Putting Books In Boxes: The Genre Wars

[Tomas]

Yeah that too, I think going wild with tags helps nothing. More than five is weird.

[Trike]

Steven wrote: "Now, back to the main topic. Trike, your numbers seem suspicious: 1000 and 2500 seem like rounded-off and approximate estimates. Can you provide some evidence or references backing up either one? "

Sure. The Greeks defined three basic genres: drama, comedy, and satyr. The oldest surviving play is from Aeschylus, dated to 472 BCE. 2018 + 472 = 2,490.

I rounded up.

The theatre Aeschylus’ work was performed in is older than his play, which implies the ancient Greeks had plays (and genres) before that earliest surviving example. So I feel safe in claiming genres existed 2500 years ago.

Since those three genres were already in place by the time Aeschylus went viral, it’s safe to say people had probably been telling tales in an organized, rigorous fashion for quite some time. A society doesn’t expend the effort to build a theatre that holds hundreds of people if there’s nothing to perform.

Turning our eye eastward, the Chinese have literature dating to as early as 780 BCE. However, there are no real examples of fiction as we know it for about 1200 years, dating to around 600 CE. Also, the Chinese didn’t distinguish between their different categories of non-fiction the way we do, and there’s no sense they had the equivalent of genres until the past few hundred years.

I do find it hard to believe in all that time they weren’t telling stories that are recognizable *as* stories, the way we would consider them today, but they did a masterful job of preserving much of their ancient culture so one would think a few examples would have survived. But they didn’t, so probably no genres in China.

I suppose it’s not too surprising things were static for so long, since it took the Greeks years to add a second character to their plays. It was pretty much a protagonist and a chorus for quite a while, until Aeschylus added the antagonist. (Which is why his work survives. People were like, “Did you see what this Aeschylus guy did? This changes everything!” Then his student Sophocles added a third speaking part a generation later and people went crazy for it.) Innovation and iteration moved glacially slowly in ye olde days.

I’ve been accumulating this info for over 35 years. I should probably get around to writing that dissertation at some point.

[CBRetriever]

Trike wrote: "Sure. The Greeks defined three basic genres: drama, comedy, and satyr. The oldest surviving play is from Aeschylus, dated to 472 BCE. 2018 + 472 = 2,490."

are you sure you don't mean satire?

[Trike]

Pretty sure, yeah. :)

https://www.britannica.com/art/satyr-...

[CBRetriever]

OK - I'd never heard of those before

[Bill]

So You Want to Read… A Guide to Sci-Fi and Fantasy Subgenres

http://www.unboundworlds.com/2017/02/

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*]

Bill wrote: "So You Want to Read… A Guide to Sci-Fi and Fantasy Subgenres

http://www.unboundworlds.com/2017/02/"

That is a bunch of different articles on a lot of different things.

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

I think this is the one he was trying to point us to:

http://www.unboundworlds.com/2017/02/...

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

The latest roundtable discussion:

How do we define what werewolves, vampires, and mummies have in common that exclude fairies and unicorns and the like?

Relatedly, what is paranormal, metaphysical or supernatural SFF? Are they the same or different?

[Mary]

My own is "horror movie creatures" and if someone quibbles, I declare in the most lofty manner, that it means the archetypal horror movie creatures.

[Margaret]

Allison wrote: "How do we define what werewolves, vampires, and mummies have in common that exclude fairies and unicorns and the like?"

Well, to start with, all of those creatures (at least in the original legends) are human, or used to be. Fairies and unicorns, not so much. Does that help?

[Cheryl]

Oh, Margaret, I like that.
But I have no horse in this race as I read very little horror or fantasy or anything about any of these kinds of beings.

[Jemppu]

Allison wrote: "....How do we define what werewolves, vampires, and mummies have in common that exclude fairies and unicorns and the like?..."

Hmm...? How about: the first are 'transformations' of their original species - corruptions/mutations (would include zombies of all sorts, in addition to the mummified ones), the latter actual own species as they would stand in any evolutionary scale (would include aliens?).

....but would that put any 'swamp creatures' and 'bog monsters' in the latter category? 🤔 Are they usually 'deformities' or new evolutionary species?

[CBRetriever]

I still favor paranormal as they're not normal humans

[Anthony]

As someone who was trying to figure out what distinction I was trying to draw in the first place, I think of Faerie as it’s been presented to me in various works as being the home of elves, gnomes, sprites, trolls, nymphs, fauns, dwarves, unicorns, etc.

