Why so much Fantasy

Admittedly a large part of this is me in Academia mode trying to categorise efficiently and accurately. And while I don't go to many bookshops (sadly digital is more practical for me), I think you could widen the comparison points to things that sell media, and even then, I can't, as it's not practical to do that level of arranging in a physical store. Digital stores however... then again, this could just allow people to pigeonhole themselves into genres even more effectively instead of stepping outside their comfort zone. Yeah, this system would be useful for people aiming to study specific trends, or find two very similar works they want to compare, but is probably a bad one to introduce.

@Bone2pick Tagging you in this as it's more or less the conclusion on the genre thoughts.

 

Awkward or not, the public consensus is what matters because they are the customers. That's who publishers are trying to reach. And it's the public who need stories divided into genres that make sense for them.

Major department stores don't shelve products by their products manufacturers' logic, they shelve them where the customers expect to find them.

Compared to what, other fantasy sub-genres? I disagree.

Some might, but there's a lot of overlap between both readerships. In terms of marketing to the public, putting those novels on the same bookshelf for sales is perfectly reasonable.

A separate label just for tone? In this example I'm not convinced that's necessary. High fantasy already has a tone associated with it (PG to PG13, basically medieval superheroes), while sword and sorcery has much more tonal range, but generally a smaller scale. I have no doubt the fantasy genres could be reworked for more accuracy, but I wouldn't know how to begin such a project, and I'm unconvinced the public cares one way or the other.

 

Yeah, well, until they acknowledge Tag and Bink, I really don't care what Disney doesn't say on the matter. They are a shill, neither creator nor consumer of the majority of this world and until they can back up their lofty commands with actual content, I'm afraid I'll just have to refer to non canon sources.

 

....................................
Jannert....do you realize that this is pretty insulting? The fact that I find the existence of additional information about a book to be useful does not mean that I am a mindless, brainless automaton who can't choose my own books.

Those are not my words. Those are your words. Please don't put them in my mouth.

I was making a statement about the trend we are discussing on this thread, about categorising books beyond the basic genre, and the fact that this is a fairly new phenomenon—and pointing out that I remember a time when this didn't exist, yet I still managed to pick out books I enjoyed.

At no point was I being insulting to you. In fact you weren't even mentioned. However you are certainly being insulting to me. Somehow that's okay? I don't think so.

 

So what did you mean when you asserted that you can make up your own mind about what to read? I'm not sure what you meant, if you weren't even hinting at the possibility that anyone can't make up their own mind about what to read. Saying X suggests that there is a contrasting Y.

I find genre information useful. It doesn't tell me what to read. It doesn't give me orders. It's...information. It's useful.

 

Trying another response. Imagine this scenario:

Jane and John are at the grocery. Jane's deciding whether to buy something:

Jane: "Hang on, I'm reading the nutrition chart...."
John: "I grew up without nutrition charts. I was still able to select my food."

Do you feel that there's even a tiny hint of snark in John's remark? Maybe John was just engaging in nostalgic musing, but I think that the default interpretation is one of snark.

That's how your remark sounded to me.

 

For what it's worth, I took it the same way.

 

To be fair to Jannert, genres are usually created for marketing. It's the same with music. The reason we're seeing so many
sub-categories is probably because of the ultra-targeting trend in marketing. You can see it in social media strategies.
Some brands have several FB accounts tailored for specific buyer personae. It's basically a form of hyper-segmenting.

Though I don't think it would necessarily dictate what people choose to read. More likely, it appeals to that particular persona.

 

I agree that genres are for marketing, but I'd posit that more focused genres are probably from more than a general media strategy trend; I'd say they're at least partly a response to the explosion of books on the market in recent years. With self-publishers and e-first publishers, there is a LOT of new material out there for book buyers to sort through, and focused marketing makes it a lot easier to find the stuff you actually want to read. If there were only ten new books a year, we'd have no need for subcategories. But when we're looking at a million plus? Genres are really helpful, and sub-genres are helpful, too.

 

Clearly defined sub-genres can be helpful. Unfortunately, many sub-genres are not clearly defined as of now.

 

I'm confused. How many people here select books according to sub-genre or even genre? I assumed everyone like me just listened to Oprah...

 

I usually wrap those books in a dust jacket so no one can see me reading something with her sticker on it.

 

I like writing epics. Sometimes they're set in fantasy worlds. Sometimes they're sci-fi. Sometimes dystopian...but all epics.

