Community support in genre

[AnyaKimlin]

I do sometimes wonder if I don't like sci-fi/fantasy enough. I did read a shed load of it in college (literally it belonged to my landlord and it was the easiest cheapest source of books). It's not that I don't enjoy reading it because I do but I it's rare I pick up a book because it's a certain genre. Most of my fantasy/sci-fi is TV. Initially it worried me that I wasn't learning my genre but then if I'd known it much better then some of my stories wouldn't exist.

To be honest I haven't encountered too much eye rolling when I say what I write but I do struggle with people asking who is my audience. My answer is usually me

 

[Ray McCarthy]

people asking who is my audience. My answer is usually me

I write primarily for me. It may be selfish, but it's my time

 

[Mythopoet]

Oh man, I remember years ago when I worked in the phone center of a local bank and we could read between calls if we had the rest of our tasks done. My coworker at the desk next to me asked me what I was reading. "God Emperor of Dune" I told her. "Oh, what's that about?" .... How do you describe God Emperor of Dune to someone who doesn't read SFF? I tried. She gave me the weirdest look and never asked what I was reading again.

 

[Michael Coorlim]

I read a book not too long ago, Drawing on the Power of Resonance in Writing written by David Farland, a novelist who had done extensive market research and focus testing in the film industry. The industry has spent billions (trillions?) of dollars trying to figure out what sorts of story appealed to what sort of audiences, and while you cannot, of course, make generalizations that apply to everyone of a given demographic, that's not the game. Producers want to cast as wide a net as possible to garner the largest possible audiences. The outliers are irrelevant unless they number high enough to justify trying to market to.

Anyway, one of the biggest takeaways in the book was the generalization of what "kind" of stories appeal to the broad masses at different life stages, based on emotional draw. SFF both provide readers with a sense of wonder as a primary emotional draw, and "wonder" appeals most strongly to younger demographics - until the teen years or so.

I am not saying that SFF is juvenile, and I am not saying that SFF stories do not contain other emotional resonances, but in the eyes of the general public that sense of wonder, of the new, of the strange and unusual is what unifies and typifies SFF. This may be why many people look down on the genre, or at least don't take it as seriously as a form of literature.

Of course, we know better, but that understanding does not change the general perception of the genre. When asked what I write I usually answer with a pithy "Whatever they pay me to write," or a more serious "alternative historical mysteries and thrillers" not because I am ashamed of writing steampunk, but because I don't want to have to explain it.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

trying to figure out what sorts of story appealed to what sort of audiences

Which is why most SF films are barely SF and a very narrow view of SF, and even films from books get hacked, as it's sugared and dumbed to suit a lowest common denominator.

 

[allmywires]

"It made me wonder if it's one reason communities online are so important? That, if you're into something niche (and I'm guessing Trolley-bus nerds have the same problem....) you need to find a niche to fit into, especially if you're writing it with all the obsession that brings?

Absolutely, if you don't have an audience (or a willing/understanding sounding board) you're just writing into the void right...there's no more potent fuel to a writer's fire than other people's feedback and passion for it. In my experience in real life, when I tell people I'm a writer they sort of go into default 'oh that's quirky/cool/interesting' mode but you can't drill down into the specifics of what you write because they'll ultimately lose focus if it's niche, as much of my writing is.

I think it's ok just to accept the majority of people don't get the world of a writer...which is why you need to find other people who understand your unending suffering at the hands of edits or plot twists that just won't quit. Such is the beauty of the internet that it makes finding these people all the easier!

(Also, hi. And no more springs Jo?! I have been gone a long time.)

 

[Mythopoet]

I read a book not too long ago, Drawing on the Power of Resonance in Writing written by David Farland, a novelist who had done extensive market research and focus testing in the film industry. The industry has spent billions (trillions?) of dollars trying to figure out what sorts of story appealed to what sort of audiences, and while you cannot, of course, make generalizations that apply to everyone of a given demographic, that's not the game. Producers want to cast as wide a net as possible to garner the largest possible audiences. The outliers are irrelevant unless they number high enough to justify trying to market to.

Anyway, one of the biggest takeaways in the book was the generalization of what "kind" of stories appeal to the broad masses at different life stages, based on emotional draw. SFF both provide readers with a sense of wonder as a primary emotional draw, and "wonder" appeals most strongly to younger demographics - until the teen years or so.

