ŷ������

Come here to ask to which genre a book belongs and fight merrily discuss what the boundaries are between each subgenre!

that's like opening a can of worms or trying to herd cats

I go:

Sci-Fi/Fantasy
Mysteries/Thrillers
Romance
Literature/Other/whatever
Non Fiction (and this is where i want more structure)

I don't care about hard lines between Sci-Fi and Fantasy

So Jane Austen and Louis L'Amour and Dave Barry and Walt Whitman go in the same box? That'd actually be pretty funny, though, really....

I dunno. I think I like finer labels when they fit, like "literary SF" for Time Traveler's Wife, or "Sword&Sorcery" for the stuff I don't like.

And if there's no label that fits well, then never mind. Talk about the book; don't just box it in.

Besides, what really bugs me is lumping all Non-Fiction together, and all Children's together....

Cheryl wrote: "So Jane Austen and Louis L'Amour and Dave Barry and Walt Whitman go in the same box? That'd actually be pretty funny, though, really....

I dunno. I think I like finer labels when they fit, like "l..."

I would seriously hate to open that box after moving. It would be a partial nightmare happening. Might have to put a Do not open-label, return to the library.

Cheryl wrote: "So Jane Austen and Louis L'Amour and Dave Barry and Walt Whitman go in the same box? That'd actually be pretty funny, though, really....

I dunno. I think I like finer labels when they fit, like "l..."

They already do on Amazon, they're just subdivided under that into: Classics (Austin), Westerns (L'Amour), Humor (Barry) and Whitman would be under the Non-fiction Poetry classification

If you go into any library (physical), you will see Austin & Barry lumped together in Fiction, there may be a separate Westerns section (often there isn't and they are lumped into Fiction) and there is usually a Poetry section (tiny)

Non-Fiction is easy; you just go with what the book is about. You can string as many descriptors together as you want in order to parse it more finely.

If it’s about the past, it’s a History. If it’s about a specific person, it’s a Biography. If it’s about a specific event, such as a war or a World’s Fair or a horse race, it’s a Narrow History. If it’s about a sweeping overview, it’s a Big History. (I didn’t coin these terms.)

If the History is about a specific industry then it falls under whatever that industry focuses on. Hollywood? Entertainment. Formula One? Sports. NASA? Science or Technology.

My friend Margie writes about classic Hollywood actresses, so she writes History: Entertainment Biography. Something like Hidden Figures: The Untold True Story of Four African-American Women Who Helped Launch Our Nation into Space would be History: Science Biography.

Seabiscuit: An American Legend is History: Biography Sports Animals. So is Arthur: The dog who crossed the jungle to find a home. So just add “horse�� and “dog�� to distinguish further.

Non-Fiction gets fun when the book is about two or more things.

I think it is a wonder of 'tags' that remedies 1 book = 1 genre, because you can give as many specific tags as you want. Shelves are the thing of the past, cloud is the answer :)

CBRetriever wrote: "Cheryl wrote: "So Jane Austen and Louis L'Amour and Dave Barry and Walt Whitman go in the same box? That'd actually be pretty funny, though, really....

I dunno. I think I like finer labels when th..."

It makes me crazy that the library doesn’t sort out the genres!! One of the bigger libraries sorts Mystery out from all other fiction and they have paperbacks separate from hardbacks, new releases separate from old, YA separate from adult, but otherwise all adult fiction is lumped together. The YA section of the library has it all neatly sorted into mystery, “realistic��, Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Paranormal. Why is it so hard to separate the Sci-Fi and Fantasy from the Literature, Romance, Historical Fiction and classics?

It wasn’t always like this either. I remember when everything was separate. It makes me crazy because browsing is so difficult. If I want to discover something new in a certain genre I have to look at everything.

One of the libraries I patronize is a main library for the system and does have genre separation. The other is a branch in a double wide trailer because no money was appropriated to build a new branch . The branch doesn't have genre separation, but I never browse there. I only pick up holds.