I understand that vampires and shapeshifters come from folklore as well, but it does feel like a different branch of it somehow. And I confess that I don’t know much about the background of which countries gave birth to which sorts of myths and legends in this regard, but I have a notion that Faerie is more British Isles/Ireland, and the others are more Eastern European? But I may be way off base with that.

Having said all of that, I continue to be very interested in learning more about the mythical creatures and beings from non-European cultures. I’m familiar with the gods of ancient Egypt and India, but I’d love to know more about whether those and other non-European cultures have other sorts of magical critters and creatures as part of their mythologies, and if there’s good literature that tells stories about them out there to explore.

[CBRetriever]

A lot of Europe has some sort of fairy, dwarf, gnome, elf types in the stories

[Jemppu]

Anthony wrote: "...I’m familiar with the gods of ancient Egypt and India, but I’d love to know more about whether those and other non-European cultures have other sorts of magical critters and creatures as part of their mythologies,..."

Same. Though, I could do with deepening that familiarity still on part of India. And indeed curious of any other countries'/regions' mythologies - I fear a fair amount of any such literature may be quite locally targeted, however, and rarely gets translated for foreign audience.

Japanese folklore definitely has a rich history of 'monsters' of the most bizarre kind. And it feels the kind of lore that's still active in updating itself, keeping up with the times. There's some comprehensive study material on them certainly, but being such an extended 'family', I wonder if there's any stories that would include them in heaps (lots of manga, no doubt, but I imagine Japanese novels on such traditional subject may be less likely to get translated as well).

[Oleksandr]

Anthony wrote: "As someone who was trying to figure out what distinction I was trying to draw in the first place, I think of Faerie as it’s been presented to me in various works as being the home of elves, gnomes,..."

I guess there is also people (as a nation/race/society) vs individuals - usually there are no country of vampires or werewolves, but there is of cynocephals. There are exceptions in modern fantasy but I cannot recall them is original popular oral traditions

[Trike]

Anthony wrote: "I have a notion that Faerie is more British Isles/Ireland, and the others are more Eastern European?"

CBRetriever wrote: "A lot of Europe has some sort of fairy, dwarf, gnome, elf types in the stories"

Every culture and society has pretty much all the supernatural critters we know of.

The Irish have the leprechaun while the Hawaiians have the menehune and Iceland has the huldufolk, the Aztec the chaneque, Indonesia has the ebu gogo, the Ainu (Japan) has the koro-pok-guru... and so on for pretty much every country. Even though we don’t think we belong to this group, modern America has its own supernatural little people: gremlins.

You can do the same thing for most things. Vampires, zombies, ghosts, giant ape-like creatures, dragons, etc.

[[deleted user]]

The good old 'Sasquatch' of the North American forests would rival with the 'Yeti' of the Tibet.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*]

Anthony wrote: "I think of Faerie as it’s been presented to me in various works as being the home of elves, gnomes, sprites, trolls, nymphs, fauns, dwarves, unicorns, etc.

I understand that vampires and shapeshifters come from folklore as well, but it does feel like a different branch of it somehow. "

I agree with this. Both are from rather dark stories but the Vampries, Shapeshifters, etc appear to be more from Horror with the intention to scare. A lot of the fairytales that I remember, while dark, had some element of a lesson or warning or something in it.

[Trike]

Michel wrote: "The good old 'Sasquatch' of the North American forests would rival with the 'Yeti' of the Tibet."

Yes. Bigfoot, sasquatch, yeti, abominable snowman, yowie, orang minyak, juma... everyone has their own.

Were I writing an SF story about the preponderance and similarity of these giant apemen, I’d go the route that they are stories handed down over generations about gigantopithecus... and then I’d have one show up.

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

It's weird to me that I've never really thought about the differentiations, though I do subconsciously seem to make them...

I like the notion that vampires, werewolves, zombies, etc, are more infected humans, whereas other paranormal creatures are distinctly not human.

I tend to use supernatural for more horror related themes, paranormal for more fantasy related ones (and aliens), and metaphysical for more spiritual or philosophical themes.

[Micah]

Allison wrote: "Relatedly, what is paranormal, metaphysical or supernatural SFF? Are they the same or different? ..."

They are probably the same if you look at how the terms are used for specific books.

However, in terms of technical definitions …

Good ol' wikipedia says "Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that explores the nature of being, existence, and reality."