I am not saying that SFF is juvenile, and I am not saying that SFF stories do not contain other emotional resonances, but in the eyes of the general public that sense of wonder, of the new, of the strange and unusual is what unifies and typifies SFF. This may be why many people look down on the genre, or at least don't take it as seriously as a form of literature.

Of course, we know better, but that understanding does not change the general perception of the genre. When asked what I write I usually answer with a pithy "Whatever they pay me to write," or a more serious "alternative historical mysteries and thrillers" not because I am ashamed of writing steampunk, but because I don't want to have to explain it.

The problem with this, as I see it, is that movies are not books. It's a very different medium that offers a very different kind of story experience. I'm not at all convinced that you can learn about storytelling in general from studying movies. I've read some of Farland's books on writing and many of his blog posts on writing and Farland seems to just assume that the two are comparable. But I would never attempt to write a book to appeal to movie audiences.

Movies are short compared to books. They require less of a time and attention investment so they attract more people who aren't willing to invest much. Movies are visual in nature and this can't be stressed enough. Everything is there on the screen, already being interpreted by actors and directors and composers and everyone else who works on the movie before it gets to the audience. Whereas a book uses words to conjure impressions in the reader's imagination. The realization of the story happens primarily in the reader's mind. The two are completely different experiences. This is even more true for SFF which are genres that emphasize immersion in a new world and require even more imagination from the reader. Movie audiences and SFF literature audiences are NOT the same.

 

[Zebra Wizard]

The two are completely different experiences. This is even more true for SFF which are genres that emphasize immersion in a new world and require even more imagination from the reader. Movie audiences and SFF literature audiences are NOT the same.

This is true, I love sci-fi movies but I'm just not willing to invest my time in reading SFF, for me alot of the wonder of sci-fi is the visual part.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

This is true, I love sci-fi movies but I'm just not willing to invest my time in reading SFF, for me alot of the wonder of sci-fi is the visual part.

Which is a pity because only a small proportion of sff books are about science and what not - a lot cross into the same themes as fantasy (and combine them with the fab visuals). Have you explored the space fantasy end of the spectrum? (I'm assuming you read fantasy but could, of course, be wrong.)

 

[Zebra Wizard]

Which is a pity because only a small proportion of sff books are about science and what not - a lot cross into the same themes as fantasy (and combine them with the fab visuals). Have you explored the space fantasy end of the spectrum? (I'm assuming you read fantasy but could, of course, be wrong.)

It's just a matter of taste, i generally prefer low tech vs high tech. And when it comes to sci-fi i prefer earth based over space (dystopian/apocalyptic). Not to say I haven't read any, and i have enjoyed the few books i have read.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I'm not at all convinced that you can learn about storytelling in general from studying movies

I think in fact if you watch too much TV/Cinema/Computer games there is a temptation to writing what really is a screenplay and not a novel.

 

[Toby Frost]

I think in fact if you watch too much TV/Cinema/Computer games there is a temptation to writing what really is a screenplay and not a novel.

Definitely yes. We've discussed this elsewhere in more detail, but basically:

- Ideas in films lag behind books by about 20 years, especially since the technology to depict a lot of SF has only recently become available
- Character and dialogue in films are generally cruder and cheesier since the emphasis is on spectacle over the things that make books work
- Most really-big-budget films are, to put it crudely, aimed at teenage boys in a way that they weren't 15 years ago (compare, say, Raiders of the Lost Ark to any Transformers film).

Not that there aren't good big-budget "spectacle" films, but they're rare.

 

[Michael Coorlim]

I wouldn't say cruder, I'd say that the storytelling tools are vastly different. The best cinema is visually oriented, because that's the strength of the medium. If you're trying to rely on dialog to convey character rather than subtle visual nuance, you're not really using film to its full potential.

This is what makes adaptation so difficult. Good prose is often focused on the internal life of the character, immersion for the reader, and the emotional character arc.

Other than cheesy voice-over, you really don't get that deep into a character with film. You need to think in terms of the visuals employed. Not really FX or CGI, but the way shots are framed, and the elements of visual storytelling. Kubrick's 2001 is a great example of film done well, focusing on the strengths of the medium to bring the SF to life.

