rec.arts.sf.written Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) by Evelyn Leeper

[Lynn McGuire]

rec.arts.sf.written Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) by Evelyn Leeper at:
http://leepers.us/evelyn/faqs/sf-written.htm

"rec.arts.sf.written is a newsgroup devoted to discussions of written
SF. It is a high-volume newsgroup and this article is intended to help
reduce the number of unnecessary postings, thereby making it more useful
and enjoyable to everyone."

""SF" as used here means "speculative fiction" and includes science
fiction, fantasy, horror (a.k.a. dark fantasy), etc."

Lynn

[Cryptoengineer]

   http://leepers.us/evelyn/faqs/sf-written.htm
"rec.arts.sf.written is a newsgroup devoted to discussions of written
SF. It is a high-volume newsgroup and this article is intended to help
reduce the number of unnecessary postings, thereby making it more useful
and enjoyable to everyone."
""SF" as used here means "speculative fiction" and includes science
fiction, fantasy, horror (a.k.a. dark fantasy), etc."
Lynn

I was at Boskone over the weekend, and several program items were using
the abbreviation "SFFH" where I'd expect to see SF or SFF. I *think* the
H was for Horror.

Is that the case? Have others seen this term before?

pt

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Cryptoengineer

    http://leepers.us/evelyn/faqs/sf-written.htm
"rec.arts.sf.written is a newsgroup devoted to discussions of written
SF. It is a high-volume newsgroup and this article is intended to help
reduce the number of unnecessary postings, thereby making it more
useful and enjoyable to everyone."
""SF" as used here means "speculative fiction" and includes science
fiction, fantasy, horror (a.k.a. dark fantasy), etc."
Lynn

I was at Boskone over the weekend, and several program items were using
the abbreviation "SFFH" where I'd expect to see SF or SFF. I *think* the
H was for Horror.
Is that the case? Have others seen this term before?
pt

I am seeing people say "Dark Fantasy" instead of "Horror" now.

Lynn

[Ahasuerus]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Cryptoengineer

    http://leepers.us/evelyn/faqs/sf-written.htm
"rec.arts.sf.written is a newsgroup devoted to discussions of written
SF. It is a high-volume newsgroup and this article is intended to
help reduce the number of unnecessary postings, thereby making it
more useful and enjoyable to everyone."
""SF" as used here means "speculative fiction" and includes science
fiction, fantasy, horror (a.k.a. dark fantasy), etc."
Lynn

I was at Boskone over the weekend, and several program items were using
the abbreviation "SFFH" where I'd expect to see SF or SFF. I *think* the
H was for Horror.
Is that the case? Have others seen this term before?

I am seeing people say "Dark Fantasy" instead of "Horror" now.

The tricky thing about "horror" as a genre is that it encompassed both
"psychological horror" and "supernatural horror". The latter is part and
parcel of "speculative fiction" while the former is not.

In many cases publishers do not advertise what kind of horror their
books are, presumably because they don't want to spoil the ending.
That's great is you like both types of horror, but not so great if you
are only interested in one type. (Or if you are an SF bibliographer. Not
that I am complaining or anything.)

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Ahasuerus

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Cryptoengineer

    http://leepers.us/evelyn/faqs/sf-written.htm
"rec.arts.sf.written is a newsgroup devoted to discussions of written
SF. It is a high-volume newsgroup and this article is intended to
help reduce the number of unnecessary postings, thereby making it
more useful and enjoyable to everyone."
""SF" as used here means "speculative fiction" and includes science
fiction, fantasy, horror (a.k.a. dark fantasy), etc."
Lynn

I was at Boskone over the weekend, and several program items were using
the abbreviation "SFFH" where I'd expect to see SF or SFF. I *think* the
H was for Horror.
Is that the case? Have others seen this term before?

I am seeing people say "Dark Fantasy" instead of "Horror" now.

The tricky thing about "horror" as a genre is that it encompassed both
"psychological horror" and "supernatural horror". The latter is part and
parcel of "speculative fiction" while the former is not.
In many cases publishers do not advertise what kind of horror their
books are, presumably because they don't want to spoil the ending.
That's great is you like both types of horror, but not so great if you
are only interested in one type. (Or if you are an SF bibliographer. Not
that I am complaining or anything.)

So Robert Bloch's _Psycho_ should not be on isfdb? :-)

[Ahasuerus]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Ahasuerus

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Cryptoengineer

    http://leepers.us/evelyn/faqs/sf-written.htm
"rec.arts.sf.written is a newsgroup devoted to discussions of written
SF. It is a high-volume newsgroup and this article is intended to
help reduce the number of unnecessary postings, thereby making it
more useful and enjoyable to everyone."
""SF" as used here means "speculative fiction" and includes science
fiction, fantasy, horror (a.k.a. dark fantasy), etc."
Lynn

I was at Boskone over the weekend, and several program items were using
the abbreviation "SFFH" where I'd expect to see SF or SFF. I *think* the
H was for Horror.
Is that the case? Have others seen this term before?

I am seeing people say "Dark Fantasy" instead of "Horror" now.

The tricky thing about "horror" as a genre is that it encompassed both
"psychological horror" and "supernatural horror". The latter is part and
parcel of "speculative fiction" while the former is not.
In many cases publishers do not advertise what kind of horror their
books are, presumably because they don't want to spoil the ending.
That's great is you like both types of horror, but not so great if you
are only interested in one type. (Or if you are an SF bibliographer. Not
that I am complaining or anything.)

So Robert Bloch's _Psycho_ should not be on isfdb? :-)
Works (both fiction and non-fiction) which are not related to

speculative fiction, but were produced by authors who have otherwise
published works either of or about speculative fiction over a certain
threshold (see below). This includes any non-genre works published as
standalone books as well as non-genre short fiction, but excludes
non-fiction which was not published as a standalone book. Thus, Poul
Anderson's mysteries and his non-fiction book about thermonuclear
weapons will be included, but Gregory Benford's professionally published
scientific articles will be excluded.

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
This "certain threshold" is hard to define, but we need to draw the

line in a way that would exclude Winston Churchill, who published at
least one work of borderline speculative fiction. The goal here is to
avoid cataloging everything ever published by James Fenimore Cooper,
Robert Louis Stevenson, Honoré de Balzac and other popular authors.
Instead, we want to catalog their speculative fiction works only.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Ahasuerus

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Ahasuerus

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Cryptoengineer

     http://leepers.us/evelyn/faqs/sf-written.htm
"rec.arts.sf.written is a newsgroup devoted to discussions of written
SF. It is a high-volume newsgroup and this article is intended to
help reduce the number of unnecessary postings, thereby making it
more useful and enjoyable to everyone."
""SF" as used here means "speculative fiction" and includes science
fiction, fantasy, horror (a.k.a. dark fantasy), etc."
Lynn

I was at Boskone over the weekend, and several program items were using
the abbreviation "SFFH" where I'd expect to see SF or SFF. I *think* the
H was for Horror.
Is that the case? Have others seen this term before?

I am seeing people say "Dark Fantasy" instead of "Horror" now.

The tricky thing about "horror" as a genre is that it encompassed both
"psychological horror" and "supernatural horror". The latter is part and
parcel of "speculative fiction" while the former is not.
In many cases publishers do not advertise what kind of horror their
books are, presumably because they don't want to spoil the ending.
That's great is you like both types of horror, but not so great if you
are only interested in one type. (Or if you are an SF bibliographer. Not
that I am complaining or anything.)

So Robert Bloch's _Psycho_ should not be on isfdb? :-)
Works (both fiction and non-fiction) which are not related to

speculative fiction, but were produced by authors who have otherwise
published works either of or about speculative fiction over a certain
threshold (see below). This includes any non-genre works published as
standalone books as well as non-genre short fiction, but excludes
non-fiction which was not published as a standalone book. Thus, Poul
Anderson's mysteries and his non-fiction book about thermonuclear
weapons will be included, but Gregory Benford's professionally published
scientific articles will be excluded.

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
This "certain threshold" is hard to define, but we need to draw the

line in a way that would exclude Winston Churchill, who published at
least one work of borderline speculative fiction. The goal here is to
avoid cataloging everything ever published by James Fenimore Cooper,
Robert Louis Stevenson, Honoré de Balzac and other popular authors.
Instead, we want to catalog their speculative fiction works only.

Sir! How dare you have standards!!!

:P

[Ahasuerus]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

[snip-snip]
The tricky thing about "horror" as a genre is that it encompassed both
"psychological horror" and "supernatural horror". The latter is part and
parcel of "speculative fiction" while the former is not.
In many cases publishers do not advertise what kind of horror their
books are, presumably because they don't want to spoil the ending.
That's great is you like both types of horror, but not so great if you
are only interested in one type. (Or if you are an SF bibliographer. Not
that I am complaining or anything.)

