Fantasy Aficionados discussion
Discussions about books
>
When is fantasy not fantasy?
You raise some interesting points, Colleen of the Crawling Chaos. I'd say that the old definitions of fantasy/science fiction and the like have been blurred lately, and we're trying to establish new definitions.
I have more of a problem with the arguing over it than with genre-creep/spread. I like writers opened up to write what ever they like. We have writers willing to try a lot more things and be more creative now. I think that's one of the things that is reflected in the change of what's included in "Fantasy." The time I would like tighter catagorizatin is when I'm buying a book so I can tell quicky what kind of things might be in it.
A wise man on another board addressed it like this "It's hard to say what all constitutes pornography, but you'll know it when you see it."
S.J. wrote: "You raise some interesting points, Colleen of the Crawling Chaos. I'd say that the old definitions of fantasy/science fiction and the like have been blurred lately, and we're trying to establish new definitions. "Just 'Colleen' will suffice. ;)
I don't think you're really going to get a consensus. Clearly different people have different ideas but, more than that, it's getting harder and harder to define. I agree with Traci and Hugh that a lot of it is going to end up a "you know it when you see it" type thing, but that, of course, is inherently subjective.
Personally, for me to be fantasy it has to have magic or magical creatures of some variety and not be predominantly horror.
Personally fantasy is anything that is beyond the scope of science and could never possibly be explained by science. So wizards, magic, vampires, werewolves (although there are some books that have werewolves as mutations but the explanations are still too fanciful so they pass). It all becomes a bit of a blur with steampunk though. Its definitely not science fiction but I wouldn't also call the books fantasy.
As others have said though, its probably just subjective. I for example do not believe The Hunger Games is in anyway fantasy, but some people think otherwise.
I would agree that Hunger Games is not fantasy. It's dystopian post-apoc, which some people classify as a subgenre of sci-fi and some people classify on its own.I would disagree that Steampunk is definitely not sci-fi, though. While I agree that a lot of Steampunk has been cross-genres and including elements of fantasy and whatnot, "pure" Steampunk - that which has a lack of magic and fantastical creatures and is just based on anachronistic tech - is very much sci-fi, imo.
I guess I see genre confusion as more books for me to read. You can usually get accurate expectations from a book by it's cover and reading the back. I doubt anyone has picked up Twilight seriously expecting an epic reading experience.PNR and urban fantasy are the most jumbled of genres though. I agree and I don't know the answer. I will state though that a true PNR book is alot different than even the most PNR leaning urban fantasy. The difference is the same as between an R rating and an X. So maybe a rating system like we have for every other entertainment media would help.
Fantasy and science fiction have always been wedded together and I think they have actually moved farther apart not closer. I read alot of pre space program science fiction. 1930-50. These books are too fantasy to be science fiction, too science fiction to be fantasy. They are both and neither. With space exploration the lines became more defined not less.
Colleen of the Crawling Chaos wrote: "I would agree that Hunger Games is not fantasy. It's dystopian post-apoc, which some people classify as a subgenre of sci-fi and some people classify on its own.I would disagree that Steampunk i..."
That's interesting actually that you would term anachronistic tech as sci-fi. In my opinion, they never happened, they will never happen, they cannot happen...which leans more to fantasy than sci-fi. Science fiction in my opinion tends to have a basis for its theory and technology,modern science.Then again, I don't read sci-fi at all so I'm really not a great judge. Its just the way I see it.
I consider Steampunk alternate history too. And I tend to think of that as fantasy. Maybe I'm wrong because I label things fantasy that others don't.But the way I see it there are only a few true genres. Fiction, Fantasy, Science Fiction, Horror, Mystery, Romance, and Young Adult. All fiction books must fit somewhere within these shelves. Anything else would just be more confusing.
I agree with Colleen's definitions. I like the idea of a speculative fiction section, which is where I spend most of my time, anyway. I hate that Barnes and Noble shelves horror as fiction, because you have to go through the fiction section with your microscope to find the horror books.Completely off subject, but it annoys me that erotica books get shelved with romance now. Yes there is cross-over, but erotica is not necessarily the same thing as romance.
