![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Pet peeves
It's beyond my control, seeing words being misused makes me cringe and makes me want to write rants and groan. Maybe it's the teacher in me or maybe it's just my love for language ––unless it's merely a character trait –– but I get bothered by things that most people would just overlook.
It isn't that I want to denounce "cuistres" and "pédants", and I know that language evolves and that the meaning of words slips over the time, but I can't help it, I just hate it when words are debased.
I try not to say it on LJ, because it often happens there and I don't want to sound too picky or hurt my flist, but the frequent (mis) use of "meta" (as "analysis" or "essay on")annoys the hell out of me.
Lately I've been irritated by the use of "science fiction" label that can be seen in many Internet polls or lists around. Everything is science fiction now!
How many times have I seen Buffy The Vampires Slayer show up in a list about sci-fi tv shows*? I'm sorry but Buffy was never a sci-fi series. BSG, Caprica, Farscape, Terminator The Sarah Connor Chronicles, Star Trek, Fringe are sci-fi, not BtVS! Twin Peaks wasn't sci-fi either.
Lost does have a few science fiction elements in it (mostly thanks to Daniel Faraday and Dharma's experiences on time travel) yet I wouldn't call the show sci-fi and its finale, although I didn't like it, pointed it out.
Bram Stocker's Dracula has nothing to do with science fiction (if anything, the character of count Dracula precisely represents a world prior to the XIXth century's science); Stevenson's short story about Dr Jekyll isn't sci-fi either even though it's chemistry (the potion) that brings Mr Hyde out. By the way of contrast, H. G. Wells' books belong to the science fiction category. Nowadays we tend to put all fictional stories that contain or are based on imaginary stuff –– either beings or technologies or alternate universes or dystopia or supernatural elements–– in the same bag.
So what's next? Will Carroll's Alice's Adeventures in Wonderland or More's Utopia or Homer's The Odyssey be labeled sci-fi some day? What about The Bible?
As you can see, I strongly disagree with Nabokov when he said that Shakespeare's The Tempest should be termed science fiction.
Voltaire's Micromégas was a philosophical tale AND science fiction but Zadig, by the same author, wasn't science fiction, and neither were Charles Perrault's fairy tales, yet they all deal with stuff that did not exist.
Finally, it seems to me that, when we decide to mix-up various genres that contain imaginary stuff, we forget, in the process, that, by definition, everything in a fictional work is the product of imagination, the characters to begin with. In every book or movie or tv show, it's a whole universe that is made up. Art is the science of fiction, but not necessarily science fiction.
But it isn't only a matter of misused words and books or tv shows. I think we live a time of "confusion des genres". It's a plague in our western societies and my biggest pet peeve.
I see it all the time in my job. People mix-up History and Remembrance (and there begins the battle between memories, and the clash of lobbies ensues) or History and Commemoration. Sometimes it's just laziness and ignorance, sometimes it's pure manipulation.
Not only it annoys me, but also I believe it can be dangerous.
*PS: Once more David Lavery's blog shows that I am not alone. That said, The X-Files was a show that did mix up genres, covering its tracks, to the point that it's very difficult to label it. Some episodes were pure sci-fi, others pure fantasy, others pure thriller. As a whole, the series navigated by the stars between sci-fi ocean and conspiracy waters (can I make up a word like conspira-sea?). But its parents, The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits, started with the genre mix-up. Perhaps it's the tv version of the American Melting-Pot.
It isn't that I want to denounce "cuistres" and "pédants", and I know that language evolves and that the meaning of words slips over the time, but I can't help it, I just hate it when words are debased.
I try not to say it on LJ, because it often happens there and I don't want to sound too picky or hurt my flist, but the frequent (mis) use of "meta" (as "analysis" or "essay on")annoys the hell out of me.
Lately I've been irritated by the use of "science fiction" label that can be seen in many Internet polls or lists around. Everything is science fiction now!
How many times have I seen Buffy The Vampires Slayer show up in a list about sci-fi tv shows*? I'm sorry but Buffy was never a sci-fi series. BSG, Caprica, Farscape, Terminator The Sarah Connor Chronicles, Star Trek, Fringe are sci-fi, not BtVS! Twin Peaks wasn't sci-fi either.
Lost does have a few science fiction elements in it (mostly thanks to Daniel Faraday and Dharma's experiences on time travel) yet I wouldn't call the show sci-fi and its finale, although I didn't like it, pointed it out.
