SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
Members' Chat
>
Putting Books In Boxes: The Genre Wars
MrsJoseph wrote: "You only say that because you haven't experienced it. "Yes I have - that's how I know I prefer it! :)
I've got about eight different library branches in three different councils within fifteen minutes of me and they all do things differently so I've got a bit of experience with different systems.
My definite preference is the library that uses literally the split you mentioned (except for large print) because I can just find the book I'm looking for straight away, and if I'm browsing I'm assisted by stickers on the spine as a genre guide (dragon, planet, magnifying glass, ghost, etc) which might be a differentiator over elsewhere. These stickers seem pretty common in Aussie libraries.
MrsJoseph wrote: "Mostly, I no longer browse the library shelves. I order books online for pick up. It's too messy and I can never just wander in and find a book I want to read. I'm not one to just randomly read anything."
However this is also true of me - not so much never finding a book I want to read, but I've got so many on my TBR list and for series completions that I don't have the reading bandwidth to pick up random books much.
colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: ""Good for a YA" is a statement of quality and an insult rolled into one. Soooooo, saying "different" is not the same as saying "good for a YA." You are conflating two different th..."I embrace this snobbery!
Actually my theory is that YA has traditionally been more "simplistic" and faster paced (because that's what the kids want, AMIRIGHT!) and it's only recent BIG releases that are blatantly YA but also blatantly not dumbed down that are starting to challenge preconceptions, including my own.
I know that there are plenty of complex and interesting YA books previously (the Obernewtyn series was a personal favourite) but it did feel like good authors were avoiding positioning themselves in that area until they saw it wasn't a death knell for their career.
colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "Yeah... as a fairly regular YA reader, I always twitch at the "good for a YA" book, or the "not your usually YA book".Like - how many effing adult books are "usual [genre] type books" or "good fo..."
You got Sturgeon's Law inccorrect. He said, "crud." So I was assured by Jerry Pournelle, who actually heard the original speech.
Boy didn’t you lot have a lovely discussion while I was asleep....Our Library has a rather big Large Print section, a small scifi/fantasy section, a smaller YA section, Westerns, Romance, Fiction they cant fit anywhere else and a HUGE crime and mystery section. They can’t classify horror very well because they’re sometimes in Mystery and other times they’re in fantasy. They’re right into genres.
I’m a fan of genres because it helps me find stuff I’m in the mood for. I’ve recently been trying to work out whether I am going to organise my new bookshelves into genres or just alphabetical order. Genres would be easier for Hubby to find what he’s looking for though.
Jacqueline wrote: "Our Library has a rather big Large Print section..."And a small Little Book section.
...that one was just to amuse myself. 😁
since I read Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Mysteries, Thrillers, Classics and Historical Fiction, i like having books in a big box. However most libraries I've been to, as far as fiction goes are:Sci-Fi/Fantasy together
Mysteries
Westerns
Large Print books
All the rest of fiction
Lol Actually the thing that annoyed me about the Large Large Print section is that they moved the YA books from there to put the large print books in and now there are hardly any YA books and they are stuck in a tiny bookcase. There are so many wonderful YA books out and they don’t have any of them. Their online ebook catalogue has a few more but apparently that’s linked with some libraries in Sydney now so I hope they have some of the newer ones.
I’ve noticed that the audiobook section of the app has expanded lately too. The audiobook section of the library itself is a mess. It’s impossible to find anything in there.
Donald wrote: "(except for large print) because I can just find the book I'm looking for straight away, and if I'm browsing I'm assisted by stickers on the spine as a genre guide (dragon, planet, magnifying glass, ghost, etc) which might be a differentiator over elsewhere. "Who said anything about stickers? They don't have those at all. It's 100% author only. The only way books have stickers there is when someone drops off a book that belongs with a different library. Those are mostly never in the stacks because they need to be shipped to a different library.
So. At my library there are books. There are shelves. There are books on the shelves and they are arranged by alphabetical order. And that's all.
You will never find an SFF book unless the spine LOOKS SFF and/or you have a lot of time to pull each book off the shelf and peruse it. Or if you know the author.
