11 Comments
User's avatar
Hyboreal's avatar

Are you talking about "epistemological reductionism?" Or perhaps "The human taxonomic impulse?" In general I am not a fan of the broad terms of Fantasy or science fiction because they are so limiting. But they better tell me what to expect than the larger idea of "fiction," for the even more massive category "Literature."

Human beings have an inherent, almost instinctual need to distill things into smaller and smaller boxes, giving them labels that make sense to them. It's why we struggle with new ideas, and rail against anything that challenges our worldview.

I have a tattoo that reminds me to embrace change. To accept it and not run from it. So I am all for coming up with some new system. But I have also been living in a place I hate for 10 years, because my human brain would rather have something familiar and comfortable (even if its unpleasant), than step into the chaos of the unknown.

Expand full comment
Mkwawa shujaa's avatar

That's why I prefer themes than genres since msot of the time, every book mixes the genres and never purely belongs to only one genre

Expand full comment
Truman Angell's avatar

The categories have always been despised, yet in many ways crucial to the success of many. Without the sci-fi and horror pulps, many great writers would have never been published anywhere. Magazines are by definition categorized and the big publishers followed that model when they started publishing paperbacks in the 1950s. The model was already there from the 1920s when Western pulps were popular. So magazines like Clarke's and MSFF, Asimov, etc, are struggling, we should support them. That said, Bradbury, Ellison and others hated the monikers. I forgot who (Bova?) wrote it should all be called "Imaginative Fiction." But isn't all fiction imaginative?

Expand full comment
Jason Chastain's avatar

TLDR: sci-fi/fantasy from old publishers “is dead.” Lack of new originals prove it.

I don’t see the evidence…🤷‍♂️. There are new books every day. Most on old tropes or subversions of them… but the two categories sell nearly $600 million per year just in the US. I am inclined to agree originality is often lacking, but I don’t have time to read them all to find the outliers.

Expand full comment
Camila Hamel's avatar

The tropes are dead, but the mass appeal of SFF is there. Readers love it.

Expand full comment
Test Profile Please Ignore's avatar

Do you... uh... maybe see the irony in a criticism of dead irrelevant genres from the 1960s ending with you trying to advertise for a short story anthology about... Hard Rock And Roll?

Rock and Roll *is* a dead irrelevant genre from the 1960s

Buddy. Rock And Roll is what my dad *used* to listen to. And I'm 30. Jesus fuck, dude. Jesus fucking christ. Either hate on old stuff from the 1960s for being old or embrace the nostalgia. But you can't justify doing both.

Expand full comment
JD Cowan's avatar

Yes, that's the point of the anthology. It's to celebrate a form of music that is no longer around.

Glad you caught that!

Expand full comment
Test Profile Please Ignore's avatar

Okay? Its nice that you are more self-aware than I assumed, but you do get that this puts you in something of a hypocritical position, yeah?

They could make precisely the same arguments.

Except now that I think of it, the major retread at this point is cyberpunk, not space opera or new wave, so… not really 1960s

Expand full comment
JD Cowan's avatar

They could make the same arguments if I was saying Rock and Roll is alive and relevant, which I'm not, or they could address the topic instead of looking for an out to discount the subject of the post without thinking on it.

Their choice.

Expand full comment
Camila Hamel's avatar

Murderbot is made just for you. (and me)

Expand full comment
Heyoka's avatar

Well it’s been the death of my brain for a week looking for a sentence longer than three words and less chopped up than a pile of gravel in the driveway.

Expand full comment