| Welcome to Scribes Corner. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| "The Furniture Rules"; Genre debate | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 24 2011, 12:42 PM (1,146 Views) | |
| Evilpigeon | Jul 24 2011, 12:42 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Apprentice
|
Quoted from Dreamsongs book 2 by George R.R. Martin
So I might have mentioned in the literature thread that I was reading a compilation of George Martin's short stories from before A Song of Ice and Fire. In it, interspaced are small, semi autobiographical sections that serve to introduce you to the next set of stories and provide a bit of history, as well as talking about writing in general. If you like his work and are interested in the way other people think about their fiction then it's a really good read and some of the short stories are pure awesome. But anyway, in one of the commentaries Martin goes on a rant about overly rigid boundaries in between genres, above is the choicest quote I could find and essentially sums up his point and uhm, I dunno I wanted to see what people thought. Personally I disagree, there are definately things that place certain stories firmly within a smaller subset of genres (ie it isn't just a matter of furniture that can be easily swapped about) -> Try doing a horror version of Romeo and Juliet for example, I can't even begin to see how that'd work. Thoughts? |
| Whoever said nothing was impossible never tried to slam a revolving door | |
![]() |
|
| Ambrose51 | Jul 24 2011, 12:58 PM Post #2 |
![]()
The Resident Horror Enthusiast
![]()
|
Any story, given the correct manipulation, can be placed within another genre. Romeo and Juliet is no exception. The star-crossed lovers idea is one that has been redone and repeated so many times in history that it would be hard to find a genre it wouldn't fit into. |
|
But mostly? The assorted plans at play here would be going very, very wrong due to the actions of a no-name, no-count, utterly talentless Magus by the name of Shirou Emiya. He had no magic worth mentioning, no combat experience of note, and no plan for or knowledge of the War he was about to enter. He did, however, have one trait that had derailed a countless number of such grand, far-reaching schemes throughout history. You see, he really, really wanted to be a hero. -(Best description of the start of a Fate novel ever.) | |
![]() |
|
| Evilpigeon | Jul 24 2011, 01:24 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Apprentice
|
I know it fits in a lot moulds, I just can't see how you'd do a horror remake
|
| Whoever said nothing was impossible never tried to slam a revolving door | |
![]() |
|
| Duke Smugleaf | Jul 24 2011, 01:33 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Celestial Princess
|
That's specifically "High Fantasy," the genre created by Tolkien and Lewis. Low Fantasy is much different and has many different variants. Spaceships =/= Science Fiction. Sci-Fi is a genre bases around, unsurprisingly, science and not necessarily technology. That seems more b-movie or slasher film to me, and I can guarantee you that neither of those genres are "scary." Now, I don't know who this guy is, but I can tell you that he is entirely delusional. Setting is completely meaningless to a story's actual genre. Yes, there are some settings that are more common for one genre over another, but, in the end, it's not the sole determining factor. It's not even a determining factor, unless you're getting into a specified genre. The things that sets the genres apart are plot and theme. Fantasy stories are entirely story-based. They care about telling a good story and making it interesting and exciting. They want you to immerse yourself into the world and experience things through the eyes of the characters. Science Fiction stories are designed to be thought-provoking looks at what the future may possibly yield. For them, the story is merely an easy method of portraying the potential effects from a particular scientific idea. Horror stories are, quite naturally, written for the purpose of inciting fear or unease. They're stories that focus on making the theme as unsettling as possible so that reading them fills you with a sense of dread. Any of these three could easily "cross-genres," as it were, and have settings typically associated with another genre without becoming that genre. Just because something has elves, swords, and sorcery, doesn't mean it's Fantasy. Just because it has advanced technology and space ships doesn't mean it's Sci-Fi. Just because it has undead and monsters doesn't mean it's Horror. A great example of this is Star Trek/Star Wars. The former is Sci-Fi as it takes an intellectual look at what a futuristic space-faring human race might be like. The latter is Fantasy, pure and simple. Not only does it not purport a scientific idea, but it usually throws science right out the window. For instance, how the fuck do you make the Death Star without completely disrupting the gravitational fields of everything around it? Alderaan would have been fucked up by tidal friction long before it was ever blown apart, and even if Leia did talk, everyone was likely to die, anyways. However, we don't care about that because Star Wars is Fantasy, not Sci-Fi. However, according to this guy's definitions, he would have to disagree with me. So, I just have to ask, if Star Wars is Science Fiction, then where is the science? |
