# Does Indie reality free the writer from trad pub "rules"?



## Guest (May 28, 2012)

Long ago and far away on another planet (could have been Uranus) there was an interesting thread here about Romance genre books by definition having happily ever after endings (HEA). While I have no desire to rekindle (no pun) that glorious debate where I argued that those old strictures no longer need apply, the question of such "rules" has stuck with me. It is simply this:

*Does or will the Indie revolution in publishing transform or discard the trad publisher "Rules" about genre to any extent? *

We know many cross genre books are e-published and many have discarded rules and expectations once set by publishers and fed to readers until publishers could blame readers for them. *"No ma'am--we can't publish your romance novel because the heroine dies in the end, " or, "...because she sleeps with the guy's brother," * or whatever citation of the stone tablet of publishing said.

Not reserved to those Harlequin type pulps we used to see by the checkout stand, the idea of hard & fast "rules" for a given genre came down from Olympus for many genres, from Westerns, to murder mysteries, to Sci Fi. And, they're still with us today, as many Indies still swear allegiance to them. But are Indies also rewriting these "laws", allowing and leading readers in another path? Is it for the better?

So the question becomes, are these rules still inviolable? Do indies unwittingly carry them on?


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

I think that depends on the rule. I do think that if you label a book romance and it doesn't have an HEA, you're asking for a s#$% storm of angry readers. Women's fiction covers a woman's story that does not require an HEA. If I picked up a book clearly labeled Romance and the heroine died at the end, I would likely never read that author again. The rules were not only about suits in corporate offices seeking to control and vet the masses. They were about what readers had come to expect. I'm not interested in retraining all the readers in the world. That's a thankless, unpaid job. 

PS. Those Harlequins are still on the shelves near many checkout counters.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

I think there are tons of niche markets waiting to be exploited profitably by indies who have different number requirements than publishers. I also think that genres change over time, blurring, merging, and morphing into new forms, and that indie books are likely to accelerate these trends by serving as laboratories for experimentation. I also think that some rules have developed organically and are unlikely to change quickly, if at all.

So, uhm...maybe?


----------



## heavycat (Feb 14, 2011)

Any work that does not pay homage to the requisite tropes will be savaged by critics as "unmarketable" and fail utterly.  The default position of the critics will be 'this is neither fish nor fowl."

See any discussion of effective book covers for proof.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

The old rules made sense because some bookstore clerk had to stick the book on a specific shelf under a specific sign. People searched for what they wanted by walking to the shelf, standing in front of it, and looking at the books. With limited shelf space, those signed shelves worked pretty well.

With no shelves, there is far less reason to adhere to the shelf rules. With nobody to enforce the shelf rules, there is even less reason to pay attention to them. 

Taxonomy follows the set of items being classified. The items have no reason to follow past classifications. It's up to the taxonomy to change if anyone cares.


----------



## AndreSanThomas (Jan 31, 2012)

There are certain conventions required in certain genre regardless of who publishes the book.  The indie thing, however, allows you to publish alongside those genres or around the corner from them and therefore buck those expectations without annoying the readers. So, for example, you CAN do an indie "romance" without a HEA and publish it, as long as you don't put it into the strictly "romance" category where the readers have rabid regimented rules and requirements.  You will draw some of those traditional romance readers and build your own following.  That's the freedom of self-pub.


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2012)




----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

Bucking the rules and conventions of publishing has landed me with nine completely unmarketable piles of crap.

Just because you're free to ignore the "rules", doesn't mean you necessarily _should_.


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2012)

George Berger said:


> Bucking the rules and conventions of publishing has landed me with nine completely unmarketable piles of crap.
> 
> Just because you're free to ignore the "rules", doesn't mean you necessarily _should_.


You just didn't break them with any _style._


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

sicklove said:


> You just didn't break them with any _style._


Damn, I'm always forgetting _something_. Plots, punctuation, dedications, character development, dialogue..._style_...


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2012)

George Berger said:


> d*mn, I'm always forgetting _something_. Plots, punctuation, dedications, character development, dialogue..._style_...


I bet people told Elvis he shouldn't shake his junk on the Ed Sullivan Show...


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Genre doesn't give a crap if a book's indie or trad. The definition of romance includes HEA, and always will. Lose the HEA, and it's mainstream or something else. The only thing the indies are bucking is the machine's insistance that in order for something to sell well, it has to fit into one of several loosely defined catagories. So, if someone wants to publish a 200k word long urban sci-fi romantic comedy drama with a historic twist, they can go ahead. Doesn't mean sci-fi, romance, or historic will suddenly be re-defined.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> Genre doesn't give a crap if a book's indie or trad. The definition of romance includes HEA, and always will. Lose the HEA, and it's mainstream or something else. The only thing the indies are bucking is the machine's insistance that in order for something to sell well, it has to fit into one of several loosely defined catagories. So, if someone wants to publish a 200k word long urban sci-fi romantic comedy drama with a historic twist, they can go ahead. Doesn't mean sci-fi, romance, or historic will suddenly be re-defined.


Precisely, and brilliantly put. You can do all sorts of things within the genre if you don't have to sell to agents and editors-- but the book still has to be within the genre. If it belongs in another genre, don't call it a romance, because readers will be perturbed.


----------



## Vivi_Anna (Feb 12, 2011)

You can break any 'rule' you want, doesn't mean readers are going to like it or buy it.

I think indie just opens doors to authors, to experiment, to write something different from their norm, to write as fast or as slow as they want.

But yes, as for romance, it has to have a HEA to be classified as a romance, or else you're writing something with romantic elements.

My book Hell Kat I classify as an erotic futuristic, but it has heavy romance in it.  But I don't consider it a romance at all because of the genre conventions I break in it.

My Nocturnes that I write for Harlequin ARE romances, the hero and heroine end up together at the end.  They don't necessarily get married or engaged but the idea of forever is there built into the story.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

I'm going to answer this as a reader, not a writer.

I don't like it when a book in a certain genre doesn't follow the rules.  Usually, it feels like the author doesn't know how to tell a good story.  If I read a romance, and there's no real romance or they don't stay together in the end, I'm like, "WTF? You jerk!  Why'd you trick me into reading this book?" Readers of romance expect romance!  And happy endings!  That's why we read 'em!  Who wants to read about getting dumped? We can do that in real life.  Books are escapes for many.

Some things can be a little different.  Okay, so your vampires sparkle.  That other author's vampires turn into dust.  Whatever.  But in the end, they drink blood and have to find a way to get along with humans one way or another.  If they all destroy the human race at the end, or they're all destroyed at the end, you'll get another WTF reaction from me.  And as someone else on the board said, I won't buy from that author again.

Thank goodness for reviews that warn me about crazy stuff like that.  Hate it.


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2012)

Maybe I want my book to feel like a brush of a cheese grater to the genitals


Is there an anti-romance category? Otherwise I will be subbing it as a romance. No real happy ending, but a positive one for the male character.


----------



## Benjamin A. (Oct 1, 2011)

Change only comes about when people choose to produce an alternative. Stating rules will never change is pretty presumtuous. The rules of the romance genre or any other genre are set by man, and therefore can absolutely change. We're not talking about gravity here.

Write it if that's the story you want to tell. I googled the whole romance thing (I don't read them) and many say they are expecting happy endings. I also found plenty of people who said they were tired of reading them though, because before they even read the first page they know whatever happens it will be happy at the end.

I certainly wouldn't read if I could always predict what was going to happen. That's no fun at all. Other genres have changed over time though, so I don't see what makes romance immune. Nothing in this world is immune to change. People will choose to write outside the conventional, and that act itself will change the conventional, just like self publishing has done in the publishing world.

Look at Galileo and what happened to him when he told the church the Earth was not the center of the universe. Just because the majority do not wish to accept something doesn't make it wrong. If the past is any indicator, the majority frequently turn out to be wrong. When someone writes the book that changes the rules of the romance genre, he or she will be laughing at the idea that it can't be done all the way to the bank. 

People are turned off initially by things that are different. That doesn't mean they don't find acceptance in time though. People believed television would fail against radio, because at the time radio was big and television was unheard of. It seems television did not fail at all though. People still believe ebooks will never amount to anything, which is also clearly untrue. The same is true of countless things throughout history. I say again, nothing in this world is immune to change, whether that be what makes the romance genre, or anything else.


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2012)

Change is the only constant.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

ellecasey said:


> I'm going to answer this as a reader, not a writer.
> 
> I don't like it when a book in a certain genre doesn't follow the rules. Usually, it feels like the author doesn't know how to tell a good story. If I read a romance, and there's no real romance or they don't stay together in the end, I'm like, "WTF? You jerk! Why'd you trick me into reading this book?" Readers of romance expect romance! And happy endings! That's why we read 'em! Who wants to read about getting dumped? We can do that in real life. Books are escapes for many.
> 
> Some things can be a little different. Okay, so your vampires sparkle. That other author's vampires turn into dust. Whatever. But in the end, they drink blood and have to find a way to get along with humans one way or another. If they all destroy the human race at the end, or they're all destroyed at the end, you'll get another WTF reaction from me. And as someone else on the board said, I won't buy from that author again.


As a reader, I'm the exact opposite. I seek books (genre or not) that depart as widely as possible from the rules. I get bored very quickly if I notice a plot or characters that look a little too familiar.

In a bookstore, if I see this happening in the first few pages of a book I'll put it down and walk away forever. I'll click away as if I've touched a hot potato if it's a Kindle preview. I like to be surprised and amused. Unless an author can recycle these old ideas with a twist or an abundance of verve or an unusual style, I'm not interested.

The vampire plots that you described as deal killers, I would actually find intriguing and would seek to read more by those authors.

As a writer, I break rules all the time. It probably costs me some readers, but those who appreciate a quirk or two seem to enjoy it.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> As a reader, I'm the exact opposite. I seek books (genre or not) that depart as widely as possible from the rules. I get bored very quickly if I notice a plot or characters that look a little too familiar.
> 
> In a bookstore, if I see this happening in the first few pages of a book I'll put it down and walk away forever. I'll click away as if I've touched a hot potato if it's a Kindle preview. I like to be surprised and amused. Unless an author can recycle these old ideas with a twist or an abundance of verve or an unusual style, I'm not interested.


I appreciate this. However, I would bet you don't generally read romance, right? I don't read romance unless someone tells me to read one because I always know what is going to happen. I thought my series could be romance when I first started and actually got decent reviews...but found out here that romance needs an HEA and the people monogamous...so I moved it to historical fiction and family saga instead of historical romance. Gastien was anything but monogamous. There is a strong love story, but now I understand that is different from a "romance".

Do I think I could have kept it there and broke the rules? Sure. I didn't for several reasons. 1. The books are just as geared for men as women and men don't generally pick up romances. 2. Many readers don't read romance because they know what is going to happen, so those people will assume my book is just like the rest in romance and not buy it and 3. Those who do read romance and are sticklers for following the rules will possibly leave me 1 star reviews and spoilers, and tell people not to buy the book. Call me a coward, but I just did not want to alienate men or any readers. Romance sells better though, so perhaps I would have been smarter to leave it and deal with the consequences. Who knows.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

ellecasey said:


> I'm going to answer this as a reader, not a writer.
> I don't like it when a book in a certain genre doesn't follow the rules. Usually, it feels like the author doesn't know how to tell a good story. If I read a romance, and there's no real romance or they don't stay together in the end, I'm like, "WTF? You jerk! *Why'd you trick me into reading this book?*"... And as someone else on the board said, I won't buy from that author again.


I think Elle nailed it with this, especially the part I bolded. Trust is a huge part of the relationship between author and reader, and if the author violates that trust by what is, in essense, false advertising, they can't really expect to keep their readers coming back for more. Of course an author can break the rules if they want to, but it's probably best to look very carefully at what rules they want to break, and why, before they choose to do so.


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2012)

ShayneHellerman said:


> they can't really expect to keep their readers coming back for more.


You always hurt the ones you love


----------



## Catana (Mar 27, 2012)

I'm a niche writer and I make my own rules. That makes it harder to find an audience, but my first book, which I've never been able to squeeze into any of the genre labels, sells slowly and steadily. The sequel sells fewer copies, but enough to tell me I'm making somebody happy.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

sicklove said:


> You always hurt the ones you love


Which is fine, as long as you're not counting on making the car payment with the money from your writing career.

If people want to take risks and break rules that's certainly up to them. But if they never manage to have a successful career because they're writing 'romance' where the heroine dies in the end (or some other broken convention of your choice) they won't be have a lot of room to complain, either.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

Yes. We are free from all the rules.

With this freedom comes obscurity.

To find your own personal definition of success as a self-publisher you have to figure out the new rules of the game.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> Maybe I want my book to feel like a brush of a cheese grater to the genitals


I'm going to go out on a limb and say that probably wouldn't be classified as a romance. 



> Stating rules will never change is pretty presumtuous. The rules of the romance genre or any other genre are set by man, and therefore can absolutely change. We're not talking about gravity here.


Granted. The romance genre has only been around since the 1970s, and it's changed quite a lot since then. I think right now, if you write a book where your heroine dies in a fire and your hero spends the rest of his life pining for her, and then label it romance, you're going to have a lot of annoyed readers on your hands. Twenty years from now, who knows?


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Don't think of them as rules but as expectations.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

Monique said:


> Don't think of them as rules but as expectations.


This is a very good point.

Speaking only for myself, violating my expectations is the fastest way to make me dislike something. And by 'violating expectations' I don't mean surprising me with a plot twist - surprising plot twists are always cool - rather, I mean, if the trailers for a movie make it look like a horror, and the movie is instead a love story set in an extremely bizarre gated community**, it is pretty much a guarantee that I'm going to walk out of the theatre very ticked off.

**This was actually the scenario when I went to see The Village by good ol' M. Night. The trailers made me think I was going to see a cool creature feature. I love a good creature feature, so I was stoked. But what The Village really is, IMO, is a story about what a person can accomplish for the sake of love. On the second viewing, when I knew what I was getting, I really liked the movie as a love story. But that first time I saw it, when I expected a creature feature, I felt totally tricked and cheated.


----------



## GPB (Oct 2, 2010)

Where's that _Pearl Harbor_ trailer when you need it...


----------



## AmberC (Mar 28, 2012)

I've been told we broke a "romance rule". I think that if you are entertaining your audience you can break some and get away with it. Results may vary.

Totally breaking a mold or trying to reinvent the wheel is usually going to produce those that both love it or hate it but few in between.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

This thread is really interesting. Several people have pointed out that generic expectations are rigorously enforced by readers' expectations, and they're correct. Several have pointed out that genres do change over time, and they're correct. That sort of dichotomy is what makes genre so fascinating. As a writer of genre fiction, you're "required" (by reader expectation) to work within the limits of your chosen genre, and yet pushed (by reader desire) to stretch those limits enough that your work stands out as memorable in some way. Stretch it one inch too far, however, and you might find yourself outside the boundaries and duly punished. Challenging! And fun. But also scary, if you care about commercial success.

I do think indie publishing could put pressure on the current body of genres. Readers play a big part in enforcing those boundaries, yes, but publishing companies, which are hidebound and risk-averse, play a role as well. I can't help but think indie books, freed of the additional pressure of publisher expectation, will push harder on generic boundaries and will experiment more freely with mixed genres. Maybe the rate of change will accelerate somewhat.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

ShayneHellerman said:


> This is a very good point.
> 
> Speaking only for myself, violating my expectations is the fastest way to make me dislike something. And by 'violating expectations' I don't mean surprising me with a plot twist - surprising plot twists are always cool - rather, I mean, if the trailers for a movie make it look like a horror, and the movie is instead a love story set in an extremely bizarre gated community**, it is pretty much a guarantee that I'm going to walk out of the theatre very ticked off.


I love having my expectations blown apart and replaced with something totally unexpected. That's what I call entertainment! Stories that check all of the usual boxes to me can feel like paint by numbers, even when the writing is slick and stylish.

Trailers and blurbs are kind of a different. That's more about truth in advertising.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

ShayneHellerman said:


> Speaking only for myself, violating my expectations is the fastest way to make me dislike something. And by 'violating expectations' I don't mean surprising me with a plot twist - surprising plot twists are always cool - rather, I mean, if the trailers for a movie make it look like a horror, and the movie is instead a love story set in an extremely bizarre gated community**, it is pretty much a guarantee that I'm going to walk out of the theatre very ticked off.
> 
> **This was actually the scenario when I went to see The Village by good ol' M. Night. The trailers made me think I was going to see a cool creature feature. I love a good creature feature, so I was stoked. But what The Village really is, IMO, is a story about what a person can accomplish for the sake of love. On the second viewing, when I knew what I was getting, I really liked the movie as a love story. But that first time I saw it, when I expected a creature feature, I felt totally tricked and cheated.


This is an excellent example. Many, many people resent The Village because it wasn't what they expected. The problem is that M. Knight gets the backlash for it, not the hacks in the marketing department of the studio.

So, in my opinion there are no rules. You can write whatever you want but you better categorize it correctly. Say you're a cheese maker and you make a delicious mozzarella cheese but you put the provolone label on it. Then you put it on the shelf and you say: "Try my new provolone! It breaks all the rules of what a provolone should be!" You'll get some people that like it but when the Provolone International Fan Club stops by, expect to receive a scathing review.

And feel free to write your multi-genre mashup but you can expect to have sales in the double digits.*

*Or a runaway fluke smash success. But be warned, there is no mid list for multi-genre mashups.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

We're actually discussing two types of "rules". The first rule of traditional publishing, which we've already broken is "Thou shall not self-publish."


But the other contract is with the reader. Like your cover should be an expression of your genre and theme. Your blurb should should clearly clue them into what they're getting into, and so should your genre definition.

Who the hell cares about traditional publishing rules? I don't, because I'm not playing that game.

Who cares about readers rules? I do, because I am looking for readers who will enjoy my books. Matter-of-fact those are the only readers I'm going for. Readers' rules rule.


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2012)




----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

heavycat said:


> Any work that does not pay homage to the requisite tropes will be savaged by critics as "unmarketable" and fail utterly. The default position of the critics will be 'this is neither fish nor fowl."
> 
> See any discussion of effective book covers for proof.


