So you write Epic Fantasy, do you?

[Hereford Eye]

While we're on the topic of categorization; here are some books that contain fantasy elements. How would we categorize these?
Animal Farm - George Orwell
Bless Me, Ultima - Rudolfo Anaya
Moby Dick - Herman Melville
The Bull From the Sea - Mary Renault
The Five People You Meet in Heaven - Mitch Albom
The Lovely Bones - Alice Sebold
White Lotus - John Hersey

BTW, we will not find them in the sff sections of our libraries or book stores. Why is that?

 

[Gary Wassner]

They are all considered cross over titles, with the exception of Moby Dick and Animal Farm perhaps. I don't know that I would categorize Orwell in this case. If anything maybe political satire? Moby Dick is an epic adventure, but I don't view it as fantasy myself. The Bull From the Sea is really mythically based and more like historical fiction. The Lovely Bones is probably more akin to the supernatural than to fantasy with it's contemporary settings, and Heaven again is a contemporary novel with a fantastic theme. Fantasy is so broad a category that they could all be considered fantasy in some sense, but they are not marketed that way. The genre is expanding with the New Wierd, Mieville and Gaiman et al. The only clear category in fantasy that I fully understand is Epic Fantasy. It is what it is: Epic and Fantastic.

 

[Hereford Eye]

Sort of like your other thread, go into the library or bookstore. Where do you look for them? In the book stores, it's literature and I suspect, though I don't know for certain for all of them, they are under general fiction in the libraries. Haven't been into a library in almost 8 years. So, what good are the categories?

BTW, must disagree about Moby Dick: has a purpose driven monster just as Jaws 1-100 do and Frankenstein. Referring to Animal Farm as political allegory doesn't seem to be playing with all your cards exposed. We know these books are science fiction: The Foundation Series, Dune, and The Forever War and yet they each could also be categorized as politial allegories. Stanger in a Strange Land and Hyperion could be categorized as religious allegories. Folk are always trying to make The Lord of the Rings allegorical of something. By your admission, your own stories could be considered allegorical. Calling something allegorical doesn't seem to be a legitimate substitute for the fact that it is a fantasy or science fiction work.

Another BTW - been thinking about requesting my handle be changed to "Devil's Advocate Wannabe" D'ya think Dag will buy it?

 

[Gary Wassner]

Books aren't written with a category in mind. At least I hope they are not, although today many agents sell the ideas before the first paragraph is penned, so I might be wrong. But at least it is probably safe to assume that Melville and Orwell didn't write with any thought at all about how their works would be marketed. So, they just cross over, as I said. I agree that the sci/fi label fits in some cases. Strangers in a Strange Land was social commentary for me. I suppose certain books are different things to different people.

I don't think though that anyone would disagree that I write Epic Fantasy. It may be metaphorical, but what isn't? Metaphor is a technique that is not restricted to any genre, as is the use of allegory.

Devil's advocate wannabe? Let's not give the devil so much credit here. You are doing fine without him.

 

[Sammie]

Referring to Animal Farm as political allegory doesn't seem to be playing with all your cards exposed. We know these books are science fiction: The Foundation Series, Dune, and The Forever War and yet they each could also be categorized as politial allegories. Stanger in a Strange Land and Hyperion could be categorized as religious allegories. Folk are always trying to make The Lord of the Rings allegorical of something. By your admission, your own stories could be considered allegorical.

I agree that a story can be both fantasy (or science fiction) AND allegorical (Narnia is another good example).

However, I would not categorise 'Animal Farm' as Fantasy because it is a political satire, and that, imo, is a genre in itself. As with 'Gulliver's Travels', in 'Animal Farm' Orwell uses an implausible scenario, and implausible characters (tiny men, giant men, animal-men) to represent specific political figures, parties, ideals, and to represent stereotypes from among the general population.

It's not fantasy.....they don't intend us to suspend disbelief and, for the duration of the book, believe in talking animals......we are intended to see through these characters to the real message of the book.

