I'm Not Sure If I Can Go to Bed…

Books in the suspense/thriller genre can have that effect. Horror novels, though certainly speculative fiction like I've called them before, also qualify as suspense. Action novels and crime ones—even mysteries—can be counted as thrillers.

A story can have horror elements without necessarily being suspense—Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere did an excellent job of creeping me out with some of the characters, but I certainly wouldn't call it a thriller—and a thriller doesn't have to use supernatural things to cause the suspense.

What's the defining feature that makes something a thriller?

Reading it is a long adrenaline rush of action. Your heart hammers in your chest throughout the novel as you desperately turn the pages to find out how the hero survives.

Makes it mighty hard to fall asleep soon after reading it.

The action continues its life-or-death conflict in each chapter, the plot and continuous action of greater importance than the characters or even necessarily the feasibility of the actions. (Or so I gather from my brother's ramblings about the genre, which he reads quite a bit.)

Popular authors in this genre include Tom Clancy and Clive Cussler. At least some of Michael Crichton's work could also be counted in this genre.

So if you're wondering what "a long adrenaline rush of action" actually looks like, check out those authors.

The Prose War

I probably should have mentioned this before I even started this genre series, but "genre fiction" is a genre term that actually doesn't refer to all fiction. There's also such thing as "literary fiction", which is a genre in itself.

Confused yet? I am.

In essence, anything that has asperations for a work to last the test of time seems to be called "literary". Anything evidently more interested in providing readers with a good romp is "genre". Anything in-between tends to also get tossed in the "genre" bin.

At least, that's the trend I've noticed. As with any of the genre stuff, there's some ambiguity in some aspects of the definition, and the line between literary fiction and genre fiction may be the most ambiguous of all.

It's generally summarized as literary fiction focuses on the prose rather than the plot, whereas genre fiction focuses on the plot over the prose. So literary fiction tries to do specific things with the technicalities of writing, and genre fiction plays more with the actual story itself rather than how it's written.

How, then, does Margaret Atwood qualify? The Handmaid's Tale is sci-fi (but the author prefers the term "speculative fiction"), a futuristic work, yet her prose is much lauded, particularly her description. She's listed in The Literary Encyclopedia, and university English classes often include her work.

So is she literary or is she genre? Either? Both? What?

Literary fiction fans can be snobs about it, calling genre lovers "unsophisticated". And genre fiction fans tend to sneer at literary fiction as boring. Both insults are likely true for some of the demographic and some of the writing within each side.

Note my some, please.

Frankly, to me it seems like a false line, created so writers of regular or experimental fiction can put their writing somewhere that sounds special. But it's a line that does exist, so it's possible that your writing might fall into it.

Does your writing's label automatically determine if it's a better plot (genre fiction) or prettier prose (literary fiction)? No. And don't worry about that. Just write and polish, and let people decide if they're gonna pick your baby for the literary picnic basket or not.

At least, that's the option that makes the most sense to me. Anyone else have a differing opinion?

How Dost Thou Scribble Such Queer Things?

In case you don't know, queer is a word that means strange, odd, unusual, and not only the meaning everyone other than me seems to think of when he sees it.

At any rate, I'm sure if folks from a few centuries ago could see the historical fiction presumably set in their times that's written now, those folks would say something to my title's effect. Historical fiction is general stories set at some point in the past.

Yep, it's that simple.

Here's where it gets tricky: as for any work, the writer is responsible for the accuracy of the history in his historical fiction. That means events, culture, even word choices should be accurate to what would have been used in that day.

Writers usually use modern grammar and word structure, but they have to watch the etymologies of the words they use. If a verb didn't exist at the point when the novel is set, they have to both notice that and track down another one to replace it.

Exceptions come depending on what type of historical fiction you're writing. A comedy, for example, could use modern allusions and idioms (phrases like "break a leg" that has a meaning that's different from the literal one). The movie A Knight's Tale was hilarious, as far as I recall.

But in general, you're responsible for keeping it all accurate and proper. And believe me, if you get a detail wrong, people will notice.

The people who read historical fiction tend to be history buffs, after all.

Who Done What?

The above question might just define the mystery genre.

Mysteries are a bit like romance novels, in that they, too have a formula. Someone did something that needs figuring out. It can be done so all the details are there for the reader to figure out, or it can be written so the reader probably won't figure it out before the Great Reveal even though the narrative character does.

