column: EUOLogy #18

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

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.

[Skar]

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)

[Oldie Black Witch]

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.

[House of Mustard]

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.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

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.

[Eagle Prince]

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.

[Skar]

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)

[MsFish]

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.

[stacer]

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.

[House of Mustard]

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.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

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.

[fuzzyoctopus]

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.

[Skar]

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.

[Skar]

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.

[n8sumsion]

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...