that may have influenced my feelings towards fantasy is Wizard's First Rule by the vile Terry Goodkind. Books like that make me want to be a writer, if you know what I mean.

I prefer science fiction myself. I think part of why fantasy is so popular is due to its romanticism. I mean that in the 19th century literary sense. We're in such a technological age. We have cell phones and laptop computers. We have GPS systems. We can travel anywhere in the world within hours. The world we live in is the world of science fiction. Fantasy takes us back to a romanticized world that seems simpler than the one we live in. People travel by horse and on foot--no pesky trains, planes or automobiles. Conflicts are resolved definitively by sword. Problems are overcome with magic.

Fantasy is popular simply because it is fantasy. It's an escape from our over-stressed technological world.

I agree with Sandi, though I think there's more to it.

Personally I prefer fantasy. My main problem with sci-fi is its lack of responsibility. It bothers me that it tends to ignore problems and issues and instead everything is miraculously fixed, solved or escaped from. It encourages this idea people have - and they do have it, just mention "climate change" and see - that someone, somewhere, will sort it all out for them before they ever have to lift a finger or make any personal sacrifices themselves. The planet is going to shit? That's okay, we'll just go somewhere else! That's simplistic I know but I'm not writing an essay here.

I'm not saying that all sci-fi is like this, because it isn't, and I have read some really good sci-fi, but I have also noticed this trait, unconsciously done no duobt, but there nonetheless. And I know I'm going to get hate mail for saying so, but that's one reason why I prefer fantasy.

There's plenty of crap fantasy out there too, generic drivel, and I'm very fussy, but in general it's more in tune with the world, more organic, and more focused on cause-and-effect and the repercussions of actions.

If fantasy is indeed selling better than sci-fi, perhaps it's a sign that I'm not the only person dissatisfied with what they see: the commercialism, the vapid consumerism and shallow superficiality of today's world, or the feeling of being just one poor lonely being in a city without community or fellow-feeling. There's a lot of that in sci-fi.

Oddly, the stories I like most are a mixture of science fiction and fantasy.

I personally prefer fantasy, but I'm not entirely sure why. On a subconscious level, I'd have to agree with Shannon - sci fi tends to support the "no consequences no accountability" theory in most cases.

And I don't like the stories, either fantasy or sci fi, that use magic or technology as the "magic wand" that makes all problems go away.

It's the very human striving against nearly insurmountable odds, the self-sacrifice, the love and loss of friends or family, that appeals to me.

If fantasy is indeed selling better than sci-fi, perhaps it's a sign that I'm not the only person dissatisfied with what they see: the commercialism, the vapid consumerism and shallow superficiality of today's world, or the feeling of being just one poor lonely being in a city without community or fellow-feeling. There's a lot of that in sci-fi.

I wouldn't be so quick to jump to such radical conclusions. There are lots of explanations, and surely it is a combination of a lot of reasons. Like:
- general apathy to "space" in today's society. Something like a manned mission to Mars would likely have a huge impact on science fiction sales.
- Lord of the Rings/Harry Potter effect. Pretty obvious how this affects everything else in the genre.
- Lack of a true big name author in science fiction today. Related to the above. If an author comes along and creates a hugely popular string of books, it would affect sales throughout the genre.
- I think there's likely more of a stigma attached to science fiction. It's for "nerds" and "trekkies". Being smart is not cool.
- Science fiction can be intimidating...especially "hard scifi". A lot of people don't find this fun.
- Very little YA science fiction. The vast amount of YA fantasy breeds adult fantasy fans.

I'll probably think of other reasons later. Myself, I think it is just the ebb and flow of the market.

That last point is a really good one, Ben. There is virtually no science fiction out there for young adults.

Oh absolutely Ben, there's tonnes of reasons, and a lot of the time it just seems like a fad. I wonder how many copies of Lord of the Rings they sold after people saw the movies? But I don't think my idea was radical, that makes it sound irrational!

There are some YA sci-fi books but they're not as common, or they're a blend. I read some when I was a teenager, books like Polymer - and my favourite author, Isobelle Carmody, is marketed as YA sci-fi.

And I don't like the stories, either fantasy or sci fi, that use magic or technology as the "magic wand" that makes all problems go away.

No indeed Jon! Bleh. (yes that is my articulate response!)

But I don't think my idea was radical, that makes it sound irrational!

