Genre Fiction

At the end of the discussion of drksideofthemoon's Suzanne By The Sea we dipped into the subject of genre fiction. It's a topic mentioned in critical discussions (a "master of the detective genre" as opposed to a "master of detective fiction") or on publishers' websites (they are or aren't looking for "genre").

The idea's simple. Wikipedia defines genre fiction as a term for fictional works (novels, short stories) written with the intent of fitting into a specific literary genre in order to appeal to the fans of that genre. In contemporary fiction publishing, genre is an elastic term used to group works sharing similarities of character, theme, and setting—such as mystery, romance, or horror—that have been proven to appeal to particular groups of readers.
----------

Genre Fiction's nothing new. Mysteries, scifi, horror, romance, wetserns, all of those have been around for years, what's new is the terminology and the market-driven kind of thinking that's behind it.

That being said, I throw the discussion open t any thoughts you might have on the subject, but I'd like to bump up Penny's wistful remarks on the subject of the romance genre and what characerizes it, because it just so happens I recently saw a description defining the genre and maybe I can dig it up again:

penelope street said:

She's a beautiful, virtuous young woman, probably a virgin. He's a handsome rouge who probably can't even remember being a virgin. He falls for her at once, mostly because she's the prettiest girl in the story. She's reluctant, but he wins her over, mostly with his sheer bravado. It doesn't hurt that he's the handsomest man in the story. Then the angst! They're separated and must overcome all odds to be together again. I think it's this last part, the struggling to get back together, that makes it satisfying.

'Suzanne by the Sea' does follow this pattern. Is that all there is to it, following a formula? Or am I totally lost?

Click to expand...

You Make My Brain Hurt

I'm not accustomed to such intellecualization of a subject. If a that's even a word... I doubt it. And what were we talking about? I forgot.

Sometimes I don't understand the things Doc says either, but that's always a hint to me that I don't know something I should. And any time he's willing to explain them, I'm willing to listen.

In this case, I want to understand the conspicuous features of a romance- what the majority of readers expect even if most never think about it those terms. To some extent I'd like to know about the other genres too, especially fantasy and science fiction. Even if I'm not planning to publish my stories, I want to understand what readers are expecting. I think most of us have gotten a little feedback from readers who were expecting something else.

Earlier, in the other thread, Doc mentioned something about westerns featuring certain ingredients- like horses and sagebrush. This led me to thinking about the key ingredients in a romance and that's where I got a little lost.

The published romances I have, at least the ones I could recall by looking at the covers, all seemed to have a similar story. The setting could change, but the basic plot doesn't seem to. A western seems to be all about setting, with few restrictions on plot. So can one genre be defined by plot and another by setting?

And then there's science fiction and fantasy. I want more than asteroids and elves. The stories I enjoy are the ones that explore social issues outside of the confines of contemporary culture. Do most fantasy readers expect something else when they pick up a story?

Penelope Street said:

So can one genre be defined by plot and another by setting?

Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure what Doc's saying either, but I think you hit it on the head, Penny. Not everything that's called genre fiction is equally limited. Indeed, I'm having a hard time thinking of anything that would be as rigid as Romance. Before you put it so succinctly, I wanted to say something very similar to what you said above.

I think maybe trope is the word we're looking for. In my mind, genre fiction is defined by presence of certain genre-specific tropes and by not much else. As far as theme, style, characters, plot, etc, etc. go (although any of these can be a trope!) most genres are—or are ideally—as free in their choices as what we'd call mainstream lit.

Granted, I'm basing that observation mostly on sci-fi, for it's where I have most experience and possibly because it is the broadest—so maybe I am being overly generous—but I don't see why it wouldn't apply, perhaps in various degrees, to westerns, mysteries, and whatever else is there. Even Romance does have some maneuvering space, if small. (E.g. it conceivably doesn't have to be written in flowery style; it can conceivably have somewhat atypical characters to carry the reader across the familiar emotional path.)

So perhaps it could be said that at its worst, genre fiction follows the whole checklist of prescriptions, while at its best it fulfills literary goals that transcend the genre while still keeping some of its defining characteristics/making use of some of its tropes.

I'm afraid that's the best I can do for now…

Well, with fantasy, there's generally several common elements.

A) A group of good guys. The good guys always work together and play off each other's strengths.

