I need a name for a rising subgenre

[james_davis_nicoll]

What do you call books that are reacting to the reaction to 9/11? That is, post-9/11 I got books that argued e.g. that what America really needs to protect itself from the deadly menace of weaponized squirrel brains is a secret service not bound to answer to anyone, especially elected officials. Now I'm seeing material that suggest that perhaps oversight is useful and fanatical devotion to the pope national security above all else may have draw backs. What do I call that material?

[Let's clarify this:

After 9/11 there were a lot of books and TV shows whose premise was that America needed security more than minutia like civil rights. Now that a few years have passed, an increasing number of books are concerned about the abuses that are justified as being necessary for security. I was wondering what the second sort of book, the one that a counter-reaction to the reaction to 9/11, is called]

[And I unlocked this because it's not like I mentioned anything by name]

Comments

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

This wasn't SF, although there's an SFnal fable told within it.

[aisb23.livejournal.com]

In that case "The Complete Works of Tom Clancy" ought to cover it nicely.

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

No, this is the reaction to that sort of thing. Imagine a TV show where the moral was "Actually, CTU and Jack Bauer are creating more havoc than they are preventing". The overt moral, I mean.

[aisb23.livejournal.com]

Oh I get it. In that case "Tom Clancy on Lithium"?

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

You're not the only one to misread what I wrote. Where did I go wrong?

[twoeleven.livejournal.com]

do you want an answer to your question, or is it just rhetorical?

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

I really want an answer. Two or more people misreading what I wrote means that it was unclear but I can't see why it is unclear.

[twoeleven.livejournal.com]

ok. i think the first sentence is ambiguous; "reacting to the reaction to 9/11" could mean a number of things. so, people look at the next sentence, figure that's the subject of the paragraph, stop thinking there, and reply w/o reading the third sentence too closely.

so, whipping out my blue pencil, i'd say "What do you call books that are reacting to the fanatical devotion to the pope national security above all else that followed 9/11?" might get the answer you want.

[summers-place.livejournal.com]

I feel your frustration. It seemed crystal clear to me, if that's any help.

[marydell.livejournal.com]

I got what you were saying, but it structurally has too many ill-defined thingies in it. "reacting to the reaction to 9/11" is tricky because there were multiple reactions - in fact, I think the genre you're trying to define is part of the post-9/11 genre. It's the other side of the conversation.

Back to the rhetoric thing, I'd suggest a phrasing in which you first define the post-9/11 genre, and then describe the genre that reacts to that genre, and then ask for a name for genre #2. I.e. "'Post-9/11' is the genre that advocates hysterical jackassery and constitutional rapine. Recent work that argues against that, and in favor of restraint and good government--what genre would that be?"

I think to correctly name the second genre, you need a better name for the first one, though (not saying "post-9/11" as a genre name is your fault, just that it doesn't age well. Like modern/post-modern/now what?)

[lpetrazickis.livejournal.com]

"What do you call books that are reacting to the reaction to 9/11?"

Repetition is more commonly used for emphasis than for double negation. I would stress that the reactions are separate, possibly saying "counter-reacting" instead.

That is, post-9/11 I got books that argued e.g. that what America really needs to protect itself from the deadly menace of weaponized squirrel brains is a secret service not bound to answer to anyone, especially elected officials.

"Post-9/11" with a hyphen is adjectival. "After 9/11" is clearer.

If you are not introducing a parenthetical clause, don't use "e.g."

"from the deadly menace of weaponized squirrel brains" is wordy fluff.

Basically, both ends of the sentence are necessary to read it correctly, but the bit in the middle gets in the way.

Now I'm seeing material that suggest that perhaps oversight is useful and fanatical devotion to the pope national security above all else may have draw backs.

Many people missed this sentence. Paragraphs usually contain a single idea, and the previous sentence could have been misparsed due to its opaque irony.

[dewline.livejournal.com]

We already have that show.

[galbinus-caeli.livejournal.com]

s/SF/literature/