Ooh, way to push my intellectual buttons! I love this topic so much I did my doctoral study on it.
I think one important thing to consider is that fantasy is never purely escapist. It's always rooted in the real, because people only understand the different and fantastical when there's an agreed 'normal' baseline it's differing from.
Possibly one of the big draws of fantasy in recent years - because I agree with you that in general fantasy is a literature of the past and science fiction a literature of the future - is that authors have been using fantasy to reimagine and reframe the past, not just escape to a romanticised version.
Now we're seeing queer fantasy stories, fantasy stories about people of colour, fantasy stories that interrogate and challenge a lot of accepted norms about the genre, about society, and how we think about our past/s.
It's transformative. And the power of reimagining the past is that it lets us reconstruct our present as well, in a much more intuitive way than a future-oriented science fiction can do. In my opinion, anyway.
Science fiction will tell you the best way to change the future is to change the present, which is true. Fantasy lets you reshape and reinterpret the past to actually change that present.
Oh! Good point about reimagining a more diverse alternate past.
It's funny, one of my beefs with fantasy is how it so often ROMANTICIZES the past, showing us an idealized version of it that truly never existed -- for the vast majority of human history, people lived miserable lives, not talking with birds in cute forest cottages. And as such, I think people sometimes legitimately think, "The world was so much better then!" when it really, really wasn't in the vast majority of ways.
But you're right. It can also be something of a balm, rewriting our literal history to be more inclusive and encompassing. But I do find it sad that it is increasingly becoming impossible to imagine a kinder, more benevolent future.
I enjoyed reading your thoughts on this, because I was mulling on the differences between the two genres myself. I like both genres, although if I had to choose, I would pick fantasy just for the magical elements. However, one thing I’ve been wondering about is why fantasy books and series seem to be much longer than sci fi ones. It’s pretty common for me to find a standalone, new release in sci fi somewhere between 300 and 400 pages long, but I’ve rarely found a fantasy new release of that size that’s not just the first in a trilogy or similar. Plus, if a book is going to be 600+ pages, it’s more often than not in the fantasy genre. This is all anecdotal, and it may be a recent trend, but I would be curious to know if you’ve noticed it or have any thoughts on why it might be happening.
It's an excellent question, and I've definitely noticed it too (and I think it's *usually* self-indulgent, not a good thing). And I think it's two things: it's just become acceptable in the genre. One person did it, and it worked, and another did too, and it became a "thing." And I suppose fantasy is based on classic "epic" stories that did tend to be longer (but even the epics never had multiple POVs of 15 different characters! lol)
But I also think it's about world-building. People are drawn to read and write fantasy because they take comfort in the "world." And so they explore than world...at great length. I love the first three books in A Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones), but honestly, I think he's lost "in country" now. The last few books have been. Just. Too. Much. Same for Patrick Rothfuss, frankly. Just get to the point! The reason your first book(s) worked so well is because they got to the point. IMHO!
Interesting. Actually, the Harry Potter series by itself could have been one of the first examples of the phenomena. Seeing all the books lined up makes me laugh at how tiny the first one is compared to the last!
The world-building piece makes sense. I agree that some authors get lost in their own enjoyment of the world and forget to give their readers reasons to care. Funnily enough, I couldn't get past the first book in Song of Ice and Fire because the jarring perspective switches drove me nuts! I hope the fantasy genre still retains some shorter, standalone books that have enough world building to make you feel immersed. Tress of the Emerald Sea and Emily Wilde's Encyclopedia of Faeries were two recent examples of that that I thought were very good.
She REALLY needed editing after book 3 or so. (For length. She needed editing for other reasons in the earlier books 🤣) I'll check those books out, thanks.