 

Curious, what qualifies as an epic in your opinion?

 

A story focused on a single protagonist and his sidekicks. The character faces a gigantic task that he devotes a significant amount of time to get done. (ideally, 2+ years). An epic story deserves being at the very least a trilogy. (IMO)

 

One of the reasons there is so much fantasy, especially High Fantasy, which I touched upon I believe earlier in this thread is the same reason why as someone asked in another thread "why does all fantasy seem so same-y".

It's because it is. Fantasy, as a genre, and High Fantasy in particular has devolved into basically a reiteration of D&D and that's literally just a reiteration of Lord of the Rings, with some alterations. The thing is those were kinda the cornerstones of High Fantasy, and modern fantasy in general, so what seems same-y and indistinct NOW wasn't when it premiered. The problem isn't with Tolkien or with TSR, the problem is that nowadays basically ALL High Fantasy and most fantasy in general is just some variation of "Look mommy I played Dungeons and Dragons once in the 1980's!" and if we're all being honest Gary Gygax was just throwing together a variation on "Look mommy I read Lord of the Rings one in like college!" And that in and of itself wouldn't be an issue if virtually all modern fantasy with a few exceptions, and literally all High Fantasy, wasn't rehashing those ideas.

So the end result is that virtually ALL fantasy and literally all High Fantasy are just reiterations of the same tropes, concepts and stories. And to be honest the overwhelming majority of even, say, Dark Fantasy is just a grimdark variant of the above. So basically fantasy has ceased to be fanciful and become repetition of a set standard of stock tropes and concepts reissued verbatim with almost no change save for names and maybe how magic works...if that.

Which is in turn why there is so much fantasy, especially High Fantasy. It's become easy to take these specific stock tropes, stories, concepts etc and then plaster on a few different names and maybe a slightly changed magic system and never have to really put a huge degree of thought into it. Which isn't in and of itself a huge problem or some kind of insult--I love Slasher Movies, but if we're all being honest here Slasher Movies have been almost unchanged for over thirty years, and the fact that Scream was so well-received was that it actually attempted to change these tropes somewhat. Realistically speaking, the only difference between, say, the original Friday the 13th and I Know What You Did Last Summer is the cast and the weapon the killer uses, and even then the different cast play the same roles. And again, I love both of those movies, but cards on the table, they're effectively identical.

When a genre becomes stock, with set rules and concepts and settings and tropes that show up ad infinitum, then it becomes easy to make more of it and frankly to mass produce it. And while those genres may in fact be good, for example I actually like Dark Fantasy, the reality is there is so much fantasy because fantasy of all kinds and specific kinds like High Fantasy have shrank from epic, sweeping and far fetched into just "knight on horse, dragon on hill, wizard with a beard, hot elf girl, etc".

 

I can't speak for others, but, personally, I write fantasy because I feel it's one of the greatest ways to utilize imagination. I love the symbolism of old stories (like wishing upon a star, for instance), and exploring why such things hold meaning to people. It's possibly the oldest genre of literature, and contains millennia worth of meaning, so it's no wonder that it's so popular.

 

I never played D&D or read/watched Lord of the Rings. Maybe I should write a fantasy novel to see if it breaks out of this model?

 

There IS fantasy being published that doesn't fit that mould. That's where I find the few fantasy books that I enjoy.

 

Just a fantasy novel in general? Are you unfamiliar with works like Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, The Gunslinger, Twilight, or the Percy Jackson series?

 

"All [genre] stories are just rehashes of [X]" is a creative way to say "I don't try to read anything different".

 

Golly! Of those titles, I've only read "Alice"! I started "The Gunslinger", but I got bored.

 

That, or "Everything I tried, was awful!"

Personally, I hate fairies, that is, the ones with wings and pointy ears, anyone with pointy ears really (except Spock, Spock is cool), and/or exceptionally hairy feet. Gimme People, REAL people!

Magic is OK if done properly. I like how Harry Turtledove handheld it, as if it were just another technology worthy of research. I also liked the first part of a book whose name and author I simply CAN'T remember. It was about A medieval detective who used magic to solve crimes. The magic had limits, and the medieval setting brilliant, kind of like a cynical, sorcerous, Cadfael, but then the story degenerated into a trip into a demon-filled realm intent on taking over the mythical 'natural' world. SO disappointed!