Fantasy or science fiction?

[Sirtel]

Heh. There was very little fantasy in my childhood (the genre was frowned upon in the Soviet Union, because LOTR was forbidden. I got to read LOTR in my twenties, after the disintegration of the USSR), but I read lots of classics in my teens and early twenties. Got fed up with them and found genre fiction (including fantasy and SF) far more interesting. Haven't read any classics since and don't plan to.

[John F]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Heh. There was very little fantasy in my childhood (the genre was frowned upon in the Soviet Union, because LOTR was forbidden. I got to read LOTR in my twenties, after the disintegration of the USSR), but I read lots of classics in my teens and early twenties. Got fed up with them and found genre fiction (including fantasy and SF) far more interesting. Haven't read any classics since and don't plan to.

I get what you are saying, but isn't "classics" a genre?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by John F

I get what you are saying, but isn't "classics" a genre?

Not really. Classics is too broad to be a main genre. It can be a sub-genre though.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by John F

I get what you are saying, but isn't "classics" a genre?

Hmm, depends on your viewpoint, I guess. I tend to agree that classics can cover a range of genres, and they're not what the general usage of genre fiction means. Although they could be, of course.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Hmm, depends on your viewpoint, I guess. I tend to agree that classics can cover a range of genres, and they're not what the general usage of genre fiction means. Although they could be, of course.

But classic can be subjective. What some call a classic, other don't. A genre should not be subjective.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

A genre should not be subjective.

That's silly. There'd be no genres at all if that were true.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But classic can be subjective. What some call a classic, other don't. A genre should not be subjective.

I think the subjective aspect here is that you’re conflating the term classic with liking or not liking a book. Even though one might not like Jane Austen, for example, she’s still a classic. On the other hand, recency and lack of worth preclude a book’s being labeled classic, no matter how popular it might be.

Classic falls into the Justice Potter Stewart category of definitions, the point being not that one person gets to determine it, but that opinion coalesces. Yeah, you can fight about it at the margins, but there’s broad agreement just as with other genres. Generally speaking, classic implies passage of time and quality.

[j.p.s]

oopsie

[j.p.s]

I'm trying to wrap my mind around how something can be too broad to be a genre but would be OK as a sub-genre.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by issybird

I think the subjective aspect here is that you’re conflating the term classic with liking or not liking a book. Even though one might not like Jane Austen, for example, she’s still a classic. On the other hand, recency and lack of worth preclude a book’s being labeled classic, no matter how popular it might be.

Classic falls into the Justice Potter Stewart category of definitions, the point being not that one person gets to determine it, but that opinion coalesces. Yeah, you can fight about it at the margins, but there’s broad agreement just as with other genres. Generally speaking, classic implies passage of time and quality.

You don't need something to be old to be a classic. The term modern classic comes to hand. There is also the term instant classic. The passage of time does not need to happen to make something a classic.

And since we probably disagree, how would you handle this when we'd have book classified as classic that we'd both disagree on?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

I'm trying to wrap my mind around how something can be too broad to be a genre but would be OK as a sub-genre.

sub-genre's are better off being subjective if there has be such a genre. The main genre has to be objective. For example, if you put War of the Worlds in a section at the bookstore for classics, then people looking for it in the science fiction section may not find it.

[DiapDealer]

Sillier and sillier.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Sillier and sillier.

There's nothing more silly then classic as a genre. The genre a book gets when it's first released is the genre it should have.

[nana77]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

You don't need something to be old to be a classic. The term modern classic comes to hand. There is also the term instant classic. The passage of time does not need to happen to make something a classic.

And since we probably disagree, how would you handle this when we'd have book classified as classic that we'd both disagree on?

I guess that twenty years ago, a twenteen youth would had readed Herman Hesse as by that time it was considered a classic, as Nietzsche, Poe.... Imho a young today would not consider "classics" those books, as the times we are now differs... so it would be something that changes within the culture in time.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

You don't need something to be old to be a classic. The term modern classic comes to hand. There is also the term instant classic. The passage of time does not need to happen to make something a classic.

And since we probably disagree, how would you handle this when we'd have book classified as classic that we'd both disagree on?

First of all, “instant classic” is an oxymoron, a nonsense term. Classic implies, strongly, tested by time. Instant classic is just blurb hyperbole; bring a more critical attitude toward those who are trying to sell you something. I’ll grant you modern classic, but that serves to differentiate between books 50 to 100 years old, say, and those older than that.

Our disagreements are immaterial. No one or even two people determine classic status. It’s the consensus. I do suspect that my judgments are more in line with the accepted assessment than yours. “Instant classic.” :shudder: