| Hi everybody. Here are the results to last April's survey on science
fiction and fantasy readers. Some of you statistics fanatics may notice
that the total number of answers to certain questions does not always add
up to the total number of surveys returned. In some cases, data
transmission problems blanked out an answer. Some people also provided
interesting, but unclassifiable (and often tangential), comments in place
of an answer.
Anyway, here goes:
1) Are you
a. Female? 23
b. Male? 47
abstentions 2
total respondents 72
2) What is your age?
mean female 28.74
median female 28
mean male 30.77
median male 29
mean total 29.96
3) Do you prefer to read
a. fantasy 4
b. science fiction 24
c. both equally 36
d. don't draw a distintion 6
4) Which of the following periodicals do you read?
a. Analog 19
b. Fantasy & Science Fiction 12
c. Asimov's 20
d. Omni 6
e. Science News 11
f. Science 17
g. Scientific American 41
h. Popular Mechanics 5
i. Nature 10
j. Natural History 6
k. National Geographic 18
l. Prevention 1
m. Berkeley Wellness Letter 3
n. Time 16
o. Newsweek 19
p. Archaeology 2
Write in votes:
Economist 2
Skeptical Enquirer 1
Wall Street Journal 1
Discover 1
Rolling Stone 1
Reader's Digest 1
New Scientist 2
Smithsonian 1
Chess Life 1
5) Do you consider yourself primarily to be
a. a student? 24
b. in the workforce? 47
c. a homemaker? 0
d. retired? 0
abstention 1
6) In what field is your current job (or most likely employment
prospect)?
a. Computer engineering/service 39
b. Other electronics engineering/service 4
c. Biological sciences 4
d. Business/management/accounting 0
e. Clerical 1
f. other
mechanical engineering 3
physical sciences 7
communications (writing, technical
illustration, publishing, etc.) 9
education 2
mathematics 3
uncommitted 2
7) Is your level of education
a. less than high school? 0
b. high school or equivalent? 0
c. some college, up to and incl. asscociates? 10
d. Technical, non-college certification ? 2
e. Bachelor's or equiv. courses? 24
f. Postgraduate? 37
8) Were your courses
a. Theoretical sciences?(math,chem)
b. Applied sciences? (appliance repair, engineering) 10
c. Humanities 3
more than one category 26
abstention 1
business 1
9) Does your current job (or most likely prospect) require
a. Your academic qualifications? 50
b. Fewer academic qualifications? 9
c. More academic qualifications? 6
d. Different qualifications? 6
abstention 1
10) Scenario
Would you consider a story somewhat implausible if a writer
described a fictitious but otherwise earthlike mediaeval culture which
used aluminum for everyday household implements?
a. yes 60
b. no 11
abstention 1
11) Scenario
Would you consider a story somewhat implausible if a writer had a pre-mediaeval
European character invent stirrups in order to become a better warrior?
a. yes 11
b. no 58
abstentions 3
12) Are chipmunks european imports?
a. yes 4
b. no 42
c. uncertain no 10
d. don't know 12
e. abstentions 4
For the following list of writers, please state whether you
a. would read read something by author
b. would not read something by author
or
c. don't know author
13) Rita Mae Brown (Rubyfruit Jungle, Sourthern Discomfort)
a. would read 9
b. would not read 6
c. don't know author 56
14) Stephen King (Cujo, Firestarter)
a. would read 36
b. would not read 36
c. don't know author 0
15) Lawrence Durrell (The Alexandrian Quartet)
a. would read 18
b. would not read 6
c. don't know author 48
16) Richard Adams (The Plague Dogs, Watership Down)
a. would read 56
b. would not read 16
c. don't know author 0
17) Diana Wynne-Jones (Fire & Hemlock, Howl's Moving Castle)
a. would read 17
b. would not read 3
c. don't know author 51
18) Judith Krantz (Princess Daisy, Mistral's Daughter)
a. would read 11
b. would not read 40
c. don't know author 21
19) Terry Brooks (The Sword of Shannara)
a. would read 32
b. would not read 34
c. don't know author 1
20) Tad Williams (Tailchaser's Song)
a. would read 39
b. would not read 7
c. don't know author 29
21) Kathleen Woodiwiss
a. would read 4
b. would not read 3
c. don't know author 65
Since many of you offered insightful or biting observations, I'll try to
provide some background information as I go along. Several of you pointed
out that I would get a skewed sample if I relied entirely on the computer
networks for data. I was in fact counting on this skew for this particular
survey. At the time that this survey went out, most of my acquaintances had
less than four years of college, with ages varying from around 20 years up
to 45 or so. I needed access to a large number of college educated
respondents; I was also hoping to get some people in their late teens.
