Prescriptive and Descriptive Genres

I’ve been involved in a number of discussions on genre, recently.  As I thought about the many genres and subgenres of speculative fiction – and indeed even outside speculative fiction – I realized that what defines one genre from another is not always consistent.  Some genres have more rules than others, or more specific rules, or rules about different things.  To put it in a simple dichotomy, some genres are more descriptive and some are more prescriptive.

What do I mean by that?  A descriptive genre merely describes what a genre or body of literature looks like.  A prescriptive genre is very codified, and if you fail to abide by that code, you can’t really be said to be writing in that genre.  As I thought about the subject deeper, I concluded that the difference lies in a specific subset of rules: those rules governing the form and structure of a genre.

Descriptive genres are less specific about rules governing form or structure.  They are less formulaic by default.  Instead, the rules governing a descriptive genre are rules of elements.  If certain elements are present in a work of literature, it can be said to belong to the associated genre.  If those elements are absent, it may not be a work of that genre.  These elements may be aspects of setting, character, plot, style and technique and so on.  Fantasy, in the general, categorical sense, is a fairly descriptive genre.  Does the story include elements of magic, mysticism, mythology, the supernatural, or the numinous?  If your work includes these elements of non-real, non-mundane, then it is a work of Fantasy.  Mainstream or Literary fiction is similarly fairly descriptive.  Does the novel employe so-called “literary” techniques (and usually, but not always, does it eschew the non-real elements for a mundane and frequently contemporary setting)?  Then it is a literary novel. 

But many genres are more restrictive and confining than that.  Continue reading

The Depths of Genre, the Heights of Audience Expectation

I regularly read the Magical Words blog, whree a group of speculative fiction authors joined together to offer writing advice and stories from the word-mines.  Over time, I’ve become ever-so-slightly more active a commenter on the posts, sharing my own thoughts and experience.

One recent post got me thinking about Genre.  In it, fantasy author Misty Massey begins a series of genre-definition posts similar to what you’d find on fellow writer-blogger T.S. Bazelli’s blog.  The post and ensuing discussion made me think about genre a lot (so much so that I was accused of overthinking the matter; I deny the charge as I don’t generally think it’s possible to overthink anything, and more likely to underthink something; I’m guilty of the latter as often as anybody else, but I’d rather be guilty of the former, which I think is no sin).  So, this is going to be a long post.  I’d split it up, but I think I’d lose something salient to my point in doing so.  My intention is to inspire deeper thinking on this topic – maybe even overthinking.  So put your thinking caps on.

Misty sets off on this whirlwind tour of the many genres and subgenres and subsubgenres of Speculative Fiction by discussing high and epic fantasy.  But before launching into discussion of individual genres, she says this:

When you’ve finished your manuscript and are ready to send it out into the world, one of the most important things to know about it is what genre it belongs to. Once upon a time, if a book had magic in it, it was fantasy. Period. Tolkien was fantasy, Tim Powers was fantasy, Glen Cook was fantasy. That’s no longer true. Genres have split and split and split again, becoming more and more specialized as the audiences demanded. Where once agents said they read fantasy, now they say they only want comic paranormal romance, dark epic or dieselpunk. Which puts the writer into a quandary – how do you know what you’re writing? Continue reading

The Maker’s Art, Part 3: Creating Mythopoeia and Anthropological Artifacts

Last week I waded into long discussion in which I tried to draw a clear line between what constitutes a work of “Mythopoeia” and what is only “Fantasy” – acknowledging along the way that Mythopoetic works can be something other than Fantasy.  My position is perhaps an arguable one, but I’m comfortable delineating Mythopoeia as separate from other forms of Speculative Fiction, and even defining it as separate from the physical “artifacts” that represent it.  Mythopoeia is an idea, something that lives in the hearts and minds of both creators and producers of artistic works.  But it is an idea that we engage by interfacing with those anthropological artifacts: be they written works such as novels, poems, epics, webpages and blog posts, or be they visual works of art, sculptures, paintings, and photographs, or be they motion pictures or music, or be they works in an interactive medium like video games, table-top games, or board games, or be they some sort of new and evolving oral history. There are a variety of mechanisms by which mythopoetic works can be expressed in physical form.  But I’m primarily interested in the written form and those that can benefit from the techniques of the written form. 