If you are interested in going to the library to find books and you have any interest in something specific (like a genre), then you are SoL.
That, to me, is a terrible disservice to their clientele. I found all my favorite authors by browsing shelves. Which is now pretty much impossible.
But hey, at the least the library is empty, right?
Donald wrote: "I embrace this snobbery!Actually my theory is that YA has traditionally been more "simplistic" and faster paced (because that's what the kids want, AMIRIGHT!) and it's only recent BIG releases that are blatantly YA but also blatantly not dumbed down that are starting to challenge preconceptions, including my own.
I know that there are plenty of complex and interesting YA books previously (the Obernewtyn series was a personal favourite) but it did feel like good authors were avoiding positioning themselves in that area until they saw it wasn't a death knell for their career."
Oh, god. No.
YA has never been as simplistic as that. Not in my lifetime, at least.
But that's the problem with snobbery - you end up dissing, insulting and dismissing something you know nothing about.
There ARE simplistic YA books - a lot of those are usually MG...
But don't forget, there are shittons of simplistic Adult books - so does your snobbery handle that, too? Because simplistic is everywhere and is not specific to MG or YA. But it is specific for childrens. Maybe you're conflating your age ranges.
being that, according to Google searches, the average American adult reading level is 7-8th grade, that kinda explains the popularity of YA books now...and there are some really good books in that category
CBRetriever wrote: "being that, according to Google searches, the average American adult reading level is 7-8th grade, that kinda explains the popularity of YA books now...and there are some really good books in tha..."
I wasn't going to mention that. I mean, when I was in college (journalism/communication) they were teaching us to regress to writing on a 5th grade level. At the time (and I don't think it's changed) most newspapers/stations' content was 5th grade.
ETA: There are! And some that I cannot deal with. Like Deerskin. Oh, God!! That one still makes me upset just thinking about it.
MrsJoseph wrote: "But don't forget, there are shittons of simplistic Adult books - so does your snobbery handle that, too?"^ This was my thought, as well.
Hell, sci-fi and fantasy get dismissed out of hand a lot of times by the "literary elite" for being childish, for being escapist, for being, dare I say it, simplistic...
I also get a bit twitchy at the whole transcending genre thing, like just being genre is inherently not good enough. Like, why is mass appeal the highest benchmark of success? Why can't a really good but pulpy sci-fi book be appreciated for being a damn good pulpy sci-fi book? Why should a benchmark of a "good [genre] book" be that people outside of the ghettos of genre deign to read it?
It just reminds me too much of the whole Margaret Atwood thing where she dissed the entirety of sci-fi as "talking squids in outer space" in her attempt to explain how her sci-fi wasn't sci-fi, because it was just so much beyond that...
***
The article on TV Tropes about Sci-Fi Ghetto is a good read.
colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: "But don't forget, there are shittons of simplistic Adult books - so does your snobbery handle that, too?"^ This was my thought, as well.
Hell, sci-fi and fantasy get dismissed..."
I hate that shit, too.
When I was growing up, I didn't know any readers (besides mom). When I got to college, my friends and classmates were extremely snobby about my reading habits.
"Why don't you read something real?"
"Why don't you read something with purpose?"
"Why don't you read something that we thinks makes more sense than what you are reading now because we think what you read is crap."
And that's what I hear when I see other people complaining/being snobby about others reading habits/enjoyment. You think YA is beneath you so you disparage it. Others who read non-genre fiction put genre readers into "the genre ghetto." You're just perpetrating the abuse and gearing up for some literary snob to look down on you.
I think it's a mistake to look only at a book itself when considering classification. Readers, authors, and publishers have formed loose communities around various kinds of fiction. A book builds on the shoulders of giants, but which giants may not obvious from a blurb. Genre-SF authors may assume that many of their readers are familiar with Heinlein and Asimov, whereas literary authors may be alluding to Proust and Joyce. The SF community has adopted George Orwell for Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm, but he was first and foremost a political writer, who happened to use some science fiction and fantasy devices in a couple of books.
I tend to think of Animal Farm as political allegory before anything else, but 1984 is a dystopian future, which generally gets lumped under sci-fi...But one reason I like the book-tags on goodreads is because I often mark books as more than one thing.
