Why Genre?

It's something of a given that science fiction and fantasy are part of life for readers of this blog, but I'd like to hear why - why does this genre attract us? What is it about science fiction, fantasy, or whichever subset of it you read and/or write that draws you?

In my case, the answer goes back a long way. I literally don't remember not being able to read, and at school the stuff deemed "appropriate" for my grade level was so simple and boring I'd be through it in no time flat and looking for something else to read. My school library cards would fill up and get added to - and I'd borrow so many books so often I didn't write the titles on the card - I devised my own flavor of shorthand. I knew what it meant, even if no-one else did.

The other thing that happened was I read in phases. For a while I sought out every "girl and horse" book I could find. Then every mystery. Then every... well, you get the picture. I'd devour the things. I was probably the only kid in any of the schools I attended that was in the school library every day to return the pitiful allowance of books we had (two, I think) and borrow more.

I was towards the end of primary school (grade 5 or 6, I think) and running out of historicals that they'd let me borrow (Yes, I read out libraries. And the community library fared no better than the school one) when I got hooked on Doctor Who. Naturally, since I adored the TV series - Tom Baker was the Doctor then - I was delighted to find novelizations of the episodes in the school and the local library. Then when I'd devoured every Doctor Who novelization I could find, I started looking for other books like that.

Little fizzy neurons went BOOM! I'd discovered a whole new universe that could never be completely explored, never run out of places to go, and where you could do anything so long as you justified it well enough to make the story work.

So... already geeky not-quite-teenage girl with zero social interaction dives into science fiction - and fantasy a little later - with all the finesse of a beached whale. Since I'd been telling myself stories from the start, and they generally weren't quite in the normal world, more writing happened. Reams of it, handwritten on any form of paper I could get my hands on. I was always short of notepaper in school because I was too busy using it to write stories.

Then my parents worked out I was serious, and bought me a second-hand manual typewriter. It was a piece of junk, but it worked. I'm not sure how many ribbons I wore out, but it was a lot. I'd rewind them for second and third runs, until the ink got so faded I had to replace them. I started with hunt and peck, and literally did so much typing that I eventually got to the point of touch typing, even though I've got a lousy technique. No, you don't want to read any of it. It sucked.

I never lost that sense of awe and wonder when it comes to all the places you can take science fiction and fantasy. Vampires and elves? No worries. Immortality? Easy. Where else can you play with ideas like what life would look like if no-one ever died?

I'll admit I've gotten more than a little jaded when it comes to reading - so much of what's on the shelves is a rehash of the same old tropes without much, if any, originality. It's sad, especially when it doesn't take much to make something seem fresh. J. K. Rowling did it by combining two well-worn tropes in a way that's very rarely done. She took the British boarding school mystery and the classic coming of age/defeating the Dark Lord story and put them together - and used the structure of the boarding school story with the trappings of the fantasy story (Caveat here - I'd be prepared to bet that Rowling didn't do this deliberately. More likely she loved both kinds of books and the synergy just happened. Writing works like that). Then there's Pratchett, who's his own class, his own school, and quite possibly his own universe of awesome. And of course, my fellow Mad Geniuses.

If I had to take a guess, I'd say the common factor is that everyone in that list - and the other writers I still enjoy - love what they're doing and (probably most important) aren't afraid to look at their worlds and characters as if no-one had ever heard of genre, then turn around and and flip the genre tropes sideways, backwards, and any other direction that takes their fancy.

So what about you? What keeps you reading science fiction, fantasy, romance, mystery, or whatever other genres you read? What drives you to write in those genres if you write?

Alternatively, you can tell me I'm a nosy bitch and to sod off - but I'd rather you didn't do that.

Alas, poor SF, it suffers from premature mourning

Yes, yet again SF is on its virtual deathbed, diagnosis terminal - and yet, the shambling corpse keeps staggering on. And on. And... well, you get the idea. This latest case is part of a broader treatise on the nature, life, and death of genres by Daniel Abraham . He's got some good ideas, although why he feels the need to wrap it all in academicese is something I'm not going to think about.

The basic argument this time is that modern life is so SFnal that there's no room for the kind of "gosh-wow" optimism that was all over Golden Age and pre-Golden Age SF. Cloning is mainstream lit, vampires are sparkly (speaking of which, just so you can share my nightmares, go take a look at Freefall for today (http://freefall.purrsia.com/default.htm until Friday, then it should be at http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff2000/fc01950.htm), and SF is so dystopian 1984 starts to look positively chipper.

I disagree. Yes, there's a lot of modern life that looks a lot like SF, but there's still plenty of places imagination can take us, and they don't all look darker than the Pit of Despair. Oh, wait. That's just Fezzik blocking the light. Sorry.

