[neologik]

I've been dwelling on this for a while, and haven't been able to come up with an answer for my questions. So I figured I'd bring it here, to the biggest n bestest SFF forum on the net, in the hopes that y'all can provide me some insight.

Whenever I talk to people that read speculative fiction (fantasy, sf, horror), I like to ask *why* they read it. Often, the answer moves along the lines of "I like that it takes me to different worlds, that it shows me possibilities that I wouldn't see on my own, that it transports me away from the mundane and into the fantastic..." or some other variation of that answer.

Yet at the same time, those same readers tend to focus almost exclusively upon one particular *kind* of speculative fiction. People like urban mythology a la Charles DeLint, or they like Big Fat Fantasy a la Jordan/Martin/Hobb, etc. Or they like military SF, or... yeah, you get the picture.

I find this odd, since I've noticed that so many subgenres suffer from overused tropes, similiar storylines, similiar worldbuildings (such as Tolkien-esque knock-offs). In short, I notice a distinct LACK OF IMAGINATION in the readings of people that profess to read FOR IMAGINATION.

What do you think? Why do readers of the fantastic focus so much of their attention upon comforting, repetitive reads? Why is their reading so cloistered, shutting out different styles and different voices in fantastic fiction? Or, to put the bluntest point to it: what keeps readers of Terry Goodkind from reading Jeffrey Ford?

Help me out, folks. I need your perceptions.

--gabe chouinard
http://s1ngularity.net

[drw]

The majority of the people you've asked probably failed to do one important thing in their life: self examination.

If they looked at themselves they would probably realize why they truly read fantasy (and I don't pretend to have knowledge enough of the human mind to even categorize individuals), and not spout off some cliche answer to your question.

"I read fantasy because it takes me to a different world" is the safe answer, given because it is socially acceptable. I'd be willing to bet that a profile would reveal most of the answerers aren't even sure why they really read fantasy over another genre.

After the safe answer, the question is raised: why a certain type, and not others? There are tones present in each type of fantasy (and I imagine, other genres) that are not available cross-type. For example, you are not as likely to find self-loathing present as deeply in a military fantasy protagonist as you are in the character Fitchivalry.

Myself, I enjoy the epic style Big Fat Fantasy, such as Jordan, Hobb, Martin etc., although I do frequently read outside that spectrum. My reasoning is not so simple as "these stories take me to a different world!". Each of the stories I truly enjoy has one or more characters that exhibit traits I am lacking in. Usually it is a trait I wish I could augment within myself. While I work on improving this trait, I can get the temporary satisfation of sharing that trait with the character as he/she progresses through the story. Or the more obvious reason for enjoying the stories I do is an intimate connection, an identifying quality, I share with a character. Spec. fiction seems to have deeper characterization than other genres, from what my reading has shown.

I can find what I'm searching for in a book cross-genre, but not always sub-genre. Of all the books I've read, the two characters I identify with the most strongly are Andrew, from "Ender's Game" and Fitz from Hobb's assassin trilogy. I don't think either of these characters, or their actions, would sit well with me in an urban mythology or CashWorld(tm) such as Dragonlance/FR.

That, of course, was the long answer. For the short ansewr, in my opinion, you need to examine the truth behind their first answer before you can explore the second answer: why do they REALLY read spec. fiction? "Because it's fun" is never a truthful answer for anybody over 5 years old.

DRW

Of course, I am obviously not a phsycologist, nor have I taken sufficient psych. courses to provide evidence to support my statements.. this is merely my opinion, obtained from observing people for 26 years.

[Julian]

This is one of those questions I find myself reading - and then thinking, why didn't I ask it myself? Or rather, one of those questions which I did ask myself a number of times, but left hanging...

Comfort or challenge, indeed! (I'm rephrasing, a bit, but hope you don't mind).

I simply don't know. Oh, it's obviously a combination of things... It is for me, at least. But that's hardly a good response, is it?

Tell you what. I'll give it a bit of thoiugh and get back to you. Okay?

[Hobbit]

Gabe, you old charmer.....

I suspect you know the answer to this one, already. ;)

It's a good question though.

IMO, putting it simply, some readers like predictability and, as you say, find enjoyment and comfort from situations that are recognisable or identifiable though divorced from 'reality'. Characters form easily understood stereotypes. Reading for entertainment, but without the need for too much thinking. You know that it'll all end comfortably and your world is more secure as a result.

This is the same in this genre as in any reading, IMO - whether its Tom Clancy, Ian Fleming or Patricia Cornwell.

There are also those readers who like a challenge who like things to be different and feel that such work allows the reader to examine or hold a mirror to our ideas of society and culture, but by viewing it in a different way.

I'm sure you know examples of this - Gaiman's American Gods (which I personally wasn't too impressed with, but I know has its fans!) is a good example of taking these cliches and then taking a different view with them to show something different yet relevant.

It would be crass to assume that the two are mutually exclusive, though. As an example, I happily mix up styles and genres, depending on mood and circumstances as well as money and what's in the pile.

Thus I can happily read a Heinleinesque space opera one day followed by a Christopher Priest the next then a big fat fantasy or a Mary Gentle alternate history after that. I'm sure there are lots of others out there who do the same. Because it's fun.

What is a concern, and a regular concern of yours, I feel, is that (sadly IMO, for all sorts of reasons, but usually market forces!) the shelves are dominated by the cliches, leaving little room for the genuinely groundbreaking stuff. As we know, Books are written and sold because they will sell, with readers getting 'what they want'.

Non genre readers look in distain at books that meet all the traditions - the recent hooha around Lord of the Rings is a pretty obvious example! - and ignore the spec fic that might be more to their tastes.

And because the shelves are filled with the blockbusters, there is little room for the unusual.

This leads to the diminishing returns response - little chance to see touch and try leads to limited sales which leads to smaller print runs (of which Chris Priest's The Separation is the most recent sad example - rave reviews from critics (not always a selling point admittedly!), winner of awards, couldn't get hold of a copy due to limited printing and marketing from the publisher. When finally remarketed by another publisher, it has been marketed with as little reference to SF as possible - the Arthur C Clarke Award is mentioned in small print on the back cover).

It can be very difficult to get people to break away from what they traditionally read, as you say - but isn't that the same in any reading? "I know what I like". :)

There is of course also the point that it is not up to us to dictate what people read, though if we like particular books we are usually happy to point others in the same direction - (Ash, A Secret History, anyone? :D )

However, it is true that our tastes are partly delimited by what is available to buy. The Catch 22 is, if it's not out there for people to see/read, how can they expand their likes and dislikes?

I wish I knew a solution to the problem, but I guess if I did then I could be making money out of it....

Hobbit

[neologik]

This is an interesting thing to say:

Spec. fiction seems to have deeper characterization than other genres, from what my reading has shown.

I find that odd, when considering that the 'character study' style of fiction has dominated mainstream fiction for decades. Anyone read the RABBIT books by John Updike, for instance? Or any of James Ellroy's novels, which may be crime fiction, but are also notable for their characterizations?

Personally, I find that much speculative fiction is sadly *lacking* in character development. Sure, part of that is due to the fact that the aims of speculative fiction are different from that of mainstream fiction; characters tend to exist in service to the ideas within the story. Still, there has to be a happy medium, right? Right?

[neologik]

Heya Hobbit, I miss you, you self-effacing old fart!

Actually, this time around I'm not aiming for the 'expand your reading horizons' answer. I'm really, really curious about what draws people to a particular mode of writing! Sure, the end result will be more insight into the reasons for a certain... ummm... dearth of quality on the shelves. But as a reader that not only reads all types of genre fiction, but also general fiction, nonfiction, and a wide variety of magazines and articles... I just don't understand the sequestering of oneself within a particular subgenre. And it's a phenomenon that I think is more widespread than you admit -- especially since you're one of those few cross-genre readers!

[Hobbit]

LOL...thanks Gabe, and yes you're right.

I'm going to throw one more in and then let others add what they think.

Perhaps the sequestering of oneself within a particular subgenre (which I do realise happens, and have been guilty of myself :) ) is partly because you can.

There was a time (in the UK at least) not too long ago! :) where you could pretty much read all new SF (agh, genres!) in a month - one or two a month if you were lucky. Voracious readers then would read anything/everything and still have time for more. You know that Mike Moorcock (and lots of others no doubt) would read westerns, Sherlock Holmes detective novels, gothic horrors, Tarzan, myths and legends etc etc - anything in order to satisfy this need (how psychological is that? :)) but has led to a more diverse style, I would say.

Now it is different. 50+ books each month (perhaps that's a slight exaggeration, but when you allow global markets not too unrealistic I would say) means that you can't read all and then make your choices of what you like and don't like - there's enough there to mean that you never have to leave Fantasyland should you not wish too.

Ultimately, that means that with limited time and a large resource base, people play safe? They don't want to risk their cash on something that might be difficult or a challenge or they might not like? I think this is also reflected in the declining magazine market, which used to be the trial area for much of the new stuff, but now struggles to keep its dwindling memberships.

Looking at my pile of books I've still not got anywhere near but hope to soon, I can see how easy it would be to miss something I'd really enjoy that was different. I still haven't read Tad Williams' War of the Flowers or Mary Gentle's Sundial in a Grave or Richard Morgan's newie for example, and that's just the recent stuff from established authors. They are authors I like and of whose work I'd like to read more of. If you add names in that are new and less well known.... there just isn't the time?

It is a big worry for the speculative field, I think, though. There's a lot of readers out there who read spec fic without being aware of its roots, and that can only lead to more cliches, IMO.

