Genre--People Never Change

[The Big Peat]

Genres, as commonly discussed and used, have no single wisely set definition.

Rather they have a slew of definitions, set by a slew of different people. The definitions are usually similar enough that we can at least mostly know it when we see it, but spend enough time in genre fan circles and you'll meet people who've grabbed hold of a different definition - or even the same definition through a different prism - and all of a sudden you know markedly different things.

An example of this might be Teresa holding up the idea of a SFF story no longer being SFF if it still holds together the SFF elements, where as I hold David Gemmell's Legend to be a SFF classic despite the author being told to add more SFF elements to make it more genre sellable after writing with the result you absolutely could take them out with minimal bother. Indeed, some fantasy classics have zero magical or supernatural elements i.e. what some might call fantasy.

The point of this reflection is that I believe people spend far too much time worrying about whether their work perfectly fits within a genre, because genres as we talk about them are hugely flexible containers that often get new parts added. Or, yes, the OP's understanding is correct.


I would also like to present the following theory as a tool for understanding how books actually work, particularly in light of "I can write the same story and tweak it slightly and it becomes a different genre" - Horizontal, Vertical, and Depth genres

The short version is that for commercial purposes, not all genres follow the same rules for what books they include

Sometimes genres are ruled by *where* they are set (95% of the time when it isn't the present day and in this reality) - fantasy, sci-fi, historical fiction

Sometimes genres are ruled by *what* happens - thriller, mystery, romance, war story, and so on

And then you have the odd man out in horror (and probably some others I'm not thinking of) which is ruled by how it wants us to *feel*.

However, obviously, closer examination will reveal that all books register on all three of those in some ways. You could, if you wished, start building genres by seeing where a book lands on all three of these axes - the Horizontal, Vertical, and Depth.

Is this useful here? I think somewhat. A murder mystery doesn't stop being a murder mystery for being written countless galaxies away or in the elf kingdoms (although it will get put on a different shelf). Perhaps it feels less dirty for doing so. And, if you want a work to migrate genres more thoroughly than simply changing setting, you can start looking at what *feel* genres tend to go with the new genre more. Fantasy tends to lend itself to feelings of awe than 80s urban landscape.

 

[JunkMonkey]

I've held off watching the movie Spaceman: The trailers and posters have a giant tarantula talking to the astronaut. I have a sneaking suspicion it's an artsy fartsy movie rather than an actual SF movie. Like, all the synopses tell me it's an alien, but I suspect I'm going to be suckered into a boring philosophical movie where it's all happening in the astronaut's head and it's some kind of rumination of life.

And what defines an 'actual SF movie'? Personally I expect more from my SF than (laser) sword fights, car ('speeder') chases, and (OK Corral) blaster duels. I come away more fired up and excited by ideas than the same old same old cowboys and indians shoot'em ups. Yes, pulp tropes slide easily into new costumes and jolly good entertaining fun it is too and SF can play with those toys. Nothing wrong with that. But SF can and does, go places where other genres can't. Not won't. Can't.

There's more to think about in small talky pieces like Ex_Machina, Her, and Arrival than the whole of the Star Wars franchise (films, books, tv series, comics, games, ad nauseam) put together.

 

[Ursa major]

This is a story that could only take place in a science fiction novel

...even if the setting happened to be a cruise ship crossing the Atlantic Ocean...

...though the ship going down after hitting an iceberg (resolving the various unresolvable issues mentioned) might be pushing things too far as it might look to have a rather too convenient deus ex machina ending.

 

[Ursa major]

catching the heavenly winds

They're called the solar wind these days.

 

[Toby Frost]

My heart sinks at the prospect of another "Is Star Wars really SF?" debate.

 

[sknox]

>I would just write it and decide the genre label when it's done.
Yes, to this and other posts in the same spirit. Genre is what happens to a story after it's a story.

Sure, I know. There are plenty of writers who write to a genre. Or to an audience. Maybe I reject that merely because I don't know or am disinclined to do it. All I know for sure is, it's possible to ignore it all and just write your story and let others tell you the genre, the audience, and all the hidden meanings you didn't know were there. It must be like how the playwright or director feels as the critics review their show.

Also, the subject line is wrong. It's not people. It's war never changes. ;-)

 

[JunkMonkey]

My heart sinks at the prospect of another "Is Star Wars really SF?" debate.