| |
![]() |
|
| Duke Smugleaf | Jul 24 2011, 01:37 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Celestial Princess
|
Horror remake of Romeo and Juliet? There are plenty of ways. My personal favorite would be to have one of them be a hallucination the entire time. That's always fun. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Evilpigeon | Jul 24 2011, 01:54 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Apprentice
|
@Smugleaf He's the guy who wrote A Game of Thrones, he also has a pretty impressive pedigree as a Sci-Fi Short story writer - google Sandkings and Meathouse Man, both awesome. I think you're taking his statements about what each genre constitutes a little too literally though I do agree about Star Wars being fantasy. The points about gravity are much more to do with poorly thought out sci-fi, rather than making it fantasy what makes it fantasy is the expectation that you take things like the force at face value i.e. Star Wars requires a suspension of disbelief for the Universe to work, regardless of the stuff about the deathstar which is more a research failure. Also that would be a pretty damn awesome reinterpretation of Romeo and Juliet
|
| Whoever said nothing was impossible never tried to slam a revolving door | |
![]() |
|
| Duke Smugleaf | Jul 24 2011, 01:58 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Celestial Princess
|
I suppose you have a point there. Whatever. It was just an example. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Duke Smugleaf | Jul 24 2011, 02:10 PM Post #8 |
![]()
Celestial Princess
|
Just a thought, but shouldn't this be in Literary Discussion, being that it's a discussion on literature? |
| |
![]() |
|
| Evilpigeon | Jul 24 2011, 02:11 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Apprentice
|
Probably ![]() Edit: Cheers for that. Edited by Evilpigeon, Jul 24 2011, 02:32 PM.
|
| Whoever said nothing was impossible never tried to slam a revolving door | |
![]() |
|
| James | Jul 24 2011, 03:16 PM Post #10 |
|
Caffeinated
|
I interpreted the thesis of his mini-article as saying: "[All literature explores the human condition, dividing things into genres doesn't change this; a good story is a good story. How things communicate ideas are different but they all explore the same fundamental aspects of the human psyche]" |
| Number of Poems Written in the name of roleplaying, count: 1 | |
![]() |
|
| Darkom | Jul 24 2011, 03:45 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Philosophizer
![]()
|
Agreed; I don't think the point of his article was to say that all genres are based on setting, he was simply making a point using stereotypical examples. He, of all people, would not claim that fantasy must include dragons and elves, he is simply using those as what most people typically think of fantasy to symbolize the larger idea. Science Fiction is the same way; he wasn't saying Science Fiction must have spaceships, he was simply telling us that, in the end, it is just one part of the whole of literature, that we have divided with our own conventions and genres but it remains a story. Many literature professors will tell you that there is only one story, really, and all writing is just a part of it. That story is, as James said, the human condition, as everything we make reflects it.
If we were to claim that all literature is separated by genre (a later construction that we use to organize the one story), then everything must have a genre that it fits into. Even by your more technicaly rules, this is still not the case. The best example I can think of is Stephen King's "The Dark Tower". It does not fit into any genre, whether by its setting or its focus. It is, by your definition, primarily fantasy, as it describes the story, but it also fits into Science Fiction, as it is set in the future and provides some thought provoking ideas about said future, along with the possibility of multiple dimensions. Like you said, anything can cross genres, which means that genres are not set rules; they are simply a means of organizing the vast collection of books that make up the one story. And don't make fun of Martin. He's freaking awesome.
