Why isnt fantasy mainstream...

Thats an excellent point..

I would think it depends on the definition of "fantasy", if it means fairies and unicorns and things like that then the large number of people who are looking for "serious" works will dismiss it out of hand.

If fantasy means religious "faith" experiences then it becomes a religious work and is dismissed out of hand by the rest of the public.

although I think that fantasy is a large portion of the material in circulation so in a sense it is mainstream....

Mark

Silverhand said:

Why isnt fantasy main stream?

Click to expand...

Because most people genuinely aren't interested in reading it.

I mean when you think about it, a whole lot of people in the world beleive in some type of religious tome, Each one of these sacred documents have stories about magic, miracles, demons, angels, God, gods, etc etc etc. Note: Not ALL of them have exactly the same fantastical based creatures. The point is to some extent ALL of them do have unbelievable stuff a reader must take on faith)

Click to expand...

That's right. It's faith. Which means that to whoever believes in it, it isn't fantasy.

- Victoria

Fantasy by definition takes place in a universe that could never happen, even if we wanted it to. Dragons, magic and psionic abilities just don't exist to most people and never will. They are fake, fable, make-believe.

Therefore, most people look for "mainstream" fiction as a legitimate possibility. They feel like "that could happen someday," or "I could do that." Fantasy? Not so much. It's a lot of fun, but not feasible.

In terms of religion, there will always be the glaring divide between religion and government/education/science. A lot of people shy away from the subject purely on the basis of its controversial nature. Religious works, while often popular and very good, will never compare in sheer sales to the "safer" secular works they compete against.

The only best-seller to top those would be the Bible, and that's only because of its age, history, significance and controversy. If a book came out now claiming to be the "new Word of God," I really don't think it would do well - and the author/publisher may find themselves in a whole lot of hot water.

I think fantasy stories aren't more mainstream because they're viewed as fundamentally unserious--which I think comes from their similarity to children's literature.

The question reminds me of a very frustrating discussion I had with an English major who was reading Ursula LeGuin's The Left Hand of Darkness (a serious SF novel that features an alien race whose bodies change sex). This poor person just couldn't take the book seriously, apparently, because it's impossible for people to change sex. "It's just silly," she kept saying.

My conclusion: most people don't have much imagination, and don't particularly care to.

MTF

Marcusthefish said:

The question reminds me of a very frustrating discussion I had with an English major who was reading Ursula LeGuin's The Left Hand of Darkness (a serious SF novel that features an alien race whose bodies change sex). This poor person just couldn't take the book seriously, apparently, because it's impossible for people to change sex. "It's just silly," she kept saying.

Click to expand...

Evidently she was not familiar with certain types of fish and amphibians. A biologist might not find the basic premise absurd - unless it happened in an implausible manner.

Marcusthefish said:

I think fantasy stories aren't more mainstream because they're viewed as fundamentally unserious--which I think comes from their similarity to children's literature.

The question reminds me of a very frustrating discussion I had with an English major who was reading Ursula LeGuin's The Left Hand of Darkness (a serious SF novel that features an alien race whose bodies change sex). This poor person just couldn't take the book seriously, apparently, because it's impossible for people to change sex. "It's just silly," she kept saying.

My conclusion: most people don't have much imagination, and don't particularly care to.

MTF

Click to expand...

Well, I have to admit it. Le Guin is not my favorite writer, and I do have trouble taking much of her fiction seriously.

"Seriously" isn't about what's possible or not possible, what's real or what's fantastic. "Seriously," or "believability," if you will, is about whether or not a writer can make me suspend disbelief for the duration of the novel.

It isn't up to the reader to have imagination, it's up to the writer to make the reader believe just long enough to read the story front to back. Some writers do this for me, some don't. Le Guin doesn't.

When a writer fails to make me believe, anything they write tends to come across as silly. When a writer makes me believe, anything they write, however fantastic, comes across as serious and wonderful.

Fantasy is becoming more popular and more acceptable.

Silverhand said:

Ok so you are breaking religion into something entirely different...fair enough. But, that doesnt take away the fact that those same people STILL believe in things that are unthinkable by todays standards.

Click to expand...

But they do believe them, so it's not fantasy to them. To you it might be, but it isn't to them. Therefore, you're not drawing a valid analogy when you say they should like fantasy because they believe in things like God and angels and miracles. You're talking apples and oranges.

The people I know who don't read fantasy say they don't like it because they can't relate to the characters and situations. As someone once put it to me, "I don't give a sh*t about characters who aren't human."

Fantasy will never get wider mainstream readership because too much of it is formulaeic and two dimensional.

Yeah, yeah, get off my back, unicorn lovers, I know there are exceptions, but all the time they're buried in the slurry of mediocre Tolkein wannabes, they won't get recognised.

