When I give my genre overview program, one of the things I have to repeat over and over is that "Genre is not static." Too often those of us in the book world think of "Genre" as a wall, impenetrable, unmoving, and unyielding. But in reality, "Genre" is a human construct. It is a way for us to organize stories into smaller chunks.
When we are talking about the umbrella "genres" there are some basic things writers will do and readers expect, but the very best books, in any genre, also use the broad strokes of the category to create something new from it.
I also get at least 1 question at the end of these programs, even after explaining over and over that genre is not a wall meant to box books into a corner, asking how to shelve books that are in multiple genres. And again, I repeat that it doesn't mater. Stop worrying about genre and start worrying about the readers.
[See also this post-- Genrify Your Catalog, Not Your Collection]
The old-school library worker attitude that we must shoe horn every book into 1 category, and only 1 category is well, outdated, but also it is unfair to today's writers and readers. Why? Because, right now, we are in a golden age of rethinking the rules and as a result, we are getting some of the most amazing books, especially in speculative genres, where genre boundaries have been pushed since heir inception.
And, even better for us readers, this rethinking is fueled by marginalized voices realizing that the old standby White, Cis, Male experience does not speak to them. Instead, they take "Genre" and mold it with their life experience into something fresh, original, new and award winning! It has revitalized so much of today's popular fiction.
Some people think this is "new," but I would argue that it is as old as the genres themselves. Think about the book the birthed both SF and Horror-- Frankenstein by Shelley-- written by a teenage woman in a world that dismissed them and their voice.
A recent article in Book Riot paired with me giving that Genre talk to a few libraries in the last few weeks, had me thinking about all of this.
That article is entitled, "Authors Who Coined Their Own Subgenre." Read the list and the commentary. And then think about what else I wrote here today. Expand you idea of genre. Use it as a guide, NOT a fact.
1 comment:
Thank you for this post; I have been thinking a lot about genre and genre conventions for several months.
I identify mostly as a genre romance reader, though my first love was mysteries; the conventions of genre romance change frequently, with only two inviolate rules: there's a happy ending (protagonists end together and looking to a shared future), and "don't kill off your protagonists".
But even this has been under discussion and strain, and subjected to change in different ways by different people for different reasons (I won't bother you with the details), and it has made me think a lot about how what we now call genre romance has changed from Jane Austen to E.M. Hull to Kathleen Woodiwiss to Nora Roberts to Suzanne Brockmann to whoever is the 'big name' (or big book) today, and why.
Post a Comment