I think that's a bit of ignorant opinion, to be quite frank. The problem is that one has to be VERY good at what one does to bend the rules (I don't believe mixing genres and such is actually "breaking" the rules). I don't believe in formulaic fiction in the least, however you couldn't for example, call a book about going to New York for visit to the zoo an epic fantasy unless they somehow wind up in one along the way. We would have to debate specific examples to decide whether the critics were right or wrong, but it's certainly not something that applies to each and every book. The honest truth is that a lot of authors out there are trying to be original but just aren't good enough to effectively pull it off. Readers aren't stupid either. If a book is good they will generally read it and love it, even if it's not done in the traditional sense. But the more you stray from tradition, the better writer you have to be to pull it off.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

There are no rules in literary fiction, which is usually mocked here for being too much unlike genre fiction. The fact that writers reject genre bending tells me readers will scorn it all the more. 

For my part, I'd like to see some of this stuff. It strikes me that it would interesting to read the unexpected. But every book might turn out to have only an audience of one.


----------



## AndreSanThomas (Jan 31, 2012)

vrabinec said:


> So, if someone wants to publish a 200k word long urban sci-fi romantic comedy drama with a historic twist, they can go ahead. Doesn't mean sci-fi, romance, or historic will suddenly be re-defined.


I agree, but that also means that you can then market to urban sci-fi romantic comedy drama and historic readers under the tag line of "looking for something a little different?" You won't redefine any of those genres, but you may entice enough readers from each to build your own following.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

AndreSanThomas said:


> I agree, but that also means that you can then market to urban sci-fi romantic comedy drama and historic readers under the tag line of "looking for something a little different?" You won't redefine any of those genres, but you may entice enough readers from each to build your own following.


For some reason, I expected more of oddball stuff, though I've never seen it. I don't know if there's much of an audience out there beyond me. But you never know until you try.

Amazon should create a category called "Now for something completely different" to attract more zaniness.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Sounds like consumers who want to retain traditional genres and avoid genre bending will have the greatest probability of satisfaction by limiting purchases to established publishing firms. If they stray from those firms, they risk encountering books that violate their standards. The market is working.


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

The wonderful thing is that you are free to break the rules all you want, and yet you can still publish and make your work available to the public. You get to write what you truly want to write. Whether or not you choose to follow any established rules or expectations no longer results in not getting published. It may result in low sales, but that's only a bad thing if your intent is to get high sales. The ones in the ivory towers are no longer setting the rules, the readers are.

This will undoubtedly lead to all sorts of changes, some good and some bad. But it will be in response to the opinions of the readers. I think that is very cool.


----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

AndreSanThomas said:


> I agree, but that also means that you can then market to urban sci-fi romantic comedy drama and historic readers...


IF you do it well. And market it well.

And one other tip for all writers. Starting out with the notion that your work is "too hip" for the readers and the critics just means you're too self absorbed to connect with your audience. If you write books to sell, then you appreciate your audience and you respect them. The same goes for reviewers too. Doesn't mean that all of them are right, but assuming that all of them are wrong is laughable. The majority are smart and know what they want, and if the book is good, they will enjoy it.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> And one other tip for all writers. Starting out with the notion that your work is "too hip" for the readers and the critics just means you're too self absorbed to connect with your audience. If you write books to sell, then you appreciate your audience and you respect them.


This often seems to be a problem in marketing romance. I can't tell you how many times I've seen authors write something like, "This isn't the typical silly Harlequin romance," or "This isn't like all those other romances-- it's written for thinking women," or words along those lines. Some authors have a bit of a superior, I'm-too-cool-for-this-genre attitude when it comes to romance, and that's really not the sort of attitude you want bleeding into your promo. If you're aiming at the romance market, be sure not to insult romance readers as you're trying to market their book to them. No one wants to buy a book from someone who kicks them in the teeth.


----------



## Rachel Schurig (Apr 9, 2011)

EllenFisher said:


> This often seems to be a problem in marketing romance. I can't tell you how many times I've seen authors write something like, "This isn't the typical silly Harlequin romance," or "This isn't like all those other romances-- it's written for thinking women," or words along those lines. Some authors have a bit of a superior, I'm-too-cool-for-this-genre attitude when it comes to romance, and that's really not the sort of attitude you want bleeding into your promo. If you're aiming at the romance market, be sure not to insult romance readers as you're trying to market their book to them. No one wants to buy a book from someone who kicks them in the teeth.


Very well said, Ellen!


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

EllenFisher said:


> This often seems to be a problem in marketing romance. I can't tell you how many times I've seen authors write something like, "This isn't the typical silly Harlequin romance," or "This isn't like all those other romances-- it's written for thinking women," or words along those lines. Some authors have a bit of a superior, I'm-too-cool-for-this-genre attitude when it comes to romance, and that's really not the sort of attitude you want bleeding into your promo. If you're aiming at the romance market, be sure not to insult romance readers as you're trying to market their book to them. No one wants to buy a book from someone who kicks them in the teeth.


Word.


----------



## Ben White (Feb 11, 2011)

I was expecting a lot more innovation and rule-bending in indie publishing, but it's still an immature culture.  What succeeds is largely the same as what succeeds in the mainstream; safe, familiar, unexceptional.  There are splendid freaks, but if anything they're even rarer than in the tradpub world.


----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

Ben White said:


> I was expecting a lot more innovation and rule-bending in indie publishing, but it's still an immature culture. What succeeds is largely the same as what succeeds in the mainstream; safe, familiar, unexceptional. There are splendid freaks, but if anything they're even rarer than in the tradpub world.


The problem is that a lot of the Indie Authors are not experienced writers. New writers tend to do more emulation than innovation. Innovation in writing only comes with experience, once an author is done experimenting and has found his or her own voice.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Ben White said:


> I was expecting a lot more innovation and rule-bending in indie publishing, but it's still an immature culture. What succeeds is largely the same as what succeeds in the mainstream; safe, familiar, unexceptional. There are splendid freaks, but if anything they're even rarer than in the tradpub world.


This is probably true. The trad pub world, content wise, is actually quite avant garde, especially when comparing it to other artistic/entertainment forms such as film or music. For examples look at all of Chuck Pahlaniuk's work. That is very risky material to make an investment on. Also take a look at a great book called "The Raw Shark Texts" by Steven Hall. Completely unclassifiable, yet published by a trad pub and made the best sellers lists. And if I look at my coffee table right now I see "House of Leaves" sitting on it waiting for me to read it. From what I've heard about it, it breaks every rule. There's also the books by Stewart O'nan "A Prayer for the Dying" told in 2nd person or "The Night Country" narrated from the floating perspective of a group of teenage ghosts who also talk amongst themselves. These are all books that can't necessarily be considered "mainstream" yet are traditionally published and have all found an audience.


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2012)

Greg Banks said:


> New writers tend to do more emulation than innovation. Innovation in writing only comes with experience, once an author is done experimenting and has found his or her own voice.


I hope to surprise a few with my descriptive ability, I've read very, very few fiction novels, mostly just history books and technical manuals.

All of my creative writing training comes from 8 years of writing descriptions for adult movies.


----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

sicklove said:


> I hope to surprise a few with my descriptive ability, I've read very, very few fiction novels, mostly just history books and technical manuals.
> 
> All of my creative writing training comes from 8 years of writing descriptions for adult movies.


Generally, being well read is imperative to good writing. As long as you understand that "descriptive ability" alone does not make great writing (at least not writing with any substance), I'm sure you'll do well.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

EllenFisher said:


> This often seems to be a problem in marketing romance. I can't tell you how many times I've seen authors write something like, "This isn't the typical silly Harlequin romance," or "This isn't like all those other romances-- it's written for thinking women," or words along those lines. Some authors have a bit of a superior, I'm-too-cool-for-this-genre attitude when it comes to romance, and that's really not the sort of attitude you want bleeding into your promo. If you're aiming at the romance market, be sure not to insult romance readers as you're trying to market their book to them. No one wants to buy a book from someone who kicks them in the teeth.


It's easy to criticize genres that have a particularly strong set of "rules," dismissing them as formulaic. But it's important to remember that the modern romance genre has very deep roots indeed. The love story with a HEA ending is something human beings have hungered for -- at least in the body of western literature with which I'm familiar -- for a very long time. It must strike an essential chord for many of us. That's not something to dismiss out of hand. Genres with that kind of massive, persistent, and cross-medium cultural presence tell us something about ourselves.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

EllenFisher said:


> This often seems to be a problem in marketing romance. I can't tell you how many times I've seen authors write something like, "This isn't the typical silly Harlequin romance," or "This isn't like all those other romances-- it's written for thinking women," or words along those lines. Some authors have a bit of a superior, I'm-too-cool-for-this-genre attitude when it comes to romance, and that's really not the sort of attitude you want bleeding into your promo. If you're aiming at the romance market, be sure not to insult romance readers as you're trying to market their book to them. No one wants to buy a book from someone who kicks them in the teeth.


Good post. Assume the reader knows the definition of genre. If you claim it's romance, it better be HEA, or you're gonna piss people off.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

Ben White said:


> I was expecting a lot more innovation and rule-bending in indie publishing, but it's still an immature culture. What succeeds is largely the same as what succeeds in the mainstream; safe, familiar, unexceptional. There are splendid freaks, but if anything they're even rarer than in the tradpub world.


Indie writers and publishers can be as innovative as they like (and many certainly are), but what's successful is still pretty much at the mercy of readers. There are many brilliant and original indie books for which, quite simply, no meaningful market appears to exist.

Jackson Jones just wrote a satire of 50 Shades of Grey, and seems to be having a certain amount of success with it. I don't know how good or bad or innovative the book is, but I can pretty much guarantee that it wouldn't be nearly as successful, even were it twice as good and five times as innovative, if it were a satire of _The Honeymooners_ or _McHale's Navy_. Modwitch is extraordinarily successful with her series - but she's part of a growing, decades-long movement of fiction about witches. If she went and wrote the most amazing, groundbreaking, expectation-defying trilogy of novels about... a hereditary secret society of oh, militant Amish foot fetishists, let's say - it'd be awesome, yes, but it wouldn't be nearly as successful, because it's a pretty safe bet the market for books about suburbanite witches, however safe and familiar and unoriginal that might be, is substantially larger than that for books about Amish foot fetishists, militant or otherwise.


----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

What really bothers me are books like the Eragon series. While I like the books (at least the first one which I read), they were quite derivative of several other stories (again, at least the first one was) and the exact opposite of innovative. But it was overall pretty entertaining, which is why the story worked, I think. Plus it was marketed well.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

ASparrow said:


> I love having my expectations blown apart and replaced with something totally unexpected. That's what I call entertainment! Stories that check all of the usual boxes to me can feel like paint by numbers, even when the writing is slick and stylish.
> Trailers and blurbs are kind of a different. That's more about truth in advertising.


Maybe I should have been a bit more specific about what I meant. I love having my expectations blown apart when it comes to the story itself, but not my expectations about the genre. For example, since I started out picking on M. Night, I'll now give him props. I loved The Sixth Sense. I was one of those people who had no idea what the twist was until it happened. I was completely blown away, and I loved that, because there aren't many movies (or books) that can so totally surprise me like that. But the story blew me away within my expectations for the genre. I wasn't expecting a caper movie and got a ghost story instead. I expected a ghost story and I got a ghost story that totally blew me away. So I was a happy camper.

I don't read romance, but I do read mysteries, which come with their own set of expectations. One of the main expectations is that the detective will use his skills and intelligence to follow the clues and deduce who the killer is. I want to be surprised by who the killer is, and the more creative the case, the better I like it. But, no matter what creative stuff gets added, I still want to see the detective follow the clues and solve the case. If the book is labelled a mystery I expect that the protagonist will solve the case, and if that doesn't happen, I'm going to be very disappointed with the story. Also, I would probably feel that the author was either uneducated or disrespectful of the genre, and wouldn't read them again.


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2012)

Monique said:


> Don't think of them as rules but as expectations.


Yes, so what has caused these expectations, as in the romance genre? Traditional publishers have always hid behind these as what readers demand, what they expect, even after dictating through their validation only those that met certain rules. Did the publishers create the expectations or is there some gene in readers that dictates these? Doesn't counter culture become mainstream in a generation or two?

Mark Twain completely changed American literature with the introduction of Huck Finn and common vernacular into prose. Oh, others had done it before, but none so successfully. That's why Hemingway said that all good American literature began with Huck Finn.


----------



## AndreSanThomas (Jan 31, 2012)

Greg Banks said:


> IF you do it well. And market it well.


But that holds true for EVERY book, in every genre, regardless of who publishes it. Unless you're such a "name" that your books sell themselves, but that group is pretty small and really isn't any of us.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Expectations have grown from popularity and what people want. Traditional publishers didn't create any of the rules. They just want to make money.

If I wrote a book in binary code and it became the next best seller, you'd better believe the trad publishers would be accepting manuscripts written in 1's and 0's.

What people expect is what they are used to, and what they enjoy. Break all the rules you want, if you can pull the reader in and make them love it, you'll begin to change expectations. The trick is, it's not easy to break the "rules" and still give people what they want.


----------



## AndreSanThomas (Jan 31, 2012)

And keep in mind, you don't have to pull every reader from an established genre.  You don't have to get 100% of the romance or mystery market.  You don't even have to get 1% to make a big killing as a self-pub author.  You don't have the overhead of Random House.  If you've got $10 in artwork as your total financial investment in your book, you make a bundle on the sales of 10,000 books over 5 years.  If your book only sells to 100 people that "get" you, then you've still made a profit and you can choose to write more 100 sale books and make up the difference on the number of titles or you can decide to move on to other stories that have a broader appeal.

IF you can write good stuff, and market to people that might be willing to try it on for size, you might well get your Amish foot fetish book to enough people to pay for private school for your kids.  There's a lot more foot fetish folks out there than you think!


----------



## morantis (May 8, 2012)

No matter what, I give my full attention to anyone that is willing to break a mold and tarnish a few rules.


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2012)

There is a difference between so-called "rules" and "audience expectations." If you tell me movie X is a high-octane action-adventure, and the entire movie is two guys sitting around a table talking about their bosses, you haven't broken any rules. You've done something moronic. *YOU LIED TO ME*. Saying a book is a romance or a horror story or sci-fi isn't about rules. It is about accurately portraying to your reader what the book is. If you tell me your book is a romance and it doesn't have a HEA, you haven't done something experimental. YOU LIED TO ME. If you tell me your vampire novel is a horror story and the vampires don't do anything but mope around being emo and whining over some girl, YOU LIED TO ME. If you tell me your book is a historical fiction and then you throw robots into it, YOU LIED TO ME.

Being indie allows you to write whatever you want. But you still need to properly identify what you wrote so you aren't lying to potential readers. Genres exist for the benefit of READERS so that they can find the type of books that they want.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Saying a book is a romance or a horror story or sci-fi isn't about rules. It is about accurately portraying to your reader what the book is. If you tell me your book is a romance and it doesn't have a HEA, you haven't done something experimental. YOU LIED TO ME.
> 
> Being indie allows you to write whatever you want. But you still need to properly identify what you wrote so you aren't lying to potential readers. Genres exist for the benefit of READERS so that they can find the type of books that they want.


Yep!


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> There is a difference between so-called "rules" and "audience expectations." If you tell me movie X is a high-octane action-adventure, and the entire movie is two guys sitting around a table talking about their bosses, you haven't broken any rules. You've done something moronic. *YOU LIED TO ME*. Saying a book is a romance or a horror story or sci-fi isn't about rules. It is about accurately portraying to your reader what the book is. If you tell me your book is a romance and it doesn't have a HEA, you haven't done something experimental. YOU LIED TO ME. If you tell me your vampire novel is a horror story and the vampires don't do anything but mope around being emo and whining over some girl, YOU LIED TO ME. If you tell me your book is a historical fiction and then you throw robots into it, YOU LIED TO ME.
> 
> Being indie allows you to write whatever you want. But you still need to properly identify what you wrote so you aren't lying to potential readers. Genres exist for the benefit of READERS so that they can find the type of books that they want.


Exactly.

One of the more important rules of writing that I suggest not breaking is: _Don't lie to your reader._

What's more most of us here are grown-ups I assume, which should mean we've grown past breaking rules just for the sake of breaking them. A novel breaks some rules? _So what?_ Does anyone REALLY think people are impressed? Authors sometimes sound like a teenager who think she's really a big deal because she stayed out past curfew.

Edit: And if we don't like the "rules" of a genre, there are non-genre books out there. There is no rule against writing "mainstream" novels. There is no rule against doing something innovative within the rules of a genre. But if we lie to our reader, it's gonna piss the reader off and writers do well to remember that.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

I think you can break the rules, but you have to be smart about it and know which rules you're breaking and why. But all in all, I think the advantage of being "Indie" is that you can choose to do it whatever way you want and then you get to reap the rewards (or consequences).  It's a learning process.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

The problem with using the HEA as a rule that indies could potentially break is that the HEA is one of the key reasons why people choose romance novels -- a feel good read centered around relationships. As mentioned, there is an implied promise here.

This is where sub-genres, the book blurb, and perhaps the cover comes into play -- to allow the reader to understand when a book is a romance VS a loves story, which can be a little more open on the ending. (But is not an official genre.)

An indie writer CAN break some rules with romance novels. "Who says a hero has to be tall?" "Who says a heroine has to be thin/beautiful?" "Who says a main character can't be disabled?" As long as the writer tips off the reader, there are a lot of ways she (we'll default to she) can go to new or under-explored areas -- and find readers who are looking for just that thing.

You could easily rename the genre Happily-Ever-After, and so you can ditch it no more than you could label a book a mystery and have there be no mystery.

*At least HFN -- Happy for Now.


----------



## AshMP (Dec 30, 2009)

Has anyone here ever read a Jodi Picoult novel or Kristin Hannah?  Those are wash-rinse-repeat books.  I like, when I buy one of those, to know what I'm getting myself into ... sometimes, thats exactly why I buy them.  They are comfortable, the pacing and plot is almost identical book to book.  

Then, I might pick up a Wally Lamb or Gillian Flynn book because those aren't expected.  The surprises of what they do in their genres is exciting.  They become compulsive reads because I'm never sure what happens next.  

So, to answer your question, I think the rules depend on the writer.  I enjoy Picoult novels, but sometimes she does bat-blank-crazy things, like a comic book, and I can't get behind that.  Lamb changes it up all the time and I'm totally fine with that.  Books that follow rules can be like comfort food to a reader, and sometimes a reader wants that.  Other times, not so much.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

JRTomlin said:


> What's more most of us here are grown-ups I assume, which should mean we've grown past breaking rules just for the sake of breaking them. A novel breaks some rules? _So what?_ Does anyone REALLY think people are impressed? Authors sometimes sound like a teenager who think she's really a big deal because she stayed out past curfew.