B) One bad guy with a bunch of toadies. The toadies only follow the plan because they're afraid of the bigger baddie. They usually have their own greedy schemes, which tend to lead to the downfall of the dark side.

C) The mystical do-dad. The mystical do-dad is vitally important. Acquiring the mystical do-dad almost ensures victory for the good guys. Even if they don't set out looking for it, the good guys almost always end up seeking the mystical do-dad.

D) Overpowered mentors/deities that can't/won't act until specific points in the story.

The good guys are normally dominated by an unlikely hero who has hidden abilities. The main baddie normally believes he's actually the good guy in some twisted way, and easily outpowers anybody on the opposite side.

The general expectation in fantasy is the unlikely hero and his ragtag bunch of misfits perservere against all odds and manage to bring down the all-powerful bad guy. Good joins together and defeats evil. Evil feeds upon itself and fails.

The breathing room comes in exploring issues in between. In Star Wars, it's all about Luke trying to redeem Vader. In Dragonlance Chronicles, it's about restoring faith in the gods. Those things are just as important as defeating the bad guy. The heroes are't just stopping evil, they're redeemers/reformers in some way, shape, or form. They're also making far more of themselves by the end of the story than they thought they could when they started.

In a way, Sci-Fi is similar. You remove the mystical do-dad ( sometimes ) and replace the unlikely hero with the great leader ( Who is usually unappreciated before this all goes down). The power of the baddies tends to be more spread out, with mainly political power in the hands of the baddie at the top of the pyramid.

That's what's in my brain at the moment. Whether it comes out making any sense at all or not remains to be seen.

I've been thinking about this thread for a few days now. I remember reading something quite a while back about a topic similar to this. Basically it said that there were only three or four types of stories that could be written. From what I recall, the list was drama, tragedy, and comedy and that every story was a form or combination of these three.

I think genre describes the setting, and the mood. Detective stories feature a crime or crimes. Westerns feature the old west, Sci-Fi the future, or another world etc.

There are degrees to something like that too, though. General Hospital is drama, but Roots or Star Wars move into something bigger - Epic. Same thing with Comedy and Farce. There's a major difference between Spaceballs and The Blues Brothers.

You can force them into a common denominator, but the differences are so profound that it's a stretch.

Hmmm, not to stir the discussion toward sci-fi only, but it seems Darkniciad and I aren't talking about the same sci-fi. Perhaps I should have said SF (speculative fiction) as to make myself clearer. The possibility of removing the speculative/fantastic element and remaining with the essentially unchanged story is the main hallmark of what most would call bad sci-fi.

Anyone with more than passing interest in the subject, by the way, could do worse than check out essays by Norman Spinrad, an acclaimed SF author and theorist. (Unfortunately, quick googling yielded no results available for free on the net, so I can only throw the name out here for the case someone is really interested.)

This brings us back to tropes, though. Leaving aside the issue of literary virtues, which can be present to a larger or smaller degree, in the end it is genre tropes that attract a genre reader. It's most apparent in our willingness to read a less than brilliant piece of work as long as it delivers the content/aesthetics we're fond of—for some it's heroines with heaving breasts, for others lone cowboys or hard-boiled detectives, and for others yet C-beams at the gates of Orion or grim megalopoleis of corporation-controlled future. (Ha—had to look up that plural.) These, per se, indicate nothing about quality of work. All they indicate is our fondness for a particular set of tropes.

I will maintain, however, that some genres are inherently more limited than others. With the proviso that some speculative element will play a role in some way, an SF reader is willing—I daresay, expects to be—surprised and challenged in every other way. Romance reader, as one example, not so much. Obviously, I don't mean it as a sneer in the direction of either writers or readers of romance, but it is a distinction worth mentioning as we discuss the meaning of genre.

Some clarifications.

A genre is a class or category of literature having a particular form, content or technique, i.e. epic peotry, comedy, an fiction. For example, Shakespeare's Othello falls in the genre of dramatic tragedy. Sophocles Antigone is an example of epic drama. Joyce's The Dead could be labeled as realistic fiction. (You can trust me on this one.)

But what is called genre in literature class isn't the same as what is called genre in contemporary commercial (for a popular audience) publishing and marketing.

Rather than give you my opinion, I'll use Alison Kent, a substantial romance writer herself and an author of several how-to books for people who want to write romance for pop audiences. She says:

"A genre novel is one with distinctive content designed to meet specific reader expectations. A novel in the romance genre, for example, always has characters who fall in love by the last page, leaving the reader with a satisfying ending and a romantic commitment made by the story's couple. The protagonists are the main characters in a literary work. Because a romance novel is the story of a couple falling in love, both your hero and heroine share this billing."

Erotic romance, of greater interest to writers at Literotica probably, is referred to as a "subgenre," or a romance that uses erotica to reveal and develop character and the progress of the "love" relationship. A modern romance can end in one of two ways for the commercial market: HEA (happily ever after) or HFN (happy for now).

If you've read classical Romance (cap, intended), you see the commercial version could be quite different.

To get back on topic, Dr. M was reflecting that

what's new is the terminology and the market-driven kind of thinking that's behind it.

Click to expand...

I suppose it's been formula-driven in one way or another since Winesburg, Ohio (1917?) inspired the first soap operas and Peyton Place (195?) put them on the big screen as regional epics.

But what seems new to me is the way technology and costs are driving content now -- a "novel" at present is defined as being between 80,000 and 100,000 words; a few years ago I thought of that as novella territory. I still prefer novels that begin around 150,000 words, but unless your name is Grisham, or King, or Clancy, or .... forget about it.

The brevity is required because of costs, I'm told. It is cheaper to publish in e-format, and that length fits something though I'm not sure what. POD (one copy at a time) publishing in hard or soft cover is attractive, but more expensive than offset publishing (the mass market paperbacks) and so few copies are printed and only distributed on request, leaving the writer to market for him/herself. The mass market book is dying unless the name of the author is firmly established because of distribution costs (gasoline for trucks to haul the things, warehouse space to store an inventory).

So e-publishers publish "heat sheets," short stories that can sell for very cheap and download even on a modem. Novellas of 10,000 to 70,000 words. Anthologies of five writers each listing 15,000-word stories and marketing the book as a group and attractive to readers because you "get" five for the price of one. And novels that are half the length of a "real" book ... I saw a call for submissions last week for "novels" that are as short as 10,000 words!

And don't forget the readers, too, demand things that are as simple and fast to read as a TV miniseries. Who has, the argument goes, "the time"?

The result significantly effects content. It's not necessarily bad, but it is truly different. Instead of a novel with 5 or 6 well-developed characters, you write with two. The world, in such a book, is a much simpler place.

The formula for commercial fiction is, as a result, much simpler too. I often find it uncomfortable and inadequate, but somewhere perhaps some genius will figure a new way to attack it and make jewels from donkey ears.

The prevailing way, at this time, to attack the limitations seem to be via the "series" -- a sequence of short novels featuring the same character/s and developing a motif.

I don't know if this is what Dr. M had in mind but I'm glad for the chance to vent in any case!

Respectfully,
ST

Good points, ST! I was mostly talking of genre as a publishing/marketing category. Thanks for adding the original meaning to the discussion, as well as your publishing experiences.

What about stories that cross different genres?

I have a series that is just wrapping up, at around 300,000 words, it's the longest piece of work that I've ever written. It started off as nothing more than another smutty little tale but grew into something larger. (Don't worry, I won't be putting this behemoth up for discussion)

On one level, it's a modern western. It takes place on a ranch in Montana and a young man from the city becomes a cowboy. The love of way of life, and the land is portrayed.

It's a romance. The young man falls in love with a young woman. Whether they will be able to fullfill their love is in question for much of the series.

It's a fantasy, I have ghosts of Lakota warriors, various Lakota spirits, and living the past through dreams.

It's an adventure. I have a group of ne'er do well bad guys trying to steal gold. A few assorted gunfights etc.

So, my question for the discussion is, aren't a lot of stories a mixture of a couple of more genres?

Verdad said:

It's most apparent in our willingness to read a less than brilliant piece of work as long as it delivers the content/aesthetics we're fond of—for some it's heroines with heaving breasts, for others lone cowboys or hard-boiled detectives, and for others yet C-beams at the gates of Orion or grim megalopoleis of corporation-controlled future. (Ha—had to look up that plural.) These, per se, indicate nothing about quality of work. All they indicate is our fondness for a particular set of tropes.