I'm sure that wasn't the right word :). Certainly not irrational, but I don't think the masses have that kind of awareness.

No, they don't I'm sure, but I do think it's there at a subconscious level, with some people. Okay maybe I'm just being hopeful? But I do hear people talk about how they don't like that the most important thing for some people is having the latest gizmo, or another iPod cause they want a different colour (yes, a friend of mine said she was going to get a new iPod cause she liked the new colours. I was very rightly disgusted with her and she knew it was silly, but that's what she wanted). Maybe they don't read fantasy, but I think people are getting more fed up with certain aspects of our society.

Reminds me of Wall-E, which I just saw last weekend. Everyone should see Wall-E.

WALL*E is awesome! Yes, everyone should see it. Very few animated movies can bring a tear to my eye. :)

Hmm how to start. I cut my eye teeth on sf. i have read most of the greats but I think there several issues here.

1. Fantasy is easier to read. It is not filled to the main with technological jargon or high fallutin concepts. Nanotechnology, biology, physics. Hard Science Fiction. People read to escape and for fun, and these "big ideas" are hard to read.

2. Cyberpunk science fiction were gloomy books. Case in point Neuromancer. Corporations run the world. Not fun to read about. Fantasy books have dragons and warriors with swords and magic -- more fun

3. Fantasy tends to be more character driven. You look at fantasy novels and certainly the plot is important but we fall in love with the characters. They tend to be more fleshed out and the books are huge so the story has a lot oftiem to spend on dialogue

4. Fantasy books have multiple books. ALmost every major fantasy novel int he last 20 years was part of a trilogy or more. So we get to read about the same characters again in the same world. Robert Jordan, Mercedes Lackey, Terry Brooks, R.A. Salvatore, Harry Potter, David Eddings, all contribute. All books with the same cast of characters or world. Huge series of books

5. Science Fiction however to a large extent are single books or short series

6. The Harry Potter effect.

Not sure I agree with the concept that there are no juvenile sf -- there is Heinlein, Norton, Bujold, Carmody is good, McCaffrey is really sf all are readily available in libraries.

Nor do I agree with the idea that sf takes no responsibility. How can you think fantasy does. Fantasy is usually a medieval world -- in many ways a more simple world. What responsibility is there.

I think at the root of it all is fantasy has been able to tap into our inevitable lust for magic and fun in reading and sf the best sf with its wonders and all has not been able to.

Not sure I agree with the concept that there are no juvenile sf -- there is Heinlein, Norton, Bujold, Carmody is good, McCaffrey is really sf all are readily available in libraries.

I don't think anyone said there's NO juvenile science fiction. There is, but it isn't really popular or easy to find. Heinlein and Norton? They are both dead. Carmody I've never really heard of. Not sure if she's very popular here in the U.S.A. Bujold, well I had no idea she had any YA stuff.

I agree with you on the series. There are very few science fiction series, and even fewer that are decent past the first book. I've never understood the difference there.

So they are dead -- the books are on the shelf. I missed the great craze in fantasy books recently that followed the Potter phenomenon. I understand that there are a lot of juvenile fantasy. There are however sf books out there for kids

It's true that series and trilogies sell better than stand-alone books, though I have noticed that there're quite a few series in "mainstream" science fiction. Publishers prefer fantasy series and trilogies because they can hook readers better.

I learnt that from the Deep Genre site, where a group of fantasy authors discuss things. Great site if you're interested :)

Jeffrey, I agree with point 3, which is one reason why I prefer fantasy.

I will say though that fantasy isn't always set in a medieval world and certainly doesn't always feature dragons and swords - or even magic. There's a wide variety of fantasy and it's becoming more and more philosophical and original, and pushing the generic formula. That's the kind I prefer. I don't read "Dragonlance" or "Forbidden Realms" books, I find that kind of fantasy incredibly boring.

Authors such as Sean Williams, Isobelle Carmody, Sarah Zettel, Philip Pullman, Anne Bishop, Gregory Frost, Chaz Brenchley, Kristine Kathryn Rusch, Naomi Novik, Sharon Shinn, Jennifer Fallon, Kate Forsyth, Lynn Flewelling, Ricardo Pinto, Ian Irvine, Sara Douglass, some Robin Hobb provide new landscapes, new cultures and variations on the typical themes as well as insights into the human character.

I think there's more non-formulaic fantasy (though perhaps they're just creating new formulas?) books than there are ones with dragons and wizards and warriors.

