Is this a great coincidence or what? I recently read threeblogposts about how it is strange/not strange that there are female science fiction readers and then I came upon this post about the seeming lack of men reading romance. All of these posted today.
(This reminded me of a conversation I had with an actress about a week ago about the biases in the media and society in general. She cited science as an example of lack of bias and I almost laughed my head off. Sure, scientists strive for lack of bias, but they aren't automatons with the main goal of finding the ultimate truth. Scientists are human and all humans have biases. The trick is to realize that you do have a bias and to not brush off your tainted observations with the lazy thought that it just is.)
In the matter of genre, I find it somewhat sad and amusing that people still refuse to try certain books because they believe that those books are only meant for a particular type of person. The existence of stereotypes like the frustrated housewife sitting on the couch eating bon-bons and watching soap operas or the pimply and bespectacled geek playing D & D in his parents' basement is utter hogwash. The purpose of the stereotype is to compartmentalize everyone, to divide people into groups of US and THEM. When will anyone realize that in reality people are too complex to be categorized?
Anyways, I find it interesting that fans of any genre are quick to moan about how they're looked down upon for their "lowbrow" tastes, the lurid covers, and the amount of energy they have to exert sneaking out of bookstores and hiding their guilty pleasures. Is this griping due to society's pressure to read what's "good" for you rather than what you want? What's "good" is only dictated by critics who think they Know It All. Genre is nothing but an arbitrary guideline set by publishers and bookstores trying to organize their product. Look beyond the branding and read a book for the story. Don't mindlessly believe that a book is only read by some make-believe demographic because some marketing executive somewhere decides that the novel should be pitched to that make-believe demographic.
But that said, I think it will be virtually impossible to dissuade people from their genre prejudices. Unless we start a cross-genre trend! I wonder if there is more gender equity in the reader base of sci-fi romance/romantic sci-fi*....
* Authors off the top of my head: Catherine Asaro, Lois McMaster Bujold, Sharon Lee & Steve Miller, Anne McCaffrey, Sharon Shinn--heck, just go to this blog and make your list for the next time you head to the library or bookstore.
Genre fiction can be a tough. If it's not an area that's naturally to your tastes, then it has to be quite good. You try a few and chances are they're trash (just appealing to Sturgeon's Law here) and you give up. Or you try to read reviews, but the rabid fans like everything. I'm a science nerd, so I've given SF enough of a chance to know what few authors I like. But, say, fantasy, I'm not naturally interested in magic and swords and kings and elves and dragons and winged horses and all that, so I gave up right away and didn't feel a bit of regret.
This doesn't really count as a guilty pleasure because I know they're not trash, but I have to get myself into a bit of a bold frame of mind when I get books of Lynda Barry comics from the library because they look like something that nobody over ten should enjoy.
I agree. But if I'm not well read in a particular genre I wouldn't completely dismiss it if I read a couple of stinkers. I'd dismiss the author but not the genre as a whole. Getting a feel for what is good in that particular genre before actually reading anything is a tricky endeavor. Finding a well-read friend with similar tastes is probably your best option--but that can be few and far between. I think in order to find good books, one would have to culture the habit of putting down a book if it turns out bad after so many pages.
Oh, and not all fantasy has elves, dragons, etc. Personally, I don't really like those traditional fantasy elements in the stories I read either. I prefer the more subtle approach. :)
Most people would say that fantasy has some element of magic or the supernatural in the plot or setting. My view is even broader than that--pretty much anything that wouldn't happen in the real world would be fantasy. This would include alternate histories where there is little or no magic. Of course, some people might argue that that is science fiction, but science isn't the focus of that subgenre either. There's also mythic fiction--which is a literary form inspired by myths but has none of the magic hoopla that characterizes Tolkienesque works.
Then there's the stuff that straddles both science fiction and fantasy like steampunk, science fantasy, and space opera (like Star Wars). This is probably the area where most science fiction readers end up in rather than diving head first into wholly fantasy territory.
Perhaps magic is something writers shouldn't be allowed to play with until they reach the top of their game. I mean, it's... like a card they'll keep playing when they can't think of a sensible way to get from A to B. Then the story's all shortcuts and they never develop any skills.
(Kind of like how people writing screenplays shouldn't be allowed to throw in The Girl when they can't come up with a good excuse to drag their cardboard protagonist through the usual ninety minutes of car chases and explosions.)
The surreal can be good, though. Particularly if it has an element of satire to it.
The best fantasy novel I've read in the last year or two was The House of Storms by Ian R. MacLeod; it differs from "traditonal" fantasy not only in outward trappings but in themes and attitudes too. I've been going around recommending it. Another author that might be recommendable would be China Miéville; I've only read some of his short stories, but liked them quite a bit - check out "The Tain".
