Is there significance to the apparent high proportion of AHers who are fans of Sci-Fi/Fantasy?

[Bramblethorn]

What does interest me is that genres that are so popular in the publishing business are relatively unpopular among Lit readers. SciFi&Fantasy is one of the slowest Lit categories. Romance (the most popular genre in publishing) gets more traffic, but it's still a long way down the line for stories posted and for views.

In the mainstream, stories in those genres often have an erotic component, so it seems like their popularity in the outside world should translate to Lit, but it doesn't.

One theory might be that in mainstream publishing, the common erotic component is one of the reasons for the popularity of Romance, Science Fiction, and Fantasy. On Lit, where people can get the erotica in other categories as they feel suited, readers avoid Romance, Science Fiction, and Fantasy.

Or maybe something has gone woefully wrong. Any ideas?

Possibly skewed by my reading habits but I'd have said that romance is reasonably common on Literotica, it's just that a lot of it isn't posted in Romance. It often crosses over with other categories and gets posted in those other categories instead.

 

[shelleycat1]

What an interesting thread.

@ElectricBlue gave some early history, but it goes back further to the 19thC - The Well at the World's End (by wallpaper maker, furniture maker and artist William Morris) is back to 1896. (And H. G. Wells wrote The War of the World's in the same century.)

William Morris was someone who wanted the world to be different, being dismayed by mass production. So the argument that the world changing through technology gives a desire to write an alternative that is better controlled, by the author, is one I agree with.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Don't think so.

E.R.Eddison wrote The Worm Ouroboros in 1922 and three volumes set in the imaginary world Zimiamvia, 1935 - 41.

David Lindsay wrote Voyage to Arcturus in 1920.

William Hope Hodgson wrote House on the Borderland in 1908 and The Night Land in 1912.

Mervyn Peake published the first book of the Gormenghast trilogy in 1946, eight years before Fellowship of the Ring.

C.S.Lewis published the entire Narnia series before Tolkien published the first Rings book - although The Hobbit was earlier.

There'd be many others - those are just the ones on my bookshelf - any one of which could lay claim to be fantasy of one form or another.

People get blinded to Tolkien because they've not read anything else. In the grand scheme of things, he was a late arrival.

I'd also point to Dunsany's work, e.g. The King of Elf-Land's Daughter (1924); having read it, one can see strong echoes in Tolkien.

And as for SF, there's Gulliver's Travels (1726). As the world became more and more mapped, speculative fiction shifted from "I travelled to an unknown island and met weird people" through to remote plateaus, then Mars and Venus, and then eventually to other solar systems, but the ways in which Swift uses Lilliput, Brobdingnag, Laputa and so on are very similar to a lot of 20th-century SF. And of course there's Frankenstein in 1818.

As for trilogies, The Divine Comedy was written in the early 1300s...

Trying to define the point where a genre began is not a very useful exercise, because genres don't just suddenly pop into being. They evolve gradually from other genres, and the beginning of the new genre just ends up being wherever one chooses to draw a very arbitrary line between "just in" and "just out".

Also because those discussions often turn into proxy wars for "best/most important author". I think it's possible to acknowledge that Tolkien was tremendously important to the development of fantasy fiction without needing to make him the inventor of the genre.

 

[AG31]

I agree when it comes to some of the major IPs and their fandoms: Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Twilight, The Hunger Games. But that's not limited to sci-fi and fantasy. I'd suggest it's exactly the same as fans of sports teams or musical acts, or weird collectibles, or any other cultural phenomenon. It's a desire to belong.

But I think a lot of people also read/watch speculative fiction without wanting to feel part of something bigger.

Interesting that you seem to interpret my mention of religion as relating to community (which it can, of course), but my intention was to relate it to divinity.

 

[YmaOHyd]

Possibly skewed by my reading habits but I'd have said that romance is reasonably common on Literotica, it's just that a lot of it isn't posted in Romance. It often crosses over with other categories and gets posted in those other categories instead.

I agree with this. Most anything in the EC/GS categories that's multipart has a romantic component to it.

 

[AG31]

This thread has given me a new perspective on the question. That is, that most of human literature has involved some level of un-realism. The Odyssey has lots of creatures. I forget about the Iliad. But even the Greek comedies and tragedies often involved the gods. It's hard to think of a story that was straight realism until the age of Tom Jones. So maybe things are just swinging back to where humanity is most comfortable.

