Another part of the problem is the term science fiction has gotten corrupted and stuff that ain’t is called that these days. The producers of Star Wars admitted that it was not sci-fi back in 77. There is a TIME magazine article where they state it. But how many people think that today? Star Wars fans get insulted if you tell them it ain’t SF.

But movies and television are more expensive than magazines and novels so they need to attract big audiences. If the SF is too intellectually sophisticated and the bump in the bell curve drops out then how can AVATAR make 2 billion dollars? 2001: A Space Odyssey got panned by the critics back in ’68. Rock Hudson said it made no sense. LOL

I like that, and I think it’s basically true. I view genres mostly as a form of literary game defined by the players own moves. If true and stable consensus is reached, the game is over.

Genre, to me, is a transaction between writers and audiences, which is often confused with the related notion of marketing category, which is a transaction between publishers & distribution systems.

I had a bash at a more generic definition (no pun intended) here: http://justhastobeplausible.blogspot.com/2007/07/what-im-pointing-to.html