The former type tends to be a bit more popular, if you ignore Sherlock Holmes. A well-done mystery is an exercise in logic.

Due to the logical puzzle nature of genre mysteries, that limits what the person uncovering the mystery can do to solve it and what the mystery itself can be. The mystery can't be solved without rational methods, and the culprit has to be believable without necessarily being obvious. (Exceptions make stories more thriller mystery than straight mystery.)

The crime, the culprit, and the person solving the mystery all must be introduced early in the story or book, in the first few chapters. That means you usually start off with several characters, so the reader doesn't necessarily know which of the side characters introduced is going to be the baddie.

Violence is also the rule of the day in genre mystery, preferably murder. Other suitably violent topics to warrant a novel about solving them are still generally considered taboo, like animal cruelty, child molestation, rape,

With a mystery, rational structure is key. You won't want 'clever' plot twists and improbable events—what you want is a logical plot progression that guides the reader through all the details he needs to know what's going on, without the reader likely figuring it out. Don't add disguises that wouldn't work, random twins, accidents that solve everything, paranormal things that change everything, a culprit who's actually your lead good guy.

Anything weird or "different" that you add changes the genre. So if you want to write a genre mystery, shelve the tweaks for when you want to write suspense or a mixed genre.

Which means you have to do your research, just like you should in any other genre. That college-aged chick you get to read your book might've taken a forensics elective or done some independent study. (Who, me?)

Fingerprints aren't easy to lift, and people don't carry guns barrel-up. It's barrel-down for a good reason. Namely physics. If you mess up something in your book, people will notice. If it's a big enough something, those people will spread the word. Which will hurt your sales and your reputation as an author.

Now, there are subgenres within the mystery genre. So if you want to write a mystery and not worry about it being strict in the genre, ask yourself the question: "Who did what?"

Make the what compelling enough, and the who intriguing enough, and you'll have a mystery of some sort in your hands.

Clichés! What Are They Good for?

Absolutely something!

Clichés exist for a good reason. Namely, they work.

…That is, they worked, once upon a time, before everyone realized they worked and tried to mimic them without taking the time to analyze why they had worked and thereby ruining them…

Clichés also come about when something becomes so inanely popular that anything using anything remotely similar becomes labeled a blatant knock-off, even though novel series with schools for wizards existed before Harry Potter, and stories where the evil guy ends up being the hero's dad existed before Star Wars.

This even applies to names. The name Luke can be used without necessarily thinking of Star Wars, but probably not for the hero, and not so for Leia. Gandalf and Arwen, both names with origins from long before The Lord of the Rings, are now universally associated with a wizard and an elf.

Clichés therefore exist because they make readers think of something else, another book, another world.

But there's another reason for them, too.

Consider the usual character flaws you see in novels: a hot temper and stubbornness come immediately to mind, to me. I never fully appreciated why those flaws are so common until I tried writing a novel from the perspective of a passive character. Talk about "Eeek".

Kick-butt heroines are so incredibly popular among writers because they're easy. It's an extreme, and extremes are inherently easier to develop and write. If you try to tone it down, you run into the other extreme of the utterly passive, only-there-to-scream-and-faint women who are utterly flat and nobody wants to see in modern fiction. (I hope.)

But anything that steps outside the box of what's considered "normal" risks getting burned.

Consider all the bad rap Stephenie Meyer has gotten about Twilight (other than for the misplaced modifiers). Bella has passive aspects, placing her outside the norm, and the author gets criticized for it. (People also say Bella has no sense of humor, which I honestly don't get, since I was laughing through most of the book.)

Consider also the movie Underworld, which is an action/adventure meets romance meets a bit of horror, and could be called an action Romeo and Juliet with vampires and werewolves. I've read reviews that give it bad ratings for no other reason than it's an action movie that actually has a plot.

So writers use clichés to stay safe. All stories have at least some clichés in them, but what does the author do with them? Every writer should have a care to examine his story and analyze why he uses the clichés he does; if he built and developed them well, he should be fine. The danger comes when an author relies on clichés.

And please, don't do that. Just… don't.

Beg Pardon

My Internet went out last Saturday. I'll see if I can't get two genre posts up today to make up for it.

Hope everyone had a happy holiday, and has an excellent year!