Edit: Oh, Canterbury Tales

 

[Bramblethorn]

I agree with this. Most anything in the EC/GS categories that's multipart has a romantic component to it.

LS too, and from my limited experience romance is not uncommon in LW (guy is betrayed by his wife, he finds someone better).

 

[PennameWombat]

This thread has given me a new perspective on the question. That is, that most of human literature has involved some level of un-realism. The Odyssey has lots of creatures. I forget about the Iliad. But even the Greek comedies and tragedies often involved the gods. It's hard to think of a story that was straight realism until the age of Tom Jones. So maybe things are just swinging back to where humanity is most comfortable.

Edit: Oh, Canterbury Tales

Even before the Greeks, to wit, The Epic of Gilgamesh. The Iliad and the Odyssey were latecomers .

 

[StillStunned]

So, essentially fantasy was the very first genre of literature? And the question should really be, "When did people start writing mainstream stuff?"

Although I suppose there's a case to be made that the Iliad was the first Burn The Bitch story.*

*Yes, I know, not the Iliad per se, but the larger legend of the Siege of Troy. What a load of pedants you people are!

 

[PennameWombat]

<snip>

Trying to define the point where a genre began is not a very useful exercise, because genres don't just suddenly pop into being. They evolve gradually from other genres, and the beginning of the new genre just ends up being wherever one chooses to draw a very arbitrary line between "just in" and "just out".

Also because those discussions often turn into proxy wars for "best/most important author". I think it's possible to acknowledge that Tolkien was tremendously important to the development of fantasy fiction without needing to make him the inventor of the genre.

That phrased it better than I did. Tolkien is the root onto which modern fantasy was grafted. So, instead of quibbling over inventor, that has to be credited.

But I'll ruffle things a bit, and say that even with Tolkien, 'modern' fantasy didn't really kick in big until Lester and Judy del Rey nurtured and published The Sword of Shannara, by Terry Brooks. Plenty of us considered it a beat by beat pastiche of Tolkien, and as it turned out, that was mostly intentional. But as much on Lester del Rey's part as it was for Brooks.

Related, Stephen F. Donaldson and his Thomas Covenant books. Where the 'hero' is an out and out asshole of the highest order. I'll add in that Roger Zelazny (Amber) and Michael Moorcock (Elric of Melnibone) were also laying out epic pantheons of light and dark. And lots and lots of grey. (Yeah, I'm not being exhaustive. Just trying to hit some compass points.) Donaldson's was also 'portal fantasy' before any of us had even thought of that term.

After these, 'fantasy' as a modern genre took off. Maybe some folks can highlight 'major' works between LotR and these, but the point that Judy del Rey seemed focused on was that there weren't any. She wanted there to be. I'm trying to recall various discussions, but these seemed to convince writers they could, or were allowed to, write 'fantasy.'

Now, I'm thinking that many "young" writers will be thinking of Brandon Sanderson's works when they try to put together an epic universe of fractured gods.

Just like how most "magic academy" books are aping Harry Potter, although Rowling was far from the first to use that setting. But to mirror the discussion we've had, it was these books that lit the fire. Whether you thinks it's a fire worth keeping lit or not is a different discussion.

 

[StillStunned]

But I'll ruffle things a bit, and say that even with Tolkien, 'modern' fantasy didn't really kick in big until Lester and Judy del Rey nurtured and published The Sword of Shannara, by Terry Brooks. Plenty of us considered it a beat by beat pastiche of Tolkien, and as it turned out, that was mostly intentional. But as much on Lester del Rey's part as it was for Brooks.

I've argued the same point. The similarities between Shannara and LotR created the framework for establishing the rules of the "heroic fantasy" genre. The next up was Dragonlance Chronicles, which follows almost exactly the same beats. After those three, everyone knew what "fantasy" was, and this allowed the genre to develop and mature.

Oh, and just for a bit of fun: hi @EmilyMiller!

 

[XerXesXu]

So, essentially fantasy was the very first genre of literature? And the question should really be, "When did people start writing mainstream stuff?"

When it was 'novel': see the history of literature.

