Comments on: Reviewing the Amazon Reviewers: I know this book has the word “Apocalypse” in the title, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to be shitty sci-fi (even the sci-fi in it is really good) so if all you want in life is shitty sci-fi, do us both a favor and buy a different book. http://htmlgiant.com/mean/reviewing-the-amazon-reviewers-i-know-this-book-has-the-word-apocalypse-in-the-title-but-that-doesnt-mean-its-going-to-be-shitty-sci-fi-even-the-sci-fi-in-it-is-really-good-so-if-all-you-w/ the internet literature magazine blog of the future Thu, 24 May 2012 15:16:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: marco http://htmlgiant.com/mean/reviewing-the-amazon-reviewers-i-know-this-book-has-the-word-apocalypse-in-the-title-but-that-doesnt-mean-its-going-to-be-shitty-sci-fi-even-the-sci-fi-in-it-is-really-good-so-if-all-you-w/comment-page-1/#comment-24809 marco Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:02:02 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=14174#comment-24809 Everyone can disagree on what definitions mean; however if you look at them historically things become clearer. Genre in its widest sense means simply "a mode of expression determined by a set of thematic and/or formal criteria, however chosen". Nothing more than that. That's how the term has always been used, from the genres of drama/poetry/prose to the genres of comedy/tragedy or epic/novel/romance to the genres of satire/fable or the genres of novel/novella/short story to the genres of memoir/crime fiction/horror/erotic literature. That is, a genre is defined by a set of restrictions -on at least one of the possible levels of content, style/form / preferred subject. Mainstream means the ways of expression, of uniting content and style/form, that are considered of universal value. It doesn't mean that everyone is interested in each one of them. If my father says "I'm not interested in science fiction, crime novels or historical novels" what he says is that he is not interested with the premises of each of this genres, but also that, if he reads an article who praises a historical novel he may give it a try, or in any case he does consider his preference a personal bias not a negative judgement. Genres outside the mainstream, however, are strictly understood to be of interest only for a selected target group. Therefore many people simply don't think at all they can be worthwhile - and similarly behave "mainstream" literary critics. The point is not that Stephen King or Judith Krantz sell millions - the point is that just as many people say "oh, it's horror/romance, I'm not interested". And they don't think it possible that maybe there are authors who choose to write in these genres not primarily for commercial reasons, but because there are aspects of the genre which resonate strongly with them, with their personal aesthetic, and that they can craft something that can speak to everyone. Often these authors may end up having neither commercial success neither broad critical recognition. "Literaryness" doesn't necessarily mean that a given author/ follows/innovates/breaks up with conventions, or writes in modes/genres/styles considered highbrow at his time . It only means that s/he is particularly successful in uniting the various elements s/he chooses to utilize in order to convey his/her voice or vision. There's a passage in Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey in which her character defends the novel genre. The novel was a "popular" genre, looked down upon as a pastime for idle women, a third rate form of literature when compared with essays or poetry, ridiculed with the example of bestselling Gothic doorstoppers like those of Ann Radcliffe. The novels of Jane Austen were "genre" not mainstream, yet now they are considered both mainstream and literary. Now,as for genres like crime or sci-fi... the cliches,tropes,motifs are not what defines them, just like tragedy is not defined by the number of acts or poetry by the rhyme. These are simply successful evolutionary traits. The hardboiled detective was invented by Chandler and Hammett, and has been replicated ad infinitum both because of their influence (and the fascination that readers who became authors had with the figure) and because it gives a "survival advantage" (is commercially successful). However when we try to strictly define a genre we must go down to its generative principle, which is different even from its original form. The generative principle of poetry is that it is a form of expression in which language is selected in a way to convey an aesthetic value separate from the literal meaning. It has nothing to do with alliteration of rhyme, even if these two basically monopolized its form. The generative principles of some genres Sci-Fi = Elements or ideas in the work require for it to be set in a "scientifically plausible variation"* of our world. Some say that if these elements can be removed without changing the story, it's not really science-fiction; however, even a completely gratuitous insertion shifts the way we look at the text. *a story from the point of view of insectlike aliens in an unnamed world is still a plausible variation, because it is based on the