I tend to think in terms of sub-genres for the genres that I read most, but sub-genres tend to be in flux. I'm continually learning of new ones. Just this morning I saw a post on another group about a sub-genre I've never seen mentioned.

Sarah, CBRetriever, my favorite library system 'tags' adult fiction (and probably YA and Juvenile, too) with spine stickers. Barry gets a sticker that symbolizes humor (unless it's one of his books that the cataloguer decides to give a bio/memoir sticker). L'Amor gets a sticker with a 'Western" icon, Austen gets "classic," etc. But they all go on the same shelves.

My current library shelves bio/memoir separately, alphabetical by subject. Other than that, adults and YA get fiction/non-fiction, tyvm.

But don't get me started on the easy/juvenile! Picture-books by author. Easy non-fiction. Juvenile non-fiction. Leveled readers fiction. Leveled readers non-fiction. And the same thing all over again for readers of Spanish. I request any of those online and make staff figure it out, and only browse if I have serious time to kill.

Dean Koontz is my favorite example of un-boxable.
Horror? SF? Mystery? If you have separate shelves for each genre, a fan of his work would have to go to all three shelves!

My favorite author is Michael Perry. His books are a mix of memoir, philosophy, humor, and also whatever the blurb says they're about. And they're written in beautiful, almost poetic language. Non-fiction... but d'd if Dewey can tell us where to find Population: 485 or Montaigne in Barn Boots: An Amateur Ambles Through Philosophy!

@Cheryl one of my smaller libraries has the spine stickers, but the bigger one does not. The worst part is the amount of unused empty shelf space they have (we’re talking entire aisles). It just seems lazy to me.

Dean Koontz is a good example! His Jane Hawk series is part sci-fi part thriller and I wouldn’t even know which one is the “primary�� genre.

Another one like him is Michael Crichton. I know a lot of people consider him science fiction (with good reason) but to me he’s always been Horror first, science fiction second.

I’ve also read a couple of Jeff Vandermeer’s books this year, and I think he has an argument for sci-fi horror as well.

“If there’s a zeppelin, it’s alternate history. If there’s a rocketship, it’s science fiction. If there are swords and/or horses, it’s fantasy. A book with swords and horses in it can be turned into science fiction by adding a rocketship to the mix. If a book has a rocketship in it, the only thing that can turn it back into fantasy is the Holy Grail.��

�� Debra Doyle

Genre's were designed for marketing purposes to help the reader more easily find what they like the bookseller sell more books. Because of the way shelving works you can only have a book in one section at a time...unless you buy two of them so you have to at the end of the day decide where to place it.

But we have ALGORITHMS!!! now and online marketplaces, and even when people are shopping in a physical store they are often referencing online resources. So a more accurate method is tagging(shelving on GR is a form of tagging), where a book instead of being part of 1 group of books is now part of several groups and the more groups that the book has that match with the users preferences combined with similar taste checks can provide a much more accurate assessment of what a user would like to buy.

Now you might ask...but how does this help me put things in boxes...I like boxes...I like boxes too, but it's inaccurate. You can still have fun by arguing what tags actually belong and the exact definition of tags/genres in general, and the creation of new tags/genres.

Mary wrote: "“If there’s a zeppelin, it’s alternate history. If there’s a rocketship, it’s science fiction. If there are swords and/or horses, it’s fantasy. A book with swords and horses in it can be turned into science fiction by adding a rocketship to the mix. If a book has a rocketship in it, the only thing that can turn it back into fantasy is the Holy Grail.��

�� Debra Doyle"

I like this

I'm one of those people who will sub-sub-sub category a book into the smallest box possible.

Example: Twilight
Genre: Romance
Sub: PNR
Sub: YA


Example: Fifty Shades of Grey
Genre: Romance
Sub: Erotic
Sub: BDSM

Example: Burn for Me
Genre: Romance
Sub: Fantasy
Sub: Urban

Cheryl wrote: "Dean Koontz is my favorite example of un-boxable.
Horror? SF? Mystery? If you have separate shelves for each genre, a fan of his work would have to go to all three shelves!..."

Isaac Asimov is the only author to have written at least one book for each section of the Dewey Decimal System. Three shelves? Pshaw. Try ALL THE SHELVES.

Sarah wrote: "Dean Koontz is a good example! His Jane Hawk series is part sci-fi part thriller and I wouldn’t even know which one is the “primary�� genre."

I consider the genre hierarchy to go like this: Fantasy > Science Fiction > Everything Else.

So if a Police Procedural has a laser gun in it, it becomes Science Fiction Police Procedural. If it has a wizard firing that laser gun, it becomes Fantasy Police Procedural.

Using movies as examples:

Alien is Science Fiction Horror.

The Exorcist is Fantasy Horror.

Event Horizon is Fantasy Horror. Despite taking place in the future onboard a spaceship, it features supernatural demons. Fantasy trumps SF, so.... (It’s also one of the worst movies ever made, but that’s a separate discussion. :p)

Back to the Future 3 is Science Fiction Western.

High Plains Drifter is Fantasy Western.

... I can’t think of a movie Western that has both SF and Fantasy elements off the top of my head. Maybe some of the new TV series like “Winona Earp�� which are Contemporary Westerns with high tech stuff + demons. (No, Firefly is not a SF Western any more than Star Wars is.)

Separate sections for fiction are a personal bugbear. Put it all together rather than leaving me wondering how exactly this library separates its books out.

Don't even get me started on separate sections for non-fiction though... I've fallen afoul twice recently in library branches that split out non-fiction by some type of topic (biographies in one, all sorts of sub-categories in another) on top of Dewey Decimal. Looking for 919.89 is useless if they aren't all together.

Aaron wrote: "Genre's were designed for marketing purposes to help the reader more easily find what they like the bookseller sell more books. Because of the way shelving works you can only have a book in one sec..."

I wish people would stop saying this. Genres were NOT invented as marketing tools. In fact, genres were invented thousands of years ago before marketing as we know it existed. Even before *books* existed.

Some modern genres such as YA and NA are purely marketing gimmicks, but you can always tell which ones those are because they are useless descriptors.

Mary wrote: "“If there’s a zeppelin, it’s alternate history. If there’s a rocketship, it’s science fiction. If there are swords and/or horses, it’s fantasy. A book with swords and horses in it can be turned int..."

I’m gonna pop over to Deb and Jim’s house and tell her people are using her cheeky description as truth. :p

Trike wrote: "Mary wrote: "“If there’s a zeppelin, it’s alternate history. If there’s a rocketship, it’s science fiction. If there are swords and/or horses, it’s fantasy. A book with swords and horses in it can ..."

0:)

Too many choices. I think I will stick to the tried and true ones I use. Like, Dislike and need to get the real thing.
That is what you get for asking the old person. LOL

Donald wrote: "Separate sections for fiction are a personal bugbear. Put it all together rather than leaving me wondering how exactly this library separates its books out."

YES! This has been bothering me lately. I've had a long standing pet peeve about people who say "oh I never read fantasy" or "I avoid horror" without actually reading anything of the genre. Or my least favorite of all "it was good for YA" - which implies that young adult books aren't great on average (which is arguable)... so we're marketing mediocre books to young people? That makes no sense. But this pet peeve has been developing into actively not caring about the "genre wars" at all: I just want to read good books!

Of course people have preferred genres (she writes in a SFF group), but sometimes I wish we would go back to the simple "good books" and "bad books" dichotomy. Or "well written" and "poorly written". "Made me think" vs. "was total fluff". Those can happen in any genre, sub-genre, etc. etc.

Donald wrote: "Separate sections for fiction are a personal bugbear. Put it all together rather than leaving me wondering how exactly this library separates its books out."

You only say that because you haven't experienced it.

My closest local library separates only by:
- Fiction (alphabetical order by author)
- Large Print Fiction (sometimes but its often mixed in with fiction)
- Non-Fiction
- Comics/graphic novels
- Children (not YA but small children)
- Audio books

It's a hot mess. You can't find anything, you're just randomly looking at shelves. IF you know what you're looking for, you're golden. If you don't? Well...

Mostly, I no longer browse the library shelves. I order books online for pick up. It's too messy and I can never just wander in and find a book I want to read. I'm not one to just randomly read anything.

“Hello, library, I’m in the mood fo-��

“It’s over there.��

“What is?��

“Everything. We organized the books like your hoarder aunt’s basement. Good luck!��

Trike wrote: "“Hello, library, I’m in the mood fo-��

“It’s over there.��

“What is?��

“Everything. We organized the books like your hoarder aunt’s basement. Good luck!��"


Yesssssss! It's exactly like that - except all the spines face out, lol.

Francisca wrote: "Or my least favorite of all "it was good for YA" - which implies that young adult books aren't great on average (which is arguable)... so we're marketing mediocre books to young people? That makes no sense."

Not worse, but different. There are YA masterpieces that can be read by all ages but there are some "adult" books that just wouldn't interest the majority of children/teenagers. And reading what you don't like is a nice way to make you stop reading when the habit hasn't formed yet.

Pandora's Box in 3...2....1....

Oleksandr wrote: "Not worse, but different. There are YA masterpieces that can be read by all ages but there are some "adult" books that just wouldn't interest the majority of children/teenagers. And reading what you don't like is a nice way to make you stop reading when the habit hasn't formed yet."

And yet, "Good for a YA" implies quality, not difference. A good book is a good book, no matter the age range.

MrsJoseph wrote: "And yet, "Good for a YA" implies quality, not difference. A good book is a good book, no matter the age range. "

Now let's define a good book: it is inherently subjective. I'm just a few months in reading clubs/groups on GR and already saw a lot of books getting either 2 or 5 stars.

However, books are often aimed for a specific audiences and this is fine with me. One may like SF or History or Self-help or all or none. It doesn't make these books bad

Yeah... as a fairly regular YA reader, I always twitch at the "good for a YA" book, or the "not your usually YA book".

Like - how many effing adult books are "usual [genre] type books" or "good for a [type of book]", but for some reason it's usually YA that's treated as the red-headed stepchild with the occasional rare gems, when every genre ever is mostly pablum with a few gems.

Or, as Sturgeon would have it:



***

Anyhoo -

I don't mind places lumping all the genres together IF they use those spine stickers, but I think they should use more than one. Like, go ahead of use fantasy and detective stickers - but they usually opt for just one sticker.

***

As for the "I don't read horror", or whatever... I agree that I would prefer that people give a genre a shot before dismissing it, but I also think it's normal to have preferences.

I don't tend to read procedural books unless there's magic involved.

I don't like a lot of real-life "literary" type books, and I've taken to avoiding epic fantasy.

If you're just avoiding a genre out of a sense of snobbery, then, yeah, screw you guys. But if something's just not your cuppa? There's enough books in the world to be selective...

Oleksandr wrote: "Now let's define a good book: it is inherently subjective. I'm just a few months in reading clubs/groups on GR and already saw a lot of books getting either 2 or 5 stars.

However, books are often aimed for a specific audiences and this is fine with me. One may like SF or History or Self-help or all or none. It doesn't make these books bad"

While "good book" is subjective, it is a statement of quality.

"Good for a YA" is a statement of quality and an insult rolled into one. Soooooo, saying "different" is not the same as saying "good for a YA." You are conflating two different things.

colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "If you're just avoiding a genre out of a sense of snobbery, then, yeah, screw you guys. But if something's just not your cuppa? There's enough books in the world to be selective..."

This.

And I put statements like "good for a YA" in this category of "screw you guys."

MrsJoseph wrote: ""Good for a YA" is a statement of quality and an insult rolled into one. Soooooo, saying "different" is not the same as saying "good for a YA." You are conflating two different things. "

Exactly.

Because what it implies is "Most YA is definitionally crap, but this - THIS - actually isn't that bad".

colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "If you're just avoiding a genre out of a sense of snobbery, then, yeah, screw you guys. But if something's just not your cuppa? There's enough books in the world to be selective... "

I’ve probably mentioned this somewhere before but it bears repeating:

While watching a YouTube discussion about Lord of the Rings, one of the guys, a university professor, related how his colleagues routinely dismissed the books as unimportant despite having never read them. It’s the same as dismissing James Joyce because he’s “just an Irish author.��

A rule my mom always had about food, “At least try it,�� applies to everything. You never know if you’ll like something until you try it. If you haven’t tried it then you don’t get to say you don’t like it. (I mean, within reason. Don’t try crack. Let’s not be stupid.)

For instance, there isn’t a single movie genre where I don’t like any examples of it. Name a genre and I can name 3 movies that I absolutely love in that genre. I certainly have my preferences. I will always choose a Science Fiction movie over a weepy melodrama, but there are some melodramas that I adore. The only reason I know that is because I tried it.

Oops, I didn't mean to derail the conversation - though I completely agree with Mrs Joseph and Colleen!

To maybe get back to the OT: What I was trying to say was yes, genre is a useful categorization of books, we all have things we prefer to read or not read, and there's something to be said about the "history" of a certain genre (the first fantasy novel to do xx) or the tropes/resemblances between books. It's helpful to find new things we might like, when we know that it's in a box with other things we like.

BUT, I think we sometimes get too caught up in putting books in boxes. I'm think, as an example, of the conversation in the current poll about whether or not The Underground Railroad is SciFi. Some part of me wants to just say "who cares!?". If it's a book that's well-written, has engaging characters and ideas, is entertaining, makes us think about what life is all about... or some subset of those, then I'm happy to read it. If it's none of those things, I for one wouldn't want to read it, no matter what box it belongs in.

That said, I do pretty much read a bit of everything (except horror, actually, because I like to be able to sleep at night... :P), so maybe that's why I find the whole boxification of fiction annoying.

Trike wrote: "While watching a YouTube discussion about Lord of the Rings, one of the guys, a university professor, related how his colleagues routinely dismissed the books as unimportant despite having never read them. It’s the same as dismissing James Joyce because he’s “just an Irish author.��

A rule my mom always had about food, “At least try it,�� applies to everything. You never know if you’ll like something until you try it. If you haven’t tried it then you don’t get to say you don’t like it. (I mean, within reason. Don’t try crack. Let’s not be stupid.)

For instance, there isn’t a single movie genre where I don’t like any examples of it. Name a genre and I can name 3 movies that I absolutely love in that genre. I certainly have my preferences. I will always choose a Science Fiction movie over a weepy melodrama, but there are some melodramas that I adore. The only reason I know that is because I tried it. "

+1

I would add that I think the best books in each genre usually transcend their genre... because people just want good stories! To take your example, I have so many friends who "don't really read fantasy" (their words not mine) but love Tolkein.

Francisca wrote: "I'm think, as an example, of the conversation in the current poll about whether or not The Underground Railroad is SciFi. Some part of me wants to just say "who cares!?""

The reason I care is that I read it expecting scifi, and was disappointed when it wasn't what I expected. If it was introduced to me in another way, I would have gone in with different expectations, and chosen to read it when I wasn't in the mood for scifi.

It's my own fault, because I choose not to read too much about any book before I start it. If I'd read at least one review, I'd have known. So I'm not blaming anyone, just saying that putting a book into a genre box generates expectations, which in this case were not met.

colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "If you're just avoiding a genre out of a sense of snobbery, then, yeah, screw you guys. But if something's just not your cuppa? There's enough books in the world to be selective... ..."

Exactly. Thank you.