Okay, I am going to go out on a limb here and bring the gender argument to the forefront. I think one of the reasons fantasy sells better than sci-fi is because of female readers. And I will further say, the reason female readers prefer fantasy to sci-fi is due to Jeffrey's point 3.

"Fantasy tends to be more character driven."

On average, females tend to prefer a character driven story to a plot driven story. The fantasy genre can use their characters to tap into 'chick-lit' readership and there is a LOT of money in that group (I can say most of this because I am a part of this group).

Now, I am not saying that ALL females prefer fantasy to sci-fi and I am not saying that all females prefer character to plot. Rather, I am saying the 'chick-lit' females (who spend lots of money on books) prefer characters.

Also, (although I don't have data to support this) it is quite possible the proportion of female to male readers has increased in the last 30-40 years. So it would stand to reason books/stories that appeal to females would all of sudden sell better than books that appeal to males.

These things go through waves. If the same question had been asked 30 years ago the question would be why science fiction was so much more popular than fantasy (Tolkien not withstanding).

On another note, Gina posits that female readers might, in some cases, prefer fantasy to science fiction because the stories are more likely to be character driven. I'll add two more reasons why there might be a gender bias in reading (and I note that these are supported by little-to-no evidence and that they are not meant to be universal to all readers, but instead a general concept which might be wrong).

1. Although not as bad as it used to be, there is still a societal gender bias against women in math and science and this may carry over to the reading preferences of women who have been discouraged from pursuing/enjoying math/science.

2. It seems to me that there are a LOT of reasonably good female fantasy writers right now. An absolute ton. Robin Hobb, Elizabeth Hayden, Sara Douglass, Carol Berg, Susanna Clarke, Kim Harrison, Margaret Weis, Janny Wurts, just to name a few (one could put JK Rowling here as well). I do not believe there are nearly as many in science fiction (although there are certainly some excellent female sf writers right now). Why so many female authors lean toward fantasy over SF is a different (although related and with possibly similar answers) question, but in some cases readers may be following the gender of the author. I've certainly known people to be more likely to read a book because it is by a female rather than a male author (and visa versa).

I think its interesting that people lock into the character concept. I think that the idea concept issue is equally important. SF books can be very difficult to read -- to get into -- there are plenty of exceptions but as a rule I think its true. I do agree with Bunny, however, in that fantasy can call on a lot of different antecedents.

Michael,
I was really interested to see Kim Harrison on your list.
Kim won the PEARL Award for Best New Author in 2005. PEARLs are awarded by the 3,000 plus members of [email protected]

This year's finalists in Futuristic and Science Fiction Romance were Jayne Castle, Linnea Sinclair, Susan Grant, yours truly.

Linnea Sinclair is a particularly interesting case, because she was marketed as Science Fiction until recently, but now is marketed as both Romance and Science Fiction. She has lots of space ships, tech, robots/cyborgs, but fabulous characterization as well.

Linnea has won at least one RITA (the oscars of Romance) and many other awards. She has many enthusiastic readers of both genders.

Susan Grant's oeuvre to date is often called action adventure, space opera, sfr. It appeals to
women, there's no "magic" so it is science fiction romance, but I'd call it plot driven. Lots of action.

Fantasy is often like LOTR with sex. CL Wilson's two award winning books are that.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg has a super chart of who writes what (sub-genre) on the simegen website, and I believe Linnea, who put the chart together, still has in on her site, too. Linneasinclair.com.

Gina, just to support your hypothesis more generally, I read in the paper a couple of years ago that 80% of all fiction readers are women. Men account for a much less significant proportion of readers and are more likely to read non-fiction than fiction. I found it interesting but also a bit sad.

Bunny, you make a good point, drawing in all the different types of fantasy, especially myths and legends. I would argue that the Bible itself is a fantasy book, in that it contains all the quintesential elements of classic fantasy - it's the biggest selling book every year, and I think part of people's passion for it is, aside from their faith, the love of the fantasy aspects. There's something ancient about it all, primeval, that we yearn to connect with. Myths and legends of all kinds seem to have a similar effect on us. Just musing aloud.