Not my intention to start one - just the biggest most vacuous thing with an SF label on it I could think of.

 

[Swank]

And what defines an 'actual SF movie'? Personally I expect more from my SF than (laser) sword fights, car ('speeder') chases, and (OK Corral) blaster duels. I come away more fired up and excited by ideas than the same old same old cowboys and indians shoot'em ups. Yes, pulp tropes slide easily into new costumes and jolly good entertaining fun it is too and SF can play with those toys. Nothing wrong with that. But SF can and does, go places where other genres can't. Not won't. Can't.

There's more to think about in small talky pieces like Ex_Machina, Her, and Arrival than the whole of the Star Wars franchise (films, books, tv series, comics, games, ad nauseam) put together.

Those films also transport us less than SW does. Everywhere you look in SW there are technologies, economies and cultures that the audience gets to witness without it all being explained and tied up into a neat package. The usual tendency with SF films is to just modify something about the present enough to qualify as SF - often in a not very thoughtful way. SW is a much greater feat of worldbuilding than something like Aliens or Star Trek.

And, if my premise about worldbuilding holds any water, the value in a more created world is boundless. Because that's what sucks you in - not thought experiments that seem trite once you've slept on them.

 

[JunkMonkey]

Those films also transport us less than SW does. Everywhere you look in SW there are technologies, economies and cultures that the audience gets to witness without it all being explained and tied up into a neat package. The usual tendency with SF films is to just modify something about the present enough to qualify as SF - often in a not very thoughtful way. SW is a much greater feat of worldbuilding than something like Aliens or Star Trek.

And, if my premise about worldbuilding holds any water, the value in a more created world is boundless. Because that's what sucks you in - not thought experiments that seem trite once you've slept on them.

World building on its own is enough? Throw enough "oooooh shiny!" eye candy complexity at the screen and that qualifies as 'good'? Not for me.

I don't get transported at all by an endless circus parade of gosh wow! looky at that! I like to to have my SF with some ideas at their core.

Star Wars is all dress and no knickers wrapped around the same old, same old semi-fascistic, might is right, dynastic power struggles and daddy issues interspersed with 'In Your Local Toyshop NOW!' beauty shot merchandising. "It is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Though, it must be said, it is better than Rebel Moon which, by comparison, is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying minus thirty-two point seven and three quarters on any scale you care to measure it on.

 

[msstice]

The Sci-Fi becomes a Western, High Fantasy, or so on.

Though I have no intention of doing that--it feels somewhat dirty--it does point out to me that I worry too much about keeping the story in its genre lane, when it really doesn't matter.

(I realized that I never replied to the original thought.)

I'd read it, but I haven't hatched enough clones to ensure your commercial success on that basis.

Which is a jovial way of saying Genres are markets (often discovered markets, no doubt) that publishers have commercial stats for and can estimate things like: how much might I sell? How much and where and at what cost do I need to advertise? Does the public persona of the author fit the market (is the author marketable)?

If you want to make money, you have to do the formula.

If you want to write, do your own damn thing.

There is probably a happy almost idyllic middle ground where you find, even for a short time, a niche where you can gather enough readers for your particular brand of zaniness for a small publisher to take you on. I think there are several Chrons members with such markets.

Coming back to the "I'd read it." If I like your characters and if you keep the Deus Ex machina to a minimum, I will follow you through alien planets, faster than light travel, gun slinging duels, sword and sorcery and even a little politics all in the same story. And you can label that SF and I'll be happy with it.

 

[Swank]

World building on its own is enough? Throw enough "oooooh shiny!" eye candy complexity at the screen and that qualifies as 'good'? Not for me.

I don't get transported at all by an endless circus parade of gosh wow! looky at that! I like to to have my SF with some ideas at their core.

Star Wars is all dress and no knickers wrapped around the same old, same old semi-fascistic, might is right, dynastic power struggles and daddy issues interspersed with 'In Your Local Toyshop NOW!' beauty shot merchandising. "It is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Though, it must be said, it is better than Rebel Moon which, by comparison, is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying minus thirty-two point seven and three quarters on any scale you care to measure it on.

You are confusing your notions of story quality with my suggestion of what ought to be on the screen. Your analysis doesn't go further than the screenplay, but a film is an audio visual event, not a text. And I'm pointing out that SW does more to establish that it is an audio visual SF experience than a film about human like golems making their escape, or a one line riddle about time turned into a first contact film.