I also think that Francisca's point about "transcends genre" bears repeating. I used to do a better job of mentioning that in my reviews and am thankful for the reminder to do so now... but lemme say, if a book doesn't have a more universal appeal, I'm *very* unlikely to give it five stars.

I probably have a wider array of movie genres than book genres, tbh, because movies require so much less of a commitment , but TV shows I tend to be more genre-bound about and don't go outside of my comfort zones too often.

***

I'm sort of weird about the whole genre box thing.

On one hand, I'm much more mellow about it than some people... but I get really weary of a) book discussions turning into genre wars and b) people insisting that their personal definition/line of where a genre stops and starts is the end-all-and-be-all understanding of what that genre should be.

On the other hand, I have my own quirks when it comes to genres. Mainly subgenres.

Like steampunk. There is SO MUCH that gets call steampunk that I, personally, would not consider steampunk and it makes me twitch, mostly because I think it's often driven by marketing gone awry.

Steampunk was all the rage for awhile, so every book that even remotely looked marginally technological but in the past was pasted as STEAMPUNK!

Ugh, no. Magi-tech is NOT steampunk. I mean, it's awesome, don't get me wrong, but could we not ?


But I'm also totally okay with embracing "science fantasy", and not getting wrapped up in how much science has to be in science fiction, or how much magic in fantasy, or whatever.

Anna wrote: "The reason I care is that I read it expecting scifi, and was disappointed when it wasn't what I expected. If it was introduced to me in another way, I would have gone in with different expectations, and chosen to read it when I wasn't in the mood for scifi."


This is a totally important point, and why I really don't understand misleading marketing.

I don't even mean the whole genre wars and how some things could be considered one thing by some people, and a different thing by other people, because there's always going to be a level of subjectivity, especially for the cross-genre stuff.

BUT -

Thwarted expectations are really important, and you'd think marketers would've learned at some point. But I guess they don't care about the eventual fallout if the initial hype gets people talking?

As a for instance, I'm gonna use a movie, because it's the first example that came to mind - The Return.

It was marketed as a horror/ghost story, and so many people didn't like it because it wasn't scary and there weren't any ghosts... It's more of a supernatural mystery/romance, tbh, and I thought it was actually a decent movie, but because it was nothing like what people were expecting from the trailers and marketing, they couldn't help but be annoyed/disappointed.

Anna wrote: "The reason I care is that I read it expecting scifi, and was disappointed when it wasn't what I expected. If it was introduced to me in another way, I would have gone in with different expectations, and chosen to read it when I wasn't in the mood for scifi.

It's my own fault, because I choose not to read too much about any book before I start it. If I'd read at least one review, I'd have known. So I'm not blaming anyone, just saying that putting a book into a genre box generates expectations, which in this case were not met"

I agree with this!

I am a genre reader - it's what I love. That's not saying I won't read outside my preferred genre, but I have preferences.

So, if I pick up a book expecting spaceships and I get horses, I'm irritated and likely not to enjoy the read as much.

One great example of this, for me, is Wuthering Heights. When I was introduced to WH, I was told it was one of literature's great Gothic Romances. And this was by an English teacher. Being specific, she did not mean Romantic Literature but Romance.

WH is not Romance and I hated it. If she had told me it was a character study (which is the only way I can force my way through it), I would have entered the read with difference expectations.

Also, it reminds me why I hate it when non-genre readers try to force some "literary" genre reads on you. Because they are concerned about your brain. Ugh. I read what I like for fun.

colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "This is a totally important point, and why I really don't understand misleading marketing."

YES!

And its one reason (besides my OCD, of course) that I hate it when I see incorrect genres. AND why I hate it that Romance has been so conflated with other genres. AND why I hate GR's crowd sourcing.

They.
Are.
All.
WRONG.

MrsJoseph wrote: "YES!

And its one reason (besides my OCD, of course) that I hate it when I see incorrect genres. AND why I hate it that Romance has been so conflated with other genres. AND why I hate GR's crowd sourcing."


