This is the point where I disagree strongly. I mean I agree that the market is full of clones of anything that's been popular but again that's true for any genre. The mainstream is as prone to fads (especially the ones concerning "style" ) as anything else. Publishing industry thrives on this. That's why so many covers bear the "another [well known author name]". The trick is to find books that won't feel like you wasted your time (and money) afterwards. But that's something that different for each and everyone of us and it changes with time. There was a time when I stopped reading fantasy altogether. Lately I feel like mainstream literature is wasting my time - telling same stories but just in less and less comprehensible style.



And you keep insisting in this thread that SF equals space ships, robots and mad scientists. As I said before Thailand, XIV century or Moon are just settings. They say nothing about how true the stories are, how much light they shed on human nature. Even if I went to Thailand and lived there I won't find that person or that life. His tale was told through the mind of a writer and is ultimately unreal. I've read to many times about how writers change truth to fit the story they were telling to believe in 'true stories'. Even if the setting can be visited the world in books in not the one we live in. It's even more true about historical novels where we get a skewed vision of someone centuries away.


This is of course true but it doesn't mean that the quality SF cannot be written in free market. It's just harder to find because there is much more books generally. But I find nothing wrong in diversity.


And on this I agree with you wholeheartedly. The world will certainly be a better place with less Goodkind.