

Sunday, 20 July 2008

A genre-defying blog



So, let's consider my options:

Genre Fiction


Children's fiction
Literary fiction
Science fiction





Cross-genre fiction


Beloved by Toni Morrison
The Robber Bride by Margaret Atwood
Frost in May by Antonia White
Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell by Susanna Clarke
The Island of Dr Moreau by H G Wells
The Secret History by Donna Tartt
The Stepford Wives by Ira Levin
Under The Skin by Michel Faber
In Cold Blood by Truman Capote
The Wolf Hunt by Gillian Bradshaw




Slipstream fiction










Speculative Fiction





Magic(al) Realism







What is different is intent.


My dilemma


What kind of novel is this? I could suggest Fantasy:



Or it could be Science Fiction:







Anonymous said...

This is a really interesting piece, Jim. I much prefer the use of SF to mean speculative rather than science fiction, as my bloke's got me into reading a lot of 'alt-history' novels (and why is it that so many of there /are/ about what happened if WWII went differently? Pick another subject!) - the 'what if?' definition can be used in so many different ways.

I've also become a fan of the 'magic realism' tag lately, in preference to 'fantasy' - as you said, the situation for a magic realist novel is generally one in which things that seem fantastic to us are treated as everyday occurences (mostly) by the story's characters.

As such, although 'magic realism' would be the genre I'd be inclined to put 'Living with the Truth' under (and probably will do when I tag my overdue review), I'm not sure that it really is. Jonathan doesn't treat Truth's arrival as something commonplace, at least not at first, and none of the other characters are aware of Truth's nature... Although that perhaps does imply the 'realism' tag again!

I'm not sure that it fits into any particular genre, to be honest - which often leaves a publishing company with problems. At least bookshops and libraries can just slot it into 'general fiction'!

Jim Murdoch said...

Thanks for the feedback, Catherine, and I tend to agree with you. Only Jonathan is privy to Truth's true identity and he is very easily persuaded. My daughter was over today and we all had a good discussion about this. I cited all the films where Santa Claus appears and is accepted under similar circumstances. I really don't think labels are important. People prejudge enough.

Adrian Graham said...

I've got a soft spot for those alternate reality stories. I read a great one about US Navy warships going back in time and bumping into a WW2 era battlegroup. It brilliantly highlighted the shifts in US culture.

In terms of doing 'cross genre', Hollywood is ahead of the book world. The standard Hollywood movie *is* cross genre. 'It's like ______ meets ______. Many of them play with multiple genres, three or four at a time.

Jim Murdoch said...

Yes, you have a point, Adrian, and they do use that as a positive thing when marketing them too.

Rachel Fox said...

On literary fiction...why does a book get labelled thus? Is it because of its publisher? The language it uses? The reputation of the author? An accepted...feeling...from newspaper editors that X is a serious book and therefore literary? Is it kind of a load of nonsense perhaps?
I sometimes read books which are 'unquestionably' LitFic (doesn't sound so good does it?) and think..'that was just a posh romance or a posh crime novel (never mind posh porn)'...
I think your book could be LitFic if you got that kind of reputation (get thee to the Groucho club or some other horror, play thee tennis with Martin Amis and Julian Barnes...). Your book is certainly erudite enough in places - it asks big questions, as you say, bring on the Kafka comparsions - but then that might lose you some readers who find the very idea of LitFic a bit tranquillising (oh no, not the Booker Prize nominees..).
You have highlighted a very real problem - genres cause as many problems as they solve! I've never heard of Slipstream...that's an intriguing one...

Adrian Graham said...

Hi Jim, I used to be a bookseller for Waterstones a few years ago. The publisher (I'm guessing, the marketing department) decides what section it's going in by stating it on the back cover, usually somewhere near the barcode or RRP ... Short Stories, Crime, General Fiction, Science Fiction, etc.

So I guess you decide what it is ... and you have to sell it as that. Being 'cross genre' you could sell it as science fiction or literary fiction, it's up to you. I guess there are good reasons for both. You might consider selling it as a satirical novel?

I think it can be quite damaging to get too hung up on what 'genre' it would be. It's probably best to just call it general fiction or literary fiction or 'non-genre'. If you choose a specific genre it will create expectations of what your next work should be. I hope this helps.

Conda V. Douglas said...

Jim, people war about genre labels. I think that's why bookstores are so general--they don't want to deal. And I love what Donald Maass said: "If you can't figure out your genre" (for a query letter) "just say 'novel'."

However, I believe your novel may be magic realism, because it possesses one and only one magical element and the rest is "real." If I read your synopsis correctly? Also a fascinating premise for a book!

jakill said...

When I started reading this post, I thought, 'Well said, Mr Author, I have the same sort of problem with my writing, though it's not novels as yet.' Reading on, I realise you've actually taught me quite a lot I didn't know before. Thanks.

Jim Murdoch said...

Rachel, I have to say I've always been a bit puzzled where the distinction lies between General Fiction and Literary Fiction. I think the main difference really is accessibility. I like your idea, Adrian, calling my book a satirical novel – never thought of that – but I don't see me as a Swift or anything. To my mind, Conda, you have the simplest answer – it's a novel, that's all it is. And, Jean, I'm glad I've made you think.

The bottom line I suppose is that every novel should be something new; every time we sit down we should be wanting to reinvent the thing. Who wants to write the same novel over and over again?

Tam said...

Magical realism sounds good to me.

As far as where to pop it in the bookstore, I am pretty sure there is not a magical realism shelf (although what if there was, and every other shelf remained the same?)

I'd be tempted not to stick it in with the sci-fi, but just lump in with the general literature. I think it's appeal is wider than just sci-fi fans.

Also, speaking as someone who used to buy a lot of sci-fi when he was younger. I expected all the books I bought to be set in the future and contain at least half a dozen robots/computers and/or aliens. If I went home with LWTT I might end up a little disillusioned.

Jim Murdoch said...

Tam, I must be tired or something but when I read 'LWTT' all I could think of was 'London Weekend Television' and I couldn't figure out the other 'T'.

Dominic Rivron said...

I found this post really interesting and it prompted me to one or two thoughts.
I've recently been reading the new-ish "The Best of Best SF" anthology and was struck by how broad a genre "SF" is these days: a story like Terry Bisson's "Bears Discover Fire" (a good example, as the title doubles as a synopsis!) could fall into just about any of the genres you discuss, if you wanted it to. And not a robot in sight.
Thinking about genres always gets me thinking about Moby Dick. The way it invites us to speculate about the nature of the White Whale's consciousness is almost SF (it could also qualify for other genres too). It has never been categorised as such - I suspect because there is so much else in it too.
And perhaps that's an important point - what is most important about a book? It's futuristic/fantastic/magical elements - or, to put it crudely, its "human interest"? I'm thinking on my feet here, but if the answer is the latter, then perhaps it's just "a novel". Perhaps a "magical realist" one, but then that has always been more of a tag than a genre.

Jim Murdoch said...

Very good point, Dominic, just because a fruit cake has icing on it doesn't stop it being a fruit cake. Okay, so it's an iced fruit cake but it's still fundamentally a fruit cake. If a person doesn't like fruit cake they're not going to find it more palatable simply because it's been topped with icing.

Ping services