Whereas "the concept of the supernatural encompasses anything that is inexplicable by scientific understanding of the laws of nature but nevertheless argued by believers to exist. "

I.e. the big difference between those two is that metaphysics is open to scientific questioning, whereas supernatural things are not, by their very definition.

Paranormal seems to be roughly synonymous to supernatural, only it kind of implies that whatever phenomenon is being described is "beyond normal" experience and unexplainable by science at the moment but possibly not unexplainable by science forever. Supernatural is simply out of scientific examination altogether (as in don't even bother to try).

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*]

IIRC, "paranormal" came about - in Romance, at least - as a way of denoting the type of supernatual romance that was to take place.

Ghosts, angels, etc would be "supernatural" while shifters and vampires are "paranormal." It's the "P" and "N" in "PNR" (Paranormal Romance).

[Mary]

Vampires were more Eastern Europe than general, but werewolves were common throughout Europe -- the name is Old English, "man-wolf."

[Trike]

Mary wrote: "Vampires were more Eastern Europe than general, but werewolves were common throughout Europe -- the name is Old English, "man-wolf.""

We need to define the terms here.

What we call vampires today existed in Persian and Babylonian myth and folklore. The word itself, “vampire”, does arise from the Germanic/Slavic languages in the Eastern European region; Croatia, Romania, etc. The Middle Eastern and Asian versions of vampires are somewhat different from the later European type.

To use a famous example, the vampires of Buffy the Vampire Slayer are not actually of the European type, they more closely resemble the ancient Indian version of demons which take over a dead body and then drink blood. India also has a similar revenant that takes over dead bodies but is more akin to the modern zombie.

[Mary]

The romantic, dreamy vampire (though deadly) is all modern and all literary. Actual vampires were more low-class, hairy, and uncouth. In fact, the genuine folkloric vampire was more like -- well, zombie movies.

(The genuine folkloric zombie was not something you were horrified of meeting. It was something you were horrified of becoming, because it meant even dying did not escape slavery.)

[Trike]

Mary wrote: "The romantic, dreamy vampire is all modern and all literary. Actual vampires were more low-class, hairy, and uncouth. In fact, the genuine folkloric vampire was more like -- well, zombie movies."

If you’re defining “modern” as “decades before the United States existed,” then yeah.

Literature and poetry featuring vampires was pretty sexy from the get-go; whether that was the invention of the authors or an adaptation of existing folklore is something I don’t know. But romance, love, passion — even walking around during the day seducing teenage girls — was there from the jump. Dracula did that, for instance. Maybe not sparkling, but he had brunch frequently. It was Nosferatu who was killed by the sun, and that was an invention of cinema.

[Margaret]

I think the essential distinction is between folkloric vampires and literary vampires. The latter start popping up (perhaps unsurprisingly) in the Romantic period, with Polidori's The Vampyre (Polidori was an associate of Lord Byron, which just shows you), continuing with LeFanu's Carmilla and, of course, Stoker.

[Mary]

Margaret wrote: "I think the essential distinction is between folkloric vampires and literary vampires. The latter start popping up (perhaps unsurprisingly) in the Romantic period, with Polidori's The Vampyre (Poli..."

Which was of course modern. It wasn't medieval. 0:)

[Margaret]

Yes, but folklore both predates and postdates the medieval period properly so called. You do have traditional folklore surviving well into the nineteenth century if not later. So the folklore/literary dichotomy is more than just a matter of dating; it's cultural as well.

[Trike]

Margaret wrote: "Yes, but folklore both predates and postdates the medieval period properly so called. You do have traditional folklore surviving well into the nineteenth century if not later. So the folklore/liter..."

Folklore is still with us. It’s being created every day. Urban legends are folklore. UFOs, giant alligators in sewers, Slender Man, anti-vaccine beliefs, are all examples of modern folklore.

[Jacqueline]

I really want to go on that European river cruise from Budapest to Bucharest (I’m pretty sure it’s that one but anyhoo...). One of the side trips is a little sightseeing trip to the Castle of Vlad the Impaler who of course is who Dracula is based on. I vont to suck your bloooood. Anyhoo....back to your regularly scheduled programming.

[CBRetriever]

sounds like someone's looking for help in writing a paper or article

:)

[Trike]

Evgeny wrote: "Hello, all fans of the fantasy world. I have this question for everyone.
There are three opinions on fantasy, and here are some of them:
- fantasy is considered a kind of fantasy,
- fantasy is inse..."

