Kevin's Watch

Artistically, as you observe, the word "genre" makes little or no sense. The issue isn't simply that "art is art". "Art" goes further. A necessary part of the definition of "art" is that each work under consideration is "sui generis" (forgive me if I've mis-remembered my Latin): each work is its *own* "genre" because it is uniquely itself; it could not have been created by anyone else; and it cannot be compared to anything else, except in an attempt to enhance understanding. Personally, I've always loathed the fact that my books are hidden away under various "genre" labels.

Have I put you to sleep yet? <rueful smile>

(02/21/2009)


Steve,

No, you haven't put me to sleep. But I wonder: if you are resistant to any genre labeling, then why, in another place, did you provide a definition for novels fitting under the "fantasy" category? If every novel is sui generis (yes, that is the correct Latin term), then why strengthen the very evil idea of unique genres by providing one of them with its own unique definition? <frown>

(02/25/2009)

Doesn't Donaldson address that in the rest of his answer, which you cut from your quote?

I asked why SRD provided a definition for something he says he "loathes." Because providing a definition only provides it with an even more solid foundation. Why he did so was not answered in the rest of his response which I snipped. He only explains the upside and the downside of the genre label. The upside is the practical side, the downside is the value-judgment of critics and reviewers that may paint an entire genre with the label "junk." However, that is only a downside if the writer happens to be writing for that genre.

And anyway, this is beside the point. The truth of the matter goes beyond the response which I snipped. I say that if SRD bothers to provide a definition for his genre despite the fact that he loathes the genre label, then there must be a simple reason for this.

I won't burden you with my answer because I feel you are quite capable of figuring it out for yourself.

<shrug> The way I see it, regardless of whether one hates categories (putting books into genres), they're useful. In order to discuss certain things, it's necessary to label (in order to identify a difference between A and B) and it's necessary to provide a definition for that label.

SRD himself made that point, it was the practical upside of genre categorizing that he mentioned. Now I just need to know what purpose you think he had in defining a label, practical or not, which he despised.

What "purpose" do I think he had? <shrug> Who knows. I'd say none...except what I've already said...and what *he* also said (in the bit you cut out):

But it's easy to understand why the notion of "genre" exists in general; and why publishers and booksellers (not to mention reviewers and critics) specifically rely on "genre" labels. Even within the general assertion that "art is art," broad distinctions are both possible and useful. They provide clues to the artist's intentions. Think of the clear differences between, say, "secular" and "religious" choral music. And in practical terms, "genre" provides, say, publishers and booksellers with useful clues to the tastes of readers. If every book is filed under "literature," readers with very specific tastes have great (perhaps insuperable) difficulty locating books they want to read. It's an obvious fact that some readers ONLY want to read sf, while other ONLY want to read romances. So naturally publishers and booksellers want to label books: to make *buying* easier for readers with very specific tastes.

Now you've quoted SRD's take on the practical upside of genre labeling.

So why did SRD bother defining a genre when he hates the very notion of genre categories, when in fact he considers each and every work to be unique, "sui generis," one of a kind?

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote: So why did SRD bother defining a genre when he hates the very notion of genre categories, when in fact he considers each and every work to be unique, "sui generis," one of a kind?

Ok. I give up.

Who knows. I'm glad you asked him.

I'm sorry to see you gave up so easily. Because if I answer, I'm afraid you will say that you already knew.

In his way, SRD has been attempting to redefine the fantasy genre since he wrote Covenant #1.

His actual definition, which he included in his essay on fantasy, is designed to put a better face on the genre. It is an attempt to render it more palatable to critics of fantasy and, possibly, to make it more popular. It is an attempt to put an end to complaints that SRD also mentioned in his GI entry: 'Enter reviewers and critics, who delight in dismissing entire swaths of literature as "junk" simply because the books carry a genre label.'

Since book #1, SRD has been attempting to convert a realm full of junk (which a lot of it is, e.g., Sword of Shannara) into the respectability of a literary form. His definition of what makes for "fantasy" comes from a desire to promote that cause.

If he succeeds, then he will no longer have to "loathe" the label, or onus, of fantasy author, which in its way has converted him into a 'leper' of sorts, an outcast from the general run of mainstream authors.

I'm not sure that defining a term that has useful function in some instances, yet hating the categorization when used for other purposes are in any way contradictory.

Vraith wrote:I'm not sure that defining a term that has useful function in some instances, yet hating the categorization when used for other purposes are in any way contradictory.

Yes. But I have seen the definition, and it in no way defines anything else in fantasy, at least not that I've read. SRD even stretches ideas in LoTR to make them fit his definition.

I think it is a bit of a stretch to claim that Sauron is an aspect of Frodo which would explain why Frodo was turning toward evil. The reason is that Frodo was being seduced by the Ring which desired to return to its Master, there is no deeper reason.