idea that in our universe life evolved differently on different planets; a story with unicorns and fairies and magic is not a plausible variation, because the existence of magic cannot be reconciled with physical laws; a story with unicorn and fairies and magic which manages to explain away these elements in some pseudo-scientifical way, even invoking parallel universes in which laws of physics are different, is again a plausible variation. Crime= focuses on the existence of crime, its impact, consequences and resolution from the point of view of investigators and/or victims/perpetrators/survivors/, the possibility/illusion of the restauration of justice and order. Horror= aims to scare, unsettle, horrify – the range goes from luna-park pretend-scare to existential dread to the uncanny. Romance= a romantic relationship must be central to the plot. Note that these definitions are the only ones wide enough to comprehend all the possible variations inside this genres, even considering works of not exceptional literary value or innovatory intent. What's unsettling for general readers may be the known tropes -some of which generate a Pavlovian response, but it's also something much subtler. What defines crime, for example, is not so much the presence of criminal elements, but the way these elements are treated and the way other elements are rearranged around them. A difference in focus, more even than in importance or presence in the story. Crime may even be absent in a crime story, but still cast a shadow over all the narration. Everyone can disagree on what definitions mean; however if you look at them historically things become clearer.
Genre in its widest sense means simply “a mode of expression determined by a set of thematic and/or formal criteria, however chosen”. Nothing more than that. That’s how the term has always been used, from the genres of drama/poetry/prose to the genres of comedy/tragedy or epic/novel/romance to the genres of satire/fable or the genres of novel/novella/short story to the genres of memoir/crime fiction/horror/erotic literature. That is, a genre is defined by a set of restrictions -on at least one of the possible levels of content, style/form / preferred subject.
Mainstream means the ways of expression, of uniting content and style/form, that are considered of universal value. It doesn’t mean that everyone is interested in each one of them.
If my father says “I’m not interested in science fiction, crime novels or historical novels” what he says is that he is not interested with the premises of each of this genres, but also that, if he reads an article who praises a historical novel he may give it a try, or in any case he does consider his preference a personal bias not a negative judgement. Genres outside the mainstream, however, are strictly understood to be of interest only for a selected target group. Therefore many people simply don’t think at all they can be worthwhile – and similarly behave “mainstream” literary critics. The point is not that Stephen King or Judith Krantz sell millions – the point is that just as many people say “oh, it’s horror/romance, I’m not interested”. And they don’t think it possible that maybe there are authors who choose to write in these genres not primarily for commercial reasons, but because there are aspects of the genre which resonate strongly with them, with their personal aesthetic, and that they can craft something that can speak to everyone. Often these authors may end up having neither commercial success neither broad critical recognition.
“Literaryness” doesn’t necessarily mean that a given author/ follows/innovates/breaks up with conventions, or writes in modes/genres/styles considered highbrow at his time . It only means that s/he is particularly successful in uniting the various elements s/he chooses to utilize in order to convey his/her voice or vision.
There’s a passage in Jane Austen’s Northanger Abbey in which her character defends the novel genre. The novel was a “popular” genre, looked down upon as a pastime for idle women, a third rate form of literature when compared with essays or poetry, ridiculed with the example of bestselling Gothic doorstoppers like those of Ann Radcliffe.
The novels of Jane Austen were “genre” not mainstream, yet now they are considered both mainstream and literary.
Now,as for genres like crime or sci-fi… the cliches,tropes,motifs are not what defines them, just like tragedy is not defined by the number of acts or poetry by the rhyme. These are simply successful evolutionary traits. The hardboiled detective was invented by Chandler and Hammett, and has been replicated ad infinitum both because of their influence (and the fascination that readers who became authors had with the figure) and because it gives a “survival advantage” (is commercially successful).
However when we try to strictly define a genre we must go down to its generative principle, which is different even from its original form. The generative principle of poetry is that it is a form of expression in which language is selected in a way to convey an aesthetic value separate from the literal meaning. It has nothing to do with alliteration of rhyme, even if these two basically monopolized its form.