Regarding YA fiction, I realize that many don't care for it, but I don't think it should be the scapegoat for all the issues that people have with literature trends nowadays. If you don't like it, you don't have to read it. That goes for any genre. What I can sympathize with and completely disagree with is the way the publishing industry deliberately mis-markets books. That definitely causes reader frustration and disgruntlement and the desire to dislike a certain genre. Many of my issues with erotica come from this, although I don't judge or put down erotica readers. If you love it, knock yourself out. I wish that more people were like that about romance and YA books.
I agree that Steampunk is alt-history; however, I don't automatically classify alt-history as fantasy. Sure, the Victorian era and other Industrial time-periods of Steampunk didn't happen. But with some alterations in the timeline they could've theoretically happened based on the science of the time - if Tesla and Babbage had succeeded, for instance. That what-ifs involved are scientifically oriented, not fantastical - thus, sci-fi. The only difference is that the imaginings of what science could achieve looks backwards in time at some of the possibilities that were missed, instead of to the future.
***
Anyhoo -
I agree with Lady Danielle that it irritates me greatly when books are mis-marketed, and how it's not really fair to blame the books for this. Sometimes it's hard not to, I understand, but it's really the publishers looking to ride on coat-tails and whatnot that is to blame.
I think the problem with erotica is that it has two sections: Erotic romance and exotica. Erotic romance is just like regular romance except it has explicit sex scenes rather than purple prose and/or a fade to black. This can (and does) include alternative lifestyles - cause all you need is love. ;-)
Exotica is just explicit sex scenes with no requirement for a HEA.
I enjoy romance period. I read all forms of it except for exotica. I think the only ones I don't read are m/m and f/f. I don't like exotica at all.
As a "serious" reader I spend a lot of time studying and following the business of publishing. I have noticed that a lot of publishers and especially writers have been - on purpose - trying to blur the lines between PNR and UF and between YA and romance. They study the sales and try to put out a product that will cross all lines. The huge sales of The Hunger Games sent tons and tons of romance writers (not really the good ones) into the YA field. The same thing is happening with UF. The better UF sells the more we will see PNR like UF. The better PNR sells the more we will see UF like PNR.
You just have to follow the money.
I think that the publishers are definitely behind a lot of this genre-confusion. They pick up unwary readers that way, and convert some to genuine fans, but annoy others. I don't have a problem with erotic romance being shelved with romance, so long as it's labeled as erotic romance. I don't think exotica, as you call it, belongs in the romance section.
Out of curiosity, Danielle, where would exotica go if not the "romance" section?
I know some of the stores had a marked erotica section, or put it in fiction.
I like the idea of a marked
Well, there are some classic works of erotica, like Anais Nin and Henry Miller, and Moll Flanders (which is very detailed, mind you), that they would put there because everyone agrees they are classic. But I see your point when it comes to stuff like Letters to Penthouse Volume VII. :)
I sort of hate that 'classics' often get classified as fiction instead of with their genre - but that's another issue entirely.
Yeah that is another thing entirely!
I like Meagen's comments about the definition of fantasy. I keep my classifications fairly simple - fantasy, science fiction, horror. If a book seems to cross over into two categories often I classify it as both.
I abhor the recent tendency to lump all speculative under the fantasy nomen. Star Wars is SF!
Traci wrote: " But the way I see it there are only a few true genres. Fiction, Fantasy, Science Fiction, Horror, Mystery, Romance, and Young Adult. All fiction books must fit somewhere within these shelves..."
I'm with Traci on this one. My feeling is that urban fantasy and paranormal romance are subsets of the fantasy genre. They after all, involve shapeshifters/ vampires/etc but usually not in a horrific way. It's more a component of a more magical world--many of these series end up having witches, spellcasters, magical ceremonies and the like that draws it more closely into purely impossible. Steampunk varies book by book--some of them are purely technical branches of discovery, and seem more sci-fi, but some are "magical" as well, relying on occult/mystic systems and the like.
