Comments on: Don’t Fear The Genre

By: Booksquare

Booksquare — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 04:22:15 +0000

David and I have been discussing conventions all over the place. I think we’d both agree that editorial decisions tend to err on the side of overly cautious when it comes to breaking conventions. While I believe readers are willing to push boundaries (how else do new sub-genres evolve and why do established sub-genres fade away), I’ve come to accept that they like a solid dose of predicability with their genre-bending twists.

You must solve the mystery. You cannot leave the reader hanging. Or if you do, you must do in such a way that the reader believes this is the best possible ending to the story.

As for the lack of discussion about romance, the British have a different relationship with that genre. Which is something we don’t need to explore further tonight…

By: David Thayer

David Thayer — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:47:15 +0000

These conventions do endure in Romance, Crime, Fantasy because, without them, there wouldn’t be an audience. So we’re all stuck with the structural requirements. I think those strictures vary in severity somewhat. For example the amateur sleuth in a cozy mystery really cannot explore her inner Rambo anymore than the tough guy PI might toss his gun aside for an interlude of shopping therapy. This might be fun to write, but rejection would be swift and possibly punitive.

By: Molly

Molly — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:56:14 +0000

Interesting post — did you notice that in the Guardian’s discussion of genres, romance never once was mentioned as underrated? They discussed crime novels, sci fi, Westerns, etc., but no romance.

By: Booksquare

Booksquare — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 03:21:07 +0000

Okay, I wanted to take the notion of formulaic seriously. Just for a moment. I’m hungry (though someone has told me that food is overrated). I think readers like books that follow certain conventions — and while you can argue that readers aren’t the best judges of artistic endeavor, at some point, you must accept that there’s art and then there’s art. As a species, we have a range of archetypes that mirror the conventions of our stories. As writers, we are constantly pushing the boundaries of these conventions, and judging panels praise this innovation.

But sometimes, it seems to me, we should take the structures embraced by the readers more seriously. There’s a reason these conventions endure while many experiments fail. That’s not say that trying new things isn’t a worthy endeavor — it is simply to say that sometimes judges are distracted by bright and shiny things while really good stories are dismissed as run-of-the-mill.

Hmm, that was deeper before I typed it.

By: Booksquare

Booksquare — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 03:12:07 +0000

And formulaic is to prize-winning as garlic is to vampires.

You win. I cannot top this. Best laugh of the day (and the previous high point was someone telling me that “Point Break” was a good movie).

David, that was my box of introversion, by the way. You can only imagine how I felt, seeing it on display. And the bite marks made selling it on eBay impossible.

By: Karen

Karen — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:38:55 +0000

Some of it must be because if you can label it, you know in advance what it is, and if you know in advance what it is, then at some level you’ve lost the illusion of innovation or originality. If PD James writes a crime novel, then there is always a crime. Always, always. This might make a reader think that James’s story, no matter how satisfying or entertaining, is formulaic — which it may or may not be. And formulaic is to prize-winning as garlic is to vampires.

By: David Thayer

David Thayer — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:35:36 +0000

Poor Ian Rankin! He was jostled by the earl and his unruly entourage as they unwrapped the box of introversion, believing, incorrectly, it was something to eat.