This is a great piece! Thanks for the hard work. I love the idea of new categories, organizing books by themes instead of old tags. I do find myself loving the old tags though. SFF and even 'speculative fiction', but maybe that's because I love speculative philosophy and that term 'speculative' means something to me that it may not mean to others. It's hard to imagine being a book seller and totally doing away with the SF tag though. SF seems like shorthand that can tell the reader at least a little of what to expect without having to give too much of the plot away. Maybe I'm just too enamored of the old categories though.
I once had a back and forth on reddit (which was my first mistake) about a completely fantastic story that had an excess of magical spells that happened to take the form of spaceships and a lot of gee-whiz about computers and virtual reality.
The redditors insisted that this was "more realistic" and more scientifically accurate because the author had a PhD or some such. (I know, I'm also stunned that redditors would behave this way.)
It was totally lost on them that fantasizing about the latest scientific finding isn't much different from fantasizing about the myths you read as a kid. Imaginative stories are imaginative stories, as far as I see it.
As a former bookseller, the labels - however imperfect (and we ran across that every day!) - were at least something to make books easier to find for the customer. "Fiction" was already our largest single section by far, and popping out SF/Fantasy, Romance, Mystery, and Graphic Novels was a way to make it easier for someone who just wandered in to find a particular type of book. Yes, they vary wildly in philosophy and perspective, but none of the books were categorized as to worldview, but this is why people would get really interested in particular authors. The internet is in amazing tool to do research on what someone might like, but on a practical level, I don't see how that would work at the retail level.
Eh... the dichotomy of dragons vs spaceships feels to still be useful to define different tones and aesthetics. Their inherent and ancient connection I feel is there, since I like both to differing degrees. The labels are generally useful, because if I want a story about heroes and princesses in a magical land beset by monsters... fantasy is going to more reliably deliver what I'm after in gothic architecture. Or if I want a story of cunning explorers and men of action ready to contend with the new discoveries and their consequences... science fiction usually is a better fit, clad in steel and glass ceramics. That they are still works of imagination and live or die on their ability to project believably. You can certainly blur or cross the lines though.
I agree. Even within genre - military sci-fi - there are so many nuances.
For example, a beta reader for my novel asked why in my book about distressed satellite there is barely any mentions of the ongoing war. Well, because I want to focus on the survival and relationships between characters, show what flawed leadership leads to.
There is no perfect way to create a taxonomy with regards to something as complex as literature. As you point out, the label "science fiction" is a shroud for a world view that is often anti-human and nihilistic in it's outlook, but this doesn't mean that a thematic overhaul of the classification system would be preferred. Tagging systems come with their own problems, which may or may not solve the core issues you identify.
"Imagine a bookstore or a digital storefront where stories aren’t boxed into Science Fiction or Fantasy, but are presented by theme, setting, and the emotional experiences readers are seeking." Wouldn't this just lead to a similar problem that we have today? The problem is the reader oriented emphasis of modern publishing. The reader should be encouraged to approach their selection of a text with humility and openness, not the self serving attitude that "I should get the book that I want, now." There needs to be a balance between the market as defined by the reader, and presentation of potential reading material subject to critical evaluation. I.e. authority.
Genre fiction will always suffer more than general literature in this conversation. This is because the reader who finishes Lord of the Rings and says "I want more elves" isn't engaging with the text at the level that it deserves. I'm not going to suggest that you can't love the elves, or that the ascetics don't matter. Hobbits, simply by existing in the story, create meaning that interacts with all the other elements of the text. To love them, is, in some ways, to love the right things. Still we are where we are because the term Fantasy (read: fantastic, and imaginative) was turned into something that means "here are elves, monsters and orcs." This is the problem (which I think you identify). Is this the fault of publishers, or was it a complacent readership? Probably both. The cloying way in which twentieth century culture centralized all economic activity is also to blame. The collective destroys creative capacity, even in ventures like publishing, that are, by their very nature, somewhat collective.