Click to expand...

Here's the whole thing with genre fiction (which, by the way, shouldn't be confused with literary genre, an entirely different bucket of fish) and where it gets its less than savory rap - at its worst, it's formulaic. It might be situation-driven as in a romance (lovers are kept from consumating that love by obstacles that must be overcome) or detective (crime must be solved); or let's say "accessory-driven" as in a western (guns, horses, sagebrush, buckeroos*) or space opera (rocket ships, ray guns, bug-eyed monsters), but whatever it is, the plot doesn't have to try too hard, and the readers expect to see these certain elements displayed prominently and will probably complain if they don't.

I remember seeing a book year ago that guaranteed an endless source of plots for authors. In fact, I think the name of the book was "An Endless Supply of Plots for Authors", and what it turned out to be was a lot of filler hiding the author's basic idea which was this: Go to a used book store or Goodwill, pick up a bunch of ten year-old paperbacks, swipe the plots, change the genre and retell the story in your own words. Voila.

That kind of thing would work fine for genre fiction.

(*had to get that one in. Such a lovely word.)

This is not an earth shaking revelation, but "genre" is a marketing concept, not a writing tool. True genre publishers, such as Harlequin, have very ridged guidelines/rules authors must follow. The most venerated one is the almost universal requirement for an HEA (happy ever after) ending.

That said, the HEA rule has begun to loosen a bit in recent years. But if you have a love story w/o an HEA or at the very least the promise of better days ahead, your best bet will probably still be to submit it as mainstream commerical while reminding agents/publishers of Nicholas Sparks' success.

Rumple Foreskin

Rumple Foreskin said:

This is not an earth shaking revelation, but "genre" is a marketing concept, not a writing tool. True genre publishers, such as Harlequin, have very ridged guidelines/rules authors must follow. The most venerated one is the almost universal requirement for an HEA (happy ever after) ending.

That said, the HEA rule has begun to loosen a bit in recent years. But if you have a love story w/o an HEA or at the very least the promise of better days ahead, your best bet will probably still be to submit it as mainstream commerical while reminding agents/publishers of Nicholas Sparks' success.

Rumple Foreskin

Click to expand...

I was kind of Present at the Creation of a genre: Romantica. The name and the genre were both invented by Ellora's Cave by a failed romance writer who believed there was a market for romance with tastefully graphic sex scenes. (Their original slogan was, "We Show You What Happens When The Lights Go Out!") Forget her name now (Raelene Gorlinsky?), but she went from woorking out of her garage to a $22 million business in 3 years, and since then Romantica has become the fastest-growing segment or the Romace market, and half of all fiction sold in the US is Romance. Now everyone has a Romantic line.

They had very strict rules at the start. All endings had to be HEA. The heroine (and BTW, if you're looking to sell erotica to a mainstream piublisher, your protagonist almost ALWAYS has to be female. There are a few exceptions, but they're very rare) could only sleep with one man. They were very strict on what words coud be used. Cock, dick: yes. Prick, no. Slut & bitch, forbidden unless used by one woman against another. Things like that. No anal, No swallowing...

Each month we'd get a bulletin as things would get more and more relaxed. Now, almost everything goes.


One of the hottest genre's now is Chick-Lit. In Romantica, hot sub-gen's include paranorm's, shapeshifters (& we should do a thread on this! Women's obsession with animal penises! Honestly!) expecially Werewolfes, who've just surpassed Vampires, and "Chick-Tecs", Female detectives.

Also "Fic-Fac": "Fiction-Faction", books that combine a stoiry with practical information, like mysteries with recipes, vampire stories with travel, Erotica with "How to pick-up guys..." stuff.

(Was just talking to Charley H about doing a bondage/recipe book. Couldn't get past licorice whips...)

What is easier to sell in today's marketplace, and I don't mean to the public, but to the publisher? Genre fiction that is geared to a specific market, or something that is more broad in scope.

Secondly, do you think readers are looking for more genre type stories?

Nothing mysterious about your example, darkside ... it would fit neatly in a subgenre which, as Dr. M. explains, is pretty popular: paranormal romance, but you may have to make a decision as to which predominates and you definitely have to figure a way to break it up into a trilogy.

