Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Zeja Zensi Copes's avatar

I think the genre conversation falls flat so often because it focuses too much on the stuff - the werewolves, fairies, aliens and whatnot - and not what that stuff is used for. And that’s...not very useful analysis, as an author or a reader.

You can claim that you’re a horror writer because you’re into haunted houses, fine, but that still doesn’t tell me what kind of horror writer you are. What’s your artistic lineage? A story in conversation with Stephen King would be very different from one in conversation with Ursula K. LeGuin. Genre hot takes seem like just that; hot takes, not analysis.

I went to art school (the jokes write themselves) and we couldn’t just slap ‘postmodern’ onto everything we made. We had to actually name specific periods and micro-trends in our work, no matter how stupid or obscure. I don’t know why writers are so averse to doing the same.

All of this to say that I really appreciate you and Chiang making these thoughtful observations. They’re very much needed!

Expand full comment
Sharif Islam's avatar

Ted Chiang is amazing. Thanks for the wring this.

I think any "taxonomy" -- either it is fiction, music or species classification -- has a dual implication. At one side, a rigid boundary. We humans like to categorise, put things in their places when on the other side, we know they can move from one place to another very easily. I think you summed it up here nicely, "genre taxonomies are useful for writers only insomuch as they the reveal story possibilities".

Expand full comment
13 more comments...

No posts