By now, you must be wondering… so what?  What does it matter?  Why did I set out to try to define Mythopoeia in the first place?  And, having done so, to what use could this definition be put?

Last time, I mentioned my contention that few writers today are consciously attempting to write something that might be called Mythopoeia.  And part of the reason is that writing Mythopoeia is hard.  It requires thinking at a whole different level, layered on top of the thinking that goes into writing a novel.  I could say the entire essay has been a long way of saying it was partly this realization that forced me to conclude that I wasn’t ready to write “Project SOA #1” yet.  Because as I’ve spent years developing background detail, filling several notebooks with thoughts and ideas on historical and mythological complications, I’ve discovered how truly difficult it is to organize a coherent, complete, and engaging mythology, and how challenging it is to weave that into the primary narrative.  Because as an idea takes hold, if you think about it for a while, you realize the idea has implications – huge implications – that must necessarily change the plot and direction of the novel itself.  This is but one of the challenges I faced with making “Project SOA” work (another being a serious grappling with clichés, tropes, and genre conventions, and better understanding them and when and whether to use them, or if not to use them, how to adjust my plot and characters to compensate).

But the whole point of coming to a better understanding of what is or is not Mythopoeia has been to better equip me with the tools to write novels that rest on the bedrock of a solid mythopoem.  Why would I want to do that?  On one level, because it’s intellectually interesting to me.  I find intrinsic value in the creation of a coherent mythological narrative.  But there’s a baser reasoning, too. 

Consider all the most popular works of fiction in the last hundred years.  I’ve talked before about the “triumph of fantasy and speculative fiction” in the larger popular culture.  But at another level, the best works of fantasy and speculative fiction – those with the most enduring fandoms and the most engaged fans – are often among those with strongest mythopoetic frameworks.  This isn’t universally true (for instance, I mentioned Harry Potter last week, and how I don’t find it to be strongly mythopoetic in nature), nor is the reverse necessarily true either: if you have strong mythopoetic underpinnings to your work you won’t necessarily write a best-seller.  But the more strongly a work is predicated on a complex and coherent mythopoetic framework, the more easily engaged its audience.

If you accept this outcome as desirable (or even better, if you find the idea of writing mythopoeia intellectually interesting and stimulating), then you may wonder: how do I do this? Continue reading

The Maker’s Art, Part 2: Refining a Definition of Mythopoeia Through a Sample Exegesis of the Fantasy Corpus

In the previous post I began a discussion of a topic I’ve long wanted to address here on this blog: the concept of Mythopoeia as a distinct genre within the sphere of Speculative Fiction.  However, I ended the first part of my discussion with what appears to be a fatal contradiction.  I defined Mythpoeia as a work of constructed or artificial mythology, but then acceded that most works of modern Fantasy Fiction (and indeed many works of other subgenres of Speculative Fiction) are predicated on invented mythologies.¹  Still, I contend that there is a line of separation between a true work of Mythopoeia and a work of modern Fantasy Fiction.

Just what, then, is that line of separation?  Consider this: I would assert that Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings”, in fact, is not a work of Mythopoeia.  It is, rather, an artifact of Tolkien’s Mythopoem.  It is a physical manifestation, in book form, that attests to the existence of the underlying mythopoetic work.  In other words, a novel, or a novel series, is not Mythopoeia.  But a novel – frequently, but not always, a novel of Epic or High Fantasy – is typically the the primary mechanism by which the reading and media-consuming public will discover and interact with the Mythpoetic work. 

It is my contention, therefore, that while many works of modern fantasy and science fiction include mythological motifs and invented backstories and mythologies, few writers and creators are creating Mythopoeia by design.  Most of the imaginary mythologies and backstories exist solely in support of the fantasy novel to which they are attached, with little or no intrinsic value of their own, and with little of interest to explore outside the framework of the novel.

Take the Harry Potter novels, for instance. Continue reading

The Maker’s Art, Part 1: Defining Mythopoeia in the Context of Fantasy and Speculative Fiction

I’ve hinted in the past (digging into the deep history of my blog) that I’d eventually get around to elucidating my views on the genre of “Mythopoeia”, and why I consider it distinct and separate from “Epic Fantasy“.

