Genres in all media are categories created to facilitate cataloguing and sales. While there may be stereotypical characteristics involved, each individual product in a genre is at heart what its creators want it to be. If it can't easily be put into a category, that says a lot more about the limits of a seemingly objective but very prejudicial means of looking at culture than it does about whoever made it.
Whether we should view "pulp" as a genre unto itself or a subcategory within speculative media is debatable. The fact is, it began in the early 20th century in a no-longer extant means of publication named for the fact that it was produced on the poorest quality of paper then available- and hence, it stereotypically became associated with poorness in quality, although that was an extremely false judgement considering what was first printed in those magazines. Yet even still, the essence of what it was assumed to be has strongly influenced popular culture in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. So we must find some sort of median to describe it within all of these factors.
Very good essay. I touched on this topic myself a couple of months ago. Though my main point was that setting is not typically relevant to genre (i.e. Star Wars is fantasy set in space).
The one thing I agree with the academics on is writing across genre, although, that could just be because of my perception of it. Maybe it's more of writing in spite of genre. Or maybe I'm a pulp writer and don't know it... food for thought.
This is an interesting read. That said, I have some quibbles…
“Genre is something that has become a fairly contested thing. It has attracted always a great deal of scorn and hatred from academics. From those who think ‘I don’t need to write genre, I write across them’, those who belong seemingly to a higher echelon. Those who write ‘literary fiction’.”
I don’t know if I agree that it’s the academics and the lit-fic types who look down on genres. If anything, I would say they have a really strict sense of genre. They would be the type who would say “Star Wars isn’t sci-fi because it has magic” or whatever. At least that’s how I see it.
“Sure Tolkien could have aliens that shoot eye-lasers in his story, but should he?”
“But to throw in let’s say mutants with laser-eyes, or Cthulhu, or to throw in Lancelot let’s say in Space, is ridiculous.”
"What if in Olympnomachi I slipped in King John, or even Captain Kirk? Wouldn’t make much sense and it’d be kind of disrespectful towards my readers, wouldn’t it? I as a reader of the Silmarillion don’t go in looking for the Enterprise to appear, I go in for Fingolfin, Turin, Beren and Luthien and Morgoth."
Sure, but I would say the issues with those are more with you breaking the implicit promise you made with your audience of what to expect. That doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t mix genres. Again, look at Star Wars. The key is to set up audience expectations from the beginning.
“I think of Genre as a reader and movie-watcher, as going to the grocery store. Let’s say I go there, and I want apples. Well apples is my Genre so to speak, it is the one I like to stick to.”
Sure, but stories aren’t food. Food run out when you eat them, stories don’t just disappear after you read them. Personally, I find myself mulling over what I’ve read/watched/played, so I don’t see the value in something that just apes something else without bringing anything new to the table.
As for the question of futuristic/sci-fi and mythic/fantasy, I think they’re just settings at the end of the day. One is set in the future, the other is set in the past. I think one point JD Cowan made is that genre is things like mystery, adventure, romance, etc. With those, you know what they mean with just a single word. In contrast, trying to explain to a “normie” on what “science fiction” or “fantasy” mean is like me trying to explain to my mom the intricacies of soccer tactics/formations.
Thinking about writing an article for a more coherent response to this. Maybe if I have the time.
Good point all round, though I do think you make a point about them thinking for example that Star Wars isn’t sci-fi very good correction there. Most tend to regard it as a kind of fantasy story (which to be fair it kind of is). I think and would argue it is a Space-Opera/Science-Fantasy story so you got me there.
No matter what if you write let us say a man going into the night to avenge the innocent against a ruthless crimelord, have a cape and a secret identity or something, well that’s superheroes.
Zorro had a mask and a cape, he might have been a swashbuckler, but he wasn't a superhero.
You mentioned something about not being able to write a western and put it in space. I have two series that defy that. Firefly and Star Trek. Firefly, because it is a western in space. Star Trek, because the original premise was "Wagon train to the stars."
The wheel of time is set in some future age, of that planet, where it has once again come around to some previous age and magic has weight.