Le Guin's Left Hand of Darkness is an outstanding exploration of isolation and loneliness, which is why it broke out of the genre ghetto and got read by people who don't read SF.

Silverhand said:

Heh, needed to address Victorias point too. If you were to ask a person believing in the bible if they thought X was possible rigth now. They would say 'no'. If their faith beleives and accepts magic as 'real'...then magic is a basic principle that should considered possible regardless of extreme cicumstances. Does that make sense?

Click to expand...

No, if you ask the majority of Bible believers if X is possible today, they'll say "Absolutely yes!" Believe me, I know hundreds of Bible believing Christians, and I am one, and every last one I know believes anything possible long ago is still possible today.

Where you're going wrong is with the word "magic." I've never met a Bilbe believing Christian who believes in magic. You can't mix magic and miracles. They aren't the same thing at all. They aren't even related, at least in the minds of those who believe the Bible.

Magic is Hollywood, fairy tale, folklore silliness. Miracles come from the power of God, and aren't magic in any way.

If you're looking for people who take fantasy seriously, you're unlimkely to find them in any mainstream religion.

And another note: It is perfectly possible, and probably relatively common, for Christians to believe that while God has worked miracles in the past and will work miracles in the future, God currently choses not to work spectacular miracles today, for whatever reason. A lot of Christian fiction has God stay off-stage the whole time. Belief in miracles alone does not make a story involving a fireball-throwing sorceror realistic. Supernatural pyrotechnics do appear in the Bible, but only on a few occasions where God chose to send them. They weren't something that man could command at will, but instead acts of God to God's own purposes.

By spectacular miracles, I mean the sort of miracle that the only possible responses are, "This must be the power of God," "This is some trick," or "Tell me I didn't see that!" The sort of miracles that suspend the laws of nature rather than merely the laws of probability. I don't mean things like praying for a way out of a financial difficulty and getting an unexpected gift or unexplained healing, but miracles that go to such extremes as sending fire down from the sky exactly when a prophet asks it to come down, walking on water, parting the Red Sea, or having a crack suddenly open in the earth and entomb your enemies. Many Christians believe that God has, at least for the time being, refrained from doing that sort of miracles.

When magic, as opposed to miracles, turn up in the Bible, it seems far more limited. There's Pharoah's magicians who use "their secret arts" - whether that is genuine magic or parlor tricks is never explained, but the most impressive thing they do is appear to change a stick into a snake. There's the Witch of Endor, who summons Samuel's ghost. And there's Simon Magus, but not much account of what his magic did other than impressing people. You certainly won't find a Belgarath or Walker Boh among the sorcerors in the Bible.

So, like James pointed out, religious belief does not imply that readers will find fantasy believable. Both C.S. Lewis and Tolkein were Christians who wrote fantasy, but both Narnia and Middle-Earth were an escape from our real world, not an extension of it.

As for what people believed in hundreds of years ago - they aren't your audience.

Mike Coombes said:

Fantasy will never get wider mainstream readership because too much of it is formulaeic and two dimensional.

Yeah, yeah, get off my back, unicorn lovers, I know there are exceptions, but all the time they're buried in the slurry of mediocre Tolkein wannabes, they won't get recognised.

Le Guin's Left Hand of Darkness is an outstanding exploration of isolation and loneliness, which is why it broke out of the genre ghetto and got read by people who don't read SF.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm still just fired up by the way the Sox stole the game from the Angels earlier this evening thanks to a terrible call by the home plate umpire but this post really struck me wrong. Fantasy is a "genre ghetto"? Really? And what do you read or write? Mainstream novels? Is that supposed to be "genre high-class"? Oh, and I suppose mainstream novels NEVER follow ANY kind of formula...?

Perhaps fantasy novels don't gain a wider readership because too many people have a narrow minded opinion about what 'fantasy' really is. They'd rather not try to stretch their imagination and allow "suspension of disbelief" for even a moment. Perhaps they see 'fantasy' as childish and immature and beneath them...

Their loss.

Let those people read their mainstream novels. I read them too from time to time...but then I creep back into the "genre ghetto" and allow my mind to escape the boundaries of the real world for a while as I enjoy my fantasy books.

Whew...I'm done letting off steam.

My-Immortal said:

Fantasy is a "genre ghetto"? Really?

Click to expand...

Yup. Really.

Well, actually, SF is in there with it. But it's still a ghetto.

Separate imprints at publishers.
Separate shelving in bookstores.
Special labeling at libraries.
Separate reviewers.
Separate readership.

From a writer's perspective, this is not necessarily a bad thing. There are advantages to a smaller market, where it's a bit easier to reach the audience and to stand out among a smaller field of competitors. Still, it can be frustrating.

