Quote:
Originally Posted by hildea
I read an article about noblebright, and found that it is both narrower and broader than I thought. It does seem to mean "not grimdark", but the article said that it's adjacent to "clean" novels (which is an icky way of describing books without explicit sex or violence), and to Christian novels.
|
That is the way the author of
that article describes it. I would bet four fantasy fans would have four different definitions of noblebright. Or what books count as biopunk. Eventually you have so many microgenres, you wind up with one per book. And how helpful is that?
Quote:
So while the term technically is very broad, it seems to me that authors who choose to put that label on their books probably aren't for me.
So this thread has resulted in me learning a bit more about a subgenre that's helpful for me when vetting books, that's good 
|
The Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia and the Dragonlance Chronicles all seem like they would fall under your above noblebright definition. So I wouldn't say that is a good signal of books to avoid.
Quote:
|
Heh, I don't get the difference between those two.
|
Oh, my phrasing was off.
Teen & Young Adult Fiction about Siblings and
Teen & Young Adult Siblings Fiction seem like they are
exactly the same.
I meant those made up Amazon genres are different from the fan-made made up genres we are discussing. But to my mind, they are about equally useful.
Quote:
|
And I'll agree that some microgenres seem silly. Cassette Futurism, for instance, does seem more like a setting than a genre (and a quick search doesn't show me anyone who's using it as a genre term, so maybe that one's made of straw).
|
I guess in the end, it just comes down to my feeling like noblebright and the various '-punks' are just terms made up by people on twitter that are not useful in a real book store/library/whatever.