So Robert Bloch's _Psycho_ should not be on isfdb? :-)

 > Works (both fiction and non-fiction) which are not related to
speculative fiction, but were produced by authors who have otherwise
published works either of or about speculative fiction over a certain
threshold (see below). This includes any non-genre works published as
standalone books as well as non-genre short fiction, but excludes
non-fiction which was not published as a standalone book. Thus, Poul
Anderson's mysteries and his non-fiction book about thermonuclear
weapons will be included, but Gregory Benford's professionally
published scientific articles will be excluded.
 > This "certain threshold" is hard to define, but we need to draw the
line in a way that would exclude Winston Churchill, who published at
least one work of borderline speculative fiction. The goal here is to
avoid cataloging everything ever published by James Fenimore Cooper,
Robert Louis Stevenson, Honoré de Balzac and other popular authors.
Instead, we want to catalog their speculative fiction works only.

Sir!  How dare you have standards!!!
:P

Does it help that they can be frustratingly vague since we try to model
an infinitely complex universe? (Clearly, we need a better universe that
would follow neat bibliographic standards.)

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Ahasuerus

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Works (both fiction and non-fiction) which are not related to

speculative fiction, but were produced by authors who have otherwise
published works either of or about speculative fiction over a certain
threshold (see below). This includes any non-genre works published as
standalone books as well as non-genre short fiction, but excludes
non-fiction which was not published as a standalone book. Thus, Poul
Anderson's mysteries and his non-fiction book about thermonuclear
weapons will be included, but Gregory Benford's professionally published
scientific articles will be excluded.

So how would you catagorize Asimov's books on chemistry + physics
(which were written at a level a smart high schooler could handle -
like me several decades ago) and which I read before I started
devouring his SF efforts on a wholesale basis? (Before getting started
on Heinlein and Bradbury)

[Ahasuerus]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Ahasuerus

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Works (both fiction and non-fiction) which are not related to

speculative fiction, but were produced by authors who have otherwise
published works either of or about speculative fiction over a certain
threshold (see below). This includes any non-genre works published as
standalone books as well as non-genre short fiction, but excludes
non-fiction which was not published as a standalone book. Thus, Poul
Anderson's mysteries and his non-fiction book about thermonuclear
weapons will be included, but Gregory Benford's professionally published
scientific articles will be excluded.

So how would you catagorize Asimov's books on chemistry + physics
(which were written at a level a smart high schooler could handle -
like me several decades ago) and which I read before I started
devouring his SF efforts on a wholesale basis? (Before getting started
on Heinlein and Bradbury)

They would be entered as:

Title type: NONFICTION

Non-genre flag: Probably set to "yes" (it's not always done for popular
science books since they can cover both real science and speculations
about the future)

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Ahasuerus

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Works (both fiction and non-fiction) which are not related to

speculative fiction, but were produced by authors who have otherwise
published works either of or about speculative fiction over a certain
threshold (see below). This includes any non-genre works published as
standalone books as well as non-genre short fiction, but excludes
non-fiction which was not published as a standalone book. Thus, Poul
Anderson's mysteries and his non-fiction book about thermonuclear
weapons will be included, but Gregory Benford's professionally published
scientific articles will be excluded.

So how would you catagorize Asimov's books on chemistry + physics
(which were written at a level a smart high schooler could handle -
like me several decades ago) and which I read before I started
devouring his SF efforts on a wholesale basis? (Before getting started
on Heinlein and Bradbury)

One could go to see if they're included.
Of course, cataloguing Isaac Asimov is
like moving a mountain by sharpening your
beak against it. I think I heard on radio
his editor describing commissioning a book
about Gilbert and Sullivan comic operetta
by accident. Dr Asimov mentioned to her
one day that it was an idea that he'd had.
The next time that they spoke, he told her
he'd finished writing it. I may have
muddled this. But I think it's in ISFDB -
the book is, I don't know about the anecdote.

[The Horny Goat]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:05:39 +0000, Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie
One could go to see if they're included.
Of course, cataloguing Isaac Asimov is
like moving a mountain by sharpening your
beak against it. I think I heard on radio
his editor describing commissioning a book
about Gilbert and Sullivan comic operetta
by accident. Dr Asimov mentioned to her
one day that it was an idea that he'd had.
The next time that they spoke, he told her
he'd finished writing it. I may have
muddled this. But I think it's in ISFDB -
the book is, I don't know about the anecdote.

