Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion

Can you list them all out? There's hard, soft, and cyberpunk. Yes, but have you ever heard of Dieselpunk? How about Mundane SF? They're both sub-genres believe it or not.

This is always a fun topic. Anybody want to take a crack at it? Usually, this topic gets a bit hot. Not everyone likes seeing the unbridled creation of sub-genres. After all, isn't it all SF? Anyway, feel free to post here the most obscure sub-genres you can think of, and the books that fit the bill. We might as well leave no stone unturned :)

I don't think there's any kind of official list. Going on the past few years experience I would say there are as many as you want there to be.

To be honest, I'm not sure subdividing the whole SF genre too much is all that helpful. The more specific the sub-genres become the more we seem to suffer from books spanning half-a-dozen or more of them, and people also end up having quite varying opinions of what should be included in each.

I've never really managed to categorise my books beyond "Science Fiction". I'm still not sure what "Space Epic" and "Space Opera" sub-genres mean, and "Speculative Fiction" seems to be another one which is wide open for debate (an has been on other threads!).

The most obscure sub-genre I can remember right now was "Historical Sci-Fi" - always sounded like a contradition to me.

I think I saw this division in Wikipedia just the other day =P

Paul wrote: "I don't think there's any kind of official list. Going on the past few years experience I would say there are as many as you want there to be.

To be honest, I'm not sure subdividing the whole SF g..."

I think historical sci-fi is somehow like steampunk. Steampunk is preferably set around the Victorian era or the 18th century as far as I read.

Paul wrote: "I don't think there's any kind of official list. Going on the past few years experience I would say there are as many as you want there to be.

To be honest, I'm not sure subdividing the whole SF g..."

This is also from what I have read. Space Opera is something like startrek. it does not really explain the science in it per se.

I wondered if Deep Space 9 was Space Opera and Star Trek wasn't? Maybe I'm reading too much into Space Opera sounding like Soap Opera?

Space opera to me is a science-fiction adventure of epic scope, both in terms of geography (e.g. the action involves spaceships flitting between star systems) and storyline (e.g. something horrible is threatening the entire world/galaxy/universe). The books by Alastair Reynolds are often described as space opera. These are also hard sci-fi, so the science is often (but not always) explained. I guess most TV/movie sci-fi is space opera.

I find steampunk an odd one. I can see why books like The Difference Engine - alternate histories featuring real characters from the past - are classed as science fiction, because of the multiverse theory. But what about steampunk that reuses fictional characters from history (e.g. The Bookman)? The science bit - alternate history - doesn't really work when it's all fictional to begin with. I've called this Victorian Fan Fiction in previous posts.

I think science fiction must have the most sub genres of any genre out there. Mine is science fantasy, but others have taken to calling it a space opera. Others suggest it's not science fantasy at all. How useful or necessary are all these sub-genres if we can't even agree what they entail? And who decides?

And when does a sub-genre become a sub-sub-genre?! Can steampunk be hard/soft sci fi or science fantasy? It's one of those things that my little brain can't handle. Like looking up at the stars and trying to comprehend how huge the universe is - my brain would melt.

Thanks for everyone's input. Is there an official list? Well, there are some that are taken a bit seriously. One that I came across is the Duotrope website at http://duotrope.com, a free resource for writers that primarily offers an extensive, searchable database of current fiction and poetry markets.

I was intrigued by their search engine, which clearly defines many genre, sub-genre, and styles. Within the "Science Fiction" they use the following breakdown:

Alternate History
Apocalyptic
Bizzaro
Near Future
Cross Sub-Genre
cyberpunk
Dystopian
Hard SF
Mundane
Science Fantasy
Science Fiction Horror
Science Fiction Western
Science Fiction World
Slipsteam
Soft Science Fiction
Space Opera
Steampunk
Superhero
Time Travel
Weird Tale
Weird Western

In addition to the above SF sub-genres, they allow a further breakdown into what are called "Styles". These styles are the same for every category above.

absurdist
Dark
Experimental
Humorous
Literary
Mainstream
Minimalist
Pulp
Quirky
Realist
Satirical
Surrealist

I believe Duotrope's system offers insight into how the market is currently behaving, given a strong need to categorize.