There's a lot of sci-fi which is either political or social satire. Star Trek, for instance, is both space battles and punching/kissing aliens... but it's also an interracial crew and a utopian future of peaceable co-existence.
As a fantasy example, Discworld is rife with social satire and parody.
I mean, heck, Frankenstein was written based on a nightmare, and tackled questions of morality and what happens when science perverts nature... but I doubt Mary Shelley set out to create a new genre in the process, even though many people credit her with doing so.
Personally, I'd probably take an approach like Venn diagram, because there are bound to be overlaps which would eventually lead to subgenres or subcategories.Picture of Dorian gray has elements of satire (mocking the society), fantasy (the picture itself and everlasting life), psychological horror and maybe more.
Fahrenheit 451 which was on group re-read recently, is similar, having elements of satire and dystopian future as the most prominent.
Venn diagrams seem like a good approach.
MrsJoseph wrote: "When I was growing up, I didn't know any readers (besides mom). When I got to college, my friends and classmates were extremely snobby about my reading habits."Why don't you read something real?"
"Why don't you read something with purpose?"
"Why don't you read something that we thinks makes more sense than what you are reading now because we think what you read is crap.""
I got that, too, throughout my school years. I remember in 7th grade in one class we had to write a short story and in another class we had to give a presentation about books we liked. So I wrote a Science Fiction story and gave a presentation on Asimov’s Foundation series.
I got bad grades on both and when I asked one teacher why, she responded with, “Your story was sci-fi and your books were sci-fi. We teachers talk, you know, so you can’t do the same assignment for both classes.”
o.0
I argued that just because they were in the same genre didn’t mean they were the same thing. I told her that was like saying Pride and Prejudice was the same as Little Women. I got punished for talking back. Visit to the principal, note to my parents, black mark on my report card, the whole thing.
I mean, shit, I was 12 and using words like “genre”. WTF lady?
I had a similar discussion with my MiL who was extolling the virtues of some book she was reading, saying how it was meatier than the sci-fi stuff I read because it really explored relationships. I happened to be reading A Fire Upon the Deep at the time and I pointed out that it had everything her book had, PLUS discussions of biology and exobiology, speculation on the physics of the space-time continuum, and a deep dive into the nature of personality. Set in space and an alien planet with spaceships and robots and aliens.
sounds like the person who recommended and loaned me her copy of The Horse Whisperer. Give me a good sci-fi or fantasy tome any day over that one...
colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "Because what it implies is "Most YA is definitionally crap, but this - THIS - actually isn't that bad". "I get irritated with people who call YA a genre. It has its own section of the bookstore/library like Mystery does, sure, but it's an age category. Not a genre! "Middle Grade" isn't a genre, either!
(note that I am not accusing Colleen of this. it was a convenient jumping-off point.)
MrsJoseph wrote: "Also, it reminds me why I hate it when non-genre readers try to force some "literary" genre reads on you. Because they are concerned about your brain. Ugh. I read what I like for fun. "
I'm an ex-lit major and love the more literary stuff, and think it's fun to read. But I know for a fact not everybody does. I'd never push things on people in an attempt to educate them, or whatever. How rude and patronizing! Though I know I've missed the mark several times before, even when we like the same genre... always a work in progress.
Trike wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: "When I was growing up, I didn't know any readers (besides mom). When I got to college, my friends and classmates were extremely snobby about my reading habits."Why don't you rea..."
UGH!!!!
That burns me up!
I got into trouble for writing fantasy short stories. Also for reading ahead in class. My thing is that you shouldn't try to control both what I read AND how fast I read it. If I read Heart of Darkness in 24 hours that means I read fast. NOT that I'm a liar (got that several times) or that I'm a showoff.
But the people read the cliff notes only get in trouble if they use it for reports.
Beth wrote: "I get irritated with people who call YA a genre. It has its own section of the bookstore/library like Mystery does, sure, but it's an age category. Not a genre! "Middle Grade" isn't a genre, either!(note that I am not accusing Colleen of this. it was a convenient jumping-off point.)
