What Sub-Genre is this?

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

lol, jumbo shrimp

[Jason]

I like epic pulp! It somehow fits Abercrombie's work. I think you guys just might have created a new sub-genre. Now all you have to do is keep plugging it and see if it sticks! LOL

[Aloha]

I don't know, epic pulp sounds like a major bowel problem.

[Jason]

LMAO @ Aloha

[Mike (the Paladin)]

That would be epic fiber.

[Mike (the Paladin)]

Epic pulp is also a new style of orange juice.

[Aloha]

For the Geritol crowd with epic bowel problems.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

rotflmao

[Jesslyn]

I grew up oblivious to what others thought about my reading. It wasn't until I got a Kindle and proudly took a couple hundred books to work as give-aways that I realized that Fantasy isnt as well loved as I thought.
-----
Reading thru the classifications, I have a simple system. It's either Epic, General, Urban, S&S, or Steampunk. I had to add Steampunk recently because it has gotten so popular and it seems like some writers go there just to go there.

I don't care about quality of writing, age appropriateness or popularity--it is what it is. This guy's crap is that woman's favorite and his sparkly vamps giv me the stankeye.

I DO have a problem with fantasy without magic or with almost no magic, though. That will set me off on a long, rambling and pretty much incoherent rant.

[[deleted user]]

Lol....you guys are freaking hilarious. Damn I missed this place!

Technically, The Blade Itself is epic fantasy but I think there should be a dark fantasy subgenre called gritty fantasy. It's all the rage ;)

Oh and it fit's oh so well...gritty epic pulp...sounds chewy!

[Aloha]

I haven't read enough fantasy to know, but do most fantasy books contain magic? Any famous ones that doesn't?

[Aloha]

LOL...gritty epic pulp...

[Mike (the Paladin)]

Some are "light" on it. My favorite other than LotR is The Deed of Paksenarrion has very little and a lot of what it has would be called "clerical magic". I can't come up with one that has "no" magic off the top of my head...but I'm sure there are some.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

I want a little magic or god intercession in every book.

[Mike (the Paladin)]

Side stepping your question a bit Nicki, but I tend to judge each book mostly as to if I liked it. If the book works then it works. I won't turn a book down because it lacks magic or any other particular element, but the synopsis will have a lot to do with whether I try a book by an unknown author.

..I just remembered I believe Sasha implies some magic to come in later volumes but doesn't have any in this particular book.

[Aloha]

Thanks, guys, on your responses to my question. Like Mike, whether I like a book or not depends on the whole element, the writing, the plot, the topic, etc. A fantasy book does not have to contain magic for me to enjoy it. In fact, I would probably detect whether magic was used as a convenient plot device, a cheap way out. I don't like it when a story wraps up too easily. I like complexity and originality in my stories.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

What makes magic a fundamental element for me? That's a difficult question to answer. I guess - for me - it is the difference between my here & now and the improbable.

While still in college, I was taught that genre fiction (fantasy, sci-fi, horror, etc.) follows one of two roads: the "impossible probable" and the "improbable possible." People are more apt to believe in the "impossible probable" than the "improbable possible" - meaning that people will have more interest in and will "believe in" something that is completely impossible but sounds likely than they are to believe something that is totally possible but sounds unlikely. I guess the magic is my “impossible probable.”

[Jesslyn]

Thank god MrsJoseph explained. I was almost ready to say 'Just because'.

Most times I won't even accept a supe unless they can pull out a card trick or two. Just being doesn't work for me, they also have to do. The fae guy in the local high school with the Bieber haircut gets shoved out of the way in favor of the dragon-riding serial killer every time.

Wikipedia definition: Fantasy is a genre that uses magic and other supernatural phenomena as a primary element of plot, theme, and/or setting. Many works within the genre take place in fictional worlds where magic is common. Fantasy is generally distinguished from science fiction in that it does not provide a logical (or pseudo logical) explanation for the scientifically impossible events that occur, though there is a great deal of overlap between the two (both are subgenres of speculative fiction).

