I think a major part of the problem is that most fantasy fiction is based on European myths and legends. And when Tolkien revitalized that whole genre, he did it by bringing a compilation of European (mostly English) myths, legends and folktales back to life -- for a mostly white Eurocentric audience who are now the primary audience for all of the fantasy Tolkien inspired. And that led to a self-reinforcing exclusionist tendency: white folktales appeal to a mostly white audience, and neither the folktales nor the audience have that much room for nonwhite characters. (And besides, it doesn't always make perfect sense to bring nonwhite characters into white folktale worlds when: a) nonwhite characters didn't enter into the original folktales, and b) the nonwhites have very different folktale worlds of their own.)
And brings me to my pet peeve about a fundamental contradiction I see in the entire fantasy genre: by freeing themselves from the constraints of fact, history and rationality, fantasy authors seem to think they've expanded their range of possible stories. But in reality, when you cut yourself off from the challenges of realism, you end up locked into a very narrow range of story ideas that have already been accepted into most people's consciousness, because they resonate with the readers' preconceptions, beliefs, and expectations. The fantasy stories that "work" are the ones that people have already heard, in one form or another, and that allude to some lesson or message they'e already found relevant to them. Try going outside that range, and you'll only get a story that makes people scratch their heads, and doesn't leave any kind of lasting impression.
I'm probably fatally biased here, but I find SF far more challenging, and far more diverse in its range of stories, precisely because it has rules that both challenge and offer new avenues of thought. From a storytelling point of view, it's easier to introduce warp-drive in to a SF story than it is to introduce new spells into a fantsty story: the SF reader expects new ideas and new twists, while the fantasy reader expects the established rules of magic, vampires, knights or whatever to be respected. (Note how vampire stories are judged: the ones that adhere to the old rules generally do better in the long term than those that go for whiz-bang modernizations. That (I think) is the main reason why "True Blood" and "Twilight" will have more lasting popularity than "Blade." Vampire stories have certain particular themes and messages, and new innovations tend to obscure and diminish them.)
no subject
And brings me to my pet peeve about a fundamental contradiction I see in the entire fantasy genre: by freeing themselves from the constraints of fact, history and rationality, fantasy authors seem to think they've expanded their range of possible stories. But in reality, when you cut yourself off from the challenges of realism, you end up locked into a very narrow range of story ideas that have already been accepted into most people's consciousness, because they resonate with the readers' preconceptions, beliefs, and expectations. The fantasy stories that "work" are the ones that people have already heard, in one form or another, and that allude to some lesson or message they'e already found relevant to them. Try going outside that range, and you'll only get a story that makes people scratch their heads, and doesn't leave any kind of lasting impression.
I'm probably fatally biased here, but I find SF far more challenging, and far more diverse in its range of stories, precisely because it has rules that both challenge and offer new avenues of thought. From a storytelling point of view, it's easier to introduce warp-drive in to a SF story than it is to introduce new spells into a fantsty story: the SF reader expects new ideas and new twists, while the fantasy reader expects the established rules of magic, vampires, knights or whatever to be respected. (Note how vampire stories are judged: the ones that adhere to the old rules generally do better in the long term than those that go for whiz-bang modernizations. That (I think) is the main reason why "True Blood" and "Twilight" will have more lasting popularity than "Blade." Vampire stories have certain particular themes and messages, and new innovations tend to obscure and diminish them.)