Science Fiction and Fantasy

[Al Lal]

What is more popular - Science Fiction or Fantasy? I think Fantasy has been gaining in popularity over the years. A long time ago, I think science-fiction was much more popular. In my local bookstore here in Gurgaon (a suburb of the capital, New Delhi), 5 minutes drive from my house, they have two bookshelves labeled Fantasy and only one bookshelf labeled science fiction. Two things must be noted, first there are twice as many fantasy books on sale as compared to science-fiction, second the SF and fantasy books are not mixed together (although a few books are mis-shelved).

Al Lal
Creator & Rebel

Author of: The Hobbit, Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, The Book of the New Sun etc.

[James Nicoll]

In article <3631bd68-a3f9-42c1...@googlegroups.com>,

Al Lal <alal1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What is more popular - Science Fiction or Fantasy? I think Fantasy has
>been gaining in popularity over the years.

I cannot speak about the Indian market but over here in Nearctica,
fantasy outsells SF about two to one.

To put that into perspective, though, mystery outsells fantasy about
six to one and romance outsells mystery about two to one, I think. To
put it another way, if the average person in the States reads two books
a year, a quarter century will pass between successive SF novels.

>A long time ago, I think
>science-fiction was much more popular.

Have I blamed the del Reys for something today? The del Reys were quite
canny at spotting market segments they could expand, and fantasy got a
big boost from their efforts.

> In my local bookstore here in
>Gurgaon (a suburb of the capital, New Delhi), 5 minutes drive from my
>house, they have two bookshelves labeled Fantasy and only one bookshelf
>labeled science fiction. Two things must be noted, first there are
>twice as many fantasy books on sale as compared to science-fiction,
>second the SF and fantasy books are not mixed together (although a few
>books are mis-shelved).

That sounds about the same as it is here.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)

[Kay Shapero]

In article <k22cs8$9hi$1...@reader1.panix.com>, jdni...@panix.com says...

>

>
> > In my local bookstore here in
> >Gurgaon (a suburb of the capital, New Delhi), 5 minutes drive from my
> >house, they have two bookshelves labeled Fantasy and only one bookshelf
> >labeled science fiction. Two things must be noted, first there are
> >twice as many fantasy books on sale as compared to science-fiction,
> >second the SF and fantasy books are not mixed together (although a few
> >books are mis-shelved).
>
> That sounds about the same as it is here.

Around here (Los Angeles) most of 'em (along with the libraries) have
given up entirely on separating them and have a Fantasy and Science
Fiction section. I suspect they got too many purists in their hair when
they filed something in the Wrong Section.

--
Kay Shapero
http://www.kayshapero.net
Address munged - to email use kay at the domain of my website, above.

[Will in New Haven]

On Sep 3, 3:01 pm, Kay Shapero <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
> In article <k22cs8$9h...@reader1.panix.com>, jdnic...@panix.com says...

>
>
>
> > >  In my local bookstore here in
> > >Gurgaon (a suburb of the capital, New Delhi), 5 minutes drive from my
> > >house, they have two bookshelves labeled Fantasy and only one bookshelf
> > >labeled science fiction.  Two things must be noted, first there are
> > >twice as many fantasy books on sale as compared to science-fiction,
> > >second the SF and fantasy books are not mixed together (although a few
> > >books are mis-shelved).
>
> > That sounds about the same as it is here.
>
> Around here (Los Angeles) most of 'em (along with the libraries) have
> given up entirely on separating them and have a Fantasy and Science
> Fiction section.  I suspect they got too many purists in their hair when
> they filed something in the Wrong Section.

No one in New Haven bookstores or libraries ever had them separated.
And SF was only more popular if one accepts the practical definition
of SF. The sourpuss definition of SF, the one that says FTL and a wet
Venus etc, are fantasy, would say that SF was never all that popular.

--
Will in New Haven

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <MPG.2aae9e815...@uucp.eternal-september.org>,

Kay Shapero <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
>In article <k22cs8$9hi$1...@reader1.panix.com>, jdni...@panix.com says...
>>
>
>>
>> > In my local bookstore here in
>> >Gurgaon (a suburb of the capital, New Delhi), 5 minutes drive from my
>> >house, they have two bookshelves labeled Fantasy and only one bookshelf
>> >labeled science fiction. Two things must be noted, first there are
>> >twice as many fantasy books on sale as compared to science-fiction,
>> >second the SF and fantasy books are not mixed together (although a few
>> >books are mis-shelved).
>>
>> That sounds about the same as it is here.
>
>Around here (Los Angeles) most of 'em (along with the libraries) have
>given up entirely on separating them and have a Fantasy and Science
>Fiction section. I suspect they got too many purists in their hair when
>they filed something in the Wrong Section.

Well, in one of his books on the craft of writing, O. C. Card
gives an imaginary conversation between a bookstore clerk and a
shopper:

Shopper: "You have some Piers Anthony here in the Science Fiction
section, but no Xanth books. Where's the Xanth?"
Clerk: "Oh, those are fantasy. They're over here in the Fantasy
section."
Shopper: "Well, that's stupid! Why don't you have all his book
*together*?"

If you shelve F and SF together, some complain; if you separate
them, others complain; and there's the added complication that
everyone draws his own individual line in the sand between them,
none alike.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 3 Sep 2012 13:55:21 +0000 (UTC), James Nicoll
<jdni...@panix.com> wrote in
<news:k22cs8$9hi$1...@reader1.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

> In article <3631bd68-a3f9-42c1...@googlegroups.com>,
> Al Lal <alal1...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>> In my local bookstore here in Gurgaon (a suburb of the
>> capital, New Delhi), 5 minutes drive from my house, they
>> have two bookshelves labeled Fantasy and only one
>> bookshelf labeled science fiction. Two things must be
>> noted, first there are twice as many fantasy books on
>> sale as compared to science-fiction, second the SF and
>> fantasy books are not mixed together (although a few
>> books are mis-shelved).

> That sounds about the same as it is here.

Barnes & Noble do not separate science fiction and fantasy.
(Neither did Borders.) They do occasionally put in the
romance section books that could have gone in the sf section
just as well, if not better.

Brian

[Joseph Nebus]

Yeah, the idea of separating science fiction and fantasy books
always struck me as a bit prissy if not just quixotic. But I take the
broadly inclusive view of the ``science fiction'' genre myself, in that
I *suppose* we can't actually make the Nero Wolfe stories fit in it,
but past that there's not a lot to rule out.

--
http://nebusresearch.wordpress.com/ Joseph Nebus
Current Entry: Why Someone Should Take That Deal http://wp.me/p1RYhY-iC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Moriarty]

On Sep 4, 5:01 am, Kay Shapero <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
> In article <k22cs8$9h...@reader1.panix.com>, jdnic...@panix.com says...

>
>
>
> > >  In my local bookstore here in
> > >Gurgaon (a suburb of the capital, New Delhi), 5 minutes drive from my
> > >house, they have two bookshelves labeled Fantasy and only one bookshelf
> > >labeled science fiction.  Two things must be noted, first there are
> > >twice as many fantasy books on sale as compared to science-fiction,
> > >second the SF and fantasy books are not mixed together (although a few
> > >books are mis-shelved).
>
> > That sounds about the same as it is here.
>
> Around here (Los Angeles) most of 'em (along with the libraries) have
> given up entirely on separating them and have a Fantasy and Science
> Fiction section.  I suspect they got too many purists in their hair when
> they filed something in the Wrong Section.

My local SF book shop, a few years ago, decided to separate into
distinct sections: science fiction, fantasy, horror, paranormal
romance, media tie-ins and non-fiction. They gave up after a while as
the absurdity of having, for example, Dan Simmons in the SF, fantasy
and horror sections hit home. If I was Dan Simmons, I'd have written
a paranormal romance just to confuse things further.

These days, they still have separate media and non-fiction and ,for
some reason, horror sections.

-Moriarty

[Howard Brazee]

On Mon, 3 Sep 2012 13:55:21 +0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:

>Have I blamed the del Reys for something today? The del Reys were quite
>canny at spotting market segments they could expand, and fantasy got a
>big boost from their efforts.

When people don't believe in Science Fiction, it becomes a subset of
fantasy. And much of the audience for Science Fiction have stopped
believing.

We don't have the family spaceship going to Mars with the good
housewife and the American husband solving problems with his slide
rule and fist.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[Howard Brazee]

On Mon, 3 Sep 2012 20:15:03 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
wrote:

>Shopper: "You have some Piers Anthony here in the Science Fiction
>section, but no Xanth books. Where's the Xanth?"
>Clerk: "Oh, those are fantasy. They're over here in the Fantasy
>section."
>Shopper: "Well, that's stupid! Why don't you have all his book
>*together*?"
>
>If you shelve F and SF together, some complain; if you separate
>them, others complain; and there's the added complication that
>everyone draws his own individual line in the sand between them,
>none alike.

Unless the SF is being marketed as "best seller"

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2012-09-04 00:24:46 +0000, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> said:

> On Mon, 3 Sep 2012 13:55:21 +0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
> Nicoll) wrote:
>
>> Have I blamed the del Reys for something today? The del Reys were quite
>> canny at spotting market segments they could expand, and fantasy got a
>> big boost from their efforts.
>
> When people don't believe in Science Fiction, it becomes a subset of
> fantasy. And much of the audience for Science Fiction have stopped
> believing.
>
> We don't have the family spaceship going to Mars with the good
> housewife and the American husband solving problems with his slide
> rule and fist.

Maybe somebody needs to write about the disaffected twenty-something
college dropout pooling cash with his friends to buy a used spaceship
runabout and head to Mars for a concert and to score some Ganymedian
drugs.

kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!

[Kurt Busiek]

Or the guy who signs on as the bodyguard to a mind-expanded scientific
wunderkind with a penchant for reckless partying, or the way to Mars
while competing Salieris try to sabotage his chances.