 

[JunkMonkey]

If I like your characters and if you keep the Deus Ex machina to a minimum,

... and the 'doing stupid things/making obviously stupid decisions just to keep the plot going' moments.

 

[JunkMonkey]

Your analysis doesn't go further than the screenplay, but a film is an audio visual event, not a text.

Screenplay for untitled
Star Wars film.
Draft 1
​

Ext: Night: Space

The screen is full of CGI

​

Int: Day: Imperial Palace

The screen is full of CGI.

​

....continues for 127 pages​

 

[Swank]

Screenplay for untitled
Star Wars film.
Draft 1
​

Ext: Night: Space

The screen is full of CGI

​

Int: Day: Imperial Palace

The screen is full of CGI.

​

....continues for 127 pages​

Those films are awful.

 

[msstice]

... and the 'doing stupid things/making obviously stupid decisions just to keep the plot going' moments.

I'll pick Harry Potter simply because this is what I'm reading to the offspring right now. I expect there is a large economy for the processing and discussing of plot holes in the stories. Even my completely smitten 10 yo was able to ferret out a few. But what carries it along is that we kind of like the characters and the story in the large and we are willing to gloss over the problems.

I've found that I too can forgive and pass over difficult details if I'm in the flow of the story. OTOH the moment I begin to dislike a story I'll find fault with the smallest things.

Books are like people in many ways.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I'll pick Harry Potter simply because this is what I'm reading to the offspring right now. I expect there is a large economy for the processing and discussing of plot holes in the stories. Even my completely smitten 10 yo was able to ferret out a few. But what carries it along is that we kind of like the characters and the story in the large and we are willing to gloss over the problems.

I've found that I too can forgive and pass over difficult details if I'm in the flow of the story. OTOH the moment I begin to dislike a story I'll find fault with the smallest things.

Books are like people in many ways.

Look for holes in plotlines of bookscand films and you will (nearly) always find them. People act and do stupid things in books to move the story along, or in a certain direction. But then again, people act and do stupid things in real life.

Sometimes you have to look beyond the wobbly scenery, the cliched plot and corny dialogue, and just enjoy the story for what it is, not what it lacks. (Of course some tv/movies are beyond all hope of rescue).

 

[JunkMonkey]

Look for holes in plotlines of bookscand films and you will (nearly) always find them. People act and do stupid things in books to move the story along, or in a certain direction. But then again, people act and do stupid things in real life.

Sometimes you have to look beyond the wobbly scenery, the cliched plot and corny dialogue, and just enjoy the story for what it is, not what it lacks. (Of course some tv/movies are beyond all hope of rescue).

I have a sort of rule of thumb that lets characters do two stupid things per story because people in real life do do stupid things. What does help however is if the character realises (or is told by another character) pretty darn quickly they have made a stupid mistake.

As it slammed shut I realised my error.
"Dammit, Jerry!" cried Tabitha, "That door was our only way out.... now we're trapped in here with... the THINGIE!"

or if the narrator tells us, "In retrospect the following twenty minutes would have been a lot easier if I hadn't shut that door" or some other such.

You can buy yourself a lot of wriggle room with the audience like that.

 

[Ursa major]

Did they close the door absent-mindedly, in a rage, to get one over someone else, or something similarly stupid? Or did they do it for a reason that, at the time, they thought was good?

I'm far more willing to accept the last one than I am the others.

 

[msstice]

As it slammed shut I realised my error.
"Dammit, Jerry!" cried Tabitha, "That door was our only way out.... now we're trapped in here with... the THINGIE!"

or if the narrator tells us, "In retrospect the following twenty minutes would have been a lot easier if I hadn't shut that door" or some other such.

You can buy yourself a lot of wriggle room with the audience like that.

Lampshade Hanging - TV Tropes

Lampshade Hanging (or, more informally, "Lampshading") is the writers' trick of dealing with any element of the story that seems too dubious to take at face value, whether a very implausible plot development or a particularly blatant use of a …

tvtropes.org

 

[Swank]

Plot holes happen in film and tv because of editing - sometimes the best edit means using imperfect footage that can't easily be re-shot.

There's really no excuse for it in writing. And there's really no reason that things have to happen a certain way and the only way to make that happen is something stupid.