Rowena,
I think an interesting contrast would be between Kim Harrison and Katie MacAlister. Both write modern fantasy(paranormal)/romance crossovers, but Kim Harrison's work has a much stronger fantasy focus while Katie MacAllister's is much more on the romance side of the line. At my local library, Harrison's book are categorized as Science Fiction/Fantasy while MacAlister's are categorized as romance. While single categorization can be way too narrow, if not outright wrong (I've seen the library classify [and shelve] different books in the same exact series in different places based on the bias of whoever happened to handle them when they came in), I do think in this case it accurately reflects which side of the romance/fantasy line the authors tend to lean towards.

Very interesting discussion. I think my own preference for sci-fi is based the fact that, personally, I find there to be less suspension of disbelief required. I also think that science fiction, at its best, is an exploration of our own human condition.

My experience with fantasy (which I haven't read in more than 15 years) is that it tends to be just good stories. Some of the comments in this thread, however, have opened my mind. I'll definitely be keeping an eye on the upcoming fantasy books for this group (whereas before I would have just totally ignored them).

More generally, I think there's some truth to the gender bias that has been discussed. I also think the dominance of fantasy has something to do with why people read. I think that readers of sci-fi and fantasy alike are reading for entertainment and to stimulate their imaginations. Personally, I find I'm more stimulated by what's possible (e.g. exploring alien worlds) that what's clearly not (i.e. magic, dragons, etc.).

One aspect I have to throw in here is cover art. Fantasy books just tend to have more appealing cover art.

How about availability at Wal-Mart? I'm sure it is due to market research and all, but very little sci-fi is available there compared to fantasy. Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Here's one female that prefers sci fi more than fantasy! There's brilliant stuff being written in sci fi that is more about charaters and that covers philosophical, socialogy and political reflections on the human race and the reality of what we would bring to space when we get there. Same old garbage? Xeonology when we confront alien species? Will we evolve?

I do agree that fantasy tends to be a lighter read and perhaps that is why it draws more readers. We seem to need more fantasy these days as a step away from tough reality. There's magic afoot! Plus it's a story of good vs. evil. Don't get me wrong, I do love good fantasy. Fantasies can be more romantic as well, which appeals to female readers.

And it's true more females write fantasy, and have that ingrained aversion to math and science, while more males write science fiction. Yet sci fiction can be character driven as well - look at the new Battlestar Galactica which is very dramatic because it follows strong characters and is a study of humans, but is pegged science fiction because it happens to take place in space.

Many of the female sci fi writers place much importance on character, Cherryh comes to mind. The males tend to write more military driven stuff and have a drier sense of writing style - terse.

As far as I remember, fantasy has come into the forefront only relatively recently, the past couple of decades.

And people who don't read science fiction tend to have preconceptions about it.

Why are there so many more female readers than male? I wonder.

The Pern novels are one of those cases which started as fantasy but became science fiction through time. In a sense, Terry Brooks is doing the same thing with Shannara.

One aspect I have to throw in here is cover art. Fantasy books just tend to have more appealing cover art.

Except for the ones published by Tor! God they're awful, tacky covers! If they'd just tone down the font/typeface they wouldn't be half so bad. Their whole art department should be given some pot I reckon.

Good grief, Ben. Wal-Mart? I wouldn't trust their judgement to choose the best in either genre (unless we're only talking marketablility and a desire to maintain the Wal-Mart image so they can continue building their customer base).

I'm not so certain of Barnes & Noble, Borders, or Books-a-million, either, but at least at the major bookstore chains you have a wider range of titles and authors to choose from.


And, Shannon... Perhaps their whole art department is already on drugs of some sort - they do seem to have lost their grip on reality in that aspect (though, TOR does tend to put some excellent stuff BETWEEN those attrocious covers).

Jim, I didn't mention anything about trusting their judgment. I only brought that up due to the fact that Wal-Mart moves an increasingly large amount of books. Getting your book on the Wal-Mart shelves is a big deal.

I'm getting in on this discussion quite late, so most likely others have made this point already, but I think the reason fantasy has become increasingly popular over the years is that we are living in a world where amazing advances in science are now more fact than fiction.

Also, and this might get me some hate e-mail, the general dumbing down of American society has perhaps stunted the average reader's taste for science--witness the rise of profound religiosity with it's embrace of magical thinking and out and out rejection of science. Can you say 'intelligent design'?

I happen to enjoy reading and writing in both genres.

Perhaps another reason is that some of the ideas, situations and technologies in a lot of sci-fi is growing stale with readers - we're no longer in the buzz of excitement from the first launch and the Cold War etc., and we've grown complacent and aren't so interested in the possibilities as we once were?

