Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/38452
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

I'm a strong believer in genre being largely a thing that's used for marketing, an easy shorthand for book stores to know where to place your book and sell it better. It's also, unfortunately, a shorthand for critics who are predisposed to hating certain stories for surface traits without going to the effort of complicated things like 'thematic analysis' or 'reading the book'.

I tend to believe that a writer should write what they want to write without heed for genre conventions, simply telling the story of their soul (to the best of their ability and after refinement) and worrying about the genre and the marketing later.

However, I'm open to the idea that this ethos could be wrong. Are there any case that you guys can think of where adherence to a genre can or should affect the creative processes of a writer?

* * *

By writing process, yes, I mean the whole shebang. Plotting, characterisation, outlining, thematic elements; anything associated with the process, can or should it be affected by someone shoehorning themselves into a genre? When is this useful? Does doing so have artistic integrity? Do you think Agatha Christie sat down and said 'oh, the readers wouldn't _expect_ this in a mystery, I shouldn't include it' when writing?

Original score: 20