Let me get this out of the way upfront: this is going to be a long post.  (There’s a fair probability that I may have to split it into several posts.)  So you’ve got to be rather interested in the fantasy genre or in mythology for any of what follows to be of interest to you.

As another caveat: if anything I say here comes off as denigrating or derogatory to other genres of fiction, I assure you this is a misreading of the intent of what I write.  I strive here only to draw nuance and distinction, not to make claims of quality.  I have a particular organizational hierarchy in my head, but that hierarchy isn’t meant to be suggestive of quality or value, per se.  Hopefully that will become clear in the course of this essay.

I’d like to start off my discussion by laying out a lexicon of Mythopoeia.  As I mentioned on one of my early posts on the subject, the term “mythopoeia” is likely unfamiliar to a large number of potential visitors to this site.  The word itself, insofar as I can deduce, can largely be attributed to J. R. R. Tolkien with regard to its use referring to a literary genre: it is the title of a lovely poem written by Tolkien that serves as a defense of the genre (or, more broadly, as a defense of the Fantasy fiction genre).  (As an aside, Wikipedia has an interesting analysis of the poem on its page about the poem itself.)

Mythopoeia, as used throughout this essay, is a noun, referring to the genre much the way I might refer to “fantasy”.  Mythopoeic and mythopoetic are synonymous adjectives.  A work of mythopoeia could be described as mythopoetic.  A mythopoem is a noun, and means a work of mythopoeia.  It does not mean a poem (in the rhyme-and-verse sense, at least) that is about mythology, although a poem about mythology might be a mythopoem.  (In other words, “mythopoem” is a higher-order category of work that can include some poems about mythology, but also includes works that are not poems.)  A mythopoet, noun, is the creator of mythopoeia.

All of these, then, are contingent on understanding what mythopoeia is – and to a lesser extent what it is not. Continue reading

A Steampunk Society

So, writer Juanita McConnachie (alias Writer’s Block NZ) sent me an interesting question last week:

I was wondering if I could pick your brains on steampunk… Do you know if a ‘steampunk’ society would have any particular values?

Frankly, I was intrigued by the question.  I’m not really sure I’ve seen something like this addressed anywhere before.  On the contrary, I’ve seen some work out there that has refuted the idea that steampunk can inherrently be tied to any specific values or themes at all.  But, I thought a full and fair answer to that question requires a little bit of thinking about the history and development of the steampunk genre, and an identification of what it is.

First of all, Steampunk has been described by people smarter than I in the subject not as a genre but as an “aesthetic” (see: “Steampunk Scholar“).  I’ve even seen the steampunk aesthetic described as “goth discovers brown“.  The idea behind defining it thus is that you can skin the steampunk look on something from virtually any other genre – fantasy or sci fi and beyond – and describe the result as “steampunk”.  This is a half-truth, though, because you can skin the components of advanced technology and space exploration over anything and call it sci-fi or of magic and pointy-eared humans over anything and call it fantasy.  But the thrust of this argument is that a proper “genre” of fiction touches on certain consistent and discernable thematic elements. Continue reading

The Conquest of Fantasy and Speculative Fiction

So, a comment on my rather vigorous (or at least wordy) defense of fantasy, last week, prompted me to explore a hunch and dig up some box-office numbers, as an example of the triumph of Speculative Fiction, in general, and the Fantasy genre, in particular, in mainstream pop culture.  I thought I’d share the results of my “research” here.

The raw data I found at the website Box Office Mojo, which maintains an extensive database of box office receipts.  Specifically, I looked at the Overall Worldwide Box Office and the Overall Adjusted for Inflation Box Office.  (Actually, I got my original “Overall Worldwide” numbers from, which got them from Box Office Mojo, but there’s a slight discrepancy in their figures.)

I divided movies into several categories.  These categories are:

Mainstream: A Catch-all category for comedies, thrillers, dramas, documentaries, musicals, and other films set in a contemporary world, or the real-world, with no real “speculative elements”, most notably “Titanic”, “Gone with the Wind”, etc.

Science Fiction: Anything to do with aliens, spaceships, or futuristic science – basically anything you’d normally classify as Science Fiction, with the exception of “Star Wars” (which I classified separately below).

Fantasy: Any “pure”-bread fantasy, including animated films (like “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs”) that include fantasy-based elements such as magic, dragons, and other mythical creatures or anything set in a mythological setting.