My favorite Asimov story was the time after multiple drinks and being
at least half way in his cups at a con he was asked to compose a
'filk-song' He was asked to sing one that he had just composed on the
spot, Asimov asked 'on what subject?' "Biochemistry!"

So he came up with
"Oh give me a clone
Of my own flesh and bone
With the Y chromosome turned to X
And when we're alone, just me and my clone
We will both talk of nothing but sex

(there was a chorus which I've forgotten)

He was greeted by cheers and offered more drink....

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:05:39 +0000, Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie
One could go to see if they're included.
Of course, cataloguing Isaac Asimov is
like moving a mountain by sharpening your
beak against it. I think I heard on radio
his editor describing commissioning a book
about Gilbert and Sullivan comic operetta
by accident. Dr Asimov mentioned to her
one day that it was an idea that he'd had.
The next time that they spoke, he told her
he'd finished writing it. I may have
muddled this. But I think it's in ISFDB -
the book is, I don't know about the anecdote.

My favorite Asimov story was the time after multiple drinks and being
at least half way in his cups at a con he was asked to compose a
'filk-song' He was asked to sing one that he had just composed on the
spot, Asimov asked 'on what subject?' "Biochemistry!"
So he came up with
"Oh give me a clone
Of my own flesh and bone
With the Y chromosome turned to X
And when we're alone, just me and my clone
We will both talk of nothing but sex
(there was a chorus which I've forgotten)
He was greeted by cheers and offered more drink....

I remember that story, but I thought Asimov was relating something
Gordon Dickson had come up with?

(Also should probably mention, if that's not obvious across the ponds,
that the tune is from the American folksong "Home On The Range").

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
I remember that story, but I thought Asimov was relating something
Gordon Dickson had come up with?

Interesting - hadn't heard that about Dickson

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
(Also should probably mention, if that's not obvious across the ponds,
that the tune is from the American folksong "Home On The Range").

How many filksongs had original music? Precious few in my memory...

[Joy Beeson]

Post by The Horny Goat
How many filksongs had original music? Precious few in my memory...

Isn't filk, by definition, written for a pre-existing tune?

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by The Horny Goat
How many filksongs had original music? Precious few in my memory...

Isn't filk, by definition, written for a pre-existing tune?

No. Filk music, by definition, is anything that filkers play.

There are some performers, like Leslie Fish or Kathy Mar, who are most
well-known for original tunes. There are many who are not.

I urge you to spend all of your money and buy various Balticon and Worldcon
compilation recordings to have the complete filk experience. Invest in CDs.
--scott

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by The Horny Goat
How many filksongs had original music? Precious few in my memory...

Isn't filk, by definition, written for a pre-existing tune?

No. Filk music, by definition, is anything that filkers play.
There are some performers, like Leslie Fish or Kathy Mar, who are most
well-known for original tunes. There are many who are not.
I urge you to spend all of your money and buy various Balticon and Worldcon
compilation recordings to have the complete filk experience. Invest in CDs.
--scott

When I read the first message I figured "perhaps I don't get around
much" concerning the few cons I've been able to attend. Many of the
ones I remember were some outrageous parodies.

[Michael F. Stemper]

Post by The Horny Goat
My favorite Asimov story was the time after multiple drinks and being
at least half way in his cups at a con

I thought that he was a teetotaler.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Ahasuerus

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Cryptoengineer

    http://leepers.us/evelyn/faqs/sf-written.htm
"rec.arts.sf.written is a newsgroup devoted to discussions of
written SF. It is a high-volume newsgroup and this article is
intended to help reduce the number of unnecessary postings, thereby
making it more useful and enjoyable to everyone."
""SF" as used here means "speculative fiction" and includes science
fiction, fantasy, horror (a.k.a. dark fantasy), etc."
Lynn

I was at Boskone over the weekend, and several program items were using
the abbreviation "SFFH" where I'd expect to see SF or SFF. I *think* the
H was for Horror.
Is that the case? Have others seen this term before?

I am seeing people say "Dark Fantasy" instead of "Horror" now.

The tricky thing about "horror" as a genre is that it encompassed both
"psychological horror" and "supernatural horror". The latter is part and
parcel of "speculative fiction" while the former is not.
In many cases publishers do not advertise what kind of horror their
books are, presumably because they don't want to spoil the ending.
That's great is you like both types of horror, but not so great if you
are only interested in one type. (Or if you are an SF bibliographer. Not
that I am complaining or anything.)

