What do you make of these definitions? Based on your reading in various genres, are they true?
When I nitpick I can find problems with each definition . . . well, SF, fantasy, horror, mainstream, and literary--those which I read on a regular basis.
I think this is helpful. Perhaps not because the definitions are accurate, but because this is how the genres are preceived by the publishing industry.
[This message has been edited by October (edited May 06, 2004).]
posted
I find this inaccurate, to be honest. The author tries too hard to find a short common point for every genre, and ends up making sweeping generalisations that do more harm than good. To take just one example: the part where it says :"Almost uniformly, Romance involves the 'taming' or 'civilization' of a wild man by a woman.". Totally false (I don't read a lot of Harlequin Romances, but I've read some more literary ones, and the emphasis is not always on a 'wild' man.) And if that's how the publishing industry perceives genres, then my god we're in deep trouble ,because it implies a mental blindness which is appalling.
[This message has been edited by Silver6 (edited May 06, 2004).]
posted
Depending upon how you define "wild" man, then I have to disagree with you. Almost unequivocably, romance novels do, in fact, involve the taming of a wild man by our female heroine. By wild, we mean a man who has sewn his wild oats but who has, until now, shown barely the smallest interest in settling down. The heroine becomes the one woman who can tame the wild beast, that is, make him stop sleeping around and give his love only to her for always.
There are exceptions. My favorite romance novel, "Wishes" by Jude Devereaux, is an exception. The man in that novel was married a while back and had been mourning the loss of his wife and child (both dead in childbirth) until he came upon the heroine. But in reality, it still shares some of the same elements of the "wild" man. He is experienced whereas she is a virgin (also very common, but with some exceptions), and he had no interest in women at all until he meets our hero. (Though for a different reason than the normal one given.)
posted
In my humble opinion, over-reliance on genres certainly must be keeping an abundance of great stories from appearing on the bookshelves. I have yet to find a genre definition that fits my first novel. So what do I do? Quit writing? Change the book to 'fit?' Why don't we start our own publishing company? We'll call it "Genreless!" The worlds librarians will all have hernias!
Posts: 1672 | Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted
Very thin. Misses out on a lot. For a first pass at what people who don't know each genre would think of, it probably hits the high points, but I'd guess a majority of the works under each genre heading don't fit the definitions in some particular. This seems assume that all genre or commercial fiction is of very limited complexity ("also key to Romance novels is an absence of moral ambiguity... and it is always readily apparent who and what is good and who and what is evil;" "the Horror genre is rife with imitation;" "Sci Fi... is highly beholden to the culture and expectations of its cult-like, primarily young male audience").
Then again, I don't think comprehensive and universally agreed-upon genre definitions exist. As with the old saw on obscenity, you know it when you see it. Genre definitions are there to market books to the people who will be interested in reading them, not to restrict what people can write/get published (although they probably have that effect-- cf Jean Auel and Frank Herbert as two who got bounced a lot for not fitting the marketing structures).
From under the "Literary" heading: "But, in general, a literary novel tends to be much more character driven than a commercial novel." Man, don't tell the SF magazines. Character-driven stories seem to be a frequent guideline must.... I would say [some literary novels] seem more character driven because they are so much less plot-driven, not because the characters are actually doing more protagging.
posted
I don't think you can strictly define genre. It's a subjective invention created to categorize stories for publication. I could go into a long-winded tirade about how Fantasy worlds ignore real-world facts at will and Science Fiction worlds try to take them into account, about how Fantasy is naturalistic settings and Science Fiction is steel and computers... but in the end, it all comes out being subjective.
There is no set list of qualifiers for what puts something in a genre. I believe there are elements that push it one way or another, but there's no scoring system, no "passing grade". There's just the general feeling of whether it's Science Fiction or Fantasy, Mystery or Romance. And the day somebody makes a list of these elements or a scoring system and says that this is the way things are, I'll laugh at them.
These discussions always end up being silly, because nobody can ever 'win', and everyone is at least partially right.
[This message has been edited by AeroB1033 (edited May 07, 2004).]
posted
The sentence that I found most annoying was this:
quote:Fantasy is often lumped together with Science Fiction, though the two genres are quite different
Somebody hasn't spent much time reading at least one of those two genres, I suspect both, and it has lead them to not realise that the differences are almost entirely superficial.
posted
I agree that the differences between scifi and fantasy are somewhat superficial, but I have noticed a split between scifi and fantasy readers nonetheless. Many people do enjoy both genres, but there are at least as many hard core scifi and hard core fantasy people as cross-overs. Superficial or not, readers perceive a difference that is important to them.
The difference I perceive between the two genres is mainly stylistic. I'm also afraid that in fantasy, in particular, the genre's potential has, up to now, been wasted on endless repetitions of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings or on stories that boil down to a D&D adventure game in book form. I am wary of these types of stories and long for a day when, in a world in which anything can happen, anything actually does happen.
quote:The key element of Science Fiction is believability
Isn't nice that only SCI-FI has to be believable. I fell sorry for you SCI-FI authors. I'm glad I write fantasy, according to Manus and Assoc., what I write doesn't have to be believable.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