Bram Stocker's Dracula has nothing to do with science fiction (if anything, the character of count Dracula precisely represents a world prior to the XIXth century's science); Stevenson's short story about Dr Jekyll isn't sci-fi either even though it's chemistry (the potion) that brings Mr Hyde out. By the way of contrast, H. G. Wells' books belong to the science fiction category. Nowadays we tend to put all fictional stories that contain or are based on imaginary stuff –– either beings or technologies or alternate universes or dystopia or supernatural elements–– in the same bag.
So what's next? Will Carroll's Alice's Adeventures in Wonderland or More's Utopia or Homer's The Odyssey be labeled sci-fi some day? What about The Bible?
As you can see, I strongly disagree with Nabokov when he said that Shakespeare's The Tempest should be termed science fiction.
Voltaire's Micromégas was a philosophical tale AND science fiction but Zadig, by the same author, wasn't science fiction, and neither were Charles Perrault's fairy tales, yet they all deal with stuff that did not exist.
Finally, it seems to me that, when we decide to mix-up various genres that contain imaginary stuff, we forget, in the process, that, by definition, everything in a fictional work is the product of imagination, the characters to begin with. In every book or movie or tv show, it's a whole universe that is made up. Art is the science of fiction, but not necessarily science fiction.
But it isn't only a matter of misused words and books or tv shows. I think we live a time of "confusion des genres". It's a plague in our western societies and my biggest pet peeve.
I see it all the time in my job. People mix-up History and Remembrance (and there begins the battle between memories, and the clash of lobbies ensues) or History and Commemoration. Sometimes it's just laziness and ignorance, sometimes it's pure manipulation.
Not only it annoys me, but also I believe it can be dangerous.
*PS: Once more David Lavery's blog shows that I am not alone. That said, The X-Files was a show that did mix up genres, covering its tracks, to the point that it's very difficult to label it. Some episodes were pure sci-fi, others pure fantasy, others pure thriller. As a whole, the series navigated by the stars between sci-fi ocean and conspiracy waters (can I make up a word like conspira-sea?). But its parents, The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits, started with the genre mix-up. Perhaps it's the tv version of the American Melting-Pot.
no subject
Cuz, you're right, from a production p.o.v. and a viewer p.o.v. a specific genre will mean securing certain kind of audience. One of my problems is, I write across genres. So, to be honest to the producers, I had to say something like: 'a drama with elements of magical realism...'
I would see the brows pull together as they added that up, but it did put them in expectation of a certain kind of story and it worked. Folks that were interested leaned forward and those that were not leaned back, and I knew right away if I should save us both time and switch to a different pitch. Genre classification means a lot. Especially these days with tight production budgets.
So I understand the value of a clean definition when you can, and I think you also have a point about it becoming potentially dangerous, and I mean for children and young adults. To expect one venue and receive elements of horror intertwined...well, we all know the power of image and how it can seed and impress the mind.
But what do you do if the work honestly crosses genres?
One of the best writers quotes I like in the moment comes from Rowlings, and paraphrased, she says she writes first and foremost for herself. And of course that's why her tales work. She is satisfying her need to heal some element or 'fix' some aspect in the world that disturbs her personally. And because a lot of writers are writing in such a way, that is, from an idiosyncratic point of view, you're gonna find a plethora of mixed and crossed genres in all media.
I’m inserting laughter here, cuz I was submitting one of my books to a contest and the list of genres and sub-genres was impressive. And I’m like...'well, is it more, fantasy or sci fi or visionary fic?'
'Um...about 40% sci fi...ah 20% fantasy and leaves 40% visionary...oops I have a tie between sci fi and visionary.'
See what I mean? Just how do we class things anymore?
One thing is sure (for me) even a 10% element of Horror makes the whole thing Horror in my opinion.
Of course, in television they may be programming the 'wrong' genre to grab whatever built-in audience a certain program may have.
Very interesting. Thanks for detailing your thoughts so well. It was helpful to hear this from your perspective.
no subject
I wanted more intellectual rigor, not rigidity, if you see what I mean.
I hate it when works follow a formula (what many poor films do, precisely because they aim at a certain audience), so writing cross genres is fine by me. :- )
Thanks for commenting!
no subject
I kinda like it when people do a little rant dance. And so I wanted to stop by and say...'oh you made me think...' Yahu! Thanks again.
no subject
Yeah I kinda got that...my response was more of a private stream of consciousness stimulated by your passion. Two not quite related subject lines, but your intense feeling was helping me to see my own situation reguarding genre in a different light. My questions were more rhetorical.
I know the feeling, it happens to me very often. That's what I like about forums, how the others' thoughts make you think and the tangents that a post may spawn.