Why genre conventions are not necessarily bad

[james_davis_nicoll]

Actually, I suspect it comes down to the idea that you can't have genres at all unless you have conventions but if there's a coherent line of argument here, it is gelling more slowly than my "why polyamory is like SPI's _The Campaigns of North Africa_" idea.

Comments

[jonquil.livejournal.com]

I finish a book by Grockle Herring. I go to the bookseller and say "I want another book by Grockle Herring." The nice bookseller says, "Well, you might like Sparrow Halibut instead; go to our Fish Lit section." I find this a satisfactory course of events; others may differ.

There are obvious flaws -- one person's "Just like Georgette Heyer" is another's "Obvious Piece of Tripe". Similarly, I think Laurell K. Hamilton and Charlaine Harris and MaryJanice Davidson (heroines Anita Blake, Sookie Stackhouse, and Betsy Taylor, respectively) are aiming at the same set of readers, yet one is shelved in either SF or horror, one in mystery, and one in romance. I still believe that genre solves as many problems as it causes.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

Hmmm; is this why some people think that genre literature is inferior to "real" literature? Because they *do* think conventions are always bad?

Mind you, some of the same people are very fond of traditional poetry, say, which has strict conventions beyond any genre of literature (about form, not so much content).

[oldsma.livejournal.com]

I think it has to do with the language (the symbols to what-I-mean mapping) and what is considered "incorporated by reference", as they say in the US Government contracting business.

MAO

[caprine.livejournal.com]

Why is polyamory like SPI's _The Campaigns of North Africa_?

Also, check out Jay Lake's Handy Guide to Genre Distinctions.