Article 14: Rebrand the Brand.

Rebrand the Brand The boundaries between the very ill-defined genres of fiction have always been blurred and always will be. This is a good thing as the ground in those grey areas can be very fertile. It has brought us the hardboiled detective Brother Cadfael, Robert Graves’ wonderful family saga, that war/historical/romance Captain Corelli’s Mandolin, and many more besides. But why oh why this continual need to search for new labels? In the genres of science fiction and fantasy this is especially noticeable, and often maddening. I was dumbfounded to discover that Jurassic Park was labelled in a fast-seller list as the genre ‘dinosaur’, and on principle it is highly unlikely I’ll ever read Oryx & Crake. SF&F have an image problem for some, and this is why they try to label parts of it differently. Forever in search of respectability they grope for new names for the fiction they write, read, criticise or publish. But where are they looking for this change in attitude? Who are they actually hoping will look upon them in a different light? Many in the mainstream literati intelligensia sneer at these genres. This is in spite of the fact that they take up about twenty percent of the fiction market, have resulted in many of the most successful films in recent years, and, science fiction specifically, is hugely relevant to today’s culture with its rapid technological change. Where will anyone have first come across videophones, genetic manipulation, satellite lasers, and missiles that think for themselves? In SF, of course. And it is to those who sneer, that those in search of new labels are going cap in hand pleading, “Please, take me seriously. I’m not really involved in that awful science fiction or fantasy stuff!” This is not only insulting to some great past authors, it is bloody annoying for those who are writing SF&F right now. How dare these people grovel for acceptance from those who don’t have the imaginative capacity to grasp science fiction or fantasy? And how gutless they are to not claim these genres as their own. But why seek the approval of the mainstream literati establishment, especially when those seeking that approval often style themselves as ‘radical’? More blurred lines. It is because SF&F have their own literati intelligensia who stand astride the line between SF&F and the mainstream: one group standing with their feet in both worlds. They enjoy the creativity and ideas of the first but loath its status. They like the status of the other but do not enjoy its pedestrian limitations.
Some would also have us believe that what they are labelling is something new. What conceit, what arrogance, or what pretension and ignorance. One can only suppose that they have not read widely enough. There’s also some misapprehension of how the English language works in this age when if you’re bad, man, you’re good, and if you’re cool you’re hot. Like the PC lobby they hope that changing labels changes attitude, when in fact current labels change in people’s perception. And the delusion that this rebranding (for that is what it is) will work, is misguided. It will not cause what has been rebranded to perform better. Perhaps they should call the new thing Consignia Fiction, or Corus Fiction – that should do as much good.

5 thoughts on “Article 14: Rebrand the Brand.

  1. I don't know if you're mates with Mr Iain Banks but does having two published names have regard to this, adding the M to differentiate his lowley SF work?
    Admittedly it fooled no-one I think…
    You are right though, whilst I am sure it must be exasperating as an author, spare a feeling for your reader. When asked what books he prefers he boldly says Science Fiction. Oh the approbation of even the non-literati, why didn't I mention my love of foreign literature and early philosophy?.
    I can't help feeling though, that it is all the fault of the publishing industry who, in splitting the genres presumably to help the customer find the book they're after, immediately created a hierarchical structure. External forces then succeded in enshrining the hierarchy in order to ensure the supremacy of their own genre. Its here that SF and F lost out. Those external forces, I should imagine, held classical literature posts at universities and so on, not to mention critics grown fat on anything but SF.
    So I am afraid we shall continue to be spurned, like those who read Gilly Cooper and Andy McWossisname. All the while keeping the publishing houses in chianti and canapes.

  2. Interesting post of what goes on behind the scenes of the written world of science fiction & fantasy literature – sometimes we take for granted what it takes to create the far off worlds and their technologies for the enjoyment they provide us fans. Regardless I think I'm in good company when it comes to those of us that buy these books and marvel at what the authors provide. It would be disappointing to think some may not be proud of what they write.

  3. marketing satanism as the church of self help and empowerment, and/or logic wouldn't sell as many books as THE SATANIC BIBLE. sensation! pick your words and throw yourself to the society of sheep.
    religious future speculation' maybe for the tax write off.

    how much money do you really want to make in the 'bestselling pulp recycle-me romantic (?) proud death-comedy future autofop socialist 'bot on-the-loo' genre anyways?

    H Ellison has been pushing the "Speculative Fiction" label for ages to very little avail. Give it 30 more years maybe.

  4. In every aspect of culture there is elitism and disdain. I mean, I would quite happily burn all Gilly Cooper readers at the stake – using a proton carbine ofc 😉 – as I can only imagine that her books are a load of vacuous shite…. errr, have I just proved myself to be no worse than the literati?

    And is there really any difference between Gilly Cooper and SF? They are both works of fiction after all, just different descriptors are used. People's ego's etc once again.

    Chrisheli, I think the hierarchy is not the fault of the publishing industry, perhaps more the accepted "model" works taught in schools etc – those external forces you mention. Thus, there are less people who read SF.

    Fuck 'em, imho… their loss, our gain.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.