Anyone else hate it when

[Tallon]

I'm aware that it is used as a grouping sometimes, but i still don't see why. Those are all pretty distinctive groups and should be refered to properly. But, i don't want to get into the taxonomy, it is definitely used as a cushion.

[JBI]

You need the label. Stephen King's It for example, places under horror, as it is a horror story, yet it has fantastical elements - a demon clown thing. Where does it belong then? I know - an umbrella term.

Either way though, unless you deliberately like wading through **** to find gold, The categorization doesn't really matter. There are too few "speculative fiction" works that really make it into literary circles, and by then they just get appropriated into another title, like Dystopian or something.

[togre]

This might be taking things in a little different direction, but do you ever receive unrequested books or movies for gifts? I have a sister (who is a great reader and all around awesome person) who is forever trying to get me books or movies that she thinks I'll like. It causes me physical pain. Even more so because I enjoy a little literary junk food (I refer to them as potatoe chip books) mixed in. So I read some not terribly deep sci-fi. But there is an aweful lot of sci-fi that I could not make myself read. But she doesn't knows the difference. She knows her brother reads sci-fi, so guess what I get for Christmas? You guessed it--toilet-paper!

On the other hand, I've had some really good experiences sharing books back and forth with my father. He's really old, a retired farmer, but he reads and has a great knowledge of history and other stuff. We swap history books and I've started to feed him a few interesting sci-fi ones on occasion. So it's not always bad.

[TheFifthElement]

I love it when people recommend books even if I don't get round to reading it, or if I do read it and don't like it, the fact that they're trying to engage me on a subject I actually care about really means a lot to me. And sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't. One person's trash is another person's treasure. It's all opinion, likes and dislikes, at the end of the day.

I would rather someone bought me a book I didn't like than chocolates or socks (okay, maybe not socks, I like socks) or perfume or jewellery or some other 'gift' type thing that I won't ever use. If I don't like the book I can always swap it, that's what book swapping sites are for. And have I lost something by reading it? I don't think so. All input is valuable, in some form or another.

I truly don't understand people who only read 'classics'. Isn't that just another way of letting someone else tell you what is good and what is not, what you'll like and what you won't? Might as well go with the mass market: at a root level there isn't really a great difference. In both cases you allow another group, the media or a previous generation or a critic, to make your choices for you; and if you think about it, Classics are just 'pop' fiction that have aged well. To my mind the only way to judge a book is to read it, and then if you do like it it only means you like it, and if you don't like it it only means you don't like it. Shame to limit your choices because of prejudice, n'est pas?

[weltanschauung]

This might be taking things in a little different direction, but do you ever receive unrequested books or movies for gifts? I have a sister (who is a great reader and all around awesome person) who is forever trying to get me books or movies that she thinks I'll like. It causes me physical pain. Even more so because I enjoy a little literary junk food (I refer to them as potatoe chip books) mixed in. So I read some not terribly deep sci-fi. But there is an aweful lot of sci-fi that I could not make myself read. But she doesn't knows the difference. She knows her brother reads sci-fi, so guess what I get for Christmas? You guessed it--toilet-paper!

On the other hand, I've had some really good experiences sharing books back and forth with my father. He's really old, a retired farmer, but he reads and has a great knowledge of history and other stuff. We swap history books and I've started to feed him a few interesting sci-fi ones on occasion. So it's not always bad.

man, my mom always gets me the stupidest books to read like it's the holder of the secret of the seventh seal of goodness. urgh.

i love it when people tell me the stupidest and most obvious mediocrity like it's the most obscure piece of philosophy ever.

[Dori]

Nobody recommends books to me; they only criticize me for having not read Twilight yet.

[islandclimber]

I truly don't understand people who only read 'classics'. Isn't that just another way of letting someone else tell you what is good and what is not, what you'll like and what you won't? Might as well go with the mass market: at a root level there isn't really a great difference. In both cases you allow another group, the media or a previous generation or a critic, to make your choices for you; and if you think about it, Classics are just 'pop' fiction that have aged well. To my mind the only way to judge a book is to read it, and then if you do like it it only means you like it, and if you don't like it it only means you don't like it. Shame to limit your choices because of prejudice, n'est pas?

ummm.. who said they only read 'classics'??? I don't only read classics, I read alot of contemporary lit, and I find there are many fantastic new writers out there... but when people recommend to me contemporary "cr*p"... well then I am not going to read it, and if they continue to recommend garbage off the best selling mass market paperback shelves.. well it can get slightly annoying...