Or the ex-lover of the guy who negotiated the Mars treaty but is now in
jail for corruption, who signs on with her old college flame's Mars
expedition to salvage the wreckage of the colony trade treaty and keep
the expanded solar-system civilization alive even while dealing with a
populace who thinks the Terran government is about to screw them,
because it usually is.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <cjia4851m83623eqv...@4ax.com>,

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 3 Sep 2012 20:15:03 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>wrote:
>
>>Shopper: "You have some Piers Anthony here in the Science Fiction
>>section, but no Xanth books. Where's the Xanth?"
>>Clerk: "Oh, those are fantasy. They're over here in the Fantasy
>>section."
>>Shopper: "Well, that's stupid! Why don't you have all his book
>>*together*?"
>>
>>If you shelve F and SF together, some complain; if you separate
>>them, others complain; and there's the added complication that
>>everyone draws his own individual line in the sand between them,
>>none alike.
>
>
>Unless the SF is being marketed as "best seller"

Elucidate, please?

[Wayne Throop]

: Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
: When people don't believe in Science Fiction, it becomes a subset of

: fantasy. And much of the audience for Science Fiction have stopped
: believing.

I'm not sure what is the nature of this "belief in Science Fiction"
of which you speak.

[Joseph Nebus]

Well, remember that time we failed to clap our hands and say
``I do believe in Campbell --- I do, I do'' and as a result Heinlein
went and wrote _The Cat Who Walks Through Walls_? That's what it
means.

[Howard Brazee]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 00:56:01 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
wrote:

>>>If you shelve F and SF together, some complain; if you separate
>>>them, others complain; and there's the added complication that
>>>everyone draws his own individual line in the sand between them,
>>>none alike.
>>
>>
>>Unless the SF is being marketed as "best seller"
>
>Elucidate, please?

"Best Seller" books are grouped together. Or attempts of "Best
seller".

I first noticed this looking at the Garfield & Judith Reeves-Stevens
books, and didn't see _Icefire_, which was in the Best Sellers
section. The sales people set me right.

[Howard Brazee]

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 01:06:25 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
wrote:

Just in case you're serious...

We don't believe in fantasy. But we wanted to believe that Science
Fiction was realistic and possible. But what we wanted to believe
in seems more and more like fantasy, and less and less like science.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <idpa48hva4pv9k0kj...@4ax.com>,

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 00:56:01 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>wrote:
>
>>>>If you shelve F and SF together, some complain; if you separate
>>>>them, others complain; and there's the added complication that
>>>>everyone draws his own individual line in the sand between them,
>>>>none alike.
>>>
>>>
>>>Unless the SF is being marketed as "best seller"
>>
>>Elucidate, please?
>
>"Best Seller" books are grouped together. Or attempts of "Best
>seller".

Well, that explains it. I never look at that section.

Come to that, I haven't been in a bricks-and-mortar bookstore in
... years. As I've said, there aren't any in Vallejo.

[David DeLaney]

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>>>If you shelve F and SF together, some complain; if you separate
>>>>them, others complain; and there's the added complication that
>>>>everyone draws his own individual line in the sand between them,
>>>>none alike.
>>>
>>>Unless the SF is being marketed as "best seller"
>>
>>Elucidate, please?
>
>"Best Seller" books are grouped together. Or attempts of "Best seller".
>
>I first noticed this looking at the Garfield & Judith Reeves-Stevens
>books, and didn't see _Icefire_, which was in the Best Sellers
>section. The sales people set me right.

Oh, it gets worse than that. Let me see if I can list them all for the local
Barnes & Noble:

SF & Fantasy, not divided (though the local McKay's Used Books tries to)
New SF & Fantasy, hardback
New SF & Fantasy, trade paperback
New SF & Fantasy, mass market paperback
SF & Fantasy Anthologies
(the above are all shelved contiguously, not all over the store, but they're
still separated out from each other. the following are all over the store)
New Bestsellers, hardback
New Bestsellers, trade paperback
Interesting New Books, trade paperback
This Small Display Of New To-Be-Bestselling-Soon Hardbacks
New in Trade Paperback
New in Mass Market Paperback
(all of which CAN contain F or SF, with no warning beforehand)
YA SF & Fantasy, mixed TPB and HB (there appear to be almost no MMPB of this)
New YA SF & Fantasy, HB
New YA SF & Fantasy, TPB
New Children's Books
Children's Books (separated by several different reader-age levels)
The Anomalous Metal Rack Full Of MMPB SF & Fantasy At The End Of One of The SF
& Fantasy Aisles (where they stuck the latest Ben Aaronovitch and did NOT put
it in with the rest on the shelves)
and
various small plastic racks on the ends of aisles containing a selection of
five to ten thematically-related hardbacks, such as the Hunger Games books
or the Harry Potter novels

This makes for more walking than is really good for me on each visit to the
store, each weekend. Luckily there's a bench to sit on right next to F&SF...

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[David DeLaney]

Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>Barnes & Noble do not separate science fiction and fantasy.
>(Neither did Borders.) They do occasionally put in the
>romance section books that could have gone in the sf section
>just as well, if not better.

Chief of which for me is the Yasmine Galenorn books, but I'm sure there are
others. Luckily there's a square display rack some yards away where they
stash new MMPBs for a couple weeks.

[David DeLaney]

I'm told it works even if you don't believe in it.

[Al Lal]

On Monday, 3 September 2012 21:55:21 UTC+8, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <3631bd68-a3f9-42c1...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Al Lal <alal1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >What is more popular - Science Fiction or Fantasy? I think Fantasy has
>
> >been gaining in popularity over the years.
>
>
>
> I cannot speak about the Indian market but over here in Nearctica,
>
> fantasy outsells SF about two to one.
>
>
>
> To put that into perspective, though, mystery outsells fantasy about
>
> six to one and romance outsells mystery about two to one, I think. To
>
> put it another way, if the average person in the States reads two books
>
> a year, a quarter century will pass between successive SF novels.
>

I do not like mystery or romance, but have noticed in local bookstores that they are among the most popular genres.

My favorite genres:

1. Legal thrillers
2. Science Fiction
3. Fantasy
4. Political/military thrillers
5. Medical thrillers

I think most of these genres are even less popular than SF and Fantasy.

Of course some books cover many genres, like hybrid SF + Fantasy novels.

>
>
> >A long time ago, I think
>
> >science-fiction was much more popular.
>
>
>
> Have I blamed the del Reys for something today? The del Reys were quite
>
> canny at spotting market segments they could expand, and fantasy got a
>
> big boost from their efforts.
>
>
>
> > In my local bookstore here in
>
> >Gurgaon (a suburb of the capital, New Delhi), 5 minutes drive from my
>
> >house, they have two bookshelves labeled Fantasy and only one bookshelf
>
> >labeled science fiction. Two things must be noted, first there are
>
> >twice as many fantasy books on sale as compared to science-fiction,
>
> >second the SF and fantasy books are not mixed together (although a few
>
> >books are mis-shelved).
>
>
>
> That sounds about the same as it is here.
>
> --
>
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
>
> http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
>
> defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)

Al Lal
Creator & Rebel

--
Author of: The Hobbit, The Book of the New Sun, Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy

[Brian M. Scott]

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 02:21:48 -0400, David DeLaney
<d...@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote in
<news:slrnk4b5r...@gatekeeper.vic.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

>>Barnes & Noble do not separate science fiction and fantasy.
>>(Neither did Borders.) They do occasionally put in the
>>romance section books that could have gone in the sf section
>>just as well, if not better.

> Chief of which for me is the Yasmine Galenorn books,

Most definitely, especially the Otherworld series.

> but I'm sure there are others.

Eilieen Wilks; her Lily Yu is in Kate Daniels and Mercy
Thompson territory for me. Maria Snyder. Nalini Singh's
Psy/Changeling series -- definitely romance, but with a
strong continuing sf story. Linnea Sinclair, if I remember
correctly. Meljean Brook's steampunk romances.

> Luckily there's a square display rack some yards away
> where they stash new MMPBs for a couple weeks.

It's a little further away in my closest B&N, and I'm
sometimes a bit puzzled by what goes directly to its
'proper' section without appearing there, but it's certainly
very handy.

Brian

[Richard R. Hershberger]

On Sep 3, 4:29 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> In article <MPG.2aae9e815b0eb213989...@uucp.eternal-september.org>,
> Kay Shapero  <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >In article <k22cs8$9h...@reader1.panix.com>, jdnic...@panix.com says...

For real fun, try to separate "fiction" from "literature".

As for F & SF, it is abundantly clear to me that combining them makes
perfect sense as a marketing category. While there are some readers
and authors who do one or the other exclusively, the intersection of
fantasy and science fiction readers is much vaster. Even if we could
reliably point to a specific book and objectively classify it as one
or the other, what is the point if the potential readership is the
same?

Richard R. Hershberger

[Will in New Haven]

When I first went to work in Bookworld we had a "fiction" section and
a "literature" section. And everyone complained bitterly if his or her
favorite author was in the fiction section. So we combined them under
fiction. Of course, we had several genre fiction sections but SF and
fantasy were always together.

During my brief time at Walden books, we had fiction and various
genres and SF and fantasy together.

At the Yale Co-op, fiction was fiction and literature was books ABOUT
fiction, criticism, literary biographies, etc. SF and fantasy were
together.

[Robert Carnegie]

Wait, do we have to find titles for these?

Not only do I not recognise the last one, I don't even /understand/
it without an organisational chart of some kind. What the hell,
I bid _Total Recall_ (why'd they remake that anyway? how could a
remake be more... /anything?/)

The first sounds like an un-cleaned-up version of _Welcome to Mars_.
Supposedly realistic, I think they meet a space tiger so they're
high on /something/. So, maybe _Fear and Terror in Nilo Syrtis_.

Likewise, the second can be _Get Him To The Greek Or Roman God of War
As Represented By An Astronomical Body_.

[Jorgen Grahn]

On Mon, 2012-09-03, Kay Shapero wrote:
> In article <k22cs8$9hi$1...@reader1.panix.com>, jdni...@panix.com says...
>>
>
>>
>> > In my local bookstore here in
>> >Gurgaon (a suburb of the capital, New Delhi), 5 minutes drive from my
>> >house, they have two bookshelves labeled Fantasy and only one bookshelf
>> >labeled science fiction. Two things must be noted, first there are
>> >twice as many fantasy books on sale as compared to science-fiction,
>> >second the SF and fantasy books are not mixed together (although a few
>> >books are mis-shelved).
>>
>> That sounds about the same as it is here.
>
> Around here (Los Angeles) most of 'em (along with the libraries) have
> given up entirely on separating them and have a Fantasy and Science
> Fiction section.