Several people seemed to base suggestions on various false assumptions
about my background. Yup, I do read science fiction and fantasy; I also
read other stuff. No, I do not consider myself a humanities major. I've
been taking classes at various colleges and universities for the past ten
years (using the Fred Cassidy avoid-a-major strategy); the majority would
count towards either biology, psychology or engineering technology degrees.
My bank describes my job and title as "professional-other (electronics)."
Question #3 ties in with the first two questions and later questions on
education because an article in Publisher's Weekly a year or two ago. In
short, a couple of editors were quoted as saying that women and less
sophisticated readers tend to read more fantasy. The editors theorized that
people don't have to know as much to appreciate fantasy. Readers can make
an easy transition from fairy tales to fantasy, and they never have to deal
with scary hard science. (Only one male confessed to preferring fantasy in
this survey, but I don't think I got a statistically valid sample.)
I was somewhat startled by the professional interpretation for a couple of
reasons. One was that I as a female had avoided a lot of early science
fiction, not because of the science, but because of the purple prose and
sexism. Nowdays I avoid a lot of fantasy for the same reasons. The article
didn't really touch on these turn-offs. Another reason I was startled is
that I know a number of people who have slammed shut both well written
science fiction and fantasy novels and total dreck. Conventional measures
of sophistication such as education, amount of free time spent reading,
etc. did not predict which people would enjoy which novels.
Several people figured out that questions 4-9 were intended to measure
sophistiation in various ways. Questions 7 and 8 got a lot of comments.
First of all, a couple of people who were quite proud of their advanced
degrees were annoyed that I did not include separate spots for the various
postgraduate degrees in # 7. I did not for the simple reason that different
fields require different levels of education. Business types frequently
stop with an MBA because further education is expensive and makes them no
more employable (unless, of course, they want to teach at a university.) On
the other hand, there are precious few meaningful jobs for astronomers
without doctorates. Therefore, the decision to pursue an advanced degree
reflects economic pressure as much as it reflects talent and ability. There
were also a few comments and questions about #7 c and d specifically. For
the Europeans who were uncertain about American education, my experience
has been that an associate's degree is roughly equivalent to completion of
gymnasium or realschule. The certification programs I've encountered
(drafting, electronics, emergency medical technician, etc.) roughly
correspond to the Scandinavian uddanelse.
Question 8a caused a couple of people to complain that chemistry is in
fact an applied science rather than a theoretical. Okay, I admit a personal
prejudice here. My grandfather was a chemical engineer who worked with
polymers. My mother was a chemist. I always perceived them as doing
different work; he was much more in tune with the nitty-gritty details of
manufacturing (how many kids do you know whose home libraries had entire
books on tire beads?) This basic opinion about the difference between
practice and theory was strengthened a few years ago while I was doing
literature surveys on heavy metal contamination. I discovered that a number
of researchers had never bothered to worry that organic samples are full of
ions like calcium and sodium (which can affect test results.) As a result,
they never noticed that they were producing some pretty amazing statistics.
There was a blatant lack of real-world experience in this research.