Right - I'll let others have their say now! :D

Hobbit

[fluffy bunny]

One of the often talked about revered 'old ones' returns.

So why do people stick to one genre/subgenre? Personally I genre hop all over the place so I can't give you an exact answer to what other people might do.

I have heard an arguement along similar veins with regards to music though. Some study or other (I can't remember the exact one) showed that what made a 'good track' to a listener was a combination of 1. a known element and 2. something new and innovative. Something totally new wasn't accepted, and neither was something that was a clone of similar work.


Is it the same with books? Part of the enjoyment we get is from familiar elements we recognise. The more you get stuck into reading almost exclusively books within one particular genre, the more acquaintanced you get with the particular nuances of the genre. This results in you appreciating the subtle differences between authors of the genre more.

However 'specialising' in the reading of one genre means you spend less time reading other genres, and aren't familiar with the idiosyncracies (sp?) that distinguish the better books of other genres from the rubbish (granted some books trancend genres, but only a select few fall into this category). If you don't know what you're looking for in a book, it can all seem like gobbeldygook to you whether the book's good or not. Hence you enjoy it less. This shunts you back to the genre you're familiar with, and makes it less likely that you'll look other genres. The exclusive genre reader is born.

[neologik]

The more you get stuck into reading almost exclusively books within one particular genre, the more acquaintanced you get with the particular nuances of the genre. This results in you appreciating the subtle differences between authors of the genre more.

Really? In my case, I found that I grew more bored with the continued riffing of stock elements, and could care less about the 'subtle differences' between authors. For instance, I'd be hard-pressed to explain the difference between Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind, or Robert Newcomb. They all read alike to me.

Still, an interesting viewpoint.

[Dawnstorm]

Originally posted by neologik
Whenever I talk to people that read speculative fiction (fantasy, sf, horror), I like to ask *why* they read it. Often, the answer moves along the lines of "I like that it takes me to different worlds, that it shows me possibilities that I wouldn't see on my own, that it transports me away from the mundane and into the fantastic..." or some other variation of that answer.


Thought experiment:

I ask imaginary people why they go to Disney World.

Then I copy/paste the answers you quote (with minor grammatical changes):

1. Me: Why do you go to Disney World?
SubjectA: I like that it takes me to different worlds.

2. Me: Why do you go to Disney World?
SubB: I like that it shows me possibilities I wouldn't see on my own.

3. Me: Why do you go to Disney World?
SubC: I like, that it transports me away from the mundane and into the fantastic.

Only answer (2) sounds odd to me, in that context. Now, of course, that doesn't mean that those people have a Disney-World-mentality. But it shows (I think) that the answers are pretty vague.

Now, if you'd put the question to me (why do I read specualtive fiction?), I must admit I wouldn't really have a good answer. And depending on the situation, and on my mood, you'd either get an "I don't know" or one of those clichéd answers (since I'm an intellectual smart ass, I'd probably talk about how spec fic is a kind of distorting mirror on reality and how I can see this old world with new eyes; yeah, right; that's why I read spec fic).

The truth is, I've read science fiction novels, ever since I learned to read. Star Trek/Star Wars novels; Arthur C. Clarke (2010; Songs from a Distant Earth)... One of the earliest books I can remember is Robert Asprin Beetle Wars.

I was 10 when I bought Moorcock's The Weird of the White Wolf. I bought it because I thought it had a white wolf in it. When I was about 12 I got J.G. Ballard's The Four Dimensional Nightmare and Hello America for my Birthday. (Hello America had Mickey Mouse posing as Lady Liberty on the cover.) I read all of those books, but really appreciated them later, when I came back to Moorcock via the Rock Band Hawkwind. That came at a time when Stephen King was beginning to bore me (Misery was the last I read; must have been mid to late eighties).

The question, then, is this: why did I stick with spec fic, but not with, say, suspense (I read all of Fleming's Bond books, too). And, somehow, I feel the answer doesn't nearly exhaust itself with spec fic being a distorting mirror of reality. For example, I wonder, if I'd still be reading spec fic, if I hadn't accidently bought/got Moorcock and Ballard at such a young age.

I know plenty of people who were blown away by Twelve Monkeys and The Matrix. And I envy them; they didn't know the clichés and it was something new. But even if they started reading spec fic, now (they're 25 - 45 years old), I doubt they'd see the imaginative content the way I see it. I mean, I've been reading spec fic while I was still making sense of the world and forming a personality (if I have ever formed one, that is ;) ). It's the difference between "comparing imaginative content to what you know " and "balancing two concepts against each other, both of which are based on a reality you'll never be able to circumscribe with concepts".

Oops, I sense a wave of intellectual blabla coming up, so I better stop, now.

Anyway, I suggest replacing the "why" question with easier ones:

Since when do you read spec fic?
What else do you read?
In what moods do you read spec fic?
...