What do you think of stories where the plot starts off in one genre, until a twist takes it into a completely different genre? Is this type of story less likely to attract an agent/editor?

The plot of my first book contains a twist early in the second half, and reveals a supernatural theme which continues to the end. I'm worried that this supernatural twist could cause a reader who enjoys "reality-based" fiction to put the book down because they think it becomes too "far-fetched".

To complicate things further, I've written the book as Part 1 of a possibe science fiction series - the second book is when the science fiction would start properly. It makes the book difficult to categorise at the critical submissions stage.

Is more than one genre in a book (or series) a bad thing? Is there a market for this?

KHG

I am a unpublished author, but here is my opinion.

Agents and publishers have already seen every kind of trick plot or short cut thought up by writers wanting to be published. There is probably nothing you can show them (stories/trick plots) that they have not already seen hundreds of times. They have read so many of these from slush plies that they can smell them in the first paragraph.

It might be best to apply you time and energy toward writing the most interesting book/story you can and avoid the trick plots, and other short cuts to being published.

This is just my opinion.

Azel

Is this type of story less likely to attract an agent/editor?

To successfully market the book, agents and publishers need to be able to pigeon-hole it, which is why we have so many genres and sub-genres. So to give a very general answer to your question, yes.

However, there are always exceptions to the rule.

As a reader of predominantly realist fiction, I'd be very annoyed if a book turned out to have a supernatural explanation for something by the book's end. I'd feel manipulated.

However, if the reader knows - because of the blurb, its cover, etc. - that a book belongs in the supernatural, sci-fi or whatever genre then I can't see the problem. You wouldn't be able to hide that from an agent when submitting as your synopsis would give the game away: in fact, your synopsis really would have to give the game away otherwise the agent could end up feeling manipulated.

<Added>

I don't think mixed genre novels are a problem as such, providing there is one genre that takes the lead, so to speak, as that means there is a defined category the book can belong to for marketing purposes.

I think the question an agent or editor will always be asking themselves is, 'Where will this go in the bookshop?' If it's clearly one kind of beast, it's relatively easy to sell, and as long as it does a really good job of its kind, is a fresh new voice in a kind of book they know sells, they'll buy it. Assuming it's good enough an editor or agent will be interested. (I think I'm right in saying that except in die-hard SF/F, they're not interested in sequels at this stage. The first book needs to stand, and sell, on its own. When they've seen how that goes, they might get interested in the rest.)

The difficulty for the trade is that they have to decide how to pitch a book: cover, marketing, publicity, all have to sing the same song. If it's got a foot in more than one camp, then they have to choose which to sell it as. They then call it crossover, and regard it as a problem, or at least a major challenge. Say it's got one foot in chick lit and the other in techno-thriller. Jacket it as techno, put it in the Crime and Thrillers section, and the chicklitters won't buy it, while the techno-fans will find the chick-lit elements either baffling or annoying. Equally true if they do it the other way round.

Which isn't to say that crossover books never sell. But they're a harder sell, which basically means you've got to do it significantly better than you would a 'pure' version of either kind of beast. You have to write it so they can't bear not to buy it, so that combining the two elements makes both work even better. They can then reckon that it will sell so well that they can afford to put extra time and money into making sure that it appeals to every possible buyer.

And I agree, generally speaking I think supernatural stuff has to be in there from pretty early on, or readers will feel cheated. And, as I said above, the first book has to stand on its own. But I'm not an expert on the genre.

Emma

<Added>

By 'pretty early on' I don't mean you have to reveal the workings on Page One. But there need to be hints and whiffs of it, so that when the twist - er - twists, the reader isn't thinking 'That's cheating!' they're thinking, 'OOoooh, of course, why didn't I see that coming?'

I'd say, don't write something cross-genre, if you can help it. The danger is that (in order to be able, as Emma says, to sell it to bookstores in a two-minute pitch) your publisher will decide it has to be marketed as just one particular thing. Then either the readers who pick it up because of the cover and the blurb and where it is in the bookshop (or even which shops it is and is not in) won't enjoy it because it isn't (or is only partially) what they expected. And the readers who might have enjoyed the other aspects of it will never get to hear about it becaiuse it's not reviewed int he kind of places they look for reviews, and never pick it up in a bookshop or library because of the cover.

Having said that, actually it's b*llocks, because I believe you also, to some extent, have to write what you have to write. If you sat down and said, right, if I'm going to be marketed as x genre, I'll write in that genre, it would probably go against every writerly instinct and the product would probably be crap.

Sorry, that's all very self-contradictory and unhelpful, isn't it?

I hate categories. But they are also a fact of publishing and bookselling life.

Rosy

Yes, I too write cross-genre - historical-contemporary, literary-commercial, male-female - and you can tell that at every turn the booktrade have to decide from scratch what to do about it. The risk is that what they decide doesn't sit well with how you see the novel (though it's not been my experience at all). The potential benefit of crossover fiction is that if your publisher finds a way that bridges the chasm, with luck and a following wind they'll sell successfully into both markets.

Emma

is this type of story less likely to attract an agent/editor?

As far as my own experience goes, and in a word - yes. Particularly when you are a new writer. Emma and Daisy have explained why better than I could so I won't go over it again, except to say when I was submitting my fantasy/sci-fi/comedy last year, I had several rejections that mentioned the fact the book was cross-genre.
They never made it sound like a good thing. To back up what Emma said, my agent actually asked me directly several times 'where do you see this novel in a bookshop - Sci-Fi? Fantasy? Humour?' It took me a while to grab the inference and when we finally met, he explained many things about this very thing.

Cross genre is a risky undertaking anyway, but I have it on the advice of probabbly one of the best authorities around that for new writers it is an absolute no no. The current marketing climate makes these stories nigh impossible to sell. With a new writer, a publisher will want to take as little risks as possible - because it's already a huge risk pushing a brand new writer in a well-known genre - and you'll help your cause no end by being as focused in the one genre as you can be.

