And yet several people recommend the book precisely because of those elements. And while I'm thinking of it, recently the noir style of detective fiction has morphed into something independent of traditional crime/detective fictions. This is seen in recent releases such as Jeff VanderMeer's Finch and China Miéville's The City & The City, which employ this style to create a fusion of crime and fantasy fictions. Another example can be found in the graphic novel anthology, Noir, which utilizes stark illustrations to create morally ambiguous stories that don't stick completely to the crime/detective model.

Things are in a state of flux and I believe that's also reflected in how readers interpret the types of stories they have read. By the way, those books I mentioned above? I wouldn't pigeon-hole them into a single genre, as they have elements of two or three different genres, with results that tend to feel well-done and "original" as opposed to being non-inventive and derivative.



The problem is that "genre" is also applied to the "good books," in order to identify types of good fictions that cover elements X, Y, and Z. I personally think of "genre" as being a very fluid entity that is as rigid and as malleable as the people who need such classifications.



And yet I have a different take, based on anecdotal evidence (albeit strongly influenced by having to work closely with several authors and editors these days). Received an interesting thing in the mail this afternoon from an author, who photocopied a review of a book, Rhetorics of Fantasy, that I reviewed back in 2008. Interesting things there. Will have to examine that further before I can comment on it here, but I mention it because it seems to dovetail into your argument above.

But here's a tricky question: How do you define "fantasy" or "science fiction"?



Maybe?