Olympiachi is truly mythic, while Tales from Crann na Beatha isn't so much. Nor is it exactly sword and sorcery. It is fantasy with a twist of romance.
Conan isn't truly fantasy, it being more sword and sorcery.
I guess the ultimate determiner of what the story is, is the person who reads it.
Okay I stand corrected on Zorro you got me hahaha. Though I will say that in my view Crann na Beatha, Conan and Olympnomachi are mythical just in different ways.
I regard REH’s Conan not as S&S but as mythology but the Conan not of REH as S&S (dunno if that makes sense). But in my view this is why we need subgenres, since as you said Crann na Beatha is quite a bit different from Olympnomachi, just as Conan is different and so on. So I do kind of agree with you.
Yet another great essay, mon ami! I myself love to tell exciting tales within the genre I've chosen and as such, I may have different elements augment certain stories. However, that is only done since my core reader base really loves this approach of mine, and I've received plenty of feedback, knowing that I am on the right track. Thus, I have wondrous space-magick and quite logical, yet secretive and mysterious techno-magick too. It took me many years to achieve balance between the two and will take the rest of my life to perfect.
Makes sense, and hey such stories have a place in this world, I’ve no objection to stories that combine futuristic space travel and magic. It makes for an interesting mash-up.
Sounds like you’re using Genre quite well, like I’ve said before its just a tool. If one can master it, one can surpass it so to speak and break out. I think you’re well on your towards that.
That a think like my Sword & Railgun even exists is only thanks to the readers who craved it! Thus, following the great reception of my techno-mage novelette, I was enticed to write more, and Velin the Lothorian was born. Though I wish it to be true one day, Sword & Railgun is not the spiritual successor of Sword and Planet, yet. This will require many more years of vigorous learning and writing a number of books :D With my readers’ aid, I will do my best!
I disagree with the mythic/futuristic distinction. Any genre categrization that places Wheel of Time with Star Trek rather than Lord of the Rings is not a good categorization.
Also, genre is for marketing towards readers. Write the story you want to write, then figure out which genre it belongs in. If it's multiple, pick the primary, and market with the others as an influence. For example, you could have a fantasy with a side of horror and mystery.
And finally, the genre you're looking for in regards to something like Star Wars - which with the Force is hard to define as sci-fi - is science-fantasy, the genre that blends the two.
Fair enough, however Wheel of Time is set in the future and therefore is pretty far away from LOTR.
Yes I do believe in write the story you want to write, and fully concur about marketing it how you see fit. Very wisely put here.
Star Wars is no less Science-Fantasy than Princess of Mars, however I group it as Futuristic more as a broad umbrella, with the more focused one being Space-Opera specially for Star Wars as it technically explains the Force as being a ‘Scientific’ thing rather than just ‘Magic’. So it is best placed in this category or that of Science-Fantasy if you will. I’m not contesting that, what I’m contesting is putting it in the same box so to speak as Hyborian Age or the Silmarillion. And so my main goal is to tear off so to speak Fantasy from them, so that they are Mythic while Star Wars gets to retain the ‘Fantasy’ if you will. Dunno if that makes sense or not.
Thanks and non, I like one or two of her works, but I find them boring. I know women who love her, but she’s very much a female writer, with a female audience I think, just as say Erik Waag likely has a male audience. ;)
Real men read Jane Austen 😎 We can agree to disagree on this one 👍 Jane Austen has been a true joy and blessing in my life. She could just write about a group of friends having tea and make it a delightful experience for readers
Hahaha, fair enough we’ll agree to disagree. I’m glad you like her work though, like what you like and don’t ever let anyone get in the way of that as I always say.
Genres in all media are categories created to facilitate cataloguing and sales. While there may be stereotypical characteristics involved, each individual product in a genre is at heart what its creators want it to be. If it can't easily be put into a category, that says a lot more about the limits of a seemingly objective but very prejudicial means of looking at culture than it does about whoever made it.