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Nicki wrote: "Well, I'm going to disagree with the Wikipedia definition, since secondary world fantasy may (as in the aforementioned case of The Lions of al-Rassan, if I recall rightly) not include magic whatsoe..."

With some exceptions, I really enjoy the "import a girl/guy" tropes. But only with complete immersion after that. Andre Norton does a great job of it (when she does it).

[Bets]

So called "genre" fiction never gets respect. As soon as one of our books gets good, literary fiction tries to claim it for their own. Not fair.

For me, epic fantasy involves more attention to the world, where high fantasy involves more attention to character.

I wouldn't put urban/intrusion in low fantasy. I consider it pretty far and gone from Sword and Sorcery. Urban/intrusion takes the modern world and then figures out a way to incorporate fantastic elements. The characters are often modern, and so have a modern take/outlook on the world. I'd say epic and urban almost stand on opposite sides of the spectrum from each other.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

I'm part of another reading site and have recently watched a thread where they are claiming that the only way to be "well read" is to read the classics - and if you don't "get" what they "get" out of the classics, then you aren't well read enough.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

It's always important to challenge yourself but I think it's a fallacy to imagine that reading Jane Austin makes someone well read. (Not that I'm saying you're saying that) I think it is important to have read at least a small quantity of these books - but even that reading doesn't do but so much.

[Traci]

I read mostly for entertainment. Not saying I read nothing challenging but if it's both challenging and boring I am probably not going to finish it.
That being said however...I worked with a woman who had both high school and college experience. But she doesn't read. Anything. Her children would get assignments from school to read basic classics we all read when we went but she wouldn't know them. My favorite was she asked me if I had heard "of a book called Macbeth". Now I am not a book snob but I think I must have even given her the evil eye. I wouldn't have minded so much if she had heard of it atleast.
I don't like readers being judgemental period on any reading habits of another person but I also don't want the classics to become totally obsolete. Maybe it's the day or the topic but I fear I am muddling my thoughts on this as well.
By the way I agree completely that just because something is old doesn't make it great. I tried reading through a list of the top books ever writen. I gave up with the thought I think some critics figure if it goes over their head it must be the sign of great writing. lol.

[[deleted user]]

The level of basic ignorance, especially in the States, is alarming to say the least. People not reading is just one of many problems. I nearly fired both my secretary and one of my agents a few weeks ago when I was discussing a Star of David I wear in honor of those who died during the Holocaust. Without missing a beat and being completely honest, my agent said, "Oh the Holocaust was real" and was immediately followed by my secretary with, "What's the Holocaust". If I had had a gun at hand I might have commited murder. *sigh*


As far as classics go, I do think it's important to read at least some of the classics and to have a working knowledge of others. The classics are classics because they've had such a broad effect on various genres or due to their revolutionary content for the period in which they were written. Now with that being said, I don't like half of the classics that I've read and I don't mind putting my iq up against anyone else in the room. Reading classic novels does not make someone smart anymore than not enjoying or not "getting"(I'm guessing that not getting is synonymous with not enjoying rather than not understanding) a classic novel makes someone dumb. There are ton of classics out there that I really don't think are all that classic. James Joyce's Ulysses is borderline nonsense if you haven't read the Other fifty books he references throughout it. *shrugs* One of the most heralded works of the past century and I didn't care for it. Now tell me I'm dumb and we'll go play trivial pursuit and I'll make you cry :)

[Traci]

Good thing for my former co worker she knew what the Holocaust was otherwise she would have a stapler shaped dent on her forehead. Not that I promote violence but she came close a few times. :)

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

I've read almost all of them and I can say that I have never been quite bored to tears as when I had to read Billy Budd, Sailor.

I don't look down on those who enjoy it but that's their poison, not mine. In fact, I feel those who are well versed in the classics but very little else are not well read.

[whimsicalmeerkat]

Grant, I get and agree with your point, but my human resources side screamed a bit at that story. Not even that you thought it but because I don't find it implausible that someone would terminate an employee on that basis. :)

[Mike (the Paladin)]

General ignorance? :)

[whimsicalmeerkat]

Good lord would it be hard to find employees if that were the case... (Must. Be. Job-Related!)

God I want out of the HR field.

