but why is it a (sub)genre? is there anything more specific to it than "we got ourselves some guns"? I don't get it - so, if there is no well-defined (sub)genre for something you write, you either a) modify your story to perfectly fit into a category, or b)have to make up your own genre, or c)you can't write?
What's wrong with subgenres? Maybe I'm missing something. (My hubby would say we're probably working off of different conceptions/definitions of words. How do you define genre and subgenre?) I don't understand why b) can't be to make up your own subgenre. Fantasy is such a broad genre that I think it benefits from having some subcategories. All of those books still fall under the definition of the fantasy genre, but it helps organize them into meaningful groups. I guess I'm kind of thinking of 'fantasy' as 'ice-cream' and various sub-genres defining the flavor of that ice-cream. If all you could buy was an generic 'ice-cream', it'd be harder to find your favorite kind in the long isle at the store. Also, I seriously doubt that c) is the only other option. I don't see how anyone's ability to write is connected to how well their work fits into a categorical label used by the publishing market. Perhaps it will harm their ability to get an agent or publisher, but writing is about so much more than that, and suggesting otherwise degrades the value of the creative act of the process of writing.
i agree with sandfire. LOTR and the Dresden Files are both fantasy, but are still very, very different. the same applies to other genres, as well. Red Dragon and those "Cat Who..." books are mysteries, but are otherwise unsimilar. Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy doesnt have much in common with Acorna's Quest, beyond being sci-fi. subgenre divisions based on tone, setting or other worldbuilding factors is helpful not for publishers, but for librarians and for readers looking for a certain type of book. none of these things have anything to do with the quality of the book or the writer's skill.
@Sandfire you missed the questionmark at the end of my post - I was asking the other poster about these three possibilities because it seemed to me they logically stem from his post... I actually 100% agree with your statement: an author sticking strictly to what he/she perceives as genre boundaries is sentencing him/herself to a very confined space... However, I also think that when an author needs to define his own (sub)genre before even finishing/publishing a genre-defining work, he/she is in danger of confining him/herself to selfindulgence which is rarely productive... Not to mention the fact that it could so easily slip into circular reasoning: Q: "What genre is your work?" A: "It's [insert randomthingy]-punk!" Q: "And what is [random]-punk?" A: "It's the genre of my work!" That's one reason why (sub)genres are usually named and defined retroactively and in retrospective not by authors themselves but by critics, theorists and historians....
You can feel that way all you want. It doesn't make it true. You can limit yourself to only specifying your genre as either "fiction" or "non-fiction" and nobody is going to stop you. The point of specifying "genre" is to give an idea of the feel of your work. In general, a genre is basically a one word description of your work. If your work falls a bit from the well-worn clichés of the genre, you may want to use "subgenre" to clear up some misconceptions and false assumptions that would occur if you just used the top level genre. Links are discouraged on this forum, but an great example of this would be music by Nightwish, Within Temptation, Leave's Eyes, Delain, Epica, etc. If people merely described their music as "metal", you'd get a very incorrect idea of how they sound. When people say "metal" to discribe an album, I certainly wouldn't think of something in which Pip Williams would work with the artist to orchestrate a bunch of instruments often used in classical music for the tracks on the album. But on "Dark Passion Play", Pip Williams worked with Tuomas to do just that. "Metal" gives the expectation of mostly electric guitar, electric bass guitar, and drums. And more than that, and expectation of the style. Just saying "metal" is misleading. So, when a one-word description to give people an idea of the feel isn't sufficient, we introduce the idea of sub-genres, which are basically two word descriptions of the feel. In the music example, the bands are all considered "symphonic metal". For the genre question this thread brings up, when I hear "fantasy", I'm going to assume the main weapons are swords and arrows or similar. If this assumption is false, it's probably a good idea to clear up that misconception by describing it with a sub-genre. Is it stone-age fantasy? Industrial fantasy? Modern fantasy? Before you invent a new sub-genre, it's a good idea to look for existing ones. If you find an existing sub-genre that fits your work, great! Use that. If you don't, you should try to coin a subgenre that is as broad as possible while clearing up the misconceptions so people know what to expect. In this case, I think "flintlock fantasy" failed. It's too specific. It lets us know that it's fantasy with guns, but it gets hung up on the firing mechanism. "Gunpowder fantasy" is a great name, because its meaning is intuitive even if you've never heard of it before, it clears up the misconceptions but doesn't get too specific. Flintlock fantasy is basically a subgenre of gunpowder fantasy, even if it was coined first. And of course, the term "fiction" was coined before either, and if you really want to, you can just call your work "fiction". I think this is a bad idea, though.
In my opinion, in order for a work to be Gunpowder Fantasy, it needs to have an alternative world setting, otherwise it's just Alternate History. And typically is going to be post-Feudal, both in government and industry, though that isn't always the case. "I don't get it - so, if there is no well-defined (sub)genre for something you write, you either a) modify your story to perfectly fit into a category, or b)have to make up your own genre, or c)you can't write?" "Perhaps it will harm their ability to get an agent or publisher, but writing is about so much more than that, and suggesting otherwise degrades the value of the creative act of the process of writing." This was pretty much it. Finding a quick term to be used when referring to the setting/tone of the book. While I model my work on traditional epic fantasies, if I were to market it right along side books like Lord of the Rings or A Song of Ice and Fire, readers would be disappointed when they got something different. "The point of specifying "genre" is to give an idea of the feel of your work. In general, a genre is basically a one word description of your work. If your work falls a bit from the well-worn clichés of the genre, you may want to use "subgenre" to clear up some misconceptions and false assumptions that would occur if you just used the top level genre. For the genre question this thread brings up, when I hear "fantasy", I'm going to assume the main weapons are swords and arrows or similar. If this assumption is false, it's probably a good idea to clear up that misconception by describing it with a sub-genre. Is it stone-age fantasy? Industrial fantasy? Modern fantasy? Before you invent a new sub-genre, it's a good idea to look for existing ones. If you find an existing sub-genre that fits your work, great! Use that. If you don't, you should try to coin a subgenre that is as broad as possible while clearing up the misconceptions so people know what to expect. In this case, I think "flintlock fantasy" failed. It's too specific. It lets us know that it's fantasy with guns, but it gets hung up on the firing mechanism. "Gunpowder fantasy" is a great name, because its meaning is intuitive even if you've never heard of it before, it clears up the misconceptions but doesn't get too specific. Flintlock fantasy is basically a subgenre of gunpowder fantasy, even if it was coined first." That sums up pretty well my thoughts on the matter. When you see "Gunpowder Fantasy" you get a feel for the general setting (Fantasy) while still getting a hint as to the fact that it's not going to be your traditional medieval-world setting. I, too, prefer the term Gunpowder Fantasy as the overarching category, broken down into smaller parts as in Flintlock Fantasy, or Muskets and Magic.
Okey, fair enough... I couldn't care less about a reader who gets "disappointed for getting something different" - but tgan, some people think KFC sells healthy food...
When you're a new author, especially self-published or small press, every negative review carries a lot of weight with potential readers.