I really enjoyed this article as it falls right in my wheelhouse having written about similar topics myself recently
Fantasy used to always be my go to read and mostly still is over science fiction but I’m changing that through some of the great writers here on Substack
However, from a movie and TV watching perspective it’s mostly been science fiction due to fantasy movies and TV shows being absolutely appalling, apart from LOTR, Game of Thrones and The Witcher. I sat through a lot of fantasy movies in the 80’s and not many of them were even vaguely good but at least they tried. Most modern ones don’t even do that
Science Fiction movies and books have always asked the big questions and sometimes they have grim answers. Writers like Philip K Dick predicted a lot of the technology we see today and a lot of the challenges and that was 50 years ago so there’s always been that dystopian side to it. Recent Sci-Fi shows like Silo are set in a bleak future but can also be uplifting. On the flip side, Star Trek : Strange New Worlds has dark episodes but recently had two that had animated and musical elements which were an absolute joy
Also science fiction covers so many different sub sections that it doesn’t have to follow a set path. Authors like Matt Haig write uplifting sci-fi and then you can have Stephen King writing horror sci- fi and so many others in between
Fantasy books, by their nature, are all for happy endings and, in times of strife, we all need that, but sometimes I just find that too neat and safe. Even if I do still read them religiously 😁
Anyway, apologies for the long post, could talk about this all day. Thanks again for the article 👍🏼
Hahahaha. Yeah movies and TV just don't do fantasy well, do they? Except for the obvious exceptions (and I tried with the Witcher, I really, really did, but....)
All these genres have great sub-genres, and I'm often asking myself the question, Is this fantasy? Or magic realism? Or urban fantasy? Or superhero stuff? (Which I try very very very VERY hard to avoid these days!)
Honestly, what I hate more than anything is IRONY. I hated the latest Dungeons & Dragons movie because they couldn't take anything seriously. Same for Lower Decks. (Neither sci-fi or fantasy ever does comedy well, but I could be done, I think! Just don't make fun of the frickin' genre that I love! How hard is that??)
Love Matt Haig, btw. There really are so many books that would make good movies, but somehow they never make to the screen. Instead we get more sequels, remakes, and reboots....
I definitely agree that sci-fi fiction is taking much more of a ‘depressing’ turn right now. I think it’s climate change? A lot of sci-fi published in the last couple of years seems to be heavily based around what our planet will look like once we’ve finished everyone off. I guess it’s just a response to the time? Sci-fi fiction was a lot less depressing in the 70s/80s/90s because life was good (so I’ve heard, I’m too young) and there was more ‘possibility’ on humanity & technology. There still remains so much possibility on humanity & technology but it always seems to be packaged in a climate crisis way. I’d say that it why fantasy fiction is regaining popularity - because it’s hard to have climate change narrative from the news and a book you’ve chosen to read for enjoyment. But I also prefer sci-fi, science over magic. I just like to revisit the works of Octavia Butler, Ursula le Guin & Kurt Vonnegut. Sci-fi is hard to publish these days without it centring on climate change, but maybe it’ll change soon! Thank you for an interesting article
The one thing I don't think most readers appreciate is how much publishers control what gets published (and movie studios control what movies get seen). People assume I'm interested in certain things because of the books I publish (and movies I write). But I always think, "No, that's just the stuff that made it through the system -- that was the right genre, etc." Books and movies are OFTEN not picked up for purchased because something vaguely like it recently bombed, which seems crazy to me.
Anyway, the word seems to have gone out that publishers do NOT want optimistic sci-fi. Or maybe readers don't want it? All three readers you cite (who I love) managed to write hard-hitting sci-fi, but it didn't make me want to kill myself (though, yeah, some of Butler's books are a bit bleak LOL)
I suspect you're right: it's all cyclical. I'd like to think audiences get bored with the same thing over and over eventually.
Such a good point about publisher control - I hadn't even considered that! Not picking up stories because something vaguely similar recently bombed is such a stupid process. Not to mention unfair and incredibly boring to be so limiting.
Yes, publishers must have received an anti-optimistic sci-fi memo. Haha some of Butler's books are a bit bleak, particularly The Parable of The Sower lol! But despite being bleak, it still isn't as depressing as some present day sci-fi!