[Jason]

I think it's good to have read the classics. But I'm not a snob about it. Snobery tends to piss me off. LOL

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Denae wrote: "Good lord would it be hard to find employees if that were the case... (Must. Be. Job-Related!)

God I want out of the HR field."

I'm sorry. :-(

[[deleted user]]

Lol...Denae, Arkansas is a hire/fire as you will state. I can fire someone for having an unattractive haircut or bad taste in clothing or for basically any reason I choose that doesn't violate federal law (race, sex, age, disability). Now I've never fired anyone without good reason but the Ability to fire someone on a whim is there and I'm sure has been abused by more than one person in a position of power. With that being said, I seriously think blatant ignorance and stupidity are among the best grounds for terminating an employee. Ignorance can be rectified. Stupid people, on the other hand, should be eliminated from the gene pool.

MrsJoseph said, "In fact, I feel those who are well versed in the classics but very little else are not well read."

Could not agree more :)

[whimsicalmeerkat]

Just a few years and I can go back to school & pursue librarianship xD

[[deleted user]]

Librarians, much like teachers, should be paid far more for their services :)

[Mike (the Paladin)]

My daughter left employment at the public library system here years ago. She was doing work far above her "pay level" but didn't have a degree in library science, thus by the library's policy she'd topped out on salary.

She works for a background firm now and likes it better.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Grant wrote: "Lol...Denae, Arkansas is a hire/fire as you will state. I can fire someone for having an unattractive haircut or bad taste in clothing or for basically any reason I choose that doesn't violate fede..."

DC is like that...I once had an internship where we didn't get lunch - because the state doesn't require it unless you work a certain amount of hours a week. We were supposed to be allotted 5 mins for every 1 hour worked but most of us worked full days with no lunch. I turn into a major bitch with no food.

[whimsicalmeerkat]

Oh god, you've just invoked one of those phrases that is the bane of my existence and which my clients love to cite. Every state except Montana is an employment-at-will state. Every state also has "good faith dealings" legal precedents and in some case laws. You may not lose an EEOC claim, provided you have proper documentation and can prove that you did not discriminate in the termination, but you stand a good chance of losing the unemployment case which in the long run will cost you money. At this point most of the states are raising unemployment rates based on the condition of the general funds, but the principle of the experience rate is still underlying what exactly you pay. Additionally, you can lose civil suits, although I admittedly am unfamiliar with the current employment law climate in Arkansas. I have seen someone lose an ADA suit based on terminating someone for "stupidity," which really was rather absurd, but like it or not, a person can conceivably have a recognized disability, although that particular one is uncommon.

Sorry, rant over.

[[deleted user]]

Lol...I quite enjoyed your rant! I certainly wouldn't want anything to do with your job though. I don't have the compassion or empathy for that type of position.

Lol...as for losing an umemployment case....well my company is rather evil. I can't recall the last time we lost an unemployment case. Our documentation of violations and attempts to correct said violations are practically legendary. We're a salary based company but the salary is based upon a wide array of factors, all of which ultimately, by contract, are technically on a commission basis. So while it would appear that we're paid salary in fact our lawyers and directors have manipulated our contracts to where should we leave the company for any reason involuntarily or otherwise, there's absolutely no basis for unemployment compensation on the company's behalf. I had a 12 year veteran I had to fire and he didn't get the first penny. I've seen it all too often. I don't agree with it mind you, just pointing out that corporations can get away with murder if they employ smart enough people who are morally bankrupt.

[Danielle The Book Huntress]

Jason, I'm so with you on snobbery of any kind. It annoys the crap out of me. I read classics that interest me. I've found a good number of older books that were still awesome. I agree that not all 'classics' are actually good books. I spent hours on a few that made me feel I was seriously wasting my time.

[Jason]

Me too, Lady Danielle. The classics can be brilliant, but they can also lack. Just like today's fiction. LOL

Of course, there are differences between the two, and I think it's a good idea to check out both classic and modern fiction. But I will never really have a list of a hundred books that I think people will have to read in order to be considered well-read. That's just ridiculous. Well-read to me means that you've read a lot of books.

