Russell KirkPatrick.com

 

While I'm offending everybody, I might as well share this, an answer given to Orbit UK when they asked me: Do you have a personal theory on why Fantasy is so popular?

A generation ago we lived in a world where progress towards utopia was taken for granted. We believed technology and human ingenuity would overcome any obstacle. In this period science fiction proliferated. However, we’ve more recently had a rude awakening: people are asking ‘who benefits from all this technology?’ and are realising the wealth is not spread evenly. More, we have come to recognise the environmental damage we’ve done with our unthinking trust in technology. I believe the 1970s saw the beginning of a widespread public rejection of the ‘tech fix’, and this is mirrored by the rise of the fantasy novel, in which technology is absent or at least tightly prescribed, and the consequent decline of science fiction.

I bet some of you have your own theories as to why fantasy is more popular (at the moment, I stress) than science fiction. Care to share them? Or pull my theory apart? 

BTW, it looks like I'm appearing in the window of Dymocks Lambton Quay tomorrow from 12 noon to 6pm, writing a chapter of my new book. If you're in Wellington, bring fruit to fling. I like apples.

I hadn't actually put a great deal of thought into it (other than being grateful that there are so many books that I like available), but what you say makes sense!

I think you're right.

I also think there is a huge romantic appeal to much fantasy literature. The very lack of reliance on technology holds appeal. The greater simplicity of life, in some senses. A very real sense of freedom, since much fantasy is set in eras much earlier than our own, where Big Brother doesn't exist, where the future is full of unknown possibilities, where life was on many levels far less complicated. You could disappear. You could adopt a foundling. You could take to the open road, and there was an open road to take to.

Fantasy contains elements of mystery, romanticism, the exotic, the unusual. There's magic in mystery -- things don't need a solid scientific foundation. And that's appealing, I think.

At least with Fantasy you're not going to have dozens of scientists (and/or geeks) writing angry letters denouncing your incorrect use of dilithium crystals, sonic screwdrivers, time travel, interstellar travel, nanotech, computers, etc, etc.

Fantasy authors invent their own the magic system. If you don't kill something with a spell you can stick it with a sword, and neither will generate a whole lot of argument.

Unless, of course, it's about how far a horse can gallop or how much a broadsword really weighs. Sigh.

I'm past thinking seriously today. Instead of weighing in on the real dicsussion, I'm going to suggest that throwing persimmons at Russell is much squishier and more fun. Besides, apples bruise.

I've always thought it interesting that both science fiction and fantasy writers and readers often say it's the 'what if?' possibilites of their genre that inspires and entertains them.

Science fiction 'what ifs' have their roots in the technological possibilites of this world, but in recent years either what was predicted has been invented, or proven so difficult we'll either achieve them so far from now it's no longer exciting, or proven impossible. That kind of takes the fun out of a lot of science fiction ideas. Not all, of course.

Fantasy 'what ifs', on the other hand, are impossible already, so none fail to meet expectations. The supernatural ideas in them are also not going to prove to be unsafe in this world. You can safely get a thrill out of those ideas, without sobering reality taking the fun out of them.

I'd have to say that a lot of the problem with science fiction today, particularly hard science fiction, is that most of it has already been done.

Unlike fantasy with science fiction you are limited to the realms of possibility and after the proliferation of the works by the likes of Wells, Wyndham, Hoyle, Lem, Asimov, Dick, Niven, Sturgeon its hard to think of where a current day science fiction writer can go to find a real science-based story line that hasn't already been covered several time.

And another thought that just occurred to me is that a lot of the writers who thirty years ago would have been writing science fiction for book publication are now writing it for the visual media. Perhaps this is science fiction's niche and instead of wondering where it has gone you might like to look at the question as to why fantasy doesn't make it to the big and little screens as much as sci-fi.

Interesting discussion.