I agree I think it is all cyclical (we HOPE, that means it'll end soon haha). I think audiences are probably starting to get bored with the same climate change sci-fi (at least I am). Maybe there will be a fresh new wave of more optimistic sci-fi soon.
I hate that being very very very bleak and cynical -- it's all pointless! people are sooo stupid! -- is now seen as "edgy" and cool. As you say, even Parable of the Sower has hope.
This post reminds me of Magister Ludi (Hermann Hesse), the point of which is that no matter how different various concepts appear to us, everything everywhere is really all connected.
Interestingly, this is also how I see the best part of religion, which is—to me—akin to magic. To quote rabbi Irwin Kula: “It’s about love. And it’s about connection. And it is no more complicated than that.”
As a pantheist with agnostic leanings, I see an interesting parallel between the comparison of science fiction and fantasy, and the comparison of faith and religion. Faith is belief in something you can’t prove. Religion is a system for applying that faith. So faith and fantasy are on the side of imagination, and religion and science (while imagination is still engaged, to be sure) are more about systems and rules and process.
Hermann Hesse would see all these concepts as intrinsically connected. I think I agree with him.
Oh yes! It's all connected. The more I travel, the more I think this too -- it's all different roads to the same (or similar?) destinations. Many languages all just trying to connect with each other.
And yeah, it's even true for religion, something I couldn't see when I was younger. Isn't it funny how if you just change the terminology a bit, dress religion up as "magic," and even most hardened empiricist (like me) will happily climb on board. In the end, we all want to go to Hogwarts. And likewise, I think almost every religious person, and almost every fantasy enthusiast, also wants understanding and wisdom. I think that's what many people mean by "God." It's not (just) heavenly bliss, it's knowledge.
Faith in the future, faith in science? It's not the same thing as faith in religion, but it's a variation on a theme.
Ooh, way to push my intellectual buttons! I love this topic so much I did my doctoral study on it.
I think one important thing to consider is that fantasy is never purely escapist. It's always rooted in the real, because people only understand the different and fantastical when there's an agreed 'normal' baseline it's differing from.
Possibly one of the big draws of fantasy in recent years - because I agree with you that in general fantasy is a literature of the past and science fiction a literature of the future - is that authors have been using fantasy to reimagine and reframe the past, not just escape to a romanticised version.
Now we're seeing queer fantasy stories, fantasy stories about people of colour, fantasy stories that interrogate and challenge a lot of accepted norms about the genre, about society, and how we think about our past/s.
It's transformative. And the power of reimagining the past is that it lets us reconstruct our present as well, in a much more intuitive way than a future-oriented science fiction can do. In my opinion, anyway.
Science fiction will tell you the best way to change the future is to change the present, which is true. Fantasy lets you reshape and reinterpret the past to actually change that present.
Thanks for such a thought-provoking article!
Oh! Good point about reimagining a more diverse alternate past.
It's funny, one of my beefs with fantasy is how it so often ROMANTICIZES the past, showing us an idealized version of it that truly never existed -- for the vast majority of human history, people lived miserable lives, not talking with birds in cute forest cottages. And as such, I think people sometimes legitimately think, "The world was so much better then!" when it really, really wasn't in the vast majority of ways.
But you're right. It can also be something of a balm, rewriting our literal history to be more inclusive and encompassing. But I do find it sad that it is increasingly becoming impossible to imagine a kinder, more benevolent future.
I enjoyed reading your thoughts on this, because I was mulling on the differences between the two genres myself. I like both genres, although if I had to choose, I would pick fantasy just for the magical elements. However, one thing I’ve been wondering about is why fantasy books and series seem to be much longer than sci fi ones. It’s pretty common for me to find a standalone, new release in sci fi somewhere between 300 and 400 pages long, but I’ve rarely found a fantasy new release of that size that’s not just the first in a trilogy or similar. Plus, if a book is going to be 600+ pages, it’s more often than not in the fantasy genre. This is all anecdotal, and it may be a recent trend, but I would be curious to know if you’ve noticed it or have any thoughts on why it might be happening.