I think such a nasty, sniping comment misses the point of rule-breaking entirely. I doubt that many authors who allow a story to move behind the constraints of genre do it to impress anyone. If anything, they are less likely to impress agents and publishers by taking this approach. Taking a story beyond the guard rails makes a book less marketable and less appealing to a broader audience, but it also can make things more interesting to niche readers like me. There's no need to attack those who prefer this approach by suggesting that their behavior is juvenile.


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2012)

ASparrow said:


> I think such a nasty, sniping comment misses the point of rule-breaking entirely.


I think you missed the point. The problem is not 'breaking the rules.' The problem is false advertising. When I go to the store and buy chocolate ice cream, I expect there to be chocolate ice cream in the container. I don't expect to open a container labeled "chocolate ice cream" and find "strawberry ice cream". If I order a steak in a restaurant, I don't expect them to bring me salmon. Experiment all you want, but LABEL accordingly. DON'T tell me your book is a romance and then have the hero rape and murder the heroine. You aren't being creative or witty or edgy. You are being selfish and treating the reader like a doormat.


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2012)

lol, _authors_


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I think you missed the point. The problem is not 'breaking the rules.' The problem is false advertising. When I go to the store and buy chocolate ice cream, I expect there to be chocolate ice cream in the container. I don't expect to open a container labeled "chocolate ice cream" and find "strawberry ice cream". If I order a steak in a restaurant, I don't expect them to bring me salmon. Experiment all you want, but LABEL accordingly. DON'T tell me your book is a romance and then have the hero rape and murder the heroine. You aren't being creative or witty or edgy. You are being selfish and treating the reader like a doormat.


There are two different things being discussed on this thread. One is false advertising, and I agree with you and some of the others that a blurb, tag, cover, etc. that intentionally points a reader in the wrong direction is a bad idea. I'm with you on that point. I'll even go all capitals on it. YES!!! I AGREE!!!

The only problem, there are some stories that bend or blend genres that cannot be labeled accurately because they are just plain different, or they straddle the line between two domains. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, and the authors who attempt to label according to the constraints given to them by the industry (or KDP) don't deserve your aspersions.

The second issue discussed on this thread involves stories that go beyond genre norms, and that's a different issue entirely, and one that your last response does not address.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Expectations are based on an observation of past events. If behavior and products change, so does the rational basis for expectations. 

Lots of changes are happening in publishing. We don't get to pick the ones we like and veto the ones we don't like. Why not? Because we don't have the power.


----------



## Vegasgyrl007 (May 11, 2011)

Well, being a romance writer of both contemporary and paranormal romance, I think the reader is a lot smarter than we give them credit for. There doesn't have to be a HEA but there better be a HFN (happy for now) otherwise is it really a romance novel you were trying to write or a great piece of literature? If that's the case then the rules don't really apply and you shouldn't try to sell the book as romance as it implies something of a resolution for the hero and heroine or two men or two women involved.

Just my two cents


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

ASparrow said:


> There are two different things being discussed on this thread. One is false advertising, and I agree with you and some of the others that a blurb, tag, cover, etc. that intentionally points a reader in the wrong direction is a bad idea. I'm with you on that point. I'll even go all capitals on it. YES!!! I AGREE!!!
> 
> The only problem, there are some stories that bend or blend genres that cannot be labeled accurately because they are just plain different, or they straddle the line between two domains. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, and the authors who attempt to label according to the constraints given to them by the industry (or KDP) don't deserve your aspersions.
> 
> The second issue discussed on this thread involves stories that go beyond genre norms, and that's a different issue entirely, and one that your last response does not address.


If you think my previous comment was harsh... you just don't know me very well, do you? I can be a HECK of a lot snarkier than that without even trying. 

Cross-genre works are a different thing entirely. They are difficult to market, no doubt about it. They were to trad publishers and they still are.

That is often too bad, because they often aren't breaking rules (or breaking them just to break them) but combining two sets of rules into something different. Julie's comment (and mine) didn't address them because they're not what we've been talking about.

But I have seen too many authors go on and on about how they should be able to "break the rules", everything from basic grammar to HEA in romance to be particularly impressed with the "I'm a genius author so I can do what I want" argument. Of course if you're the new Kurt Vonnegut or Cormac McCarthy, you're probably right. The problem is that most authors who say that... aren't.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

I think the question is if the reader/consumer wants the rule to change -- if they want romance novels to no longer carry a promise of a happy ending, as opposed to labeling a book without an HEA/HFN in another way. That writers are questioning this -- whether or not they wish to provide it -- doesn't mean that this is what the market wants in terms of categorization.


----------



## Jean E (Aug 29, 2011)

I am an Indie writer.  I didn't set out to be one.  It just happened that the revolution in publishing coincided with me sitting down to write my book.  By the time I finished, I could publish it myself, and I did.  I stumbled unwittingly into this land of authors and indie authors and publishing flux.  I suppose lots of other people did too.

My particular ignorance extended to an absence of knowledge about genres.  Yes, I knew there were categories such as horror, crime, romance, children's books, but I never felt an attachment to any.  I didn't know I was supposed to.  I just wanted to write.  So that is what I did.  You may laugh, (or cry) when I tell you that I was really surprised to read about target audiences and markets when I picked up the Writers' Handbook to get some advice on publishing.  My book didn't sit well with any of it.  It turned out to be an adventure mystery which could be enjoyed by older children, and anyone else.  But the WH said such a story should be no more than 90K.  Mine is 196K.

I have no idea what I will write next.  But now that I know a lot more about genres and marketing and the rules, it will change nothing.  I can't do it like that.  I would be bored out of my skull if I set out on than path.  I suppose I'll not get rich, but I love writing and the fact that I can now put my stuff in the way of readers, even if just a few of them notice me, is very, very satisfying.

So, finally, to answer the question, does Indie reality free the writer from trad pub "rules"?  Yes, as often as wanting.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

We can see what authors want by looking at what they produce. We can see what consumers want by looking at what they buy. The market expresses its wishes with dollars. Just follow the money, not the talk.


----------



## Carradee (Aug 21, 2010)

MikeAngel said:


> *Does or will the Indie revolution in publishing transform or discard the trad publisher "Rules" about genre to any extent? *
> are these rules still inviolable? Do indies unwittingly carry them on?


Yes and no.

Yes, the "rules" still exist, because some readers expect them. And no, they don't, because some readers want them broken.

The indie writer is therefore best served by knowing the "rules" for their particular genre(s), knowing if they've slaughtered those rules (and why), so they can adequately point the book at its intended audience.

If I may pull examples from my own work:

_Destiny's Kiss_ is YA urban fantasy. I say that on purpose, because it's definitely not paranormal romance. A romantic arc will eventually be evident, but that'll build over multiple books. (I have four planned right now, and there's a gap in there that will likely get some books, considering three of them take place over a month span or so, and the fourth is a few years later.) If I called it paranormal romance, I'd get a lot of angry readers, because it isn't that genre.

_A Fistful of Fire_ is YA high fantasy that breaks many of the _conventions_ of the genre. Evonalé, though a quarter elfin, is a klutz (I actually _did_ write that story before _Twilight_ and the myriad of klutzy heroines came out). Evonalé starts out knowing the prophecy about her. And I could go on, but I think you get my point-those are "rules" in that they're standard things I've broken. But they aren't things that a reader will say "This isn't fantasy!" for.


----------



## Vegasgyrl007 (May 11, 2011)

ellecasey said:


> I'm going to answer this as a reader, not a writer.
> 
> I don't like it when a book in a certain genre doesn't follow the rules. Usually, it feels like the author doesn't know how to tell a good story. If I read a romance, and there's no real romance or they don't stay together in the end, I'm like, "WTF? You jerk! Why'd you trick me into reading this book?" Readers of romance expect romance! And happy endings! That's why we read 'em! Who wants to read about getting dumped? We can do that in real life. Books are escapes for many.
> 
> ...


Elle: this! I read a paranormal book about vamps (the supposed real kind not the humans with a blood fetish type of vamps) and the hero (a vampire) sits down with the heroine (a human) in a restaurant and starts chowing down on a po boy sandwich. WTF? I can take a lot of different rules where vamps are concerned (mine are day walkers who drink vampire blood because they are a superior species to run of the mill vamps) but last time I checked, real vamps have a liquid diet of blood and booze, blood and blood, et cetera. Don't expect me to be okay with a vamp eating like I do when their diet is supposed to be completely liquid. I got so angry, I stopped reading and returned the book back to Amazon.

In my eyes, the author broke a cardinal rule to the vampire genre and I was not okay with this.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

JRTomlin said:


> If you think my previous comment was harsh... you just don't know me very well, do you? I can be a HECK of a lot snarkier than that without even trying.


AWOOGAH-AWOOGAH! Snark alert! JRT! Snark Alert! JRT! AWOOGAH-AWOOGAH!



As you were....

Betsy


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Where does Cormac McCarthy fit into this discussion?


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2012)

Vegasgyrl007 said:


> In my eyes, the author broke a cardinal rule to the vampire genre and I was not okay with this.


What if the author explained later that vampires learned to fake being human to blend in and hide from vampire hunters, the "Can you eat?" test forced vampires to learn how to fake eating to avoid being staked?

Haha, anyways...


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

NathanWrann said:


> Where does Cormac McCarthy fit into this discussion?


Cormac broke a rule or two, is all. Some say successfully. Others not.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Most vampires suffer from bulemia. There are counseling programs.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Of course if you're the new Kurt Vonnegut or Cormac McCarthy, you're probably right. The problem is that most authors who say that... aren't.


You arent going to know if you're the next Vonnegut or McCarthy unless you try. And I'm pretty sure they didnt come out of the womb that way, they worked their asses off for years and werent afraid to try and fail.


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2012)

ASparrow said:


> The only problem, there are some stories that bend or blend genres that cannot be labeled accurately because they are just plain different, or they straddle the line between two domains.


I have yet to come across a so-called "blended" genre that I could not label. Very often, I find that the reason authors have difficultly with genre labels are:

1. For some reason, they have a mental block that leads them to think any "label' is bad and therefore limits their audience. So they ignore the obvious and try to lay claim to a blending that is not entirely accurate.
2. The author has a limited frame of reference in regards to genre. This is often particularly true with younger, less experienced writers who have not read widely. They simply don't KNOW the genre they think they created already exists.
3. The author is defining genre in terms of _things_ and not _themes_. Vampire=horror, love scene=romance, teen protagonist=young adult. They are taking a very narrow view of genre and not understanding the nuances involved. 
4. The book isn't "genre" at all. It's just general fiction.

I even have a thread here on KB for a "genre clinic" where I have helped people properly categorize their books. Once I convince people to stop talking in terms of things and discuss their book's theme, you can narrow down the correct genre easily.

Genre is one of my pet peeves because I am a recovering English major.   Too many writers don't understand it, and even the big publishers have taken a "Screw it" position and just label crap whatever they think will sell the most. Amazon's genre classifications are horrible. And then we all wonder why we see so many bad reviews that say things like "this book was not what I expected at all."


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Vegasgyrl007 said:


> Elle: this! I read a paranormal book about vamps (the supposed real kind not the humans with a blood fetish type of vamps) and the hero (a vampire) sits down with the heroine (a human) in a restaurant and starts chowing down on a po boy sandwich. WTF? I can take a lot of different rules where vamps are concerned (mine are day walkers who drink vampire blood because they are a superior species to run of the mill vamps) but last time I checked, real vamps have a liquid diet of blood and booze, blood and blood, et cetera. Don't expect me to be okay with a vamp eating like I do when their diet is supposed to be completely liquid. I got so angry, I stopped reading and returned the book back to Amazon.
> 
> In my eyes, the author broke a cardinal rule to the vampire genre and I was not okay with this.


I might would be okay with it if it were explained. He later goes in the bathroon and spews. Or he can force it down but it doesn't feed him. But I don't like vampires who are no more dangerous than the neighborhood tabby cat. To me, THAT breaks a basic rule of vampire fiction and it's why I don't read vampire romances.

GRR Martin wrote a pretty fair vampire novel before he started doing his _Song of Ice and Fire_ series.



Adam Pepper said:


> You arent going to know if you're the next Vonnegut or McCarthy unless you try. And I'm pretty sure they didnt come out of the womb that way, they worked their *sses off for years and werent afraid to try and fail.


No argument. I agree and that it is more possible to do that now is one of the advantages of the indie revolution.

But the author better be willing to accept the *"and fail"* part and not go whining that she should be able to break the rules when the problem was that she didn't do GOOD rule breaking (edit: by which I mean rule breaking for a point and not just to break a rule to be 'rad') or was too inexperienced to know what the f* she was doing or maybe that the idea just didn't work.


----------



## Vegasgyrl007 (May 11, 2011)

sicklove said:


> What if the author explained later that vampires learned to fake being human to blend in and hide from vampire hunters, the "Can you eat?" test forced vampires to learn how to fake eating to avoid being staked?
> 
> Haha, anyways...


If this was the case, I could deal with it but there was no explanation. The book started out as most paranormal vampire books do and then it just took this strange turn and I wasn't okay with it.

I have read a vamp book that was very similar to what you are describing and in that case, I was okay with the eating because the author throughout the book described her theory of vampirism (it is genetic, not a disease you can pass to someone...a person is born a vampire and cannot be made)...they suffered from a severe anemia and had incredible strength, were immortal, could pro-create but otherwise they were just like human beings. Okay, that suspended my disbelief for this certain story.

But to break a rule with no explanation? Perhaps this is why I felt cheated because as Julie said in an earlier post, I felt *lied* to.


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2012)

Adam Pepper said:


> You arent going to know if you're the next Vonnegut or McCarthy unless you try. And I'm pretty sure they didnt come out of the womb that way, they worked their *sses off for years and *werent afraid to try and fail.*


The difference is when you refuse to admit failure and instead blame the readers, editors, publishers, your fifth grade grammar teacher who wouldn't let you use semicolons in every other sentence, Grandma Edna for not reading to you enough as a child, that mean Sith woman on KB who made you feel bad, etc. etc. Experiment. Play with language. Learn the rules so you know where to bend them and where to break them. But when you fall on your face and fail, suck it up, admit you didn't do it right, and FIX IT.

And this is the real issue. An unwillingness to own your mistakes when your experiment turns out to be an abject failure. An unwillingness to look at something objectively and say "You know, maybe the readers are right. This doesn't work the way I imagined it." If you aren't connecting with readers or finding your market, then the answer is not to double-down and "write the next book!" using the same problematic experiments. Learn from your mistakes and THEN move forward. Otherwise, you are just running in place.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> The difference is when you refuse to admit failure and instead blame the readers, editors, publishers, your fifth grade grammar teacher who wouldn't let you use semicolons in every other sentence, Grandma Edna for not reading to you enough as a child, that mean Sith woman on KB who made you feel bad, etc. etc. Experiment. Play with language. Learn the rules so you know where to bend them and where to break them. But when you fall on your face and fail, suck it up, admit you didn't do it right, and FIX IT.
> 
> And this is the real issue. An unwillingness to own your mistakes when your experiment turns out to be an abject failure. An unwillingness to look at something objectively and say "You know, maybe the readers are right. This doesn't work the way I imagined it." If you aren't connecting with readers or finding your market, then the answer is not to double-down and "write the next book!" using the same problematic experiments. Learn from your mistakes and THEN move forward. Otherwise, you are just running in place.


STOP IT!

We are never, ever supposed to agree.

It is one of the _rules_.


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> STOP IT!
> 
> We are never, ever supposed to agree.
> 
> It is one of the _rules_.


I think that when there is something we both agree on, that should pretty much end ALL arguments. 

_By the gods, people! If both ***** and JR agree, then it MUST BE TRUE! _


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2012)

Vegasgyrl007 said:


> Well, being a romance writer of both contemporary and paranormal romance, I think the reader is a lot smarter than we give them credit for. There doesn't have to be a HEA but there better be a HFN (happy for now) otherwise is it really a romance novel you were trying to write or a great piece of literature? If that's the case then the rules don't really apply and you shouldn't try to sell the book as romance as it implies something of a resolution for the hero and heroine or two men or two women involved.


 Perhaps I get hung up on the semantics of it all. To me Dr. Zhivago is a romance, among other things, but it has no HEA. I fail to see why romance with HEA alone should have claim to the label "romance." Let's say I took a Harlequin novel and gave the heroine terminal cancer at the end (a much more real outcome than riding off into the sunset). The ideologues here would claim the book is no longer a "romance." Is a HEA or HFN really the sole determinant of the label "romance"?

As writers and indies we are no longer straitjacketed by what agents and publishers lay down as law. Readers have expectations--sure, I get that. 100 years ago Victorian ethics prevailed and books such as Dreiser's _Sister Carrie_ broke the rules by allowing the adulteress Carrie to live and succeed. Today those expectations are much different. Heroes don't have to be pure, sin doesn't mean a death sentence, and romances shouldn't have to have a happy ending. I'm amazed that the traditionalists here are so derned rigid. Or, is it simply a label thing?


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

MikeAngel said:


> Let's say I took a Harlequin novel and gave the heroine terminal cancer at the end (a much more real outcome than riding off into the sunset).


I'm not a romance reader or writer but from what I've seen discussed about it, the last thing any reader/writer/publisher of romance novels is looking for is a "real outcome". most of the readers can look around at their everyday lives for that. I think the Romance Genre is specifically designed for escapism.

ETA: I could be wrong of course.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

New genres are being created all the time and there are many that Amazon still does not capture in their listing and ranking system.

For example, I consider most of what I write to fall into the 'Slipstream' genre. I have one book that I would call 'New Weird' and another that I would call an 'Anti-thriller.' None of these categories are captured by Amazon or most other e-book distributors. 

The mainstream publishing industry recognizes these genres, but can anyone say what reader expectations might be for any of these labels?

Amazon's 'Contemporary Fantasy' designation is the closest substitute for Slipstream/New Weird but it lumps such stories together with urban fantasies that have their own distinctly different identity. What's a writer to do when labels don't suffice?


