Why is Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle in the SF/fantasy section?

January 31, 2006 10:35 AM

Why is Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle in the SF/fantasy section?

I've just finished reading book one of the cycle, Quicksilver, and while I can't say with any certainty how historically accurate it is, the science all appears to be correct for the era, and even the alchemists are distinctly ordinary in the sense that nobody accomplishes anything supernatural. It looks more like a historical novel -- albeit a mind-bogglingly brilliant one. If it wasn't so darn good, I might even have been disappointed that nobody casts a spell or conjures an interdimansional familiar to do their bidding. Trade descriptions?

posted by londonmark to Media & Arts (38 answers total)

It's fiction that deals with science?
posted by Keith Talent at 10:37 AM on January 31, 2006

Because most of his other books are sci-fi? That's not a good reason, but it is probably the correct reason.
posted by smackfu at 10:42 AM on January 31, 2006

He's been pigeonholed into the science-fiction ghetto, like many others before him.
posted by interrobang at 10:42 AM on January 31, 2006

I'd guess it's just a marketing thing. Neal Stephenson's fans find his prior stuff in SF (which definitely belonged there).

Apparently the risk of losing the existing audience was not worth the possibility of finding a new audience in the lit. section.

I'd see this from time to time when I worked in a bookstore. If an author is established in one of the niche markets, it's not always the case that a change of genre will result in a change of location. Indeed, that often confuses employees and customers (Dan Simmons was this way. Customers did not realize he had stuff in both horror and sci-fi, and that at least one book in each of those sections was really just modern fiction).
posted by teece at 10:43 AM on January 31, 2006

Also, for the record, at my library this series (and Cryptonomicon) is in the fiction section, not the SF section.
posted by smackfu at 10:46 AM on January 31, 2006

Another data point: at my library, Snow Crash and The Diamond Age are in SF/Fant, while everything else (except for In the Beginning Was the Command Line) is in regular fiction.
posted by box at 10:51 AM on January 31, 2006

From the horse's mouth (2004 Locus interview):

“People keep asking me why I think of the 'Cycle' as science fiction. When I was a kid I used to read these huge anthologies of science fiction stories, and there would always be some oddball stories that were set during the Crusades, or with cave men, or what have you. They weren't overtly science fiction, but there didn't seem to be any doubt in anyone's mind that they belonged. I make an analogy to cycling through stations on the FM dial, trying to get something other than morning talk show idiocy: when I come to a jazz station, I know within less than a second that what I am hearing is jazz... It's the same with SF -- once you get used to it, you just know. If you sit down and try to analyze it to death, certain elements may be there, but that kind of abstract theoretical process is not how people recognize jazz and it’s not how they recognize SF. .... So it's a perfectly legitimate function, and I don't mind that kind of label at all.”

posted by xueexueg at 10:51 AM on January 31, 2006

The author "made his mark", so to speak, as a sci-fi writer.

There's a snobbery in the literary world, imho, which makes it hard for genre writers to ever be listed as general or literary fiction, even though there is general fiction which has fantastical elements (Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell immediately springs to mind) as well as genre fiction that has high literary merit.

There seems to be no hard and fast rule...Diana Galbadon is listed in general fiction, although you could argue that her books are sci-fi. (You could also argue that they are historical romance.) There are mystery novels that are well-researched and well-written but are overlooked by "literary types" because they are stuck in the genre fiction ghetto ("A Place of Execution" by Val McDermid).
posted by luneray at 10:54 AM on January 31, 2006

Because it's basically a fantasy series? You can't even really call it historical fiction, although it's close... it's not fiction though. Have you read it?

Fantasy is not just dragons and fairie, it's, you know, fencing, fighting, torture, revenge, giants, monsters, chases, escapes, true love, miracles! (...and some times monsters are on the inside, you know, or maybe just people looked at sideways.)
posted by ewkpates at 11:00 AM on January 31, 2006

Back before I became a failed writer, it was strongly suggested that one should use different pen-names if you insisted upon jumping genres. There are notable exceptions (Kate Wilhelm writing detective fiction and science fiction), but the general rule was: don't confuse the issue. For Stephenson, that means his stuff stays in his chosen genre. If he (as quoted) is cool with that, he's going to be a much happier writer than the folks I've met who constantly raged against the pigeon-hole as they feathered their nest with work-for-hire genre fiction.
posted by FYKshun at 11:01 AM on January 31, 2006

Wait, sorry, you read the first one. Try Dunnett's The Game of Kings. That's historical fiction. (...and something rare and beautiful...)
posted by ewkpates at 11:02 AM on January 31, 2006

One interesting example that cuts the other way is Margaret Atwood, mostly mainstream but Handmaid's Tale and Oryx and Crake would fit into SF easily.
posted by biffa at 11:11 AM on January 31, 2006

For the same reason that Stephen King's fiction is filed under "Horror" regardless of the genre of a particular book.