I don't believe that fantasy/SF is ghettoized because a lot of it is formulaic and two-dimensional--the same can be said of any genre, and probably of a good portion of the commercial mainstream fiction that's being churned out at any given time. I just think that it's not to everyone's taste. A lot of people simply don't like reading about invented worlds. Historical fiction has a small readership also, for similar reasons.

- Victoria

Ah, this is a topic I'm caught in the middle of right now.

When I write fiction, I lean toward fantasy and science fiction. It's the genre I love. I'm also a graduate student working on my Master's in English.

My program has an option that permits English students to present a novel-length creative work instead of a thesis. My advisor, after reading the opening three chapters of my current WIP, did not tell me no, I could not use the novel, but encouraged me to work on a traditional, critical thesis instead, which I have agreed to do.

In academia, science fiction and fantasy just aren't regarded as serious literature.

victoriastrauss said:

Yup. Really.

Well, actually, SF is in there with it. But it's still a ghetto.

Separate imprints at publishers.
Separate shelving in bookstores.
Special labeling at libraries.
Separate reviewers.
Separate readership.

- Victoria

Click to expand...

Hmmm...and here I had always thought it meant SF and Fantasy were special.

My-Immortal said:

Hmmm...and here I had always thought it meant SF and Fantasy were special.

Click to expand...

They are - really 'special'.

I write SF, and have written fantasy. And have read both genres widely, along with mainstream literary.

Let me rile you up a little further. One reason that fantasy is wallowing in the ghetto and not getting wider readership is down to the narrow minded conservatism of a large number of those who write it. Again, yes, I know there are exceptions, but if anyone dares to criticise your cosy little genre you scurry around like ants making cross little noises, all puff and posture and no substance.

Do yourself a favour - rather than automatically dismissing what I say because it's not what you want to hear, do some real re-appraisal of the genre - what you put in, and what you want out. If the word you come up with is 'niche', then I'm sorry I troubled you.

Mike Coombes said:

Let me rile you up a little further. One reason that fantasy is wallowing in the ghetto and not getting wider readership is down to the narrow minded conservatism of a large number of those who write it. Again, yes, I know there are exceptions, but if anyone dares to criticise your cosy little genre you scurry around like ants making cross little noises, all puff and posture and no substance.

Do yourself a favour - rather than automatically dismissing what I say because it's not what you want to hear, do some real re-appraisal of the genre - what you put in, and what you want out. If the word you come up with is 'niche', then I'm sorry I troubled you.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's not the writers that decide what gets published and what gets rejected by the editors. Instead of assuming it is narrow minded conservative 'authors' perhaps you should focus your criticism on the editors of sci-fi and fantasy publishing houses. Of course, you could take it the next step and say the editors are simply publishing books by authors that sell - and those are usually the books by big-named authors that after a handful of books seem to fall into a rut and repeat themselves. But couldn't that be said of any genre?

I suppose what I found to be disturbing was the tone of your post - but perhaps I misread it. Perhaps you weren't trying to be condescending and insulting to those of us that write in either the sci-fi or fantasy genre. Perhaps when you said 'ghetto' you weren't trying to offend the hard work of struggling authors that are trying to break into the business and perhaps change the way people view sci-fi or fantasy. Or perhaps that was your intent all along.

Good luck in your writing - and I'll get back to trying to get out of the fantasy ghetto. LOL

Mike Coombes said:

Let me rile you up a little further. One reason that fantasy is wallowing in the ghetto and not getting wider readership is down to the narrow minded conservatism of a large number of those who write it. Again, yes, I know there are exceptions, but if anyone dares to criticise your cosy little genre you scurry around like ants making cross little noises, all puff and posture and no substance.

Click to expand...

Care to elaborate?

I have been struck in the past by the irony of the attitude of some people in the SF/fantasy community (and this includes not just writers, but fans and reviewers and/or critics) who complain about the lack of mainstream respect for speculative fiction, but then jump all over mainstream authors like Margaret Atwood when they dabble in science fictional territory. These folks seem to want to have it both ways--for spec fic to become part of the wider literary world, yet to remain an exclusive club that accepts only those who are already in it. It's a seriously contradictory attitude.

However, most of the SF and fantasy writers I know aren't like that.

- Victoria

That's odd because I find fantasy in every stinking section of the bookstore.


"The Oddyssey", and "The Fairy Queen" is in the poetry section, and most Romantic Poets.

Pynchon, Garcia Marquez, Borges, and Calvino are in the Literature section.

The Romance Section is chock full of witchcraft and wiccans (with bulging, rippling muscles, mind you... hey, they call that kind of stuff "Fantasy", right?)

The Children's Book Section contains little else but various fantasy and horror books.