As we've seen from reading some amazing sci-fi here, it's not so much that they're dated as that we're no longer so awed and taken by surprise by the ideas in these books. In some respects, we're already living in a sci-fi world, so perhaps fantasy has become the new novelty? (I think this links back to my first post in this thread.)

I think a lot of people get their books from Wal-mart. I personally don't because they don't have what I want... but when a new book comes out they do have that. There are constantly people in their book isle. (I know I buy my groceries there). So I agree, Wal-mart has a lot of influence on people.

I was never much of a Wal-Mart book buyer. It's got to be a book store for me - online or traditional - but something that specializes in books.

Since watching the documentary "The High Cost of Low Price" I have almost completely stopped shopping at Wal-Mart. I also read the labels of all the products I buy to see if they are made in China or not.

I don't shop at Wal-Mart at all. A personal boycott. Wal-Mart and Starbucks are my two biggies. I cave on other things, but it's very easy to hold firm here. I prefer small businesses where possible, though I confess I buy most of my books from Chapters these days.

I know what you mean about checking the tags for things made in China, Jon - sadly, if they're not made in China then they're made in Taiwan, Columbia, Bangladesh, Vietnam and so on. It's hard to find things made more locally.

I hate to admit I shop there... but food is so damn expensive I have to shop there because I do believe their food is cheaper... not to get this onto a discussion about Wal-mart. :) I want to buy elsewhere but just can't bring myself to spend more money for some milk. So I have started to love Wal-mart for their prices.

I hear you Angie, and I think a lot of people are in the same position. We're on a pretty low budget ourselves but the one thing we don't stint on is good food. We always try to buy fresh ingredients and organic milk and meat, because I don't like the idea of putting all the extra chemicals and crap into my body. After a while, your brain rebels at the idea and you couldn't eat it if you tried, it makes you nauseous.

I know Wal-Mart has its line of organic food now, but I wouldn't trust it, and I don't like the idea of them getting my money. I'd rather give it to the local people with small businesses.

Sorry, what were we talking about? (Bad moderator!) Oh, fantasy - what about what I was suggesting earlier, in message 36? Any thoughts?

Shannon

There are lots of sf out there and they walk the cutting edge in science -- dna, biology, nanotechnology, limitless lives, replacement bodies, psychology. Its not that the ideas are stale. After all there are only so many plot devises out there. I think the dumbing down comment below also goes to my comment that the science sometimes scares people away

If a book is good its good. Clearly crappy sf along with crappy fantasy is in all the bookstores. Wal Mart is able to sell books at cheap prices b/c it buys in bulk the best sellers to get people into the stores.

I would like to see the publishing world move further away from classifying books in genre types - I love goodreads because it allows multiple shelves/tags for books. Why the insistence on arbitrarily classifying a book as Science Fiction or Fantasy? The Pern novels are just one example of books that easily fit in both.
Some books might need only one tag - but I would think the majority would have multiple tags. It seems like the effort to fit books with one tag is more a definition of the reader than the book. Or maybe it is more about marketing than reading.

And although most of the comments about gender and reading are worded well and make sense (and are not in any way overtly offensive), I am somehow left with the feeling that they've degraded the discussion. I can't quite pinpoint what my feeling is based on - it just feels stereotypical without being particularly enlightening.

Well, my books (fantasy)aren't at Walmart but they're at Target. It's great for snagging new readers who might not necessarily be in a bookstore. Especially if you have a great cover! I can't tell you how many people have emailed me to say I was walking through Target and saw your book...


cinda

The problem with an argument that the dumbing down of America results in more people liking fantasy is that it assumes that science fiction readers are in some way smarter or more educated that fantasy readers.

My own experience really doesn't back that up. There's rarely a shortage of stupid whatever group you sample.

Personally I think its because Fantasy is more inclined to be unashamedly escapist and a lot of people want that to get away from the stress of their lives.

If it's true that fantasy books are more popular than science fiction books, that seems to be flipped when it comes to television and movies. Off the top of my head, I can think of tons more sci fi shows than fantasy. All the Star Treks, X-Files, Firefly, the Stargates, Quantum Leap, Journeyman, Sliders, BSG, Twilight Zone, classics like The Invaders, the upcoming Fringe and Dollhouse, and plenty more that I can picture in my head but can't bring up their names. I can't even think of half that for fantasy television shows, and even some that come to mind like Buffy are more horror than fantasy.