These are marketing categories, not cataloguing divisions.
posted by mcwetboy at 11:12 AM on January 31, 2006

All of the above; although there's an argument to be made that SF stands for 'speculative fiction', I doubt that the folks who decided how to pigeonhole these books are aware of it.
posted by ikkyu2 at 11:33 AM on January 31, 2006

Iain Banks seems to have dealt with this well. His space opera is published as "Iain M. Banks" and goes in the SF section; the rest gets published as "Iain Banks" and goes with the real books, whether it has elements that could be construed as SF or not. He has the option to become Iain H. Banks for his romance novels if he so chooses.
posted by nowonmai at 11:42 AM on January 31, 2006

I'm not normally much of a Sci-Fi reader and I kind of avoided Stephenson. Then I read Cryptonomicon and boy was I pissed I'd been turned off him on false pretenses (my petty biases aside). It most surely was not Sci-Fi in any sort of hardcore genre sense, and boy was it good.

Anyway, reminds me of one of my favorite Vonnegut quotes:

"I have been a soreheaded occupant of a file drawer labeled 'Science Fiction'... and I would like out, particularly since so many serious critics regularly mistake the drawer for a urinal."

Not that he's hurting for attention or sales, but Stephenson really deserves more recognition from the mainstream literary and critical establisments who I'm sure avoid him because he's that cybernerd/Sci-Fi writer to them. And yet other po-mo authors like David Foster Wallace (who's Infinite Jest was CLEARLY influenced by Snow Crash) bask in adjulation, just because they come from more mainstream writerly circles e.g. Wallace is an MFA grad, professor, writes for Harper's and Atlantic Monthly etc. (FWIW, I like Wallace a lot; he's just a handy comparison no disrespect intended). It's just not fair on the merits.
posted by Heminator at 11:50 AM on January 31, 2006

Book stores are not oriented towards accurately classifying their products, they're oriented towards selling more books. People look for Stephenson in SF, and they're more likely to buy his books if they find them easily. So, regardless of what his books are "about", they're science fiction for Barnes & Noble's purposes.

That's the difference between a library and a book store.

I'm cribbing this from my memory of a really great explanation Jessamyn gave a while ago for a thematically similar question. Ahh, here it is.
posted by Hildago at 11:54 AM on January 31, 2006

nowonmai: "...and goes with the real books." ?!? What the hell?
posted by Justinian at 12:04 PM on January 31, 2006

I'm sure the actual reason is that the author is pigeonholed. However, the series does share an awful lot in common with standard cyberpunk or postcyberpunk (which isn't really different enough from it's direct ancestor to warrant a snooty "post-" prefixed name)
posted by aubilenon at 12:10 PM on January 31, 2006

At the big chain that I occassionally work at, books are catagorized by which buyer from the company chooses to purchase the book. For example, some companies will file Neil Gaiman's childrens books in with graphic novels (which supposedly borders does) because their graphic novel buyer bought it.

Meanwhile BN will shelve it in Children's because the Children's buyer bought it for BN.

Some authors can use their pull to get moved. For example, Diana Gabaldon used to be shelved in Romance and now it's in fiction at her or her publisher's request.
posted by drezdn at 12:12 PM on January 31, 2006

Well, at least two people are raised from the dead over the course of these three books, using alchemy. That's either science fiction, or fantasy...
posted by Dunwitty at 12:13 PM on January 31, 2006

...or a spoiler.
posted by bshort at 12:27 PM on January 31, 2006

In addition to his interview my guesses are he wants to raise the bar for science fiction and that, frankly, no one buys new literature anymore. Just ask William Gass.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 12:35 PM on January 31, 2006

drezdn, I worked in a Riggio owned bookstore (like B&N), and the policy there was: shelve it where the publisher told you. The book usually has a genre call out on the spine or something, that is if it's not general fiction. If not (and you were unsure), look it up in the catalog.

