[Tony Williams]

I have at last got around to reading Bujold's Vorkosigan series and decided to start with the first in the chronological story line, Shards of Honour. I have to agree that all those who recommended her books to me were correct – she's a great writer and storyteller, and I found it hard to put the book down. However, the SF elements in the story are relatively weak. I've posted a full review on my blog: http://sciencefictionfantasy.blogspot.com/

[Macklyn]

I read one book of this series some ten years ago or more - can't remember the name, but it was when Miles obtained his first space-born command.
Just a few weeks ago I read from Baen's free library Mountains of Mist.. A light, but enjoyable read.

I've read many of her other books. I loved Curse of Chalion and Paladin of Souls.

Something I've always wondered about is how easily books get classified into genres.
If you have a story that involves something as simple and basic as say, futuristic weaponry, it can be classified as sci-fi.
Anything involving space/travel or taking place on another planet is sci-fi.
If it's something the human race hasn't yet achieved but can scientifically postulate it's automatically labeled sci-fi?
I've always found that a little odd.
An example is Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead.
Both sci-fi but I've always thought that classification was pretty weak.
Both books are more about the human condition than anything scientific.
I mention this because it seems that often-times because something is labeled sci-fi people seem to expect a certain amount of scientific postulation/theory, or what-have-you.
Any thoughts on this anyone?

[Kristin Landon]

I'm just curious, Macklyn—what would you call books like that if not SF?

My own definition includes just about anything not here-and-now that is based on the possible (if "possible" includes plausible handwaving).

[Macklyn]

I'm just curious, Macklyn—what would you call books like that if not SF?

My own definition includes just about anything not here-and-now that is based on the possible (if "possible" includes plausible handwaving).

Just plain fiction, I guess. . . Or maybe future fiction, excluding the science label.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the classification for the majority of books, but often-times it seems very weak.
For instance, I read a Dan Brown novel that dealt with futuristic weaponry/virtual reality and wasn't classified as sci-fi. I believe is was called 'A military thriller'.
Who decides these things and where is the line drawn between genres?
I've read fantasy novels that could easily have been classified as sci-fi and vice-versa.
Most fantasy books take place on worlds that are clearly not our own. Are they labeled fantasy then, simply because they employ the concept of magic?
Aren't there fantasy books that don't employ magic?

I just meant that people expect a book to contain certain subject matter because it's been labeled a certain genre.

Do authors set out to write in a certain genre or do the publishers classify the books themselves?

[Kristin Landon]

I think a book that is intended to be a bestseller is probably carefully not labeled SF. That doesn't mean it can't still be SF by most people's definition.

The genre writers I know, including me, set out to write within their genre.

[Tony Williams]

Well, the cover of my paperback edition of Shards of Honour shows a landscape dotted with tall, very futuristic towers, plus some sort of equally futuristic flying machine. Not a person in sight. That gives a fairly clear indication of the target market, wouldn't you think?

[Macklyn]

Are you suggesting we should judge a book by its cover?
For shame!
LOL!
Just kidding, friend.
Seriously, I've always liked books that do manage to portray in one picture what the book is about.

I do get your point. I only brought the subject up after reading your review; how you mentioned the book not meeting your expectations in the sci-fi department. It just brought to mind and old thought about labels.
Meaning; do we as readers expect certain things from a book because of the label itself?
Isn't a good story enough on its own?
Does it also have to meet the label it's been given as well?

[Tony Williams]

I think that we are indeed influenced (both for and aganst) by the labels attached to books. I mean, if you wanted to read a detective novel and bought one with such a label only to find that no crimes were committed in it, you'd feel a bit cheated, wouldn't you?

Most readers do have preferences in the type of fiction they look for. I don't care how well-written it may be, a book aimed at the "chick-lit" market is not going to be read by me - nor anything from Mills & Boon.

I'm personally not very bothered about cover designs, but I know from responses on this and similar boards that many readers are strongly influenced by them.

[Macklyn]

I think that we are indeed influenced (both for and aganst) by the labels attached to books. I mean, if you wanted to read a detective novel and bought one with such a label only to find that no crimes were committed in it, you'd feel a bit cheated, wouldn't you?

I can answer in all truth, absolutely not.
When looking for a new book to read I might start in the fantasy-sci-fi section, but that's only because that my reading experience leads me to believe they have the most interesting stories for my tastes.
A book I choose might be written in a certain genre, but that genre has very little to do with whether or not I'll actually like the book.
That aspect always comes down to how well the author writes his/her characters into the story.
A good story is just that, a good story and I could care less if I bought a fantasy genre book that had not one scrap of magic or swords and turned out to be more of a murder mystery so long as it was a good story.
An example is Curse of Chalion. Classified as fantasy, but I didn't find much in it that resembles most other fantasy books I've read. If it had been labeled anything else I still would have loved it.