It's an excellent question, and I've definitely noticed it too (and I think it's *usually* self-indulgent, not a good thing). And I think it's two things: it's just become acceptable in the genre. One person did it, and it worked, and another did too, and it became a "thing." And I suppose fantasy is based on classic "epic" stories that did tend to be longer (but even the epics never had multiple POVs of 15 different characters! lol)
But I also think it's about world-building. People are drawn to read and write fantasy because they take comfort in the "world." And so they explore than world...at great length. I love the first three books in A Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones), but honestly, I think he's lost "in country" now. The last few books have been. Just. Too. Much. Same for Patrick Rothfuss, frankly. Just get to the point! The reason your first book(s) worked so well is because they got to the point. IMHO!
Thanks for the comment.
Interesting. Actually, the Harry Potter series by itself could have been one of the first examples of the phenomena. Seeing all the books lined up makes me laugh at how tiny the first one is compared to the last!
The world-building piece makes sense. I agree that some authors get lost in their own enjoyment of the world and forget to give their readers reasons to care. Funnily enough, I couldn't get past the first book in Song of Ice and Fire because the jarring perspective switches drove me nuts! I hope the fantasy genre still retains some shorter, standalone books that have enough world building to make you feel immersed. Tress of the Emerald Sea and Emily Wilde's Encyclopedia of Faeries were two recent examples of that that I thought were very good.
So many books, so little time!
She REALLY needed editing after book 3 or so. (For length. She needed editing for other reasons in the earlier books 🤣) I'll check those books out, thanks.
Hi Brent
I really enjoyed this article as it falls right in my wheelhouse having written about similar topics myself recently
Fantasy used to always be my go to read and mostly still is over science fiction but I’m changing that through some of the great writers here on Substack
However, from a movie and TV watching perspective it’s mostly been science fiction due to fantasy movies and TV shows being absolutely appalling, apart from LOTR, Game of Thrones and The Witcher. I sat through a lot of fantasy movies in the 80’s and not many of them were even vaguely good but at least they tried. Most modern ones don’t even do that
Science Fiction movies and books have always asked the big questions and sometimes they have grim answers. Writers like Philip K Dick predicted a lot of the technology we see today and a lot of the challenges and that was 50 years ago so there’s always been that dystopian side to it. Recent Sci-Fi shows like Silo are set in a bleak future but can also be uplifting. On the flip side, Star Trek : Strange New Worlds has dark episodes but recently had two that had animated and musical elements which were an absolute joy
Also science fiction covers so many different sub sections that it doesn’t have to follow a set path. Authors like Matt Haig write uplifting sci-fi and then you can have Stephen King writing horror sci- fi and so many others in between
Fantasy books, by their nature, are all for happy endings and, in times of strife, we all need that, but sometimes I just find that too neat and safe. Even if I do still read them religiously 😁
Anyway, apologies for the long post, could talk about this all day. Thanks again for the article 👍🏼
Hahahaha. Yeah movies and TV just don't do fantasy well, do they? Except for the obvious exceptions (and I tried with the Witcher, I really, really did, but....)
All these genres have great sub-genres, and I'm often asking myself the question, Is this fantasy? Or magic realism? Or urban fantasy? Or superhero stuff? (Which I try very very very VERY hard to avoid these days!)
Honestly, what I hate more than anything is IRONY. I hated the latest Dungeons & Dragons movie because they couldn't take anything seriously. Same for Lower Decks. (Neither sci-fi or fantasy ever does comedy well, but I could be done, I think! Just don't make fun of the frickin' genre that I love! How hard is that??)
Love Matt Haig, btw. There really are so many books that would make good movies, but somehow they never make to the screen. Instead we get more sequels, remakes, and reboots....
Thanks for the nice words!