Maybe read this thread first?

I dropped knowledge bombs like America at war, because I have decades of a PhD dissertation stored in my brain that is exactly the topic of this thread. And I’m not the only participant here.

There are a bunch of threads exactly like this one, too, with lots of good points by many smart people.

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

Whoa, Evgeny. It's one thing to want to talk to other readers, or even to read through responses already given as data samples for your own work.

It's another entirely to be doing some research or to be actively seeking information from our members for the point of writing something for an external entity. You must disclose that to me and Anna before you begin, and we need to understand what you're asking for, for what purpose, and with what limitations.

You may help yourself to whatever is publicly available, but if this is for an article or essay then you should follow the same rules as we expect of everyone who comes here for research.

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

You deleted the post where you said this wasn't for a class assignment, it was for an article. if that's not the case, then i'm sorry for misunderstanding, but that is what it sounded like you were saying.

I don't think i'm fond of the tone this is taking. you may explain or respond to thoughts here, or add to the questions. i'm going to assume most of this is a misunderstanding rather than intentional. so let's try again!

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

Well, that play was interesting. Time to yell "scene!" I think.

Next up: Originally, "high fantasy" was coined for secondary world fantasy and "low" fantasy was fantasy set in Earth more or less as we know it. Do you think these are still the definitions people use?

[[deleted user]]

I don't know. The truth is that what people call 'fantasy' and how they classify its sub-genres pretty much vary with the persons defining it. The sure things about fantasy are that it is fictional work, is not science-fiction (meaning lack of advanced technology as main current of the story), may involve magic, low-technology imaginary races and worlds and supernatural beings (demons, angels, vampires, werewolves). Even those can be stretched quite a lot to make the story fit another genre. The Harry Potter Series is certainly fantasy (magic) and so is the Lord of the Rings Series (imaginary races in medieval-like world), but how do you classify a book about ghosts or vampires? Are they fantasy or can they be called 'horror' stories? In all, I consider the term 'fantasy' and its sub-genres a very malleable one.

[Sha]

Allison wrote: "Well, that play was interesting. Time to yell "scene!" I think.

Next up: Originally, "high fantasy" was coined for secondary world fantasy and "low" fantasy was fantasy set in Earth more or less a..."

I don't think so? I usually see Urban Fantasy and Historical Fantasy used to describe fantasy stories set on Earth-Earth. I do the same myself. I have also heard High fantasy described as a story with an epic world saving plotline while low fantasy is just people living their lives in Fantasyland. Think Lord of the Rings vs. The Hobbit.

[Beige]

Interesting, I had no idea that is what high fantasy meant. When I first heard it, many years before the internet, I just assumed it meant something more serious, with lots of kings and queens. And I've never heard the term low fantasy before (even though I used to work in and around books.)

I was sorting my fantasy shelves yesterday and wanted a shelf for fantasy set in modern times that doesn't focus on a paranormal aspect common to "urban fantasy". Google led me to "modern/contemporary fantasy".

[Beige]

Michel wrote: "how do you classify a book about ghosts or vampires?..."

Those are usually classified as urban fantasy , but if it's more of a romantic spin it's called paranormal romance

[Sha]

What's the difference between urban and modern fantasy? I usually use urban/Contemporary and put all books with magical elements set in modern anywhere into that.

[Eva]

I've always used high fantasy the way it was defined by Allison: as "in another world" as opposed to our own world with fantastical elements.
"Epic" fantasy I've used in terms of "it's about the fate of the world/a kingdom/high stakes" and this can obviously overlap with high fantasy, but doesn't have to. E.g. House of Salt and Sorrows is high fantasy, but not epic fantasy due to the focus on just one family's fate (haven't finished it yet, so the stakes might rise later in the book, but I don't think so).

I do think these terms can be useful, e.g. I know someone who cannot stand high fantasy and needs his fantasy to be low (or magical realism) but always firmly set on planet Earth, otherwise he'll dismiss the book as "too out there". So when looking for presents for him, I know to steer clear of high fantasy.

Lol, I see none of Evgeny's posts, they must have already been deleted, so I don't know what the question was there. I'm going to assume it wasn't important.

[Beige]

Sha wrote: "What's the difference between urban and modern fantasy? I usually use urban/Contemporary and put all books with magical elements set in modern anywhere into that."