Whether we should view "pulp" as a genre unto itself or a subcategory within speculative media is debatable. The fact is, it began in the early 20th century in a no-longer extant means of publication named for the fact that it was produced on the poorest quality of paper then available- and hence, it stereotypically became associated with poorness in quality, although that was an extremely false judgement considering what was first printed in those magazines. Yet even still, the essence of what it was assumed to be has strongly influenced popular culture in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. So we must find some sort of median to describe it within all of these factors.
Good point and very well explained, I myself tend to think of Pulp as a movement, as a style rather than a genre if that makes any sense.
Very good essay. I touched on this topic myself a couple of months ago. Though my main point was that setting is not typically relevant to genre (i.e. Star Wars is fantasy set in space).
The one thing I agree with the academics on is writing across genre, although, that could just be because of my perception of it. Maybe it's more of writing in spite of genre. Or maybe I'm a pulp writer and don't know it... food for thought.
Well done, Sir!
Well put, sometimes one doesn’t at once realize what one is writing on in terms of genre until later. Happens.
And science fiction MUST have science, and be based on science, not magic, or myth
I agree
This is an interesting read. That said, I have some quibbles…
“Genre is something that has become a fairly contested thing. It has attracted always a great deal of scorn and hatred from academics. From those who think ‘I don’t need to write genre, I write across them’, those who belong seemingly to a higher echelon. Those who write ‘literary fiction’.”
I don’t know if I agree that it’s the academics and the lit-fic types who look down on genres. If anything, I would say they have a really strict sense of genre. They would be the type who would say “Star Wars isn’t sci-fi because it has magic” or whatever. At least that’s how I see it.
“Sure Tolkien could have aliens that shoot eye-lasers in his story, but should he?”
“But to throw in let’s say mutants with laser-eyes, or Cthulhu, or to throw in Lancelot let’s say in Space, is ridiculous.”
"What if in Olympnomachi I slipped in King John, or even Captain Kirk? Wouldn’t make much sense and it’d be kind of disrespectful towards my readers, wouldn’t it? I as a reader of the Silmarillion don’t go in looking for the Enterprise to appear, I go in for Fingolfin, Turin, Beren and Luthien and Morgoth."
Sure, but I would say the issues with those are more with you breaking the implicit promise you made with your audience of what to expect. That doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t mix genres. Again, look at Star Wars. The key is to set up audience expectations from the beginning.
“I think of Genre as a reader and movie-watcher, as going to the grocery store. Let’s say I go there, and I want apples. Well apples is my Genre so to speak, it is the one I like to stick to.”
Sure, but stories aren’t food. Food run out when you eat them, stories don’t just disappear after you read them. Personally, I find myself mulling over what I’ve read/watched/played, so I don’t see the value in something that just apes something else without bringing anything new to the table.
As for the question of futuristic/sci-fi and mythic/fantasy, I think they’re just settings at the end of the day. One is set in the future, the other is set in the past. I think one point JD Cowan made is that genre is things like mystery, adventure, romance, etc. With those, you know what they mean with just a single word. In contrast, trying to explain to a “normie” on what “science fiction” or “fantasy” mean is like me trying to explain to my mom the intricacies of soccer tactics/formations.
Thinking about writing an article for a more coherent response to this. Maybe if I have the time.
Good point all round, though I do think you make a point about them thinking for example that Star Wars isn’t sci-fi very good correction there. Most tend to regard it as a kind of fantasy story (which to be fair it kind of is). I think and would argue it is a Space-Opera/Science-Fantasy story so you got me there.
Good essay and mindset writers these days have ego problems
I guess so mostly in Hollywood, outside of it I've seen it here and there but thankfully not on Substack
No matter what if you write let us say a man going into the night to avenge the innocent against a ruthless crimelord, have a cape and a secret identity or something, well that’s superheroes.
Zorro had a mask and a cape, he might have been a swashbuckler, but he wasn't a superhero.
You mentioned something about not being able to write a western and put it in space. I have two series that defy that. Firefly and Star Trek. Firefly, because it is a western in space. Star Trek, because the original premise was "Wagon train to the stars."
The wheel of time is set in some future age, of that planet, where it has once again come around to some previous age and magic has weight.