 

[OddLove]

I don't know if Medieval (Castles and Stuff) is Sci-Fi/Fantasy adjacent. But It served as a 'gateway drug' for me personally. I read through a 10 part medieval story in the BDSM category called "Athelnia" by Submissive57 and that lead to me delving into the Sci-Fi/Fantasy category to find my more "Castles and Stuff" type stories, which I did find lots of and enjoyed.

But despite loving Fantasy movies and TV shows, I never thought to look for erotica in that sort of category till I stumbled across Athelnia in the BDSM category. I'd guess that lots of people who would genuinely enjoy Sci-Fi/Fantasy erotica just haven't considered it yet.

 

[Britva415]

Don't think so.

E.R.Eddison wrote The Worm Ouroboros in 1922 and three volumes set in the imaginary world Zimiamvia, 1935 - 41.

David Lindsay wrote Voyage to Arcturus in 1920.

William Hope Hodgson wrote House on the Borderland in 1908 and The Night Land in 1912.

Mervyn Peake published the first book of the Gormenghast trilogy in 1946, eight years before Fellowship of the Ring.

C.S.Lewis published the entire Narnia series before Tolkien published the first Rings book - although The Hobbit was earlier.

There'd be many others - those are just the ones on my bookshelf - any one of which could lay claim to be fantasy of one form or another.

People get blinded to Tolkien because they've not read anything else. In the grand scheme of things, he was a late arrival.

All of that is "not-wrong" in that it predates Tolkien and can technically be called "modern," in a history sense, but the statement "Tolkien invented modern fantasy" has a different meaning than the one you're taking.

Post-Tolkien, the influence of all of those other works and authors you named pales vanishingly in comparison to the influence of Tolkein. Just saying "they could be fantasy" doesn't come remotely close to diminishing that.

 

[ElectricBlue]

All of that is "not-wrong" in that it predates Tolkien and can technically be called "modern," in a history sense, but the statement "Tolkien invented modern fantasy" has a different meaning than the one you're taking.

Post-Tolkien, the influence of all of those other works and authors you named pales vanishingly in comparison to the influence of Tolkein. Just saying "they could be fantasy" doesn't come remotely close to diminishing that.

Too many people think Tolkein is the be all and end all of fantasy. The fact remains that he was late in the game, as the additional works cited reinforce. It's the same with the constant kow-towing to Star Wars as the best thing in sci-fi movies.

Both are heavily derivative of other works. People should read more, see more movies, is what I'm saying. They're limiting their horizons, I reckon.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I think people aren't taking the context into account when they dive into the "history" of fantasy.

I wouldn't say that myths and legends, such as Gilgamesh, Greek Mythology, Nordic Mythology, etc., fall into fantasy. You need to take the context into account. Those myths are a representation of a religious view of the world of that time, a desire to explain the nature and all the events for which the people of that time had no answers.

Why did it rain and snow? Why were there storms and winds? Draughts, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions...? Where do we go after death? Will our actions be punished or rewarded? Who created the world?

Those myths and legends were created as a sort of answer to the big whys in prescientific societies. As such, they don't represent a desire to create something out of pure imagination. They most often aren't stories meant to entertain, but to honor some deity or spirits, or explain some strange events.
They are not fantasy in any sense of the word that we use today.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I think people aren't taking the context into account when they dive into the "history" of fantasy.

I wouldn't say that myths and legends, such as Gilgamesh, Greek Mythology, Nordic Mythology, etc., fall into fantasy. You need to take the context into account. Those myths are a representation of a religious view of the world of that time, a desire to explain the nature and all the events for which the people of that time had no answers.

Why did it rain and snow? Why were there storms and winds? Draughts, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions...? Where do we go after death? Will our actions be punished or rewarded? Who created the world?

Those myths and legends were created as a sort of answer to the big whys in prescientific societies. As such, they don't represent a desire to create something out of pure imagination. They most often aren't stories meant to entertain, but to honor some deity or spirits, or explain some strange events.
They are not fantasy in any sense of the word that we use today.

There certainly are myths that exist as an attempt to explain natural phenomena or religious concepts, but there are plenty of others like Þrymskviða that don't fall into that pattern and seem much more like entertainment.

It's also not a separation that is strictly observed in modern times; one of the most famous fantasy series of the 20th century is religious allegory illustrating the author's beliefs, and yet it's generally accepted to be "fantasy".