An additional question about this suggestion: Maybe I'm focusing too much on the details, but how would you actual organize this in physical space? Would it even be in physical space? Would you make a colour coded system in which books were plastered with an intersectional rainbow of tags noting that this or that book will make you feel happy, and sad, and inspired, but also it's about God, but not that GOD, a different god. And don't forget the way in which the book deconstructs something something something about modernity!
Honestly, if I was to be an iconoclast at all in this conversation, I would say it's time for the destruction of the bookstore. It perpetuates all the problems you identify, and I am skeptical that it can be reformed at this time. Perhaps it's a fence that needs to be bulldozed and rebuilt in the future.
I am completely sympathetic with your diagnosis, but the solution must start with the author and the community of readers. Which, to be fair, is exactly what many, including yourself, are trying to do on Substack. The most interesting thing I find about this discussion is that the publisher is often identified as the problem, but then discarded entirely because there seems to be a perception that the individual personalities engaged in this work trump the collective worth of actually having a publisher.
Maybe it's my Catholicism showing, but I think authority trumps personal taste much of the time. Good teachers exemplify this reality. We all had, at least one good English teacher, who seemed to have a better selection of reading material than the rest. This was likely due to a combination of their education and taste. They had expertise, properly defined, which is an incredibly valuable resource for a community. This could be a model for the future, not simply in education, but in general.
Building on this, it's worth mentioning that a functional publishing industry existed before the modern publishing conglomerates (consider the impact of Sheed and Ward in the early twentieth century Catholicism), and one of the things I love about my old editions is how many different publishers are listed on the books. Every author seemed to be published by a different publishing house, and it's clear that readers knew to look to different publishers to find what they wanted. Today I do something similar with Ignatius Press. I know what kind of books they publish, and I know how their editors consider a text before committing to publish. Their transparency allows them to be valuable. The Catholic publishing world is exceptional for this. There is a poverty, I think, when it comes to fiction, but for non-fiction the publisher and their perspective is a hugely valuable resource for people looking for a book.
If you haven't already done this, I would love to read your thoughts about "speculative fiction," or "adventure stories," as classifications of genre. What are their strengths and limitations?
This is a great piece! Thanks for the hard work. I love the idea of new categories, organizing books by themes instead of old tags. I do find myself loving the old tags though. SFF and even 'speculative fiction', but maybe that's because I love speculative philosophy and that term 'speculative' means something to me that it may not mean to others. It's hard to imagine being a book seller and totally doing away with the SF tag though. SF seems like shorthand that can tell the reader at least a little of what to expect without having to give too much of the plot away. Maybe I'm just too enamored of the old categories though.
I once had a back and forth on reddit (which was my first mistake) about a completely fantastic story that had an excess of magical spells that happened to take the form of spaceships and a lot of gee-whiz about computers and virtual reality.
The redditors insisted that this was "more realistic" and more scientifically accurate because the author had a PhD or some such. (I know, I'm also stunned that redditors would behave this way.)
It was totally lost on them that fantasizing about the latest scientific finding isn't much different from fantasizing about the myths you read as a kid. Imaginative stories are imaginative stories, as far as I see it.
This is a long overdue correction.
As a former bookseller, the labels - however imperfect (and we ran across that every day!) - were at least something to make books easier to find for the customer. "Fiction" was already our largest single section by far, and popping out SF/Fantasy, Romance, Mystery, and Graphic Novels was a way to make it easier for someone who just wandered in to find a particular type of book. Yes, they vary wildly in philosophy and perspective, but none of the books were categorized as to worldview, but this is why people would get really interested in particular authors. The internet is in amazing tool to do research on what someone might like, but on a practical level, I don't see how that would work at the retail level.
Eh... the dichotomy of dragons vs spaceships feels to still be useful to define different tones and aesthetics. Their inherent and ancient connection I feel is there, since I like both to differing degrees. The labels are generally useful, because if I want a story about heroes and princesses in a magical land beset by monsters... fantasy is going to more reliably deliver what I'm after in gothic architecture. Or if I want a story of cunning explorers and men of action ready to contend with the new discoveries and their consequences... science fiction usually is a better fit, clad in steel and glass ceramics. That they are still works of imagination and live or die on their ability to project believably. You can certainly blur or cross the lines though.