The generative principles of some genres

Sci-Fi = Elements or ideas in the work require for it to be set in a “scientifically plausible variation”* of our world. Some say that if these elements can be removed without changing the story, it’s not really science-fiction; however, even a completely gratuitous insertion shifts the way we look at the text.

*a story from the point of view of insectlike aliens in an unnamed world is still a plausible variation, because it is based on the idea that in our universe life evolved differently on different planets; a story with unicorns and fairies and magic is not a plausible variation, because the existence of magic cannot be reconciled with physical laws; a story with unicorn and fairies and magic which manages to explain away these elements in some pseudo-scientifical way, even invoking parallel universes in which laws of physics are different, is again a plausible variation.

Crime= focuses on the existence of crime, its impact, consequences and resolution from the point of view of investigators and/or victims/perpetrators/survivors/, the possibility/illusion of the restauration of justice and order.

Horror= aims to scare, unsettle, horrify – the range goes from luna-park pretend-scare to existential dread to the uncanny.

Romance= a romantic relationship must be central to the plot.

Note that these definitions are the only ones wide enough to comprehend all the possible variations inside this genres, even considering works of not exceptional literary value or innovatory intent.

What’s unsettling for general readers may be the known tropes -some of which generate a Pavlovian response, but it’s also something much subtler. What defines crime, for example, is not so much the presence of criminal elements, but the way these elements are treated and the way other elements are rearranged around them. A difference in focus, more even than in importance or presence in the story. Crime may even be absent in a crime story, but still cast a shadow over all the narration.

