opps - real life too real. sorry.

But the genre elements are less plot defining

Right. But my point was simply that there *are* expectations, however loose, in genre fiction. So you need to know what those expectations are to satisfy the bulk of readers. You can't answer *only* to yourself, and what you think equals a good book, not if you'd like to sell it.

Yeah, something like that. Of course, George Pelecanos swears the caper story is the new Western.

Right but Mystery as a genre requires a certain ending. The mystery must be revealed. Romance requires a certain ending - the lovers get together.

Science Fiction doesn't have a plot requirement, its genre requirements relate to an element of the fantastic which is technologically feasible.

Science Fiction doesn't have a plot requirement, its genre requirements relate to an element of the fantastic which is technologically feasible.

Isn't that what I said? That it was simply the elements of some genres that are expected? In other words, an author might write a novel set in 2736 and consider it sci fi without including any tech advances or explorations of what those advances have done to society, and *think* it's a really good book.

And it might be, story-wise. But it wouldn't be a really good *sci fi* book.

I feel like we're talking around each other now, so.

So you need to know what those expectations are to satisfy the bulk of readers. You can't answer *only* to yourself, and what you think equals a good book, not if you'd like to sell it.

But going back to the original question of what the writer owes to the audience, I think he or she can satisfy the First Principle (write the best book) without pandering.

In fact, I'd say that the best books in any genre are the ones which thwart, play with or redefine the genre rather than those which fulfill its requirements. Genres evolve over time because writers push against expectations. The conventions of Romance are very different now than they were in the sixties. Some writer had to push for something truer to their experience than the genre convention allowed, so now you can have a divorced lead, or sexual content in a Romance.

an author might write a novel set in 2736 and consider it sci fi without including any tech advances or explorations of what those advances have done to society, and *think* it's a really good book.

That's kind of what Doris Lessing did.

I feel like we're talking around each other now, so.

I'm arguing that while all genres have conventions, some genres restrict the narrative/plot more than others. That's all.

Some writer had to push for something truer to their experience than the genre convention allowed

That's certainly true, and admirable.

Maybe my point should have been that more authors should learn what makes a basic good book before pushing to be unique or boundary-breaking.

I edit a lot of different genres. Mystery, sci fi, romance, women's fiction, some fantasy. In the short sci fi novel I'm working on right now, he doesn't establish his tech terms, he leaves huge holes where explanation of the changes to society should be, and he can't write a properly punctuated sentence to save his life. It's not a bad *story* but it's not a very good book.

I have no idea if he thinks he's breaking rules or being true to himself, but unless he's a completely jaded hack doing it for a quick buck, I would be willing to bet he damn well *thinks* he's writing the best book he can.

A different point, I guess. But I think it's a valid one. Write the best book you can, sure. But know what the hell a good book looks like.

But know what the hell a good book looks like.

Spoken like an editor!

Dinner: a half piece of toast moistened with soy milk, followed by tylenol and ipubuferin. Fuckin Tino gave me one of my sick headaches. As a bonus, got some weird kind of foot cramp where my toes would spasm and spontaneously contort themselves into painful positions. Feeling better and going to sleep.