IDK if that's true anymore. Not today. I mean, "New Adult" is a genre and it didn't even exist when I joined GR.
When I think of YA, I think of Romance. Romance is a Genre but it encapsulates every other genre that exists. One good example is this statement:
YA, like MG, Adult, and I suspect NA as well (although that’s another post all on its own), are all categories. They describe a target audience and expectations of general themes threaded throughout the books. For YA, that means a protagonist between the ages of thirteen and seventeen, and a sort of coming-of-age theme, to start. That’s a super simplified version, and there’s more to YA, but for the sake of not drowning you in information, let’s leave it at that.
Within each of those categories, there are then genres: Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Romance, Contemporary, Horror, Historic, Thriller, Mystery, etc. And within those genres, there are sub-genres: dystopia, epic fantasy, paranormal romance, urban fantasy, contemporary romance, regency, post-apocalyptic, psychological thriller, the list goes on.
This is exactly how the Romance genre works, however. There is one underlying theme/requirement and the rest is...everything listed above.
I think, over time, YA/MG has become both a genre and an age category.
Technically I tend to think of YA/MG as age classifications as opposed to genre, but practically I probably refer to it in the same way I would a genre.It is funny, though, 'cause when MrsJ was talking about being annoyed with libraries/stores that lump everything under Fiction and then you have to find the genres within it, my mind did immediately jump to the perils of finding a book within the larger YA selection.
***
Speaking of people making recommendations, a gym-friend of mine was recently telling me about this book about people climbing Everest, or something, and she was saying how it's her favorite book ever... which invariably lead to her being like, "You should read it. If I find my spare copy I'll bring it in for you."
Um, thanks?
I have literally zero interest in reading it, but that's swell. Really it is.
***
I think I lucked out in English teachers. The one I remember in high school where we had to do regular reading reports was pretty cool about assignments - he'd give people a list of books to choose from instead of always making us read the same stuff. It was in his class that I first actually read The Hobbit.
MrsJoseph wrote: "My thing is that you shouldn't try to control both what I read AND how fast I read it. If I read Heart of Darkness in 24 hours that means I read fast. NOT that I'm a liar (got that several times) or that I'm a showoff. "I too have always been a fast reader and a fast test taker (while in school) and I never, ever wanted to be the first one handing in my test.
I always liked to be the first to hand in my test. Me and 2 other boys sort of competed for being the top of the class, so I was downright smug when I beat out both of them. ;)
Beth wrote: "colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "Because what it implies is "Most YA is definitionally crap, but this - THIS - actually isn't that bad". "I get irritated with people who call YA a genre. It has its own section of the bookstore/library like Mystery does, sure, but it's an age category. Not a genre! "Middle Grade" isn't a genre, either!“
I agree that YA, NA, MG and the like shouldn’t be called genres, but I understand why people use it that way, and the definition of the word is changing to reflect that shift.
It’s essentially the same as calling “New Releases” on Netflix (or video stores back in the day) a genre. It’s a category.
Beth wrote: "(note that I am not accusing Colleen of this. it was a convenient jumping-off point.)."
I demand a fight! Thunderdome! Thunderdome!
colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "I always liked to be the first to hand in my test. Me and 2 other boys sort of competed for being the top of the class, so I was downright smug when I beat out both of them. ;)"I was painfully shy
MrsJoseph wrote: "Who said anything about stickers? They don't have those at all. It's 100% author only. The only way books have stickers there is when someone drops off a book that belongs with a different library. Those are mostly never in the stacks because they need to be shipped to a different library.So. At my library there are books. There are shelves. There are books on the shelves and they are arranged by alphabetical order. And that's all.
You will never find an SFF book unless the spine LOOKS SFF and/or you have a lot of time to pull each book off the shelf and peruse it. Or if you know the author.
If you are interested in going to the library to find books and you have any interest in something specific (like a genre), then you are SoL.
That, to me, is a terrible disservice to their clientele. I found all my favorite authors by browsing shelves. Which is now pretty much impossible.
But hey, at the least the library is empty, right?