]]> By: marco http://htmlgiant.com/mean/reviewing-the-amazon-reviewers-i-know-this-book-has-the-word-apocalypse-in-the-title-but-that-doesnt-mean-its-going-to-be-shitty-sci-fi-even-the-sci-fi-in-it-is-really-good-so-if-all-you-w/comment-page-1/#comment-114264 marco Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:02:00 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=14174#comment-114264 Everyone can disagree on what definitions mean; however if you look at them historically things become clearer. Genre in its widest sense means simply "a mode of expression determined by a set of thematic and/or formal criteria, however chosen". Nothing more than that. That's how the term has always been used, from the genres of drama/poetry/prose to the genres of comedy/tragedy or epic/novel/romance to the genres of satire/fable or the genres of novel/novella/short story to the genres of memoir/crime fiction/horror/erotic literature. That is, a genre is defined by a set of restrictions -on at least one of the possible levels of content, style/form / preferred subject. Mainstream means the ways of expression, of uniting content and style/form, that are considered of universal value. It doesn't mean that everyone is interested in each one of them. If my father says "I'm not interested in science fiction, crime novels or historical novels" what he says is that he is not interested with the premises of each of this genres, but also that, if he reads an article who praises a historical novel he may give it a try, or in any case he does consider his preference a personal bias not a negative judgement. Genres outside the mainstream, however, are strictly understood to be of interest only for a selected target group. Therefore many people simply don't think at all they can be worthwhile - and similarly behave "mainstream" literary critics. The point is not that Stephen King or Judith Krantz sell millions - the point is that just as many people say "oh, it's horror/romance, I'm not interested". And they don't think it possible that maybe there are authors who choose to write in these genres not primarily for commercial reasons, but because there are aspects of the genre which resonate strongly with them, with their personal aesthetic, and that they can craft something that can speak to everyone. Often these authors may end up having neither commercial success neither broad critical recognition. "Literaryness" doesn't necessarily mean that a given author/ follows/innovates/breaks up with conventions, or writes in modes/genres/styles considered highbrow at his time . It only means that s/he is particularly successful in uniting the various elements s/he chooses to utilize in order to convey his/her voice or vision. There's a passage in Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey in which her character defends the novel genre. The novel was a "popular" genre, looked down upon as a pastime for idle women, a third rate form of literature when compared with essays or poetry, ridiculed with the example of bestselling Gothic doorstoppers like those of Ann Radcliffe. The novels of Jane Austen were "genre" not mainstream, yet now they are considered both mainstream and literary. Now,as for genres like crime or sci-fi... the cliches,tropes,motifs are not what defines them, just like tragedy is not defined by the number of acts or poetry by the rhyme. These are simply successful evolutionary traits. The hardboiled detective was invented by Chandler and Hammett, and has been replicated ad infinitum both because of their influence (and the fascination that readers who became authors had with the figure) and because it gives a "survival advantage" (is commercially successful). However when we try to strictly define a genre we must go down to its generative principle, which is different even from its original form. The generative principle of poetry is that it is a form of expression in which language is selected in a way to convey an aesthetic value separate from the literal meaning. It has nothing to do with alliteration of rhyme, even if these two basically monopolized its form. The generative principles of some genres Sci-Fi = Elements or ideas in the work require for it to be set in a "scientifically plausible variation"* of our world. Some say that if these elements can be removed without changing the story, it's not really science-fiction; however, even a completely gratuitous insertion shifts the way we look at the text. *a story from the point of view of insectlike aliens in an unnamed world is still a plausible variation, because it is based on the idea that in our universe life evolved differently on different planets; a story with unicorns and fairies and magic is not a plausible variation, because the existence of magic cannot be reconciled with physical laws; a story with unicorn and fairies and magic which manages to explain away these elements in some pseudo-scientifical way, even invoking parallel universes in which laws of physics are different, is again a plausible variation. Crime= focuses on the existence of crime, its impact, consequences and resolution from the point of view of investigators and/or victims/perpetrators/survivors/, the possibility/illusion of the restauration of justice and order. Horror= aims to scare, unsettle, horrify – the range goes from luna-park pretend-scare to existential dread to the uncanny. Romance= a romantic relationship must be central to the plot. Note that these definitions are the only ones wide enough to comprehend all the possible variations inside this genres, even considering works of not exceptional literary value or innovatory intent. What's unsettling for general readers may be the known tropes -some of which generate a Pavlovian response, but it's also something much subtler. What defines crime, for example, is not so much the presence of criminal elements, but the way these elements are treated and the way other elements are rearranged around them. A difference in focus, more even than in importance or presence in the story. Crime may even be absent in a crime story, but still cast a shadow over all the narration. Everyone can disagree on what definitions mean; however if you look at them historically things become clearer.
Genre in its widest sense means simply “a mode of expression determined by a set of thematic and/or formal criteria, however chosen”. Nothing more than that. That’s how the term has always been used, from the genres of drama/poetry/prose to the genres of comedy/tragedy or epic/novel/romance to the genres of satire/fable or the genres of novel/novella/short story to the genres of memoir/crime fiction/horror/erotic literature. That is, a genre is defined by a set of restrictions -on at least one of the possible levels of content, style/form / preferred subject.
Mainstream means the ways of expression, of uniting content and style/form, that are considered of universal value. It doesn’t mean that everyone is interested in each one of them.
If my father says “I’m not interested in science fiction, crime novels or historical novels” what he says is that he is not interested with the premises of each of this genres, but also that, if he reads an article who praises a historical novel he may give it a try, or in any case he does consider his preference a personal bias not a negative judgement. Genres outside the mainstream, however, are strictly understood to be of interest only for a selected target group. Therefore many people simply don’t think at all they can be worthwhile – and similarly behave “mainstream” literary critics. The point is not that Stephen King or Judith Krantz sell millions – the point is that just as many people say “oh, it’s horror/romance, I’m not interested”. And they don’t think it possible that maybe there are authors who choose to write in these genres not primarily for commercial reasons, but because there are aspects of the genre which resonate strongly with them, with their personal aesthetic, and that they can craft something that can speak to everyone. Often these authors may end up having neither commercial success neither broad critical recognition.
“Literaryness” doesn’t necessarily mean that a given author/ follows/innovates/breaks up with conventions, or writes in modes/genres/styles considered highbrow at his time . It only means that s/he is particularly successful in uniting the various elements s/he chooses to utilize in order to convey his/her voice or vision.
There’s a passage in Jane Austen’s Northanger Abbey in which her character defends the novel genre. The novel was a “popular” genre, looked down upon as a pastime for idle women, a third rate form of literature when compared with essays or poetry, ridiculed with the example of bestselling Gothic doorstoppers like those of Ann Radcliffe.
The novels of Jane Austen were “genre” not mainstream, yet now they are considered both mainstream and literary.
Now,as for genres like crime or sci-fi… the cliches,tropes,motifs are not what defines them, just like tragedy is not defined by the number of acts or poetry by the rhyme. These are simply successful evolutionary traits. The hardboiled detective was invented by Chandler and Hammett, and has been replicated ad infinitum both because of their influence (and the fascination that readers who became authors had with the figure) and because it gives a “survival advantage” (is commercially successful).
However when we try to strictly define a genre we must go down to its generative principle, which is different even from its original form. The generative principle of poetry is that it is a form of expression in which language is selected in a way to convey an aesthetic value separate from the literal meaning. It has nothing to do with alliteration of rhyme, even if these two basically monopolized its form.