Public libraries here in .se tended to have a "Science Fiction" shelf
with SF and fantasy. In the 1990s fantasy's share grew more and more,
and I suppose some renamed the shelf, or split it.

The SF book shop here in town is called just that, the SF book shop.
But it carries more fantasy and horror.

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <25c5cf84-19c2-4d90...@a1g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,

Except in the cases of those (probably few) readers who like
hard SF exclusively and who snarl, "What's all this elfy-welfy
s*** doing in the Science Fiction!?!"

[Wayne Throop]

: djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
: Except in the cases of those (probably few) readers who like hard SF

: exclusively and who snarl, "What's all this elfy-welfy s*** doing in
: the Science Fiction!?!"

For example, Wen Spencer's Tinker. Of course, it's more marketed
as fantasy, but the so-called "magic" in it is "really" exotic
quantum physics, which the title character happens to understand
better than most anybody else. Well enough to design a hoverbike,
improvise lots of "spells", etc, etc, etc. Basically, Tinker is
hard SF... or at least, about as hard as Niven.

"I can be... HARD CORE!" --- Bubbles

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Another stupid troll on a subject that's been beaten to death a
million times, and the regulars will flcok to do so again.

Al Lal <alal1...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:3631bd68-a3f9-42c1...@googlegroups.com:

> What is more popular - Science Fiction or Fantasy?

Define both. It is literally impossible to discuss the matter without
doing so, after all.

But you knew that, when you crafted the troll.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in
news:6139db11-c1ca-4d6f...@c9g2000vbv.googlegroups.c
om:

> On Sep 3, 3:01�pm, Kay Shapero <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
>> In article <k22cs8$9h...@reader1.panix.com>, jdnic...@panix.com
>> says...
>>
>>
>>
>> > > �In my local bookstore here in
>> > >Gurgaon (a suburb of the capital, New Delhi), 5 minutes
>> > >drive from my house, they have two bookshelves labeled
>> > >Fantasy and only one bookshel
> f
>> > >labeled science fiction. �Two things must be noted, first
>> > >there are twice as many fantasy books on sale as compared to
>> > >science-fiction, second the SF and fantasy books are not
>> > >mixed together (although a few books are mis-shelved).
>>
>> > That sounds about the same as it is here.
>>
>> Around here (Los Angeles) most of 'em (along with the
>> libraries) have given up entirely on separating them and have a
>> Fantasy and Science Fiction section. �I suspect they got too
>> many purists in their hair whe
> n
>> they filed something in the Wrong Section.
>

> No one in New Haven bookstores or libraries ever had them
> separated. And SF was only more popular if one accepts the
> practical definition of SF. The sourpuss definition of SF, the
> one that says FTL and a wet Venus etc, are fantasy, would say
> that SF was never all that popular.
>
A real purist would point out that no "real" science fiction has
ever been published. Or ever could be.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Moriarty <blu...@ivillage.com> wrote in
news:72d742cd-b323-47ca...@pz10g2000pbb.googlegroups
.com:

> On Sep 4, 5:01锟絘m, Kay Shapero <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
>> In article <k22cs8$9h...@reader1.panix.com>, jdnic...@panix.com
>> says...
>>
>>
>>

>> > > 锟絀n my local bookstore here in

>> > >Gurgaon (a suburb of the capital, New Delhi), 5 minutes
>> > >drive from my house, they have two bookshelves labeled

>> > >Fantasy and only one bookshel
> f

>> > >labeled science fiction. 锟絋wo things must be noted, first

>> > >there are twice as many fantasy books on sale as compared to
>> > >science-fiction, second the SF and fantasy books are not
>> > >mixed together (although a few books are mis-shelved).
>>
>> > That sounds about the same as it is here.
>>
>> Around here (Los Angeles) most of 'em (along with the
>> libraries) have given up entirely on separating them and have a

>> Fantasy and Science Fiction section. 锟絀 suspect they got too

>> many purists in their hair whe
> n
>> they filed something in the Wrong Section.
>
> My local SF book shop, a few years ago, decided to separate into
> distinct sections: science fiction, fantasy, horror, paranormal
> romance, media tie-ins and non-fiction. They gave up after a
> while as the absurdity of having, for example, Dan Simmons in
> the SF, fantasy and horror sections hit home. If I was Dan
> Simmons, I'd have written a paranormal romance just to confuse
> things further.
>

I'm given to understand that some book stores shelve some authors
in multiple places, like Catherine Asaro under SF and romance.

> These days, they still have separate media and non-fiction and
> ,for some reason, horror sections.
>

Horror, I suspect, deserves it's one section on the grounds that
there isn't much crossover in the market. In other words, people
buying it aren't likely to be looking for other genre stuff (at the
same time, at least). All the traditional genres are meaningful
*only* as marketing categories. The only genres most readers give a
damn about is "stuff I like" and "stuff I dont' like."

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
news:1jv8rowcykgo5$.7c77gszpnnn6$.d...@40tude.net:

> On Mon, 3 Sep 2012 13:55:21 +0000 (UTC), James Nicoll
> <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in
> <news:k22cs8$9hi$1...@reader1.panix.com> in
> rec.arts.sf.written:

>
>> In article
>> <3631bd68-a3f9-42c1...@googlegroups.com>, Al Lal
>> <alal1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> [...]
>
>>> In my local bookstore here in Gurgaon (a suburb of the

>>> capital, New Delhi), 5 minutes drive from my house, they
>>> have two bookshelves labeled Fantasy and only one

>>> bookshelf labeled science fiction. Two things must be

>>> noted, first there are twice as many fantasy books on
>>> sale as compared to science-fiction, second the SF and
>>> fantasy books are not mixed together (although a few
>>> books are mis-shelved).
>
>> That sounds about the same as it is here.
>

> Barnes & Noble do not separate science fiction and fantasy.
> (Neither did Borders.) They do occasionally put in the
> romance section books that could have gone in the sf section
> just as well, if not better.
>

Better by whose definition? Certainly not theirs. The rmance market
is probably an order of magnitude larger than teh sf market. They put
stuff there when they can because they'll sell more of it.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote in
news:k23i4e$68r$1...@dont-email.me:

Occupy Phobos?

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <XnsA0C45C10B24...@69.16.186.7>,

O-o-o-o-kay, would you care to expound on what the real purist's
definition of real SF would be? Should be interesting....

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <13467...@sheol.org>, Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>: djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>: Except in the cases of those (probably few) readers who like hard SF
>: exclusively and who snarl, "What's all this elfy-welfy s*** doing in
>: the Science Fiction!?!"
>
>For example, Wen Spencer's Tinker. Of course, it's more marketed
>as fantasy, but the so-called "magic" in it is "really" exotic

>quantum physics....

A fair number of fantasy tropes are SF in a clever plastic
disguise, and vice versa.

I tried to read _Tinker_ but gave up halfway -- too dark for my
tastes.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <XnsA0C45D0D662...@69.16.186.7>,

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>Horror, I suspect, deserves it's one section on the grounds that
>there isn't much crossover in the market.

Well, I dunno, there may not be crossover, but there's an awfully
fuzzy line between horror and dark fantasy. Depending on how
dark the fantasy is. Vampire stories, e.g.

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2012-09-04 14:46:21 +0000, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> said:

> On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 1:40:58 AM UTC+1, Kurt Busiek wrote:
>> On 2012-09-04 00:31:10 +0000, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> said
>>> On 2012-09-04 00:24:46 +0000, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> said:
>>>> When people don't believe in Science Fiction, it becomes a subset of
>>>> fantasy. And much of the audience for Science Fiction have stopped
>>>> believing.
>>>>
>>>> We don't have the family spaceship going to Mars with the good
>>>> housewife and the American husband solving problems with his slide
>>>> rule and fist.
>>>
>>> Maybe somebody needs to write about the disaffected twenty-something
>>> college dropout pooling cash with his friends to buy a used spaceship
>>> runabout and head to Mars for a concert and to score some Ganymedian
>>> drugs.
>>
>> Or the guy who signs on as the bodyguard to a mind-expanded scientific
>> wunderkind with a penchant for reckless partying, or the way to Mars
>> while competing Salieris try to sabotage his chances.
>>
>> Or the ex-lover of the guy who negotiated the Mars treaty but is now in
>> jail for corruption, who signs on with her old college flame's Mars
>> expedition to salvage the wreckage of the colony trade treaty and keep
>> the expanded solar-system civilization alive even while dealing with a
>> populace who thinks the Terran government is about to screw them,
>> because it usually is.
>
> Wait, do we have to find titles for these?

I hadn't extended it that far, but if you like, sure.

> Not only do I not recognise the last one,

Since none of them are actual novels, I'm surprised you recognize any
of them. What did you think the first two were?

> The first sounds like an un-cleaned-up version of _Welcome to Mars_.
> Supposedly realistic, I think they meet a space tiger so they're
> high on /something/. So, maybe _Fear and Terror in Nilo Syrtis_.
>
> Likewise, the second can be _Get Him To The Greek Or Roman God of War
> As Represented By An Astronomical Body_.

The first was riffing off the lead character of THE MAGICIANS, the
second off the October Daye novels. The third started out life as THE
GOOD WIFE.

The idea was that rather than lament that SF doesn't "believe" good old
1950s character tropes over half a century later, maybe building
hardware-supported stories about the kind of character tropes modern
audiences seem to believe in fine in other genres would work.

kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!

[Wayne Throop]

::: djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)

::: Except in the cases of those (probably few) readers who like hard SF
::: exclusively and who snarl, "What's all this elfy-welfy s*** doing in
::: the Science Fiction!?!"

:: Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org>
:: For example, Wen Spencer's Tinker. Of course, it's more marketed as

:: fantasy, but the so-called "magic" in it is "really" exotic quantum
:: physics....

: djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
: A fair number of fantasy tropes are SF in a clever plastic disguise,

: and vice versa. I tried to read _Tinker_ but gave up halfway -- too
: dark for my tastes.

Dark? Hm. Let me run through it... ho, ha, guard, turn...
well, what I come up with is that Tinker is kidnapped and moderately
squicky tortures are threatened to her, and actually carried out on
other people. Plus moderately squicky Oni sex. (She does not
get eaten by the eels at this time. In case you wondered.)

However, that only happens in the last(ish) bit of the book; 1/8
or 1/4 of the buildup to the climax. So I'm not sure what's "dark"
about Tinker up to halfway. Sure, Wolf Who Rules is almost eaten by
whargs, which sounds pretty unpleasant, there are Oni spies everywhere,
miscommunication causes Tinker's DNA to get shredded, and Tinker gets
ordered around by the Elf Queen. But... none of that seemed "dark" to me.

Mind you, that's not to say it "isn't dark" or any such thing.
I'm just having a bit of trouble seeing the darkness that early on.
Blasted candles, keep getting lit...


"Curses! Curses!" --- Mojo Jojo

"Chapter 3. I am eaten by sharks."
--- The Adventures of Miles Copperthwaite
(an SNL sketch)

[Kip Williams]

Wayne Throop wrote, On 9/4/12 12:44 PM:

> Dark? Hm. Let me run through it... ho, ha, guard, turn...

DUCK!

Sorry, thought I saw a duck.


Kip W, out of season
rasfw

[Michael Stemper]

In article <3631bd68-a3f9-42c1...@googlegroups.com>, Al Lal <alal1...@gmail.com> writes:

>What is more popular - Science Fiction or Fantasy? I think Fantasy has been
>gaining in popularity over the years.

In other shocking news:
- Pope found to be Catholic
- Bear seen shitting in woods
- Gambling going on at Rick's Caf� Am�ricain

> Two things must be noted, first there are twice as many fantasy books
>on sale as compared to science-fiction, second the SF and fantasy books are
>not mixed together

By one person's definition.

> (although a few books are mis-shelved).

By another one's.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.

[Michael Stemper]

In article <k22cs8$9hi$1...@reader1.panix.com>, jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:

>In article <3631bd68-a3f9-42c1...@googlegroups.com>, Al Lal <alal1...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>What is more popular - Science Fiction or Fantasy? I think Fantasy has
>>been gaining in popularity over the years.

>Have I blamed the del Reys for something today? The del Reys were quite
>canny at spotting market segments they could expand, and fantasy got a
>big boost from their efforts.

Chicon had a panel on "Why is fantasy so much more popular than science
fiction?". I was mildly surprised that the del Reys were never mentioned.
But, there were lots of more literary reasons discussed.

[Bill Snyder]

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:19:29 -0400, Kip Williams
<mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Wayne Throop wrote, On 9/4/12 12:44 PM:
>
>> Dark? Hm. Let me run through it... ho, ha, guard, turn...
>
>DUCK!
>
>Sorry, thought I saw a duck.

No, it's wabbit season. It's impowtant to keep these things
stwaight.


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[Michael Stemper]

In article <XnsA0C45D0D662...@69.16.186.7>, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
>Moriarty <blu...@ivillage.com> wrote in news:72d742cd-b323-47ca...@pz10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:

[snip same old "shelve fantasy and science fiction separately"]

>> These days, they still have separate media and non-fiction and
>> ,for some reason, horror sections.
>>
>Horror, I suspect, deserves it's one section on the grounds that
>there isn't much crossover in the market. In other words, people
>buying it aren't likely to be looking for other genre stuff (at the
>same time, at least). All the traditional genres are meaningful
>*only* as marketing categories. The only genres most readers give a
>damn about is "stuff I like" and "stuff I dont' like."

If I could find a bookstore that managed to properly separate books along
these lines, they'd have my business for a very long time. (I should live
so long.)

[Wayne Throop]

: thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
: Sure, Wolf Who Rules is almost eaten by whargs,
: which sounds pretty unpleasant,

Ha! Occurs to me he could go incognito with a human surname of Capolupo.
(Which is an actual surname, and means, routhly... well...
"Wolf Who Rules".)

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <13467...@sheol.org>, Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:

>::: djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>::: Except in the cases of those (probably few) readers who like hard SF
>::: exclusively and who snarl, "What's all this elfy-welfy s*** doing in
>::: the Science Fiction!?!"
>
>:: Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org>
>:: For example, Wen Spencer's Tinker. Of course, it's more marketed as
>:: fantasy, but the so-called "magic" in it is "really" exotic quantum
>:: physics....
>
>: djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>: A fair number of fantasy tropes are SF in a clever plastic disguise,
>: and vice versa. I tried to read _Tinker_ but gave up halfway -- too
>: dark for my tastes.
>
>Dark? Hm. Let me run through it... ho, ha, guard, turn...
>well, what I come up with is that Tinker is kidnapped and moderately
>squicky tortures are threatened to her, and actually carried out on
>other people. Plus moderately squicky Oni sex. (She does not
>get eaten by the eels at this time. In case you wondered.)
>
>However, that only happens in the last(ish) bit of the book; 1/8
>or 1/4 of the buildup to the climax. So I'm not sure what's "dark"
>about Tinker up to halfway. Sure, Wolf Who Rules is almost eaten by
>whargs, which sounds pretty unpleasant, there are Oni spies everywhere,
>miscommunication causes Tinker's DNA to get shredded, and Tinker gets
>ordered around by the Elf Queen. But... none of that seemed "dark" to me.

Well, see, we have different points along the light <-> dark
continuum at which we say "That's enough, I'm not going to read
any more of this."

>Mind you, that's not to say it "isn't dark" or any such thing.
>I'm just having a bit of trouble seeing the darkness that early on.
>Blasted candles, keep getting lit...

IIRC the protagonist is living in a junkyard after the collapse
of civilization, is she not? and there are some nasty
supernatural things out there as well (some helpful ones, too,
*IF* I remember correctly). But generally it's way too dark for
my tastes; YMMV.

[Kip Williams]

Bill Snyder wrote, On 9/4/12 1:31 PM:

> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:19:29 -0400, Kip Williams
> <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Wayne Throop wrote, On 9/4/12 12:44 PM:
>>
>>> Dark? Hm. Let me run through it... ho, ha, guard, turn...
>>
>> DUCK!
>>
>> Sorry, thought I saw a duck.
>
> No, it's wabbit season. It's impowtant to keep these things
> stwaight.
>

Why a wabbit?

Kip W
wasfw

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <13467...@sheol.org>, Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:

>: thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
>: Sure, Wolf Who Rules is almost eaten by whargs,
>: which sounds pretty unpleasant,

Whargs? Not wargs? Is this a variant spelling, or one the guy
invented to make his, um, whargs different?

(If so, he's copying Tolkien, who adopted the spelling "dwarves"
to distinguish his Dwarves from ordinary fictional dwarfs, as in
Snow White. He also points out somewhere that if singular and
plural had gone their own ways down the centuries, the plural of
dwarf would be *dwerrows.)

>
>Ha! Occurs to me he could go incognito with a human surname of Capolupo.
>(Which is an actual surname, and means, routhly... well...
>"Wolf Who Rules".)

Head Wolf, literally.

As for going incognito, depends on whether he's a shape-changer
or just an intelligent, evil wolf, like Tolkien's wargs. I have
not read whatever book it is Signor Capolupo is in.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:M9u2L...@kithrup.com:

> In article <XnsA0C45C10B24...@69.16.186.7>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in
>>news:6139db11-c1ca-4d6f...@c9g2000vbv.googlegroups
>>.c om:
>>

>>> On Sep 3, 3:01锟絧m, Kay Shapero <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>> In article <k22cs8$9h...@reader1.panix.com>,
>>>> jdnic...@panix.com says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> > > 锟絀n my local bookstore here in

>>>> > >Gurgaon (a suburb of the capital, New Delhi), 5 minutes
>>>> > >drive from my house, they have two bookshelves labeled
>>>> > >Fantasy and only one bookshel
>>> f

>>>> > >labeled science fiction. 锟絋wo things must be noted, first

>>>> > >there are twice as many fantasy books on sale as compared
>>>> > >to science-fiction, second the SF and fantasy books are
>>>> > >not mixed together (although a few books are mis-shelved).
>>>>
>>>> > That sounds about the same as it is here.
>>>>
>>>> Around here (Los Angeles) most of 'em (along with the
>>>> libraries) have given up entirely on separating them and have

>>>> a Fantasy and Science Fiction section. 锟絀 suspect they got

>>>> too many purists in their hair whe
>>> n
>>>> they filed something in the Wrong Section.
>>>
>>> No one in New Haven bookstores or libraries ever had them
>>> separated. And SF was only more popular if one accepts the
>>> practical definition of SF. The sourpuss definition of SF, the
>>> one that says FTL and a wet Venus etc, are fantasy, would say
>>> that SF was never all that popular.
>>>
>>A real purist would point out that no "real" science fiction has
>>ever been published. Or ever could be.
>
> O-o-o-o-kay, would you care to expound on what the real purist's
> definition of real SF would be? Should be interesting....
>

That everything must be absolutely possible. And if eveything is
absolutely possible, it's not *science* fiction, it's just
fiction.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in

news:M9u2s...@kithrup.com:

> In article <XnsA0C45D0D662...@69.16.186.7>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>Horror, I suspect, deserves it's one section on the grounds that
>>there isn't much crossover in the market.
>
> Well, I dunno, there may not be crossover, but there's an awfully
> fuzzy line between horror and dark fantasy. Depending on how
> dark the fantasy is. Vampire stories, e.g.
>

No, vampire stories are their own genre now, like zombie stories.
Market seems to be mostly teenage girls (and their mothers[1] with a
necrophilia thing.

[1]Of course, that's the same market that's made Taylor Swift so
rich, which makes you wonder.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote in
news:k25e43$i8v$8...@dont-email.me:

Amazon does try, with their recommendation system. They fail, of
course, because even if they acheived perfection for a moment, five
minutes later, everybody's tastes would have changed.

[Wayne Throop]

: djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
: IIRC the protagonist is living in a junkyard after the collapse of
: civilization, is she not?

Nnnnnnot quite. Pittsburgh has been enveloped in a quantum field that's
a side effect of an attempted FTL gateway the Chinese built, which
takes it to Elfhome and back every month. So, civilization is OK,
and Pittsburgh is periodically reconnected with it, but most of the
time, it has to fend for itself. So its tech level drops to that of
the 1990s or early twenty-oughts, and it comes under the jurisdiction
of the elves. And of course, tech goods are import only and hard
to replace, etc, etc, etc.

She starts in a junkyard... because she likes the work, more or less.
She likes... tinkering. With junk. And stuff. Hence her (nick)name.

: and there are some nasty supernatural things out there as well (some

: helpful ones, too, *IF* I remember correctly). But generally it's way
: too dark for my tastes; YMMV.

Right on both: not all supernatural things are nasty of course, but it *does*
open on "Wolf Who Rules (almost) getting eaten by whargs", sure enough.
(Well, it turns out they weren't whargs but... eh, nevermind.)

: But generally it's way too dark for my tastes; YMMV.

MM does vary, but I expect not because I have a higher tolerance,
but because I didn't perceive it as dark in the first place.
It's pretty much standard action-adventure fare to my perception.

Hm. I suppose if you were thinking post-apocalyptic, that would make it
seem darker, since Pittsburgh would be fated to fade away in some sense,
and the Elfhome ecosystem was invading and displacing any remaining
earth critters from the edges of the city inwards. Gloom, despair, and
agony on me, etc. But basically, it's life on a frontier ("into these
worlds of unknown danger they ride", etc) and hence positive, rather
than life in the decaying remains of civilization and hence negative.
Pittsburgh is on the end of a long connection to the rest of civilization,
like if you were gold prospecting in Alaska a century ago or something.

Even when Oilcan was young, he always knew his tiny cousin would
eventually find something large enough to express her soul.
He'd assumed that it take the form of a sixty foot tall robot
that she could ride around in, smashing cars underfoot
like Godzilla.
--- from Elfhome (Tinker saga book 3)
(fwiw, Oilcan's song "Godzilla of Pittsburgh"
isn't really described in any detail, but I
tend to think of Black Sabbath's "Iron Man"...
though I suppose what little is said about it
sort of contradicts that a bit, especially
since the musical genre is elf/human fusion)

Heavy boots of lead
Fill his victims full of dread
Running as fast as they can
Iron Man lives again
--- Iron Man

[David DeLaney]

Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>During my brief time at Walden books, we had fiction and various
>genres and SF and fantasy together.

At the times I complain about placement, I almost invariably get the answer
that that's where the +publisher+ said they wanted that particular book put.

Which raises the question of _why_, for example, Ben Aaronovitch's publisher
would be wanting his third book in a series to NOT BE FINDABLE by the people
who were looking to buy it when it came out...

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[David DeLaney]

Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Bill Snyder wrote, On 9/4/12 1:31 PM:

>> Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Wayne Throop wrote, On 9/4/12 12:44 PM:
>>>> Dark? Hm. Let me run through it... ho, ha, guard, turn...
>>>
>>> DUCK!
>>>
>>> Sorry, thought I saw a duck.
>>
>> No, it's wabbit season. It's impowtant to keep these things stwaight.
>
>Why a wabbit?

Because you can't lead with a viaduct.

Dave, the romans, they poison to the house?

[Wayne Throop]

: djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
: Whargs? Not wargs? Is this a variant spelling, or one the guy

: invented to make his, um, whargs different?

Huh. You're right and my memory glitched. Sorry.
The Dhragons, though, I'm sure I remember that...

And "Wen" is a girl's name.

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:42:03 -0400, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David
DeLaney) wrote:

>Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>>During my brief time at Walden books, we had fiction and various
>>genres and SF and fantasy together.
>
>At the times I complain about placement, I almost invariably get the answer
>that that's where the +publisher+ said they wanted that particular book put.
>
>Which raises the question of _why_, for example, Ben Aaronovitch's publisher
>would be wanting his third book in a series to NOT BE FINDABLE by the people
>who were looking to buy it when it came out...

What did the file the third book as? It's solid urban fantasy...

Cheers - Jaimie
--
When one door closes another door opens; but we so often look so
long and so regretfully upon the closed door, that we do not see
the ones which open for us. - Alexander Graham Bell

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <XnsA0C47381B1A...@69.16.186.7>,

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>news:M9u2L...@kithrup.com:
>
>> In article <XnsA0C45C10B24...@69.16.186.7>,
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in
>>>news:6139db11-c1ca-4d6f...@c9g2000vbv.googlegroups
>>>.c om:
>>>
>>>> On Sep 3, 3:01 pm, Kay Shapero <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>>> In article <k22cs8$9h...@reader1.panix.com>,
>>>>> jdnic...@panix.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>> > >  In my local bookstore here in

>>>>> > >Gurgaon (a suburb of the capital, New Delhi), 5 minutes
>>>>> > >drive from my house, they have two bookshelves labeled
>>>>> > >Fantasy and only one bookshel
>>>> f

>>>>> > >labeled science fiction.  Two things must be noted, first

>>>>> > >there are twice as many fantasy books on sale as compared
>>>>> > >to science-fiction, second the SF and fantasy books are
>>>>> > >not mixed together (although a few books are mis-shelved).
>>>>>
>>>>> > That sounds about the same as it is here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Around here (Los Angeles) most of 'em (along with the
>>>>> libraries) have given up entirely on separating them and have

>>>>> a Fantasy and Science Fiction section.  I suspect they got

>>>>> too many purists in their hair whe
>>>> n
>>>>> they filed something in the Wrong Section.
>>>>
>>>> No one in New Haven bookstores or libraries ever had them
>>>> separated. And SF was only more popular if one accepts the
>>>> practical definition of SF. The sourpuss definition of SF, the
>>>> one that says FTL and a wet Venus etc, are fantasy, would say
>>>> that SF was never all that popular.
>>>>
>>>A real purist would point out that no "real" science fiction has
>>>ever been published. Or ever could be.
>>
>> O-o-o-o-kay, would you care to expound on what the real purist's
>> definition of real SF would be? Should be interesting....
>>
>That everything must be absolutely possible. And if eveything is
>absolutely possible, it's not *science* fiction, it's just
>fiction.

Hmmm, I see. And must be set in the *very* near future.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <Hjr1s.3544$tL7....@newsfe19.iad>,

What's the difference between a duck?

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <XnsA0C473BC33F...@69.16.186.7>,

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>news:M9u2s...@kithrup.com:
>
>> In article <XnsA0C45D0D662...@69.16.186.7>,
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>Horror, I suspect, deserves it's one section on the grounds that
>>>there isn't much crossover in the market.
>>
>> Well, I dunno, there may not be crossover, but there's an awfully
>> fuzzy line between horror and dark fantasy. Depending on how
>> dark the fantasy is. Vampire stories, e.g.
>>
>No, vampire stories are their own genre now, like zombie stories.
>Market seems to be mostly teenage girls (and their mothers[1] with a
>necrophilia thing.
>
>[1]Of course, that's the same market that's made Taylor Swift so
>rich, which makes you wonder.

I've given up wondering. There are people whose tastes are
harder for me to envision than the fourth dimension.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <XnsA0C473ECED6...@69.16.186.7>,

Trouble is, their software (which of course, is a really stupid
piece of software, like most other software out there)
generalizes too much. If I order one mystery by Dorothy L.
Sayers, for instance, because my old copy has completely worn out
from rereading, their software says, "Oh! This customer likes
mysteries!" and they recommend hundreds(and hundreds)of police
procedurals, hardboiled PIs, spy stories harking back to the Cold
War, and and and.

I used to go through their recommendation list and delete
everything they mentioned that I didn't want, not even if I'd had
the money. It didn't take. They still generalize way too much
and I now completely ignore them.

[erilar]

In article
<25c5cf84-19c2-4d90...@a1g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
"Richard R. Hershberger" <rrh...@acme.com> wrote:

> For real fun, try to separate "fiction" from "literature".
For many years, my dividing point was whether it was in the
Dewey 800's in most libraries. That may still work, come to think of
it. It's an unreal distinction, of course.
>
> As for F & SF, it is abundantly clear to me that combining them makes
> perfect sense as a marketing category. While there are some readers
> and authors who do one or the other exclusively, the intersection of
> fantasy and science fiction readers is much vaster. Even if we could
> reliably point to a specific book and objectively classify it as one
> or the other, what is the point if the potential readership is the
> same?

Some libraries shelve everything fictional together with little labels
on the backs for sf, f, mystery(more than one kind), western, and
possibly something else I haven't noticed. The largest local one I
patronize does that but has the newer ones on separate shelves(still
labeled the same way). Bookstores divide them for us, of course, and
they don't agree on the labels. I'd be quite happy to see teenage
vampires shelved in a back room somewhere, though.

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[erilar]

In article
<fec408b3-91b3-4407...@a19g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:

> During my brief time at Walden books, we had fiction and various
> genres and SF and fantasy together.

Back when that was my sole source of them, they were together.

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[erilar]

In article <M9svx...@kithrup.com>,
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:

> In article <cjia4851m83623eqv...@4ax.com>,
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:

> >Unless the SF is being marketed as "best seller"
>
> Elucidate, please?

"best seller" for me is a distinct turn-off 8-)

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[erilar]

In article <M9t4B...@kithrup.com>,

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:

> Come to that, I haven't been in a bricks-and-mortar bookstore in
> ... years. As I've said, there aren't any in Vallejo.

We have a couple nearby, but they're so small I've seldom been inside
the secular one(the other is religious pap). I do visit the big B&N
near where my daughter lives when I'm down there once or twice a year,
mostly to see whether there's something new I haven't heard of that
looks interesting, but mostly to make notes.

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[erilar]

In article <M9uBF...@kithrup.com>,

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:

> I used to go through their recommendation list and delete
> everything they mentioned that I didn't want, not even if I'd had
> the money. It didn't take. They still generalize way too much
> and I now completely ignore them.