 

[Gary Wassner]

I agree. I wonder if Orwell did categorize his own writings?

 

[Hereford Eye]

we are intended to see through these characters to the real message of the book.

Isn't that true of Heinlein and Asimov and Mieville and Wassner and all the others as well? Why else did they write? To assert that Orwell, Lewis, Carroll, Swift and Kipling did it on purpose but the others only did it through happenstance seems a bit cavalier to me. Has anyone asked China Mieville if he is doing political satire? Is David Weber examining everything military as a pure story teller or is he burying a message in all those books? Did Elizabeth Moon write Paksennarion because she had nothing to say about the U.S. military?
If political satire is a separate genre, does it include some of their work? Does the genre include Margaret Atwood's work or must there be a sense of humor involved? In that case, would it include include Keith Laumer's Retief tales? Everything Sheri S. Tepper writes deals with the issues of feminism; is that political satire? Do the books by political columnists containing compilations of their columns fit into the genre? Are some of Shakespeare's plays in the genre?
Defining categories and then sorting authors into them seems like a slippery slope to me.

 

[Gary Wassner]

It is most definitely a slippery slope. And it often does more damage to the author and the reader than anyone ever realizes. But what's the alternative? How would you ever begin to sort through the thousands of books being published if we didn't make some effort to separate them by category? It's a bit like stereotyping. We all do it unconsciously, and there are reasons why we stereotype, there are generalities that we can draw. But it is degrading nonetheless. Categorizing literature can be degrading too.
Mieville most certainly has a point of view, a very strong political one, and he expresses it allegorically in his books. Every author has a point of view, or almost every one, and they too express it when they write. There are books that we categorize as 'trash' and I don't know if that stereotype if even fair. But we do it all the time and with all mediums. Art, music and even sports. There are serious sports and then there is badmitten.

 

[Hereford Eye]

Isn't badmittens when you put the gloves on to pick up the casserole of baked beans and you spill the beans on the gloves?

Badminton on the hand is now an olympic sport which elevates it to the ranks of tennis. Not quite up the sociall scale to golf but getting there.

As for categorizing, yeah, we do. Can't help it. Probably an essential capability of our mind to reduce the world to manageable size. The problem, as I see it, is when we think the categories are real, cut and dried, with known boundaries and then believe we can justify putting a given book into a given category.

Your trash example is perfect. What I consider trash will not mesh with what you consider trash and that's fine. We both know what we mean by "trash" and neither of us expects the other to put precisely the same books into the trash bin.

I am quite content that the book stores have gathered up most of the books I like and put them in places I can reasonably find them. Every now and then it takes them a year or so to get it right. The Time Traveler's Wife spent it's first year in the lit sections of the book stores and is only now findings its way to the sff sections. A remarkable accomplishment for the author as far as I can see.

 

[Gary Wassner]

I thought that of badmitten too until i looked it up here: http://gearshopping.com/shop/browse-badmitten-745-1.html

How odd, right?

It is the ambiguous books that seem to get lost in the big stores. When something is clearly genre fiction - a mystery, a thriller, epic fantasy or the like, it is easy to place it on a shelf with a sign on the top to identify it for the customers.

I think that the shelves should just extend beyond their categorical borders. Let them blend toghether when the books are cross over books, and don't put a name on the side of the shelf. Just place them in between two other labels. Call them blends.

 

[KatG]

While we're on the topic of categorization; here are some books that contain fantasy elements. How would we categorize these?
Animal Farm - George Orwell
Bless Me, Ultima - Rudolfo Anaya
Moby Dick - Herman Melville
The Bull From the Sea - Mary Renault
The Five People You Meet in Heaven - Mitch Albom
The Lovely Bones - Alice Sebold
White Lotus - John Hersey

BTW, we will not find them in the sff sections of our libraries or book stores. Why is that?

I explained all that in my category post. It has to do with when they were published, who published them and what audience they were marketed to.