Well, I won't name one 1960s-70s novel
where - if I'm remembering it correctly -
an SFF author spun a tale of devils and
magic which collapsed into a psychopath
using psychology to manipulate victims'
minds. So, plenty of creepiness, but
nothing really supernatural at all.
Maybe, maybe, some hypnotism - which
probably would take it back to SFF,
really, because fictional hypnotism has
broadly unlimited power over mind and
body. Real hypnotism, they tell me,
does not, o Master. Still, what I'm
saying is that I await to obey your
commands, a story can be gratifyingly
horrific, if that for some reason
gratifies you, while strictly not being
fanciful at all. Though I suppose that
the devil and magic elements were being
written, so they were present in that sense.

[Mad Hamish]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 14:32:21 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Cryptoengineer

    http://leepers.us/evelyn/faqs/sf-written.htm
"rec.arts.sf.written is a newsgroup devoted to discussions of written
SF. It is a high-volume newsgroup and this article is intended to help
reduce the number of unnecessary postings, thereby making it more
useful and enjoyable to everyone."
""SF" as used here means "speculative fiction" and includes science
fiction, fantasy, horror (a.k.a. dark fantasy), etc."
Lynn

I was at Boskone over the weekend, and several program items were using
the abbreviation "SFFH" where I'd expect to see SF or SFF. I *think* the
H was for Horror.
Is that the case? Have others seen this term before?
pt

I am seeing people say "Dark Fantasy" instead of "Horror" now.

dark fantasy dates back to at leat Feist's Faerie Tale as a
description
I don't think it's necessarily a term for full on horror stories but
it's darker than the "traditional" fantasy

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Cryptoengineer

    http://leepers.us/evelyn/faqs/sf-written.htm
"rec.arts.sf.written is a newsgroup devoted to discussions of written
SF. It is a high-volume newsgroup and this article is intended to help
reduce the number of unnecessary postings, thereby making it more
useful and enjoyable to everyone."
""SF" as used here means "speculative fiction" and includes science
fiction, fantasy, horror (a.k.a. dark fantasy), etc."
Lynn

I was at Boskone over the weekend, and several program items were using
the abbreviation "SFFH" where I'd expect to see SF or SFF. I *think* the
H was for Horror.
Is that the case? Have others seen this term before?

Apparently the industry is using it,
if you search for it, with H for Horror,
indeed. But it had not reached me
before now.

I'd use a category of Horror to hold
works where causing the reader to feel
anxiety or disgust is the evident
intention of a work, not wonder and
delight from science or from magic
when these elements are present.
But on the other hand, I've been
gradually, more and more, finding
a lot of "ordinary" science fiction
and fantasy as horrific. Maybe
because the real world is increasingly
giving me anxiety and disgust.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Cryptoengineer

    http://leepers.us/evelyn/faqs/sf-written.htm
"rec.arts.sf.written is a newsgroup devoted to discussions of written
SF. It is a high-volume newsgroup and this article is intended to
help reduce the number of unnecessary postings, thereby making it
more useful and enjoyable to everyone."
""SF" as used here means "speculative fiction" and includes science
fiction, fantasy, horror (a.k.a. dark fantasy), etc."
Lynn

I was at Boskone over the weekend, and several program items were using
the abbreviation "SFFH" where I'd expect to see SF or SFF. I *think* the
H was for Horror.
Is that the case? Have others seen this term before?

Apparently the industry is using it,
if you search for it, with H for Horror,
indeed.  But it had not reached me
before now.
I'd use a category of Horror to hold
works where causing the reader to feel
anxiety or disgust is the evident
intention of a work, not wonder and
delight from science or from magic
when these elements are present.
But on the other hand, I've been
gradually, more and more, finding
a lot of "ordinary" science fiction
and fantasy as horrific.  Maybe
because the real world is increasingly
giving me anxiety and disgust.

This surprises me, since I've always considered
Horror to be a different genre, not linked to
Fantasy or Science Fiction. Similar to how the
Romance or Western genres are unlinked from F*SF.

pt

[Chris Buckley]

...

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Robert Carnegie
I'd use a category of Horror to hold
works where causing the reader to feel
anxiety or disgust is the evident
intention of a work, not wonder and
delight from science or from magic
when these elements are present.
But on the other hand, I've been
gradually, more and more, finding
a lot of "ordinary" science fiction
and fantasy as horrific.  Maybe
because the real world is increasingly
giving me anxiety and disgust.