This always reminds me of when Twilight was first a huge thing and people seemed to expect that I would read it and when I told them no, gods no, oh hell no, they'd be like, "Why not? It's a vampire book."

"It's not a vampire book. It's a teen romance book with pseudo-vampire characters."

I’ve sort of been lurking on this thread. Interesting comments so far! I agree with lots of what’s been said about a good book being a good book. I’d like to think I read across a few different genres even if I have SFF as my go to.

Mis/False marketing can definitely be an issue but I always read blurbs and sometimes a review or two before deciding I want to read something. A book can have all the five star reviews, be hailed as a classic, etc. but if the blurb or the content is something I don’t want to read about- I’m not going to read it which is why I sort of depend on those.

I get more annoyed when the blurb is misleading rather than the genre. As someone above me said- romance tries to sneak it in all the time. I started one last year that I thought was like a mystery/Fantasy/historical fiction blend but then they started commenting on the tension in the room, the color of eyes, the shape of hips and I hung it up. Not anything against romance, it just wasn’t what I was wanting to read at that moment.

As for the “good for YA�� stuff. I’ll apologize. I’ve probably said this a time or two. I don’t mean it as “the rest of the genre is mediocre��. I mean it as “I’m not the intended audience or target for this book and I enjoyed it anyway.��

And this certainly isn’t said only about YA. I’ve seen people apply it everywhere. Whether done out of snobbery or mean it more as I said above, YA isn’t alone in this. I just think since the huge success of Twilight, The Hunger Games, etc. YA is becoming very popular so it’s more prevalent/obvious.

I’m happy if people are reading and more books are being written. It really doesn’t matter what a person enjoys. I’d even give 50 Shades a thumbs up if it renewed interest in reading and spurred people to find better examples of the genre.

Anyway- point taken!

Francisca wrote: "That said, I do pretty much read a bit of everything (except horror, actually, because I like to be able to sleep at night... :P), so maybe that's why I find the whole boxification of fiction annoying. "

Oh, I’ve got a good book you will love. It’s about a family that moves to a lovely scenic area when the dad gets a temporary job that will allow him time to work on his novel. The mom and young son bond more closely as some secrets come out, but they meet interesting, quirky new people and have indelible adventures. It’s called The Shining.

Re: the setting of expectations and why genres are important.

In the Space Opera thread that spawned this one, I mentioned how I was told that the movie The Great Waldo Pepper was a comedy.

This is a film about barnstormers and it features such hilarious scenes as Robert Redford’s girlfriend plummeting to her death during a wingwalking stunt and the dad from Gilmore Girls being trapped in the burning wreckage of his biplane, so Redford has to use a board to beat him to death so he doesn’t burn alive. A real hoot, that one.

If you’re looking for something in particular and you get something else, you’re going to feel cheated. It’s nearly impossible to experience something with no preconceived notions whatsoever. Maybe random channel surfing until you land on a show that piques your interest, but when you actively seek something out and get sold a bill of goods, it usually doesn’t matter how good something is if it isn’t what you expected or wanted.

Trike wrote: "Re: the setting of expectations and why genres are important.

In the Space Opera thread that spawned this one, I mentioned how I was told that the movie The Great Waldo Pepper was a comedy.

This is a film about barnstormers and it features such hilarious scenes as Robert Redford’s girlfriend plummeting to her death during a wingwalking stunt and the dad from Gilmore Girls being trapped in the burning wreckage of his biplane, so Redford has to use a board to beat him to death so he doesn’t burn alive. A real hoot, that one.

If you’re looking for something in particular and you get something else, you’re going to feel cheated. It’s nearly impossible to experience something with no preconceived notions whatsoever. Maybe random channel surfing until you land on a show that piques your interest, but when you actively seek something out and get sold a bill of goods, it usually doesn’t matter how good something is if it isn’t what you expected or wanted. "



QFT