Animal Farm -- Considered classical literature, sold in classics or general fiction, published in the time before there was a fantasy genre, though even if it had been published later, it would still probably have been published as non-genre fantastic literary satire. The story and its focus would have minimal interest for most genre fantasy fans, therefore genre publishers haven't bothered to try to reprint it.

Bless Me, Ultima -- Belongs to the school of fiction called magic realism. Magic realist authors, the best known group being the South and Central American authors, use fantasy elements, but their work is considered literary fiction, often historical, and the types of stories they pursue again would be of interest to only a small group of genre fantasy fans. Genre publishers have little interest in the magic realists, though some types of fantasy with a South American setting may be of interest.

Moby Dick -- I'm guessing some fantasy got sneaked in there as part of the religious symbolism (haven't read it yet -- can you believe,) but it isn't generally considered to be a fantasy novel. If it were, though, given that it was published long ago before genre fantasy existed, it would be considered classical literature, not genre fantasy.

Bull From the Sea -- Again, published before the genre of fantasy existed. Considered classical literature and sold in general fiction if in print. Of more interest to genre fantasy readers, but evidently not enough to get the genre publishers to seek reprinting.

The Five People You Meet in Heaven -- a contemporary novel with fantasy elements as a religious, inspirational parable. Published by a non-genre publisher. Of little interest to genre fans and publishers.

The Lovely Bones -- literary contemporary novel with fantasy elements, published by a non-genre publisher. Of limited interest to genre fans and genre publishers.

White Lotus -- Also published long before a fantasy genre existed, considered classical literature. Unlikely to be of interest to most genre fans and genre publishers.

There are dozens of novels published as non-genre that contain fantasy and sf elements -- John Updike, Margaret Atwood, Michael Crichton, Tess Garitsen, Amy Tan, etc. We could, as genres, claim them, but genre publishers and the fans they are trying to market to have no burning desire to do so. It would not be very effective and it would clutter up the sf/f shelves. It's not that literary style fiction is of no interest to genre fans, but genre publishers seek stories, literary style or no, that will be of maximum interest to genre fans, and it is unlikely that a large number of those fans are burning to buy the Del Rey edition of "Animal Farm." Especially when they can get it from a non-genre publisher perfectly easily.

It comes down to which publisher the author sold the work to, and what audience the publisher then tries to chiefly sell to. A non-genre sf or fantasy work might be sold in the sf/f section if they think it will interest the fan audience, like "Jurassic Park," but is mainly marketed to a mainstream audience as general fiction. A genre work may be marketed to the mainstream and they love to get a crossover audience, but the main market is the genre fans. When we talk about a book with fantasy or sf elements, we can talk about any title we like, but when we talk about genres, we're talking about publishers and markets. It is an artificial construct created for a specific niche audience.

 

[KatG]

I think that the shelves should just extend beyond their categorical borders. Let them blend toghether when the books are cross over books, and don't put a name on the side of the shelf. Just place them in between two other labels. Call them blends.

Which would mean that the people who have the most interest in buying and reading your book would have a hard time finding it. Why do you think they invented the fantasy genre and the sf genre and gave them that special section? So people who liked books like that would be able to quickly find them. Meanwhile horror, which often does not get its own section of the bookstore, has always struggled to promote its authors. While some names become big hits, the rest are barely noticed.

But general fiction doesn't have that much of a problem. There are numerous sub-genres in general fiction. They aren't used much by the reading public, but they are used by publishers and booksellers who then use those categories to organize stock and steer readers to the type of fiction they want.

As for crossover titles, they don't need to blend them, they just sell them in multiple sections of the store, so that everybody can find them. Which is great, but does often lose the genre authors if the crossover targeting completely crosses over. Such as Kurt Vonnegut Jr. who decided he didn't want to be stuck in the sf "ghetto" and went and found non-genre publishers. He still got reprinted and loved in the sf genre, but became known as a satirist in general fiction. Jonathan Lethem was known for sf -- "Gun, With Occasional Music," but then he wrote a mystery novel, "Motherless Brooklyn," and seems to have left genre publishing behind. His fantasy novel, "Fortress of Solitude" was sold as a non-genre novel. Neal Stephenson was renowned as the new generation of cyberpunk for "Snow Crash" and "Diamond Age," and then did "Cryptonomicon." It was a nominally sf work that was marketed in the genre but also widely outside the genre. It worked extremely well. Now he's writing a weird historical series and being published outside the genres, and it's unlikely he'll return to the sf genre fully.

