Isn't there a hint of "Noir"-ishness to it as well? I don't read it much but that has always been my impression of the genre.
It's one of those things where the tone may be different, but the hidden world, shadowy government organisation, and (attempted) allegorical aspects provide enough crossover. Not to mention that I did say genres were flexible and more of a scale, and I am largely separating narrative of the work from the overall world because some writers tell different tones of narrative within the same setting.
But Middle Earth has trolls, dragons, wraiths, ghosts, elves, orcs, goblins, giant spiders, giant eagles, enchanted blades, shapeshifters, balrogs, rings of power, haunted swamps, sentient trees, and so on. It's teeming with the supernatural.
So, is the Star Trek franchise, going back to 1966, pure Sci-Fi or Fantasy? I don't want to read the whole thread but I'm thinking some can argue one way or another or both.
I’d categorize Star Trek as Science Fiction, specifically because of its primary themes of exploration and scientific inquiry. Even when fantastical things happen in Star Trek, there’s usually an underlying scientific reason that the characters have to figure out, by finding the computer that’s secretly controlling everything, etc. The lines blur with Science Fantasy for some of the wilder episodes though, particularly in the original series; but they drift away from this and I think the overall theme is Science Fiction, with the subgenres of Space Western and Space Opera exerting heavy influences.
I'm actually starting to think that it's the opposite. Maybe a large majority of fantasy is speculative fiction. What if we were able to build sentient robots that resembled humans? What if there was a secret boarding school in the UK that taught people how to cast spells? I've read plenty of science fiction novels that leave out the mechanics of their so called scientific inventions as much as the mechanics are left out of the magic used in Harry Potter. I'm not sure I'm so much of a fan of the feasibility argument anymore, either. There were plenty of things that people thought were not feasible that are and plenty of things that people thought were feasible but aren't. Feasibility isn't constant. Also, not all things are equally feasible, so where do we draw the line? How feasible can something be before it's no longer considered speculative? In this light, realism is more a question of how the story and world that exists are treated. For example, if you have a world that has remained medieval like for thousands of years, without good reason, and the humans in this world appear as smart as the ones we know are actually real, I'm going to question how realistic your world is. FYI, I see the speculative element in an alternative medievial-ish world to be exactly that. What if we had a medieval world that was different from the historical one in such and such ways, including different cultures, geographies, and historical events? Obviously realism can quickly become very hard to maintain for many stories, regardless of predefined genre. This all doesn't necessarily exclude yesterday's arguments about romanticism. But maybe romanticism is closer linked to degree of realism than trying to define a genre. Fantasy can still exist. But maybe it ought to describe novels that read more dreams or the surreal. When the world is no longer coherent, and you're left getting it more emotionally than logically, you're probably reading true fantasy.
All fantasy is speculative fiction, similar to how all dogs are canines. Per Wikipedia. Speculative fiction is an umbrella genre encompassing narrative fiction with supernatural or futuristic elements.[1] This includes, but is not limited to, science fiction, fantasy, superhero fiction, science fantasy, horror, utopian and dystopian fiction, supernatural fiction as well as combinations thereof.[2]
Based on all the different arguments and definitions just in this thread, I agree. You need a large umbrella to collect them all and all the sub-generes and overlaps.
Possibly to the extent that the sub-subgenres really don't matter because they are impossible to pin down? I think it's possible to pick this topic to death, really. I'm happy with Speculative Fiction as an overall category, divided into Science Fiction and Fantasy. Anything more specific becomes a bit of a dog's breakfast to sort, I reckon. And yes, there will always be books out there that are difficult to fit into either category. Some can be fitted into both! And people will not always agree on what those two categories mean, either. But hey. Categories walk among us, and we need to accept them, eh? Science Fiction as a category was 'coined' at a time when stories that were set anywhere in 'space' were called Science Fiction—even the crazy ones by ER Burroughs (the Mars series, etc) which had no basis whatsoever in any kind of scientific fact. Now the overlap is enormous, 'space' is no longer the required setting for Sci-Fi, and Fantasy is massive as well. Does finding an exact category really matter? Most agents I've seen touting their services aren't too specific. They'll say they're interested in representing Science Fiction. Or Fantasy. Or both. Or even 'Speculative Fiction.' But they don't usually get more specific than that, except maybe to indicate if it's YA fiction, adult fiction, etc. I think I need to take a pill!
Genres in general are a marketing tool, and if you can find a precise sub-genre for your work, you can market it more effectively to readers of that sub-genre. Like, when I write m/m romance, it makes a lot more sense for me to market it to m/m readers than to readers of romance in general. Now, m/m has to be one of the most easily defined sub-genres out there, but even within that sub-genre it's useful for me to refine things a bit more. There are a lot of readers who like military m/m, or contemporary m/m, or shifter m/m; there are even readers who are looking for specific tropes within the sub-genre. Knowing these sub-categories means I can classify my books in a way that makes them accessible to people looking for books like mine. In an increasingly over-crowded marketplace, it can be really important to at least have your book in the right category to make it as easy as possible for readers to find it. In terms of speculative fiction? As a reader, I like some fantasy, but rarely enjoy SF. I don't generally enjoy high fantasy. If I'm browsing for a book, I don't want to have to sort through all the SF before I get to Fantasy, and I don't want to have to sort through all the high fantasy before I get to something I think I'll enjoy. So I'll take all the sub-sub-genre-ing I can get!