I don't need to read romance genre bestsellers to know they are garbage and won't suit my taste.. good thing for me these are almost never recommended or given as gifts seeing as I am a guy and all.. same with most of the new garbage fantasy/sci fi/horror junk out there... I don't need to put myself through the torture of reading this to know that I won't enjoy it... at least I would rather not..

although, every so often I will read a few books from a genre just to check.. I read most of the Harry Potter books.. maybe a mindless and slightly entertaining read in my opinion.. I've read a Stephen King book or two.. and the again quite a mindless read.. I read a romance novel by erica jong or something like that and it was so awful i almost wanted to actually use it for tp... and I have read a smattering other contemporary mass market fiction, such as Clancy, Brown, Grisham, etc.. and found nothing good about any of them.. maybe some cheap entertainment can be derived but I would much rather watch a film for mindless entertainment.. reading just doesn't do the trick for me in terms of mindless entertainment.. I would rather be challenged to think, and to feel, and see things differently when I read... just my opinion though..

[TheFifthElement]

ummm.. who said they only read 'classics'??? I don't only read classics,

I've encountered many people who claim to only read 'classics'. Clearly you are not one of them, though I don't recall saying that you were. If you have some insights as to why people make that choice I'd be very interested to hear them.

I read alot of contemporary lit, and I find there are many fantastic new writers out there...

Yes, I find that too. Which is why it seems strange to me to limit oneself to a particular genre. Kind of like saying, 'from now on I will only eat rice.' It's not wrong, it's just that I find it odd. Which was the point of my statement 'I truly don't understand people who.... I don't understand it. I would like to.

I don't need to read romance genre bestsellers to know they are garbage and won't suit my taste..

Well, 'garbage' is a generalisation which I don't think you can make, though 'doesn't suit my taste' is perfectly valid. But just because something generally doesn't suit your taste, that doesn't mean that you won't like it. I generally don't like to eat fish, but I like tuna. I think there has to be a 'on balance of probabilities' about it, because really until you've actually read the book you don't really know either way, though it is probably safe to say that it is less likely you will enjoy it. But not impossible. I haven't read any 'chick lit' for a long time but that doesn't mean that it is already pre-determined that I would not like one if I did. Or maybe I just object to the concept of pre-determined. But I found this with science fiction. It is easy to dismiss science fiction as a genre, filled with space opera and all that. And I've read a fair number of science fiction novels that I didn't enjoy. But then there is Asimov and Philip Jose Farmer. I think I would be poorer for not having read them. So I could say that on balance of probabilities I won't enjoy science fiction, but already I know there are exceptions to that rule. I only know if I read. That was my point.

I would rather be challenged to think, and to feel, and see things differently when I read... just my opinion though..

Oh I agree, that is my preference too. But if I have a friend who enjoys crime novels and they read one and really enjoy it and recommend it to me, because I am their friend and they like to share the things they enjoy with their friends, does that make them a bad/thoughtless/annoying/stupid person? I don't think so, but that seems to be the theme of the thread. Unless I've misread it?

[Drkshadow03]

Actually, speculative fiction is a term to basically group sci-fi, fantasy, and horror (in the marketing sense) together, since the lines are often blurred, and specific publishers often publish all three.

Sort of. Originally the term was coined and embraced by actual Speculative Fiction/Science Fiction writers, the wikipedia entry here has a fairly decent and accurate history of the term. Academia, scholars, the amateur critics in fandom, and writers of genre are more likely to use the term than the publishers themselves. So I wouldn't define it as a marketing term exactly. Personally I see it more as a label of convenience that brings together fantasy, Sci-fi, horror (anything in opposition to realism) for critics and fans to discuss genre works.

This terms becomes problematic in the way I just used it as an overarching genre that is in opposition to realism when applied to horror for some of the reasons you hinted at. After all, horror might be about a psycho-deranged serial killer (something that can happen in real life) and have no fantastical elements like a ghost or a demon-clown.

Either way though, unless you deliberately like wading through **** to find gold, The categorization doesn't really matter. There are too few "speculative fiction" works that really make it into literary circles, and by then they just get appropriated into another title, like Dystopian or something.

Also, it's not rocket science to find decent genre work. Pretty much read the Classics. LeGuin, Asimov, Delaney, Ellison, Dick, Gibson, Wells, Butler, Herbert, etc. Read "Best of" lists put together by fans, critics, and writers (then compare to see what titles appear on multiple lists), flip through critical reviews, read more traditional reviews, see what people are writing and talking about in fandom.

I generally don't have to spend too much time wading through crap (at least how I would define crap. As they say your milage may vary) because I already know which writers and which books by them are worth checking out, plus if I want some newer writers I already have a list of people whose viewpoints I trust.

As far as too few speculative fiction works appearing in literary circles? Define a literary circle! Are you speaking about the mainstream of academia? Then fine, that's probably true.

There is a whole community of scholars who publish on speculative fiction (since there are at least five Peer-reviewed scholarly journals focusing strictly on those genres), who teach Science Fiction, Fantasy, or Horror courses in academia, and still have a traditional background in a more "acceptable" area of expertise.

[PeterL]

No, no one else is annoyed by that.

