The Neglected Commonalities by
jeff paris

I find myself putting a lot of thought into what New Genre is – especially now that it actually exists, and with issue #2, seems as if it will continue to do so.

It began, rather naturally, with the stories themselves. My co-editor and I had discovered, over the years, types of literature that we loved – he, in horror fiction, I, in science fiction, that we saw as subgroups within these genres; fiction which, in general, did not get the attention or distinction it deserved. When comparing our thoughts on what the shared qualities were that tied these stories together and made them uniquely effective, we were struck by how many similarities there were between our respective subgroups. Expanding our consideration, we found similarities between everything we read and thought was truly great – exciting to us as writers and readers, and satisfying across many levels. It is not that these were the same stories, adapted to different genres’ vocabularies – it was that the authors creating them were all using language to achieve real emotional power, did not shy away from complexity in theme or structure, and as a consequence seemed to consistently create works that pushed the edges of the genres they worked in. They were not neglecting any tool available to them, including poetic sensibilities and an often gleeful and masterful application of each genre’s particular strengths and quirks.
Mainstream writers producing work with these qualities seem to do okay, as far as recognition goes, but genre writers of this ilk are somehow marginalized within their already marginal genres, and don’t seem to cohere as a group or grow as a community.
We knew we wanted New Genre to address both of these needs – for these authors to have a showcase where their work was the example, not the exception, and for the genres these works resided in to benefit from the vital and distinct qualities these stories had to offer. By presenting both horror and science fiction side by side, we hope that the qualities they share will be as interesting as those that set them apart.

We had a pretty clear picture of the fiction we were interested in – now we began thinking about the reader. It doesn’t seem so large a step from linking all the stories we liked together, to linking all the people who read them. The implication being that they are all predisposed to liking the fiction New Genre is devoted to, whether they realize it or not. And many of them probably don’t.
The shared qualities that we are focused on seem to suggest three types of readers that would enjoy New Genre:
First is the reader who already enjoys the literature described above, regardless of what genre or in what form it appears: basically, already converts to what New Genre is trying to achieve. Second is the loyal genre reader, who has their one niche and doesn’t stray outside it. Finally is the reader who avoids all genre works, though they do read main stream fiction that shares New Genre’s sensibilities. Not that an individual must be one, the other or the other: consider these three types the points of a triangle, that when plotted have the heaviest concentrations at the corners.
The first reader is already on board with our mission – all they need is to be aware New Genre exists.
The loyal reader hangs out in a genre already, so would be tempted by the idea, but since New Genre shares a border with a neighbor they avoid (another genre), they may be wary of approaching it. I both sympathize with and don’t quite get the reader of one marginalized genre who refuses to consider any others, and furthermore dismisses mainstream works. Knowing the truth behind the misconceptions about their own genre, they should be less susceptible to myths about others. That said, this is a troublingly common sentiment.