So would anyone who's read either of my first two books like to offer an opinion on which sub-genre(s) they best fit?

I suspect "Near Future" (although less so for the 2nd book), possibly "Hard SF" (not so sure on that one) and "Space Opera"? For styles I would pick "Realist", "Mainstream" and "Dark". I find matching sub-genres incredibly difficult.

Steph wrote: "Space opera to me is a science-fiction adventure of epic scope, both in terms of geography (e.g. the action involves spaceships flitting between star systems) and storyline (e.g. something horrible..."

Based on that, my books are most definitely in the "Space Opera" sub-genre then.

Paul wrote: "Based on that, my books are most definitely in the "Space Opera" sub-genre then."

And you've been compared to the master himself, Arthur C Clarke! What more can you ask for?

I always thought that what seperates science fiction from fantasy is that science fiction is anything that could be scientifically possible in the future.

If you'll think back to some of the old science fiction, you'll see some of the things that were science fiction back then are science today. An example, THE SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN and THE BIONIC WOMAN. Back then, it was unheard of to replace human parts with mechanical parts but now it's one every day.

So, in my mind, that would make categories impossible to list. I like anything with time travel, but is that science fiction? Is time travel possible? Maybe in the future we will look back and say, "See, H. G. Wells was right!"

And even this long list doesn't include the subgenre I'd use -- sociological science fiction....

Saul wrote: "Thanks for everyone's input. Is there an official list? Well, there are some that are taken a bit seriously. One that I came across is the Duotrope website at http://duotrope.com, a free resource f..."

Karen wrote: "And even this long list doesn't include the subgenre I'd use -- sociological science fiction....

Beyond Sub-genre per se, there are many themes/trends which are recognized by fans. It really can be hard to figure out what a sub-genre is, but I think it's fair to say that if enough people refer to it, the sub-genre must exist to some degree. That's just my opinion, though.

Thanks for the list, Saul!

L.M., I think the only real rule for steampunk is that the technology imported is grossly anachronistic to the story's time period.

I write a lot of dystopian and allegorical sci-fi/horror with a literary style ... I adore the Old School "strange tales" in literature. ;-)

Steph wrote: "Paul wrote: "Based on that, my books are most definitely in the "Space Opera" sub-genre then."

And you've been compared to the master himself, Arthur C Clarke! What more can you ask for?"

That was a very warm moment for me! A comparison I would never have drawn, but I guess as I am a big fan of his it stands to reason that my writing style would have similarities. I try to base my technology and space exploration on rational projections on current science, but I certainly wouldn't claim to be in his league, even if my style is reminiscent.

I just wish I could sell as many books as him!

L.M. wrote: "Some of you here, like you Saul, have listed some great sub-genres as well as comments. I've enjoyed reading all your views. This thread connects deeply with me since I find my writing more often t..."

Even though many people do enjoy the creation of new sub-genres, there are a number of people who don't. I'm not one of them by the way. But it's funny, I never saw it as a problem.

I've heard it said many times that pro-sub-genre thinking is like pigeonholing, and that people become overly accustomed to reading only certain types of fiction. Worse, that people dismiss sub-genre based stories without giving the author a chance to show how well he can write.

Is there any truth to this? Some. I would have to say I fell into this exact trap. I always considered myself a cyberpunk kind of guy. Then I began reading New Weird and Fantasy. To my surprise, I realized that good writing is...well...just good writing. The sub-genre did not matter in the end.

What do all you out there think? Anyone with similar experiences?

Saul,

"I realized that good writing is...well...just good writing. The sub-genre did not matter in the end."

That's all that needs to be said. You've hit the proverbial nail on the head.