There is a large volume of urban fantasy, often adventurous, often series, that focus on the supernatural: vampires, werewolves, fae etc. For example:
Magic Bites
Storm Front
Midnight Riot

Then there are fantasies set in modern times that don't follow the usual urban fantasy/supernatural formula.

Zoo City
Beasts of Extraordinary Circumstance
Every Heart a Doorway

This wiki suggests that modern/low are the sub genre of fantasy and urban/supernatural is a sub-sub genre.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conte...

[Trike]

Beige wrote: "Interesting, I had no idea that is what high fantasy meant. When I first heard it, many years before the internet, I just assumed it meant something more serious, with lots of kings and queens. And..."

Almost no one uses High Fantasy or Low Fantasy any more. It was a brief thing back in the late 60s/early 70s, so people who were around then sometimes still use them, but they’re definitely out of fashion.

It’s kind of like when you hear someone who grew up in the 80s use “gnarly” or “radical”. Those words had their day, but that day is done.

[Trike]

Beige wrote: "Michel wrote: "how do you classify a book about ghosts or vampires?..."

Those are usually classified as urban fantasy , but if it's more of a romantic spin it's called paranormal romance "

Not really. Creatures are sub-genre neutral.

The Sookie Stackhouse (aka True Blood) books are Contemporary Fantasy. (Dead Until Dark) Lots of vampires, werewolves and fairies, among other things. To be Urban Fantasy it needs to be primarily set in a city. They do visit a city in one book, but it’s not a major setting. One might consider it Paranormal Romance, which I’m not opposed to, but some hardcore Romance fans don’t consider the series part of that subgenre. I think it passes the minimum requirements for PNR, so I’m good with that.

Dracula is Gothic Horror, but was also Contemporary Fantasy when it was published. Like True Blood, it rarely takes place in a city, so it’s not Urban Fantasy.

Fat White Vampire Blues on the other hand, has some minor elements of PNR but it is solidly Urban Fantasy and Comtemporary Fantasy, as it takes place almost entirely within New Orleans.

The vampires of I Am Legend, on the other hand, are effectively Science Fictional in nature, their condition caused by an extremely infectious virus. It takes place in Los Angeles and occurred a couple years after the book’s publication, so both Urban and contemporary.

Similarly, Morbius: The Living Vampire of Marvel comics (and soon a Sony movie) is a doctor who has a rare blood disease whose treatment has caused him to become vampiric. Taken by itself, that’s Science Fiction, but existing within the larger Marvel universe means that it’s a Fantasy. So both Urban and Contemporary.

[Trike]

Sha wrote: "What's the difference between urban and modern fantasy? I usually use urban/Contemporary and put all books with magical elements set in modern anywhere into that."

Comtemporary Fantasy is a book set in the same era as when the book was written, so it’s a moving target. It’s also set in our world. Otherwise it automatically becomes Secondary World Fantasy.

Urban Fantasy is simply any story set primarily in a city. That doesn’t have to be Comtemporary, although it usually is. For instance, The Golem and the Djinni (2013) is set primarily in New York City around 1900. It is also about the relationship of the titular characters. Therefore it is simultaneously Urban Fantasy, Paranormal Romance and Historical Fantasy.

The Lies of Locke Lamora is set entirely in a city in a separate universe from ours, so it is both Secondary World and Urban Fantasy.

The genre of Urban Fantasy has been around forever, but it was really the work of Charles De Lint with his Newford stories in the 1980s that crystallized the idea of the genre and led to its naming. Newford is clearly a lightly fictionalized Ottawa, and the vast majority of the tales take place in and around the city. Some of the stories are Contemporary Fantasy, some are Horror, some are PNR. Some are all of the above. But the city itself ties it all together.

[Beige]

Trike, I have to politely disagree with that approach to classifications. An approach to organization purely based on setting and not style, would not have served me well when helping customers find their next read.

If I had sold my customers The Lies of Locke Lamora as an Urban Fantasy, they would have been confused. It doesn't feel like a gritty modern city at all and there are no supernatural elements.

And while Sookie from Dead Until Dark lives just outside Shreveport, her problems are modern day problems (I,e. getting enough money to re-gravel her driveway). It also follows the exact formula of other urban fantasy series and fans of say The Magicians, may not have appreciated it.

From experience, I know it's truly impossible to get consensus on classifications 😂 I'd still shop in a bookstore organized by you.