"
Ok, I obviously misunderstood the ambiguity in your original post. "You only say that because you haven't experienced it" came across as suggesting I hadn't experienced my expressed preference so I explained why. Given your reaction I'm guessing you actually meant I hadn't experienced your local library, in which case I completely agree I haven't been to whereever that is.
MrsJoseph wrote: "Oh, god. No.YA has never been as simplistic as that. Not in my lifetime, at least.
But that's the problem with snobbery - you end up dissing, insulting and dismissing something you know nothing about.
There ARE simplistic YA books - a lot of those are usually MG..."
The fun part of genres having no standardised system - I have no idea what "MG" is meant to be. With an educated guess, maybe "Middle Grades"?
As mentioned my exposure is based out of Australia. Over the last twenty-five years of seeing "Young Adult" in use down here, it tends to cover the range of our high schools - somewhere in the 12/13-17/18 range. We don't have "MG" so if that falls into the above age range then it gets classified into "YA".
MrsJoseph wrote: "But don't forget, there are shittons of simplistic Adult books - so does your snobbery handle that, too? "
Yep, there's a lot more books with both good and bad writing in adult books because there's a lot more of them.
Obviously I've touched a bit of a third rail on this topic so I think I'll quietly back out and leave it to people who feel a lot lot lot more passionately about what qualifies as YA versus what doesn't.
Am I the only one who thinks that "young adult" not meaning 18-early twenties is just stupid? Why call it young adult, when it's below what adult age is, in most countries?
You can't sell something to teens by advertising that it's just right for their age. They want stuff that's older than their age. Hence the euphemism treadmill, since we already have "New Adult" with "Young Adult" becoming what used to be "juveniles."
Mary wrote: "You can't sell something to teens by advertising that it's just right for their age. They want stuff that's older than their age. Hence the euphemism treadmill, since we already have "New Adult" wi..."I always wondered about that. I know I always wanted to read something older than my age.
At the same time, the current division of Juvenile and YA does help distinguish 'parental guidance rating' issues. YA often has more romance, drinking & use of pot, reckless behaviors, independent teens. MG (middle grade, upper end of the Juveniles) might refer to those things, and include serious issues like an alcoholic and/or abusive and/or dying parent, but generally the main characters are still good kids or at least trying to be, and they still love (or want) parents.No hard rules, of course.
Fwiw, I read it all, but usually prefer MG because the kids are generally more likable and easier to *admire* than the teens, who are often struggling with stuff they should be avoiding (just don't go to the damn party, do your homework!).
I like putting books in genre boxes but after reading this thread I'm really confused about why I put some books in one genre and not the other. For example I once read J.R. Ward Dark Lover at my internship. My mentor asked what I was reading. I answered with 'Fantasy'. (fun fact he called it vampire porn... which is not wrong actually) But if you would ask me now I would answer Romance. But back then I though only Harlequin and chick-lit were Romance books.
Now I 'choose' the main genres based on whether what the plot is about? What's the end goal? People ending up together or an awesome heist with trolls?
Wait that's not true... JR Ward still is on my Fantasy/Science Fiction shelves! I thought I figured it out *mumbles* The genre war continues... Gah.
wasn't the original purpose of YA to sell more books? Teenagers do not want to read books labelled as Children's books and parents, for some reason or the other, don't want them reading adult books, so the publishing induct/libraries started using YA and now New Adult.
So, how are books aimed at people in their 20s called?
Ada wrote: "I like putting books in genre boxes but after reading this thread I'm really confused about why I put some books in one genre and not the other. For example I once read J.R. Ward [book:Dark Lover..."
Hi, I'm a new member. I don't mind too much if books fall into one or more genres, but I find it a little irritating when an author is just chasing the market- for example, trying to push a horror novel as a YA when it's clear he/she didn't write it as a YA. I confess I'm thinking of my sister in particular...she wrote a "fun" horror novel and tries to say it's YA as well but it doesn't have any characteristics of a YA novel. At any rate, sorry for ranting.
Tomas wrote: "So, how are books aimed at people in their 20s called?"New Adult or NA.
