Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Books => Topic started by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on January 21, 2005, 05:07:07 PM
-
reference: http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=959
I don't htink I really agree, EUOL. I mean, yeah, I think there is a tendency of SF&F writers to think of themselves as more literary than other genres, but I think there's plenty of fluff and plenty of people out there happy to write fluff.
I mean, the genre's origins are in pulpy material (and yes, I know the term comes from the type of paper, but it also describes much of the content as well). Plus how many series are there of lisenced material? Star Wars, Star Trek, Robotech, D&D, the list goes on. No one thinks of these as literary, whatever they think of the worth of reading them.
-
Yes, SE but even the SW and ST series strive to tell a more meaningful story than your average Romance (haven't read many of these so I'm being a bit presumptuous)
I'm not arguing that the SW and ST franchises think of themselves as "literary" but I do think that they think of themselves as more literary than the romance/thriller genres.
Which, I think, is just what the Evil Undead Old Lady is saying. They're somewhere in the middle.
I will go so far as to say that even SE's "pulp" fiction is fairly literary compared to the other genres mentioned. When I was growing up, where other kids had sports stars and actors as their extra-familial role models I had Conan and Tarzan and Tall and Reteif and Adam Reith and... so on. How does this make pulp literary? In its lasting effects. "LITERATURE" is meant to make a statement, hang around for awhile and effect its readers in a deep way. The pulp accomplished that for me (you can probably tell huh?) and I suspect would for anyone else who read it seriously.
Romances and thrillers didn't do that for me and don't for many others either, at least I hope not anyway. Where I was presented with ideals of courage and honesty and intelligence and so on in my pulp in romance you get sappy sentimentalism and fuzzy thinking and thrillers generally get their shock value from showing the reader how even the hero is really just a shlock too, once you get to know him.
(for all you readers of romance and thrillers out there, I know I'm being unfairly broad in my descriptions, the point remains the same)
-
I don't think we need to worry about the numbers. The new Harry Potter is coming out in July, industry guys will compare this years' numbers with last years' and voila! A huge upswing in interest in SF/F.
I just think last year was a slow year for new, big-name releases. Terry Goodkind also has a new one out, and so does Tad Williams. This will be a good year for the industry.
-
I think any genre has both kinds of authors -- those striving for meaning, and those who just want to tell a good story.
Here's the thing about romance novels: (Some of my best LDS author friends talk my ear off about the romance market, since they write romance novels): there are the dime a dozen harlequin romances that are the same characters with a different exotic setting each time, but there is also a ton of romance that attempts meaning -- I would venture to say that there is MORE so-called "meaningful" romance out there than "sinewy-arms" romance. The genre, however, gets a bad rap because of the harlequins. Some of the very most popular romance authors, like Nora Roberts, for instance, believe very strongly that they're writing meaningful stuff. (That doesn't mean it's any good, or that I want to read it, or whatever.)
But I think that (1) by stereotyping romance, you're acting exactly like the people who look arrogantly down on SF&F. (This comment is not necessarily directed at EUOL, since the euology didn't really stereotype romance, but it was directed at the many many people on this forum who have stereotyped it before.) And (2) there's really no way to say that one genre is more "meaningful" than another, because genres are so broad. There's a mountain of crap, hack SF&F out there. But there's also a lot of crap, hack romance and mystery and suspense and everything. I don't think you can define SF&F as any more meaningful, or any less meaningful, than any other genre.
In other words: I don't think you should say anything. :)
-
I disagree, Skar. I think most of those stories don't hang on any deeper a premise, development, resolution, or theme than the mainstay of romance novels.
-
I think it has something to do with world creation. If you spend a bunch of time just delevoping a setting to put your story and characters in, then you're bound to put more of yourself into it.
-
Note: The word "literature" should be pronounced with a marked uppercrust english accent in the following post.
SF&F, because of the liberty granted an author by the suspension of disbelief, tends, as a genre, to deal with much different issues than do the romance/thrillers. Issues that are new different and even strange to the reader.
In a romance/thriller if you present the reader with a situation, event or even mindset that is far from their own experience they are jarred and uncomfortable. It goes against the rules.
If you DON'T present those same "outside the common experience" elements in an SF&F piece the reader feels cheated.
In my 4 years as an english major, exploring the "other" was a common theme that ran through nearly all the literature courses I took. If it wasn't inherent to the work itself the teachers had us dissect and analyze it with that in mind anyway.
By definition, internalizing an alien experience, even if it sprang wholly from the mind of a single author and has to do with actual aliens, teaches the reader to deal better with life and the "other."
Works that are classified as Literature, from "Beowulf" to "Dante's Inferno" to "The Bean Trees" all take the reader to some place that could reasonably be expected to be totally outside their experience, whether it's a novel location or novel issues or novel whatever. The same is true of SF&F, by definition.
Romance/thrillers on the other hand cash in by taking their readers to places they've fantasized about for their whole lives. Whether it's true love or tracking down evildoers we've all fantasized about it. Romance/thriller authors flesh out our own fantasy landscapes instead of introducing us to new ones.