Russell

Russell wrote: "Saul,
That's all that needs to be said. You've hit the proverbial nail on the head.

Thanks Russell.

However, let me just add that I think it's best to be quite open about all this. In my opinion, it's just fine to recognize many sub-genres, as long as one does not get too finicky about which one is best/worst/ etc.

In addition, I see great value in using sub-genres as tags. By applying them to both new and old books (books written before the sub-genre existed for instance) we have a powerful tool for describing books, and overall make them easier to find given the power of search engines. I do believe the benefits outweigh problems which may arise from pigeonholers, narrow-minded readers, and anyone that uses a sub-genre to segregate readers/authors in a bad way.

But...that's just me.

Paul wrote: "I just wish I could sell as many books as him!"

Don't we all! I'm a big fan of Arthur C Clarke myself. I've pinched a few ideas from him here and there, including (as you mentioned) trying to extrapolate future society and technology from the present day, as he did so well (albeit a little optimistically). Somehow, I still end up with imagined futures populated by idiots...

That's an easy trap to fall into, or ending up with a plotline which is the intelligent people against the idiots. That could be a sci-fi sub-genre of its own!

I think you have to have an optimistic when extrapolating a future, even if writing a dystopian novel. Given the current state of society it can be tricky to maintain any optimism at all.

Steph,

"Somehow, I still end up with imagined futures populated by idiots..."

Hahahahahaha, etc.

As the old French used to say: "Plus ça change, plus ça reste la même chose."

Russell

I thought I'd jump in with a few comments of my own. First off, nice list of sub-genres and trends. But it seems there have been some questions asked about just what some of them are and how to define them and identify them.

Hard SF is the easiest. These are stories where there is no made up or extrapolated science. You have to stick with real world science. Plus, science has to play a large part in the story. Think of it as SF for scientists without imagination.

Soft SF is the opposite of Hard SF. The science doesn't play that big a role and it doesn't have to be exact. Most SF falls into this category, but typically this genre label is only used when it doesn't fit any of the other sub-genres.

Space Opera requires a grand setting and sweeping stories. Star Trek (all incarnation), Star Wars, Babylon 5, Firefly, Doctor Who, Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, Battlestar Galactica, Dune, Foundation, and the list goes on and on. Typically the science is soft, using unproven theories to support FTL space travel and other wild gadgets (transporters, lightsabers, blasters, force fields, cloaking devices, disruptors, etc). The term is somewhat derogatory as came about by comparing this type of SF to soap operas due to certain melodramatic trends, but the sub-genre has taken ownership of the name and done serious things with it.

Cyberpunk is usually in the near future with robots, cyborgs, powerful computers, and a good share of violence. Usually very dark. Philip K. Dick is kind of the father of the genre and it really took off after Blade Runner came out.

Steampunk gets its name from Cyberpunk. The easiest way to describe this is that these stories have the same setting as the Jules Verne's stories. Before the age of electricity everything was steam powered. This is an alternate history genre where new scientific and technological discoveries occur long before they did in reality and often in different ways. Stories fit here whether it is an isolated case, such as Captain Nemo and the Nautilus, or whether it is world wide.

Apocalyptic is pretty much like the Mad Max movies and the Postman.

Dystopian is really popular right now due to the Hunger Games.

Alternate History involves changing one thing in the past (be it 20 years ago or 2000) and postulating how the world would be different. Often it starts with a war being won by the historical losers.

The others either I haven't heard of or don't know enough about to comment.

Scott,

"I thought I'd jump in with a few comments of my own."

And I, for one, am glad you did!

Thank you for a most comprehensive list and analysis.

Russell

Scott,

P. S. I just took a look at your Website.

Of the three titles you have listed, which would you recommend to an "oldbie" who hasn't read SF (or its newer variants) since college 42 years ago -- and who (consequently?) thinks Ray Bradbury's short story "All Summer in a Day" is one of the greatest SF stories ever written?