I think what I'm getting at is there isn't much point wrangling about sub-subgenres when people can't agree what they mean. M/M Romance is pretty straightforward. Nobody (much) is going to argue what that category contains, are they? High Fantasy is less defined. Even less understood and accepted is Low Fantasy. Then you've got Urban Fantasy, which might overlap with Low Fantasy OR not, depending on what a person believes Low Fantasy to be. And etc. I think maybe this categorisation is so fluid as to be meaningless ...at least at this point in time. Maybe in the future the categories will become more easily defined AND the definitions accepted by everybody. Right now, judging from the discussion here on this thread and the subsidiary discussions I've read on Wikipedia, etc, I'd say we're far from that point. Maybe just stick to writing Sci Fi or Fantasy, and let readers judge how/where to stick them, in terms of content? I don't think there will be too much of a problem marketing it, along with a blurb (query letter) that explains a bit about what it contains. If the blurb (or query letter) in the Fantasy category mentions elves and orcs and swords you can make a judgement. If it mentions vampires and /or zombies, you can make a judgement. If it mentions mind melding you can make a judgement. Parallel universes, etc. I don't think it's all that hard for a reader/agent to do. They've managed thus far, haven't they? I would hate for a good story to get buried or rejected because it doesn't 'fit' into any particular sub-category very well. And that, I'm afraid, is the end game here. Writers either fit a sub-category or their chances of getting read are reduced? Maybe some people are comfortable with that, but I'm certainly not. I grew up at a time when these sub-sub categories didn't exist, and I learned to make up my own mind about what I wanted to read, rather than be funneled down an increasingly narrow channel by marketing interests. I mean ER Burroughs and Isaac Asimov were displayed close together on the same Sci-Fi shelves in our public library and local bookstore. I never had a problem choosing what I wanted to read.
I think readers of the sub-genres know what the terms mean. And I don't want to have to read a lot of blurbs for high fantasy when I'm really looking for contemporary fantasy. This is from the perspective of a reader. From the perspective of a writer, I also think sub-categories are useful, for the reasons I've already laid out. They make books less likely to be buried, not more likely. In terms of it being anyone's "end game" to reject books? I can't imagine why anyone would be motivated to seek that result. Can you explain?
I'm sure it's nobody's intention to create a system specifically to reject certain books, simply by requiring them to fit into subcategories. It just makes books 'easier to market' doesn't it? But what happens when a book doesn't fit into a subcategory? Does the agent say, well, okay it doesn't fit anywhere, but it's good, it's got a certain fantasy vibe—so I'll take it on? And then sell it to a publisher? If so, fine. I stand corrected. If not so.... It's probably not a person's intention to increase global warming by burning fossil fuels in their cars either. But that is the accumulated result of those actions. By endgame, I'm talking about the results of actions or policies, not their original intention. I just don't like the direction this policy of increasingly specific subcategories is taking. Partly because of a general wish that books would be taken on their own merit, not because they fit a subcategory. But also, as I already explained, because the nature of these specific subcategories can't even be agreed upon at the moment. One person's Low Fantasy is another person's High Fantasy, and another person's Contemporary Fantasy, and another person's Urban Fantasy, etc. Extensive recorded arguments around these topics not only exist, but have already been linked to on this thread. It just seems to be a waste of energy to wrangle over them, or for writers to spend a large portion of their time trying to frame a query to fit them.
Nah, I'm closer aligned with Jannert on this question. I suspect the overwhelming majority of fantasy readers don't have clear definitions for Fantasy's various sub-genres. And I would argue that's not their fault—the publishing industry and fantasy communities simply haven't nailed those terms down as of yet. We just had a site member in this thread unconvinced that the Lord of the Rings is high fantasy. . .
I had a conversation about the low/high fantasy thing with two friends of mine who both write fantasy. Neither of them could give a definitive answer of what made something one or the other, but they both know what they're writing and they don't struggle to find fantasy they want to read. I don't think subgenres are a problem.
Nah, my point was that Lord of The Rings world, at the time of the setting of the books, was low fantasy, in that there are only two wizards presented who use their magic sparingly, and only a few magic items, compared to something like the witcher which is considered low fantasy, where there's a wizard in every noble court, half a dozen wizards and sorceresses hanging out in many places, a ton of magical items, and then monsters on top of it. On top of that there's also the fact that Tolkien somewhat intended Middle Earth as an alternate mythology which combined major Christian elements with minor saxon ones.
I think of Lord of the Rings as being the START of the high fantasy category - all the elves and orcs and talking trees and whatever. It's not just about wizards or magic-users, it's about a different world. I don't know enough about the Witcher world to discuss it intelligently (I'm trying to play the games, but not really enjoying them, and I've never read the books) and I don't know if video-game categories would really match up with fiction categories anyway? But based on what I've seen in the game, it seems like High Fantasy to me - different world, dwarves and elves, magic, etc... who says it's not high fantasy? ETA: Wikipedia agrees that Witcher is high fantasy... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_high_fantasy_fiction
It could also be considered low fantasy in that one of the alleged requirements for High Fantasy is that the story takes place in an entirely fictitious made up world, and Tolkien was very adamant that LotR was set in Earth's distant past.
Like, Pangea distant? There are maps for Middle Earth, and they don't really resemble any geographic areas I'm familiar with on our planet.