The main difference between SF&F and Literature in this respect is that Literature shows us strange landscapes that, while new and strange to most of us, do in fact exist. SF&F shows us new and strange landscapes that don't happen to actually exist. (side note: I have a far clearer picture in my mind of say...Minas Tirith...than I do of Moscow)
-
fantasy and science fiction combined only make up 6% of the book market. That’s compared to a whopping 35%ish percent for romance novels
I think all that proves is that people would rather read with their hormones than their brains.
As someone who's read more romance than I care to admit, I feel entitled to say so. I haven't read many romances that required the use of my brain, and if they did, I'd probably put them down, because that's not what I pick them up for.
But that's not to say that they don't have messages, or say anything important, just that reading a sci-fi or fantasy novel requires alot more effort and imagination, and rightly so, because that's what readers in that genre expect.
-
I would agree with that only to the extent that the science fiction or fantasy is good, though. Do I really need to extend myself much for an episode of Star Trek? This particular book I've been reading currently (the one with the interesting paratexual matter) really is so derivative in many ways that I'm almost annoyed by it--because I at least have the expectation to be stretched with fantasy. But it's just another quest fantasy in which some dark force is going to take over the world if someone fated to do so doesn't stop it first. Which is fine if well-told, but hardly a new place the author is going to.
-
My point, though, is that there is just as much unimaginative SF&F as there is uncreative romance -- or anything else. Look at Tolkein clones, or the pulp Magic novels, or whatever else. A book has orcs and ogres, and while they may not exist in the real world, it still doesn't mean they're new and different. Just the fact that a world is set in a land of fairies and castles doesn't mean the fairies and castles are going to be new and inventive.
There are so many threads on this forum that say "This fantasy book was hackneyed and awful" or "that book was a rip-off of tolkein", and yet you still seem hellbent on defending your pet genre as a whole without remembering it's full of a lot of crap.
-
don't forget that the famous "90% of it is [crap], but what of it? 90% of everything is [crap]" means not just that it's as good as everything else, but it's also an acknowledgement that the vast majority of it really isn't very good at all. I agree with Stacy and HoM. just because it's on our world, doesn't mean it take a stretch to take it in. You've seen one vastly superior, vaguely androgynous, tree-hugging elf and you have, essentially, seen everything that's new about that type of elf.
-
I think any genre has both kinds of authors -- those striving for meaning, and those who just want to tell a good story.
Here's the thing about romance novels: (Some of my best LDS author friends talk my ear off about the romance market, since they write romance novels): there are the dime a dozen harlequin romances that are the same characters with a different exotic setting each time, but there is also a ton of romance that attempts meaning -- I would venture to say that there is MORE so-called "meaningful" romance out there than "sinewy-arms" romance.
I realize I'm asking a guy this, but can you give me an example of what *IS* a 'meaningful' romance? It seems like everything I read is pretty hacked. In fact the BEST "romance" I've read in a year was a piece of fantasy fluff I picked up at Smiths when I was dying for a paperback fix. I expected it to be pure pulp, but it was pretty good and only say 60% pulp.
-
There are so many threads on this forum that say "This fantasy book was hackneyed and awful" or "that book was a rip-off of tolkein", and yet you still seem hellbent on defending your pet genre as a whole without remembering it's full of a lot of crap.
I'm going to assume that the "you" HoM is being condescending to is some sort of communal "you" referring to everyone on the TWG but him.
No one said that SF&F had any less crap in it than any other genre, judged by the rules surrounding that genre. What I said (I would quote my whole post here if it weren't only 5 posts above this one) was that Romance/Thrillers aim at fleshing out real life in more satisfying ways than real people actually experience (ergo wish-fulfillment, non-magical fantasy)) It actively seeks to keep the story and characters solidly in line with what people see every day. Those are the rules. SF&F deliberately steps outside. Those are the rules.
SF&F fans complaining about hack SF&F only signifies that 90% of everything is crap.(duh) It does not negate the fact that SF&F fans have accustomed themselves to a far wider variety of worldviews than Romance/Thriller fans.
Where romance/thrillers aim at glossy versions of reality, SF&F aims at a whole new reality.
-
I would agree with that only to the extent that the science fiction or fantasy is good, though. Do I really need to extend myself much for an episode of Star Trek?
Remember we're mostly speaking from inside here. If you were an exclusive reader of romance/thrillers who was suddenly presented with a Star Trek novel, yeah, you would have to extend yourself a great deal.
-
I find myself reading less and less new sci-fi and fantasy because I find everything so completely derivative of everything that's come before. If I were to hazard a guess at why people are reading less F&SF, it's because I don't see anything new or different anymore. Most of the F&SF I see is licensed products, mindlessly churned out to fill the coffers of some publisher who want to slap a well-known brand on a book cover rather than invest on the contents inside. Or it's the publisher's desire to clearly break things down into genres, so if a new fantasy book comes along, then it has to neatly fit into the fantasy genre and not push any boundaries by doing anything new.
I used to be an English Major, I took literature courses at the U of U for about 2 years. Ultimately, I couldn't stand the discussions and debates between the students about the stuff we read. It drove me out of my mind all the over-analyzation that would go on. I ended up switching majors (I remember clearly thinking to myself one day, "When I graduate, these are going to be my peers. Do I want to work with these people day in and day out for the rest of my life? No way!) Ultimately, for me, it boiled down to: did I enjoy reading the book? For whatever reason, whether it was fluff or socially engaging or well-researched or whatever.
