The Genres Ablaze: Critical Looks at Sci-fi and Fantasy

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > The Book Barn > The Genres Ablaze: Critical Looks at Sci-fi and Fantasy

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

Does anyone have some examples of genre fiction that does a good job with descriptive language? I've always been frustrated by the inability of a lot of authors to describe these worlds they're trying to create. It's especially bad in fantasy - I see too many authors rely on either suggestion or some Lovecraft-style "the thing was too horrible to describe but hoo boy, believe me when I say it sucked" prose - but I know there have to be some that are decent at it. I remember Bradbury's prose being strong but it's been so long since I read any of his work that I can't say whether or not it actually was.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2019 11:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 19:20

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

Western as well would be neat to look at. I always forget that "genre" isn't just sci-fi, fantasy, and Clancy-style thrillers.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2019 22:06

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

The word "genre" only has so much meaning. It's either a critical term or a marketing one. It doesn't really have much use as a marker of merit or quality because for any genre you can almost always find a work of fiction that has literary merit and fits the markers of the genre (e.g., fantasy : Tolkien (or The Tempest), mystery : Maltese Falcon, etc.)

Genre fiction is always going to be held back by the fact that publishers want to publish works that tightly fit the genre's formula.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2019 23:50

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

There's a lot of celebrated mid-20th century literary fiction that's mostly just men complaining about their terrible marriages and issues with women but the percentage of litfic ["literally fictive" writing] that's terrible is so much smaller than that of genre fiction. There's no reason to be defensive of genre work, but it has to be acknowledged honestly.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2019 00:07

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

onsetOutsider posted:

entertainment is one of the largest measures of success imo, for this medium of entertainment that is books

This doesn't seem like a great basis for critical thought about writing.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2019 00:35

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

onsetOutsider posted:

I knew somebody would call me out for this! My argument is this:

Treating entertainment as a metric of value is not mutually exclusive with thinking critically about writing. Critical discourse about writing should absolutely take into account the factor of entertainment value, not as some wishy-washy shield from all criticism, but as a valid metric that may be supported by textual evidence, just like the equally vague concept of "good characterization".

So there.

Entertainment isn't a metric of anything. What people find entertaining is shaped by culture and familiarity. It is neither quantifiable nor qualifiable. It is less measurable than anything else you could possibly talk about regarding writing.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2019 00:47

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

Thranguy posted:

Agents and buyers everywhere would disagree, I imagine.

Agents and buyers aren't critics.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2019 01:00

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

Mel Mudkiper posted:

I would argue that all readers are critics, but unfortunately our culture has been brainwashed by capitalism to confuse financial merit for cultural and artistic merit

I think being a critic - or at least reading critically - takes training and knowledge. I would say every reader has the capacity for it but that doesn't mean they're doing it.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2019 01:05

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

Mel Mudkiper posted:

Well, I argue that criticism is simply exploring the relationship between reader and text. Even the most superficial assessment of a text is still a critical response. The goal of training and study is simply to expand the toolkit one uses.

Fair, this is totally valid.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2019 01:10

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

Bilirubin posted:

I'd suggest it was depth not weight, depending on how you define weight of course. Literature can take repeated passes of thought and reveal more meaning each time, but I know nothing so

Literature doesn't have to be thematic - I'd suggest looking at an author like Daniel Orozco whose stories focus on experience, not theme. Literature needs to have good prose, but otherwise there's a wide range of things it can do.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2019 01:34

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

Antivehicular posted:

This is off-topic, but I'll recommend Daniel Orozco's short story collection Orientation at every opportunity, so... yeah. If you like short stories at all, go read Orientation.

I have a signed hardcover copy from a reading he did, so yes, I have read it. It's so good. I'm usually the person telling everyone to read this so it's cool to see other people know about it.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2019 05:47

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

Sham bam bamina! posted:

Yes. I'm not sure what FactsAreUseless means by a text not being "thematic". Anything that a text communicates to a reader is a theme. If anything means anything at all, no matter how trivial or even literal, that's a theme. It is unavoidable in human communication.

Out of curiosity, I just read Orozco's story "Orientation" for context, and I would hardly call it a themeless piece of writing.

It's not as though you can write anything that doesn't have themes, but Orozco has talked about how seeks to capture specific experiences rather than set out to explore a theme. It's not that one is a better approach than the other, I just think the defining element of literature is the prose, not its thematic depth.

edit: but at a certain point it's just relitigating the "what is literature" question, which I'm assuming was more than sufficiently addressed in the last thread so I'll drop it

Nerdburger_Jansen posted:

I wonder if this is still "dumb as poo poo?"

What are you talking about?

# ¿ Mar 17, 2019 05:49

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

Sham bam bamina! posted:

Oh yeah, thematic depth doesn't have to be the focus of a text. Thanks for clarifying.

Yeah sorry, I'm not always great at expressing my thoughts w/r/t books.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2019 05:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 19:20

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

A human heart posted:

it does seem like anglo americans have problems with reading because they dont get told that sentences are the basic building block and that you need to look at that stuff before getting into themes and other similar things. if i was a cool smart man with a lot of time maybe i'd write a big ol effort post about how this is the root of contemporary anglo american fiction being mostly bad.

please do this

# ¿ Mar 18, 2019 09:59

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > The Book Barn > The Genres Ablaze: Critical Looks at Sci-fi and Fantasy