If I look at the “Urban Fantasy” books on say, Amazon (though I don’t think Amazon is unique in this) most of what I see are romance books with some sort of modern fantasy trappings. Usually the love interest will be a fey or werewolf or vampire. I think this might just be the result of romance books outselling many other genres such that the other genres top sellers are mostly romance books that kinda overlap, if you squint. When I look through sci-fi and fantasy on Amazon it is the same.
In the Facebook group, I asked if Fritz Lieber's Lankhmar isn't enough of a character in the Fafhrd & Mouser books to call *them* "Urban Fantasy," even though they take place in a preindustrial S&S world. I'd contend that they do count on the grounds listed above, but "contending" supposes that anyone disagrees with me on it.
The problem with calling them urban fantasy is that they appeal to different tastes (even in the same readers) than the more typical examples. Insisting on philosophically pure definitions leads to unhappy readers, who have a just argument they have been lied to.
Most readers regard genre as a signpost for books like other books, and it's certainly most useful.
Who wants to put someone off Lankhmar by leading him to believe it's like Laurell Hamilton?
I'm not insisting on anything. In fact, the only "demand" I'm really making is making each setting feel distinct from another. Which I'd think would be fairly basic writing.
I'd have called LKH (by what I know about her stuff, anyway) "Paranormal Romance," more specifically than "Urban Fantasy" anyway. With "Harlequin" implied after "Paranormal," of course.
If I look at the “Urban Fantasy” books on say, Amazon (though I don’t think Amazon is unique in this) most of what I see are romance books with some sort of modern fantasy trappings. Usually the love interest will be a fey or werewolf or vampire. I think this might just be the result of romance books outselling many other genres such that the other genres top sellers are mostly romance books that kinda overlap, if you squint. When I look through sci-fi and fantasy on Amazon it is the same.
Then you get Larry Correia and Jim butcher.
In the Facebook group, I asked if Fritz Lieber's Lankhmar isn't enough of a character in the Fafhrd & Mouser books to call *them* "Urban Fantasy," even though they take place in a preindustrial S&S world. I'd contend that they do count on the grounds listed above, but "contending" supposes that anyone disagrees with me on it.
UF doesn't have to be modern fantasy at all.
The problem with calling them urban fantasy is that they appeal to different tastes (even in the same readers) than the more typical examples. Insisting on philosophically pure definitions leads to unhappy readers, who have a just argument they have been lied to.
Most readers regard genre as a signpost for books like other books, and it's certainly most useful.
Who wants to put someone off Lankhmar by leading him to believe it's like Laurell Hamilton?
I'm not insisting on anything. In fact, the only "demand" I'm really making is making each setting feel distinct from another. Which I'd think would be fairly basic writing.
I'd have called LKH (by what I know about her stuff, anyway) "Paranormal Romance," more specifically than "Urban Fantasy" anyway. With "Harlequin" implied after "Paranormal," of course.
Heh.
Which will certainly frustrate Laurell K Hamilton. She insists she invented it.