There's certainly good stuff still coming out, but I find I have to search for it more. I love the George R. R. Martin Game of Throne books, I've been a big fan of his since Middle School (and for you youngsters, that's a LONG time ago). The Terry Goodkind books are entertaining, if you can stomach his incessant preaching on objectivism. I try to read anything of David Brin when he's not writing in an established setting (such as Dune). But I find myself turning back to re-read stuff I liked more and more.
I'm holding out high hopes for the Elantris book though...
-
I'm actually RETURNING to F&SF. I was largely out of the loop for a long time... really ever since I got out of High School. Back then, though, the only stuff I was reading that I'd still call any good was Anne McCaffery. I read a lot of Piers Anthony.
I read a lot of out of genre stuff through college, but unlike n8, I find the charge of "over analyzing" to generally be a false charge. I studied Comp Lit though, and have always had a rather condescending attitude toward ENglish depts in general. The problem with academic study setting your precedent is that most institutions are either too accepting of what they allow in (come on guys, not EVERYTHING is good, there's a lot of crap out there) or they're too conservative, and refuse to acknowledge new genres. Often there's an odd mix of the two, like how William S. Burroughs is literate and worth reading but something by Mark Waid or Peter David is not. Foolishness.
During college most of the speculative fiction I read was superheroes or the TLE slush pile. Now I'm finally getting back into reading a lot of prose f&sf, and I find it wonderful, but I bring up the superheroes for this reason:
comics experienced a HUGE boom in the late 80's - early 90's. They were responding to a huge increase in collecting by making stuff worth collecting. Or at least, which they thought would entice speculative investors. Alternate covers, special editions, massive crossovers. In effect, everything was a gimmick. Ever since the industry has flagged. Marvel even declared bankruptcy at one point (largely due to major business misconceptions regarding trying to avoid Diamond distributors and doing their own distributing, however, better sales would have kept them out of bankruptcy at least). But they've learned. Since then you see much fewer gimmick attempts. The writers are getting better and you're seeing a lot more alternative press: even the "big two" which held so long after the folding of Whitman and EC comics has turned into the big four: with Marvel and DC being joined by Image and Dark Horse, and true small press comics getting a lot more attention: Dreamwave and Top Cow have some major titles and big lisences -- and they do a good job, even attracting some of the best writers and artists in the industry.
The drop in sales, ultimately, increased the quality of the output in the industry as a whole.
So why the tangent? I don't see the drop in F&SF as a bad thing, necessarily. It's obviously still big enough to keep going. Eventually, publishing houses will realize that there's still a market for this stuff... if they do it right. The increasing number of blockbuster F&SF films shows there's an interest in the genre, it just needs to be done well.
In comics, more than anywhere else, readers tend to follow characters. Rather than follow a writer or artist when he switches titles, most readers just drop the title when the quality drops. This means that the publishers have to respond by getting good writers and artist on even their most popular characters (like X-Men, Spidey, Batman or Superman) in order to keep them popular. prose publishers will do the same. They'll realize there's still a lot of people out there who want to buy Tolkien, Herbert, or Heinline or Jordan. They just don't want to see the fluff as much. Sure, there are die hard fans still going for Star Wars and Star Trek and Forgotten Realms and other lisences, so those won't ever drop, but the bottom line will make them realize that there's money to be made in finding really good writers and publishing their stuff.
It may take longer than comics. After, companies like Image and Marvel are one trick ponies. If superheroes stop selling so well, they don't have anything to fall back on, while book publishers will turn to spy thrillers and romances and mysteries and whatever else, but where there's money to be made, and there is, they'll see what they need to do.
So maybe there is something to what EUOL is saying. F&SF readers want something more than a nifty premise or the same old plot, only in Florence instead of Rome this time. But publishers will realize that eventually, and we'll get more. After all, it happened before. It used to be all Tolkien clones, as EUOL said. Now fantasy has branched out to many different worlds and ideas. so we plateau for a bit. In a decade or two, we'll be racing back up the slope.
Man, I talk a lot. I could have made that Saint's Letters #1 and started my own Monday column instead of just posting on the thread.
-
Capitolism rocks! I like SE's reasoning.
-
I feel validated when people like my reasoning.
/me shows off his warm fuzzy.
-
It does not negate the fact that SF&F fans have accustomed themselves to a far wider variety of worldviews than Romance/Thriller fans.
All that I was meaning (and what I think I said pretty clearly) is that you're only presented with a new reality if you're presented with something creative and well done. Another book about elves does not present anything new -- it's a world we already know.
For that matter (and I'm sure people will disagree with me), but what is the difference between the new reality of a fantasy world and the new reality of a life you're unfamiliar with? For example, if I know nothing about the world of horse racing, or sheep farming, or Albanian politics, then books about those things would be just as enlightening or informative or opening-up-new-worlds as anything about dragons and magic.
I'm going to assume that the "you" HoM is being condescending to is some sort of communal "you" referring to everyone on the TWG but him.
