Empty genres; or what to do with all those -punks?

[hildea]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Because I'm a grouch! I already mentioned it in posts #1 and #5

Also, I'm not trying to get these stupid genres removed from public consciousness. But it can be an interesting discussion on what practical use many of these seemingly silly tags are to others.

Yes, my last post was more aimed at JSWolf.

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I have The House in the Cerulean Sea (and just bought Under the Whispering Door, which is on sale today)! I bought them to support a gay author. Or maybe I was a closet hopepunk reader all along!

In solidarity, I'll admit that my inner grouch appears whenever someone asks for recommendations for books without romance. Yes, people like what they like, and of course there are lots of great books without any romantic love. But when I see someone declaring that they want to avoid books with romance, I think of that obnoxious letter Isaac Asimov wrote to some SF magazine when he was young, demanding real SF stories for he-men, free from females and love.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Because I'm a grouch! I already mentioned it in posts #1 and #5

Also, I'm not trying to get these stupid genres removed from public consciousness. But it can be an interesting discussion on what practical use many of these seemingly silly tags are to others.

I’d agree that some of the tags do add seemingly no merit. The Amazon siblings example is to me a distinction without a difference and I’d have to imagine that for all but fringe cases of bizarre school or book club/challenges no one has a use for that level of granularity in books, as well add books about people with onyx black hair and books about people with obsidian black hair.

But sub genres like grimdark, noblebright, hopepunk, cyberpunk, and steampunk would be of objective value.

A new sub genre called darkgrim which is identical to grimdark would fall into the category of the former. It also doesn’t sound as good (IMO) as grimdark and thus anyone proposing it should be soundly thumped with a dictionary.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by hildea

In solidarity, I'll admit that my inner grouch appears whenever someone asks for recommendations for books without romance. Yes, people like what they like, and of course there are lots of great books without any romantic love. But when I see someone declaring that they want to avoid books with romance, I think of that obnoxious letter Isaac Asimov wrote to some SF magazine when he was young, demanding real SF stories for he-men, free from females and love.

That person would be safe with much of the old golden age sci-fi from the likes of Asimov, (pre-60's) Heinlein and Clarke. The old 'big idea' sci-fi.

And that Asimov tale. That used to be a thing. Nerdy Star Trek or Dr. Who or whatever fans would have some variation of 'it was all fine until a girl showed up!' As nerd culture has expanded, I think that's mostly fallen by the wayside.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

...sub genres like grimdark, noblebright, hopepunk, cyberpunk, and steampunk would be of objective value.

A new sub genre called darkgrim which is identical to grimdark would fall into the category of the former. It also doesn’t sound as good (IMO) as grimdark and thus anyone proposing it should be soundly thumped with a dictionary.

Why is there room for hopepunk and noblebright, but not room for grimdark and darkgrim?

Even in the article linked to earlier, I still couldn't tell a difference between noblebright and hopepunk. The example used was Aragorn vs. Frodo and Sam. But those are different character viewpoints in the same book.

The terms are used for genres though.

And as I mentioned, all fantasy fiction except what could be classified 'grimdark' would fall under hopepunk/noblebright. Until Moorcock and Thomas Covenant, it was the de facto expectation of fantasy fiction and really, until A Song of Ice and Fire blew up, grimmer fantasy was pretty rare.

Hopepunk/noblebright as genres would be like insisting all movies be called 2D movies to distinguish them from 3D movies.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Why is there room for hopepunk and noblebright, but not room for grimdark and darkgrim?

Even in the article linked to earlier, I still couldn't tell a difference between noblebright and hopepunk. The example used was Aragorn vs. Frodo and Sam. But those are different character viewpoints in the same book.

The terms are used for genres though.


Hopepunk/noblebright as genres would be like insisting all movies be called 2D movies to distinguish them from 3D movies.

After reading the Nobelbright page I’m not going to try and defend it anymore. The blog comes off way more as this author trying to make fetch happen rather than say grimdark which happened organically.

Hopepunk seems to me to be when the characters fight for good not just to overthrow a big bad, but because they believe people are inherently good.

It’s been a minute since I read LOTR (I want to do a reread) but my recollection is that Frodo is a reluctant hero. He’s doing the thing because circumstances have resulted in pushing him to do it. For it to be hopepunk he’d have to have sought out the quest rather than essentially falling into it. Likewise for Bilbo in The Hobbit.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

The blog comes off way more as this author trying to make fetch happen rather than say grimdark which happened organically.

That is a good analogy and does a better job than I did summing up what I was thinking when I started this thread.

Yes, there are subgenres that have evolved organically: hard SF, cyberpunk, splatterpunk, steampunk, weird western, grimdark.

But the recent proliferation of extremely narrow sub-subgenres feels like it is more about the people coining new words than any inherent need.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by hildea

Alexandra Rowland has written about what she sees as the difference between noblebright and hopepunk

IMHO, hopepunk is just BS. She really needs to either coin a new word or give it up.

Maybe she could get back on Twitter and post something like..."I was wrong about Hopepunk. It's ridiculous and I don't want anyone to ever use it again."

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

It’s been a minute since I read LOTR (I want to do a reread) but my recollection is that Frodo is a reluctant hero. He’s doing the thing because circumstances have resulted in pushing him to do it. For it to be hopepunk he’d have to have sought out the quest rather than essentially falling into it. Likewise for Bilbo in The Hobbit.

Bilbo is different. He was given a choice and he chose to go on the adventure. Bilbo was not thrust into it with no real choice.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

That is a good analogy and does a better job than I did summing up what I was thinking when I started this thread.