Although I mostly agree with Hugh as well-- "I know it when I read it." :)
I think most readers here like fantasy, science fiction, and horror. I think of it like a triangle with your favorite genre on top. To me these books compliment each other and it shouldn't be surprising that ideas from one bleeds into another.
I agree with Carol and Traci. My take: If you can call the Dresden files fantasy, then paranormal romance is too. It's the fantastic elements of creatures that don't really exist that make it fantasy. And if vampires and werewolves are mingling with people and are not scary, then it's not horror.Just my two cents, though. :)
OMG, PNR is not fantasy! Geeez. Not to be funny or anything but that's just kinda insulting to romance readers and the genre itself. As well as to people who like to mainly focus on reading UF. What, romance can't do it's own thing? I do agree that there are a lot of similarities but romance is its own genre.
I read PNR on a regular basis. I see no reason to label it fantasy. It would simply frustrate people who want to read PNR. PNR - for the most part - is rather graphic and occasional hardcore sex scenes and romance. Would you really call Wolfen fantasy? Or Loving Scarlett? Sexual fantasy maybe. What about Brianna? Soooo not sci-fi/fantasy...but there are plenty of aliens.
Don't get me wrong, I've read all of these with the exception of Loving Scarlett. There is nothing wrong with them. But how would a fantasy reader - looking for something Dresden like - feel getting stuff like this instead of something like Mercy Thompson? Trust me, there is more PNR than there is fantasy.
And how would a PNR/Romance reader feel if they are looking to read about a girl getting abducted by space aliens and ravished (a la The Empress' New Clothes) and get Dresden instead? Or s/he's looking for some hot, sexy shifter action (Dragon Bound?) but got Belgarath the Sorcerer instead (he is technically a shifter...)? S/he'd be pissed, that's what.
There is a reason there are different genres. Each genre has it's own goal. The goal of romance is the courtship between two (or more) people/aliens/shapeshifters, etc. This means the focus of the story is more on the relationship/sex/feelings between these people.
While I do blame some of the genre confusion on PNR it does not mean that PNR is a sub-set of fantasy.
Really? Hot-button issue here? It's not meant to be insulting, anymore than saying all werewolves are about horror is insulting. MrsJ, i have the opposite problem, and thanks to cross-genre marketing, I'm a girl that's looking for something Dresden like, or Mercedes Thompson-like, or even early Anita Blake-like, and running into crap like Friday Night Bites and whatever other PNR titles act like they are about something other than two people (or weres, or vamps) getting together. I maintain that PNR is like steampunk--some is more fantasy like and some more sci-fi like-- only with the divisions between fantasy and romance. Some are about the relationship in a fantasy setting, while some fantasies happen to include romance in their stories. Some people would call Kim Harrison's books PNR, but I'd call them urban fantasy that includes romance.
Carol wrote: "Really? Hot-button issue here? It's not meant to be insulting, anymore than saying all werewolves are about horror is insulting. MrsJ, i have the opposite problem, and thanks to cross-genre mark..."
Hot button issue? You can say so. I - and Lady D - have been repeatedly attacked about romance reading in the past. A lot of FA members showed a decided snobbery regarding romance...
...so yes.
Kim Harrison is not PNR. She's UF.
See, that's the problem of mixing genres. PNR is often confused with UF because of this issue. Dragon Bound is PNR. Kim Harrison just has PNR like covers.
I have no disrespect for romance reading, myself. Reading is reading.
I have no disrespect against reading romance and paranormal romance. I've read and have loved alot of authors in these genres. Actually last year it was what I mostly read. And I do agree that PNR is romance not fantasy. Although I do think some fantasy fans might like some PNR out there if given a chance. My point that I made earlier was that I think some UF is being labeled as PNR by readers who haven't read a true romance book. There's a big difference. I have read UF that has leanings toward being romance in the fantasy section but never a full blown PNR.