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

ASparrow said:


> New genres are being created all the time and there are many that Amazon still does not capture in their listing and ranking system.
> 
> For example, I consider most of what I write to fall into the 'Slipstream' genre. I have one book that I would call 'New Weird' and another that I would call an 'Anti-thriller.' None of these categories are captured by Amazon or most other e-book distributors.
> 
> ...


Can you describe the characteristics of Slipstream, New Weird or Anti-thriller for me?


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I think that when there is something we both agree on, that should pretty much end ALL arguments.
> 
> _By the gods, people! If both Julie and JR agree, then it MUST BE TRUE! _


No, I'm going to dare to argue further...

I understand, there are some annoying artsy fartsy types out there who dont take criticism well. But the line is so fine it can be invisible. Who can tell sheer brilliance from pretentious nonsense? Sometimes, you just have to trust your own vision, even if that means ignoring everyone, doubling down, and writing another book making "the same mistakes." That takes courage and commitment in the face of tremendous self doubt that always accompanies all that criticism. It takes a certain level of audacity to create something truly unique.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

NathanWrann said:


> I'm not a romance reader or writer but from what I've seen discussed about it, the last thing any reader/writer/publisher of romance novels is looking for is a "real outcome". most of the readers can look around at their everyday lives for that. I think the Romance Genre is specifically designed for escapism.
> 
> ETA: I could be wrong of course.


Failure is commonplace and boring. People like reading about success. There are books published about the people who tried and failed to build an airplane, but such books are greatly outnumbered by those about the Wright Brothers. In a romance novel, "success" is a successful relationship. There might be room for books of failed romances, but such books are probably going to be less common than those about successful romances. I think "Happily Ever After" is a rather leading phrase, a romance can be successful without being an continual life-long bliss-fest. Both successful and unsuccessful relationships are realistic.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

MikeAngel said:


> Let's say I took a Harlequin novel and gave the heroine terminal cancer at the end (a much more real outcome than riding off into the sunset). The ideologues here would claim the book is no longer a "romance." Is a HEA or HFN really the sole determinant of the label "romance"?


You can write and publish a Harlequin type romance with the heroine dying of cancer at the end (and it has been done - ever heard of a little book called _Love Story_?). But if you label such a book a romance, you'd better brace yourself for some very angry romance readers leaving one star reviews. So if you want to write your love story with the tragic cancer death, publish it as general fiction or women's fiction. Just don't call it romance.

I find some of the "rules" of the romance genre frustrating as well, but a positive ending (not necessarily the babies and picket fences HEA, just a positive ending with the couple alive and together) is really the one romance rule that a writers break at their peril along with the the pretty essential rule that in order for a book to be a romance, there should be some love in it.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

ASparrow said:


> New genres are being created all the time and there are many that Amazon still does not capture in their listing and ranking system.
> 
> For example, I consider most of what I write to fall into the 'Slipstream' genre. I have one book that I would call 'New Weird' and another that I would call an 'Anti-thriller.' None of these categories are captured by Amazon or most other e-book distributors.
> 
> ...


I'd probably tag the books with New Weird, Slipstream or Anti-thriller, so they will come up when someone searches for those terms. Otherwise I'm not sure what to do in such cases.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

MikeAngel said:


> Perhaps I get hung up on the semantics of it all. To me Dr. Zhivago is a romance, among other things, but it has no HEA. I fail to see why romance with HEA alone should have claim to the label "romance." Let's say I took a Harlequin novel and gave the heroine terminal cancer at the end (a much more real outcome than riding off into the sunset). The ideologues here would claim the book is no longer a "romance." Is a HEA or HFN really the sole determinant of the label "romance"?


As readers of romance have stated here, a love story with an HEA or an HFN ending is a romance - it's not the sole determinant, but it is one of the biggies. The ending is a part of what defines the genre. Just as a detective and a mystery to be solved are a part of what defines the genre of mystery.

I don't understand why it's necessary to call something what it is not. A love story with an HEA is a romance. A love story where the heroine dies in the end is a love story but not a romance. Why is there a need to try to shoe-horn things into the genre that are pretty much polar opposites to the very definition of that genre? Why not just call it something else that's more appropriate instead?


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2012)

NathanWrann said:


> Can you describe the characteristics of Slipstream, New Weird or Anti-thriller for me?


They are essentially "genres" for literary writers that don't want to admit they are writing genre fiction. 

Slipsteam is speculative fiction with a literary bent. Slipstream is less concerned with plot or character development and tends to have a more surreal quality (think Salvatore Dali), like creating a literary dream state.

New weird is pulp horror trying to be literary. 

Both slipstream and new weird still fall comfortable under the umbrella of speculative fiction.

Anti-thrillers are essentially crime novels that focus more on psychopathy or making socio-policial statements than edge-of-your-seat action. And in truth they are closer to "suspense" than "thrillers" but that is splitting hairs.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

NathanWrann said:


> Can you describe the characteristics of Slipstream, New Weird or Anti-thriller for me?


Slipstream is a type of magical realism with a contemporary setting and involving real-life issues, but also containing elements of fantasy that are central to but not necessarily dominant over the storyline.

New Weird is very similar to Slipstream except it usually contains a stronger element of horror and/or dark fantasy. It has been called: "...secondary-world fiction that subverts the romanticized ideas about place found in traditional fantasy, largely by choosing realistic, complex real-world models as the jumping off point for creation of settings that may combine elements of both science fiction and fantasy." (Editors, Jeff and Ann VanDerMeer)

An Anti-thriller is a story of intrigue involving characters with a mundane background and unremarkable talents or courage -- ordinary people involved in extraordinary situations.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> They are essentially "genres" for literary writers that don't want to admit they are writing genre fiction.
> 
> Slipsteam is speculative fiction with a literary bent. Slipstream is less concerned with plot or character development and tends to have a more surreal quality (think Salvatore Dali), like creating a literary dream state.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure I agree with your descriptions, but what do I know? You're the genre expert.

Speculative fiction is pretty all encompassing for a label. It's a bit like describing a woman with the term "Female **** sapiens." It's not very helpful to a reader trying to figure out what kind of book they've just picked up (or in choosing a mate).

And not all anti-thrillers are crime novels. e.g. John Le Carre - Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

_I wish, I wish
I wish in vain,
I wish I were
A maid again&#8230;_

I also wish you'd all stop calling genre conventions _rules_; they're conventions, people, _conventions_. To have rules, you need legislators. Who legislates the content of genres? Who polices genre books? No one and no one. Readers just reject or accept your book based on its adherence to genre conventions. And unlike breaking rules, breaking with conventions isn't like breaking the law. Breaking genre conventions is like eating with your mouth open: you don't go to jail (or get hailed as a visionary rebel); you just end up eating alone.

It's more than semantics too. Once you get your head around the fact that you're talking about conventions when you're talking about genre, you can make sense of why expectations go with genre designations. What people expect in a genre book-what genre signals-is a kind of plot, which is hard to break away from without (ipso facto) breaking with the genre. Put another way, breaking the conventions of the genre is impossible because, by definition, you're writing in a different genre.

The only way people ever thwart genre conventions is by writing (i.e., classifying yourself as) literary fiction; once you're popular, you'll get reincorporated into the genre you most resemble (e.g., Margret Atwood into the SF genre).


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

First, let me just say that the ASparrow and Julie definitions of these genres are completely different.



ASparrow said:


> Slipstream is a type of magical realism with a contemporary setting and involving real-life issues, but also containing elements of fantasy that are central to but not necessarily dominant over the storyline.


sounds like contemporary fantasy, no? What do you mean by "real-life" issues?



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Slipsteam is speculative fiction with a literary bent. Slipstream is less concerned with plot or character development and tends to have a more surreal quality (think Salvatore Dali), like creating a literary dream state.


Sounds like stream of consciousness or Bizarro but where there might actually be a story or theme?



ASparrow said:


> New Weird is very similar to Slipstream except it usually contains a stronger element of horror and/or dark fantasy. It has been called: "...secondary-world fiction that subverts the romanticized ideas about place found in traditional fantasy, largely by choosing realistic, complex real-world models as the jumping off point for creation of settings that may combine elements of both science fiction and fantasy." (Editors, Jeff and Ann VanDerMeer)


Sounds like contemporary fantasy again. Or sci-fi but set in modern times? Like the TV show FRINGE? Or maybe even the book The Raw Shark Texts that I mentioned earlier, but I just thought that fell under literary fiction.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> New weird is pulp horror trying to be literary.


So is it horror or is it sci-fi/fantasy? And if it's either of the three why not just call it horror or sci-fi or fantasy?



ASparrow said:


> An Anti-thriller is a story of intrigue involving characters with a mundane background and unremarkable talents or courage -- ordinary people involved in extraordinary situations.


Sounds like suspense.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Anti-thrillers are essentially crime novels that focus more on psychopathy or making socio-policial statements than edge-of-your-seat action. And in truth they are closer to "suspense" than "thrillers" but that is splitting hairs.





ASparrow said:


> And not all anti-thrillers are crime novels. e.g. John Le Carre - Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy


So Tinker... is an anti-thriller? I thought it was suspense or political intrigue even.

To be honest these genres sound like new names for old genres.


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2012)

ASparrow said:


> I'm not sure I agree with your descriptions, but what do I know? You're the genre expert.


It's so nice when someone recognizes my genius lol

Seriously, though, my point was really that many of these micro-genres are rather pretentious and evolved from literary communities that didn't want to admit that they were writing genre fiction. Or they are simply defining a specific ruleset within a larger ruleset. If I say 'gothic punk' most horror readers won't know what I mean, but would be able to identify it as "horror" if they read it even if they didn't know the nuances of what gothic punk is supposed to be. If I tell you something is biopunk, you might not understand the subtle distinctions but you will still recognize it as a science fiction work when you read it. A fantasy reader reading slipstream will still recognize it as falling under the umbrella of fantasy without understanding the nuances of the sub-genre.

But this is part of the point. At no time are these writers "breaking" any rules. They are simply adopting a more stringent set of rules within the existing rules of the genre.


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2012)

NathanWrann said:


> To be honest these genres sound like new names for old genres.


*Nods.*


----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> ...Being indie allows you to write whatever you want. But you still need to properly identify what you wrote so you aren't lying to potential readers. Genres exist for the benefit of READERS so that they can find the type of books that they want.


And if a writer doesn't pull off "breaking the rules" well, then you get a book that not only strays from the norm for the genre, but doesn't even meet the basic expectations of the genre. And to answer a response above, yes these things are true for all book and all writers of all genres, however, if you're attempting to be innovative and new, then you have to do it EVEN BETTER because you have to capture the reader who may have different expectations going in. Simply meeting expectations doesn't always equate sales, and if you are trying to "break the rules", then you have to work even harder to grab the reader's attention and hold it. That's how most genres were created in the first place. Someone came along and wrote a book with a new literary formula that everyone else began emulating. For example, thanks to "Fifty Shades of Gray", Just watch as the "mommy-porn" genre explodes like a nuclear scud missile.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

The vigilante editor strikes...



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> But this is part of the point. At no time are these writers "breaking" any *conventions*. They are simply adopting a more stringent set of *conventions * within the existing *conventions * of the genre.


Now you're making sense.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

NathanWrann said:


> To be honest these genres sound like new names for old genres.


If you look at it from a business standpoint-as opposed to a purely literary one-genres designations are really brands. After all, genre fiction-like horror-arose from the fact that there was a market for scary stories. Or look at relatively new genres like magical realism or steam punk: people started writing both before either had a name. Once the "genre norms" were established, more people starting writing in them.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I have yet to come across a so-called "blended" genre that I could not label.


Though you did once have to _invent_ the genre of "train wreck" for me, I believe. 

I do wonder why we're all hung up on the HEA "rule", and nobody's mentioned any of the other incredible onerous "trad pub rules". Like... thou shalt make your first page interesting. Thou shalt have characters whose names are sufficiently dissimilar to avoid confusion. Thou shalt not resort to Deus ex Machina to remedy your inability to plot. Thou shalt do at least a minimal amount of research before writing historical fiction, lest you describe Marines with submachine guns storming a beach during the War of 1812. Thou shalt resolve all your plot lines. Thy protagonist must have at least one redeeming quality. Thy antagonist must not be too likable...


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

NathanWrann said:


> First, let me just say that the ASparrow and Julie definitions of these genres are completely different.
> sounds like contemporary fantasy, no? What do you mean by "real-life" issues?
> 
> Sounds like stream of consciousness or Bizarro but where there might actually be a story or theme?
> ...


Yeah, I kind of figured this was where you were going from the way you asked. Which is fine. Skepticism is a healthy counter to careless genre proliferation.

New genre names pop when the old ones prove inadequate or become dominated by particular sub-genres. That doesn't mean that the new labels universally take hold and persist. But Slipstream and New Weird are the best I can offer at the moment. I don't pretend to be literary or even literate. I'm just looking for a label that will satisfy the labelers and not mislead readers.

I think one of the main differences between the old labels and the new is the balance between the fantastic elements of a story and the real-life dramas (I don't really have to explain 'real-life' to you, do I? Are you a unicorn?) Most stories labelled 'fantasy' are dominated by the fantastical elements of a story. In some of the new work under these labels, the fantastical elements are subdued and secondary to the 'real.'

For example, one of my stories is about a home-schooled, emancipated teenager who loses both parents in a series of tragedies. He is homeless for a time, until he takes on work as a 'mule,' running drugs from Florida to Ohio in his dad's old truck. Along the way, some very strange things happen, but most of the time the main character is dealing with ordinary life. Thus, the story is heavily weighted towards the 'real.' That's why the old labels don't fit. If I called it a 'contemporary fantasy,' some readers will be surprised and disappointed and some KBers will accuse me of lying.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

WHDean said:


> If you look at it from a business standpoint-as opposed to a purely literary one-genres designations are really brands. After all, genre fiction-like horror-arose from the fact that there was a market for scary stories. Or look at relatively new genres like magical realism or steam punk: people started writing both before either had a name. Once the "genre norms" were established, more people starting writing in them.


The term 'Magical Realism' has actually been around since the 1920s, so I wouldn't exactly call it new. Kafka would be a good example. But I take your point about new norms. They do eventually get established but the road can be rocky.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

Will someone please explain the genre "bittersweet romance" to me? I have seen this places like ARE.  Is that a romance with a sad ending?  If so, how can it be romance?


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

George Berger said:


> Thou shalt not resort to Deus ex Machina to remedy your inability to plot.


It's too bad that deus ex machina has been co-opted to describe a contrived solution to poor plotting. The device works in Greek tragedies because it's used to bring insoluble social tensions to a conclusion. Nowadays, people resort to clichés. How does the war end? The goodies win by pulling a rabbit out of their [hats] or the two sides "decide to make peace and live in harmony together." In real life, wars end because one side can't fight anymore. How does one reconcile liberty and equality? Turns out, there is no tension!

For once, I'd like to read a real, old-fashioned deus ex machina-something right out of the blue.

ETA: If you write one, George, send it to me and I'll sing your praises across the internet, like the panegyrists of old.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

ASparrow said:


> The term 'Magical Realism' has actually been around since the 1920s, so I wouldn't exactly call it new. Kafka would be a good example. But I take your point about new norms. They do eventually get established but the road can be rocky.


I realize that. But my baseline is 800 BC.


----------



## Carradee (Aug 21, 2010)

George Berger said:


> Though you did once have to _invent_ the genre of "train wreck" for me, I believe.
> 
> I do wonder why we're all hung up on the HEA "rule", and nobody's mentioned any of the other incredible onerous "trad pub rules". Like... thou shalt make your first page interesting. Thou shalt have characters whose names are sufficiently dissimilar to avoid confusion. Thou shalt not resort to Deus ex Machina to remedy your inability to plot. Thou shalt do at least a minimal amount of research before writing historical fiction, lest you describe Marines with submachine guns storming a beach during the War of 1812. Thou shalt resolve all your plot lines. Thy protagonist must have at least one redeeming quality. Thy antagonist must not be too likable...


Some of those are basic rules of story writing. Others get broken, sometimes. I can think of one situation-wait, two-where having Marines storm the a beach during the War of 1812 would actually be appropriate. (Time travel or comedy)

The trick is knowing why the rules exist. For example, "Do not head-hop" is a major rule, to the point that some folks (mistakenly) believe that head-hopping is bad writing by definition (which makes it a good idea to avoid head-hopping), but there are situations where head-hopping is appropriate. There are ways of doing it properly. The problem is, usually folks who hop heads do it improperly. Ergo, the rule.

Why must your first page be "interesting"? To catch the reader and make him want to turn the page. So that rule applies in all situations. But what makes that first page "interesting"? That'll differ depending on your intended readership.

Genres are marketing labels. That's why something can _contain_ romance without _being_ romance.

For example, _A Fistful of Fire_ contains all the trappings I can think of "sweet romance": No cursing, no on-page sex-and, by some definitions, the MCs don't have sex before marriage. A fan of sweet romance can read it and enjoy it on that level-but you could take out the relationship, and the core of the story-Evonalé growing up and coming into the prophecy, with certain people's help-would remain. The relationship is not essential to the story, so the story is not a romance.

There are also aspects of political fantasy (noble maneuvering) and epic fantasy (world-altering events) in it, but again, that's not the focus.

But some folks define "epic fantasy" as "other-world fantasy in a medieval-esque setting", while others use the term "high fantasy" for that. Others use "high fantasy" to refer specifically to high concept fantasy or to fantasy that doesn't connect to our world in any way. So what do I call it? I often say "traditional fantasy", because that conveys the mood though it's technically a misnomer. One reviewer called it "classic fantasy."

And it matters. Because that label its what some readers are looking for, and it effects what readers think they're getting when they approach my story.

(I'm not asking for input on what to call it, by the way. I'm just walking through how proper labeling is more important than some folks realize.)


----------



## Rin (Apr 25, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> If you tell me your book is a historical fiction and then you throw robots into it, YOU LIED TO ME.


>_>

<_<


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

ASparrow said:


> Yeah, I kind of figured this was where you were going from the way you asked. Which is fine. Skepticism is a healthy counter to careless genre proliferation.


I assure you, my question was asked in all sincerity without any skepticism from my end. I'm truly interested in learning about new (to me), distinct genres. My response to your definitions was based solely on your response and not with any planned skepticism.