Not everyone, but I didn't want to make a list. :) But yes, I do think (unapologetically) that there's quite a bit of blind favortism on this board. I won't say I've never been guilty, but I try not to do it. (I write for a genre that gets a lot of unwarranted negativism -- generally from people that never read any of the stuff they make fun of. To imply that one genre is intrisically better than another -- without really reading the other -- is simply wrong. You can say you don't prefer reading one or the other, but you can't pass one off as wholesale crap.)
-
By the way, sorry it took me so long to respond -- I didn't get on the boards all weekend.
-
Okay, so this is what I want to know, and I don't know if the magazine EUOL reads would know this: How does the current HUGE increase in juvenile fantasy fit in with the drop in sales? Is this taken into account? Because LOTS of mainstream children's publishers who ignored the genre or only published one or two fantasy titles a year are now jumping on the bandwagon. It's a golden age for children's and YA fantasy right now. I don't know any numbers, and so I wonder if EUOL's numbers include those sales.
-
All that I was meaning (and what I think I said pretty clearly) is that you're only presented with a new reality if you're presented with something creative and well done. Another book about elves does not present anything new -- it's a world we already know.
Remember we're mostly speaking from inside here. If you were an exclusive reader of romance/thrillers(inserted...or another book about elves.../inserted) who was suddenly presented with a Star Trek novel, yeah, you would have to extend yourself a great deal.
The reverse is not true. If you're a reader of SF&F who picks up a romance/thriller you don't have to extend yourself because the story and world presented is deliberatly designed to correspond very closely with what you already know. It's the whole point of the genre.
For that matter (and I'm sure people will disagree with me), but what is the difference between the new reality of a fantasy world and the new reality of a life you're unfamiliar with? For example, if I know nothing about the world of horse racing, or sheep farming, or Albanian politics, then books about those things would be just as enlightening or informative or opening-up-new-worlds as anything about dragons and magic.
The main difference between SF&F and Literature in this respect is that Literature shows us strange landscapes that, while new and strange to most of us, do in fact exist. SF&F shows us new and strange landscapes that don't happen to actually exist. (side note: I have a far clearer picture in my mind of say...Minas Tirith...than I do of Moscow)
To clarify: In my view being literary does not translate to being "good" or "worthwhile"
I foresaw this misunderstanding and tried to prevent it in my second post where I attempted to define "literature" according to my 5 years of study/experience in the academic world. My definition may not agree with yours but using an understanding/definition of "literature" that does not agree with the one I posted in order to disagree seems deliberately argumentative. (and pretty much a waste of time...therefore...totally suited to discussions on this particular forum? Wait...)
-
I assume this is the definition you're talking about:
Works that are classified as Literature, from "Beowulf" to "Dante's Inferno" to "The Bean Trees" all take the reader to some place that could reasonably be expected to be totally outside their experience, whether it's a novel location or novel issues or novel whatever. The same is true of SF&F, by definition.
Romance/thrillers on the other hand cash in by taking their readers to places they've fantasized about for their whole lives. Whether it's true love or tracking down evildoers we've all fantasized about it. Romance/thriller authors flesh out our own fantasy landscapes instead of introducing us to new ones.
But what if we disagree with your definitions? Are you simply saying that if something is "good", it no longer fits the romance/thriller genre? -- it suddenly becomes 'literature'? Because, if so, you're fueling the aforementioned stereotyoing via your own subjective view of what is "good".
The only other interpretation of your definitions is that there is no way that romance/thrillers can ever become literature.
Neither interpretation seems very helpful -- they seem to just be custom-made definitions that push the agenda: romance/thrillers are intrinsically worse than SF&F.
-
Also:
the story and world presented is deliberatly designed to correspond very closely with what you already know. It's the whole point of the genre.
I think that last sentence simply proves the point that you don't read a lot in the genre.
-
The only other interpretation of your definitions is that there is no way that romance/thrillers can ever become literature.
Neither interpretation seems very helpful -- they seem to just be custom-made definitions that push the agenda: romance/thrillers are intrinsically worse than SF&F.
I'm okay with both of these statements. I'm a snob, I admit it. I look down on Romance fiction as a waste of my time to read. The same way slapping a Star Trek logo on a book is going to turn away anyone that doesn't like Star Trek, labeling a book as Romance is instantly going to kill any desire I might have to read it. I think this is an inherent problem with genre fiction, and until there is a way to break down the rigidly departmentalized genre walls, you are always going to alienate people before they ever crack open the cover.
-
see, that's prejudiced.
HoM's point is that just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's valueless. Maybe the value is has doesn't appeal to you, but it's there nonetheless.
-
But what if we disagree with your definitions? Are you simply saying that if something is "good", it no longer fits the romance/thriller genre? -- it suddenly becomes 'literature'? Because, if so, you're fueling the aforementioned stereotyoing via your own subjective view of what is "good".
It would help if you read the posts you are trying to respond to.
To clarify: In my view being literary does not translate to being "good" or "worthwhile"
If you disagree with the idea that Romance/Thrillers provide only a glossier version of reality and don't attempt to stretch the readers worldview, fine, give an example of what you're talking about, like I have.
As for them being custom made definitions, I disagree. In the definition post I described a way of defining "literature" that was in line with the academic work being done in the field when I was in University. It was not an attack on your genre. It was just an attempt to define what the academics are thinking when they define something as literature.