Sometimes I look at Amazon's recommendation lists just for laughs.

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <drache-BFEA5C....@news.eternal-september.org>,

"God bless and keep the teenage vampires ... far away from us."

[Howard Brazee]

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:41:32 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
wrote:

>For example, Wen Spencer's Tinker. Of course, it's more marketed
>as fantasy, but the so-called "magic" in it is "really" exotic

>quantum physics, which the title character happens to understand
>better than most anybody else. Well enough to design a hoverbike,
>improvise lots of "spells", etc, etc, etc. Basically, Tinker is
>hard SF... or at least, about as hard as Niven.

Yeah, which means it isn't hard.

But if we go there, how about continuing in that direction to other
fantasy with some kind of outside source which may be technological,
such as Brust, or even Sherwood Smith?

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[Howard Brazee]

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:44:22 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
wrote:

>: djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>: A fair number of fantasy tropes are SF in a clever plastic disguise,
>: and vice versa. I tried to read _Tinker_ but gave up halfway -- too
>: dark for my tastes.
>

>Dark? Hm. Let me run through it... ho, ha, guard, turn...

>well, what I come up with is that Tinker is kidnapped and moderately
>squicky tortures are threatened to her, and actually carried out on
>other people. Plus moderately squicky Oni sex. (She does not
>get eaten by the eels at this time. In case you wondered.)
>
>However, that only happens in the last(ish) bit of the book; 1/8
>or 1/4 of the buildup to the climax. So I'm not sure what's "dark"
>about Tinker up to halfway. Sure, Wolf Who Rules is almost eaten by
>whargs, which sounds pretty unpleasant, there are Oni spies everywhere,
>miscommunication causes Tinker's DNA to get shredded, and Tinker gets
>ordered around by the Elf Queen. But... none of that seemed "dark" to me.

But Dorothy stopping was probably a good idea, as it gets uglier in
later books.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 9/4/2012 12:52 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <13467...@sheol.org>, Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>> : thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
>> : Sure, Wolf Who Rules is almost eaten by whargs,
>> : which sounds pretty unpleasant,
>
> Whargs? Not wargs? Is this a variant spelling, or one the guy
> invented to make his, um, whargs different?
>
> (If so, he's copying Tolkien, who adopted the spelling "dwarves"
> to distinguish his Dwarves from ordinary fictional dwarfs, as in
> Snow White. He also points out somewhere that if singular and
> plural had gone their own ways down the centuries, the plural of
> dwarf would be *dwerrows.)
>>
>> Ha! Occurs to me he could go incognito with a human surname of Capolupo.
>> (Which is an actual surname, and means, routhly... well...
>> "Wolf Who Rules".)
>
> Head Wolf, literally.
>
> As for going incognito, depends on whether he's a shape-changer
> or just an intelligent, evil wolf, like Tolkien's wargs. I have
> not read whatever book it is Signor Capolupo is in.

Wen Spencer is Wendy Spencer.
http://www.wenspencer.com/biography-of-wen-spencer/

Her books are awesome and I hate fantasy.

Lynn

[Michael Stemper]

In article <slrnk4ckq...@gatekeeper.vic.com>, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) writes:
>Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Bill Snyder wrote, On 9/4/12 1:31 PM:
>>> Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Wayne Throop wrote, On 9/4/12 12:44 PM:

>>>>> Dark? Hm. Let me run through it... ho, ha, guard, turn...
>>>>
>>>> DUCK!
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, thought I saw a duck.
>>>
>>> No, it's wabbit season. It's impowtant to keep these things stwaight.
>>
>>Why a wabbit?
>
>Because you can't lead with a viaduct.
>
>Dave, the romans, they poison to the house?

Yeah, but what have they done for us lately?

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in

news:M9uB6...@kithrup.com:

> In article <XnsA0C47381B1A...@69.16.186.7>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>news:M9u2L...@kithrup.com:
>>
>>> In article <XnsA0C45C10B24...@69.16.186.7>,
>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in
>>>>news:6139db11-c1ca-4d6f...@c9g2000vbv.googlegrou
>>>>ps .c om:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 3, 3:01锟絧m, Kay Shapero <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <k22cs8$9h...@reader1.panix.com>,
>>>>>> jdnic...@panix.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>>> > > 锟絀n my local bookstore here in

>>>>>> > >Gurgaon (a suburb of the capital, New Delhi), 5 minutes
>>>>>> > >drive from my house, they have two bookshelves labeled
>>>>>> > >Fantasy and only one bookshel
>>>>> f

>>>>>> > >labeled science fiction. 锟絋wo things must be noted,

>>>>>> > >first there are twice as many fantasy books on sale as
>>>>>> > >compared to science-fiction, second the SF and fantasy
>>>>>> > >books are not mixed together (although a few books are
>>>>>> > >mis-shelved).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > That sounds about the same as it is here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Around here (Los Angeles) most of 'em (along with the
>>>>>> libraries) have given up entirely on separating them and

>>>>>> have a Fantasy and Science Fiction section. 锟絀 suspect they

>>>>>> got too many purists in their hair whe
>>>>> n
>>>>>> they filed something in the Wrong Section.
>>>>>
>>>>> No one in New Haven bookstores or libraries ever had them
>>>>> separated. And SF was only more popular if one accepts the
>>>>> practical definition of SF. The sourpuss definition of SF,
>>>>> the one that says FTL and a wet Venus etc, are fantasy,
>>>>> would say that SF was never all that popular.
>>>>>
>>>>A real purist would point out that no "real" science fiction
>>>>has ever been published. Or ever could be.
>>>
>>> O-o-o-o-kay, would you care to expound on what the real
>>> purist's definition of real SF would be? Should be
>>> interesting....
>>>
>>That everything must be absolutely possible. And if eveything is
>>absolutely possible, it's not *science* fiction, it's just
>>fiction.
>
> Hmmm, I see. And must be set in the *very* near future.
>

One would presume. (Mind you, I didn't say I agreed with such
types, or even that there's anyone out there who would actually
say that out loud, but it's the logical conclusion of some of the
arguments I've seen.)

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in

news:M9uBA...@kithrup.com:

> In article <XnsA0C473BC33F...@69.16.186.7>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>news:M9u2s...@kithrup.com:
>>
>>> In article <XnsA0C45D0D662...@69.16.186.7>,
>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>Horror, I suspect, deserves it's one section on the grounds
>>>>that there isn't much crossover in the market.
>>>
>>> Well, I dunno, there may not be crossover, but there's an
>>> awfully fuzzy line between horror and dark fantasy. Depending
>>> on how dark the fantasy is. Vampire stories, e.g.
>>>
>>No, vampire stories are their own genre now, like zombie
>>stories. Market seems to be mostly teenage girls (and their
>>mothers[1] with a necrophilia thing.
>>
>>[1]Of course, that's the same market that's made Taylor Swift so
>>rich, which makes you wonder.
>
> I've given up wondering. There are people whose tastes are
> harder for me to envision than the fourth dimension.
>

Not a country fan, eh? Or just not a teen angst fan, maybe. Turns
out, teen girls (and their mothers) are just about the only
demographic that still spends significant amounts of money on music.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in

news:M9uBF...@kithrup.com:

Didn't they have a contest (with real prizes) to try to improve the
whole system? They prolly had their old system pick the winner, or
something.

Only recommendation system I ever found at all reliable was the
descriptions from SFBC, back before they went to hell. And I don't
buy paper books any more, so even if that still worked, it'd be of
limited use.

[Michael Stemper]

In article <XnsA0C473BC33F...@69.16.186.7>, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in news:M9u2s...@kithrup.com:
>> In article <XnsA0C45D0D662...@69.16.186.7>, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>Horror, I suspect, deserves it's one section on the grounds that
>>>there isn't much crossover in the market.
>>
>> Well, I dunno, there may not be crossover, but there's an awfully
>> fuzzy line between horror and dark fantasy. Depending on how
>> dark the fantasy is. Vampire stories, e.g.
>>
>No, vampire stories are their own genre now, like zombie stories.
>Market seems to be mostly teenage girls (and their mothers[1] with a
>necrophilia thing.
>
>[1]Of course, that's the same market that's made Taylor Swift so
>rich,

Taylor Swift is big with Necrophiliacs? I did not know that.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote in

news:k25rgt$ld9$3...@dont-email.me:

Damned parens, always escaping. I blame Obama.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <MPG.2aae9e815...@uucp.eternal-september.org>, Kay
Shapero <k...@invalid.net> wrote:

>In article <k22cs8$9hi$1...@reader1.panix.com>, jdni...@panix.com says...
>>
>
>>
>> > In my local bookstore here in

>> >Gurgaon (a suburb of the capital, New Delhi), 5 minutes drive from my
>> >house, they have two bookshelves labeled Fantasy and only one bookshelf

>> >labeled science fiction. Two things must be noted, first there are

>> >twice as many fantasy books on sale as compared to science-fiction,
>> >second the SF and fantasy books are not mixed together (although a few
>> >books are mis-shelved).
>>
>> That sounds about the same as it is here.
>
>Around here (Los Angeles) most of 'em (along with the libraries) have
>given up entirely on separating them and have a Fantasy and Science

>Fiction section. I suspect they got too many purists in their hair when

>they filed something in the Wrong Section.

I think that's true for B&N. There are no longer that many bookstores
around to do a comparison.

I also think some "Mystery" gets shelved in New Fiction when it comes out,
rather than in a separate New Mystery.

--
charles

[Charles Bishop]

In article <XnsA0C45BD7458...@69.16.186.7>, Gutless Umbrella
Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Another stupid troll on a subject that's been beaten to death a
>million times, and the regulars will flcok to do so again.

And the mockers will flock to mock the first flockers.[1] [2]

[snip]

[1] maybe it's not a flock if there's just one or two

[2] assuming "flcok" was a real word, would there be a glottal stop
thusly: fl'cok? I can't pronounce the word without it. Maybe "flc'ok?