ASparrow said:


> I think one of the main differences between the old labels and the new is the balance between the fantastic elements of a story and the real-life dramas (I don't really have to explain 'real-life' to you, do I? Are you a unicorn?) Most stories labelled 'fantasy' are dominated by the fantastical elements of a story. In some of the new work under these labels, the fantastical elements are subdued and secondary to the 'real.'


My question about real-life issues was more about what drives the plot, I suppose. So the protagonist is in conflict with his overbearing boss, not the wizard that lives down the street.



ASparrow said:


> For example, one of my stories is about a home-schooled, emancipated teenager who loses both parents in a series of tragedies. He is homeless for a time, until he takes on work as a 'mule,' running drugs from Florida to Ohio in his dad's old truck. Along the way, some very strange things happen, but most of the time the main character is dealing with ordinary life. Thus, the story is heavily weighted towards the 'real.' That's why the old labels don't fit. If I called it a 'contemporary fantasy,' some readers will be surprised and disappointed and some KBers will accuse me of lying.


Which of your stories are you describing here? Also, can you recommend others (leaders) in these style stories? It actually sounds like what I might be considering for my next book series. (although I would probably end up describing it as YA Paranormal)


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

MikeAngel said:


> *Does or will the Indie revolution in publishing transform or discard the trad publisher "Rules" about genre to any extent? *


I've always assumed there was a reason for the formulas, that they exist because research has shown readers have a decided preference for certain tropes within genres and that the books catering to those expectations sell best. I'm not saying no one should ever write for niche audiences and that nobody can find success by breaking the mold - I'm sure plenty of people do. But I don't think that method is for me. I like the rules as they are and, although I might bend them slightly, I'm not interested in significantly changing the shape of my favorite genres.

I also feel books that fall far outside the expected norms could be a nightmare to market. How do you let your target audience know not to go into this book with the usual expectations, so they won't feel cheated when they don't get what they're used to? A lot of us are dealing with this hiccup already when writing stories of untypical length.


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2012)

Rin said:


> >_>
> 
> <_<


Steampunk but nice try


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

WHDean said:


> For once, I'd like to read a real, old-fashioned deus ex machina-something right out of the blue.


It's been a long time since I read it, so I can't be certain, but doesn't the end of The Stand fit the description of deus ex machina?


----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

Dara England said:


> ...I've always assumed there was a reason for the formulas, that they exist because research has shown readers have a decided preference for certain tropes within genres and that the books catering to those expectations sell best...


The problem isn't "the rules", it's when they go from things like "an epic fantasy should have a hero or heroes go on a quest across a vast fantastical landscape" to "an epic fantasy must be as close to a clone of Tolkien as humanly possible without violating copyright". And let's not just blame traditional publishers for this. Many writers, traditional and indie, are guilty of "cloning" other successful authors.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

I am still wondering what a "Bittersweet romance" is and, if it IS a sad ending or people die, how it can be romance.  This kind of does pertain to this topic, because of people discussing that romance has to be HEA.  Can someone clear this up for me?  What is a bittersweet romance?


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

George Berger said:


> Though you did once have to _invent_ the genre of "train wreck" for me, I believe.
> 
> I do wonder why we're all hung up on the HEA "rule", and nobody's mentioned any of the other incredible onerous "trad pub rules". Like... *thou shalt make your first page interesting*. Thou shalt have characters whose names are sufficiently dissimilar to avoid confusion. Thou shalt not resort to Deus ex Machina to remedy your inability to plot. Thou shalt do at least a minimal amount of research before writing historical fiction, lest you describe Marines with submachine guns storming a beach during the War of 1812. Thou shalt resolve all your plot lines. Thy protagonist must have at least one redeeming quality. Thy antagonist must not be too likable...


Has anybody ever set out to explicitly make the first page of their book _uninteresting_?


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> \But I don't like vampires who are no more dangerous than the neighborhood tabby cat. To me, THAT breaks a basic rule of vampire fiction and it's why I don't read vampire romances.


I should write a vampire romance where the lead characters, a man and a woman vampire, lure people for group sex, then rip them apart during sex and both orgasm just as the victims bleed out. Maybe the cliffhanger at the end of the first book is when both get staked by the government for research on vampirism, but there's a vampire on the inside of the government who is actually just collecting all of the vampires together so they can further grow their numbers before turning humans into blood slaves under a vampire oligarchy!


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

ShayneHellerman said:


> It's been a long time since I read it, so I can't be certain, but doesn't the end of The Stand fit the description of deus ex machina?


Actually, that's a good example for distinguishing deus ex machina from what one might call divine interventions. (Now, bear in mind that read _The Stand _ about 18 years ago and that I watched the film, which may or not be the same and I may be confusing the two if they're different.) At the end of _The Stand_, God blows up the baddies, but God didn't need to make an appearance for the plot to be resolved (I'm sure the humans could have managed it). King cast Him in his drama to add cosmic import to the story-at least that's how I took it.

A true deus ex machina can't really be resolved for political or religious reasons. Ralph being saved at the end of _Lord of the Flies_ is a good example of a deus ex machina (though I may be confusing the book and the film again).


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

NathanWrann said:


> I assure you, my question was asked in all sincerity without any skepticism from my end. I'm truly interested in learning about new (to me), distinct genres. My response to your definitions was based solely on your response and not with any planned skepticism.
> 
> My question about real-life issues was more about what drives the plot, I suppose. So the protagonist is in conflict with his overbearing boss, not the wizard that lives down the street.
> 
> Which of your stories are you describing here? Also, can you recommend others (leaders) in these style stories? It actually sounds like what I might be considering for my next book series. (although I would probably end up describing it as YA Paranormal)


Sorry if I misread your intentions. I tend to do that a lot around here. It happens with wild boys like me who were raised by wolves (figuratively). I'm one of those who failed: 'plays well with others,' in kindergarten.

'Root' is the Slipstream story I described. YA Paranormal is not that far off, I suppose. It just doesn't seem to fit very well alongside other things labelled YA Paranormal. Too much reality, not enough supernatural.

House of Leaves, by Mark Danielewski is my favorite Slipstream novel. It's not exactly 'typical' of the genre, but I don't think there is a typical. The category is pretty diverse.

Also: Pattern Recognition by William Gibson, and Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell

Perdido Street Station by China Mieville is a nice example of 'New Weird.'


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

A good introduction to New Weird or respectively Slipstream would be provided by the following two subgenre anthologies:

The New Weird

Feeling Very Strange: The Slipstream Anthology


----------



## 48209 (Jul 4, 2011)

There are rules and Rules.

I'll continue with the romance genre since we have so many people blindly making statements about it.

A rule: The hero and heroine both need to be introduced no later than the end of the second chapter.

The only real Rule: There has to be a HEA (or, in YA & certain sub-genres, HFN)

These are hugely different. You can toss a rule. Contrary to what people are saying here, NY writers toss them all the time. Sometimes they pay the price with "But the hero didn't even show up till page 57. I kept waiting and finally read other reviews where people complained about that too" type of reviews. 

What about mysteries where there’s no solution at the end? Is that still a mystery? Is it suddenly some new double-mystery mystery?

Tossing a Rule? No. Not so much. A genre is something that’s defined – even if the definition is broad. Otherwise, just put one big shelf on Amazon and call it good. Personally, I like being able to pick out books by genre so I know what I’m getting into for that read.

This is the ONLY reason I’ll return a book: Lie to me. I’ve done it. Kill off a h/H at the end and that “romance” is getting returned without guilt.


BITTERSWEET ROMANCE: A friend of mine just got marketed this way so we had a discussion about it recently and came up basically with this:

Still has a HEA/HFN, but the cost of getting there is high enough that the reader feels the impact. Not your standard ‘I moved across the country and gave up my job for you impact’ – Another book we discussed was about a couple who split up when their child died and they both blamed themselves for the accident. In the end, they hurt each other a lot working it out and still carried that grief with them, but they renew (and strengthen) their love and end up HEA.

Sweet, but tainted with that undertone of bitter from actions/events.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> BITTERSWEET ROMANCE: A friend of mine just got marketed this way so we had a discussion about it recently and came up basically with this:
> 
> Still has a HEA/HFN, but the cost of getting there is high enough that the reader feels the impact. Not your standard 'I moved across the country and gave up my job for you impact' - Another book we discussed was about a couple who split up when their child died and they both blamed themselves for the accident. In the end, they hurt each other a lot working it out and still carried that grief with them, but they renew (and strengthen) their love and end up HEA.
> 
> Sweet, but tainted with that undertone of bitter from actions/events.


Thank you! I always thought the hero and/or heroine died at the end. Like Titanic.


----------



## Carradee (Aug 21, 2010)

Caddy said:


> Thank you! I always thought the hero and/or heroine died at the end. Like Titanic.


Isn't that the definition of Tragedy?


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

WHDean said:


> Actually, that's a good example for distinguishing deus ex machina from what one might call divine interventions. (Now, bear in mind that read _The Stand _ about 18 years ago and that I watched the film, which may or not be the same and I may be confusing the two if they're different.) At the end of _The Stand_, God blows up the baddies, but God didn't need to make an appearance for the plot to be resolved (I'm sure the humans could have managed it). King cast Him in his drama to add cosmic import to the story-at least that's how I took it.


The technical definition is 'god from the machine', so deus ex machina is divine intervention. In the case of The Stand, that's actually literal. The hand of god comes down and, using a bomb that a mentally unstable man has just driven onto the scene, blows the bad guys (and the two remaining good guys, who are about to be executed) sky high. I don't think you can get a much more deux ex machina ending than that.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

Caitie Quinn said:


> What about mysteries where there's no solution at the end? Is that still a mystery? Is it suddenly some new double-mystery mystery?


This is just my own opinion, but in order for a book to be classed as a mystery, the detective character must know the solution to the puzzle at the end of the book. They may not catch the killer, they may choose to let the killer go for some plot-appropriate reason (father getting revenge on his daughter's murderer, for example), they may not share the solution with their sidekick - but IMO they must have solved the case, and they must have let the reader in on it in some way.

The satisfaction of mystery fiction is derived from watching the detective discover who- and why-dunit. That's basically a promise that the writer makes to the reader by calling the book a mystery, and if the mystery isn't solved that means the promise is left unfulfilled.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> Isn't that the definition of Tragedy?


There is no genre named Tragedy. If there was, then yes it would fit there.


----------



## 48209 (Jul 4, 2011)

ShayneHellerman said:


> This is just my own opinion, but in order for a book to be classed as a mystery, the detective character must know the solution to the puzzle at the end of the book. They may not catch the killer, they may choose to let the killer go for some plot-appropriate reason (father getting revenge on his daughter's murderer, for example), they may not share the solution with their sidekick - but IMO they must have solved the case, and they must have let the reader in on it in some way.
> 
> The satisfaction of mystery fiction is derived from watching the detective discover who- and why-dunit. That's basically a promise that the writer makes to the reader by calling the book a mystery, and if the mystery isn't solved that means the promise is left unfulfilled.


Um, yeah. That was kind of my point


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

Caitie Quinn said:


> Um, yeah. That was kind of my point


Doh! *headdesk* This is what I get for skimming the first part of the comment.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

ShayneHellerman said:


> The technical definition is 'god from the machine', so deus ex machina is divine intervention. In the case of The Stand, that's actually literal. The hand of god comes down and, using a bomb that a mentally unstable man has just driven onto the scene, blows the bad guys (and the two remaining good guys, who are about to be executed) sky high. I don't think you can get a much more deux ex machina ending than that.


It's a plot device named after the piece of theatre machinery used to perform the scene on stage. Having a god appear at the end of the story doesn't make it a deus ex machina. Nor do you need a god in the story to have a deus ex machina. That's why the term is still in use today (if with slightly different connotations).

God is at the end of _The Stand _ for epic closure. King didn't need to bring in God to resolve what was an old-fashioned goodies versus baddies plot. But Golding needed adults to find the boys in the _Lord of the Flies _ to revolve the plot he'd created. Either that or he had to kill Ralph-not the best ending. That's a good deus ex machina.

For a bad deus ex machina, watch _Star Trek TNG _ (almost any episode will do).


----------



## 48209 (Jul 4, 2011)

ShayneHellerman said:


> Doh! *headdesk* This is what I get for skimming the first part of the comment.


Well, since I typically don't get any responses, you get bonus points for skimming!


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Caddy said:


> There is no genre named Tragedy. If there was, then yes it would fit there.


There is in the *THEATRE!!!!*

*your statement is sacrilege to anyone who reads Shakespeare as literature.

There are only 3 Genres:

Tragedy
History
Comedy


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

ASparrow said:


> Sorry if I misread your intentions. I tend to do that a lot around here. It happens with wild boys like me who were raised by wolves (figuratively). I'm one of those who failed: 'plays well with others,' in kindergarten.
> 
> 'Root' is the Slipstream story I described. YA Paranormal is not that far off, I suppose. It just doesn't seem to fit very well alongside other things labelled YA Paranormal. Too much reality, not enough supernatural.
> 
> ...


House of Leaves is sitting on my coffee table waiting for an opportunity to be cracked open.

I guess I need to brush up on my William Gibson because I always thought of him strictly as Cyberpunk.

Will be checking out the others shortly.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

ASparrow said:


> Sorry if I misread your intentions. I tend to do that a lot around here. It happens with wild boys like me who were raised by wolves (figuratively). I'm one of those who failed: 'plays well with others,' in kindergarten.


It happens. Despite this being a very "nice" forum, everyone always seems so on edge. It's hard to just have a conversation where people raise their voices, have another drink and walk away happy.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> There is in the THEATRE!!!!
> 
> *your statement is sacrilege to anyone who reads Shakespeare as literature.
> 
> ...


Hey, I hear you. Actually, Shakespear is considered "drama" as far as reading it goes. One would think that a book that is a tragedy would acutomatically be of the drama genre, but technically, the drama genre is books that are written for screenplay or live theatre. I personally think drama should include love stories that are not romances, tragedy, and character studies that are not necessarily ready for screen or stage.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

WHDean said:


> It's a plot device named after the piece of theatre machinery used to perform the scene on stage.


Yes. The piece of theatre machinery which was used to lower *characters playing gods* onto the stage. From wiki: _The Latin phrase deus ex machina comes to English usage from Horace's Ars Poetica, where he instructs poets that they must never resort to a god from the machine to solve their plots. He refers to the conventions of Greek tragedy, where a crane (mekhane) was used to lower actors playing gods onto the stage. _



WHDean said:


> Having a god appear at the end of the story doesn't make it a deus ex machina. Nor do you need a god in the story to have a deus ex machina. That's why the term is still in use today (if with slightly different connotations).


Here's the definition: _ deus ex machina - Latin: "god from the machine"; plural: dei ex machina) is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object._

So no, having a god appear at the end doesn't make it deus ex machina, nor do you need a god to have it. But, having a god appear at the end to kill off all the bad guys when there are no good guys left to do it pretty much fills the bill of a 'seemingly unsolvable problem being suddenly and abruptly solved by the contrived an unexpected intervention of some new character'.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

It depends.

I think you can write anything you want... but some things won't sell.

For example, a person could easily write a romance novel focused on a male hero with women falling all over him, instead of the other way around.

But would that sell to a romance fan? Not likely.

The traditional (not to say it's ALWAYS true) romance fan wants a female heroine, with two or three men courting her and the decision of who she wants to be with in her hands.

Mess with that formula on the edges (like choosing to be alone) and maybe it'd still sell. Switch it up so a man's the focus, and it likely won't sell. Not to the same audience, anyway.

Another example:

In the mystery/detective genre, you can change it up some. Maybe the detective solves the case but doesn't get the girl. That would probably sell.

But he pretty much has to solve the case, even if aspects of it remain unsolved over a multi-novel arc. If he doesn't solve the case, not ever, then he's not a good detective and the reader feels betrayed.

I mean, think of how fans of James Patterson's Alex Cross series would feel if Kyle Craig always eluded him, was always one step ahead of Cross, and never captured or even identified Mastermind? The Cross novels would lose their appeal.

So there are aspects that you can bend the rules with, and some rules that, while you can break them, if you do you will lose readers because you're not living up to the expectations of a genre.

It's like a failed comic book plot I once pitched to Joe Quesada via email.

I wanted to write a Daredevil story.

And I wanted to address the issue of child abuse with a standalone story.

In the story, I had DD stumble across an instance in which a father is beating his child. DD intervenes, but soon learns that the moment he's not there, the abuse will resume. DD can't be there, monitoring the father 24/7. (Though he tries for a few nights to do so.)

Frustrated, as lawyer Matt Murdock, he tries to call in social services but it's difficult to explain how he knows the abuse is going on without revealing his identity. And the kid's scared witless of his father, so he refuses to testify or confirm any abuse allegations.

The story ended on a down note, I think with Matt more or less realizing there are some problems he can't solve.

That was my basic theme: just because a person has powers and a costume, they can't solve everything for everyone.

Plus, it underlined the theme that there are no easy answers to child abuse.

Quesada rejected the story, and took time to explain why.

He told me (via email) "I see what you're going for, but it just won't work. He can't help this kid as Matt or as Daredevil, and readers will end up hating the story. If he couldn't help as DD, but could help as Matt, that'd work. If he couldn't help as Matt, but can help as DD, that'd work. But in the superhero genre, the hero has to be able to make some sort of difference, or they're not a hero."

Quesada was right. And it was a lesson in storytelling. There are some genre rules that can't be broken without breaking trust with the readers.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> That was my basic theme: just because a person has powers and a costume, they can't solve everything for everyone.
> 
> Plus, it underlined the theme that there are no easy answers to child abuse.
> 
> ...


Yeah, that's a little too much like real life, haivng to watch some kid get abused and not being able to do anything about it. That's when Hulk comes in a squashes the dad. Makes the kid a happy orphan, and a DD wannabe or something.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

ShayneHellerman said:


> But, having a god appear at the end to kill off all the bad guys when there are no good guys left to do it pretty much fills the bill of a 'seemingly unsolvable problem being suddenly and abruptly solved by the contrived an unexpected intervention of some new character'.


But God's intervention wasn't (and isn't generally) _necessary _ to resolve your run-of-the-mill apocalyptic confrontation. King could have easily used a conflicted character-say, Randall's lieutenant-to detonate the nuke in a moment of clarity. The key word here is "necessity." The plot has to be such that it has no real resolution (as opposed to one that could have had a resolution if not for the writer's failure to execute properly). Thus, _Lord of the Flies _ is a case of a plot with no resolution-at least, no unpleasant one.

