Locus Roundtable: Writing Within and Without Genre
John Kessel
John Gardner used this music analogy. He said that a composer doesn’t sit down to write “music,” he sits down to write a ballad, or a rock song, or a symphony, or a bagatelle, or a tone poem, or a children’s song. I suppose you could say a trumpeter doing free jazz is making it up out of nothing, but I don’t think so. He has a history of hearing and playing jazz that informs the second to second choices he makes as he plays.
Paul Di Filippo
As a promulgator of critical terms, I was always dismayed that my coinage “cosplay fiction” failed to catch on. I used the term when reviewing a recent CJ Cherryh novel, whose painfully protracted and plot-dominating descriptive passages seemed to offer to the reader nothing more nor less than the simple pleasures of dressing up in outre costumes, with undertones of furry fetishism. Narrative took a backseat to vicarious convention costume show fun.
Paul Witcover
Gary: There is at least one way you can move it back that doesn’t involve a dream. And that’s if you are writing as a believing Christian, for example, or as a believer of some other faith with supernatural elements, and you want your fiction to honestly reflect that belief — which for you is not at all fantastic but rather the purest realism. Another way is along the lines of what John Crowley does in Little, Big, and in the Aegypt books, too — which is not so much to cross back over the line from fantasy into mimetic realism as to shoulder the fantastic across another line, from which the mimetic world is now excluded.
Cecelia Holland
Genre is the kind of word that has to be defined really precisely or it has no meaning (that is, it’s an abstraction). As for genre as the basis for writing, I think most people start with a story. For me, anyway, the hardest part of any new thing is to batter through the thickets of expectations and received ideas to the naked part. Those thickets, to me, are genre.
Gary K. Wolfe
Genre as shrubbery! Someone needs to do something with that.
Cecelia Holland
“Sensible and comprehensive”! How boring is that?
Paul Graham Raven
Gary: Didn’t Python beat us to it years ago? 😉
Pingback:Tweets that mention Locus Roundtable » Locus Roundtable: Writing Within and Without Genre -- Topsy.com
Pingback:Locus Roundtable: Writing Within Genre
Pingback:Locus Roundtable: Writing Within and Without Genre
A stimulating discussion. I’m most in agreement with John Kessel, which may be understandable. What hasn’t been discussed here, however, is that identifying the genre is essential for a reader if he/she is to read it properly: each genre (and the original use of the term applied very broadly to fiction, drama, poetry, etc., and SF, Western, Detective,..are sub-genres at best, or categories) has its own reading protocols and if the reader applies the wrong protocols the reading goes awry. See Thurber’s “The Macbeth Murder Case.” So a writer who wants a reader to arrive at a particular reading response can hardly avoid dealing with a reader’s expectations.
Pingback:Science fiction’s future-flinch | Velcro City Tourist Board
As a writer (vs. the reviewer/critic that Paul W. distinguishes) I think any time I hit upon an idea for a story, that idea arrives with suggestions of the genre territory it’ll occupy fully intact. What I can and can’t do with it is dependent, among other things, upon the scope of my familiarity with that territory–the better handle I have on it, the more knowledgeable I am about what’s been done already, the more things I can do, and the more things I can upend. (See Terry’s McMurtry quote.) I suppose I stand between Mssrs. Witcover and Kessel in that I think I’m very conscious of the genre the story is aiming at, but that this pointed direction came already embedded within/implied by the idea. I’m not spending much time ruminating upon it. To me that’s all the more reason to be aware of the things that aren’t of that territory, because they offer elements I might want to draw upon that would make the story different, richer, unique. Like hauling some Franz Kafka or Bruno Schulz into my very in-genre fantasy story. And the debate will rage on anyway as to whether the resultant story belongs in “this” category or “that” category. Which is all just fine by me.
I don’t like the term “Speculative Fiction” – it sounds so undecided, like we have no idea what we are writing or reading. However, I don’t have any problem with genre labels. I read in a variety of genres, and I don’t feel there is anything wrong in dividing a story in Sci-fi/Fantasy/Horror etc. When I am writing, I know what genre I am writing. It’s not a conscious decision to write in particular genre, but each story, just happens to be the right one for one genre more than all the rest.
It sounds like a round defeat for “speculative fiction” as a prissy umbrella term. I recently read some interesting things along these lines (folks should check out Cheryl’s link there as well) from Robert VS Redick:
http://suvudu.com/2010/03/when-the-pizza-wakes-ending-the-genre-vs-literary-fiction-battle-once-and-for-all-by-robert-v-s-redick.html
Still as a publisher (of “speculative fiction” until I can afford tattoo removal…) a useful umbrella term would be nice. This discussion wasn’t about such a thing directly, but it did touch on some options: “the fantastic”, “fantastica”, “science fiction, fantasy, horror, and slipstream, and …” none of which are particularly appealing.
The “what to call this whole umbrella of genre fiction” went a bit outside of the original question, but I found that very interesting.
Recently, Orson Scott Card, in an interview with John Joseph Adams and David Barr Kirtley on io9’s Geeks Guide to the Galaxy, made the case that fantasy is now properly a subset of science fiction, because modern fantasists are just as rigorous in their world-building:
http://io9.com/#!5746150/orson-scott-card-writes-humans-in-episode-29-of-the-geeks-guide-to-the-galaxy
And even more recently, Scalzi says: To engage in further nitpicking, everything you can possibly label as “science fiction” is in fact just a subset of a larger genre, which is correctly called “fantasy.” This is because science fiction — along with supernatural horror, alternate history, superhero lit, and the elves-and-orcs swashbuckling typically labeled “fantasy” — is fundamentally fantastic. Which is to say, it involves imaginative conceptualizing, does not restrain itself according what is currently known, and speculates about the nature of worlds and conditions that do not exist in reality. It may gall science-fiction fans to think of their genre as a subset of fantasy, but it is, so calling a film “science fantasy” is in most ways redundant.
http://www.filmcritic.com/features/2011/02/science-fiction-vs-science-fantasy/
It sounds like a round defeat for “speculative fiction” as a prissy umbrella term. I recently read some interesting things along these lines (folks should check out Cheryl’s link there as well) from Robert VS Redick:
http://suvudu.com/2010/03/when-the-pizza-wakes-ending-the-genre-vs-literary-fiction-battle-once-and-for-all-by-robert-v-s-redick.html
Still as a publisher (of “speculative fiction” until I can afford tattoo removal…) a useful umbrella term would be nice. This discussion wasn’t about such a thing directly, but it did touch on some options: “the fantastic”, “fantastica”, “science fiction, fantasy, horror, and slipstream, and …” none of which are particularly appealing.
So I agree with Cheryl Morgan: AAAAGGGGHHHHH!!!
I do like that the banner ad I see when visiting the roundtable is for Expanded Horizons: speculative fiction for the rest of us.
Just a quote note: I didn’t complain that Horton said I wrote slipstream, I complained that there was no such thing as slipstream. So far as I can tell, it really means stuff that obviously betrays influences other than the textual hardcore of SF or fantasy influences, which one would hope wouldn’t need another whole subgenre for itself. (Writers should read far more widely than they write, even if they write in several genre traditions.)