Either way, it was the publisher decided where to put the books(more or less. It was our store -- sometimes we intentionally ignored the publisher. But generally not, as being able to find the book relied upon a catalog supplied by publisher info. And the newbies could not remember which authors went where, so they needed the catalog [which was on microfiche at the time. blech]). Of course, it's been 10 years, so things could have changed. And I'm sure there is store-by-store variation.

But for the most part, the publisher determines where a book goes in commercial bookstores, especially chain ones.
posted by teece at 12:42 PM on January 31, 2006

The above reasons regarding marketing are all the most likely. But, in addition, the Baroque Cycle is a spin off of Cryptonomicon, which is probably (a tiny bit) easier to classify as science fiction, and it wouldn't make much sense to put 3 books of a series in one section and the fourth in another.

Plus, yeah, the plot of the Baroque Cycle has elements that strongly shove it in the direction of the fantasy category. The fantasy elements are really the foundation of the plot of the series, even though Stephenson dances around them most of the time.
posted by gsteff at 1:00 PM on January 31, 2006

Although you could make a case that the Baroque Cycle is not sf, it sure reads like it. Of course, someone who hasn't read a lot of sf might not notice this.
posted by kindall at 1:13 PM on January 31, 2006

It's difficult to discuss why The Baroque Cycle is clearly SF without spoilers, so I won't try. SPOILERS for why The Baroque Cycle is SF:

The whole plot of TBC involves a struggle to push humanity away from the mystical (alchemy) and towards the rational (science). The mystical is clearly shown to have power. Alchemy can grant long life or even immortality, it can heal the sick or even raise the dead. But immortal alchemist Enoch Root knows that reliance on such things (available to only a few) will hold humanity back as people become obsessed with achieving these things. So he and others push humanity towards science which will help humanity as a whole.

It's clearly fantasy.
posted by Justinian at 1:15 PM on January 31, 2006 [1 favorite]

Enoch Root is an immortal 17th century alchemist in possession of the Philosopher's Stone.

If that doesn't qualify as fantasy, I don't know what does.
posted by nmiell at 1:16 PM on January 31, 2006

ack!

Justinian beat me, with a much less spoilerly answer.
posted by nmiell at 1:17 PM on January 31, 2006

So...anyone know what he's up to?
posted by sourwookie at 1:22 PM on January 31, 2006

Response by poster: I was having a great time reading your answers until I got to the spoilers. Did I say I'd just finished the first book? To everyone else, thanks for your opinions and insight. It sounds like there's more to the series than I currently realise. Still, thinking back, I only became aware of the books by browsing the special-offer tables in Waterstones, and not many SF books make it onto those. But if the author can live with it, I'm sure I can too.
posted by londonmark at 1:41 PM on January 31, 2006

Yeah, he's somewhere in the Philippines waiting for Randy to turn up.
posted by bonehead at 1:44 PM on January 31, 2006

I clearly marked my answer as SPOILERS.
posted by Justinian at 1:55 PM on January 31, 2006

Another data point - I've only ever seen the Baroque cycle in the fiction section of bookstores. Cryptonomicon, it varies, but it resides more often in SF/Fant.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 3:00 PM on January 31, 2006

I'll agree with the above that mentions things like "pigeonholing" and "marketing" and "this particular buyer" and "publisher says" as reason for finding these (great) books where they are in a bookstore.

I'll also throw in that it's been a part of my job lately to move certain books from one section to another, at the request of my superiors' superiors. so it happens that they jigger with that sort of thing on occasion, and a book is shelved more appropriately.

ps Hildago - jessamyn's comment made me really, really, really wish I worked in a library instead of a bookstore. thanks for showing me that.
posted by carsonb at 8:14 PM on January 31, 2006

I always liked the label steampunk for this stuff. Also along these lines, I reccomend The Difference Engine.
posted by roboto at 8:30 PM on January 31, 2006

Book stores are not oriented towards accurately classifying their products, they're oriented towards selling more books.

Well, it's a bit of both, actually. At the store where I work we find that - surprise - accurately classifying things helps us sell more books. We do have more flexibility, sure, so we can put books about Faulkner right next to books by Faulkner, where they're more likely to find their audience, but that's hardly an "innaccurate" scheme. The same goes for keeping Italo Calvino's stuff together in literature, even though Cosmicomics and T Zero are easily classified as sci-fi. At some point, sending folks all over the store to find works by the same author in different literary subgenres stops making a whole lot of sense.
posted by mediareport at 9:35 PM on January 31, 2006

Quicksilver also won the 2004 Arthur C Clarke Award for best science fiction novel.
posted by ninebelow at 4:33 AM on February 1, 2006