Am I off the mark here? And if not, why the flip in genre popularity when you change mediums?

Brooke I think that is a great observation... and I think you are right. Really the only fantasy I can think of is those mini-series that Sci-Fi sometimes shows. LIke Tinman.

Some other "fantasy" shows I can think of are Xena and Hercules, Dresden Files, and I'm blanking on any more. But surely they exist.

I was going to say Heroes but that's certainly sci fi, especially given the genetic component of the story.

Brooke, I love sci-fi movies more than fantasy ones, perhaps because the fantasy stories don't translate as well onto film? Although, I think The Princess Bride is fantasy and I preferred the movie to the book. I doubt there's a simple explanation. Though, one of my favourite TV shows is Farscape, which is a blend of sci-fi and fantasy, and maybe that's why I like it (shows like Stargate etc bore the crap out of me).

Jeffrey, I absolutely agree that there's good and crap in all genres, I just wondered if the ideas and technology in sci-fi had moved one - i don't read enough of it to know, and most of the ones I have read have been older.

Eoghann, I too find the idea that fantasy readers are not as clever as sci-fi readers pretty offensive and definitely untrue. But I also don't think fantasy is escapism and nothing else. I've read a lot of fantasy (and am always looking for more) that is just as philosophical and original and eye-opening as some sci-fi, that makes me think more about my own world and my own life. That's the kind I prefer, but the good thing about fantasy is that, if you don't want to read anything into it, then you don't have to.

I would argue that the Bible itself is a fantasy book, in that it contains all the quintesential elements of classic fantasy - it's the biggest selling book every year, and I think part of people's passion for it is, aside from their faith, the love of the fantasy aspects.
From Homer to Harry Potter is one book that agrees on this point. I'd recommend it to folks interested in this thread, as it contains a fairly savage attack on SF and takes pleasure in the marginalization of the genre.

Also, and this might get me some hate e-mail, the general dumbing down of American society has perhaps stunted the average reader's taste for science--witness the rise of profound religiosity with it's embrace of magical thinking and out and out rejection of science.
Sad, but true.

Why are there so many more female readers than male?
Fiction is art.
Art is effeminate.
Therefore, real men don't read books.
Better to read magazines that have pictures of automobiles, guns, or women in them.
For the record, I haven't actually read any of this club's books; I just read the reviews posted on the Playboy website.

"The ideas are stale" Whatever! Good grief, Charlie Brown. Dragons and spells and special swords are stale. I have found that either genre can produce ideas and plot solutions from thin air, but that SF at least makes an effort to produce possible (someday) plots. I stopped reading fantasy after the 20th book about a boy that grew up in an adoptive family not knowing that he had special powers/was an heir to the throne and had to go on a journey to reclaim his abilities and consequently save the kingdom from the threat of EVIL. Ring any bells?
On another note... the best sci-fi is currently coming from the UK (imho), with authors like Stross, Hamilton, Macleod, Reynolds, Morgan, Banks.
BTW if you don't buy and order books from your local bookstore you won't long have a local bookstore (they have advice on new authors, used copies for cheap - with no shipping charges, rare and out of print first editions, signed copies, etc...).

I am not sure there are more sf than fantasy in multimedia like tv and movies. I think in reality they are evenly divided ie Potter and LOTR vs Star Wars. I am just glad that the both genres are found frequently in movies or tv as it gives me more opportunity to see stuff I like.

What I have notice is that sf authors frequently write books in fantasy. Examples Bujold, Elizabeth Bear, Zettel, Kate Elliot (alis Rasmussen), David Weber, Alan Dean Foster However it is very rare that fantasy authors write sf novels. Thus many of us find our favorite sf authors doing fantasy thus lowering the amount of sf available.

Very true. Lucas never even explains the mysterious metaclurian stuff. Not sure if I spelled that right - the stuff that makes the Force. It's rather magical in its way.

Is it bogus to say that fantasy is much more black and white in regards to the basic story is about good vs. evil. The great fantasy does have gray in there, but perhaps its the simplicity of this universal motif that attracts a wider audience these days. We need to escape to where good usually wins. I can't think of any fantasy where evil wins in the end. Altho it's still undecided in Song of Fire and Ice, and perhaps the complexity there is what is drawing so many readers who have even crossed the line into that genre when they might not have done so before.