Tomas wrote: "Am I the only one who thinks that "young adult" not meaning 18-early twenties is just stupid? Why call it young adult, when it's below what adult age is, in most countries?"Well, according to wiktionary, at least, a young adult is "A person who has achieved sexual maturity but whose character and personality are still developing as they gain experience" - so someone in their teens would generally qualify. Even some in their tweens, if we're just referring to puberty as sexual maturity, which is usually what it means.
They do further go on to say it's a nebulous area, with some in psychology defining it as 18-40 and others from 15-30.
But even the idea of adulthood is nebulous, imo. I mean, legal adulthood might be 18 in the US, but does that mean people who hit 18 automatically act like "adults". What does that even mean?
Some definitions of adult are just "fully grown". But is that what society really means by "being an adult", or, dare I say, "adulting"?
I tend to think young adult kind of came about more in reference to "adult movies" containing "mature themes" - and young adult movies tackle some of those mature themes, but often in less graphic/explicit ways.
Teleport wrote: "...but it doesn't have any characteristics of a YA novel."I'm curious as to what you consider the characteristics of a YA novel?
colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "Teleport wrote: "...but it doesn't have any characteristics of a YA novel."I'm curious as to what you consider the characteristics of a YA novel?"
There's usually bullies in one form or another picking on teen protagonist. The teen protagonist has a couple suitors (Twilight, Hunger Games). The teen protagonist has an over the top nemesis- stuff like that.
Read a lot of YA that is not described by that at all.
wasn't Harry Potter considered YA?
Mary wrote: "Read a lot of YA that is not described by that at all."Agreed. The love triangle, for instance, is an unfortunately recurring trope in some YA I read, but not all and hardly a requirement.
The only characteristic I can think of which binds YA is it stays at a PG13 rating and the protagonists tend to be within the age range of the target audience.
There have been several adult marketed books I've read which have YA crossover appeal.
CBRetriever wrote: "wasn't Harry Potter considered YA?"The earlier books are more MG, but the latter books veered into YA.
I am just coming now to this thread and can't help think that too much time is being wasted in trying to split books into a growing list of sub-genres. By trying to over-classify books by genres and sub-genres, we may be boxing in authors into artificially adapting their writing and stories in order to 'belong' into sub-genres that they believe will bring them more readership...and litterary success. I am a partisan of keeping it simple and sticking with the classic genres. This business of New Adult, Young Adult, Juvenile, Middle Grade, etc, feels to me both artificial and unnecessary. Each 18 or 20 year old person has his/her own degree of maturity, which may vary a lot between persons. Let the readers themselves decide if a book fits their tastes/interests.
Michel wrote: "I am just coming now to this thread and can't help think that too much time is being wasted in trying to split books into a growing list of sub-genres. By trying to over-classify books by genres an..."No one is forcing authors to do anything.
When I was in college, one of our (very) temporary instructors was some girl who blamed the Beatles for ruining music for the next 15 years. Like the Beatles forced people to imitate them. Pretty much not how it works.
This is like that. If something is popular, others will imitate it. Classifying it after the fact isn’t forcing people to be unoriginal.
it hurt the music industry. When I was growing up, Rock included: funk, soul, heavy metal, folk, blues rock, country rock, and even the precursor to rap. And everyone was exposed to many different types of music all on the same radio station. Then genres crept in with genre specific radio stations following and that exposure to different types of Rock was lost. I know far too many people who only read one narrow genre and listen to one narrow genre. Myself, I read Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Mysteries, Thrillers, Historical Romance and Classics plus I listen to Rock, Blues, Country Rock, Country, Chamber Music, Folk and Jazz.
Well, with the growth of self-publishing, "boxing" could be a tool for better orientation among the endless choice of books. Yet it does not seem to be so, because there are overlaps (I believe there was discussion about paranormal romance and such at some point).Maybe something like ESRB rating that is on video games would work better, who knows?
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Hunt for Red October (other topics)The Sword of Shannara (other topics)
Guards! Guards! (other topics)
Low Town (other topics)
The City & the City (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Debra Doyle (other topics)Barb Hendee (other topics)
Barb Hendee (other topics)
Joe Abercrombie (other topics)
Adrian Tchaikovsky (other topics)
More...
"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wC-j-...