We're right on the edge of self-replicating gadgetry - and affordable, too - that can make all sorts of useful stuff to spec. We're not that far from figuring out how to stop age from killing us, or failing that, slow it down even more (and let's face it, "old age" happens a lot later than it used to even 25 years ago). If we wanted, we probably could get a functional scientific base on the moon, although at current tech levels it wouldn't be all that comfortable - but it would be there, and be usable for research and as a jump-off point to bigger and better things.

What's missing? In my view the voices of PC have drowned out everything that doesn't fit their view - and many of the loudest voices boil down to "all things about humans that aren't straight from nature are evil". So, those of us who've put a lot more distance between us and our poop are much more evil than those of us who haven't. This, in the view of certain PC factions, is tied into skin color. Presumably distance from poop causes bleaching (ahem). Um. Sorry.

Anyway - what do you think? Where can SF go, why are people so keen to hold the funeral, and why did Westerns die and Romances get out of the back corner of the bookshop?

Do you love me or is it just my clothes?

The conventional advice given to authors (by agents and indeed by publishers in that they hate to buy out of that niche) is "If it works DON'T ever leave that niche or even series."

I've often wondered about this. Is it the niche? really? So any other plonker who wrote quest stories with a representitive cast of elves and hobbits and wizards, or a emo sparkly vampires or boy wizards at boarding-school would be a run-away success? Yes, well that kind of thinking does seem prevalent or there would be no trends... to fail. Because they all do. Sooner or later readers explain to agents that no, it's not a ring - quest with a substitute gnarlstone, or emo sparkly vampire with a new home-town that they actually wanted. It was more JRR Tolkein or Stephanie Meyer. Which of course is not what they got... The typical response of the gatekeeper fraternity in response to this is 'there must be a new trend'.

There are trends... but I suspect they are an effect rather than a cause. The cause is a good piece of writing intersecting with reasonable distribution, a good cover and something in the public zeitgeist of the time. And these are not equal in proportion, but all are required to make it work. Of course the proportions are what seperate the sheep from goats. Think about it: Think of your favorite author -- be it David Gemmel or Terry Pratchett -- would you read their work if the wrote outside their niche? (if the answer is yes, then their work's success is not a result of distribution, cover or the zeitgeist. It's no use using them as a 'trendsetter'(if you're an agent or publisher) because that's not why they're popular.) Of course some authors did/do some niches better. Heyer wrote better Regency than detective. But as often as not authors are forced into adopting psuedonyms (which because the distribution/cover/zeitgeist thing is a lottery often fail). Yet readers do follow names.

So: Should writers stick to their narrow lasts? Are trends even worth guessing at?
would you follow your favorites into another genre? I'm thinking about writing a non-fiction foodie/self-sufficiency type book. Would you read it - assuming you enjoy my fiction?

Something to make us Smile and Inspire us.

Feeling bereft of inspiration this week I went agoogling. The wonderful thing about the internet is that you can find almost anything. Here is a Great Quotes site.

The first quote came from Art, but it also applies to books. The rest were under the topic of Writing.

Something profound

Art is not a study of positive reality, it is the seeking for ideal truth. George Sand, 1804-1876, French Novelist

Something tongue in cheek.

Writing is a socially acceptable form of schizophrenia. E.L. Doctorow, 1931 , American novelist

Something from a fellow genre writer.

There is something about the literary life that repels me, all this desperate building of castles on cobwebs, the long-drawn acrimonious struggle to make something important which we all know will be gone forever in a few years, the miasma of failure which is to me almost as offensive as the cheap gaudiness of popular success. Raymond Chandler, 1888-1959, American Author

On why we write.

The need to express oneself in writing springs from a mal-adjustment to life, or from an inner conflict which the adolescent (or the grown man) cannot resolve in action. Those to whom action comes as easily as breathing rarely feel the need to break loose from the real, to rise above, and describe it... I do not mean that it is enough to be maladjusted to become a great writer, but writing is, for some, a method of resolving a conflict, provided they have the necessary talent.
Andre Maurois, 1885-1967, French Writer

Something on style.

It is excellent discipline for an author to feel that he must say all that he has to say in the fewest possible words, or his readers is sure to skip them. John Ruskin, 1819-1900, British Critic, Social Theorist

Something earthy.

The most essential gift for a good writer is a built-in, shock-proof, shit detector. This is the writer's radar and all great writers have had it. Ernest Hemingway, 1898-1961, American Writer

Something from a frustrated fellow writer.

Any writer, I suppose, feels that the world into which he was born is nothing less than a conspiracy against the cultivation of his talent. James Baldwin, 1924-1987, American Author

On how hard writing is.