However, that's the way SRD wants to see it via his definition. And I can see no reason other than it being an attempt to elevate the fantasy genre to a new level, not only through his own works, but through elevating the works of others to a stature they don't deserve. And as amazing as LoTR is in its way, it is, conceptually speaking, really nothing more than a bit of fluff in comparison to the Chrons.

And so we come to SRD's denial, throughout the GI, that the Chrons were polemical in any fashion, and his futile efforts to claim that they are intended purely for entertainment value. But this claim is belied by his own efforts from the very beginning, by his own admission that TC's unbelief was designed to reflect the "unbelief" of critics who dislike fantasy and paint it all with the same broad strokes. Therefore, the very existence of TC as a fantasy character was aimed directly at making a very definite polemical statement.

But as long as 99% of the fantasy genre remains at the fluff level, SRD is fighting a losing battle, and no mere definition, or stretching of ideas in other fantasy novels to make them fit his definition, will prevent that.

WOTWE Said:

But as long as 99% of the fantasy genre remains at the fluff level, SRD is fighting a losing battle, and no mere definition, or stretching of ideas in other fantasy novels to make them fit his definition, will prevent that.

That I can agree with. Fantasy and sciFi (but mainly fantasy) seems to be a genre with lots and lots of fluff -- it's not unlike comic books, teen magazines, Horror or romance novels; someone will buy it because it appeals to a broad crowd, both young and old (yes, I know adults who regularly read comics.) Much if what is written is total crap, IMHO. And that crap is what generates the social connotations of SciFi/Fantasy fans.

The 'Cons don't help either, people dont relate to why adults would dress up like Mr Spock or Gandalf and go out in public. I for one don't understand that either. But I understand how one can totally relate to characters in that way. I know a lot of educated people view adults who read fantasy or SciFi as escapists, immature, or quirky in other ways. Many of these people couldn't comprehend or appreciate the literary merits of The Chrons or LOTR. Therefore, many people don't see SciFi or Fantasy as serious literature, and shun it categorically. I think this is why SRD writes he hates labelling -- because many people wouldn't be caught dead reading SciFi or Fantasy because of the social connotations, and this is what I think SRD wanted to change with the Chrons.

SRD has written that he did want to prove that a man could make a good living at writing serious fantasy; he also to raise the bar, which I agree he certainly did, and while IMHO he didn't redefine the genre per se, he certainly showed that it could be made to overflow it's banks and run a new course.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:Artistically, as you observe, the word "genre" makes little or no sense. The issue isn't simply that "art is art". "Art" goes further. A necessary part of the definition of "art" is that each work under consideration is "sui generis" (forgive me if I've mis-remembered my Latin): each work is its *own* "genre" because it is uniquely itself; it could not have been created by anyone else; and it cannot be compared to anything else, except in an attempt to enhance understanding. Personally, I've always loathed the fact that my books are hidden away under various "genre" labels.

I studied genres in semiotic classes at university, and the simple answer is that they serve a very simple function - the 'framing effect'.

iQuestor wrote:WOTWE Said:

But as long as 99% of the fantasy genre remains at the fluff level, SRD is fighting a losing battle, and no mere definition, or stretching of ideas in other fantasy novels to make them fit his definition, will prevent that.

That I can agree with. Fantasy and sciFi (but mainly fantasy) seems to be a genre with lots and lots of fluff -- it's not unlike comic books, teen magazines, Horror or romance novels; someone will buy it because it appeals to a broad crowd, both young and old (yes, I know adults who regularly read comics.) Much if what is written is total crap, IMHO. And that crap is what generates the social connotations of SciFi/Fantasy fans.

The 'Cons don't help either, people dont relate to why adults would dress up like Mr Spock or Gandalf and go out in public. I for one don't understand that either. But I understand how one can totally relate to characters in that way. I know a lot of educated people view adults who read fantasy or SciFi as escapists, immature, or quirky in other ways. Many of these people couldn't comprehend or appreciate the literary merits of The Chrons or LOTR.

In this case, calling it "literature" can be seen as an excuse for escapism. "This isn't just fantasy, it's literature!" "Yeah, right..."

iQuestor wrote: Therefore, many people don't see SciFi or Fantasy as serious literature, and shun it categorically. I think this is why SRD writes he hates labelling -- because many people wouldn't be caught dead reading SciFi or Fantasy because of the social connotations, and this is what I think SRD wanted to change with the Chrons.

It's very hard to take Hobbits seriously. They are like circus dwarves. Dwarves and elves come from fairy tales. Giants come from Jack and the Beanstalk.

iQuestor wrote: SRD has written that he did want to prove that a man could make a good living at writing serious fantasy; he also to raise the bar, which I agree he certainly did, and while IMHO he didn't redefine the genre per se, he certainly showed that it could be made to overflow it's banks and run a new course.