Too many authors do that, and your fan audience drifts away and goodbye adult sf and fantasy genres. Not good-bye fantasy and sf fiction, but goodbye that special section in the bookstore, the publishers putting out large reams of sf/f titles, and the whole community. Not necessarily the way to go. Better, I think, to continue to establish the genres and give them a larger fan base, and to encourage mainstream interest in genre publications rather than have authors leave genre publishers.

Sorry for the double posts. Sorry for the long and industry-centered posts. But I think it's important for writers to have more of an understanding as to how the markets work. If you are going to use the term epic fantasy, if you're going to write it, for instance, then you have to understand that its primary definition is not Tolkein or something published in 1810, but the core sub-genre of the fantasy genre created by sf publishers and marketed in very specific ways to a genre fan audience.

 

[Gary Wassner]

You should never apologize for the length of your posts. They are always informed and informative.

I wasn't saying that the fantasy section should be eliminated. No Way! I would like to see books in multiple sections as well, but it's unlikely that will happen. What I was saying was that there are books whose category is unclear. A reader might not know where to find them, and browsing is so important to point of sale purchases. Not everyone knows what they want to buy when they walk in to a store. If there was a section in between fantasy and sci/fi, or in between fantasy and literature or mystery, I don't really care, that stocked these books, like Gaiman and Mieville perhaps, it might interest the buyer even more.

I have a clear category. My books are not ambiguous. This wouldn't apply to me.

Just a marketing suggestion. I haven't given this that much thought before because I do think that Epic Fantasy is a defined genre, and people who desire to read it often know what they are looking for. They may read the back cover and browse the book, but IMO Epic Fantasy is defined by the usage of certain tropes that are relatively unique.

 

[KatG]

Epic fantasy isn't a genre. It's a sub-genre and it isn't defined by common elements. It's defined by setting, scope and thrust of plot. It's a type of genre fantasy story. Gaiman and Mieville's works aren't ambiguous. They just aren't in the epic fantasy sub-genre. I don't know why people freak out if a genre fantasy isn't an epic one. Maybe because they seldom read outside of epic fantasy? It certainly wasn't the case in the 1980's when all the sub-genres were chugging along on all four cylinders. I suspect that when epic fantasy outpaced the other sub-genres in growth and share of fans in the 1990's, that's when the confusion started.

What also is going on is a period of transition for urban/contemporary fantasy where it's getting a new name, which it probably needs, especially as it's getting a lot more attention these days. It looks like it's going to be split up into a larger number of sub-genres. New Weird may be one of those sub-genres, but they'll need another one for the non-epic fantasy that is not humorous or noir enough for New Weird. But they are all genre fantasy and don't need their own section in the bookstore. If we started giving new sections to every sub-genre, it would get nuts. (Especially as sf has more sub-genres than fantasy does.) Plus it would be divisive, since the lines between sub-genres do blur. Where do you put a title in which a modern man travels to an epic fantasy realm? Well, you could put it in either sub-genre, so keeping all the fantasy together makes the most sense.

Right now, my plan if it can be called a plan, is to write some works in epic fantasy and some works in urban/contemporary fantasy (or whatever they end up calling it,) but they'll all still be genre fantasy. This is not an unusual thing for fantasy authors to do, and sometimes they write sf. It is then published by the genre publishers for the fan audience and placed in their special section of the bookstore so the fans and others can find it.

