Genres and Misfits – Labels in Literature

The digital age demands categories and labels in order to sort the overwhelming quantity of data and information floating through cyber space. Search engines want to know where we fit and where our ideas fit. They want to know because there are people at the other end trying to sift through all this information to find what they seek. Genre labels can help your audience find you, and they can help you connect with the right people and places. Nevertheless, the process of labeling oneself tickles a disturbing place in the brain.

I recently checked out an online database for submissions called duotrope (my thanks to Pete Morin of the Fiction Writers Guild on Linked In for sharing this). It seemed like a great resource, but it forced me to parse things into multiple layers of categories. Duotrope’s lists were not only sorted into 9 genres, but also into innumerable subgenres and each of those were sorted into styles. I struggled to determine which of my stories fit into which categories, or whether my stories were misfits.

Agents and publishers use genre labels, too. So often, the bio information for editors or agents at a conference or in a newsletter includes a list of genres they seek and those that “need not apply.” Meanwhile, authors struggle to decode what each agent’s definition of these terms might be. Do they interpret “horror” the way I interpret “horror”? How are they defining “magical realism“? What’s their issue with “inspirational,” or do they really mean “anything at all to do with religion“?

I suppose it’s better than being back in high school, where people assigned labels and categories to human beings. Still, I can’t help but notice that same, rebellious piece of my brain fighting against the boxes, whether it’s “jock, brain, stoner and drama fag” or “horror, romance, mystery and thriller.”

None of us like being pigeonholed. Maybe that’s because so many voices coexist inside us. We are filled with selves – dark selves, humorous selves, adventurous selves, argumentative selves. Each self has it’s own collection of stories, and those stories take many different forms. Perhaps that’s the beauty of the whole genre and subgenre game. I’m not labeling myself. I’m just labeling one story. And I have an unlimited supply of stories inside of me, stories of many different stripes.

Classifying and categorizing is part of human nature. Even as young children, we sort our world into categories – people who look like our parents and people who don’t; men with beards and men without; humans, animals and clowns (their own disturbing category). It’s how we store memories and organize data in our brains. The danger comes when we exclude things from our world based purely on labels and categories, when we shrink our world to fit those categories, when the labels serve as boundaries to our vision of the possible. Narrowing the search shouldn’t mean narrowing your mind.

This is a post from the Writer’s Wavelength blog which can be found at writerswavelength.blogspot.com.

The Luddite Versus the Populist

Yes, folks, I’m going to continue to contemplate the questions of literature in the digital age. Let me say, first of all, that following this conversation in its many forms and facets, has led me to blogs and chatrooms all over cyberspace and into several different books, from HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME by Victor Hugo to NEGOTIATING WITH THE DEAD by Margaret Atwood and beyond. The topic seems to engender debate that is lively to say the least.

In my own thoughts on e-publishing, I find two perspectives warring inside me – the luddite and the populist. The luddite approaches the entire concept with a healthy dose of paranoia and distrust. She always notices the latest posts warning that Facebook has changed its privacy settings to give it the ability to own her image, her words and all the private information she or any of her friends have ever posted anywhere in the cyber universe. She would rather remain unknown than click “yes” to anything giving some faceless cyber creature permission to do anything and believes her keychain is nobody’s business but hers. She believes computers, television and cellphones have cut us off from one another and created a generation of children increasingly incapable of civil conversation. Her favorite books include George Orwell’s 1984 and FEED by M.T. Anderson.

Then there’s the populist. She honors the internet as one of the great heroes of all the latest revolutions throughout the world. She celebrates it as a tool of the masses, overthrowing the information elite and throwing open the doors of ideas to the people. She has a copy of Apple’s famous METROPOLIS-inspired Superbowl ad saved on her iPhone and firmly believes that e-publishing is to the common man what the printing press once was. She believes humanity’s desire for connection will always win out over the isolating aspects of the computer, and points to the explosion of social networking, skyping and shared gaming experiences as proof. She is an incurable optimist and she likes it that way.

Which one is winning? Honestly, I think I’ll keep them both around, just to stay grounded. Whose winning in your head?

This is a post from the Writer’s Wavelength blog which can be found at writerswavelength.blogspot.com.

Continuing the Conversation on the Digital Revolution

My friend Jan Bear is fearless in her exploration of the digital realm as it relates to writers. I keep telling her she will become the first in a new breed that, for lack of a better word, I’m calling a digital agent. I look to her as Virgil to my Dante in the dark wood of the digital world. She has graciously decided to chime in on our conversation about the digital revolution at her blog: marketyourbookblog.com.

This is a post from the Writer’s Wavelength blog which can be found at writerswavelength.blogspot.com.

Writing Communities In the Digital Age

I’ve been thinking about the magic of critique groups and wondering how it translates into the digital forum. I’m in two groups at the moment – one that meets live and in-person at a cozy neighborhood coffee shop once a week and the other born from a face-to-face workshop experience that is trying to recapture that energy through a monthly, digital exchange. The live, in-person energy is so powerful and digital communication is such a different realm. I wonder if the give-and-take, push–and-pull exploratory exchange and support of the in-person critique group can actually transfer to a digital format?

Our digital group has gotten off to a terrific start, but I think I need to learn how to critique and share ideas more effectively in that forum. I miss the capacity to write comments directly onto the page and interact physically with the printed word of another author. I miss the ideas that are born from the free-flowing conversation. I question whether I’m providing the proper nuance to my words that will allow another author to hear what I say without the unintentional sting criticism can sometimes carry. I wonder if my own responses are too much, too little, or seem defensive when they’re not meant to. There is an art to giving criticism that is honest and useful while also being supportive and encouraging. There is an art to hearing and receiving criticism of your “baby.”

What strategies have you used to translate the face-to-face critique experience into the digital world? What challenges have you faced? How have you overcome them? Are there ways in which you prefer the digital writing community to a live writing community?

This is a post from the Writer’s Wavelength blog which can be found at writerswavelength.blogspot.com.