When it comes to what's "good" and what's not I am in total agreement with you. A good story is a good story no matter its genre. A good story may or may not be considered literature, however, depending on how the "academics" label it. (and it's the academics at work here, if it were up to me, every good story would be considered "literature" and studied as such) I have found that academics look for ideas that stretch the reader's worldview, among other things, when they try to define what is and is not "literature." SF&F does this one thing more (for all the reasons I've given and you have not responded to) than Romance/Thrillers.
All this begs the question of why SF&F is not considered literary by more than a handful of the literary types. I suspect it's because SF&F typically does not promulgate the liberal politics so essential to most literary academic's worldview. That question, however, is not germaine to the topic at hand because no one has argued that SF&F is or should be considered "literature", simply that it is more like "literature," in the one way I've pointed out, than Romance/Thrillers : expanding the reader's worldview.
Also: ...
I think that last sentence simply proves the point that you don't read a lot in the genre.
I said as much. If you think I'm wrong, point out how, don't just snipe.
-
Okay, examples. I just hopped over to Barnes and Noble's website and looked at the top ten lists for both romance and thrillers. Using Skar's examples of a different worldview (novel locations, novel issues, or novel whatever), here's what I found:
Romance: At least four books (in the top ten) take place in different time periods. At least two deal with issues such as sexual abuse and psychological trauma. Two more are about vampires.
Thriller: At least six deal with psychological studies. Four deal with the supernatural. At least two deal with professions that are uncommon and strange. Several deal with abuse. At least one deals with mythology.
See how easy that was? I didn't even have to try, and here are plenty of books that prove that romances and thrillers often stretch worldviews. I fully admit that not all romance/thrillers do (there were a couple romances on the list that show how romance got the reputation it has), but all I'm saying is that you can't lump one genre altogether, nor does SF&F and the illustrious "literature" have a corner on the worldview market.
-
Hmm... Romance books with vampires in them? See, I wouldn't categorize that as Romance. That would be horror to me. And I'll read a horror book.
See how easy it is to not have to adjust my world view?
I am being a little tongue-in-cheek about some of this stuff, but I'm serious in that regardless of how we may wish otherwise, the general public (which I'm lumping myself into) is going to make an opinion based on how the book is defined by the publisher. Is that predujiced? Sure, I think that's an accurate accusation. I'll fess up to it.
Of course you can't lump all books of one genre into a "good" or "bad" pile. But if, in general, I like most sci-fi books and I don't like most romance novels, then when confronted with the choice to spend some valuable time reading a new book, I'm going to go with a book that is more likely to appeal to me. That means romance books are right out.
It is a two-way street though. With the success of the Harry Potter books, a bunch of other books have been lumped into the "me too!" category, and several of them that I wouldn't have read otherwise I've found very entertaining, such as the Artemis Fowl books.
I think you'll be fighting an uphill battle to try and argue that any kind of genre book will qualify as high literature however. No matter how much I may have enjoyed some of R. A. Salvatore's books, the fact that there's a D&D logo on the cover is going to automatically dump it into a fluff category.
Hmm... I've kind of lost track of where I was going with this post. I should probably stop before I ramble too far off. I'll just sum up by saying, I'm glad there are those of us on the board who enjoy other genres of literature besides simply fantasy and science-fiction. Just don't expect to convert me to enjoying them too. I'm very comfortable in my cozy worlds of horror and F&SF.
-
HoM: Good, thank you. You're very condescending in your tone but you've still not addressed the point.
You CAN'T call something SF&F without setting it somewhere novel or dealing with novel ideas.
You CAN have romances and thrillers that don't.
Show me how that's not true and how that doesn't mean that SF&F does more stretching of worldviews.
___________________________________
As for not lumping genres together, how do you define a genre if not as a convenient means of lumping books that share certain characteristics together? If you don't like the concept of genres at all, well... that's another argument, much like one we had before.
And to forestall another round, I agree with n8's assertion that you can't lump all books of a genre into "good" or "bad" categories. Never said it, never thought it.
-
Terry Brook's Shannara novels had a "novel setting"? I like his early work, but you have to admit it's a lot like Tolkein. So much so, I don't think it could be considered "a novel setting."
-
Romance: At least two deal with issues such as sexual abuse and psychological trauma.
I didn't even have to try, and here are plenty of books that prove that romances and thrillers often stretch worldviews.
I don't mean to disagree with your whole point here, because I'm not sure I do, but I'd just like to point out that that Anita Stansfield novel I read a month or so ago dealt with abuse and psychological trauma extensively, but I don't think it stretched my worldview. In fact, I really felt like the treatment was cheap. There are probably some out there that handle it well, but the argument that just because a romance involves abuse it stretches worldviews doesn't really work. It depends on the book.
-
Terry Brook's Shannara novels had a "novel setting"? I like his early work, but you have to admit it's a lot like Tolkein. So much so, I don't think it could be considered "a novel setting."
Neither would I, but then I've been reading SF&F since I was 6 or 7.
To someone who has never read any fiction or even someone who has read only romance or mysteries, it would be a totally novel setting.
However, if someone who has never read any fiction were to pick up a typical romance or thriller, the "world" presented would be very recognizable to them.