Yes, there are subgenres that have evolved organically: hard SF, cyberpunk, splatterpunk, steampunk, weird western, grimdark.

But the recent proliferation of extremely narrow sub-subgenres feels like it is more about the people coining new words than any inherent need.

Very well said.

It's like people are trying to shoehorn books in to some sort of really narrow sub-sub-genre that doesn't exist so they make up these meaningless words to get these books into some classification that they don't need to be in. It's like every book needs the major classification and maybe they fit into a sub-genre but because they don't have a sub-sub-genre, we'll make one up to fit this book into. It's not something these books need. And if they go need a sub-genre, don't make it some meaningless silly sub-genre.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Bilbo is different. He was given a choice and he chose to go on the adventure. Bilbo was not thrust into it with no real choice.

He still doesn’t seek it out. He is not a noble hero from the outset of the story but becomes a hero ivy the end.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

He still doesn’t seek it out. He is not a noble hero from the outset of the story but becomes a hero ivy the end.

The choice given to Bilbo makes this not the same. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The choice given to Bilbo makes this not the same. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Jon you as usual misunderstand. I’m not saying Frodo and Bilbo are the same. I’m saying neither is an example of hopepunk because neither sets out to do what they end up doing.

Two things can be dissimilar from each other while sharing a dissimilarity to a third thing.

[ekbell]

Originally Posted by hildea

...I'm starting to get curious about herbal horror, though... My first association was something with triffids

My first association was Rappaccini's Daughter

And while the tag is very silly, it could have made finding the story without properly remembering the title easier.

I don't think we will stop having weird genre tags given both the normal human tendency to classify and label and the fact that people can have weirdly specific reading tastes (when I was a teen, I loved boarding school books of all sorts to the point where what I remember from my first readthrough of Jane Eyre was the boarding school bit not the romance).

[hildea]

Originally Posted by ekbell

My first association was Rappaccini's Daughter

Is it good? Or so bad it's entertaining? I have a weakness for old gothics.

I don't think we will stop having weird genre tags given both the normal human tendency to classify and label and the fact that people can have weirdly specific reading tastes (when I was a teen, I loved boarding school books of all sorts to the point where what I remember from my first readthrough of Jane Eyre was the boarding school bit not the romance).

Looking in this forum, there are a lot of specific requests for recommendations - naval historical fiction - books like One Piece -cozy, easy, gentle fiction without being a “cozy mystery” or “Christian fiction” - swashbuckling ruritarian romances...

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

And that Asimov tale. That used to be a thing. Nerdy Star Trek or Dr. Who or whatever fans would have some variation of 'it was all fine until a girl showed up!' As nerd culture has expanded, I think that's mostly fallen by the wayside.

Well, there's a very vocal minority who howled "sacrilege" when girl cooties got all over Star Wars, Ghostbusters, Doctor Who, and James Bond. But hopefully they are few.

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Even in the article linked to earlier, I still couldn't tell a difference between noblebright and hopepunk.

I don't care much for noblebright, so I might be wrong, but my feeling is that in a noblebright novel, you might see the destined ruler or the hero foretold in prophesies defeat the ancient evil and take the throne, to rule the land in peace and prosperity hereafter. In a hopepunk novel, a more-or-less ordinary person fights back badness for a little while -- prevents an orphanage where children are loved from being closed, saves a handful of scientists from being killed on a hostile planet, helps defeat a coup attempt so the legal government can continue in power, with all its imperfections and compromises.

And as I mentioned, all fantasy fiction except what could be classified 'grimdark' would fall under hopepunk/noblebright.

Books which are neither are all those where the plot/conflict is personal, where the protagonists do what they do for their own sake, not to save the world or a subset of it/defeat the evil force/bad guys. For instance stories of traveling adventurers like Fritz Leiber's Ffard and the Grey Mouser series, and Jennifer Roberson's Sword Dancer series.

Originally Posted by MGlitch

After reading the Nobelbright page I’m not going to try and defend it anymore. The blog comes off way more as this author trying to make fetch happen rather than say grimdark which happened organically.

I got an "If you build it, they will come" vibe from it, yes But I don't see that that makes it illegitimate. The author is trying to sell their books by trying to make readers seek out the kind of books the author writes. If they succeed in making people talk about it and ask for it, a new subgenre is born. If there's not enough interest, it will fall into obscurity.

Like I said before, all words are made up. Someone once decided to use "fantasy" to describe a group of books, as well.

Hopepunk seems to me to be when the characters fight for good not just to overthrow a big bad, but because they believe people are inherently good.

It’s been a minute since I read LOTR (I want to do a reread) but my recollection is that Frodo is a reluctant hero. He’s doing the thing because circumstances have resulted in pushing him to do it. For it to be hopepunk he’d have to have sought out the quest rather than essentially falling into it. Likewise for Bilbo in The Hobbit.

I don't agree with either of those criteria for hopepunk -- not the belief in inherent goodness of people, and certainly not the volunteer hero. Rowland's example in the post where she defined the genre is Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. It's a very bleak story, and the protagonist is mostly fighting for her own survival and freedom. She takes heart in an inscription left by an earlier prisoner: "Don't let the bastards grind you down". The hopepunk examples I've read on this list all have protagonists who are trying to mind their own business when something happens and they are thrust into a difficult or dangerous situation.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Jon you as usual misunderstand. I’m not saying Frodo and Bilbo are the same. I’m saying neither is an example of hopepunk because neither sets out to do what they end up doing.

Two things can be dissimilar from each other while sharing a dissimilarity to a third thing.

No, I'm not misunderstanding. What's a misunderstanding is the sub-genre being applied to The Hobbit.