B
I definitely agree that sci-fi fiction is taking much more of a ‘depressing’ turn right now. I think it’s climate change? A lot of sci-fi published in the last couple of years seems to be heavily based around what our planet will look like once we’ve finished everyone off. I guess it’s just a response to the time? Sci-fi fiction was a lot less depressing in the 70s/80s/90s because life was good (so I’ve heard, I’m too young) and there was more ‘possibility’ on humanity & technology. There still remains so much possibility on humanity & technology but it always seems to be packaged in a climate crisis way. I’d say that it why fantasy fiction is regaining popularity - because it’s hard to have climate change narrative from the news and a book you’ve chosen to read for enjoyment. But I also prefer sci-fi, science over magic. I just like to revisit the works of Octavia Butler, Ursula le Guin & Kurt Vonnegut. Sci-fi is hard to publish these days without it centring on climate change, but maybe it’ll change soon! Thank you for an interesting article
Thank you!
The one thing I don't think most readers appreciate is how much publishers control what gets published (and movie studios control what movies get seen). People assume I'm interested in certain things because of the books I publish (and movies I write). But I always think, "No, that's just the stuff that made it through the system -- that was the right genre, etc." Books and movies are OFTEN not picked up for purchased because something vaguely like it recently bombed, which seems crazy to me.
Anyway, the word seems to have gone out that publishers do NOT want optimistic sci-fi. Or maybe readers don't want it? All three readers you cite (who I love) managed to write hard-hitting sci-fi, but it didn't make me want to kill myself (though, yeah, some of Butler's books are a bit bleak LOL)
I suspect you're right: it's all cyclical. I'd like to think audiences get bored with the same thing over and over eventually.
Such a good point about publisher control - I hadn't even considered that! Not picking up stories because something vaguely similar recently bombed is such a stupid process. Not to mention unfair and incredibly boring to be so limiting.
Yes, publishers must have received an anti-optimistic sci-fi memo. Haha some of Butler's books are a bit bleak, particularly The Parable of The Sower lol! But despite being bleak, it still isn't as depressing as some present day sci-fi!
I agree I think it is all cyclical (we HOPE, that means it'll end soon haha). I think audiences are probably starting to get bored with the same climate change sci-fi (at least I am). Maybe there will be a fresh new wave of more optimistic sci-fi soon.
I hate that being very very very bleak and cynical -- it's all pointless! people are sooo stupid! -- is now seen as "edgy" and cool. As you say, even Parable of the Sower has hope.
I love the way your brain works.
This post reminds me of Magister Ludi (Hermann Hesse), the point of which is that no matter how different various concepts appear to us, everything everywhere is really all connected.
Interestingly, this is also how I see the best part of religion, which is—to me—akin to magic. To quote rabbi Irwin Kula: “It’s about love. And it’s about connection. And it is no more complicated than that.”
As a pantheist with agnostic leanings, I see an interesting parallel between the comparison of science fiction and fantasy, and the comparison of faith and religion. Faith is belief in something you can’t prove. Religion is a system for applying that faith. So faith and fantasy are on the side of imagination, and religion and science (while imagination is still engaged, to be sure) are more about systems and rules and process.
Hermann Hesse would see all these concepts as intrinsically connected. I think I agree with him.
Haha, thank you.
Oh yes! It's all connected. The more I travel, the more I think this too -- it's all different roads to the same (or similar?) destinations. Many languages all just trying to connect with each other.
And yeah, it's even true for religion, something I couldn't see when I was younger. Isn't it funny how if you just change the terminology a bit, dress religion up as "magic," and even most hardened empiricist (like me) will happily climb on board. In the end, we all want to go to Hogwarts. And likewise, I think almost every religious person, and almost every fantasy enthusiast, also wants understanding and wisdom. I think that's what many people mean by "God." It's not (just) heavenly bliss, it's knowledge.
Faith in the future, faith in science? It's not the same thing as faith in religion, but it's a variation on a theme.
I like science fiction but I love fantasy. I want hope and happy endings or what’s the point?
Great stuff here, Brent. I’ve never thought much about it but there are distinct differences.
Thank you! Appreciate that.