If there was a deus ex machina at the end of _The Stand_, it was the nuke itself. On that you could make a case for deus ex machina. But King didn't need God to set it off.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

NathanWrann said:


> There are only 3 Genres:
> 
> Tragedy
> History
> Comedy


That's the beauty of literary ontologies: you can make them as parsimonious and rigid as you like. With the threefold comedy, history, tragedy classification, you can characterize everything that doesn't fit as a defective form of one or the other. Horror, for example, is just bad tragedy. Romance is sentimental comedy, etc. It's brilliant.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

WHDean said:


> But God's intervention wasn't (and isn't generally) _necessary _ to resolve your run-of-the-mill apocalyptic confrontation. King could have easily used a conflicted character-say, Randall's lieutenant-to detonate the nuke in a moment of clarity. The key word here is "necessity." The plot has to be such that it has no real resolution (as opposed to one that could have had a resolution if not for the writer's failure to execute properly). Thus, _Lord of the Flies _ is a case of a plot with no resolution-at least, no unpleasant one.
> 
> If there was a deus ex machina at the end of _The Stand_, it was the nuke itself. On that you could make a case for deus ex machina. But King didn't need God to set it off.


I loved The Stand, one of my favorite books. I THOUGHT I would feel cheated if one of the heroes didn't set off the nuke or kill the bad guys (other than Randall) in some way, but it felt just as good to have Trashy set the thing off. It worked, and that's the bottom line, right?


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

vrabinec said:


> I loved The Stand, one of my favorite books. I THOUGHT I would feel cheated if one of the heroes didn't set off the nuke or kill the bad guys (other than Randall) in some way, but it felt just as good to have Trashy set the thing off. It worked, and that's the bottom line, right?


Yes. I'm not criticizing _The Stand_; I'm just saying it's not really a deus ex machina. The ending (insofar as I remember it anyway) made sense. I didn't feel cheated.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

WHDean said:


> But God's intervention wasn't (and isn't generally) _necessary _ to resolve your run-of-the-mill apocalyptic confrontation. King could have easily used a conflicted character-say, Randall's lieutenant-to detonate the nuke in a moment of clarity. The key word here is "necessity." The plot has to be such that it has no real resolution (as opposed to one that could have had a resolution if not for the writer's failure to execute properly). Thus, _Lord of the Flies _ is a case of a plot with no resolution-at least, no unpleasant one.
> 
> If there was a deus ex machina at the end of _The Stand_, it was the nuke itself. On that you could make a case for deus ex machina. But King didn't need God to set it off.


Yes, the fact that the nuke was there at all could be considered deus ex machina. And no, King didn't need god to set it off - it could have been Trash Can Man who set it off and it would still be the same thing.

In the wiki article it says "Aristotle criticized the device in his Poetics, where he argued that the resolution of a plot must arise internally, following from previous action of the play." I'm not making the argument that I am because it was God, specifically, who killed off all the bad guys. I'm making the argument that I am because having some character who we've never met before come along and detonate a nuke that kills off all the bad guys is not a resolution that arises internally from the plot. The fact that in this case that previously un-met character is the hand of god is immaterial - it's the fact that the character came out of nowhere that makes it deus ex machina. If he'd had one of the captured characters get loose and detonate the bomb, sacrificing himself for the greater good, I would say that resolution arose internally from the previous action of the plot. But the way it did end, not so much.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

vrabinec said:


> I loved The Stand, one of my favorite books. I THOUGHT I would feel cheated if one of the heroes didn't set off the nuke or kill the bad guys (other than Randall) in some way, but it felt just as good to have Trashy set the thing off. It worked, and that's the bottom line, right?


I don't remember the book ending, but in the mini-series it wasn't Trash Can Man who detonated the nuke. He brought the thing in using an ATV with a trailer attached, and then the hand of god, literally, came down out of the sky and detonated it.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

Monique said:


> Don't think of them as rules but as expectations.


This.

As a writer, you're free to break any rules you want, but if you buck conventions for a particular genre then you risk pissing off readers who choose to read that genre because of the "comfort read" aspect of it.

A romance requires a HEA (or at least HFN). If your book has a romantic theme but does not have this type of ending, then it's mainstream women's fiction or a novel with strong romantic elements, but is not a "Romance."

Why would you label it that way if you know that it doesn't contain the elements readers look for?


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

ASparrow said:


> I love having my expectations blown apart and replaced with something totally unexpected. That's what I call entertainment! Stories that check all of the usual boxes to me can feel like paint by numbers, even when the writing is slick and stylish.
> 
> Trailers and blurbs are kind of a different. That's more about truth in advertising.


See, I think of a genre label as often playing a similar role as a trailer or blurb, actually. It's shorthand for the type of book you are getting. Don't get me wrong -- I love having plot and characterization expectations blown away. Surprising plot twists are the best! But when I pick up a genre book, I do have certain expectations and get upset when they're not met.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

MikeAngel said:


> Perhaps I get hung up on the semantics of it all. To me Dr. Zhivago is a romance, among other things, but it has no HEA. I fail to see why romance with HEA alone should have claim to the label "romance." Let's say I took a Harlequin novel and gave the heroine terminal cancer at the end (a much more real outcome than riding off into the sunset). The ideologues here would claim the book is no longer a "romance." Is a HEA or HFN really the sole determinant of the label "romance"?


Dr. Zhivago is a very romantic story, but I'd classify it as a "love story" as opposed to a "romance." Same with anything by Nicholas Sparks. And just like in the movie by the same name, "love stories" do not require the HEA and very often end with one of the character dying.


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2012)

Amanda Brice said:


> As a writer, you're free to break any rules you want, but if you buck conventions for a particular genre then you risk pissing off readers who choose to read that genre because of the "comfort read" aspect of it.
> 
> A romance requires a HEA (or at least HFN). If your book has a romantic theme but does not have this type of ending, then it's mainstream women's fiction or a novel with strong romantic elements, but is not a "Romance."
> 
> Why would you label it that way if you know that it doesn't contain the elements readers look for?


Because you don't believe romances have to end in any certain way. Because you're not one of the ideologue literary monks chanting the mantra "HEA HEA HEA." Because you believe each book should stand on its own; because you don't much care for formulaic writing. Because Indie publishing has broken the chains, restrictions and barriers set by publishers who blame these barriers on readers. Because you give readers more credit than to be mindless lemmings who want cookie-cutter tales. Because fashions change and chasing them is a waste of talent and energy. A lot of reasons.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

ShayneHellerman said:


> I don't remember the book ending, but in the mini-series it wasn't Trash Can Man who detonated the nuke. He brought the thing in using an ATV with a trailer attached, and then the hand of god, literally, came down out of the sky and detonated it.


I don't remember for sure, but I think in the book, he brings it and it's already counting down for some reason. He gives it to Randall and it goes off. I don't don't think the hand of God came down, but it's been likw 25 years since I read the thing, so I might be wrong.


----------



## Susanne O (Feb 8, 2010)

To me, the whole _point_ of self publishing is just that; to be able to break conventional rules and to cross genres and write a story that makes sense and is compelling.

Why must a romance have a set in stone HEA? Why can't it have a maybe they will, maybe they won't kind of ending?


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

MikeAngel said:


> Because you don't believe romances have to end in any certain way. Because you're not one of the ideologue literary monks chanting the mantra "HEA HEA HEA." Because you believe each book should stand on its own; because you don't much care for formulaic writing. Because Indie publishing has broken the chains, restrictions and barriers set by publishers who blame these barriers on readers. Because you give readers more credit than to be mindless lemmings who want cookie-cutter tales. Because fashions change and chasing them is a waste of talent and energy. A lot of reasons.


Call it a love story. But not a romance, or risk pissing off legions of readers who expect the HEA.

But whatever. I don't care what you call it. Call it a romance. Call it a sci-fi. But iwhat you're doing it essentially false advertising, so brace yourself for the 1-star reviews.



Susanne OLeary said:


> To me, the whole _point_ of self publishing is just that; to be able to break conventional rules and to cross genres and write a story that makes sense and is compelling.
> 
> Why must a romance have a set in stone HEA? Why can't it have a maybe they will, maybe they won't kind of ending?


Sounds like mainstream women's fiction to me. Not romance.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Dr. Zhivago is a very romantic story, but I'd classify it as a "love story" as opposed to a "romance." Same with anything by Nicholas Sparks. And just like in the movie by the same name, "love stories" do not require the HEA and very often end with one of the character dying.


One reason an author might call a Love Story a Romance is because Amazon doesn't seem to offer a Love Story category.

[I couldn't find Love Story in Amazon's categories. But I admit it's not an area I know much about.]


----------



## Susanne O (Feb 8, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> One reason an author might call a Love Story a Romance is because Amazon doesn't seem to offer a Love Story category.
> 
> [I couldn't find Love Story in Amazon's categories. But I admit it's not an area I know much about.]


Exactly!


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

Right, because most stories that would be considered a "love story" tend to be mainstream fiction, not genre. So they'd be classified in "fiction" as opposed to "romance."

But if you want to classify your book as a "romance," go right ahead. But expect romance fans to be upset.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

Susanne OLeary said:


> Why must a romance have a set in stone HEA? Why can't it have a maybe they will, maybe they won't kind of ending?


It's not so much a "set in stone HEA" - you're not obligated to _literally_ write "...and they lived happily ever after, the end" - as it is a _resolution_ to the relationship. "Will you marry me, Princess?" / "Ask me again in a year, farm boy." / "As you wish." may get you grudging points for a Princess Bride reference, but it's going to annoy romance readers who are by-and-large looking for a (happy) resolution, not a mystery.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

ShayneHellerman said:


> Yes, the fact that the nuke was there at all could be considered deus ex machina. And no, King didn't need god to set it off - it could have been Trash Can Man who set it off and it would still be the same thing.
> 
> In the wiki article it says "Aristotle criticized the device in his Poetics, where he argued that the resolution of a plot must arise internally, following from previous action of the play." I'm not making the argument that I am because it was God, specifically, who killed off all the bad guys. I'm making the argument that I am because having some character who we've never met before come along and detonate a nuke that kills off all the bad guys is not a resolution that arises internally from the plot. The fact that in this case that previously un-met character is the hand of god is immaterial - it's the fact that the character came out of nowhere that makes it deus ex machina. If he'd had one of the captured characters get loose and detonate the bomb, sacrificing himself for the greater good, I would say that resolution arose internally from the previous action of the plot. But the way it did end, not so much.


As I mentioned before, I'm probably confusing the book and the film (I'm visually minded, so I remember both in "pictures.") I don't even remember the "Trash Can Man" character. But if he was a bit player and he set off the nuke, then you're absolutely right that it's a deus ex machina. In fact, that's a perfect example of one.

My recollection is the hand of God coming down and setting it off, so I'm probably remembering the film. That was definitely a little ham-fisted. As I suggested before, I think the whole nuke business could have seemed more natural if Randall's right-hand man would've been vacillating between good and evil from the start. In the final scene he could've made the (nuclear) choice for goodies.

The problem with the _Poetics _ argument is that it's a better criticism of modern deus ex machina than it is of the ancient kind. No doubt some of the ancients did it badly. But it also had a purpose in some cases (e.g., like it does in Lord of the Flies). I guess the best thing would be for us to differentiate between _good _ and _bad _ use of deus ex machina, because I think there are cases where it works.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

MikeAngel said:


> Because you don't believe romances have to end in any certain way. Because you're not one of the ideologue literary monks chanting the mantra "HEA HEA HEA." Because you believe each book should stand on its own; because you don't much care for formulaic writing. Because Indie publishing has broken the chains, restrictions and barriers set by publishers who blame these barriers on readers. Because you give readers more credit than to be mindless lemmings who want cookie-cutter tales. Because fashions change and chasing them is a waste of talent and energy. A lot of reasons.


Romance readers are voracious and they don't just read romance but also other genres. Why would you p*ss off a group of voracious readers who might pick up and enjoy your book for what it is, provided it's been properly categorized, just to make a point? Sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face to me.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

WHDean said:


> As I mentioned before, I'm probably confusing the book and the film (I'm visually minded, so I remember both in "pictures.") I don't even remember the "Trash Can Man" character. But if he was a bit player and he set off the nuke, then you're absolutely right that it's a deus ex machina. In fact, that's a perfect example of one.


Trashy got a lot of pages in the book. Among the bad guys, he was second or third in terms of words dedicated to him, and by making him a pyromaniac, King set up the end from the first time he introduced him, which was within the first 10,000 words of the longer version of the novel. It wasn't clear what role Trashy would play until the very end, but when the end came, it was perfectly logical to have him dragging a nuke around. Definitely not deus ex.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

CoraBuhlert said:


> Romance readers are voracious and they don't just read romance but also other genres. Why would you p*ss off a group of voracious readers who might pick up and enjoy your book for what it is, provided it's been properly categorized, just to make a point? Sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face to me.


This. I very well may read and enjoy your book if you properly classify it for me. I read broadly. but when I pick up a romance, it's because that's the type of book I'm in the mood for. I want to sigh with a cheesy grin on my face. I want to feel all the happy excited feelings you get when you're falling in love. If I'm looking for a romantic comedy and I get a horror, I'm going to be mad. But on another day, I very well might be looking for that horror, you know?


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2012)

Amanda Brice said:


> Call it a love story. But not a romance, or risk pissing off legions of readers who expect the HEA.
> 
> But whatever. I don't care what you call it. Call it a romance. Call it a sci-fi. But iwhat you're doing it essentially false advertising, so brace yourself for the 1-star reviews.
> 
> Sounds like mainstream women's fiction to me. Not romance.


 I believe your "pissing off legions" and "false advertising" to be canards. Nobody owns the label "romance." You're like the once freed slaves who couldn't leave the plantation because they were afraid of the new reality. But I admit I may be wrong about such reader reaction. If you show me a couple of examples of that happening I'd be happy to review them. Or, has anyone here labeled their novel a "romance" that did not have a HEA ending? Please speak up or forever hold your peace.  (Or, as the erotica writers might say, forever hold your piece.)


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Reality is, that it is only those that do not write, nor read romance keep trying to tell us readers what we need or want. 

When I want to read a romance, I go to a writer that actually writes romance. Preferable one that also reads the same, as I don't trust writers that don't read. I don't really care what non romance writers feel about romance writers or readers and these continued attempts at bashing down on the genre, smack of really big green envy to me. Always has. Always will.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

vrabinec said:


> Trashy got a lot of pages in the book. Among the bad guys, he was second or third in terms of words dedicated to him, and by making him a pyromaniac, King set up the end from the first time he introduced him, which was within the first 10,000 words of the longer version of the novel. It wasn't clear what role Trashy would play until the very end, but when the end came, it was perfectly logical to have him dragging a nuke around. Definitely not deus ex.


One of you guys is right, but I'm not sure who. Suffice to say I must retire from this particular line because my memory of a book read 18-20 years ago isn't good.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

I think that Trashcan man's role was increased in the 2nd version of The Stand -- the one where King got to add it all back in. I seem to recall part of his journey being one of the new (to readers) story lines.

From Wiki:

_In the unedited version, Trash briefly hooks up with a cocky, maniacal street hood named The Kid, but when The Kid threatens not only to kill Trash (several times, always for petty reasons), but to overthrow the Dark Man, Flagg sends wolves to save him. The Kid ends up holed up in a car with the pack of wolves surrounding it day and night._


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

MichelleR said:


> I think that Trashcan man's role was increased in the 2nd version of The Stand -- the one where King got to add it all back in. I seem to recall part of his journey being one of the new (to readers) story lines.
> 
> From Wiki:
> 
> _In the unedited version, Trash briefly hooks up with a cocky, maniacal street hood named The Kid, but when The Kid threatens not only to kill Trash (several times, always for petty reasons), but to overthrow the Dark Man, Flagg sends wolves to save him. The Kid ends up holed up in a car with the pack of wolves surrounding it day and night._


Thanks for making me look worse. I read the unabridged version to boot!


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

WHDean said:


> Thanks for making me look worse. I read the unabridged version to boot!


I live to serve? There's a whole mess of stuff in that book, it's not surprising that several years later parts of it would be forgotten. I've been listening to the audible version off and on, and a lot of it seems new to me. The reason I remembered about Trash is that King mentions it in the introduction, I believe.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

WHDean said:


> The problem with the _Poetics _ argument is that it's a better criticism of modern deus ex machina than it is of the ancient kind. No doubt some of the ancients did it badly. But it also had a purpose in some cases (e.g., like it does in Lord of the Flies). I guess the best thing would be for us to differentiate between _good _ and _bad _ use of deus ex machina, because I think there are cases where it works.


Can we go with _bad_ and _acceptable_ uses? Because I think any ending that doesn't follow organically from what came before is weak writing at best, and should be avoided if at all possible. To me, the only thing that makes the Lord of the Flies example acceptable, while the Stand one isn't, is that it is within the realm of reasonable expectation that a group of shipwrecked kids could be rescued unexpectedly, even if there are no set-up scenes showing the ship searching for the kids.


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

WHDean said:


> [I also wish you'd all stop calling genre conventions _rules_; they're conventions, people, _conventions_.


This is a good point!

And if I substitute 'Conventions' to the OP - then I think we are getting to the meat of the discussion.

The READER buys a genre because they are (at that moment) looking _for that set of conventions._ This is ALL reader-centric at the point of purchase. As an author - my job is to find the label that will lead readers to my book.

Now, since I published it on Amazon, instead of releasing it for free on Smashwords, my intention was to sell the book to a reader. So it is in my best interest to satisfy the reader's desire for whichever convention label I slapped on the book.

I mean, I like you guys. But I wrote my book for readers. So I'm going to fulfill THEIR expectations.

Which means - my answer is NO - not as long as readers want their chocolate to be chocolately.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

Calling a story a romance when it doesn't have an HEA (or at least a HFN) is kind of like calling a book a ghost story when it has no ghost.

No one is saying that anyone has to write a romance, or a love story, or anything else. But if it doesn't conform to a certain genre then it shouldn't be labelled as such. Because calling a thing romance is making your reader a promise of HEA. And "Don't make promises you can't keep" might not be a rule in this new age of self-publishing, but it probably should be.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

WHDean said:


> One of you guys is right, but I'm not sure who. Suffice to say I must retire from this particular line because my memory of a book read 18-20 years ago isn't good.


Just checked that scene on Netflix and indeed a big hand of light comes to blow the bomb and is identified as the hand of God. But Trash was definitely set up to be an instrument, and Randall Flagg was clearly the Devil, so God v. Devil was how I always read the storyline anyway, with Mother Abigail as God's stand-in for much of the book.

/end off-topic


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

For those who asked for examples where romance readers were angry because a book billed as a romance novel did not have a HEA, here are two articles from All About Romance and Dear Author, both major romance sites. Both are about the same set of books, the _Candace Steele Vampire Killer_ paranormal romance trilogy by Cameron Dean, though there are also other examples given in both articles.

The articles basically confirm what I and many others have been saying all along: If you call something a romance and it doesn't have a positive ending, prepare for some very angry readers. BTW, Cameron Dean never published another book, at least not under that name, after the Candace Steele trilogy.


----------



## Lily_T (Sep 25, 2011)

I think most people internalize the concept of a romance as children. (this may vary but is definitely true in the Western world)

Two people (say a Prince and Princess) get together and stay together in spite of the obstacles (witches, trolls, evil stepmothers and magic spells). If in adulthood you try to redefine the accepted definition then you should expect some pushback. 

But please, please, please don't feign surprise at what even your 6 year-old self could have told you.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

CoraBuhlert said:


> The articles basically confirm what I and many others have been saying all along: If you call something a romance and it doesn't have a positive ending, prepare for some very angry readers. BTW, Cameron Dean never published another book, at least not under that name, after the Candace Steele trilogy.


Interestingly, her trilogy has ratings of 3.41 / 3.45 / 3.21 on Goodreads, with a cumulative total of 803 ratings and 75 reviews. That's far from terrible, for Goodreads...


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

ShayneHellerman said:


> Can we go with _bad_ and _acceptable_ uses? Because I think any ending that doesn't follow organically from what came before is weak writing at best, and should be avoided if at all possible. To me, the only thing that makes the Lord of the Flies example acceptable, while the Stand one isn't, is that it is within the realm of reasonable expectation that a group of shipwrecked kids could be rescued unexpectedly, even if there are no set-up scenes showing the ship searching for the kids.


Well, here's a variation on the DEM that I find intolerable: the hero doesn't kill the baddie outright even though he's completely justified in doing so-even though it's necessary. No, no! He has to be forced into it by the baddie or by some external circumstance. I loathe this horrid conceit which has become a staple of action flicks and thrillers. No one wants to show the goodie making the hard choice. He has to be excused by circumstances beyond his control. It's been in everything from _The Lion King _ to (most recently) _The Walking Dead_-though in the latter case, I'm inclined to let them off on a technicality.

Now, my point about good DEMs is that certain types of stories-like _TLF_-require DEMs to tell the story or the DEM is part of the point of the story. The best example I can think of is _The Pledge_-the film, not the book. It wasn't well executed (for reasons I won't get into), but the


Spoiler



serial killer had to be killed in a random car crash


 for the story to be the (genuine) tragedy that it was. (If you or someone else doesn't know the film, I'll fill you in on it, but I'll assume for now that you do.) At any rate, DEM not only worked, but the random act was essential to the tragedy.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

jnfr said:


> Just checked that scene on Netflix and indeed a big hand of light comes to blow the bomb and is identified as the hand of God. But Trash was definitely set up to be an instrument, and Randall Flagg was clearly the Devil, so God v. Devil was how I always read the storyline anyway, with Mother Abigail as God's stand-in for much of the book.


At least I'm not losing it altogether. Like you, I thought God's appearance wasn't really out of place given the epic/End of Days flavour of the whole thing.



K. A. Jordan said:


> This is ALL reader-centric at the point of purchase. As an author - my job is to find the label that will lead readers to my book.


That's exactly it. Rules are writer-centric, conventions are reader-centric. Once you call them "rules" the whole discussion turns into a "Nobody tells me what to do!" rant, which is entirely beside the point.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

WHDean said:


> Well, here's a variation on the DEM that I find intolerable: the hero doesn't kill the baddie outright even though he's completely justified in doing so-even though it's necessary. No, no! He has to be forced into it by the baddie or by some external circumstance. I loathe this horrid conceit which has become a staple of action flicks and thrillers. No one wants to show the goodie making the hard choice. He has to be excused by circumstances beyond his control. It's been in everything from _The Lion King _ to (most recently) _The Walking Dead_-though in the latter case, I'm inclined to let them off on a technicality.


I know what you're saying - the choice to not kill is determined by the writer out of necessity to stick with certain conventions, rather than letting the action come naturally to the expected conclusion (having the MC kill the bad guy). But, as long as the bad guy's actions are within character for that bad guy, I'm willing to let it slide, because in a lot of cases, I don't want to see the good guy stoop to the bad guy's level.

But, at least for me, that depends entirely on what kind of story it is. At the end of Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, Moriarty tells Holmes that, as a way of repaying him for all his interference, he's going to kill Watson in an extremely painful way at some point in the future. And Moriarty is smart and powerful enough that Holmes knew killing him was the only way Watson would truly be safe. So, the writers could just as easily have had Holmes shoot Moriarty as a way of protecting Watson, and after everything it would have been, if not justified, at least understandable. But I would have hated to see Holmes sink to that level, no matter how understandable. The way Holmes actually did it -


Spoiler



throwing himself and Moriarty over the falls


 - was much more satisfying an ending, because Holmes stuck to his principals, and because of that, not only did he save Watson, but he proved himself the more worthy adversary and won the 'game'.

On the other hand, when Frank Kastle (The Punisher) is out to get the people who murdered his family, I'm rooting for him the whole time, and don't give a rat's hind end what level he sinks to in order to get his revenge.



WHDean said:


> Now, my point about good DEMs is that certain types of stories-like _TLF_-require DEMs to tell the story or the DEM is part of the point of the story. The best example I can think is _The Pledge_-the film, not the book. It wasn't well executed (for reasons I won't get into), but the
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


I don't know the story at all. Can you fill me in?


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

WHDean said:


> The best example I can think of is _The Pledge_-the film, not the book. It wasn't well executed (for reasons I won't get into), but the
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Which film version of _The Pledge_ are you talking about, cause there are at least five different versions, maybe more? If it's the recent Jack Nicholson version, I've never seen that one. However, the good guy cop certainly is directly involved in the death of the killer in the Richard E. Grant version from the 1990s or the Heinz Rühmann/Gert Fröbe version from 1958. I don't remember the Bernd Eichinger version from the 1990s very well and have never seen the Italian adaption from the 1970s.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

ShayneHellerman said:


> I don't want to see the good guy stoop to the bad guy's level.
> 
> But I would have hated to see Holmes sink to that level, no matter how understandable.


That's where we differ. For me, "that level" is the real if repugnant one. The baddie almost always either deserves death or it is necessary for the hero to kill him whether he wants to or not. He has to do. When we allow the hero to kill him through a DEM, we're ultimately soothing our own conscience by pretending that life can be otherwise. But it can't. Sometime you have to kill people because they're just that bad-and then you have to live with it too. Put another way, I reject the whole "cycle of violence" moral that ultimately informs the hero's decision not to kill the baddie (believe it or not, it's a Marxist idea).

_The Pledge_. A nearly retired cop catches a case where a young girl is brutally murdered. He "pledges" to the mother that he'll catch the killer. He retires and keeps searching, even though he's ordered and beseeched by his old partner to leave it alone. He meets a woman who has a daughter and he begins to live a bit of happy life for the first time. But he keeps searching for the killer, eventually finding him. Now he has to prove it.


Spoiler



He does the unthinkable: he secretly uses his girlfriend's daughter to bait the killer. But the psycho gets in a car accident on the way to the trap. The killer doesn't show and the goodie winds up looking like a fool to the cops. The mother/girlfriend finds out and abandons him. He loses everything, including his sanity.



If the movie had been well executed, it would have been an old-fashioned tragedy. Why? Because he should have let the case go. He should have recognized his limitations. And most importantly, he should never have


Spoiler



used the girl as bait


--that's where he really crossed the line (i.e., his hubris). That's also why the DEM was necessary. There was no other way of reconciling the plot


Spoiler



without the accident.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

CoraBuhlert said:


> Which film version of _The Pledge_ are you talking about, cause there are at least five different versions, maybe more? If it's the recent Jack Nicholson version, I've never seen that one. However, the good guy cop certainly is directly involved in the death of the killer in the Richard E. Grant version from the 1990s or the Heinz Rühmann/Gert Fröbe version from 1958. I don't remember the Bernd Eichinger version from the 1990s very well and have never seen the Italian adaption from the 1970s.


I watched the Sean Penn/Jack Nicholson version. I knew there was a book (which I may one day read), but I'd never heard of the other films. At any rate, the synopsis is posted above. I'd like to know how the other films differ.


----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

MikeAngel said:


> I believe your "pissing off legions" and "false advertising" to be canards. Nobody owns the label "romance." You're like the once freed slaves who couldn't leave the plantation because they were afraid of the new reality. But I admit I may be wrong about such reader reaction...


That's a rather p*ss-poor analogy in this case. Just because you disagree with the opinion, don't try to dismiss it as having no merit other than fear. You have no basis whatsoever to assume that at least _some_ readers would not be upset to by a book promising one genre and discovering that it in no way meets the basic canons of that genre. That's just outright common sense.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

WHDean said:


> That's where we differ. For me, "that level" is the real if repugnant one. The baddie almost always either deserves death or it is necessary for the hero to kill him whether he wants to or not. He has to do. When we allow the hero to kill him through a DEM, we're ultimately soothing our own conscience by pretending that life can be otherwise. But it can't. Sometime you have to kill people because they're just that bad-and then you have to live with it too. Put another way, I reject the whole "cycle of violence" moral that ultimately informs the hero's decision not to kill the baddie (believe it or not, it's a Marxist idea).


For me, it depends on the kind of story, and therefore, the kind of main character. If the MC has been set up as a hero (the kind of person we put up on a pedestal), as opposed to just a protagonist, then no, he can't kill the bad guy without a good reason, because he's supposed to exemplify goodness and be someone the average person can aspire to be like. That's just the way fiction works (which is the reason I read fiction as opposed to the news, because I don't always want my fiction to be that real). A lot of people like to read stories with heroes who are stronger than they are, who can say 'Here is the line and I will not cross it, no matter what.' Heroes are supposed to give us someone to look up to, and it's hard to look up to someone who's just as weak and human as the average joe.

But I think there are plenty of stories nowadays where the MC could get away with killing someone who needed killing and have it be acceptable to the audience, as long as you made sure to get the reader on board with the MC before he did what he needed to do.
And what if it's not the whole cycle of violence thing that informs the MC's decision not to kill, but the 'I don't want to go to prison' argument?


----------



## Dee Ernst (Jan 10, 2011)

Better Off Without Him was shopped around by my agent for over a year.  Here are some of the reasons it was rejected - 
Heroine was 'too old' for chick lit
Subject of divorce not handled seriously enough for womens fiction
Not enough sex and/or no traditional H&h relationship for romance
Too funny for literary fiction
Too many romantic elements for humor

So when I self-pubbed, I slapped 'Romantic Comedy' right next to the title, and readers had no problems figuring out if they wanted to buy it or not.  Yes, readers have rules and it's best to stick with them.  But readers are also thinking people who know what they want when they see it. I think that's one of the greatest things about being an indie - the freedom to step outside the box and coax a few readers to go out there with you.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Heroes can't be executioners. We expect (there's that word) them to work within lawful guidelines (a cop says "freeze" when he draws his gun. If the bad guy freezes the cop doesn't shoot. If the bad guy doesn't freeze the cop shoots). a great many horror stories are revenge tales where the bad guy is the one seeking revenge. As soon as a hero has nullified the threat of the bad guy, any action taken against the baddie after that is a revenge action. Revenge is for the bad guys. Or the vigilantes. The Punisher can kill people because he is an executioner, I mean, it's right there in his name: The Punisher.

When your heroes start arbitrarily killing the bad guys they become anti-heroes. There is room for both in the world. In fact, the anti-hero spelled the end for the big action stars like Stallone, Schwarzenegger and Willis. I like a good ol' complex anti-hero but I don't understand how people can cheer for a guy like Freddy Krueger, I mean the guy's a murdering pedophile.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Did we ever find out if _Love Story_ was a Romance?


----------



## Susan Kaye Quinn (Aug 8, 2011)

OMG this thread is epic. 

My contribution: the only real RULE is BE AWESOME.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Did we ever find out if _Love Story_ was a Romance?


It was then but it's not now, I guess. The times, they are a changin', and whatnot.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

ShayneHellerman said:


> ... If the MC has been set up as a hero (the kind of person we put up on a pedestal), as opposed to just a protagonist, then no, he can't kill the bad guy without a good reason, because he's supposed to exemplify goodness and be someone the average person can aspire to be like.





NathanWrann said:


> Heroes can't be executioners. We expect (there's that word) them to work within lawful guidelines (a cop says "freeze" when he draws his gun. If the bad guy freezes the cop doesn't shoot. If the bad guy doesn't freeze the cop shoots). a great many horror stories are revenge tales where the bad guy is the one seeking revenge. As soon as a hero has nullified the threat of the bad guy, any action taken against the baddie after that is a revenge action. Revenge is for the bad guys. Or the vigilantes. The Punisher can kill people because he is an executioner, I mean, it's right there in his name: The Punisher.
> 
> When your heroes start arbitrarily killing the bad guys they become anti-heroes. There is room for both in the world. In fact, the anti-hero spelled the end for the big action stars like Stallone, Schwarzenegger and Willis. I like a good ol' complex anti-hero but I don't understand how people can cheer for a guy like Freddy Krueger, I mean the guy's a murdering pedophile.


Ah, but that's a modern hero. The real hero is a hero precisely because he does what's right and what must be done regardless of the cost to him. Odysseus slaughters the suitors-and the _servants _ that conspired with them-at the end of the _Odyssey_, because there was no alternative. Honour demanded it; there could be no reconciliation. The level-headed Aeneas kills Turnus at the _Aeneid_, because it had to be done. Rooster Cogburn kills just about everyone because it has to be done. But he's not really an anti-hero at all. He upholds the law by upholding order _in spite of the law_. Heroes thrive in this no man's land. All heroic stories depend on this distinction between _good _ and _legal_.

A good contrived example of what I'm getting at (actually, it's a little Jack Bauer-y). FBI agent captures terrorist who knows about imminent attack. Terrorist won't talk. What happens next? In Hollywood movies the hero mulls it over, but he's saved from having to torture the terrorist by a DEM. We all expect this to happen nowadays. But it's fake; pure fantasy. What should happen is that the hero sucks it up knowing full well he's gonna pay the price later on when everyone is safe enough to indulge in niceties. And then he does pay the price when he's put on trial. There are a few alternatives for how it turns out, but you get the idea: the real hero does what needs to be done to fill that gap between law and order.



> And what if it's not the whole cycle of violence thing that informs the MC's decision not to kill, but the 'I don't want to go to prison' argument?


Heroes ain't scared of no prison.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> It was then but it's not now, I guess. The times, they are a changin', and whatnot.


You mean a Romance can get booted off the island?


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Terrence OBrien said:


> You mean a Romance can get booted off the island?


I don't recall anyone calling Love Story a romance novel. Doesn't mean it never happened -- just that I'd never noticed it on the island.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I don't recall either. I don't recall it being called anything. Like millions of other guys, I just pretended to like it when I got dragged to it. So what was it called?

But here's how it's set up on Amazon:

Look for Similar Items by Category
Books > Literature & Fiction
Books > Romance
Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Fiction > Contemporary Fiction
Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Romance

Looks like it swam back to the island.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Love story to me is what Nicholas Sparks is. I looked up his "Notebook" and its under contemporary fiction on Amazon. 
Neither are Romance. But of course Romance readers and writers already know that.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I don't recall either. I don't recall it being called anything. Like millions of other guys, I just pretended to like it when I got dragged to it. So what was it called?
> 
> But here's how it's set up on Amazon:
> 
> ...


It's the closest existing genre. 

I thought the discussion was how readers categorize it, not the catch-all drawer it ends up in for want of a better one.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I think Amanda asked why an author would tag a book as a Romance when it didn't have an HAE (HEA?). I agree a reasonable explanation is the Romance genre is the closest existing genre.

Now that I have clicked on _Love Story_, it will be interesting to see what comes in the Amazon email promotions.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

WHDean said:


> Ah, but that's a modern hero. The real hero is a hero precisely because he does what's right and what must be done regardless of the cost to him. Odysseus slaughters the suitors-and the _servants _ that conspired with them-at the end of the _Odyssey_, because there was no alternative. Honour demanded it;


IMO, murdering someone because their honor demands it means they are definitely not a hero. That isn't doing what's right. It's not doing what must be done. It's servicing their ego. Killing for justice is one thing, killing for besmirched honor is something else.



WHDean said:


> All heroic stories depend on this distinction between _good _ and _legal_.


Heroic stories also depend on there being a distinction between the good guys and the bad guys. As far as I can see there are two things that define a modern hero - their actions and their ideals. If the hero goes around killing people and thinking that's okay, how much of a difference is there really between the hero and the villain?



WHDean said:


> A good contrived example of what I'm getting at (actually, it's a little Jack Bauer-y). FBI agent captures terrorist who knows about imminent attack. Terrorist won't talk. What happens next? In Hollywood movies the hero mulls it over, but he's saved from having to torture the terrorist by a DEM. We all expect this to happen nowadays. But it's fake; pure fantasy.


If fiction required 100% realism, and allowed no room for any creative license, there would be a whole lot less fiction out there. Personally, I don't always want 100% realism - sometimes I want some fantasy. Sometimes I want my heroes to be better than the villains, to refuse to cross that line, because that's what's right, and then be able to pull a miracle out of their butt because it gives me something to cheer for.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

I think covers and blurbs also make up for ending up in the romance catch-all drawer, which a reader might never notice. They reveal the real genre in the shorthand that readers seem to know when it comes to their favorite genres.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> If the hero goes around killing people and thinking that's okay, how much of a difference is there really between the hero and the villain?


Depends on the reasons each considers it okay.


----------



## Guest (May 31, 2012)

Greg Banks said:


> That's a rather p*ss-poor analogy in this case. Just because you disagree with the opinion, don't try to dismiss it as having no merit other than fear. You have no basis whatsoever to assume that at least _some_ readers would not be upset to by a book promising one genre and discovering that it in no way meets the basic canons of that genre. That's just outright common sense.


 The analogy may be weak (as most are) but the point is this: Indies have been freed from rigid definitions; these folks are acting as if they're not free and claiming hordes of "pissed-off" readers will charge the writer's house with torches and one star reviews. All of which is pretty silly. Genre considerations, like language itself, is subject to evolution. And sense is rarely common these days.

And hey Greg, weren't you on Scrawl, that crit site voted worst mannered of the century? I seem to recall you from there or somewhere similar.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Depends on the reasons each considers it okay.


And there is a cycle where vigilantism comes in and out of fashion. Even the Dexter books say that a killer can be a hero -- well, an anti-hero, but the lines are blurred. Depending on the climate of the time, sometimes people will root for the character who plays judge, jury, and executioner.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

WHDean said:


> A good contrived example of what I'm getting at (actually, it's a little Jack Bauer-y). FBI agent captures terrorist who knows about imminent attack. Terrorist won't talk. What happens next? In Hollywood movies the hero mulls it over, but he's saved from having to torture the terrorist by a DEM.


No, the fantasy is that the hero magically knows an attack is going to happen, magically knows that some guy knows where the attack is going to happen, tortures him and the bad guy tells him where the attack is going to happen.

The reality is that the guy probably has no idea, the 'hero' tortures him and the 'bad guy' tells him whatever will make him stop. So the 'hero' goes rushing off to the wrong place, fails to stop the attack and ends up in jail for torture.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> No, the fantasy is that the hero magically knows an attack is going to happen, magically knows that some guy knows where the attack is going to happen, tortures him and the bad guy tells him where the attack is going to happen.


That would be pretty crappy book if the author relied on magic. It would be far better to provide good reasons for the hero to believe the guy has the info. And then mess stuff up so he's not sure.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

WHDean said:


> I watched the Sean Penn/Jack Nicholson version. I knew there was a book (which I may one day read), but I'd never heard of the other films. At any rate, the synopsis is posted above. I'd like to know how the other films differ.


Both the Richard E. Grant version, the Bernd Eichinger version and the Heinz Rühmann/Gert Fröbe version have the semi-retired cop going after the serial killer and using the daughter of the single mom as bait. He even deliberately takes up with the single Mom, because the girl is the killer's type and because the Mom runs a gas station along a road where the killer is known to drive. All three end with a showdown in the woods, with the little girl sneaking off to meet the killer and the cop racing to get there. The killer dies after a more or less explicit showdown, the little girl is saved, the single Mom is furious, though she might still get together with the cop eventually. There is no car crash, though that's exactly the sort of thing Dürrenmatt would do.

IMO the 1958 version with Heinz Rühmann and Gert Fröbe is the best of the bunch and well worth watching, if you can find it. It called _In the broad light of day_. I saw it as a child in the 1970s/early 1980s and it was commonly shown to German children back then to warn them of the dangers of going of with strangers. What impressed me was the whole investigative process, including some early profiling (the cop examines picture drawn by the dead girl and thus gets some of the killer's modus operandi), because I hadn't seen it shown in such detail before. The Richard E. Grant version isn't bad, though far more action oriented. I didn't care for the Bernd Eichinger version.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Edward M. Grant said:


> No, the fantasy is that the hero magically knows an attack is going to happen, magically knows that some guy knows where the attack is going to happen, tortures him and the bad guy tells him where the attack is going to happen.
> 
> The reality is that the guy probably has no idea, the 'hero' tortures him and the 'bad guy' tells him whatever will make him stop. So the 'hero' goes rushing off to the wrong place, fails to stop the attack and ends up in jail for torture.


Suppose the following scenario: Cop captures one of the people who abducted his son. Cop demands to know where son is. Abductor tells cop to pay the ransom because he's not talking. What happens next in the real world?

1. Cop says, "I can't beat the location out of you because that would be wrong and illegal."

2. Cop beats location of abducted son out of abductor and rescues him.

You seem to be suggesting that 1 is the more realistic. I vote for 2-so much so that I'd suggest a story like 1 would sell like used toilet paper. That's why Hollywood uses DEMs in such cases: they avoid 2 without having the hero come out and say 1, which would destroy any claim he had upon heroism.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

ShayneHellerman said:


> Heroic stories also depend on there being a distinction between the good guys and the bad guys. As far as I can see there are two things that define a modern hero - their actions and their ideals. If the hero goes around killing people and thinking that's okay, how much of a difference is there really between the hero and the villain?


The ancient context makes justice and honour more or less the same thing. The kings and their houses were de facto and de jure law and order. Good kings enforced fair laws and maintained order. For someone to pursue the queen and despoil the king's house in the process was to de jure usurpation and de facto disorder. The suitors (and the disloyal servants that conspired with them) crossed a line that Odysseus himself could not forgive, even if he wanted to. He had no choice but to take his kingdom back by force or flee.

Sure, it makes us uneasy, but that's part of what makes the hero stories compelling. Real heroes operate in a kind of no man's land where they have to bring order by following the _spirit _ if not the _letter _ of the law.

A simpler example is probably the school bully. School administrators pretend that the latest "awareness campaign" and "zero tolerance against violence" policy will put an end to bullying in schools for all time. Anyone with any sense knows that it's wishful thinking at best, cynical posturing at worst. Bullies are handled the same way they've always been: comeuppance from the picked upon or their allies.

Now, the "cycle of violence" people will tell you that the kid who trounced the bully is as bad as the bully himself because he "perpetuated the cycle of violence." But the kids who were picked on will call him a _hero_-and justifiably so, I say.

Many hero stories-the western kind, especially-are really the School Bully Story writ large. We need heroes precisely because bureaucrats and law enforcement can't possibly protect us from every situation. So when we water down the reality of what the hero must do with DEMs meant to relieve the hero of doing the dirty work, we're really engaging in fantasy.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

CoraBuhlert said:


> Both the Richard E. Grant version,


Thanks.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

WHDean said:


> Suppose the following scenario: Cop captures one of the people who abducted his son. Cop demands to know where son is. Abductor tells cop to pay the ransom because he's not talking. What happens next in the real world?
> 
> 1. Cop says, "I can't beat the location out of you because that would be wrong and illegal."
> 
> ...


You forgot:

3. Cop beats 'alleged' abductor (he can't be sure he's got the right man) and the tortured person tells the cop whatever he thinks the cop wants to hear to stop the beating. Son remains abducted until other evidence pinpoints his location.

Studies indicate that #3 is probably a more realistic scenario than what you posed. The quality of information extracted by torture is notoriously poor. 
http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1196&context=ilj

This is the story that I would read. #2 sounds like a comic book plot.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

WHDean said:


> Suppose the following scenario: Cop captures one of the people who abducted his son. Cop demands to know where son is. Abductor tells cop to pay the ransom because he's not talking. What happens next in the real world?
> 
> 1. Cop says, "I can't beat the location out of you because that would be wrong and illegal."
> 
> ...


I'm guessing you never watched the show LOST. All the "heroes" did on that show for the first few seasons was beat the crap out of people and torture them and it never got them anywhere.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Studies indicate that #3 is probably a more realistic scenario than what you posed. The quality of information extracted by torture is notoriously poor.


What studies have tortured people to test the quality of info they get? Do they have a control group that gets coffee and donuts?

Who has related how they tortured people and found they got bad info? Sounds like a non-fiction bestseller.

And heros? Anyone remember Indiana Jones shooting the guy waving the sword forty feet away? He had the gun out and the guy hadn't moved towards him.

In the movie _Taken_, Liam Neeson hooks a guy up to an electric current, flips the switch, closes the door, and leaves him twitching in the chair. That plot has him chasing down the guys who kidnapped his daughter. It's similar to WHDean's scenario.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

ASparrow said:


> 3. Cop beats 'alleged' abductor (he can't be sure he's got the right man) and the tortured person tells the cop whatever he thinks the cop wants to hear to stop the beating. Son remains abducted until other evidence pinpoints his location.
> 
> Studies indicate that #3 is probably a more realistic scenario than what you posed. The quality of information extracted by torture is notoriously poor.
> http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1196&context=ilj
> ...





NathanWrann said:


> I'm guessing you never watched the show LOST. All the "heroes" did on that show for the first few seasons was beat the crap out of people and torture them and it never got them anywhere.


My response was a reductio ad absurdum, which was a reply to the attempt to mock (instead of refute/confute) my characterization of the hero. Oddly enough, some people think that their missives carry the weight of authority.

Anyway, you misread my scenario. The cop knows the perp knows, and the perp knows the cop knows. Second, it's comic bookish because it's simplified, not because it's unrealistic in the sense we've been discussing here-i.e., it's more realistic than a deus ex machina, like an anonymous call that comes in the nick of time.

I've already heard the arguments about information gleaned by torture. In my view, the jury is still out on that one. It fits a little too well with what we'd like to be true to rule out the influence of motivated reasoning. But this is tangential to the topic at hand.

Actually, I now regret bringing up torture because it will no doubt encourage people to preach to me about the evils of it, as if that had anything to do with good plots.

ETA: I'd prefer to stick with the less inflammatory bully example.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

Terrence OBrien said:


> What studies have tortured people to test the quality of info they get? Do they have a control group that gets coffee and donuts?
> 
> Who has related how they tortured people and found they got bad info? Sounds like a non-fiction bestseller.


Obviously, prospective cohort studies evaluating torture are impossible in most countries because of basic ethical concerns and laws regarding human subjects.

But the link in my comment points to a detailed legal review with many sources including the findings of actual FBI and CIA 'torturers.' The idea that torture can be effective is a zombie myth that people can't seem to stop resuscitating. Because zombie lies live on in the minds of their beholders, evidence be damned, I don't expect this to sway anyone who believes otherwise, particularly when the idea is constantly reinforced by hack writers throughout the entertainment industry


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

WHDean said:


> Anyway, you misread my scenario. The cop knows the perp knows, and the perp knows the cop knows. Second, it's comic bookish because it's simplified, not because it's unrealistic in the sense we've been discussing here-i.e., it's more realistic than a deus ex machina, like an anonymous call that comes in the nick of time.


That sounds like a pretty rare situation from a law enforcement perspective. It also makes for a pretty cliched and dull story. I'll pass (and I often do).

I also can't stand those ticking bomb plots. They're supposed to make things exciting but I just groan and change the channel.

I never said torture was evil (to each his own definition, I suppose). I just said it doesn't work. Come have a seat in this chair and I'd be happy to demonstrate. Where did you bury my money?

(And if you did bury my money, what's to stop you from lying to me about where it actually is?)


----------



## Lee Lopez (Jan 19, 2012)

I don't think all the genre related rules are going away completely. Readers go to a specific genre for a reason. They love the HEA, or the fact a hero won't touch another woman once he met the heroine. Although, the rules are being tested and bent. There just is certain expectations, not from the industry, but from the readers.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

ASparrow said:


> That sounds like a pretty rare situation from a law enforcement perspective. It also makes for a pretty cliched and dull story. I'll pass (and I often do).


You keep missing the point, so I'll spell it out. Edward was mocking the idea that a person would chose breaking the law over following it in an extreme situation. I argue that people-heroes anyway-will choose to break the law, disobey an order or do something extreme in spite the consequences to themselves. That's the _realism _ in question here; it has nothing to do with the incidence rate of law enforcement situations and everything to do with the facts about human nature.

Hence, my other example: the hero will beat up the school bully in spite of the "zero tolerance on violence" policy. That, I say, is more realistic than the hero being allowed to avoid beating up the school bully because a meteorite falls on the bully's head. (Granted, that would make a delightfully absurd short story that I believe I will now go and write.)


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

WHDean said:


> Anyway, you misread my scenario. The cop knows the perp knows, and the perp knows the cop knows. Second, it's comic bookish because it's simplified, not because it's unrealistic in the sense we've been discussing here-i.e., it's more realistic than a deus ex machina, *like an anonymous call that comes in the nick of time*.


I keep reading your scenarios and I keep questioning whether they are actual DEMs it almost seems to me (and I could be wrong) that if the protag finds a clue that solves the case you would classify it as a DEM. I know you haven't said that outright but it feels like you're inching closer to that direction.

Of course if that happened then the whole book would probably be filled with cliches and red herrings anyway.

Your Bully example where the hero is going to go teach him a lesson but a meteorite beats him to it seems more like a DEM to me than any other example you've given. Probably because it's completely unrealistic, like a DEM should be.

BTW, if you've been following the Etan Patz the now imminent resolution of that 33 year old case is a perfect, real life example of what you've been deeming a DEM. A tip comes out of nowhere and names the killer. Case closed.


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

WHDean said:


> You keep missing the point, so I'll spell it out. Edward was mocking the idea that a person would chose breaking the law over following it in an extreme situation. I argue that people-heroes anyway-will choose to break the law, disobey an order or do something extreme in spite the consequences to themselves. That's the _realism _ in question here; it has nothing to do with the incidence rate of law enforcement situations and everything to do with the facts about human nature.
> 
> Hence, my other example: the hero will beat up the school bully in spite of the "zero tolerance on violence" policy. That, I say, is more realistic than the hero being allowed to avoid beating up the school bully because a meteorite falls on the bully's head. (Granted, that would make a delightfully absurd short story that I believe I will now go and write.)


Yeah, I guess I came in too late to the thread to understand how this particular discussion started. Sorry about that.

But now that you've spelled it out, your bully example makes sense and I agree that it's realistic to expect a hero to break the law when circumstances demand.
I dwelt on the torture example because it's a pet peeve.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

WHDean said:


> The ancient context makes justice and honour more or less the same thing. The kings and their houses were de facto and de jure law and order. Good kings enforced fair laws and maintained order. For someone to pursue the queen and despoil the king's house in the process was to de jure usurpation and de facto disorder. The suitors (and the disloyal servants that conspired with them) crossed a line that Odysseus himself could not forgive, even if he wanted to. He had no choice but to take his kingdom back by force or flee.


But this isn't really the same situation as the modern day hero. Most modern heroes don't have to worry about setting an example for an entire kingdom. Or living in a lawless border town in the old west where taking justice into one's own hands could be necessary. In modern times we have a justice system that will, in most cases, suffice to protect its citizens. So, in a time when there are other options, and vigilantism isn't truly necessary, for a hero to resort to it makes them seem less heroic, IMO.

Also, as someone else pointed out, heroes tend to be a product of the time they were written in. During times that the US was at war, it's fictional heroes tended to be more idealistic, because that's what people were looking for in their heroes. During gentler times, when people don't need that sense of idealism in the same way, heroes can be darker.


----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

MikeAngel said:


> The analogy may be weak (as most are) but the point is this: Indies have been freed from rigid definitions; these folks are acting as if they're not free and claiming hordes of "p*ssed-off" readers will charge the writer's house with torches and one star reviews. All of which is pretty silly. Genre considerations, like language itself, is subject to evolution. And sense is rarely common these days.
> 
> And hey Greg, weren't you on Scrawl, that crit site voted worst mannered of the century? I seem to recall you from there or somewhere similar.


Yes, I was at Scrawl. I was one of the administrators for a long while. I still visit because of old friends, but it used to be a lot more fun and a lot more productive back then. And there have been far worse things there than you'll ever have here.

But back on topic, I think it's a valid concern that authors have. Don't believe me, just write a 50 Shades of Gray clone with no sex and sell it to the "mommy porn" audience. You will piss some people off. Doesn't in any way suggest you should avoid innovation or write "down" to expectations, and I don't think anyone's really suggesting either. Just means that there are certain conventions that you have to keep in mind in order to satify your target audience.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

NathanWrann said:


> I keep reading your scenarios and I keep questioning whether they are actual DEMs it almost seems to me (and I could be wrong) that if the protag finds a clue that solves the case you would classify it as a DEM. I know you haven't said that outright but it feels like you're inching closer to that direction.


I've maintained all along that there could be good DEMs, and Shayne and I agreed to fight over good and bad DEMs (not for or against them). I raised the cliché whereby the hero is spared from killing the baddie outright by some external circumstance or further action by the baddie that forces the hero's hand. I called this a variation on the DEM because it removes the hero's agency in doing what has to be done-thus, it buries a real but tough moral choice that sometimes has to be made. (Shayne took the opposite view.)

It's in that light that I'm calling nick-of-time clues (etc.) DEMs. It's not because nick-of-time clues are unrealistic per se, it's because they're being used to avoid confronting the real moral no man's land wherein the hero must operate. And I think this no man's land is intentionally avoided with DEMs because the "cycle of violence" dogma has percolated into some writers' minds-such that the only possible moral difference between a hero and a villain is that one uses legally sanctioned violence and the other doesn't. (Granted, some writers-like those who wrote _24_-go in the opposite direction because they know they can play on the shock-value of having the hero break the code of non-violence).

And, yes, I do think the meteorite story could work with the right narrative (i.e., it would be a good DEM).


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

ShayneHellerman said:


> But this isn't really the same situation as the modern day hero. Most modern heroes don't have to worry about setting an example for an entire kingdom.


I suppose we're talking different ends of a heroic continuum. You're talking about the cops, fireman and soldiers doing their duty within a context of law and order. I'm talking heroes that arise specifically when law and order either doesn't exist (pre-modern societies), can't be enforced (the Wild West, bullies), or is suspended due to some circumstance (e.g., disasters). While I don't deny that the first kind of hero is a hero, I think the most interesting hero stories take place at the other end of the continuum. And to the point under debate here, I think heroes that operate at my end of the continuum shouldn't be spared from doing what needs to be done by DEM.

A minor note: Odysseus doesn't have to slay the suitors because he has to set an _example _ for others; he has to kill them because he _is _ law and order. To depose Odysseus, in other words, is to overthrow rightful law; to return himself to the throne (which means dispensing with the usurpers) is to re-establish order. His only choices are fight or flight.

Nonetheless, there is a DEM at the end of the _Odyssey_. Athena shows up to stop the relatives of the suitors from avenging their kin. No doubt the ancient Greek audience found having a goddess show up more plausible than having the relatives of the suitors let Odysseus off with killing their kinsmen.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, 

let's keep on topic here.   The original introduction of the topic of torture was appropriate enough, but the road that discussion going down will derail this thread.  Future posts not on topic (DEM) will be removed.  This thread is not about the merits or lack of merit of torture.

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------