I agree. Even within genre - military sci-fi - there are so many nuances.
For example, a beta reader for my novel asked why in my book about distressed satellite there is barely any mentions of the ongoing war. Well, because I want to focus on the survival and relationships between characters, show what flawed leadership leads to.
There is no perfect way to create a taxonomy with regards to something as complex as literature. As you point out, the label "science fiction" is a shroud for a world view that is often anti-human and nihilistic in it's outlook, but this doesn't mean that a thematic overhaul of the classification system would be preferred. Tagging systems come with their own problems, which may or may not solve the core issues you identify.
"Imagine a bookstore or a digital storefront where stories aren’t boxed into Science Fiction or Fantasy, but are presented by theme, setting, and the emotional experiences readers are seeking." Wouldn't this just lead to a similar problem that we have today? The problem is the reader oriented emphasis of modern publishing. The reader should be encouraged to approach their selection of a text with humility and openness, not the self serving attitude that "I should get the book that I want, now." There needs to be a balance between the market as defined by the reader, and presentation of potential reading material subject to critical evaluation. I.e. authority.
Genre fiction will always suffer more than general literature in this conversation. This is because the reader who finishes Lord of the Rings and says "I want more elves" isn't engaging with the text at the level that it deserves. I'm not going to suggest that you can't love the elves, or that the ascetics don't matter. Hobbits, simply by existing in the story, create meaning that interacts with all the other elements of the text. To love them, is, in some ways, to love the right things. Still we are where we are because the term Fantasy (read: fantastic, and imaginative) was turned into something that means "here are elves, monsters and orcs." This is the problem (which I think you identify). Is this the fault of publishers, or was it a complacent readership? Probably both. The cloying way in which twentieth century culture centralized all economic activity is also to blame. The collective destroys creative capacity, even in ventures like publishing, that are, by their very nature, somewhat collective.
An additional question about this suggestion: Maybe I'm focusing too much on the details, but how would you actual organize this in physical space? Would it even be in physical space? Would you make a colour coded system in which books were plastered with an intersectional rainbow of tags noting that this or that book will make you feel happy, and sad, and inspired, but also it's about God, but not that GOD, a different god. And don't forget the way in which the book deconstructs something something something about modernity!
Honestly, if I was to be an iconoclast at all in this conversation, I would say it's time for the destruction of the bookstore. It perpetuates all the problems you identify, and I am skeptical that it can be reformed at this time. Perhaps it's a fence that needs to be bulldozed and rebuilt in the future.
I am completely sympathetic with your diagnosis, but the solution must start with the author and the community of readers. Which, to be fair, is exactly what many, including yourself, are trying to do on Substack. The most interesting thing I find about this discussion is that the publisher is often identified as the problem, but then discarded entirely because there seems to be a perception that the individual personalities engaged in this work trump the collective worth of actually having a publisher.
Maybe it's my Catholicism showing, but I think authority trumps personal taste much of the time. Good teachers exemplify this reality. We all had, at least one good English teacher, who seemed to have a better selection of reading material than the rest. This was likely due to a combination of their education and taste. They had expertise, properly defined, which is an incredibly valuable resource for a community. This could be a model for the future, not simply in education, but in general.
Building on this, it's worth mentioning that a functional publishing industry existed before the modern publishing conglomerates (consider the impact of Sheed and Ward in the early twentieth century Catholicism), and one of the things I love about my old editions is how many different publishers are listed on the books. Every author seemed to be published by a different publishing house, and it's clear that readers knew to look to different publishers to find what they wanted. Today I do something similar with Ignatius Press. I know what kind of books they publish, and I know how their editors consider a text before committing to publish. Their transparency allows them to be valuable. The Catholic publishing world is exceptional for this. There is a poverty, I think, when it comes to fiction, but for non-fiction the publisher and their perspective is a hugely valuable resource for people looking for a book.
If you haven't already done this, I would love to read your thoughts about "speculative fiction," or "adventure stories," as classifications of genre. What are their strengths and limitations?
Thanks for the great read!