-
I don't know what world you live in, but my world isn't anything like the world in romance novels. ;D
-
:P I think you know what I mean.
-
I still want to know what EUOL's sources say about the rising trend of juvenile fantasy.
-
Never said it, never thought it.
You did say it. You put a disclaimer afterward, but you did stereotype an entire genre as worse than SF&F:
Where I was presented with ideals of courage and honesty and intelligence and so on in my pulp in romance you get sappy sentimentalism and fuzzy thinking and thrillers generally get their shock value from showing the reader how even the hero is really just a shlock too, once you get to know him.
(for all you readers of romance and thrillers out there, I know I'm being unfairly broad in my descriptions, the point remains the same)
and you said:
Yes, SE but even the SW and ST series strive to tell a more meaningful story than your average Romance (haven't read many of these so I'm being a bit presumptuous)
Since you only made these comments in your first post, Skar, I get the idea that they are your actual feelings on the subject -- you switched to a more academic argument later on. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you really DO believe SF&F are superior to romance and thrillers -- in more than just a personal taste kind of way.
But I wasn't initially responding to you, anway. I originally posted because of EUOL's article wherein he says:
We SF&F people certainly consider ourselves to be a step above other forms of genre fiction. We don't want to be forgotten -- we want to say something meaningful about human nature while we tell our story of another world.
This was the initial source of my complaint.
Also: Skar's post was the second time in this thread that I've been called condescending. Sorry about that -- I didn't mean anything of the sort. Let me just restate that I rarely ever get emotionally involved in debates, and I generally argue for the fun of it.
That said, the kinds of genres that are being belittled are my livelihood. I don't feel too guilty about defending them.[/size]
-
How many people have seen at least one of the LotR movies? Most people, I'd believe. At least a disproportionately large portion of them Ditto for Star Wars. Who isn't familiar with the ideas of Superman, whether or not they've read it?
So... when they read something like Sword of Shannara, and they're already familiar with Gimli and Legolas.... what exactly is stretching about that? I'm sorry, Skar, but you're proposing a creature that's very rare at best when you talk about someone completely unfamiliar with F&SF. I dare say that there are more people familiar with the culture of Star Wars or Middle Earth these days than there are familiar with the culture of the French Revolution. Thus it stretches one more to read a well researched romance set in the French Revolution than it does to read a Tolkien clone.
-
That said, the kinds of genres that are being belittled are my livelihood. I don't feel too guilty about defending them.
Ah. Much is explained. Forgive me. I did not realize that your work was in the romance genre. (I did buy your latest book but don't plan on reading it until my self-imposed moratorium on fiction is over(May), I will be reading it however, no matter its genre-label)
I will concede the point that a well-researched piece of Historical fiction is indeed world expanding for the reader. More so than a Brooks clone of Tolkien. However, the fact remains that the world-expanding event that made Brooks into just more run-of-the-mill for your reader was an exposure to SF&F (LoTR) You can't claim the same effect from an exposure to, say... "You've Got Mail."
When I said that I had not read much Romance/Thriller, however, I did not mean that I had read none. You'd all be surprised what you'll try reading when that stack of ten books sitting on the table with the donuts and coffee in the airport lounge is the only thing available. My experience with books in the "romance" genre has been universally bad. My experience with thrillers almost so, the only exceptions really being Clancy and Vince Flynn.
So I suppose you are right. I do consider even pulp SF&F to be far superior to bodice-rippers. And yes, according to my internal understanding of what classifies a book as romance, the moment a book is known to contain quality it becomes something other than "romance"
I also realize that bodice-rippers are a subset of the genre that is generally known as "romance" When a well-researched piece of Historical Fiction is lumped in together with a bodice-ripper there's something wrong. I DON'T want to get into another debate on labeling, however. So would someone just explain to me how Bodice-rippers and Historical Fiction and "Wake Me When it's Over" are one and the same? What do they have in common?
-
I think the problem is that you studied in the English Department and not the Comparative Lit dept :D
actually, while I meant that as a joke, I'm kind of serious. One of hte primary differences between studying literature in an English Dept and a Comp Lit Dept is the emphasis on recognizing that genre/movement/national/linguistic barriers are hardly barriers at all. The outsides of those divisions are blurry, fuzzy, and broad. After all, what would Don Quijote be if it weren't for a long tradition of books written in english, French, Greek, and Latin (answer: nothing). It's a parody, but it's also a novel of knightly quest. On the same note. What would Star Wars be without Westerns? Very different, that's what.
Just because something is a Romance does not preclude it from being a western, a fantasy, historical fiction, a comedy, a mystery, or possibly all of the above. The only thing that makes us call something a romance or by one of it's other genres is the audience it will most appeal to. A well researched historical fiction that focuses mostly on how it is visited by time travellers will be put in the Science Fiction section. A well researched historical fiction that focuses primarily on the protagonist finding a love interest that not only reciprocates but is worth of her love will be put in the Romance section.
So, just because it's something else, like a Mystery or a Spy Thriller doesn't make it "not romance."
But I can't resist syaing this either: in your "You've Got Mail" example, the film will no more prepare someone to read a Romance set in a foreign setting/time than it will prepare one to read The Sword of Shannara.