--
charles

[Charles Bishop]

In article <Hjr1s.3544$tL7....@newsfe19.iad>, Kip Williams

<mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Bill Snyder wrote, On 9/4/12 1:31 PM:

>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:19:29 -0400, Kip Williams

>> <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wayne Throop wrote, On 9/4/12 12:44 PM:
>>>
>>>> Dark? Hm. Let me run through it... ho, ha, guard, turn...
>>>
>>> DUCK!
>>>
>>> Sorry, thought I saw a duck.
>>
>> No, it's wabbit season. It's impowtant to keep these things
>> stwaight.
>>
>Why a wabbit?

Because you need a wabbit for the viaduct.

--
charles

[Charles Bishop]

In article <XnsA0C47381B1A...@69.16.186.7>, Gutless Umbrella

Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in

>news:M9u2L...@kithrup.com:
>
>> In article <XnsA0C45C10B24...@69.16.186.7>,

>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in
>>>news:6139db11-c1ca-4d6f...@c9g2000vbv.googlegroups
>>>.c om:
>>>
>>>> On Sep 3, 3:01锟絧m, Kay Shapero <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>>> In article <k22cs8$9h...@reader1.panix.com>,
>>>>> jdnic...@panix.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>> > > 锟絀n my local bookstore here in

>>>>> > >Gurgaon (a suburb of the capital, New Delhi), 5 minutes
>>>>> > >drive from my house, they have two bookshelves labeled

>>>>> > >Fantasy and only one bookshel
>>>> f

>>>>> > >labeled science fiction. 锟絋wo things must be noted, first

>>>>> > >there are twice as many fantasy books on sale as compared
>>>>> > >to science-fiction, second the SF and fantasy books are
>>>>> > >not mixed together (although a few books are mis-shelved).
>>>>>
>>>>> > That sounds about the same as it is here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Around here (Los Angeles) most of 'em (along with the
>>>>> libraries) have given up entirely on separating them and have

>>>>> a Fantasy and Science Fiction section. 锟絀 suspect they got

>>>>> too many purists in their hair whe
>>>> n
>>>>> they filed something in the Wrong Section.
>>>>

>>>> No one in New Haven bookstores or libraries ever had them
>>>> separated. And SF was only more popular if one accepts the
>>>> practical definition of SF. The sourpuss definition of SF, the
>>>> one that says FTL and a wet Venus etc, are fantasy, would say
>>>> that SF was never all that popular.
>>>>
>>>A real purist would point out that no "real" science fiction has
>>>ever been published. Or ever could be.
>>
>> O-o-o-o-kay, would you care to expound on what the real purist's
>> definition of real SF would be? Should be interesting....
>>
>That everything must be absolutely possible. And if eveything is
>absolutely possible, it's not *science* fiction, it's just
>fiction.

Everything must be possible from science we know extrapolaedly into the
future. Of course, since it's difficult to predict a system 20 years into
the future with any reliability[1], errors will be made.

[1] Now. I assume that in 1000 it might be more likely.

--
charles

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

ctbi...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote in
news:ctbishop-040...@global-66-81-104-222.dialup.o1.com:

> In article <XnsA0C45BD7458...@69.16.186.7>, Gutless
> Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Another stupid troll on a subject that's been beaten to death a
>>million times, and the regulars will flcok to do so again.
>
> And the mockers will flock to mock the first flockers.[1] [2]

Nobody wants to feel left out.

>
> [snip]
>
> [1] maybe it's not a flock if there's just one or two
>
> [2] assuming "flcok" was a real word, would there be a glottal
> stop thusly: fl'cok? I can't pronounce the word without it.
> Maybe "flc'ok?
>

Maybe it's a contraction, like a dragonrider of Pern.

[Wayne Throop]

:: For example, Wen Spencer's Tinker. Of course, it's more marketed as
:: fantasy, but the so-called "magic" in it is "really" exotic quantum
:: physics, which the title character happens to understand better than
:: most anybody else. Well enough to design a hoverbike, improvise lots
:: of "spells", etc, etc, etc. Basically, Tinker is hard SF... or at
:: least, about as hard as Niven.

: Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
: Yeah, which means it isn't hard.

I guess my main point is, it's possible to enjoy as scientifiction
something most everybody would label as fantasy, onaccounta (as Dorothy
notes upthread) all the elfy-welfy stuff in it. The term I used for
it some time back is "locally hard", that is, some attention is paid
to consistency, both internally, and with what we laughingly call
the "real world". Whether you're talking about the multiverse and
extra physics that can be encoded in the DNA of practitioners that
end up (for practical purposes) "magicians", or about a fifth force
that propogates FTL and can move material objects FTL, you can treat
it soft (ie, just do whatever's convenient at any plot point, and
not pay any particular attention to consistency of any sort), or
hard (ie, make an attempt to make its use consistent, and fit in
with what's currently known).

I mean, even Harry Dresden gives a nod to fitting in with physics,
when he mentions that magic or no, t hings still have momentum etc etc.

Oh, and Clarkian "magic" encoded in the DNA of the users by somebody
specific in the past is a common trope nowdays; off the top of my head,
Tinker, Liaden, Merchant Princes, um... drat I thought I had about three
more... I suppose arguably Dragaera, but that's less clear. (In Liaden,
these are called "dramliza", though "dramzilla" might be more apt...
"oh, no, there goes Solcintra, go go dramzilla!".)

Ah... arguably, The Witling, where the encoding is done by evolution...


It was inhabited by those who could spin their minds for a moment
and transform themselves into gods, taking upon them an Aspect that
strengthened their bodies and intensified their wills and extended
the power of their desires into Attributes, which fell with a force
like magic upon those against whom they turned them.
--- Lord of Light
(of course, in LoL magic is explicitly
*not* encoded in the DNA, but rather in
the non-corporeal portion of a person)

"The Dread Pirate Roberts is here for your SOUL!"
--- Fezzik

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

ctbi...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote in
news:ctbishop-040...@global-66-81-104-222.dialup.o1.com:

But we really can't predict what future knowledge science will
develop (as even a cursory examination of past science fiction will
demonstrate).

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <ctbishop-040...@global-66-81-104-222.dialup.o1.com>,

Charles Bishop <ctbi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article <XnsA0C47381B1A...@69.16.186.7>, Gutless Umbrella
>Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>news:M9u2L...@kithrup.com:
>>
>>> In article <XnsA0C45C10B24...@69.16.186.7>,
>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in
>>>>news:6139db11-c1ca-4d6f...@c9g2000vbv.googlegroups
>>>>.c om:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 3, 3:01 pm, Kay Shapero <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <k22cs8$9h...@reader1.panix.com>,
>>>>>> jdnic...@panix.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>>> > >  In my local bookstore here in

>>>>>> > >Gurgaon (a suburb of the capital, New Delhi), 5 minutes
>>>>>> > >drive from my house, they have two bookshelves labeled
>>>>>> > >Fantasy and only one bookshel
>>>>> f

>>>>>> > >labeled science fiction.  Two things must be noted, first

>>>>>> > >there are twice as many fantasy books on sale as compared
>>>>>> > >to science-fiction, second the SF and fantasy books are
>>>>>> > >not mixed together (although a few books are mis-shelved).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > That sounds about the same as it is here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Around here (Los Angeles) most of 'em (along with the
>>>>>> libraries) have given up entirely on separating them and have

>>>>>> a Fantasy and Science Fiction section.  I suspect they got

>>>>>> too many purists in their hair whe
>>>>> n
>>>>>> they filed something in the Wrong Section.
>>>>>
>>>>> No one in New Haven bookstores or libraries ever had them
>>>>> separated. And SF was only more popular if one accepts the
>>>>> practical definition of SF. The sourpuss definition of SF, the
>>>>> one that says FTL and a wet Venus etc, are fantasy, would say
>>>>> that SF was never all that popular.
>>>>>
>>>>A real purist would point out that no "real" science fiction has
>>>>ever been published. Or ever could be.
>>>
>>> O-o-o-o-kay, would you care to expound on what the real purist's
>>> definition of real SF would be? Should be interesting....
>>>
>>That everything must be absolutely possible. And if eveything is
>>absolutely possible, it's not *science* fiction, it's just
>>fiction.
>
>Everything must be possible from science we know extrapolaedly into the
>future. Of course, since it's difficult to predict a system 20 years into
>the future with any reliability[1], errors will be made.
>
>[1] Now. I assume that in 1000 it might be more likely.

Heh. I'm now struggling with a story set in 998. By the time we
get to Aachen (if I ever get that far), it *will* be 1000 AD and
you know what? Nobody cares. There's just not the same angst
involved in the Year M as there is in watching all those zeroes
rolling over.

(Source: Hillel Schwarz, _Century's End_)

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Oh, sorry, yes, Wayne said that upthread. Have I mentioned
recently that CFS took out my short-term memory about thirty
years ago?

Oh, I have?

Sorry. :)

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <XnsA0C4907A574...@69.16.186.7>,

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>news:M9uBA...@kithrup.com:
>
>> In article <XnsA0C473BC33F...@69.16.186.7>,
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>>news:M9u2s...@kithrup.com:
>>>
>>>> In article <XnsA0C45D0D662...@69.16.186.7>,
>>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>Horror, I suspect, deserves it's one section on the grounds
>>>>>that there isn't much crossover in the market.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I dunno, there may not be crossover, but there's an
>>>> awfully fuzzy line between horror and dark fantasy. Depending
>>>> on how dark the fantasy is. Vampire stories, e.g.
>>>>
>>>No, vampire stories are their own genre now, like zombie
>>>stories. Market seems to be mostly teenage girls (and their
>>>mothers[1] with a necrophilia thing.
>>>
>>>[1]Of course, that's the same market that's made Taylor Swift so
>>>rich, which makes you wonder.
>>
>> I've given up wondering. There are people whose tastes are
>> harder for me to envision than the fourth dimension.
>>
>Not a country fan, eh? Or just not a teen angst fan, maybe. Turns
>out, teen girls (and their mothers) are just about the only
>demographic that still spends significant amounts of money on music.

Well, it depends on how you define music. I buy classical music
CDs (or, preferably, DVDs so I can watch the players) when I can
afford any, but I bet the teen girls and their mothers don't.

