I guess the snarky answer would be "because Austen and the Brontës"
> For the origins of the modern Regency romance, look to the works of Georgette Heyer. Starting in 1935, Heyer wrote over two dozen meticulously researched historical books, all set in Jane Austen’s era, with an obsessive focus on London’s tiny upper class. According to literary scholar Diana Wallace, it was the incredible popularity of Heyer’s historical novels that helped transform historical fiction into a more feminine space that continues to “centralise female subjectivity, desires and apprehensions to an unusual extent.”
In a similar way we might say that Tolkien was the progenitor of a line of pulp fantasy novels, even though they have a significantly different character.
We subdivide modern fantasy into 'epic', 'sword and sorcery', 'low', and so on, even though they have common ancestors.
that's news to me. i personally consider that meticulous categorization of fiction to be tedious and childish. Consider that there are no good definitions of "high" vs "low" fantasy, and that there a few books that are both a) successful (whether you measure this in terms of profitability, popularity, or a combination of both) and b) regimented enough to hold themselves to a dictionary-style definition of what the author is supposed to be writing about.
you're using a definition of fantasy that is frankly not supported by the reality of how we consume and produce said literary works.
Thought distinction (originally at least) was whether fantasy happening on imagined realm or here on Earth?
When you read several hundred books a year, categorization goes from being tedious and childish to being necessary and useful.
Ilona Andrews's books are marketed to romance (three series) and to urban fantasy (one series). Two of the romance-marketed series could get new covers and be sold as SF. The urban fantasy novels could get romance covers put on and be sold that way.
Repeat ad infinitum with literary SF, magic realism, respun fairy tales, space opera, epic fantasy, issekai, portal fantasies, hard SF, character-driven gay romance post-apocalyptic cyberpunk action fantasy (that was a very good one)...
I read 203 books in 2019. I assure you that the marketing categories are not helpful in my basic quest, which is to determine if the book is good. Nothing short of starting to read the book can do that.
That is really remarkable! Can I ask how you go about selecting what to read? Compared to the ~20 books I read every year that seems like an absolute firehose. I wouldn't even know where to start assembling such a long list.
e.g.: for current SF/F, James Nicoll, Locus, and John Scalzi's posts which are nothing but "here's what publishers sent me as ARCs which they are hoping I will blurb" are all good sources. I have access to NetGalley and some insider-baseball publishing sites thanks to my wife, who used to be a professional reviewer for Publishers Weekly. When I read a book by an author I really like, I try to add their blog or website to my RSS reader.
I think the 203 in 2019 was not a record for me, but it was certainly much larger than in 2020, where I had several multiweek periods of not wanting to read. This year is looking up.
One of my long-term tactics is to have some reserve books that I know I want to read but haven't, yet. Currently that pile includes a Walter Jon Williams, a Steven Brust, and an Elizabeth Bear. If I see a long run of not-so-great books, I know I have those to pull me out.
Honest question, there’s a couple assumptions in my napkin calculation :)
FWIW I don't read slower when I need to absorb serious content, but I do reread repeatedly -- flipping back and forth to make sure I understood the argument, critiquing it in my head, and so forth. Pleasure reading doesn't get that treatment unless I catch the author doing something egregious.
Interesting. I found that when selecting books, it's helpful for me to see how people have tagged them. That way I avoid some of the cliches I really don't care for and can narrow focus a bit. It's unusual for that to be wrong for me, where I actually like one of the books I had initially excluded based on category.
For example, if you really aren't into steampunk noir, I think it's helpful to know that the book you're about to read is a steampunk noir. Same goes for space opera, litrpg, gun porn, hard sci fi, hack and slash, harem stories, overpowered heroes, etc.
When you've got the best version of something you generally dislike, you'll see that in reviews.
You don't have to make it incredibly strict and granular, but subgenres give an easy way to say 'these works are similar', and that's helpful in all kinds of situation.