Traci wrote: "I have no disrespect against reading romance and paranormal romance. I've read and have loved alot of authors in these genres. Actually last year it was what I mostly read. And I do agree that PNR is romance not fantasy. Although I do think some fantasy fans might like some PNR out there if given a chance. My point that I made earlier was that I think some UF is being labeled as PNR by readers who haven't read a true romance book. There's a big difference. I have read UF that has leanings toward being romance in the fantasy section but never a full blown PNR."Oh, I totally agree on both points.
Carol,I think I know what you mean- I check lots of posts and book review sites looking for UF or DUF, and I just am not interested in what turns out to be PNR. I don't think labeling or categorizing authors/books is all that helpful- you have to consider the cource of the categorizer: personal preferences, age, gender of the reader.
(no disparagement intended to PNR or PNR readers- just not my bag)
A few authors that I consider UF that are well worth reading (are NOT about romantic relationships at all), if you want my personal recommendations (and they may already be on your shelf:
Harry Connolly-Child of Fire
Michael Carey- Vicious Circle
Richard Kadrey- Sandman Slim
Kim Newman- Anno Dracula
Liz Williams- Snake Agent
Warren Ellis- Crooked Little Vein
Kat Richardson- Greywalker
Phaedra Weldon- Wraith
Karen Taylor- The vampire Vivienne
Charlie Huston- Already Dead
Mario Acevedo- Nymphos of Rocky Flats
Mick Farren- The Time of Feasting
Mark Henry- Happy Hour of the Damned
Alan Troop- the Dragon de la Sangre
Simon Green- Something from the Nightside
Gary Bowen- Something from the Nightside
Sherry Gottlieb- Love Bite
The Last Werewolf- Glen Duncan
Correction, Gary Bowen's book is Diary of a Vampire- probably hard to find- absolutely wonderful, and another one-off book that was hilarious but had some M/M sex was Hal Bodner's Bite Club.
What is DUF? My best guess is detective? Have you read,
Street Magic, I don't consider it romance even though it does have a little.
Necropolis is another UF I like.
Dating urban female?Dorky ultimate fantasy?
Daring ultra favorite?
Done Under Financial Pressure?
Carol, all good guesses for DUF- you were real close.DUF is short for Dark Urban Fantasy.
As in a subset of Urban Fantasy...I don't know MrsJ (don't hit me) I always thought of PNF as a sort of crossover sub genre of romance and UF (one I dislike, but that's another story).
I suppose some of the crossover is intentional by publishers, I suspect some is simply book stores not actually being aware of where a book would fit. (The only time I ever stumbled over the erotica vs. fantasy line was the one Laural K. Hamilton I picked up and as I understand it, she originally did write UF.)
But no matter what genre they are in I can't stand cute, cuddly, friendly,romantic vampires! I hate that....really.
Thanks, Mike. On a totally related point: Fuck off Stephenie Meyer.
I edited romances for a while and I do think there's a marked difference between a fantasy with romance and a romance with some fantasy. Much as you can have a mystery with a fantastical element without it being a fantasy. However, book publishers and sellers and shelvers don't know all the differences, and some come mighty close to blurring the line. Urban fantasy to me always meant literally city based fantasy, though I will freely admit for most it seems to cover a broader spectrum of contemporary fantasy stories.
I think the problem is not so much what is classified where (librarians have argued over where things should be placed for half of forever!) but finding ways to direct readers to things they might like in the muddle. I think reader sites like this, well informed librarians and other reader's advisory services can accomplish this.
I am not insulted or surprised when the occasional paranormal romance winds up in the SF/Fantasy section. It's more frustrating when someone pushes Twilight under my nose (again) because I've been talking to them about reading fantasy.
I like a lot of YA and middle grade fantasy. I'm not a romance reader most of the time, though I do understand the formula. While I understand many readers like to specify their genre and it can be fun to go back and forth about definitions, I'm happy enough to try and put everything in one spec fiction area (I have enough trouble trying to get stuff put there rather than lost in general fiction) and sort it out from there.