|
| Don't say the old lady screamed. Bring her on and let her scream. ~Mark Twain | |
![]() |
|
| Duke Smugleaf | Jul 24 2011, 04:12 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Celestial Princess
|
Eh, whatever. I see your point, but I still have a problem with the examples he chose. According to Wikipedia, The Dark Tower is mostly various forms of fantasy with a bit of horror thrown in. See, the thing about science fiction is that it has to explore realistic scientific possibilities. It explores things that could possibly happen. To quote Rod Serling, "Science fiction makes the implausible possible, while science fantasy makes the impossible plausible." The Dark Tower does not exist in the real world and does not explore things that could actually happen. Just because something has science-y things doesn't mean it's science fiction, which is exactly what I was saying. I never said they were rules. They're guidelines. There are no "rules" in literature save the one universal rule: "Don't suck." |
| |
![]() |
|
| James | Jul 24 2011, 06:00 PM Post #13 |
|
Caffeinated
|
I'd disagree, a theme is simply a "a unifying or dominant idea" (dictionary.com) in a piece of literature. Similar themes can appear in any text, and there are very few truely unique plots recycled by all genres. Edited by James, Jul 24 2011, 06:02 PM.
|
| Number of Poems Written in the name of roleplaying, count: 1 | |
![]() |
|
| Darkom | Jul 24 2011, 06:03 PM Post #14 |
![]()
Philosophizer
![]()
|
Not the best way of phrasing it, I suppose, but the point stands. Like I said, it is primarily fantasy, but it includes large elements of horror, science fiction, western, and modern fiction (stories set in the real world, not really sure what exactly to call them). I'm not a fan of quoting, but Wikipedia states in the first sentence that it crosses multiple genres.
Regardless, it was simply an example of a book that does not fit snugly into a single genre, which was being used to prove my point that genres are simply organizational tools imposed to make categorizing literature easier. The whole of storytelling has no boundaries. Interesting idea; though I must point out that the Dark Tower is not necessarily impossible. It is implausible, but only because we have no evidence to support it. Can you prove that there is no Tower holding multiple dimensions together, including one of a chronologically advanced Earth where the laws of physics are altered to include "magic"? It is not, necessarily, impossible, and thus could technically happen, though the likelihood seems slim. I did not, and others do not, classify it as science fiction simply because it has robots. In fact, I would say that it could be used to support your point that science fiction does not require spaceships and aliens to be science fiction. To quote wikipedia again:
While King uses multiple fantasy elements, it remains a rational possibility that outside of our own reality, the laws of nature and progression of history could have been wildly different. Until science proves beyond a shadow of a doubt how many and what kinds of dimensions there are, including other parallel realities, King's world cannot be called impossible. Though I do agree, science fiction is not its main focus, it cannot be said that it cannot be argued to include it. Also, I must disagree with your last point. I know many published books that completely suck.
Edited by Darkom, Jul 24 2011, 06:04 PM.
|
| Don't say the old lady screamed. Bring her on and let her scream. ~Mark Twain | |
![]() |
|
| Duke Smugleaf | Jul 24 2011, 08:01 PM Post #15 |
![]()
Celestial Princess
|
It's funny how this post here was immediately disproved by my previous post.As you can plainly see from your own quote, Wikipedia says science fantasy, not science fiction. The two are distinctly different. Then, since western is also an aspect of low fantasy, my original statement still stands: The Dark Tower is largely fantasy with some horror. Yes, yes it is. In our world, in our universe, it is completely, totally, and in all other ways impossible. There is no such thing as magic in reality. Thus, The Dark Tower possesses no science fiction. Can you prove that there are no tiny gnomes that live in your shoes whenever you're not wearing them? Can you prove that there aren't invisible elephants that fly around the world? Can you prove that there isn't a ghost that appears only when you close your eyes in an empty room? Really, we can make up all the bullshit hypotheticals that we want, but it won't get us anywhere. There's no point believing in anything that you can't objectively verify. From what I've seen, you're the only one claiming that. Wikipedia is on my side. If you're going to go with that argument, I hope you realize that it means that everything that has ever or will ever be written is "technically" possible. Lord of the Ring is science fiction! Who knew? |
| |
![]() |
|
| James | Jul 24 2011, 08:26 PM Post #16 |
|
Caffeinated
|
And this conversation proves the impracticality and futility of genre classifications. |
| Number of Poems Written in the name of roleplaying, count: 1 | |
![]() |
|
| quirk | Jul 24 2011, 08:33 PM Post #17 |
|
Apprentice
|
We should categorize stories by writing technique instead of genre. : P |