I am the mother of a woman of 36, neither of us exactly girls
any more.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <ctbishop-040...@global-66-81-104-222.dialup.o1.com>,
Charles Bishop <ctbi...@earthlink.net> wrote:

If it's a vocalic L, that is, given some duration (and voice) as
if it were a vowel, you could probably pronounce it as a
disyllable. Fll-cok.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 9/4/12 4:27 PM, erilar wrote:
> In article <M9svx...@kithrup.com>,
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>> In article <cjia4851m83623eqv...@4ax.com>,
>> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>>> Unless the SF is being marketed as "best seller"
>>
>> Elucidate, please?
>
> "best seller" for me is a distinct turn-off 8-)
>

Speaking as an author, then, I want you to be terribly turned off by my
books for that reason.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Lynn McGuire]

On 9/4/2012 3:59 PM, Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:44:22 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
> wrote:
>
>> : djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>> : A fair number of fantasy tropes are SF in a clever plastic disguise,
>> : and vice versa. I tried to read _Tinker_ but gave up halfway -- too
>> : dark for my tastes.
>>
>> Dark? Hm. Let me run through it... ho, ha, guard, turn...
>> well, what I come up with is that Tinker is kidnapped and moderately
>> squicky tortures are threatened to her, and actually carried out on
>> other people. Plus moderately squicky Oni sex. (She does not
>> get eaten by the eels at this time. In case you wondered.)
>>
>> However, that only happens in the last(ish) bit of the book; 1/8
>> or 1/4 of the buildup to the climax. So I'm not sure what's "dark"
>> about Tinker up to halfway. Sure, Wolf Who Rules is almost eaten by
>> whargs, which sounds pretty unpleasant, there are Oni spies everywhere,
>> miscommunication causes Tinker's DNA to get shredded, and Tinker gets
>> ordered around by the Elf Queen. But... none of that seemed "dark" to me.
>
> But Dorothy stopping was probably a good idea, as it gets uglier in
> later books.

If I remember correctly, the Elf warriors suffer
greatly in the defense of Tinker.

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

On 9/3/2012 9:28 PM, Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 01:06:25 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
> wrote:
>
>> : Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
>> : When people don't believe in Science Fiction, it becomes a subset of
>> : fantasy. And much of the audience for Science Fiction have stopped
>> : believing.
>>
>> I'm not sure what is the nature of this "belief in Science Fiction"
>> of which you speak.
>>
>
>
> Just in case you're serious...
>
> We don't believe in fantasy. But we wanted to believe that Science
> Fiction was realistic and possible. But what we wanted to believe
> in seems more and more like fantasy, and less and less like science.

I believed in _Ariel_.
http://www.amazon.com/Ariel-Steven-R-Boyett/dp/0441017940/

Lynn

[Wayne Throop]

::: I tried to read _Tinker_ but gave up halfway -- too dark for my tastes.

:: Dark? Hm. Let me run through it... ho, ha, guard, turn... well,
:: what I come up with is that Tinker is kidnapped and moderately
:: squicky tortures are threatened to her, and actually carried out on
:: other people. Plus moderately squicky Oni sex. (She does not get
:: eaten by the eels at this time. In case you wondered.)
::
:: However, that only happens in the last(ish) bit of the book; 1/8 or
:: 1/4 of the buildup to the climax. So I'm not sure what's "dark"
:: about Tinker up to halfway. Sure, Wolf Who Rules is almost eaten by
:: whargs, which sounds pretty unpleasant, there are Oni spies
:: everywhere, miscommunication causes Tinker's DNA to get shredded, and
:: Tinker gets ordered around by the Elf Queen. But... none of that
:: seemed "dark" to me.

: Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
: But Dorothy stopping was probably a good idea, as it gets uglier in
: later books.

Hm? What in the later books is uglier than Tinker's kidnapping,
and the quite squicky Oni camp she was taken to? I suppose as the
Elf/Oni war heats up, there are higher body counts...

Oh, wait, I got it... the kidnapping of the doubles in Elfhome,
and where they ended up. It wasn't *fundamentally* more ugly than
where Tinker ended up, but they *needed* Tinker, so it was more
brutal by far.

Is that what you meant, or am I missing some?

[Brian M. Scott]

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 09:10:17 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:XnsA0C45D4BFE3...@69.16.186.7> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
> news:1jv8rowcykgo5$.7c77gszpnnn6$.d...@40tude.net:

[...]

>> Barnes & Noble do not separate science fiction and fantasy.
>> (Neither did Borders.) They do occasionally put in the
>> romance section books that could have gone in the sf section
>> just as well, if not better.

> Better by whose definition?

Mine, of course!

> Certainly not theirs. The rmance market is probably an
> order of magnitude larger than teh sf market. They put
> stuff there when they can because they'll sell more of
> it.

Except that they don't always. Jenna Black's Morgan
Kingsley series ends up in sf. So do Dianne Sylvan's books.

Brian

[Taki Kogoma]

On 2012-09-04, Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com>
allegedly proclaimed to rec.arts.sf.written:

> Oh, sorry, yes, Wayne said that upthread. Have I mentioned
> recently that CFS took out my short-term memory about thirty
> years ago?
>
> Oh, I have?
>
> Sorry. :)

Memory's the second thing to go.

Gym "Everybody forgets what the first is..." Quirk

--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) quirk @ swcp.com
Just an article detector on the Information Supercollider.

[Wayne Throop]

:: As for going incognito, depends on whether he's a shape-changer or

:: just an intelligent, evil wolf, like Tolkien's wargs. I have not
:: read whatever book it is Signor Capolupo is in.

He's in the one you left off halfway through. He's an elf named "Wolf
Who Rules". He's wind clan, so a fuller version of his name would be
"Wolf Who Rules Wind". (Or at least, that's the english approximation.)

He's not a shapeshifter. For that you need the Dog Warriors series,
aka the Ukia Oregon saga.

All the elves have such a naming scheme; that is, their names are
meaningful phrases in elvish, and usually synchronize with the clan name,
so they fit together. Eg, Jewel Tear on Stone, and Echoing of Merriment
in Stone" are of the stone clan, and so forth. I'm not sure if it's
felt that Prince True Flame's name already implies its fire-clan-ness.

And some elves have short names they earned in the clan wars or the
wars against the Oni, such as Darkness, or Sunder. As in "who's that
arriving?" / "Darkness, Sunder, and Cana Lily". ("They sent two
Harbingers!" Jewel Tear gasped.) ("One of these names is not like
the others...")

And then many have a human nickname, such as Windwolf or Merry.
I don't think anybody shortened Jewel Tear or True Flame any more
than they already were. So, you may never have (or extremely briefly)
encontered him as "Wolf Who Rules"; he may have been called "Windwolf"
at least until they go see the queen.

[Lynn McGuire]

I'm right behind you as my memory is heading out
also.

Actually, I believe that Wen Spencer is just her
pen name. I think her real name is Wendy Kosak.
http://www.kosak.org/wendy/

Lynn

[Greg Goss]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:

>Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>That everything must be absolutely possible. And if eveything is
>>absolutely possible, it's not *science* fiction, it's just
>>fiction.
>

>Hmmm, I see. And must be set in the *very* near future.

At which point you're writing "technothriller" not SF.
--
I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.

[Wayne Throop]

: Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com>
: If I remember correctly, the Elf warriors suffer greatly in the
: defense of Tinker.

Galloping Storm Horse on Wind was the only one kidnapped to serve as
whipping boy to coerce her, and she built the gate before he suffered too
greatly. In fact, at that time, she only had one or maybe two Beholden;
Galloping Storm Horse on Wind aka Stormhorse aka Little Horse aka Pony,
and Singing Storm Wind aka Stormsong.

Or was there some other significant incident of suffering I've missed?
Entirely possible, of course.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in news:r3vxdjikcbjk
$.1w0tczg2...@40tude.net:

> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 09:10:17 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
> Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <news:XnsA0C45D4BFE3...@69.16.186.7> in
> rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
>> news:1jv8rowcykgo5$.7c77gszpnnn6$.d...@40tude.net:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Barnes & Noble do not separate science fiction and fantasy.
>>> (Neither did Borders.) They do occasionally put in the
>>> romance section books that could have gone in the sf section
>>> just as well, if not better.
>
>> Better by whose definition?
>
> Mine, of course!

Well, as soon as you own your own book store, you're all set.

>
>> Certainly not theirs. The rmance market is probably an
>> order of magnitude larger than teh sf market. They put
>> stuff there when they can because they'll sell more of
>> it.
>
> Except that they don't always. Jenna Black's Morgan
> Kingsley series ends up in sf. So do Dianne Sylvan's books.
>

And? Business is an art, not a science. Otherwise, we'd all be out
of work.

Retail would be much, much easier without all those damned
customers.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in news:aanfiuFpgtU1
@mid.individual.net:

> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>That everything must be absolutely possible. And if eveything is
>>>absolutely possible, it's not *science* fiction, it's just
>>>fiction.
>>
>>Hmmm, I see. And must be set in the *very* near future.
>
> At which point you're writing "technothriller" not SF.

Which brings us back to my original point: To the purest purist, it's
not actually possible to write science fiction.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
news:k25uh6$f66$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 9/4/12 4:27 PM, erilar wrote:
>> In article <M9svx...@kithrup.com>,
>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <cjia4851m83623eqv...@4ax.com>,
>>> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Unless the SF is being marketed as "best seller"
>>>
>>> Elucidate, please?
>>
>> "best seller" for me is a distinct turn-off 8-)
>>
>
> Speaking as an author, then, I want you to be terribly
> turned off by my
> books for that reason.
>

You know that there are more than a few people who would, if they
found out their absolute favorite book *ever*, has suddently become a
bestseller, never, ever read it again.

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2012-09-04 22:52:48 +0000, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> said:

> Actually, I believe that Wen Spencer is just her
> pen name. I think her real name is Wendy Kosak.
> http://www.kosak.org/wendy/

As far as I know, Wen Spencer is her name. As is Wendy Kosak.

Wen is a nickname for Wendy, Spencer is her maiden name.

kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!