Sci-Fantasy: Movies like “Star Wars”, or “Indiana Jones and the Whatever” I classified as Sci-Fantasy, which is kind of a cross-breed of Science Fiction and Fantasy.  They may have science-fiction like elements, and they may have fantasy-like elements such as magic (or the “force”) or may rely heavily on mythical structures.

Super-Hero: Movies about super-heroes, whether based on comic books or not, are a special and categorically large sub-group of Sci-Fantasy.

Family Animated: Animated family movies whose only “speculative” premise is that animals or toys can talk to each other, or something similar like that, such as “The Lion King” or “Bambi”, or “Finding Nemo”.  I struggled with whether to categorize “Up” here or not… ultimately I did, but I could easily have classified it elsewhere.  Good Family Animated films are, in my opinion, a type of Speculative Fiction, but others will disagree.

Romantic Fantasy: Because I needed a place to put the “Twilight” sequel, and I wasn’t sure it counted as “Fantasy” per se.  Maybe it does…

Horror: You know, the kind of movie where something (something that usually doesn’t exist) is out to kill you, frequently using horrible Science-fictiony or Fantasy powers to do it.  (This can be considered separate from stalker/slasher pics where the killer is an ordinary human – that’s mainstream.)

Other Speculative: Movies that have a clearly “speculative fiction” premise but which are hard to categorize as any of the other speculative genres – stuff like “The Da Vinci Code”.  It’s still speculative fiction, but what kind, precisely, I’m not sure.

Other: Because I had no idea how to classify “The Passion of the Christ”.

So, you can see the lists of movies by following the link to Box Office Mojo.  What I’ll share here are the results after my classifications.  I had to narrow my field to the top 50 movies, because I didn’t have time to look at any more than that. 

Looking only at raw Box Office, Fantasy comes out the clear winner.  Looking only at the top 25 movies, 12 of them are fantasy movies – nearly half!  And those twelve movies brought in $11 BILLION.  Science Fiction films brought in another $4.5 Billion, and Super Hero and Sci-Fantasy movies another $6 Billion.  In the top 25 movies, there is only ONE mainstream movie, totalling $1.8 Billion, and that was “Titanic”.  At this point, I was curious, so I expanded my search to the top 50 movies.

Of the top 50 movies, 39 are some variety of Speculative Fiction (or, including the Family Animated segment, 46 movies).  Of these, Fantasy movies are still the largest segments, accounting for 17 of the top-50 movies and $15 Billion in box-office receipts.  Science Fiction films are the second-largest category, with 7 films taking $7.3 Billion.  All-told, Speculative Fiction movies of one stripe or another account for $34 Billion, out of about $43 Billion from all of the top-50.  (Again, if you count all Family Animated movies, this comes to $39 out of the $43).

But then, I grew concerned (me being an MBA and all) that these numbers weren’t a fair comparison, since yesterday’s movie ticket (and yesterday’s dollar) were worth less in straight dollar terms.  So I turned to the inflation-adjusted figures for the top-50 movies.  Here, we see a very different picture, on two fronts.   The first difference we see is that the largest category shifts from Fantasy to Mainstream movies, with 18 mainstream movies making up $12.8 Billion out of $35 Billion for the top-50 (with “Gone with the Wind” displacing “Avatar” as the top movie, “Avatar” dropping to #14, and “Star Wars” rising as the highest-grossing speculative fiction movie).  Sci-Fantasy becomes the largest speculative fiction category (driven by the Star Wars flicks), followed by Science Fiction movies and then Fantasy movies.  Fantasy is the fourth-largest overall category in inflation-adjusted terms.  However, we still find, even in this examination, that Speculative Fiction movies make up the largest segment of the biggest box-office earners, for 27 of the 50 movies (or 32 of them, counting the Family Animated group).

Another interesting point leaps out at us as well, in these two examinations.  Looking at the unadjusted numbers, we see movie after movie made from 1999 and into the 2000s.  In fact, the oldest movie on this list is “Star Wars”, released in 1977.  From there, we leap to 1982 with “E.T.”, then “Jurassic Park” in ’93, “The Lion King” and “Forrest Gump” in ’94.  We see a small cluster there in the latter-half of the 90s.  But 40 of the top-50 in this list were released in the 2000s.  This comes as no surprise (because movie ticket prices were higher in the 2000s than before).  But we see that nearly all of the top movies in this past decade have been some variety of Speculative Fiction (leaning heavily toward Fantasy).

