The problem with writing short responses is that I can't add the usual qualifiers I prefer. But the fantasy/SF label I don't think "stings." If anything, it's a rather complex label association in which there are "purists" who frown in disdain whenever an author whose works do not fit into neat typologies (say, mágico realismo) tries to develop further labels in an attempt not to "escape" a genre, but rather to define such as being closer to what that author has attempted to achieve.



So you're claiming semantic shift there in what "genre" constitutes? Not denying that for some, that has occurred, but considering what I've been reading in lit journals recently (Conjunctions, Alaska Quarterly Review, Ninth Letter, Southern Review among others), I would have to note that there are quite a few journal editors out there today who appear to be viewing "genre" as being more neutral than the "derivative" or "light" labels that you employ here. Pick up a copy of Conjunctions 52: Betwixt the Between: Impossible Realism and note the authors and how they (self)define their career paths, their stories, and so forth. It isn't a clear-cut "genre is light, derivative in approach." Rather, it would appear to make more sense to argue that genre (of various sorts) refers to types of stories that utilize certain elements. Some might be devoid of depth or originality,but as an aggregate, genres reflect human interests and several examples serve as exemplary models of how these various story types appeal to various material cultures.

Also, cannot let you off lightly with that comment of "tipping off". Oh, then are you arguing that there is a non-genre form of literature? One that has no typological features? One that cannot be classified in with other stories that might share certain features? After all, "genre" ultimately is but "genus," no?



I haven't forgotten, just as I have one in cultural history (which meant I had to analyze too many texts for their subtexts and cultural commentaries). But critical theory? That's where all the (almost-pointless) fun is, no?



I could have, but that would have removed certain nuances from my argument that I wanted to remain there. I am not merely talking about one form of storytelling, but two. Not only that, but that while there might be two conceived prose forms (mimetic and speculative), there are those stories that float on the perimeters of both and have to be considered in a fashion that does not condemn them to a binary approach. I actually said quite a bit inside that sentence, so it was quite economical for those willing to unpack it Now as to whether or not it was elegant/simple, that's beside the point here! The point revolves around a fuzzy set of interpretations of what constitutes mimetic/speculative prose and whether or not works can a) be divided along those twin axes and b) if a qualitative argument can be made about such works divided into either category that touches upon not just the individual works, but also the aggregate.

I would argue that it is folly to employ a rigid binary model, in part because despite the typological similarities that would lead a work to be placed into a grouping (speculative, mimetic, poetry, biography, critical analysis, etc.), there are so many other factors that work to undermine these surface similarities (how prose is employed, is characterization involved, are there inherent themes, etc.) that making a qualitative argument based on type seems to be taking a rather myopic approach to analysing literary types.