I've recently started working in audio drama, and that's been another shift; everything has to be conveyed by dialog (with accents from sound and music). You don't get the visuals of film, you don't get the internal sensations of prose. It's closer, in a way, to the presentation style of stage theatre.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Kubrick's 2001 is a great example of film done well

Screenplay was first, Novel 2nd too.

Not really FX or CGI, but the way shots are framed, and the elements of visual storytelling

Really not at all FX or CGI. e.g. A Man for All Seasons (Written as a play rather than Novel I think)

TV/Cinema can be very dialogue based:
Perhaps "The Odd Couple". Also other Films that started as plays.

Then there is the Musical. Strange cocktail of visuals, music, dialogue and some plot.

 

[Warren_Paul]

At a place I used to work, my boss at the time heard I was writing a novel, and the first question she asked was what its name was. Of course I answered with a traditional fantasy style title that I was calling my book back then. She looked at me funny and never asked another question about it.

On a more humorous note, she later told me I was writing in the wrong genre, and that I should write erotica. -- I suppose it would sell much easier...

Honestly though, I actually have had the opposite experience when it comes to what my friends read. A few years back I joined a local writers group. At the time, I was expecting to be the only person in the group who wrote fantasy or science fiction. I showed up to the first meeting, and to my surprise, every single one of them wrote genre of some sort, and they couldn't understand why I thought I'd be the only one. It was like writing general fiction had never even crossed their mind.

Over the years, I've had four flatmates (roommates for the US people here ) who read. All of them read genre of some sort. I never saw any of them with a general fiction novel in their hand, or in their collection.




Had another thought:

What I do find about the online community is that it's more serious about the writing side of things and helps me improve my writing much more than the local writing group I'm a part of does -- the local group is really more of a social thing for people with same interests to meet up and chat.

 

[Parson]

How do you describe God Emperor of Dune to someone who doesn't read SFF? I tried. She gave me the weirdest look and never asked what I was reading again.

This had me laughing out loud! In fact explaining God Emperor of Dune to a SFF person might even be hard if they did not already have some sense of what it was about. "You see there is this man, well he's kinda a snake, who can see the future and he has to think carefully about every action he does...... (You can see the eyes glazing over!)

I am not saying that SFF is juvenile, and I am not saying that SFF stories do not contain other emotional resonances, but in the eyes of the general public that sense of wonder, of the new, of the strange and unusual is what unifies and typifies SFF. This may be why many people look down on the genre, or at least don't take it as seriously as a form of literature.

I believe this to be true, but it is a sad commentary on the human race above the age of 20.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Dune is an example of what's good about the genre, and what has the possibility of crossing over. There's fantastic characters, a great plot, and lots of action.

 

[MWagner]

On the other hand, I often find that I'm just not into geeky things as much as a lot of other people. I often find myself thinking things like "Yeah, I enjoyed Firefly, it wasn't bad", which given how the internet works is basically the same as telling its hardcore fans that you hated every minute. It's a problem I had with conventions: the feeling on day 3 of "I'm just not into this enough". I find that you're expected to have intense emotions, usually of thrilled excitement, about every new novel that you might concievably read. I don't have a constant rollercoaster of "feels" and I don't really want one, either.

The tone of other SFF forums, with their in-crowd geekspeak and passionate, burbling enthusiasm for all the latest new things, turns me off. What I appreciate about Chronicles is I can talk about the genres, and writing in the genres, without needing to pretend OMG! I LOVE everything. I can let my skeptical, grumpy side show without being chased away with torches and pitchforks.

I don't really have anyone in the meat world to share my interests in genre or writing with. My wife reads loads, and quite diversely, mostly YA stuff these days. That's not where I'm going with my work, but she does help give me insights into what makes modern fiction popular. As for everyone else, when they ask what I'm writing I say "it's like Game of Thrones in ancient Greece."

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I can let my skeptical, grumpy side show without being chased away with torches and pitchforks.

Yes, I'm a bit of a grumpy sceptic too (sometimes I might even be right!). I hope my writing is less grumpy!

 

[Ihe]

This place is awesome. I have nobody in my family or my circle of friends who read genre, much less write. The Chrons-World has become an essential part of my day-to-day, and is one of the first things I check every morning and before going to sleep. Not only is the exchange invaluable at the practical level, but being able to speak one's mind with someone who will understand what you're talking about is a reward in itself.