But if we look at the inflation-adjusted figures, the oldest movie is “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” (a Fantasy, FWIW) from 1937, followed by “Gone with the Wind” from 1939.  What’s interesting is that in this list is that we see a cluster of big movies in the 1960s and 1970s, with big box-office movies declining slowly since then.

There’s an interesting trend buried under the surface here.  First, it looks like the Baby Boom generation loved movies ever-so-slightly more than the current generation.  But they didn’t love Speculative Fiction movies quite as much as modern movie-goers.  If you’re making a movie today, however, your best bet is to make a Fantasy movie, or a movie in one of the other Speculative Fiction genres.  Because over time, movie-goer preferences have shifted away from Mainstream movies and toward Speculative Fiction (and Fantasy in particular) in a big way.

At first, when I looked at the Inflation-adjusted numbers, I thought it was a pretty significant counter-argument to my hypothesis that we nerds (i.e. the fans and consumers of speculative fiction) had won the “Culture Wars”.  But when I considered this trend, I realized my hypothesis was still evidently true.  The mainstream of the 1960s and 70s was mostly what it was: the mainstream.  But the mainstream of the 90s and 2000s is a new and different beast.

[Disclaimer: My figures were updated as of May 20, 2010]

The Technology Conundrum

My wife and I were discussing preparations for our baby a few days ago when she asked an interesting question: “What kind of technology do you think will be a part of our everyday lives, that we don’t have now, by the time our son is in High School?” Later, she mused that looking into the past the same distance, the Internet was nowhere near being playing so large a role in our daily lives, yet.  It’s exactly this question that science fiction writers, especially those writers of near-future fiction, are constantly contemplating.

The history of science fiction is replete with brilliant, even prophetic extrapolations of future technology, as well as a graveyard of misses, miscues, and fanciful, infeasible ideas.  On the one hand, author Jules Verne famously predicted the naval power of submarines in his 1869 novel 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea long before true submarine warfare was feasible.  It was a spectacular realization of the future potential for what was then an infant technology.  On the other hand, one of my favorite commercials, from a few years back was an AllState commercial in which their rich-voiced spokesman grumbles about the fact that we don’t yet have flying cars – a promise made by a lot of old science fiction stories.

Reading current technology trends and forecasting future developments has always been a major part of the science fiction genre.  Typical science fiction fans enjoy glimpsing the possibilities of the future.  The key to guessing at future technological developments, and having it seem realistic to science fiction readers, is to be a very astute reader of current research and development.  Science fiction writers need to stay abreast of developments in science and new discoveries, and to keep track of where new developments are being made.  Having a good read and where current research is heading can provide many clues to what will be available in the future.  This understanding was so critical that during the “Golden Age of Science Fiction” many sci-fi writers were also scientists in their day-jobs.   

One frequent criticism of traditional science fiction is that the technology often overshadows plot and characters in those stories.  In fact, in some of the long-running science fiction magazines, like Analog Science Fiction & Fact, have traditionally only published “Hard Science Fiction“, a sub-genre in which the science must be accurately portrayed.  Some definitions that I’ve read of this sub-genre stipulate that the story be written in such a way that the science or technology elements are so integrated into the story that their removal would cause the story to fall apart.  Genre rules like this heightened the idea that science and technology were more important than character or plot.  However, as the genre has developed, this old idea is certainly no longer true, if it ever was.  Effective science fiction stories today, even hard sci fi, need to have strong, believable characters to succeed, just as much as contemporary fiction.

While the writer’s craft is just as important in science fiction writing as in any genre, one of the joys of the sci fi has always been the exploration of the world around us, and the wonder and awe at both the possible and the seemingly impossible.  The child-like wonder of new discoveries is one thing that makes science fiction worth writing, and keeps readers coming back for more.  Playing with technologies that have not yet been developed and guessing what the future holds continues to make science fiction a perennial favorite.

Whether you write Science Fiction, read it, or write or read something else entirely, I hope this little jaunt down the tropes of hard sci fi brought a little smile.  Happy writing.