Take sci-fi and fantasy. While many SF stories revolve around a particular “shiny” - most of the ones that I’ve read and really enjoyed aren’t. Same thing applies to fantasy. Whne you get down to it, the only thing that is required to be qualified as sci-fi or fantasy is for the setting to hold a few basic traits.

In the cases of mystery, horror and romance, setting isn’t really a core concern of the genre. Horror and romance both seek to elicit emotional responces from the readers. Mysteries present the reader with a puzzle to solve.

I’m really not sure what the hell Bill is on about. I mean, yes, there are some stereotypical plots within SF - but SF is just a setting. Within that setting, there is every kind of story that can fit within it’s, rather broad, constraints. Pern is SF. Dune is SF. the Ship Who series is SF. Johnny Mnemnonic is SF. A hardboiled detective novel that happens to be set in a lunar colony would be SF (though it would also be mystery).

SF is so huge that it’s divided it into all sorts of sub-categories that are often only tengentially related. There usually isn’t much in common between Cyberpunk and Space Opera for example.

I mean, I know what he’s on about in a general sense… There is a fair amount of repition within the genres, some more than others. Romance is the most notorious for it with mystery probably coming in a close second. Now look at poetry. Many forms of poetry have very strong restrictions. The traditional rules for creating a proper haiku are actually fairly restricting - certainly moreso than the rules of the romance genre. Yet few people object to haiku or sonnets or what have you based on the fact that they have similarities to other similar works.

When all is said and done, I can’t see SF or F being very constraining. It’s almost like he’s complaining about being limited to using history as the basis of a historical novel.

However, these readers seem to be in the minority. Science fiction and fantasy has a large readership that appreciates the new and unique (as Mike B. has said). While they can be depended upon to understand genre tropes and settings (see Marie B.’s comment), they’re not going to be satisfied with the “same old thing, just a little different.” Gibson’s words are pretty thoughtless, considering that these readers are the ones that opened his books and gave them a try, perhaps eventually becoming his fans.

I’m surprised that Gibson said what he said. I don’t know if he was trying to distance himself from SF as a whole, or if he just not thinking. The reply seemed to confirm the opinions of those critics who consider all SF a mish-mash of space squids and ray guns. If they find stories that don’t contain those things, stories that they find themselves liking, stories that are outside the very narrow limits of what they think of as SF, they say that they transcend the genre. It makes them feel better, I guess. It’s also utter bilge.

Having said that, while I appreciate the logic of Gibson’s remarks, the tone and spirit turn my stomach. I sort of think that by distancing himself from the genre, he’s able to say “I came out of the genre but I’m better than that now.” And I don’t mean to pick on Gibson, but the general dismissal of the genre by clearly genre writers. I’m thinking also of the field of “Magical Realism,” which seems to me to be science fiction by a less prejudicial term.

I think there’s probably a benefit to beginning as an SF writer, there’s a community, there are conventions, there are fans. This is a great thing, and while I think when you’re at the top of the genre game it might seem like a limiting factor, but I think respecting and showing solidarity for the genre is really crucial.

But on the other hand, take a guy like Lewis Shiner, who was lumped into the cyberpunk genre when it first started out. Every book he put out was different. They all affected me emotionally. And even containing some futuristic elements, they all probably shouldn’t have been on SF shelves. But yet if they hadn’t, I’d probably have never found him as an author to read. SF/F encompasses authors like this, and I think this is a good thing.

Which is why you can cross-breed easily across those lines: a fantasy romance. A science fiction mystery. Etc.

Pretty much everything *but* sf/f promises more of the same, so I strongly disagree with Gibson, too.

I don’t think so, but I do think some genres are more prone to whatever this amorphous quality is than others. I read a new Martha Grimes book recently. Aside from some plot holes, I was incensed that at the end, the detective and the reader both knew the murderer but in spite of scenes that led me to believe he would find the evidence, the detective couldn’t prove the murderer guilty.

Perhaps the best phrase is “implied contract with the reader.” I certainly felt Martha Grimes had broken it.