[whimsicalmeerkat]

Grant wrote: "Lol...I quite enjoyed your rant! I certainly wouldn't want anything to do with your job though. I don't have the compassion or empathy for that type of position.

Lol...as for losing an umemploy..."

Haha, I've never thought of the job as requiring compassion or empathy, although there are times I have had to set those aside to do it. I'm a consultant to small business owners, so I deal largely in CYA advice. I spend a lot of time advising people to wait, gather documentation, etc. and find a job-related reason to terminate. The times that are tough are when someone has to go because they are out too long on a disability and the company can't hold a job, or that sort of thing. Those are hard conversations to have.

[[deleted user]]

It's amazing the things that corporations will do to save a dollar here and there. As for the compassion/empathy well I thought you advised the employees not the employers! Lol...totally different perspective

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Jason wrote: Of course, there are differences between the two, and I think it's a good idea to check out both classic and modern fiction. But I will never really have a list of a hundred books that I think people will have to read in order to be considered well-read. That's just ridiculous. Well-read to me means that you've read a lot of books."


THIS! And have picked up a half-way decent vocab to go with. (Picture books don't count :-)

[Bill]

Tracey wrote: "Snobs. Just because something's old doesn't automatically make it good - the percentage of crap to gold was probably much the same. That being said, I get a little fed up with people who proudly ..."

I don't think I'm a snob about books, all I know is what works for me. I have found it important to read widely, ie, in various genres including the literary and classical: From Dickens to Waugh to Updike to the Irish Masters, from the existentialists to Mann and Greene, from Gilgamesh to Mallory to Dante and Chaucer... I always come back to SFF, but my most profound reading experiences have been with more literary type books, most recently American Gods, At Swim Two Boys, The Carnivorous Lamb and others. And all literature can be considered a genre of some sort.

Jane Austen has been mentioned—a great writer, witty and universal and wonderful period pieces—but she basically wrote romances and I don't like romances. Faulkner is like this for me. I find the subject matter boring. Still I have read some of both and am glad I did, for at the very least I learned that even the best romances don't appeal to me, nor do books about poor Southern culture. With so much to choose from, it helps me make choices.

And, in all the main genre categories, like SFF or Horror, etc there is great literature, classics that have universal appeal, are well written and can change how on thinks and feels or view existence.

That said, I have to intersperse purely escapist books, for sanity's sake.

[Mike (the Paladin)]

I've been advised often to "read Widely" but I haven't been able to find any of Widely's work. Of course without a first name it's difficult to track down anything. I have always assumed that "Widely" was a woman who went to my high school because I was also urged (when I was young) to "date Widely". I was never able to find her and get an introduction however.

I'm somewhat disappointed because she sounds like an interesting person... I'm always hearing references to having "traveled Widely" and "study Widely" so she's obviously been many places and become very interesting. She must also be very beautiful (despite having been in high school at the same time I was) as I've been advised to "view Widely".

All in all she sounds like an interesting person, I keep trying to track her down...

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Mike (the Paladin) wrote: "I've been advised often to "read Widely" but I haven't been able to find any of Widely's work. Of course without a first name it's difficult to track down anything. I have always assumed that "Wide..."

:-D

[Mike (the Paladin)]

I don't know Tracey. But they probably have the same agent.

[Jason]

Mike (the Paladin) wrote: "I've been advised often to "read Widely" but I haven't been able to find any of Widely's work. Of course without a first name it's difficult to track down anything. I have always assumed that "Wide..."

I really did laugh out loud at this. Thanks, Mike! :)

[Jason]

As for reading in different genres, I generally read anything that sounds interesting to me. The only genres I don't read in are romance and chick lit, though I have tried both.

[Mike (the Paladin)]

I tend to pick up (fiction) that appeals to me. I find I don't care for many of the books that are considered "classic". Steinbeck, F. Scott Fitzgerald a lot of Hemingway all leave me cold. I like what I like and dislike what I dislike, I stopped worrying about what was considered "quality reading" by the "literati" a long time ago.

Of course the fact that I'm truly the only actual measure as to what should be read helps...so the rest of you lowbrows should listen up.