There is this notion out there that the success of fantasy is at the expense of science fiction. According to Gardner Dozois, who should know, the amounts of published & purchased SF over the years has not really dropped at all. Sure it had wobbled about a bit, but there has not been a decline that corresponds to the rise of fantasy. It does seem smaller, but that is more a consequence of fantasy being much bigger than sf in comparison when they share the same shelves - those shelves being much bigger than they were. My feeling is that fantasy has come in and carved its own niche and attracted its own set of readers - some may be from SF but also from romance, from thrillers, from wherever. Perhaps they took all the readers who used to escape by reading westerns.

I don't think failed utopian dreams are the answer. Much (most?) science fiction of the past was based on a fear of the future.

Not a fear of death, Tim?

Are we no longer afraid, then, Tim? And don't you think literary SF like 1984 and Brave New World were written to deconstruct the general public belief in social darwinism?

My thought too, Gillian, when I saw Tim's name.

Ross, I guess at the least SF has suffered declining market share, but I confess to not knowing absolute numbers. It's a pity, because good SF is still my first love.

Perhaps we have gone past fear into denial...not wanting to read that which will makes us think about the world going to hell in a handbasket, but rather thinking about a time long past when these problems didn't exist?? Speaking generally, that is, personally I just read fantasy because I like dragons, the more the merrier!!!!! ;-)

What is it with dragons? I've never understood their appeal, especially to women - though Freud could possibly supply an explanation or two.

To misquote the great man himself, "sometimes a dragon is just a dragon...". :-)

Yay, I've been wanting to use that line for ages... I don't know why I like dragons, although Anne McCaffrey probably has a lot to answer for!

Russell - I suspect Jo would be very happy with you if you wrote a book with dragons in. Way happier than if you wrote one about a donkey with mange.

Ok.. this is going to be kind of long.. read most of ur comments and have aspects that I disagree on.. First, though, I?m kind of confused.. are people debating sifi over fantasy? Or just general fantasy against other books?
If it?s the first one.. what?s the difference? People say technology and what not in sci-fi.. ok.. but there?s wizards, dragons, past, present, and future.. and so on.. In fantasy.. past, present and some future, furthermore there exists vampire, werewolves and maybe some technology? to me there isn?t much difference between them, thus claiming one is better is like the pot calling the kettle black..lol.. Always wanted to use that saying *cough* anyway? If it?s the second one then it?s a matter of science, bibliography and history compared to fiction, fantasy and the possibilities that could await us in the future. *shrugs* there both needed in our society, one to push the imagination out of the little box we put it in and the other is needed to record the fantasy becoming a reality.

Now, debating time *dances* some people say they like (or a rise in the like of) fantasy over scifi came about because of the lack of technology or geeks debating over an aspect of science? ok? understandable (though, watching them fight can be amusing) but what do u think a bow or sword is.. its technology, although, a very old one. But compared to what our ancestors used? rocks? swords are a big technological advance and using them isn?t just swinging the sword around it?s a exercise, a art form that needs studding and understanding or no one could create some of the awesome fighting scenes we see in books. Even magic, to an extent is science, a natural phenomenon in that world that could end up destroy it if used wrong. Lol and wizards/warlocks debate as much as our geeks do in reality. Also, if an author is creating a militaristic kind of society, more or less an advance in the arts of fighting is a necessity (short bows to long bow (example)). And from what I have heard from authors is they do do a lot of research on fighting, military, human reactions in the past.. ext.. Lastly, some would claim that these are less damage causing technologies? my answer is in a form of a question.. how does one create a sword or bow.. does any one now how many trees that need to be cut down or mines excavated to create these weapons for a mass amount of people? Or what about the construction of castles, or when people made cannels to bring the water into the castles, hunting animals to extinction, or alter the natural growing process of crops and herbs to helps humans survive? Maybe, because we see these people as primitive or there technology as insignificant that we then believe that there actions are not as harmful to the environment. In all reality, the past harmed the environment as we do today, but at least today we understand it and are trying to reverse it with better technology (solar energy, wind energy.. ext). So, if people went from scifi to fantasy do to the cease of believing in the tech fix and wanting to go back to a ?simpler? life, then they?re delusional, plain and simple.