The generative principles of some genres

Sci-Fi = Elements or ideas in the work require for it to be set in a “scientifically plausible variation”* of our world. Some say that if these elements can be removed without changing the story, it’s not really science-fiction; however, even a completely gratuitous insertion shifts the way we look at the text.

*a story from the point of view of insectlike aliens in an unnamed world is still a plausible variation, because it is based on the idea that in our universe life evolved differently on different planets; a story with unicorns and fairies and magic is not a plausible variation, because the existence of magic cannot be reconciled with physical laws; a story with unicorn and fairies and magic which manages to explain away these elements in some pseudo-scientifical way, even invoking parallel universes in which laws of physics are different, is again a plausible variation.

Crime= focuses on the existence of crime, its impact, consequences and resolution from the point of view of investigators and/or victims/perpetrators/survivors/, the possibility/illusion of the restauration of justice and order.

Horror= aims to scare, unsettle, horrify – the range goes from luna-park pretend-scare to existential dread to the uncanny.

Romance= a romantic relationship must be central to the plot.

Note that these definitions are the only ones wide enough to comprehend all the possible variations inside this genres, even considering works of not exceptional literary value or innovatory intent.

What’s unsettling for general readers may be the known tropes -some of which generate a Pavlovian response, but it’s also something much subtler. What defines crime, for example, is not so much the presence of criminal elements, but the way these elements are treated and the way other elements are rearranged around them. A difference in focus, more even than in importance or presence in the story. Crime may even be absent in a crime story, but still cast a shadow over all the narration.

]]> By: Lincoln http://htmlgiant.com/mean/reviewing-the-amazon-reviewers-i-know-this-book-has-the-word-apocalypse-in-the-title-but-that-doesnt-mean-its-going-to-be-shitty-sci-fi-even-the-sci-fi-in-it-is-really-good-so-if-all-you-w/comment-page-1/#comment-24792 Lincoln Sat, 05 Sep 2009 06:17:04 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=14174#comment-24792 Nathan, But wouldn't that apply to anything? Magical realism, surrealism, whatever? Truly not trying to reduce marco's argument, just trying to understand it. Nathan,

But wouldn’t that apply to anything? Magical realism, surrealism, whatever? Truly not trying to reduce marco’s argument, just trying to understand it.

]]> By: Lincoln http://htmlgiant.com/mean/reviewing-the-amazon-reviewers-i-know-this-book-has-the-word-apocalypse-in-the-title-but-that-doesnt-mean-its-going-to-be-shitty-sci-fi-even-the-sci-fi-in-it-is-really-good-so-if-all-you-w/comment-page-1/#comment-114263 Lincoln Sat, 05 Sep 2009 06:17:00 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=14174#comment-114263 Nathan, But wouldn't that apply to anything? Magical realism, surrealism, whatever? Truly not trying to reduce marco's argument, just trying to understand it. Nathan,

But wouldn’t that apply to anything? Magical realism, surrealism, whatever? Truly not trying to reduce marco’s argument, just trying to understand it.