Olympiachi is truly mythic, while Tales from Crann na Beatha isn't so much. Nor is it exactly sword and sorcery. It is fantasy with a twist of romance.
Conan isn't truly fantasy, it being more sword and sorcery.
I guess the ultimate determiner of what the story is, is the person who reads it.
Okay I stand corrected on Zorro you got me hahaha. Though I will say that in my view Crann na Beatha, Conan and Olympnomachi are mythical just in different ways.
I regard REH’s Conan not as S&S but as mythology but the Conan not of REH as S&S (dunno if that makes sense). But in my view this is why we need subgenres, since as you said Crann na Beatha is quite a bit different from Olympnomachi, just as Conan is different and so on. So I do kind of agree with you.
Yet another great essay, mon ami! I myself love to tell exciting tales within the genre I've chosen and as such, I may have different elements augment certain stories. However, that is only done since my core reader base really loves this approach of mine, and I've received plenty of feedback, knowing that I am on the right track. Thus, I have wondrous space-magick and quite logical, yet secretive and mysterious techno-magick too. It took me many years to achieve balance between the two and will take the rest of my life to perfect.
Makes sense, and hey such stories have a place in this world, I’ve no objection to stories that combine futuristic space travel and magic. It makes for an interesting mash-up.
Sounds like you’re using Genre quite well, like I’ve said before its just a tool. If one can master it, one can surpass it so to speak and break out. I think you’re well on your towards that.
I keep growing and learning from my readers :D
Same, they know what they like and what they want better than I do, I can only learn from them.
That a think like my Sword & Railgun even exists is only thanks to the readers who craved it! Thus, following the great reception of my techno-mage novelette, I was enticed to write more, and Velin the Lothorian was born. Though I wish it to be true one day, Sword & Railgun is not the spiritual successor of Sword and Planet, yet. This will require many more years of vigorous learning and writing a number of books :D With my readers’ aid, I will do my best!
That’s beautiful, I truly wish you the best of luck and can’t wait to see what masterpieces come from your pen!
For now I think they are at best funpieces :3 Junior-master in twenty years mayhap?
I disagree with the mythic/futuristic distinction. Any genre categrization that places Wheel of Time with Star Trek rather than Lord of the Rings is not a good categorization.
Also, genre is for marketing towards readers. Write the story you want to write, then figure out which genre it belongs in. If it's multiple, pick the primary, and market with the others as an influence. For example, you could have a fantasy with a side of horror and mystery.
And finally, the genre you're looking for in regards to something like Star Wars - which with the Force is hard to define as sci-fi - is science-fantasy, the genre that blends the two.
Fair enough, however Wheel of Time is set in the future and therefore is pretty far away from LOTR.
Yes I do believe in write the story you want to write, and fully concur about marketing it how you see fit. Very wisely put here.
Star Wars is no less Science-Fantasy than Princess of Mars, however I group it as Futuristic more as a broad umbrella, with the more focused one being Space-Opera specially for Star Wars as it technically explains the Force as being a ‘Scientific’ thing rather than just ‘Magic’. So it is best placed in this category or that of Science-Fantasy if you will. I’m not contesting that, what I’m contesting is putting it in the same box so to speak as Hyborian Age or the Silmarillion. And so my main goal is to tear off so to speak Fantasy from them, so that they are Mythic while Star Wars gets to retain the ‘Fantasy’ if you will. Dunno if that makes sense or not.
You don't like Jane Austen? Blasphemy! 😁
All jokes aside,good read! 👍
Thanks and non, I like one or two of her works, but I find them boring. I know women who love her, but she’s very much a female writer, with a female audience I think, just as say Erik Waag likely has a male audience. ;)
Real men read Jane Austen 😎 We can agree to disagree on this one 👍 Jane Austen has been a true joy and blessing in my life. She could just write about a group of friends having tea and make it a delightful experience for readers
Hahaha, fair enough we’ll agree to disagree. I’m glad you like her work though, like what you like and don’t ever let anyone get in the way of that as I always say.