Only if other writers follow that course.

Loremaster wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:Artistically, as you observe, the word "genre" makes little or no sense. The issue isn't simply that "art is art". "Art" goes further. A necessary part of the definition of "art" is that each work under consideration is "sui generis" (forgive me if I've mis-remembered my Latin): each work is its *own* "genre" because it is uniquely itself; it could not have been created by anyone else; and it cannot be compared to anything else, except in an attempt to enhance understanding. Personally, I've always loathed the fact that my books are hidden away under various "genre" labels.

I studied genres in semiotic classes at university, and the simple answer is that they serve a very simple function - the 'framing effect'.

I had to look that up.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_effect

So what does it have to do with genre labels?

Here is where your SRD quote flirts with intellectual disaster:

...and it cannot be compared to anything else, except in an attempt to enhance understanding.

Then I guess it can be compared to anything else?

(Sorry SRD, but you can't talk your way out of a label, at least not that way.)

<sigh> Okay, let's try it this way:

Genre labels are for marketing. It lets potential readers know where in the bookstore to find stuff they might like to read. That's the connection to the "framing effect" Lore is talking about (I believe). Marketers are relying on the fact that readers will make the connection ("if I like Book A with a half-naked girl and a raygun on the cover, I might also like Book B with a half-naked girl and a raygun on the cover, especially since Book B is right next to Book A on the shelf -- and as they're both labeled sci-fi, I might like other books with that label as well").

I was thinking about this earlier today, when I read that Keira Knightley has been cast to play one of the main characters in the upcoming movie adaptation of Ishiguro's "Never Let Me Go". The book (which is, btw, a terrific read) is classic dystopian sci-fi. But you're not going to find Ishiguro in the sci-fi section of your local bookstore, because the guy also wrote "The Remains of the Day" -- so he's got that "literary" cachet.

(I was also p.o.'d that the news item totally gave away the plot in its description of the character Knightley's going to play. Idiots! )

Slightly off-topic, I ran across an essay by Orson Scott Card in the 2008 Nebula Awards anthology yesterday about where genre publishing is going -- where to find the cutting-edge, really inventive stuff nowadays. Card claims that sci-fi is pretty much played out in terms of innovation, plus it's gone mainstream to a large degree (college courses on "Star Trek" and the like). (He dismisses cyberpunk, which I think is a mistake on his part, but anyway.) He says he thinks fantasy is the next growth area for creativity and innovation.

If he's right, then I'm happy because fantasy is what I write, largely. But we'll see....

It didn't say anything about genre-labeling at the wiki page on the "framing effect."

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:It didn't say anything about genre-labeling at the wiki page on the "framing effect."

Not directly. But one can extend the bolded part here:

Framing, a term used in media studies, sociology and psychology, refers to the social construction of a social phenomenon by mass media sources or specific political or social movements or organizations. It is an inevitable process of selective influence over the individual's perception of the meanings attributed to words or phrases.

...to understand its usefulness in sorting fiction into genres for marketing purposes.

Orson Scott Card, despite the fact I like some of his books, often says some pretty ridiculous things. I both hope and worry he might be right this time (mainstreaming makes more cash flow, but increases the triviality base).

Ishiguro (and others) benefit from the strange and silly notion (unconscious?)
that non-wasps couldn't possibly write genre-work...foreigners are 'serious' writers. [similar to the idea that being 'tough' and 'from the streets' makes better bands (or poets, for that matter)]

People I know no longer make fun of my sf/fantasy reading because when I'm in a good mood, I remind the women that they dressed like a hooker on halloween, and the men like 'Rambo' even with their beer-gut. [in not so pleasant moods, I rant about the triteness of their reading choices, or whether they read at all...for some reason people find my rants...disturbing...sometimes scary]

But yea, genre is a useful analysis and marketing tool that has become
class discrimination of the worst kind.

Vraith wrote:Ishiguro (and others) benefit from the strange and silly notion (unconscious?)
that non-wasps couldn't possibly write genre-work...foreigners are 'serious' writers. [similar to the idea that being 'tough' and 'from the streets' makes better bands (or poets, for that matter)]

Oh, so you've run across some of my rants here at KW about "magic realism", have you?

Vraith wrote:People I know no longer make fun of my sf/fantasy reading because when I'm in a good mood, I remind the women that they dressed like a hooker on halloween, and the men like 'Rambo' even with their beer-gut. [in not so pleasant moods, I rant about the triteness of their reading choices, or whether they read at all...for some reason people find my rants...disturbing...sometimes scary]

I was going to make a snarky comment about people who complain about speculative fiction being "escapist" but then read mysteries and/or thrillers for relaxation (two genres which rarely even pretend to traffic in the sorts of big ideas one finds in sci-fi/fantasy). But I restrained myself.