And to answer your most recent question, walk through the local Border's or B&N ... there are VERY few books that are well-promoted especially via the massmarket concepts that are not market genre.

The first thing you have to answer in a cover letter which goes with your submission is what, exactly, your target audience is.

ST

The best science-fiction generally does one of two things:
1) It explores the effects of new science on society. In this guise, science-fiction is just another version of horror-stories and fairy tales.
2) It creates a situation which is analogous to an existing social situation, but removed from the emotional attachments of the existing situation, so the situation can be looked at with an unbiased eye.

Genres tend to be fairly broad, I think. You write a romance in a science-fiction setting or a mystery with a bondage setting (one of my current projects). Ultimately it's not the genre that makes a story interesting, but the characters and the way they interact.

Ok, I think I understand the term genre fiction and I can spell trope. So what characteristics define a romance to a modern publisher? What ingredients made 'Suzanne by the Sea' a perfect romance? It's more than a HEA or HFN ending and no swallowing unless a buckaroo is involved, right?

what's missing here, and is possibly behind the good dr's question, is the proposal that 'genre' fiction is not literature or is inferior.

there was a long article, in a recent Harper's or Atlantic, about the mystery writer H. Coben, who's sold millions in several languages, yet has NEVER gotten a New York Time book review, even though he's often on their bestseller lists. the author of the article contrasted himself at a literary convention getting 10 people to come to a presentation vs. Mr. Coben who has them stacked to the ceiling.

certainly porn is a genre, and one can see why the issue of quality arises.
erotica, too, is likely 'genre.'

one practical test: after reading a 'genre' work and several like it, can you recall anything about the characters; do they stick in mind in any way? this has to do with the 'plot driven' character of much genre writing.

compare a fiction piece with lots of sex, e.g., something by Philip Roth, with a similar work of 'erotica', esp. with regard to character, predictability, etc. 'erotica' typically lacks suprises and fuckups--i.e., when two strangers try sex, quite often things go quite wrong (e.g., premature ejaculation), which is never the case in 'erotica.'

==

it's commonly said that 'genre' fiction, combined outsells all other fiction by a long shot; iow, most readers of fiction are reading 'genre' far away beyond anything else. leaving aside quality issues, the public consumes 'genre' voraciously. but then again, they voracioulsy consumed the Beverly Hillbillies, Starsky and Hutch, and Married with Children, also.

Its been said that the idea of genre fiction is more of a marketing thing than anything else. I have to agree with that. Why are Anne Rice's Vampire novels in the 'literature' section at Barnes And Noble?
And the Handmaids Tale
And Stephan King

that said...

There are two real problems with genre work...
1) Unlike 'literary' fiction, genre work can generally be broken down into a series of rules (as has been noted). Following these rules creates a reasonable work. You can do this well, or you can do it poorly. The rules, though, tend to attract those who can't do very well on their own. Fantasy tends to be worst case scenario for this.

2) The fans tend to set the bar amazingly low. Genre fans also tend to get attached to particular writers. Those writers then can do virtually no wrong. Fantasy tends to be worst case scenario for this as well. Especially as fantasy tends to spiral out into 18 book mega-epics for no good reason.

hm...I appear to be virtually incoherant today.
My point, really, is that while genre work tends to be easier to produce, its the reading public that allows it to continue to suck so often.

Pure said:

what's missing here, and is possibly behind the good dr's question, is the proposal that 'genre' fiction is not literature or is inferior.

there was a long article, in a recent Harper's or Atlantic, about the mystery writer H. Coben, who's sold millions in several languages, yet has NEVER gotten a New York Time book review, even though he's often on their bestseller lists. the author of the article contrasted himself at a literary convention getting 10 people to come to a presentation vs. Mr. Coben who has them stacked to the ceiling.

certainly porn is a genre, and one can see why the issue of quality arises.
erotica, too, is likely 'genre.'

one practical test: after reading a 'genre' work and several like it, can you recall anything about the characters; do they stick in mind in any way? this has to do with the 'plot driven' character of much genre writing.

compare a fiction piece with lots of sex, e.g., something by Philip Roth, with a similar work of 'erotica', esp. with regard to character, predictability, etc. 'erotica' typically lacks suprises and fuckups--i.e., when two strangers try sex, quite often things go quite wrong (e.g., premature ejaculation), which is never the case in 'erotica.'