[JBI]

Sort of. Originally the term was coined and embraced by actual Speculative Fiction/Science Fiction writers, the wikipedia entry here has a fairly decent and accurate history of the term. Academia, scholars, the amateur critics in fandom, and writers of genre are more likely to use the term than the publishers themselves. So I wouldn't define it as a marketing term exactly. Personally I see it more as a label of convenience that brings together fantasy, Sci-fi, horror (anything in opposition to realism) for critics and fans to discuss genre works.

This terms becomes problematic in the way I just used it as an overarching genre that is in opposition to realism when applied to horror for some of the reasons you hinted at. After all, horror might be about a psycho-deranged serial killer (something that can happen in real life) and have no fantastical elements like a ghost or a demon-clown.



Also, it's not rocket science to find decent genre work. Pretty much read the Classics. LeGuin, Asimov, Delaney, Ellison, Dick, Gibson, Wells, Butler, Herbert, etc. Read "Best of" lists put together by fans, critics, and writers (then compare to see what titles appear on multiple lists), flip through critical reviews, read more traditional reviews, see what people are writing and talking about in fandom.

I generally don't have to spend too much time wading through crap (at least how I would define crap. As they say your milage may vary) because I already know which writers and which books by them are worth checking out, plus if I want some newer writers I already have a list of people whose viewpoints I trust.

As far as too few speculative fiction works appearing in literary circles? Define a literary circle! Are you speaking about the mainstream of academia? Then fine, that's probably true.

There is a whole community of scholars who publish on speculative fiction (since there are at least five Peer-reviewed scholarly journals focusing strictly on those genres), who teach Science Fiction, Fantasy, or Horror courses in academia, and still have a traditional background in a more "acceptable" area of expertise.

Yes, but they are more likely to teach something like Le Guin over Terry Brooks, or Mervyn Peake over Terry Goodkind, or H. G. Wells over Tad Williams.

This from the U of T course description for the only English undergrad sci-fi course:

Brief Description of Course: This course will explore how works of science fiction respond to, participate in, and critique their times by speculating about the potential effects of science upon society. From Martian invasions to cyberpunk to other worlds to dystopias, and much more, the novels, short stories, and film we will study raise challenging and profound questions about the state of humanity –– past, present, and future.

Required Reading: Octavia Butler, Parable of the Sower (Grand Central, 2000); William Gibson, Neuromancer (Ace-Penguin, 1984); Dan Simmons, Ilium (HarperCollins, 2005); H.G. Wells, The Time Machine/The War of the Worlds (Ballantine-DelRey, 1968); Cory Doctorow and Holly Phillips, eds., Tesseracts Eleven (EDGE, 2007); Robert Silverberg, ed., The Science Fiction Hall of Fame, Volume 1 (Orb, 2003); Minority Report (film, 2002, dir. Steven Spielberg)

http://www.utoronto.ca/english/under...8/237s5101.htm

As for the fantasy/horror class that was scheduled - it got canceled for one reason or another, probably the professor going on sabbatical or not receiving Tenure.

But still, there is the requirement of sifting no matter what you read. I simply describe the genre label as a marketing ploy since, like you do, many readers read outside their genre, so they simply try to get the best books possible, from all sides of the spectrum.

[Dara1409]

Someone lent me their copy of Rant by Chuck P. !

read it and shut up. i understand that palahnuik is a pop icon but this is by far his best work. it isnt even comparable to 'fight club', 'choke', or 'haunted'. in this book he's grown so much as an artist...as a writer, and it blew me away. take a chance on it. from someone who primariliy enjoys classic literature, i found it to not only be enoyable, but eye-opening.
plus its not like your friend gave you 'twilight' or some b/s like that.

[1n50mn14]

No, actually, I love it, because I'm not an elitist snob who can't appreciate the literature of others. I may not like it, or think it's good, *cough*Twilight/Da Vinci Code/any Stephen King book, etc*cough* but having that window of exposure is one of the most fantastic things in the world. Friends expose you to literature you may not ever read otherwise. I've been lent plenty of bad books, but the number of amazingly fantastic ones I've been lent far outnumber the bad. I also like reccomending books to others/lending.

I love having something to chat about with friends, as well, other than just innane gossip. Reading the same books always leads to a good chat/debate/argument.

[1n50mn14]

^__^ Also, Chuck Palahniuk. Yes, pop icon. Want to know why? Because his work is genuinely good and has ideas and a style of writing that are so fantastic that they appeal to a wide variety of people. Just because something is pop-y doesn't mean it's bad. Geeze.

[Emil Miller]

No, actually, I love it, because I'm not an elitist snob who can't appreciate the literature of others. I may not like it, or think it's good, *cough*Twilight/Da Vinci Code/any Stephen King book, etc*cough* but having that window of exposure is one of the most fantastic things in the world. Friends expose you to literature you may not ever read otherwise. I've been lent plenty of bad books, but the number of amazingly fantastic ones I've been lent far outnumber the bad. I also like reccomending books to others/lending.

I love having something to chat about with friends, as well, other than just innane gossip. Reading the same books always leads to a good chat/debate/argument.

That's fine as long as you know the difference between literature and Hype.