 

[Gary Wassner]

I suppose I am a little more conventional when it comes to the category, and unconventional when it comes to the particular messages I am trying to convey. A lion in sheep's clothing? (Uh oh. Rocket Sheep may object to that description)

I have a hard time with urban contemporary fantasy. Not reading it, but writing it. It just doesn't appeal to me. I don't have that emotional attachment that I need to write passionately. And, though I admire Gaiman's creativity, I found American Gods to be terribly boring. The elements I love personally were not there.

Again, I write epic fantasy because it suits my temperament and my sensibilities so well. I am happy to have a category that I feel such an affinity with. I hope that Gaiman and Mieville also have the same love for tne new wierd (for lack of a better title).

 

[Hereford Eye]

Right now, my plan if it can be called a plan, is to write some works in epic fantasy and some works in urban/contemporary fantasy (or whatever they end up calling it,) but they'll all still be genre fantasy.

Oh, man, I want to be the fly on the wall when the publisher assigns an editor to you and he comes back with his first comments on your text. I am doing extra devotions to the goddess morning, noon, and night. I am cutting down on my martinis and saving the pennies for the necessary bribe. I have my favorite hacker standing by to sift the e-mail. Oh, man, I can't wait.

Back on topic, I have a casual wonder what the impact would be if publishers, book stores, and libraries did not separate things by genre. It would make it more difficult to find some folks work but maybe it would expose people to fiction they might not ever come across. There is a major bookseller whose entrance and middle aisle is simply new hardcover and paperback books, all piled together. I love that store. That central aisle gave me Sean Stewart and Annie Proulx and Tracy Chevalier and Liam Hearn and Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake. Maybe, if we didn't attempt to categorize, people would expand their horizons.
Doesn't fit the sound-byte generation, I know. You couldn't go the store or library in fast-food mode. You'd need to devote some time to it.

 

[Gary Wassner]

That sounds great to me too. I like reading the back covers and browsing through the books with no preconceptions. Often, in the past, I found I would end up buying something I never would have if not for that method.

 

[KatG]

Oh, man, I want to be the fly on the wall when the publisher assigns an editor to you and he comes back with his first comments on your text. I am doing extra devotions to the goddess morning, noon, and night. I am cutting down on my martinis and saving the pennies for the necessary bribe. I have my favorite hacker standing by to sift the e-mail. Oh, man, I can't wait.

It occurred to me, after I initially posted in response to the above, that I'd possibly misinterpreted what you were saying. Could you clarify for me whether you meant the editor -- who in sf/f would usually be the person who also acquired the work in the first place -- would want all these changes and drive me crazy, or whether you meant that the publisher who bought one work in one sub-genre would not want me writing in another fantasy sub-genre?

Back on topic, I have a casual wonder what the impact would be if publishers, book stores, and libraries did not separate things by genre.

There are only a few genres that get separate sections in the bookstore. Most titles are in general fiction. The sections are only there because bookbuyers want them. And many libraries do mix titles even if they have a sf/f section, especially in the new releases section, if the library has that.

There is a major bookseller whose entrance and middle aisle is simply new hardcover and paperback books, all piled together. I love that store. That central aisle gave me Sean Stewart and Annie Proulx and Tracy Chevalier and Liam Hearn and Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake.

Most of the bookstores do this. And the titles that are in that middle aisle or the front of the store display or the new releases section are there because the publishers paid the bookstore to do so. SF/F titles used to not show up much in the bribe areas because the sf/f publishers weren't willing to spend that sort of money on attracting a niche audience and because most of the titles they put out were in paperback, not hardcover, but as the market has grown with SF/F titles hitting the mainstream bestseller lists, and they've been doing the hardcover strategy, they've been more willing to pay for special displays. Having SF/F titles mixed in with other fiction is great and may attract new people to the genres. But having a whopping big sf/f section in the middle of the store also can do this and still let genre fans find their works easily.

Maybe, if we didn't attempt to categorize, people would expand their horizons.

The American markets are more categorized than the Canadian and European ones generally. The bookstores have found that American customers respond well to having some categories for fiction. And there is a whole sf/f fan culture, complete with the conventions, fanzines, etc., that welcomes new people but likes having its own platform. But it would be nice to have more mixing in the U.S. And thanks to the large successes in fantasy and children's fantasy, that seems to be happening, at least to a degree.

But it would cut down on the amount of time I have to spend searching for titles in the library if mine did have a separate sf/f section.

 

[Gary Wassner]

It's interesting that with the large publishing houses the people who read your manuscripts are not the ones who you will be working with later on. That can cause problems. If an acquisitions editor loves your work and makes you an offer, the editor who ends up with your project may have a very different concept in mind for it. Trust me on this. I learned from experience here. It was a good experience in the end, but it certainly was eye opening.

Another advantage of an independent press: The personell where many hats, and often the one who liked your manuscript to begin with will actually be the one you will be working with later on. That helps enormously.

Editors, as KatG knows better than I do, serve many functions, and as an author, particularly of fantasy wherein you have such a clear vision of what your world is all about, editing can be tricky. Some are very technical, some want to be authors, some really want to rewrite your book. I have had three different ones on three different projects. One was visionary and led me to a very different place with one book than I would have found without him. I fought him tooth and nail on the way, but in the end, the book is better for him. One was and is very cut and dry about things. She knows her s..t, to be perfectly clear, and she knows her market. She's a top editor and pulls no punches. When she doesn't like something, she wears no kid gloves with me. My skin has thickened considerably, and now unless the changes and comments really are counter to either my intended voice or my sensibility, I try to accomplish what she wants. She says, "trust me on this" and I have learned that I can.

I constantly edit my own work. When I write books in the GemQuest series, I present a manuscript to my editor that has been read an reread and reread many times. I also have an assistant who does the intitial edit for grammatical errors, spelling errors, word usage mistakes etc. She does not edit the story or even suggest content edits. In all of the five books I have written in this series, and after almost 3000 pages of text, I have not had to make any major revisions after the books were finished. I do that as I go, and I work so hard at consistency and continuity from book to book.

Everyone has a different method when they write. I write epic fantasy my way: the characters drive it. I don't outline or plot plan. I keep track of all of the threads and subplots and I let the characters interact and run with it. I do think about where it's going all the time. ALL THE TIME! But the only things I ever write down when I am not actually writing, are single lines or strings of words that strike me, phrases that are meaningful to me, and names. If I think of a good name, I always write it down. Names are so difficult and so important. I remember walking through Versailles with a pen and paper in one of the halls that had busts of the French kings and clergy. It was a treasure trove of names.

 

[KatG]

It's interesting that with the large publishing houses the people who read your manuscripts are not the ones who you will be working with later on. That can cause problems. If an acquisitions editor loves your work and makes you an offer, the editor who ends up with your project may have a very different concept in mind for it. Trust me on this. I learned from experience here. It was a good experience in the end, but it certainly was eye opening.

I'm assuming that this has something to do with your children's projects, Gary, but the split between acquiring editors and editing editors is not actually very wide spread in trade publishing, particularly in fiction. In sf/f publishing, the imprints at the large houses are small with a small editorial staff and the editor who acquires your book is usually the editor who edits your book, unless that editor leaves the house as sometimes occurs. The junior level people who might be the first folk to read your book are usually the ones who help the editor in editing it.

Many authors, particularly first time authors, don't realize that they don't have to please their editors absolutely and do whatever they say, and editors obviously don't inform authors of that fact. If there is what the editor sees as a very large problem with the work that will effect its salability, and the author refuses to deal with the issue, the publisher can decide to cancel the book contract on the grounds that the work is editorially unacceptable. But, it usually takes something very big for this to occur. It's in the author's best interests to consider the editor's comments and suggestions carefully and to work with the editor, but it's usually a give and take process of trying to make both sides content enough while the author pursues his vision for the work -- the vision that led the publisher to originally acquire the work. Occasionally, a publisher will have some sort of restriction to its publishing abilities that require it to ask an author to make strong changes in structure, length, and such, and that can be an editorially acceptable issue for the publisher. That sounds like what you ran into, Gary.