JB

<Added>

Oh and Rosy. Listen to Rosy too!

<Added>

I think I'm right in saying that except in die-hard SF/F, they're not interested in sequels at this stage.

I actually hear that the exact opposite is true, Emma. The agent told me when I tried to pitch a stand-alone novel I've written that he couldn't think of any UK editors now who'd be interested in anything but a series. Series are big business at the moment. Any trip into the fantasy/sci fi section of Waterstones reveals the truth of that, but I can see where you're coming from. ;)

JB, I think you mis-read me. What I thought I was saying was that sequels are fine in SF/F, but any other genre a publisher wouldn't commit to one.

Cross genre is a risky undertaking anyway... for new writers it is an absolute no no.

Well, it's always an issue. But I'm cross-genre, and new (or I was), and it didn't stop Headline in my case... Maybe because I've got one foot in lit'ry, where these things are much less cut-and-dried, and the only genre rule is that there isn't one... I don't know.

H

Sorry, I thought you meant in SF, which of course has several 'laws' completely outside the norm - in terms of sequels, word count etc. Fantasy, after all, is the home of the 'trilogy'.

Likewise, I think 'literary' cross genre is also another ball park, but I don't know much about that one I'm afraid. They do seem to occur a lot though - historical/crime is one I'm aware of just through yourself and Roger.

JB

Thanks for all the comments so far.

I think I've placed enough hints throughout the front half of my story to prepare the reader for the supernatural twist without giving it away prematurely - I hope. The front half builds up to the main character's discovery, which forms the main twist.

I feel it works well as a stand-alone, but I want to be sure it can also work as a potential "Part 1" if the need arises. As I said, the series I have in mind is science fiction, and I now feel the necessity to introduce it as such earlier than I'd originally intended. Time travel is part of the overall story, and this has now been incorporated into "Part 1", but only as a prologue and epilogue. I'm rather worried that a pure science fiction fan might see the story developing towards something else, and feel let down by the twist. My main concern is that the front half might be too "reality-based" for SF/F readers, because it is set in the familiar surroundings of the present-day Western world, with only hints of what's to come.

I've always believed that science fiction and fantasy can work effectively together within the same story, but maybe that's just my opinion. While writing, I've always assumed there is a significant overlap in the science fiction and fantasy audiences, but that's probably a topic for a different forum.

It's tricky, isn't it? The romantic, artistic view says you should write what you want, but the commerical view, unfortunately, often opposes that ideal, or seems to.

Science fantasy is certainly a healthy sub-genre and there are many books where it works excellently - although they do tend to dip towards one or the other in terms of designated genre i.e. Star Wars or Flash Gordon are really epic fantasy stories but because they are set in space, they're classed as science fiction (space opera). Likewise Dune - more fantasy than true-blood sci-fi, I'd say, but classed as sci-fi. I'm reading Gene Wolfe at the moment, and while it definitely has strong science fiction undertones, it sits in the Fantasy section in the bookshop and is classed a Fantasy masterwork.

Adding a supernatural element to all that is well, quite frankly, adding yet another genre, but you're right to say these genres travel quite closely together and sit comfortably side by side. It really depends on how well it's done. In my own case, I've just been advised that when this is your first and best shot, you're much better off aiming at the target with a single arrow. I chose to take that advice, but I'm sure every case must be different.

Other than that, I'd say write what you feel like. It sounds like a fascinating project, anyway.

Best

JB

Look, I love cross-genre, in fact I think it's the best way of writing. No doubt it is harder to sell. But I think of books like Elidor by Alan Garner (kids in a thoroughly urban, modern environment stumble onto a fantasy world), or, for adults, Lanark by Alasdair Gray, which lurches magnificently from realism to sci-fi to dystopian fiction. Those are fierce books, books which amazed me, challenged me, blew my mind, far more than any book of a single genre. And what would magical realism have been called before it became mainstream? For me, there is something tame and accepting about books that cling to a single genre. Your world, in your book, must be coherent and meaningful in itself. If you can manage that, you can do what the hell you want with genres.

I'm not sure it's that simple. Characters in urban real-world settings encountering fantasy realities is classed as single genre fantasy. In fact, that's a stock-in-trade for thousands of fantasy novels, from Narnia to Oz to the Land. Even Philip Pullman does it. I don't think it's what is meant by cross-genre, at least not in the SF/F environment.

Cross genre in the SF/F environment seems to be when you have magical systems and advanced science side by side, on the whole. Wizards in spaceships, that kind of thing. Yes, it's done and done well - but I'm told it's terrifically hard to market and sorry, but I don't see a lot of it around anymore. Take a look in most bookshops and you'll notice most books in the genre veer to one side or the other, fantasy or sci-fi.

It's not a comment to prevent someone writing what they want to, but one eye on the road, so to speak. It's not very pleasant when agents are asking you to classify your book, because all this airy fairy talk of 'write what you want' kind of goes out the window. Is it a horror novel? A fantasy? A sci fi? Like it or not, agents and publishers think in the same terms as bookshops are categorised and divided - and there is no section for cross-genre.

JB



<Added>

Besides, 'magical realism' is just a posh word for fantasy.

<Added>

Or two words, or whatever.

I remember reading a book that did just that - it started as an ordinary reality based story and I really got into it. There wasn't a twist, as such, but it did stray into the supernatural past the halfway point and at the time, I thought it was a cop-out by the author, because I'd bought into the real story, so the sudden change wasn't welcome - even though I don't mind supernatural as a genre.

Mind you, I love the movie "From Dusk Till Dawn" where it goes from hard line road movie to monster movie in a single scene.