Question 8 b also provoked some outrage. Engineers seemed to resent being
equated with toaster repairers. I don't blame them, except that the two
trades teach different things. It's like comparing chiropractors and
dermatologists. The dermatologist has a more schooling, but I wouldn't
trust my back to one. People connected to academia (students, professors,
researchers) who answered this survey tended to denigrate the trade schools
much more than did people from the private sector.
I suspect the difference stems from the fact that universities and colleges
rarely grant transfer credit or hire staff from trade schools. Therefore,
academics don't take courses at trade schools, and they don't have professional
contact with graduates of trade schools. The same sort of rivalry went on with
chiropractors and doctors a few years ago.
The scenario in question #10 came out of an argument a couple of my
literal-minded friends had ten or fifteen years ago about the source of
mithril in Tolkein (platinum vs. aluminum.) The big objection to aluminum
in mediaeval settings was that aluminum smelting requires energy of a sort
impossible for a low-tech society to produce.
The scenario in # 11 came out of Bradley's Mists of Avalon. Lancelot was
supposed to have started using stirrups, accounting for his success as a
horseman and fighter.
Question # 12 came from something by Stephen Lawhead. I'll be fair; he
might not have intended the milieu to be prehistoric Europe. Chipmunks are
indeed native to North America. As far as I know, they have not emigrated.
The reason I chose this question, silly as it is, is that I've noticed a
tendency, especially among North Americans, for writers and artists to
really screw up their biology and natural history.
There are two common types of errors I've noticed. The first is the inclusion
of species which do not live (and sometimes could not live) in a given area.
The second is a failure to understand basic genetics and inheritance. I was
rather surprised at the trouble a lot of people seemed to have with this
question. I ran the question by several of my acqintances who had not graduated
from college; they had no difficulty with the question.
Why the difference? Based on my own personal experience with college courses, I
suspect that the reason apparantly well educated people had trouble with the
question is that college biology course tend to be geared toward pre-med rather
than environmental science. My acquaintances, who tend to have hobbies like
hunting, camping, mountain biking, etc. picked up a solid understanding of
natural science through practical observation. There are other examples I
could have used.
For instance, the paperback cover of De Lint's Wolf Moon has a wonderfully
detailed picture of the tropical golden pothos plant (epipremnum aureum, unless
they've changed the name again), complete with the brown spots typical of the
plant when it is overwatered after a move to a darker location. Since Wolf Moon
takes place in a cold climate without central heating, I doubt a pothos plant
was really part of the decor. However, since most people know what chipmunks
are (unlike pothos plants), I figured chipmunks would be better in an example.
The author list was an attempt to find out about reader preferences and
crossover without pushing any buttons. Since most of you knew King, Adams,
and Brooks, I'll skip them. Rita Mae Brown gets a lot of attention from the
feminist press. She's also very funny as she manages to poke fun of the
extremes in the gay, feminist, and right wing communities. Durrell is
mainstream; for some reason he doesn't get taught in the Intro Lit courses
much. Diana Wynne-Jones gets marketed as juvenile but is worth checking out
anyway. Check out the review in Fantasy & Science Fiction, Feb 1992.
Krantz and Woodiwiss write what might be called steamy tales of passion.
Williams' publisher seems to be trying to manufacture the next Terry
Brooks; I hope the advertising budget isn't coming out of the poor guy's
royalties.
Finally, I was surprised by the comments that I didn't get. Nobody pointed
out that I should have had questions about television viewing habits. I
suspect that most people get a large portion of their information from
television. The quality of programs presumably varies. However, I have not
owned a television for over ten years. I have no idea what programs are on
today; I wouldn't know how to evaluate the answers I got.
Thanks for the help and thoughtful comments; sorry I took so long to get
the answers back to you. Also, please be nice to the guy who owns this
account. As I recall from my childhood, the television stations always used
to say that they were not responsible for the views presented in certain
programs. He's not responsible for the views presented in this program.
|