~*random fact for dragon lovers*~
Dragons, elves, dwarfs.. Imaginary beings ..or are they? If you ever watch the history channel (I thinks its that one anyway) they gave a believable documentary on why dragons could have and most likely existed.. they even explained the how of a dragons flight, why we see different types and shapes across the world and so on. The documentary was so believable it took me a while to realize that this was a fake documentary.. in other words, it?s a what if they found a skeleton of a dragon documentary.
~**~

Now some people believe in the simplicity of life before our own.. no such thing.. in reality, the past is ?. A place I would like to visit but never live in (no electricity, very few baths, high death rate, epidemics, cruel rulers.. ext..life was hard for them, especially for the woman). Also, freedom only goes as far as ur fathers freedom.. or you could be a wander and be even less then what ur father was? life is very restricted in the past because of the lack of technology.. look at our farms we produce mass amount of food but before, we needed a lot of labor to accomplish what we do now.. the consequence of the labor intensity was the lack of freedom to become what u wanted. The people back then had to have work or die, so they would have to find the closes form of labor and most likely never leave it (or the ?boss/noble? wouldn?t let them leave).

But then again, this all depends on the author and how he creates his own world.. They could make it into a 2D world with very little human instinct or a complex 3D world with strife, mayhem, good/evil, discoveries. A world rippling with human emotions.. which leads to war, an increase in the need for technology.. creating a catalytic effect that leads to the now (only one possible out come)

Finally, I don?t agree that most scifi authors are writing for the tv screen. Some, maybe, but most are just writing because they have a story to tell. Though I do agree that some authors seem to be having a hard time coming up with original ideas (for scifi and fantasy) but some authors like anne bishop are creating worlds out of the norm. umm.. I think I debated everything I wanted.. don?t know if I went off the topic *shrugs*, just remember, even though the authors is not writing about mining or environmental damage that may be going on, it doesn?t mean its not going on in the background?ugh.. I hoped this is all understandable?And I?m sorry I jumped around in some areas.

Gillian, there doesn't HAVE to be a dragon for it to be a good book, and there is always a place for a donkey with mange, as long as there is also a nice person to come along and apply a healing lotion. We don't want to see dumb animals suffer, after all!!!

Jo, if Russell called animal in question 'Gillian', wouldn't you rather it was a dragon than a donkey with mange? Maybe I'm the only one who doesn't see me as a donkey with mange?

Gillian is absolutely a name for a dragon rather than a donkey, with a certain elegance (is your 'G' hard or soft?). Of course, this dragon would have to be intelligent, with a thirst for knowledge, and an appreciation of the finer things in life, such as chocolate. An ability to cook would probably be a plus as well....

Gillian, have just been reading your website, please accept my apologies for earlier comments about Melbournians... obviously you are the exception that proves, etc, etc...

I'm sounding really sucky tonight, blame it on the amethyst I bought today, supposed to bring peace and harmony. Thought I would hang it from my rear view mirror so that when driving the kids to school I resist the urge to maime either my kids or those drivers who seem to think that it is perfectly OK to drive like a lunatic around a school!! Deep breaths... ;-).

Jo, it's a soft 'g' and I forgive you any and all comments about Melburnians because the weather inspires grump right now. Besides, you read my website :).

Russell, how did your window appearance go? Do you have many bruises from flung fruit?

Somebody else better post soon - I feel like I'm talking to myself. Does everyone else have, like, a life?????

How did your Convetnion appearance go, too? I hear you recognised your own books in a quiz. If I were in a cheeky mood I would ask how long it took for you to work out to whom the question referred.

