#Considering there is only one book on this list that isn't historical fiction its probably a fair reflection of my reading habits

[haniawritesthings]

Accidentally deleted the ask, but @jeanharlowseyebrows asked #2 for the book ask game

2. Top 5 books of all time

I always feel like I'm forgetting something when listing favourite books, but in no particular order:

1. The regeneration trilogy by Pat Barker

Yes it's technically a trilogy, but i couldn't just choose one and the whole series is phenomenal. With every book gaining a booker prize nomination, the series is deeply well researched and are the sort of books that leave you asking yourself philosophical questions.

2. America is not the heart by Elaine Castillo

A book about family, immigrant identity and language, America is not the heart, conveys big emotions and themes through small moments and actions. It's also uses language in a really interesting way that furthers its themes.

3. The traitor baru cormorant by Seth Dickinson

It feels a little strange including this book when I haven't read the rest of the series, but even as a stand alone it's fantastic. This is the sort of book that almost demands a reread because of how the ending recontextualizes what came before it. It's also one of the most well done depictions of colonialism in fantasy I've ever seen.

4. The pull of the stars by Emma Donoghue

I'm not someone who really has favourite authors per-say, but putting together this list made me realize how much I like Emma Donoghue's writing. Donoghue's skills really shine because of what a narrow focus this book has: set over a few days, primarily in one room.

5. The Wonder by Emma Donoghue

While also being historical fiction by the same author, the wonder is a far more cinematic and cerebral book than the pull of the stars. Which is why it makes sense it got a film adaptation. However, in my opinion, the book does a better job at executing its events and themes and their intricacies.

[thereadersdiary]

Let me expound. Setting genre is what the setting of the book is. Maybe this is historical fiction, sci fi or fantasy. Get deeper into any setting genre and you'll find sub-settings: regency vs Antiquity, space opera vs cyberpunk, epic vs urban.

Many of them share some plot — regency is almost always a romance, epic fantasy is often quest fic — but that doesn't mean they're the same. And it doesn't mean they're thematically similar.

If you watch Lord of the Rings, you probably get the feeling that it's an action/adventure story, a bildungsroman, maybe even a war novel. If you read the books, you'll actually find a story much more similar to the likes of a spy thriller or medieval court drama.

Despite being a sci fi novel, Dune isn't linked with the thriller/mystery themes that most sci fi novels adopt, instead opting for the questing adventure and religious motifs that typify fantasy. Because of this, some believe it should be classified as fantasy, not science fiction.

This has created several issues. First of all, it limits readers. Because a book is listed as sci fi or fantasy, it doesn't get to be anything else, and readers looking for similar themes or plots may not find books they actually want because of it. You may not consider the Uglies series as a spy thriller, but the story certainly matches the likes of Code Name Verity and I, Q. Feist's Magician is indeed fantasy, but it shares quite a bit of plot with A Town Like Alice and The Sympathizer.

Second, it limits writers. Because of the thematic impositions on sci fi and fantasy, authors are stuck telling variations of the same story. (It's only recently that historical fiction has broken out of the disappointing notion that it must be romance or litfic.) Not only are there few modern examples of fantasy or sci fi going all in on thematic genres that aren't associated with their genre in general, when they do happen, they often get ignored — unless suddenly the world's started praising Bridge of Birds or Systemic Shock have suddenly become best sellers. People even claim it's impossible to write other genres in those setting, that it can't possibly be as good if someone tries. However, when you look at the best setting genre books, they're usually books that break the genre norm, because people are thirsting for that.

Third, it makes people think that books with non-realistic settings aren't as valuable fiction as reality-based books. Categorizing books by their setting automatically makes everything less important. Fantasy and science fiction can be literary fiction, psychological, and have important social commentary, but because it's "genre fiction," it's not given the credit it deserves and no one looks at it critically. Wheel of Time has far-reaching implications politically, but people don't talk about its implications. In fact, when genre fic does take on a role in political theory, it ceases to be defined by its genre. The Handmaid's Tale is science fiction, but no one mentions that when they tell you to read it. The Picture of Dorian Grey is considered literary fiction rather than fantasy horror.

Overall, the literary community considering setting as synonymous with genre is fundamentally flawed at best and damaging to society at worst. It's time to stop.

One of the greatest disservices literary critics ever created was convincing readers that setting genres and thematic genres were the same thing.