M
Quote:
Originally Posted by latepaul
Genres are at best a clue to whether a book might fall into your wheelhouse of interest. At worst they're just a marketing category.
They are descriptive and therefore subjective and hence the boundaries tend to be very fuzzy.
Trying to define much less police those boundaries is pointless and frustrating IME.
|
True, for the most part.
But genre classifications, particularly the "classic" commercial genres (SF&F, Romance, Mystery) come with reader expectations. (Which is where a lot of the debate comes from.)
Those fuzzy borders are dangerous territory.
Take a detective story, set it in some nebulous, ill-defined future and try to bill is as SF? It'll get creamed for being poor SF no matter how good it might be as a mystery.
Or, as pointed out above: take a light bounty hunter mystery/adventure and throw in some flirty sexual tension and try to bill it as romance? Genre readers will cry foul.
Those classifications aren't just corporate pigeonholing and marketspeak; they are the result of decades of genre evolution and they are terms that can make or break a book's success. They promise very specific reader experiences and if those promises aren't met the word will get out fast.
Oh, and yes: Sparks was most definitely dissing the genre when he claimed nobody else does what he does. Sheer chest beating. When all is said and done his readers are romance readers.
In the end a book's genre is defined by who buys it and enjoys it.
Romance readers are legion and these days they are overwhelmingly digital readers.