Hi all, just back from the con, and an excellent con it was, too. Yes, one of the questions required participants to name the author of the 'Fire of Heaven' trilogy, and I was the only one in our team who knew the answer. I smiled sweetly at my fellow team mates.

Highlight of the convention: purchasing a t-shirt with it's own built in graphic equaliser. Cool!

The window appearance was fine, they are a most friendly and knowledgeable lot in Dymocks Lambton Quay. Thousands of passers-by and quite a few people interested, including two of my former students!

hi, this topic has an awesome amount of opinions. i'll follow russel's theory on this one, but add a couple of points of my own. Fantasy is merely the genre of escapism to an environment which is different to our own. There will always be many authors dedicated to creating an imagined world with differing situations and circumstances to our own world. the difference between sci-fi fantasy and the 'old world' fantasies is merely the direction of escapism, whether its towards imagining a world where people struggle against/thrive with the technology that they live in, or towards a different world where people struggle against/thrive with circumstances created by individual people.
The ideas that determine the direction of escapism directly relate to the author's environment. The rise of 'old school' fantasy is because not many are wondering about the possibilities of future science, as we can't even keep up with the current advances taking place now. the current world is already as futuristic as most can comprehend. thankyou for listening to my speech.

Sorry if I skimmed through the previous comments ... was this something about a dragon with the mange?

Sad to say I only just found out about Russell's window-time this week. I work only just around the corner from the shop in question and would have been only too keen to fling fruit :)

Are you coming back to Welly any time soon Russell?

Couldn't get away from it fast enough, chris - only kidding, but boy the weather was rotten on Friday, and the parking was just as horrendous as I remembered it.

On the other hand, the people were very nice.

No fruit at all was flung, which disappointed me. Your presence would have been appreciated!

Well should you choose to come back I will do my best to ensure that fruit become involved in the experience for you :)

I shall have to have words with my contacts at Dymocks... I am a little disappointed that I didn't hear rumour of your approach on the grapevine.

They didn't commit to it until the last minute, sadly. So there was little or no advertising. And I wanted a big fuss made. Go and tell Mark that you'd have liked me to sign a book or two for you! And throw fruit, of course.

Anytime you want to sit in a window in Brisbane, I promise to come and throw as much fruit as you want... You might start a new trend in publicity stunts.

Gillian, when can we expect to see you in a Canberra window??

Oh, now there's a great idea, Jo. I'd fly over with kiwifruit for that one.

Just re-read your original post Russell and a question arose from the murky depths of my mind. If you were sitting in that window for six hours, how much of your chapter did you get written?

I will sit in a Canberra window whenever anyone asks me or allows me. I'm very curious as to how it feels to write in public.

I also want to know the word count :).

Was less than six hours in the end - took half an hour to find a park, and I had to go out twice and shift the car. I'd estimate I spent about four and a half hours behind the desk.

Word Count = 3157 words. Not spectacular, but not bad. Around a third of a chapter (I have long chapters).

It feels fine to write in public - I confess, now I have the bug, I'd be up to writing in public without the window separating me from questioning people.

Quick, someone contact Gillian's local bookshop...

Just curious Russell, how many of the 3157 words will actually stay? Do you find you write a lot and then edit massively? Or does most of what you write in the beginning make it to the final cut? I found when writing for university that I could write up to 8,000 words for paring down to a 3,000 word essay. I even edit the comments I post here... This probably says more about my lack of talent and inability to make a decision that any particular writing style!!!

It varies, Jo, but I find about 95% of the words make it to the final draft. I seem to write a reasonably clean first draft. I add while editing these days - when I first began writing it was very much a process of subtraction, but now I write too 'lean', as it were.

I wouldn't say that all the possibilities of hard sf have already been done. As the boundaries of known science expand, more possibilities lying beyond what is known are constantly being opened up.
But maybe, as the amount of background knowledge required to keep up with modern science increases, it is becoming harder to write books which explore new territory in science fiction while still being accessible to the average reader.
Just a thought.