Genre

[Icecream]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's difficult to compartmentalise things into a single genre - all the very best writing encompasses a whole range of themes, emotions and fields, so that the lines are blurred.

 

Kell said this in the Problem With Fantasy thread. I did my music dissertation about Blues music trying to find out where it originated. It was a hard task and I found myself thinking how a genre is/can be defined. Should we put limits on our books/music/etc like this? If we didn't what would the consequence be? A world without genre? What would that be like?

 

So I would like your thoughts on what genre is and how you think a genre is defined.

 

It's bubbly's bed time now so I shall add mine when she is asleep.

[Janet]

So I would like your thoughts on what genre is and how you think a genre is defined.

I guess it has a lot to do with how/where bookstores merchandise their books. Some books might cover two or more genres (there might be a murder mystery with a romantic plot in it too), so I suppose they have to make a judgement call then.

 

I'm not sure what genre some of the books I've read in the last year or so would fall into... modern fiction, perhaps, if that could be considered a genre. Sometimes books don't seem easy to define in that way.

[Icecream]

An interesting thought Bagpuss. The question of who the decision lies with and the place/influence of the bookshop owner..

 

As for Modern Fiction, doesn't everything have a modern type/genre these days? I'm sure it fits, but possibly comes under more scrutinisation than other genres because of the arguments against modernism and other ears (postmodernism particularly).

[Kell]

It seems to be getting more and more blurred with each new publication. I don't know if it's just me, but I thin it used to be easier to compartmentalise on genre than it is these days. Nowadays it's the norm for any novel to cross the boundaries between two, three, or even more genres between the covers. It's not even as easy as saying, "Which genre is the predominant one", because it's quite often a pretty even spread.

 

Many historical fiction novels have a romantic element and perhaps a major war. On top of that, they may have a plot to overthrow a government with some murder and mystery thrown in for good measure. You might then have the main character having a prophetic dream that helps catch the hired killer who has run rampant to boot.

 

Right there in that small idea there are many genres:

History

Romance

War

Murder/mystery/crime

supernatural

 

Perhaps it's set in a slightly alternative history - that adds fantasy to the mix. Then, if the evil killing-spree guy is a mad scientist who murders with his devilish inventions - is that science fiction too?

 

How would you then define that by a single category? Would you simply label it "Historical Fiction" due to the fact that it's set in the past?

 

I think that in many cases it's the author that gets pigeon-holed more than the individual book - Stephen King is generally thought of as a horror writer, but I would argue the case that he's more of a thriller writer, often with a psychological twist, rather than "classic" horror.

[Laramie]

Kell, I think you just hit the nail right on the head. It is really hard to catagorise a book into a particular genre because of all the different elements in books.

 

As another example, my english teacher said that sci-fi must be set in the future, but Dr Who is (well, predominantley (sp?)) sci-fi, and that isn't always in the future. I think it would be more accurate to say that it must have some futuristic elements, eg the TARDIS, or the sonic screwdriver.

Or, Artemis Fowl. Is that fantasy or sci-fi?

[Kell]

Or, Artemis Fowl. Is that fantasy or sci-fi?

I'd say that's a combination of both sci-fi AND fantasy, as there are mysthical creatures AND scientific gadgets. I'd also class it as crime fiction, in a sense, as Artemis is, after all, a criminal genius. There's also the added pseudo-genre of "Youth Fiction" (I hesitate to say "children's fiction" or "young adult", because I think it's somewhere in between).

[Laramie]

Let's just not bother with classifying books and just stick to reading them:lol:

[Icecream]

So should we just throw genre out of the window altogether?

 

Kell you are quite right of course and that is the whole reason I started this thread. As you also say, there is often not a predominant genre. Should we perhaps have mixed genres? People make up there own genres in the music world with two or more words just to suit what they play/listen to..

[Kell]

So should we just throw genre out of the window altogether?

I think I'd be quite happy to break it down into something as simple as fiction and non-fiction, then just list them alphabetically by author - I could browse for hours!

[Icecream]

Maybe you could. I'm not sure I could, but then what if I miss something really good..

[angerball]

I think separating books by genre is useful for people who want to read a book by a particular genre, and just want to browse only that genre until they find what they want. Of course, like everyone else has said, how do you define a single genre for a particular book, as a lot of them have various. Some books have predominant themes, while others are a mixed bag.

 

I think horror, sci-fi, fantasy, westerns, and bodice-ripper-romances are quite easily definable, as those books are set in a particular environment (maybe not so much horror, but definately with sci-fi, westerns and fantasy).

 

My library separates fiction according to Sci-Fi/Fantasy, Western, Crime, Romance, and General Fiction. It's handy when looking for hard sci-fi, to be able to go straight to that section and have a browse, though there is some sci-fi in the general section.

 

As a side note, why on earth is Jean M Auel's Earth's Children series so often classified as sci-fi?? I can't tell you how many times I've walked into a bookshop, and seen them in that section. It's always bugged me, and I feel like saying to the store owner (though I would never dare ), "This is not science fiction!!!!"

[wrathofkublakhan]

Nice thread, deep thoughts -- thanks y'all.

 

My two cents:

I agree that the lines become more blurry and there is not really a distinct line for a large percentage of books. I saw somewhere that a romance novelist was writing a vampire series, for example.

 

However - the flip side of this, in my opinion, is that the comfy "genre shelves" can be safe for the formula writers.

I think that lots of writers follow a specific cookbook formula when writing that places them very much within their genre.

Agatha Christie, Louis L'Amour, Ian Fleming and many others wrote prolifically with book after book following the same line, theme and style. Even in our more modern times, authors find a style that works for an audience and sticks with it.

I feel this is true mostly because I read these kind of books! From Agatha Christie to Janet Evanovich to LE Modesitt Jr to Arthur Conan Doyle to Louis L'Amour to Rex Stout to Sue Grafton -- these guys have cranked out a ton of books that are essentially the same formula and can sit on their "genre shelf" for me to easily find them.

[pontalba]

But someone like Diana Gabaldon...author of the Outlander series is difficult to classify.

The books are historical fiction, fantasy, romance, perhaps sci-fi to as far as that goes. Have I missed a genre that is applicable?

But to me they are just flat out good story telling, wonderful characters we have to care about, and fun.

 

Er, I believe someone mentioned cowboy books..Yes! The Sacketts!