The Future of Written Science Fiction

The Weekend Standard has an interesting, if short article about the future of written science fiction. It doesn't really break any new ground, merely pointing to the longstanding problems, like the fact that kids read less than they used to and publishers are reluctant to stray away from best-selling authors any more.

What it does add though are some numbers that I didn't know before. For example apparently science fiction and fantasy book sales make up less than 8% of the $6.5 billion that is spent on books in the US each year. The sci-fi/fantasy category combined published an impressive 3,197 titles last year and managed sales of $484.8 million which is its best performance in the last 3 years. It will likely do even better next year with $510 million predicted. But that increase can mainly be attributed to Harry Potter and Star Wars.

In other words, science fiction as opposed to pure fantasy or space-fantasy has a very small market and that market isn't growing. Even worse if children aren't reading it, its shrinking. Where for example is the Harry Potter of science fiction?

Perhaps instead of blaming the industry and complaining that science fiction is getting pushed of the shelves by media tie-ins and fantasy, we should start asking what it is about science fiction that fails to appeal to a wider audience? Could the problem possibly be in the writing rather than the publishing and reading?

When I look at a lot of classic science fiction and compare it with current definitions of science fiction, it seems to me that much of it would be looked down upon if it was written now as not scientifically accurate enough. Are fans in danger of over-classifying their genre to the extent that only a handful of people will actually want to read the stories that fit the definition?

Link: The Weekend Standard - Sci-Fi For Tomorrow