]]> By: Nathan (Nate) Tyree http://htmlgiant.com/mean/reviewing-the-amazon-reviewers-i-know-this-book-has-the-word-apocalypse-in-the-title-but-that-doesnt-mean-its-going-to-be-shitty-sci-fi-even-the-sci-fi-in-it-is-really-good-so-if-all-you-w/comment-page-1/#comment-24782 Nathan (Nate) Tyree Sat, 05 Sep 2009 02:11:43 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=14174#comment-24782 To Lincoln above- I think Marco's argument does apply to other "genres" (in a way). While Jim Thompson was writing hard knuckled "crime fiction" he was also using well worn tropes to illuminate something about human nature in the real world (you don't have to live in a west texas town governed by a sociopathic sheriff to get the points that power corrupts and people can be easily manipulated or that sometimes the smart guy plays dumb for a reason). I may be off target here, but To Lincoln above-

I think Marco’s argument does apply to other “genres” (in a way). While Jim Thompson was writing hard knuckled “crime fiction” he was also using well worn tropes to illuminate something about human nature in the real world (you don’t have to live in a west texas town governed by a sociopathic sheriff to get the points that power corrupts and people can be easily manipulated or that sometimes the smart guy plays dumb for a reason). I may be off target here, but

]]> By: Nathan (Nate) Tyree http://htmlgiant.com/mean/reviewing-the-amazon-reviewers-i-know-this-book-has-the-word-apocalypse-in-the-title-but-that-doesnt-mean-its-going-to-be-shitty-sci-fi-even-the-sci-fi-in-it-is-really-good-so-if-all-you-w/comment-page-1/#comment-114262 Nathan (Nate) Tyree Sat, 05 Sep 2009 02:11:00 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=14174#comment-114262 To Lincoln above- I think Marco's argument does apply to other "genres" (in a way). While Jim Thompson was writing hard knuckled "crime fiction" he was also using well worn tropes to illuminate something about human nature in the real world (you don't have to live in a west texas town governed by a sociopathic sheriff to get the points that power corrupts and people can be easily manipulated or that sometimes the smart guy plays dumb for a reason). I may be off target here, but To Lincoln above-

I think Marco’s argument does apply to other “genres” (in a way). While Jim Thompson was writing hard knuckled “crime fiction” he was also using well worn tropes to illuminate something about human nature in the real world (you don’t have to live in a west texas town governed by a sociopathic sheriff to get the points that power corrupts and people can be easily manipulated or that sometimes the smart guy plays dumb for a reason). I may be off target here, but

]]> By: Lincoln http://htmlgiant.com/mean/reviewing-the-amazon-reviewers-i-know-this-book-has-the-word-apocalypse-in-the-title-but-that-doesnt-mean-its-going-to-be-shitty-sci-fi-even-the-sci-fi-in-it-is-really-good-so-if-all-you-w/comment-page-1/#comment-24777 Lincoln Sat, 05 Sep 2009 00:15:34 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=14174#comment-24777 I like where you are going with this, although I suspect there would be plenty of genre and literary people alike who would totally disagree with your definitions, especially of genre. It still seems odd to me to define genre against the mainstream in the way you seem to, when Harry Potter, Stephen King and what not are the kings of the mainstream in terms of sales and readership (what mainstream normally means). If I may, however, how do non-"speculative" genres fit into this? I feel like the genre debate seems to always turn out to really be a debate about sci-fi and fantasy (maybe horror gets lumped in with that)... but genre is used much more broadly. How does a John Le Carre or John Grisham fit into this? They'd certainly be called genre authors by most people, yet it certainly has nothing to do with them dealing with "solid" invented worlds or anything. I like where you are going with this, although I suspect there would be plenty of genre and literary people alike who would totally disagree with your definitions, especially of genre.

It still seems odd to me to define genre against the mainstream in the way you seem to, when Harry Potter, Stephen King and what not are the kings of the mainstream in terms of sales and readership (what mainstream normally means).

