ghoti_mhic_uait (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ghoti_mhic_uait) wrote2004-01-27 10:10 am
ghoti_mhic_uait) wrote2004-01-27 10:10 am
Over genre-isation
Yesterday I went to the library. There I discovered that Jane Austen is not 'general literature', but 'young adults'. I learnt that most of Terry Pratchett's books are 'fantasy' but Lords and Ladies is 'science fiction'. Thankfully the two ghettoes are next to each other, striding shoulder to shoulder (if book shelves do, indeed, stride) into the nystery books.
Now, I can see why having some sort of classification of a 'I like Diana Wynne Jones (who unlike Austen is considered suitable for adult shelving) so might I like Susan Howatch?' Well, maybe, but it's certainly not a given. I can understand classifying books by the way they feel or by the themes they are likely to present. However, one man's fantasy is another man's poison. Would it not be simpler to keep the little stickers (if you like one with a house on, you might like another with a house on), but shelve them all alphabetically? It would certainly be easier to find things.
And why would one do it that way for hardbacks, but by genre for paperbacks? Why do they need to be carefully segregated? And isn't it more fun to randomly pick up something you've never heard of that just happens to catch your eye?
It's a mad world, my friends.
Anyway, back to the classification I do understand, please to complete the following sentences:
[Poll #239353]
Thankyou.
no subject
I do read,but mostly books on history,especially local history of which there is much around the area I live in.
But it's been a long time since I've been able to totally immerse myself in a novel, I think the last one that I read,properly, was "Jude The Obscure" for my English A level a few years back..I liked it.
I'm dipping into "Stargazey Pie" at the moment..it's light and I can identify with the place ans the people.
xx
no subject
no subject
*Amazoning* as I type.