This surprises me, since I've always considered
Horror to be a different genre, not linked to
Fantasy or Science Fiction. Similar to how the
Romance or Western genres are unlinked from F*SF.

Really? I've basically considered Horror to be a subgenre of Fantasy.
Lovecraft is a prime early example, but Stephen King and Brian Lumley
have won the Life Achievement World Fantasy Award for instance. There
was a yearly _Year's Best Fantasy and Horror_ for more than 20 years.
_Weird Tales_ is explicitly fantasy and horror, starting over 100
years ago and evidently is still going today (with several restarts.)
A good number of stories that James has talked about in his anthology
reviews first appeared in _Weird Tales_.

There's currently a huge Romance Fantasy subgenre out there now
(hundreds of books); I see Barnes and Noble has really been pushing
it. Science Fiction and Romance seems less common, though I would say
Asaro has been writing it for decades.

Westerns are somewhat rarer. Certainly Resnick's _Santiago_ series is
pretty pure Western. Early SF pulps were sometimes Westerns transported
into space.

Almost any classification boundary will have debatable items right at
the boundary.

Chris

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Chris Buckley
...

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Robert Carnegie
I'd use a category of Horror to hold
works where causing the reader to feel
anxiety or disgust is the evident
intention of a work, not wonder and
delight from science or from magic
when these elements are present.
But on the other hand, I've been
gradually, more and more, finding
a lot of "ordinary" science fiction
and fantasy as horrific.  Maybe
because the real world is increasingly
giving me anxiety and disgust.

This surprises me, since I've always considered
Horror to be a different genre, not linked to
Fantasy or Science Fiction. Similar to how the
Romance or Western genres are unlinked from F*SF.

Really? I've basically considered Horror to be a subgenre of Fantasy.
Lovecraft is a prime early example, but Stephen King and Brian Lumley
have won the Life Achievement World Fantasy Award for instance. There
was a yearly _Year's Best Fantasy and Horror_ for more than 20 years.
_Weird Tales_ is explicitly fantasy and horror, starting over 100
years ago and evidently is still going today (with several restarts.)
A good number of stories that James has talked about in his anthology
reviews first appeared in _Weird Tales_.
There's currently a huge Romance Fantasy subgenre out there now
(hundreds of books); I see Barnes and Noble has really been pushing
it. Science Fiction and Romance seems less common, though I would say
Asaro has been writing it for decades.
Westerns are somewhat rarer. Certainly Resnick's _Santiago_ series is
pretty pure Western. Early SF pulps were sometimes Westerns transported
into space.
Almost any classification boundary will have debatable items right at
the boundary.

I consider Horror is about the feeling produced,
and the cause doesn't have to be fantastic.
An unloving partner, a missing child, a rabid
dog, a natural disaster, or a career criminal
with a grievance, can make a horror story -
if it's told that way. It might require that
either plausibility or a character's reasonable
competence is sacrificed to achieve the effect.
For instance, you call the police but the
criminal has bribed them, or you call Animal
Control and the dog eats them. (I don't know
what does happen in _Cujo_. Probably not this.)
Of course, sci fi and fantasy are usually
considered to be outside the range of
plausibility, though some people believe
in fantasy stuff, perhaps especially as in
_The Exorcist_ (a demon takes control of a
human being).

Apparently some people now are saying
"Romantasy" but I think I didn't hear that
here, either. I thought we were calling
non-science speculative fiction with a love
plot "paranormal romance". Romantasy also
is sexy, I gather, but these days, what isn't?
And in sci fi of course, there's planetary
romance. :-)

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 00:13:06 +0000, Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie
I'd use a category of Horror to hold
works where causing the reader to feel
anxiety or disgust is the evident
intention of a work, not wonder and
delight from science or from magic
when these elements are present.
But on the other hand, I've been
gradually, more and more, finding
a lot of "ordinary" science fiction
and fantasy as horrific. Maybe
because the real world is increasingly
giving me anxiety and disgust.

There's lots of 'horror' in pure SF that isn't horror in the sense
that word is usually used.

I read Foundation + Empire and Second Foundation in my early teens and
even then knew that what the Lord of Kalgan wanted for Arkady Darrell
(who I wasn't sure exactly how old she was but well below the age of
consent) was pretty horrible. (Asimov didn't go into detail - he
mostly gave him a couple of nasty lines simply to make it clear that
the Lord of Kalgan was a seriously hardcore bad guy which of course
made his readers happy when he was brought down)