Only amateurs say that they write for their own amusement. Writing is not an amusing occupation. It is a combination of ditch-digging, mountain-climbing, treadmill and childbirth. Writing may be interesting, absorbing, exhilarating, racking, relieving. But amusing? Never! Edna Ferber, 1887-1968, American Author

On how hard success is.

Writing, at its best, is a lonely life. Organizations for writers palliate the writer's loneliness, but I doubt if they improve his writing. He grows in public stature as he sheds his loneliness and often his work deteriorates. For he does his work alone and if he is a good enough writer he must face eternity, or the lack of it, each day. Ernest Hemingway, 1898-1961, American Writer

And my favourite.

If you describe things as better than they are, you are considered to be a romantic; if you describe things as worse than they are, you will be called a realist; and if you describe things exactly as they are, you will be thought of as a satirist. Quentin Crisp. 1908-, British Author

Do you have any inspirational quotes printed up and pinned to your work area?

The problem with pigeon-holes is pigeons

And of course the products of pigeons. And no, strangely enough, I don't mean eggs. Or even chicks.

As Kurt Vonnegut put it: "I have been a soreheaded occupant of a file drawer labeled 'Science Fiction' ... and I would like out, particulary since so many serious critics regularly mistake the drawer for a urinal."

Being me I really don't care deeply about serious critics inherent anti-sf bigotry. The literary establishment is desperately insecure and needs something to look down on, after all. What I do care about is when pigeon-holing, pre-conceptions and ignorance cuts me off from readers. Take, for example, SLOW TRAIN TO ARCTURUS. Now, if I had to try to put it into discrete genre pigeon-holes... I'd start by saying it doesn't fit into any one. To the best of my knowledge the technology -- while it involves space travel -- is (unlike a lot of sf) all based on working (or near working) technology. It is a grand concept, but I intentionally went for a very matter of fact no-dazzling-flashing-lights-and-exploding-impossiblium attitiude to it all. It neatly 'solves' three of the enormous problems in any pre-existing slower-than-light travel sf : the issue of habitability of the target (the colonists are colonising space, not planets. They need space debris and a sun - something a lot easier to find than a second Earth), the issue of ship size for bio-viability (the viability and carrying capacity is not related to volume. It is related to surface area! The 'folded' inside to the habitats is a first), and the speed issue (the trip time is hugely increase by accelaration and decelaration - and these are energy expensive. Therefore accelarate once, and drop modules. Cheaper, faster and better!) It therefore fulfils the hard-sf genre pigeon-hole. It is intentionally a Gulliver's Travels through isolated human societies using the established satire technique of the 'innocent observer' to show up the ridulousness of the mores of present society: That would put it into social satire (and not Science Fiction at all any more than Animal Farm is Science Fiction) or, if you were to ignore the satire aspect, social Science Fiction - which as it also is, in that it looks a social issues (such as colonialism and isolation) in a science fiction setting. There is a distinct element of humor and, um, biology (they go together so often) - humorous sf. Biological sf. Oh and then there is the just straight adventure story to carry it all along and keep it moving fast. Depending on you, the reader, you'd probably say it was one or another of categories with aspects of the others. About the only thing you wouldn't say it was, was space opera. There are no intergalactic conflicts, no powerful and fanciful unexplained technology, no untamed frontiers a la Wild West or Africa. To quote Wikipedia on Space Opera: "Perhaps the most significant trait of space opera is that settings, characters, battles, powers, and themes tend to be very large-scale." Hello, this is the story of a small cast of individuals on one space ship. The themes, I suppose, might be large. But I think you can safely say that this is not a pigeon-hole that book fits into at all. Probably the only one... SORCERESS OF KARRES and WIZARD OF KARRES are principally Space Opera. They certainly fit the Wikipdia profile: so I do write it, and to some extent it has a fairly distinct reader group (ie. there are people who only read that, or who don't).

So let's see what the critics who do this for a living (and thereby affect our living) said about which pigeon-hole SLOW TRAIN TO ARCTURUS fits into:

Publishers Weekly: 'doesn't bring anything original to space opera.'

I have to laugh. I suppose in a way this is a first :-). That is 100% accurate. It really doesn't bring anything original to space opera. Yeah, Kurt. I feel your pain! I shudder to imagine what pigeon-hole they're going to put DRAGON'S RING into. Odds on paranormal romance or funny fantasy anyone?

Anyway, so let's talk about pigeon-holes. Do you think your work belongs in them? Which ones, and why? Are they useful? Do you buy by 'type' of book? Should you try to write, or market your work to a pigeon-hole?

Books -- why we buy them and how.

Louise and Dave’s Posts about genre and sales of hardcover versus paperback books got me thinking about why people buy books and how. So I surveyed the Vision E-list. Since these people are readers and writers of Speculative Fiction, I thought they’d be a good example of dedicated readers.

Here’s a snap shot of readers:

Q: Why do you buy certain books?