==

it's commonly said that 'genre' fiction, combined outsells all other fiction by a long shot; iow, most readers of fiction are reading 'genre' far away beyond anything else. leaving aside quality issues, the public consumes 'genre' voraciously. but then again, they voracioulsy consumed the Beverly Hillbillies, Starsky and Hutch, and Married with Children, also.

Click to expand...

Let's put it this way: Ever see a real painting of a landcape? Call that Landscape Painting
Now ever see those landscapes those guiys do on TV How-To-Paint in 20 minutes on Saturday afternoon? That's genre-Landscape Painting.

No, I never heard of Coben, but I h3ard about Stephen Kin'd tirade at the Bational Book Award or someplace, demanding that they give gold statuettes to authos based on the weight of the sales receipts or somethings. And he was wearing a tuxedo yet.

I'd be careful of that confusion between "genre fiction" and "literary genre" when you start talking about the grand tradition of porn (hands over hearts) and where it belongs. Seriously, erotica is a Literary genre, which is not the same as saying it's a kind of genre fiction. The two terms mean quite different things. A Literary genre is a type of literature, the classification usally based on its theme or maybe style (in poetry), and while the same may be true of genre fiction, usually the categories are much smaller and selective and the works have a more striking likeness, often based on similarity of satiation, character, setting, accessory. They seem not written so much as cloned. There's a mass-produced, cookie-cutter sameness to them that, as someone pointed out, is largely the result of a market-driven rather than am artistic-driven industry. Da Vinci Code sold, so watch now for the Picasso Puzzle, the Monet Maze, the Rubens Rebus, whatever….

And it'sfrom this cookie-cutter, mass-produced way doing business that the issue of qualioty comes in. The whole subject of genre-fiction first arose aftre I'd been bitching about finding "Suzanne By The Sea" disappointingly predicatble and even cliched. One I saw that DARK had intended this to be a romance, however—by which I understood him to mean genre-fiction-style romance, it occurred to me that he was required to put in those cliches and stock figures, that romanctic village by the sea, those certain elements that people who buy genre romance fiction are going to expect to see.

There's a few things that happen where I sit down with a book or a story or even a piece oif music. One of those things is I wonder "What's going to happen in here?" And I enjoy that feeling of not knowing, up to a point. We all do. Marketers don't like us liking that because it makes it hard for them to do their job. They like knowing exactly what we like so they can commodify it. They love it when they can find something like Star Wars that they can spin off into a genre or product universe because now they've commodified art[/I}.

That's what genre fiction is. It's commodified literature.


One last blather: Erotica itself is much too varied, in my opinion, to qualify as genre fiction, although there you could certainly go through the great Vault of Literotica with a steam dredge and scoop up wriggling and writhing a catch that would sort out at probably 90% of all the same species, I would bet - male and female. They'd all have the same features. The3y'd quality as genre fiction

(What this has to do with anything, I have no idea, but I do love the image of a giant dredge sitting on this ocean of Lit porn stories, scooping them up while all these words are dripping from its jaws too good to pass up...)

*****

Divulgence said:

Yes!

It's the "dumbing down" of the masses, isn't it? We are not as selective with the top sellers as we should be, thus mediocrity is allowed to thrive. We should be embarrassed.

Along with that thought would have to be the countless trilogies put out by more and more of the best selling writers. They introduce the 6 characters in the first book (3 M, 3 F) produce some sort of situation that must be resolved, and carry it through to three separate marketable books.

It's annoying. They found the formula that works and that's where they'll remain. And fans snap them up. Can't read just one.

The stories are predictable and readers are happy. But it's less mental exercise for lazy folk, I suppose. Sort of like reading fluff novels while on vacation.

Click to expand...

EXACTLY! And I think that goes, mostly, back to the publishers. There are good writers out there who simply have to pump out multiple entries in a series, when they'd rather just do a single book.
But a series is a cash cow.
And even once you are reasonably successful as an author, that doesn't mean you will always be so. Push comes to shove, writing is a job.

Hah. Genre fiction is Applebee's.

A question.

If you wrote a genre novel accepted for publication, why do you think that would be?

I'd guess it had something to do with originality, some way or other - within the scope of the genre.