![]() |
|
| Darkom | Jul 24 2011, 09:02 PM Post #18 |
![]()
Philosophizer
![]()
|
It's times like these I wish we had a facepalm smiley. My mistake, I should really read my quotes before I post them.Anyways, I stand by the idea that it is not, however, impossible. The magical portions of the story did not take place in our world, they took place in an alternate reality. Thus it is entirely possible, as you cannot disprove that the laws of physics are different there. Besides, not everything that seems magical is immediately impossible. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" and all that; some of the things we may deem magical about the story are really just very advanced technology at work, or undiscovered abilities hidden within us. My argument is not that these things are provable to exist, simply that they cannot be proven not to exist. Just because you cannot prove something doesn't mean it couldn't happen, thus it is possible and, by your own definition, could be termed as science fiction, not fantasy. It may not get us anywhere, but when we argue semantics like this, we're not really getting anywhere anyway. I never said I believed in it, but as an agnostic I don't have to believe in something to entertain the possibility of its existence. Yes, who did know? Of course, my argument there was based on the fact that King's world hinges on the idea of multiple realities. Tolkien does not try and fit his world into the real one, he admits they are two separate universes, and never claims that it could be possible in this world. I think the difference lies only in that King made his world in a way that makes you ask if it could, technically, be true. It's most likely not, of course, but it's similar to the Matrix. You can't prove that the world doesn't work that way. But, of course, the original debate was that you cannot limit it to one genre, meaning that genres are abstract constructions that can easily be broken. If you agree with that, then I don't really see the need of pursuing this discussion about the Dark Tower further. I'd rather avoid the tangent. See what I mean about arguing not getting either of us anywhere? I admit I was wrong to quote that thing on Wikipedia, so kudos to you for actually reading it (unlike me ), but on this particular issue no amount of debate will change my mind. Thus, the only purpose left is to either make yourself feel better or have fun. Personally, I would rather have fun. In fact, I still am; this is a very interesting discussion on a topic I'm interested in.
|
| Don't say the old lady screamed. Bring her on and let her scream. ~Mark Twain | |
![]() |
|
| quirk | Jul 24 2011, 09:24 PM Post #19 |
|
Apprentice
|
I can understand debating for fun, Darkom, but wouldn't you say that a debate is, to be fair, pointless if you aren't willing to be open to the other person's ideas? The point of a debate(or argument, if we really want to call this that) is to test the strength of ideas or concepts against each other, and see which better stands in a logical light. |
![]() |
|
| Duke Smugleaf | Jul 24 2011, 09:57 PM Post #20 |
![]()
Celestial Princess
|
And science fiction only deals with things that are possible in this world. I believe I've said that three or four times now. i.e. magic. We've completely mapped out the human genome. There are no "hidden abilities" within us, and even if there are, they'll still abide by the laws of reality. No it is not. That's what my examples were. You can't prove that there aren't gnomes living in your shoes when you're not wearing them. That doesn't mean that shoe gnomes are in any way possible. Actually, that's wrong. Tolkien created the Lord of the Rings to act as a modern mythology, not just an entertaining story. Not that it even matters. What you're espousing is the Multi-Worlds Theory. Now, if we actually look at what this theory says, well, you probably won't understand most of it, but whatever. Basically, it says that there is an infinite number of universes residing in an infinite number of multiverses residing in an infinite number of whatever is above multiverses ad infinitum. Thus, anything and everything happens. It doesn't even matter if it's made up fiction, there is a universe out there somewhere where it happens. Well, actually there's an infinite number of universes out there where it happens. Thus, somewhere in another universe, Middle-earth does exist. That said, neither Middle-earth nor the world of The Dark Tower are in any way possible in our own universe. Therefore, they are not science fiction. It's that simple. If it is impossible in our universe, it's fantasy, not sci-fi. I do not see the connection between the two. What kind of a false dichotomy is that? If it's not a rigid, well-defined, unbreakable law, it's a meaningless abstract construct? The law that states that stealing is illegal can be broken. Does that mean that it's nothing but an "abstract construct?" Yes, literature can cross genres. That doesn't mean that the very idea of genres is utterly meaningless and pointless. It just means that you have a book that falls into more than one genre. |
| |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Literary Discussion · Next Topic » |













2:37 PM Jul 11