The short answer then, is that they share a primary plot focus on falling in love, finding the right person to be in love with, etc, etc.
-
Wake Me... is romance in two ways: (1) it contains a romance, although that is not the main part of the story and (2) more importantly, it's being marketed as a romance. Though I'm not terribly happy about that, I'm not complaining because that will tend to make it sell well.
Technically, I think it's much more of a thriller (kidnapping, terrorists, etc...) than a romance. Either way, though. Personally, I prefer to think of it in the humor genre.
Actually, my first book, On Second Thought, fits very neatly in the romantic comedy genre.
-
A well researched historical fiction that focuses primarily on the protagonist finding a love interest that not only reciprocates but is worth of her love will be put in the Romance section.
So...romances are primarily about love and emotion and relationships and not about nifty new places, people, and things.
But I can't resist syaing this either: in your "You've Got Mail" example, the film will no more prepare someone to read a Romance set in a foreign setting/time than it will prepare one to read The Sword of Shannara.
It seems to me that "You've Got Mail" and its ilk would prepare someone for a Romance in a foreign setting/time because the central issue, what they're primarily about, is the same, love/relationships. But it would not prepare them to read a Brooks/Tolkien novel since the central issues are entirely different.
Now, to descend into ambiguity, there is a genre called romantic fantasy, Patricia Briggs is, apparently, a good example of it, and I like what I've read by Patricia Briggs.
-
Labels, labels, all is labels.
I had no idea that "Wake me. . ." was being sold as a romance. None of the stores I've been in have labeled that or HoM's other book that way. Instead, they've labeled them as Mormon Fiction, a label that has all sorts of connotations that I'm not going to touch at the moment.
I want to talk about romance novels. I know that bodice-rippers make up a large portion of the genre, but there is also the section of regency romances, which tend to be cleaner than the average romance. However, they still count as romance because the main object of the book is to tell a love story. That doesn't mean these books don't tell other stories as well. I'll cite Georgette Heyer who wrote romance and mysteries. Her regency romances tend to be light in the way they deal with characters, but she often brings in bits of mystery and comedy as well. My sister mostly reads Mormon romance fiction, and she tried Heyer and couldn't read it because it was too outside of her experience. She didn't understand the regency world and its conventions so the book wasn't enjoyable to her even though it was still technically part of her favorite genre. She loved "You Got Mail" but it didn't prepare her for an author who is one of the "queens" of romance.
What I'm trying to say is (and you know I'm not doing it very well if I have to sum up at the end) romance is not a genre of "read one, you've read them all" just as sf&f isn't like that. Both groups have large portions of pulp that is very similar, but it isn't all that way.
Also, as for sales of Sf&f dropping, I would guess that that statistic is for adult sf&f. Children's sf&f, while a hugely growing market, tends to be lumped together with children's sales.
-
I had no idea that "Wake me. . ." was being sold as a romance. None of the stores I've been in have labeled that or HoM's other book that way. Instead, they've labeled them as Mormon Fiction, a label that has all sorts of connotations that I'm not going to touch at the moment.
In non-LDS stores, like Media Play or Barnes and Noble, it's labeled as LDS fiction. In LDS stores, though, they split things up a little. Actually, my book has caused all sorts of trouble for the publisher -- they can't figure out which genre to stick it in. They made over 40 cover designs, but determined they were all too suspense/thriller, and they switched over to a more humor-based cover. And then the back cover synopsis makes it sound like a romance ( it calls it a "full-throttle ride into the human heart").
I was doing book signings on Saturday, and all of the employees described it differently -- some as mystery, some as thriller, some as romance. And then they'd say "but it's hilarious." Personally, I've always labeled it an action/adventure novel.
I guess this is the problem with labels.
-
YES fuzzy labels are bad. If we must label, and we must, then the labeling should be precise.
My wife read it, liked it, and did not think of it as a romance.
She thought the cover was totally misleading and ugly. And that quote you gave about the full-throttle ride sounds like a romance, not much else.
Sounds like your publisher needs some new copywriters and art directors.
-
Wake Me was in the LDS Fiction section of the BYU Bookstore. Not everywhere splits the genre up.
-
Sounds like your publisher needs some new copywriters and art directors.
I certainly wouldn't argue with that.
-
they know I'm available for the right price, correct?
-
I guess this is the problem with labels.
Or with writing across genres. I'm glad to know it can be done, though.
-
Sorry I haven't responded to some of those who addressed me. Let me do so now.
Stacer: The article did indeed mention the rise of YA fiction, and sf/f YA fiction in specific, as a promising sign. I can't remember the percentages right now, but it seemed significant. Like, a jump of some seven or eight percent in the amount of YA sf/f being purchased.
HoM: You have noted that you're generally responding to the sentence in my article that says: "We SF&F people certainly consider ourselves to be a step above other forms of genre fiction."
Actually, I don't see anything disputable in this statement. I didn't say that SF/F WAS a step above, but only that we consider it to be. Since the thesis of my column was that SF/F and literature people have more in common than either would like to admit.
Now, as to your REAL argument--that we shouldn't discount romance or thrillers in general--I feel I have very little to stand on. I will try and make an argument with what I have, however. This is all based in assumption, as my reading in the romance field is very slim. (Though I do have some experience with thrillers.)