Just figured I'd also say, I enjoy categorizing books for my own use under many subgenres. For me Star Wars would count as Space Opera while Steampunk might be best termed Science Fantasy. It's fun to do it and debate with others the best use of terms.
Mark wrote: "Thanks, Mike. On a totally related point: Fuck off Stephenie Meyer."lol! why exactly? I hate Twilight but I actually enjoyed reading The Host. I do tend to blame her for the drivel you can find in the urban fantasy section. It all started with Twilight.
Roshio wrote: "Mark wrote: "Thanks, Mike. On a totally related point: Fuck off Stephenie Meyer."lol! why exactly? I hate Twilight but I actually enjoyed reading The Host. I do tend to blame her f..."
Actually, it really didn't. The teen craze with all thing vampire/werewolf etc. really took off then, (though L. J. Smith wrote the Vampire Diaries ages ago for the YA audience) but the adult reading really got the ball rolling with Laurell K. Hamilton, Charlaine Harris, and similar writers.
The problem with Twilight is that it just gets this bright light shone on it until all the other books are sort of on the periphery. Years ago you'd say vampires and everyone would think "Dracula" or "Anne Rice" now you say vampires and most people think "Twilight".
"Vampires" equal "sparkles.":D
Shanshad wrote: "The problem with Twilight is that it just gets this bright light shone on it until all the other books are sort of on the periphery. Years ago you'd say vampires and everyone would think "Dracula" or "Anne Rice" now you say vampires and most people think "Twilight". "I can agree. I do think that the start of the uber romantic vampire that does't kill comes from Anne Rice and "Interview." I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Twilight was inspired by Rice's Vampire series.
I thought that the LJ Smith books were not as old as Twilgiht?? Not that I've read them.
MrsJoseph wrote: "Shanshad wrote: "The problem with Twilight is that it just gets this bright light shone on it until all the other books are sort of on the periphery. Years ago you'd say vampires and everyone would..."L. J. Smith was writing the Vampire Diaries back when I was in high school. The books got a shot in the arm and a reprint when the show was created for TV. I have my old copies around somewhere . . .
Vampires...stake 'em and move on.
For personal use, I've been running into issues with the term Urban Fantasy. Mainly because I consider it to mean any fantasy set in an urban landscape. This includes such things as the Dresden books, but also includes books like Magic Lost, Trouble Found which takes place in a magical, low-tech universe and The Drawing of the Dark etc.So . . . what's a good term for what most refer to as UF? I was thinking Contemporary Fantasy might fit the bill, but I'm curious if that makes sense to others. (and there isn't really a counterpart to UF such as rural fantasy, or suburban fantasy as far as I know . . .)
Shanshad, I usually mean Urban fantasy to be contemporary urban, which doesn't necessarily rule out rural settings. Just that it's a "modern" society. In my own shelves, I call the urban fantasy that's in another time period, "time period fantasy," which is what I would call Drawing of the Dark. Magic Lost looks like what I call plain "fantasy." :) Not epic, not a historically identifiable civilization. That's just how I characterize it, because it makes sense to me.
Shanshad, I usually mean Urban fantasy to be contemporary urban, which doesn't necessarily rule out rural settings. Just that it's a "modern" society. In my own shelves, I call the urban fantasy that's in another time period, "time period fantasy," which is what I would call Drawing of the Dark. Magic Lost looks like what I call plain "fantasy." :) Not epic, not a historically identifiable civilization. That's just how I characterize it, because it makes sense to me.
I've always seen "Urban Fantasy" simply to mean that the story takes place in a "city type" environment. For example: I would consider a story taking place in a "Victorian era" Urban Fantasy as long as it was taking place in "London" or some large city like that.
Fantasy Aficionados
Books mentioned in this topic
Magic Lost, Trouble Found (other topics)The Drawing of the Dark (other topics)
The Host (other topics)
The Host (other topics)
Necropolis (other topics)
More...
But I really don't have a problem with the fantasy label being applied to most other non pnr borderline books. If it feels fantasy to you than it must for a reason even if you can't define the reason.
So, when is fantasy not fantasy? When you're certain it isn't.