Most people buy books on a recommendation or they like the author’s work. Brooke B said she’d buy a book if ‘ the back cover blurb gave me goosebumps’. Lee C is currently buying books to fill in gaps in their reading. And yes, people do browse and buy, after reading the first few pages, then skipping to the last page.

Q: Do you prefer certain genres?

While everyone did have favourite genres, these ranged from two or three related genres, to a broad spectrum, including mysteries, paranormal romances, historical and factual books. In fact, Nicky S described herself as a ‘book omnivore’.

Q: Would you follow a favourite author across genres?

Everyone said they would follow a favourite author across to other genres and Nicky S, bless her, said she has even discovered author’s alternate writing names and hunted up their books!

Q: Do you read books for kids and YA or do you stick to adult books?

Here the split was quite definite, a little less than half read only adult. But, Scott R said, it wasn’t that he didn’t like YA, only that there were so many good adult books around, he didn’t have the time to get through them. The others (slightly more than half) read YA and kids books and loved them. Sally N reads more YA than anything else.

Q: Do you pick a book up because of its cover?

Only two people said no, because they were looking for specific authors and titles. Everyone else said a good cover would prompt them to pick up the book, then it was up to the blurb and the writing to convince them to buy it. Sue B says a bad cover will turn her off looking at a book, and she always reads the first couple of pages anyway. No one would you buy a books for the cover art alone, although Sally N will buy a graphic novel. (Being an artist, I must confess I’ve bought books for the cover alone).

Q: Do you buy most of your books based on the recommendations of friends?(My question was flawed, I should have asked if people had bought some books based on friends’ recommendations).

Satima F said her friends loan books to introduce a new author, or she might borrow a recommended book from the library. Sue B says she always tries to borrow the book first , and has to love it before she will buy it (she’s running out of book shelf space!). Most people would consider a book a friend recommended.

Q: Do you ask bookstore staff for good reads?

I was surprised by the answers to this one, because when I go into our local independent book store (Pulp Fiction), I ask Iain or Ron if there are any interesting books that push the genre, particularly from independent publishers. But most people said they rarely or never ask book store staff for recommendations. Kylie Q found that staff were too busy or didn’t know anything, which is sad. Edwina H said she did read the ‘staff reviews’ on the shelves.

Q: Do reviews (good or bad) prompt you to buy books?

It is just as authors fears. All those review copies our publishers send out don’t reel in the readers. Only a few of the people surveyed would look at book after reading a good review, some actively ignore reviews. Graham S took an interest in reviews but only for scientific non-fiction. And S Wilson would buy a book if the review revealed interesting details.

Q: Would you wait for a paperback version or would you buy hardcover?

Most people were like Karen T, who said she would usually wait and wouldn’t buy hardcover unless she wanted it NOW.

Q: Do you prefer hardcover to paperback?

Four out of every five people said no. Although, Nicky S said she preferred hardcover because HC were easier to read while lying in bed. Edwina H said she preferred paperback because they were more portable.

Would you buy book two of a trilogy if you didn’t have book one?

Many people would definitely not buy book two if they didn’t have book one, or would only buy it by accident. Brooke B said she would buy book two if she was sure she could still get book one. And Edwina H would check to see if book two had a discrete story, before buying it. AJ Kay would buy book two if it was on special, then wait until they could get book one before reading them in sequence.

Q: Would you wait for all of a trilogy to come out before buying it?

Most people were willing to read the books as the trilogy came out. S Wilson would buy book one, read it and feel frustrated until book two came out. Really dedicated readers like Scott R would buy the trilogy, but wouldn’t read it until they had all three books. I have to admire his strength of will.

Q: Would you prefer an omnibus edition of a trilogy?

Most people wouldn’t buy an omnibus because the printing is too small and they get sore wrists because the book is too heavy. I must admit I’ve bought collected works in omnibus form but these tend to be classic editions.

Q: Do you visit independent books stores?

Nearly everyone visited independent book stores. Edwina H preferred them because they had better range and the staff had a good knowledge of their stock. Some people didn’t visit independent book stores due to distance. Kylie Q would have to catch two buses to get to one. Graham S lived even further. His local book store is 150 kilometres away. And Dave F had to drive for 5 hours to get to his nearest independent books store.

Q: Do you mainly buy from chain book stores?

Brooke B confessed she worked for a chain store and gets a discount, so she buys her books there. And about half the people surveyed bought most of their books from chain stores.

Q: Do you buy your books mostly online and get them delivered?

Half the readers don’t buy online. The other half do, especially if they are after something that is hard to get. Living 150 Ks from a book store, Graham S buys on line and gets his books delivered. Sally N orders books on line because she likes looking forward to something fun in her letter box. And Lee C, who prefers audio books, buys these online and downloads them.