The thing about the mainstream romance genre is that I get a feeling in general that it doesn't take itself seriously. Writers have a large number of pseudonyms, and produce a lot of fiction very quickly. Morag worked at a bookstore, and he used to tell me about the shelf-life of romance novels. They're usually on and off in less than a month. (Compared to SF/F, where even lesser-known authors stay on the shelves for upwards of a year.) The romance genre also doesn't invest in the production of very many hardback books.
All of these things make me wary. I think you can stereotype a genre--just like people have rightly stereotyped fantasy for the repetitive plots the genre used through the eighties and early nineties. Perhaps, if I read, I would be pleasantly surprised. However, I doubt it. Go pick a best-selling (but not too high--say, upper midlist) romance novel, and an equivalent fantasy or sf novel, and I believe you will find more thought put into plotting, packaging, characterization, and worldbuilding in the sf/f book.
This prejudice may be undeserved. But, all the proof--and the limited reading I've done in romance--seems to support it.
The prejudice between SF/F and mainstream literary comes over a disagreement regarding what is valuable. We emphasize plots and worldbuidling. They emphasize prose. We like sympathetic characters, they strive for extreme realism in characters. It's this philosophical difference that fuels the rift between us.
I know of no such disagreement between romance and the other genres.
-
The only argument I cna make for Romance not being good would be based on my very limited experience.
And I want to point somethign out about that. The people here who DO have a little experience, and not much, with Romance have probably not read books that have come recommended by people who are deeply into the better parts of the genre. I've read a few, and from what Skar said earlier, it seems directly comparable to his experience: they were ones that I found lying around and read primarily because I was bored. That sounds like a cruddy basis for choosing an experience in a new area. Would you explore classical music for the first time by finding out what recommendations afficianados and experts make and why? Or would you just grab the first CD you found as you entered the store? It doesn't seem like using a very limited experience, or even extensive experience based on similar premises (I read what was available and/or handed to me). If you don't put any thought into selecting your limited exposure, then you should probably not expect your exposure to stretch you any or be particularly good, or even representative, examples of the genre. Imagine if Piers Anthony were held as representative of the quality of Fantasy and Science Fiction *shudder*
Just my 2 bits.
However, whenever in the past I've made derogatory remarks about Romance, I've not been given good examples of ones I should try that would change my opinion. I've spoken with professional romance novelists (not best sellers like that Jackie person, but people who've sold 4 or 5 novels over the course of a half dozen years) and they've not been able to point me to any specific examples that contradict my stereotype.
And even if they did, that doesn't disprove that the genre, as a whole, is lacking quality material. There are certainly exceptions to every rule of this sort, and I would never contend that the genre is *incapable* of being writing that appeals to something deeper or stretches more, but from what I see, and what I hear from most writers and readers of romance novels (and yes, my experience of the 3 or 4 I've read in my life), the percentage of crap is higher than other genres.
Finally, despite what I've said, I think that what HoM says about his books reveals a lot more about the book than this thread or the marketing dept's decision to market it as a romance. On Second Thought seemed to me to be primarily a mystery. The romance isn't even settled until the climax has passed. There are romance elements to it, enough to say that it is in part "Romance" in genre, but I find it poor thinking to really qualify it primarily as a Romance. It sounds to me like Wake Me When It's Over is primarily a thriller, and only secondarily a romance, so I don't really regard HoM's work as a sufficient example of even showing there are really exceptions to the standard level of Romance, should such an argument be made.
-
Reviving the old topic, Wake Me When It's Over was just reviewed in Meridian Magazine -- in a large article describing different types of romance novels.
Here's the full text:
Wake Me When It's Over is an excellent example of the humorous romance, in this case the humorous romantic suspense. Wells would quite likely insist his novel is humor, not romance, though all the romantic elements are there, as are the suspense elements. The greatest difference is the writer is male and the story is told predominantly from the male protagonist's point of view and it's told for maximum humor rather than to be taken seriously. As in most good humor, the line is very thin between tragedy and comedy. The action is heart-stopping and the poor reader is left at times uncertain whether to laugh or cry. It is the hilarious tale of a young college student, Eric, who falls madly in love but is content to admire his love from afar until circumstances force him to take action. His heart and his faith are in the right place as he bumbles and fumbles his way through trying to rescue Rebekah from the man who abducts her. He is a hero with a broken wrist, wending his way through hair-raising chase scenes, vicious kidnappers, and a mysterious woman who seems to know who he is and where he is a little too well. Still it is the story of a young couple who meet awkwardly and proceed clumsily to get to know each other through unusual circumstances and eventually discover something special in their relationship.
Wells is rapidly establishing himself as a writer with a gift for humor, but in this novel he also proves he knows something of the human heart and the part faith and fidelity to gospel principles plays in LDS character-building and in relationships between men and women.
The article is at www.meridianmagazine.com
-
What I want to know Mustard, is when are you going to start getting Fabio to modle for your covers?
-
MUCH better review than that rambling one for the last book (if you'd even call that a review, and not her own travelogue).
-
when are you going to start getting Fabio to modle for your covers?
Even if he was on the covers, they'd dress him in a suit and hide his face.
-
but you'd see the hair. They'd have to cut his locks first.