Empty genres; or what to do with all those -punks?

[hildea]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

That poem also seems to describe all pre-sixties fantasy and most post-sixties fantasy. Do we need a subgenre that just describes the overall genre?

I describe how I see the difference between hopepunk and other fantasy in post #54 and #74, with several examples. Hopepunk isn't just fantasy, by the way, it includes at least SF (like Murderbot), and maybe other genres as well? I think some romance I've read qualifies, but others might not agree.

I find the term useful. I understand that not everybody do.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by hildea

Hope Is Not a Bird, Emily, It's a Sewer Rat by Caitlin Seida.

Even those few short sentences were so depressing. I prefer adventure. Led by good guys. There's always a villain, but you know that villain will lose in the end. The more I read this thread and learn about things like "grimdark", "hopepunk", etc. - the more I want to stay away from them. I tried reading a book that might be in one of these categories once. "The Road". Supposedly a good book. But it started off so depressing that I abandoned it during the first chapter I think. Very near the beginning in any case. When I read a book, I want to finish it happily thinking about what I have just read, not darkly pondering if I should go shoot myself to end the despair.

To each his own. I learn a lot in these Mobileread threads that point me towards books I'd like, and keep me away from ones I wouldn't. I'm thankful to everyone here for the education.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by haertig

When I read a book, I want to finish it happily thinking about what I have just read, not darkly pondering if I should go shoot myself to end the despair.

So do I, but I find that poem uplifting To me the happy ending is more satisfying if I can believe in it. If the world is saved by someone throwing a ring in a volcano or lopping the head off the tyrant, that's more of a spun sugar satisfaction -- tastes good in the moment, but doesn't feel solid. But if the happy ending is more restrained -- OK, the world still abounds with prejudice and discrimination against supernatural children, but these children and their guardians are safe and happy -- it's more of a filling meal. (Huh, not sure if this metaphor works.)
But as you say: To each their own.

To each his own. I learn a lot in these Mobileread threads that point me towards books I'd like, and keep me away from ones I wouldn't. I'm thankful to everyone here for the education.

Isn't it great that these subgenres exist, so that at least some of these books you don't want to read may be tagged so you can avoid them?

[DiapDealer]

When I finish a book. I want to be thinking about it for a long time after. Period. I'm not looking to be uplifted, happy, pissed, or sad. I'm mainly looking to be moved (and maybe just a tad conflicted). I have a generally happy life. So I look to step outside of the snuggly, warm box every now and again. *shrug*

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

That poem also seems to describe all pre-sixties fantasy and most post-sixties fantasy. Do we need a subgenre that just describes the overall genre?

100% we do not.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by hildea

I describe how I see the difference between hopepunk and other fantasy in post #54 and #74, with several examples. Hopepunk isn't just fantasy, by the way, it includes at least SF (like Murderbot), and maybe other genres as well? I think some romance I've read qualifies, but others might not agree.

I find the term useful. I understand that not everybody do.

Now this is just getting absurd. A genre like hopepunk is not allowed to jump between SF & F. It's time to give it up as obviously it doesn't work.

[DiapDealer]

It's certainly time for someone to give something up.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Now this is just getting absurd. A genre like hopepunk is not allowed to jump between SF & F. It's time to give it up as obviously it doesn't work.

In a world where you’ve eliminated both fantasy and science fiction as genres, replacing them with “I like it” and “I don’t like it” hopepunk can easily encompass books that were otherwise separated into fantasy and science fiction.

Honestly though there’s no reason a sub genre can’t be made up of books from different genres. The things they have in common aren’t mutually exclusive between fantasy, science fiction, horror, and so on. Further the reader can be informed on what kind of hopepunk it is which will let them avoid books they don’t like.

Or maybe hopepunk is in fact not a sub genre but a super genre standing above genres like fantasy and science fiction the way they stand above sub genres.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Now this is just getting absurd. A genre like hopepunk is not allowed to jump between SF & F. It's time to give it up as obviously it doesn't work.

I think hopepunk is a stupid and useless tag.

But even so, why can't it be applied to SF and fantasy?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I think hopepunk is a stupid and useless tag.

But even so, why can't it be applied to SF and fantasy?

Because punk is SF.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Because punk is SF.

Punk is SF? Since when? Who is in charge of deciding that? Can I nominate Johnny Rotten?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Punk is SF? Since when? Who is in charge of deciding that? Can I nominate Johnny Rotten?

It's always been that way.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

It's always been that way.

History is littered with things that were always one way until they weren’t. Any better reason?

[Dazrin]

Steam punk has never been only science fiction.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

It's always been that way.

The first of the -punks was cyberpunk (1980). The second was splatterpunk (1986) which has nothing to do with science fiction. The third was steampunk (1987), which I don't think of as science fiction. You could argue the third, but nobody would say Clive Barker writes SF.

At any rate, no. It has not always been the that way.