Okay, yes, I confess: I also thought Robert Heinlein and Frank Herbert were pretty g-d'ed hot in their time.


Russell

Russell wrote:"Okay, yes, I confess: I also thought Robert Heinlein and Frank Herbert were pretty g-d'ed hot in their time."

We agree on that point.

While I can say that I've read Jack McDevitt, Tanya Huff, and David Drake, the authors of most of my SF reading are long dead. I'm a big fan of Asimov and Heinlien. If you want to try one of my books, read Edge of Hyperspace. It is 10 stories and has more variety. Besides, it's free. If you like the 3 stories of Ven Zaran, Well of Dreams is all about him. Let me know what you think.

Scott wrote: "I thought I'd jump in with a few comments of my own. First off, nice list of sub-genres and trends. But it seems there have been some questions asked about just what some of them are and how to def..."

Excellent definitions there. My books fall squarely into the "Space Opera" sub-genre then, but also appear to land somewhere between hard and soft science fiction (Science used in my books is a short-range extrapolation from current science, kept as correct/likely as possible, and plays a large but not dominant role in the story). Looks like my books will move closer to soft-sci-fi over time as each new book is set further into the future.

I'm off now to find out what "Hunger Games" is/are.

Steph wrote: "I still end up with imagined futures populated by idiots..."

Some things will NEVER change ;)

Scott, thank so you much for adding further depth to some of the terms. That really is comprehensive.

I want to add that classic dystopian literature has uncertain or even grim endings that reflect the dire nature of whatever social issue the book is covering. While dystopias can end on a happy note, that is not the norm.

What do we do about hybrid genre books? I've just realised that my first sci-fi novel is more than just Space Opera. It pretty firmly crosses over into a murder mystery too. I haven't done anything to promote it as in the mystery genre, but maybe I should. Maybe my thinking has been too locked into the sci-fi genre?

The whole genres, sub-genres thing can get pretty complicated. I can see why sites like Amazon let customers tag books themselves.

Paul wrote: "What do we do about hybrid genre books? I've just realised that my first sci-fi novel is more than just Space Opera. It pretty firmly crosses over into a murder mystery too. I haven't done anything..."

This raises an interesting point. Namely, publisher's (traditional) aversion to cross genre books. It's not that they lacked artistic merit. It was more of a business problem. Marketing and shelf placement became question marks for the publisher, even though fans might have been able to figure things out.

One can say modern eBooks and Indie publishing are clear solutions for this. Books can be tagged with any number of genres on systems like Goodreads and Amazon. Likewise, since eBooks don't need to be physically shelved, they can easily be found using modern search engines.

So what's the problem? Well, the downside would be training readers to want only certain kinds of books. By over-labeling (pigeonholing) them with genre tags, some may make unfair presumptions about a book. Who's the say that great literature won't spring from urban fantasy horror romance comedy? I mean, until you read it, you won't really know.

Overall, things are still evolving, but I think the system is improving. What's your take?

I have to say I think the author is FAR more important than the genre. It's very rare that I read a book purely because of it's genre, but I have often read books purely because of the author. If an author changes genre it can often be a fascinating experience. If my favourite sci-fi author suddenly wrote a contemporary humour novel, I'm probably just as likely to read it as if he wrote another sci-fi novel.

For the average reader, I suspect there is a lot to be said for ignoring the subgenres and sticking to the main genre titles.

Paul wrote: "I have to say I think the author is FAR more important than the genre.
...
If my favourite sci-fi author suddenly wrote a contemporary humour novel, I'm probably just as likely to read it
"

You are obviously a wise and well-read person. I agree with your point of view and to concentrate on the author and good writing. Nothing else matters.

But...we must keep in mind the low common denominator that business people use at times. To be fair, profit is an issue. So we can hate it: but not ignore it.

I think it's sad that traditional publishers have not always agreed with authors about changing genre, or mixing them up too much. There are always exceptions, but the business guys have had a big say before the rise of Indie.