The History Section contains lots of information about ancient mythologies that read like fantasy texts (Egyptian Book of the Dead, anyone?)

Plays are full of Shakespeare's fanciful fantasies of ghosts, fairies, and magic.

The Business Section is like a modern-day alchemy academy.

I think what we're missing out on here is the word "Demographic". Fantasy is everywhere. Science Fiction is everywhere. The Fantasy/Sci-Fi Demographic is geared towards a certain style of story-telling. It just so happens that this style (in our culture) has wrapped around fantasy and science-fiction.

Lietmotifs and simplicity of design mark this section as a whole. These are the books that are just as concerned about the plot as they are with the characters involved. The "Literature" section as a whole evolved away from plot as a driving force, and moved towards characters and themes.

It's in the proverbial "ghetto" because smart people are all-too-often narrowminded, and just cannot acknowledge that Tolkein was as much of a visionary as Faulkner.

Basically it's about an attitude. Genre readers often try, primarily, to enjoy what they're reading. "Serious" writers are supposed to require a Ph. D. to even comprehend.

The Fantasy is everywhere, though. The Science Fiction is everywhere. We're in the ghetto because we're just as smart as everyone else, with just much of an education, and just as much talent, but we choose to be genuinely accessible to a wide audience.

A hundred years from now, will people still read the latest MFA authors attempt to belittle and smear their own minority culture into a cushy tenure, or will the people still read the hilariously insightful fantasy authors Piers Anthony and Terry Pratchett? I know who I'm betting on.

Mike Coombes said:

I write SF, and have written fantasy. And have read both genres widely, along with mainstream literary.

Let me rile you up a little further. One reason that fantasy is wallowing in the ghetto and not getting wider readership is down to the narrow minded conservatism of a large number of those who write it.

Click to expand...

The biggest problem with this statement is that fantasy's readership is expanding. It's not static or shrinking. It's growing.

Wanna know which readership is shrinking? Science fiction. Hope that doesn't rile you.

Mike Coombes said:

Again, yes, I know there are exceptions, but if anyone dares to criticise your cosy little genre you scurry around like ants making cross little noises, all puff and posture and no substance.

Click to expand...

Rude.

The second biggest problem with your statement is your obnoxious tone. Ill-informed and impolite are not a good combination.

It's in the proverbial "ghetto" because smart people are all-too-often narrowminded, and just cannot acknowledge that Tolkein was as much of a visionary as Faulkner.

Click to expand...

The most intelligent, widest read people I know read science fiction and fantasy.

I hope you include me among the most intelligent, and widely-read...


If "Intelligent" and "Smart" meant the same thing, we wouldn't have two words.

Intelligence implies a depth and education and a complexity. Smart is sharper, and shorter, and prone to mere cleverness.

I said Smart People are narrow-minded. Not Intelligent People.
My personal favorite for awful individuals masking themselves as intelligent through mere smartness is R______ R______ (name taken out because I do not have nice things to say about someone I knew personally). Ick. She's the kind of woman who is a writer because she lives next door to Billy Collins. The sun rises on Long Island and sets in Connecticut. Her books are all re-mixes of every WASP-y archetype of which you've ever heard told with an unfelt infatuation with the realism so en vogue at the moment. And when you press her to truly use her mind, she falls back on snarky, irrational criticism of anything diferent from her own preferred genre. That's "Smart" writers. They're on the cutting edge of literati fashion, but lack the depth of a truly well-read individual that transcends cocktail parties in Manhatten.

Intelligence wouldn't judge a book by the publisher's logo on the cover. Good examples? Neal Stephenson. Stephen King. Ursula K. LeGuin. Margaret Atwood. The list goes on. Hopefully, someday, we'll be among them.

badducky said:

We're in the ghetto because we're just as smart as everyone else, with just much of an education, and just as much talent, but we choose to be genuinely accessible to a wide audience.

Click to expand...

This makes no sense. If fantasy (and science fiction) were accessible to a wide audience, a wide audience would read it. Certainly genre prejudice plays a part in limiting readership--all those mainstream readers who fear fantasy because of the funny names or science fiction because of the nonhuman characters--but the fact is, it's a specialized taste, just as mystery and romance and biography are specialized tastes. Even if HConn is right, and the fantasy readership is growing (and I'm not sure I agree) I think it will always be a relatively small segment of the audience.

A hundred years from now, will people still read the latest MFA authors attempt to belittle and smear their own minority culture into a cushy tenure, or will the people still read the hilariously insightful fantasy authors Piers Anthony and Terry Pratchett? I know who I'm betting on.

Click to expand...

IMO, it's as silly to dismiss all literary fiction as MFA twaddle as it is to dismiss all fantasy as formulaic and derivative.

- Victoria