If I may, however, how do non-”speculative” genres fit into this? I feel like the genre debate seems to always turn out to really be a debate about sci-fi and fantasy (maybe horror gets lumped in with that)… but genre is used much more broadly. How does a John Le Carre or John Grisham fit into this? They’d certainly be called genre authors by most people, yet it certainly has nothing to do with them dealing with “solid” invented worlds or anything.

]]> By: Lincoln http://htmlgiant.com/mean/reviewing-the-amazon-reviewers-i-know-this-book-has-the-word-apocalypse-in-the-title-but-that-doesnt-mean-its-going-to-be-shitty-sci-fi-even-the-sci-fi-in-it-is-really-good-so-if-all-you-w/comment-page-1/#comment-114261 Lincoln Sat, 05 Sep 2009 00:15:00 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=14174#comment-114261 I like where you are going with this, although I suspect there would be plenty of genre and literary people alike who would totally disagree with your definitions, especially of genre. It still seems odd to me to define genre against the mainstream in the way you seem to, when Harry Potter, Stephen King and what not are the kings of the mainstream in terms of sales and readership (what mainstream normally means). If I may, however, how do non-"speculative" genres fit into this? I feel like the genre debate seems to always turn out to really be a debate about sci-fi and fantasy (maybe horror gets lumped in with that)... but genre is used much more broadly. How does a John Le Carre or John Grisham fit into this? They'd certainly be called genre authors by most people, yet it certainly has nothing to do with them dealing with "solid" invented worlds or anything. I like where you are going with this, although I suspect there would be plenty of genre and literary people alike who would totally disagree with your definitions, especially of genre.

It still seems odd to me to define genre against the mainstream in the way you seem to, when Harry Potter, Stephen King and what not are the kings of the mainstream in terms of sales and readership (what mainstream normally means).

If I may, however, how do non-”speculative” genres fit into this? I feel like the genre debate seems to always turn out to really be a debate about sci-fi and fantasy (maybe horror gets lumped in with that)… but genre is used much more broadly. How does a John Le Carre or John Grisham fit into this? They’d certainly be called genre authors by most people, yet it certainly has nothing to do with them dealing with “solid” invented worlds or anything.

]]> By: marco http://htmlgiant.com/mean/reviewing-the-amazon-reviewers-i-know-this-book-has-the-word-apocalypse-in-the-title-but-that-doesnt-mean-its-going-to-be-shitty-sci-fi-even-the-sci-fi-in-it-is-really-good-so-if-all-you-w/comment-page-1/#comment-24775 marco Sat, 05 Sep 2009 00:10:41 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=14174#comment-24775 Thanks. I suppose it shouldn't be difficult to rewrite it after all but come Monday work restarts and I'm also involved in Local Council politics, plus I've kind of consumed my original motivation. I'm an internet lurker with sudden inexplicable moments of verbosity. Ciao Thanks. I suppose it shouldn’t be difficult to rewrite it after all but come Monday work restarts and I’m also involved in Local Council politics, plus I’ve kind of consumed my original motivation. I’m an internet lurker with sudden inexplicable moments of verbosity.

Ciao

]]> By: marco http://htmlgiant.com/mean/reviewing-the-amazon-reviewers-i-know-this-book-has-the-word-apocalypse-in-the-title-but-that-doesnt-mean-its-going-to-be-shitty-sci-fi-even-the-sci-fi-in-it-is-really-good-so-if-all-you-w/comment-page-1/#comment-114260 marco Sat, 05 Sep 2009 00:10:00 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=14174#comment-114260 Thanks. I suppose it shouldn't be difficult to rewrite it after all but come Monday work restarts and I'm also involved in Local Council politics, plus I've kind of consumed my original motivation. I'm an internet lurker with sudden inexplicable moments of verbosity. Ciao Thanks. I suppose it shouldn’t be difficult to rewrite it after all but come Monday work restarts and I’m also involved in Local Council politics, plus I’ve kind of consumed my original motivation. I’m an internet lurker with sudden inexplicable moments of verbosity.

Ciao

]]>