[Gary Wassner]

What is it with critics? I was just reading a post by Holbrook regarding some silly person criticizing his writing because it doesn't quite fit the fantasy category in his opinion! And then that same person would probably criticize me because my books, at least on the surface, are more traditional, and therefore, by pejorative inference, less imaginative. Why not just read the damn books and comment on them specifically? Or will someone now criticize me for being so sensitive?

[Rocket Sheep]

It is human nature to pigeon-hole things. It makes them easier to keep track of in small minds.

I'm always having arguments with my mother-in-law about pigeon-holing. For instance, I am inbred because I have a small chin... she can totally overlook the fact that three of my ancestors come from distinctly different areas in Europe and one is from one of the oldest indigenous races on the planet and that hers all came from the same area in England and that she has a really big nose. She also cannot differentiate between people with depression and people with other mental illnesses and would like to see them all sterilised. The woman may be a few pigeon holes short of a normal small mind but is a perfect example of some natural desire to pigeon-hole.

This isn't only limited to humans tho... anyone who has seen herefords and hereford/angus crosses in a paddock can see that the black cows and the red cows form their own groups despite being identical in every other way apart from the colour of their markings. Perhaps there is some natural in built desire to form like groups. Perhaps it is an old safety issue: If you're a red cow in a group of black cows, you're going to look pretty tasty to a wolf and easy to keep his eye on in the stampede he's about to cause.

If a critic can put books safely in a sub-genre, he can better understand and explain what that book is and if it falls outside his expectations, he just decides it needs to go to a different pigeon-hole, that way he doesn't have to analyse it any further or expand his tiny pigeon-hole in any way.

You can probably tell I hate pigeon-holing but I think we all do it to an extent with things we don't understand that well. For instance, if I hear someone is suffering from psychosis... I'll immediately assume they were taking drugs.

You're not too sensitive... you're just expecting too much. Modern humans aren't that modern.

[kahnovitch]

I hate that genre classification crap too.

If someone writes something that doesn't fit necessarily into a category there is another word for it.... originality

Isn't that what people really want?

[Gary Wassner]

I agree, but it seems that not just people are prone to stereotyping. Isn't that what we are talking about in a way? Institutions are just as guilty. In our industry, as KatG knows so well, we have categories: Big Presses, Independent Presses, Small Presses etc. They are all publishing books, god damn it! But Barnes and Noble particularly need to pigeonhole the smaller publishers and treat them differently. There's no practical reason why. The terms are the same when they buy now. If the items were non-returnable, then i could understand. But once a buyer or store manager sees an imprint they don't recognize, it's stuffed into the pigeonhole and it's so difficult to every pull it out.

This happens in the record buisness too. A small label can't get the Virgin Records or Borders distribution unless they are 'on the list' of vendors. Well, we all know what that means.

It's particularly interesting that it's totally the opposite in the fashion industry. A small label is lapped up by the stores in the hopes that they are going to be the one who finds the newest talent and captures the newest trend. You don't need to be corporate or large. They even accept more unusual terms knowing that the small designers can't always afford the discounts that the larger ones can. It's the most sympathetic environment for new talent and new design of any industry I know. True entrepreneurial spirit reigns in this industry, and succes always starts with the small, independent label. Such a difference.

[Joe Bloggs]

Gary, it's simple economies of scale.

What appeals to the generic, public, common, demographic.

Publishers are concerned about what sells more than anything else.

They don't give a flying feck about how original a story may be, unless they think they can make a mint off it.

It boils down to Artistic Creativity VS Money in the Bank.

That's why I didn't know who Scott Bakker or Matt Stover or yourself were until I came to forums like these, but I had inevitably heard of J K (whatsherface) Potter, despite never reading any of her work.

[Gary Wassner]

So explain why cutting edge in fashion is so appealing to the 'general public' and not in literature? Is it simply because the task of wearing art is so much easier and disposable than reading it?

[Joe Bloggs]

So explain why cutting edge in fashion is so appealing to the 'general public' and not in literature?


Well allow me to quote The Landlord; Al Murray...


"Fashion is like fox hunting.
The majority of the pack get the scent of the fox straight away but... there's always one dog right at the back of the pack who can't smell a bloody thing and has no sense of direction.

So what does he spend all day doing?

Following arseholes."

http://www.comedycv.co.uk/almurray/2002-sept-al-murray.jpg

[Gary Wassner]

Great quote, but tell me why the majority in this case can smell the fox and know enough to follow it and in the case of literature, they smell it and then put on nose plugs instead?

[kater]

While I don't know anywhere near as much about fashion, ask the missus :D , as you Gary, I think its a case of fashion being an industry in which it pays to be unique whereas in writing it doesn't. Cutting edge fashion is arguably an avant-garde form where what becomes of 'mass-appeal' isn't the original creation but a watered-down version to appeal to as a wide a group of people as possible. What is popular and more significantly 'cutting-edge' changes weekly if not daily and so the general public is always playing catch-up. With books the currents of change are far more staid and readers can become far more entrenched in styles than fashion would allow. As a result whatever is outside their accepted norm, people are unused to uniqueness and the concept of expanding their basic habits. As with anything reading forms habits but because of the difference in time-scales, readers habits become more rigid not less. You can't read every book ever written so people begin to associate, 'Have you read .... its a lot like ....' and these associations like genre definitions become more and more insular.
Critics are paid to criticise, people see this and jump on the bandwagon of anything outside of their experience. To add to Joe's analogy - opinions are like arseholes everyone has one, doesn't make them informed :D

[Gary Wassner]

Good points, all. But honestly I still find it hard to reconcile. Is it strictly a matter of perception? If so, wouldn't it make sense that after a while, the perception would turn? It's the avant garde that makes the statement and the rest fall into line. That's what avant garde means. And being cutting edge does mean that you must constantly change in order to stay ahead of the pack. But regardless, the appeal is the chic of being daring, being cutting edge, being innovative. It is also interesting that mainstream critics are so reluctant to even consider reviewing books that are published by small and independent presses. Locus, Kirkus and PW are all hard nuts to crack. And then there is the issue of SFWA! Did you know that if you have not received an advance upon signing from your publisher for your manuscript, regardless of how many copies you may subsequently sell or how good your book is, then you don't qualify for membership in the organization that represents the authors of fantasy and sci fi? And who do you think nominates and votes for the Nebula awards? How ironic,right?