Greetings, curios readers!

Allow me to extend my gratitude and thank you for visiting my profile and reading my work, regardless if you found enjoyment or contempt from them.

To properly introduce myself, you may address me as Crowscythe.

I am a writer and reader of hobby, and enjoy my work as a casual afternoon activity, nevertheless I still highly value the importance of story telling and from its every medium.

To quote a very powerful line from the talented Muriel Rukeyser,

"The Universe is made of stories, not of atoms."

And I am greatly enthused and inspired by this poetic truth.

As a writer, you have the power to create worlds, to orchestrate dreams, you are the god of your universe and you decide how it should begin and end. Yet, at the same time, you must condition yourself, you must set rules, limitations, you cannot say rain simply falls from the sky because it can, nor can you say the desert is made of salt and sand because it is.

While you have great power as a writer, you have a responsibility, and that responsibility is to make a story that can be understood and absorbed from the reader who will be interpreting your story.

I do not boast to be an excellent teacher or expert in the art of literature, but I do have a desire to share my perspective and challenge other potential writers to share their opinions or ask for advise, if I am able to provide it as best as possible.

So for the first subject, we will discuss the nature, definition and purpose of...

Genres

First let us address the definition, specifically, the Literary Genre.

The literary genre is a denominator for types of literature or stories. It is designed to categorize and determine the set narrative technique, tone, and content of a story.

According to many sources, there are twelve different literary genres.

Accumulating this number are the genres of Fiction, Comedy, Drama, Horror, Non-Fiction, Realistic, Romance, Tragedy, Tragic Romance, Fantasy, and Mythology.

However I believe the more accurate number is seven genres; The Adventure, The Fantasy, The Horror, The Romance, The Comedy, The Tragedy, and The Mystery.

These are the most basic genres in the history of literature and storytelling.

Fiction and Non-Fiction can be and are genres in their own rights primarily because they are indeed categories that are designed to organize their stories. However, these should not be the core of the story. Fiction is a term used to describe and categorize stories that are comprised of a series of events that are mostly and/or entirely imaginative, often described as "Invented" or "Creative" writing. As for Non-Fiction are stories that narrate and describe the events of Human history. Either are respectable categories to ease the divisions but I cannot say that I agree that they should be considered the focal point or actual tone of any piece of writing. To make two examples; J.R.R. Tolkien's famous novel series The Lord of the Rings is an excellent example of fiction literature but that is not to say that that is its primary tone or what it is trying to narrate. Lord of the Rings, specifically the story revolving around the protagonist and the parties involved, is primarily an Adventure story, simply because the novels describe a group of heroes traveling across the land in an epic journey to end the ultimate Evil. Now, we have the story of Lewis and Clark, a story that has similar elements to an Adventure story like Lord of the Rings, but is a story that actually happened. This is an example of Non-Fiction. But, if stories like Lewis and Clark are Non-fictional, would that imply that they are also Historical, or Realistic?

You would be both correct and incorrect in this conclusion.

I find it odd that History and Realism are two separate genres, when they are simply the same thing.

If you desired to write a story that was very much grounded in Realism, that being the, pacing, descriptions, and general world of the story is realistic, but has no inclination to historical events that have happened, then it still a work of Fiction. Even if the story referenced or acknowledged historical events, or is even being portrayed during a specific time in history, it is still considered fictional based on the fact that the story you are trying to portray is still following a series of invented scenarios and events that do not correspond with the accuracy of the historical perspective.

Both Lord of the Rings and Lewis and Clark are stories that correlate with the Adventure Genre the most because that is their primary attribute, their capital appeal to the reader.

I will be including more to this topic in the near future, but until then, I do hope you find this both enlightening and intriguing, and I welcome you to friendly conversation if you so desire.

For now, with Humble regards, and sincere gratitude,

-Crowscythe

Salutations again, curious readers.

Pardon the delay, I had every intention of continuing this lecture, but the Holiday Season has had me quite the busy body.

But enough of my mundane excuses, allow me to proceed as promised...

What I find also quite jarring is the need to create an entirely separate genre called "Tragic Romance", essentially two different genres that have merged into a single entity. The reason why I find this perplexing is because it invokes the question of should there be a "Romantic Horror" as well? What about a "Romantic Comedy"? Or, if I wanted to be unbearably obnoxious, a "Dramatic Romance"?

Why do these categories not included despite the fact that they technically exist?

Perhaps it is simply because the two genres invoke powerful emotions from their respective audiences. That, however, still does not justify nor properly explain why.

As I said before, the core of a story is essentially the genre it is categorized in. But can it be possible to have two separate attributes to serve as the core? It can, but not equally.

When a story has begone, it more often than not establishes what exact genre it wants to be almost if not immediately. In the first few pages of a book, or the first few frames of a moving picture, you gather enough of an impression to understand what kind of story you are diving into. However, what you may be experiencing now in the story may change drastically later on near the story's climatic ending.

Before I continue, allow me to make two more examples. I am sure many of you are familiar with the theatrical release of Titanic, yes? For those that have indeed watched that moving picture you understand fairly quickly that this story is romantic in nature, it's core aspect at this point in time. However, nearing the end, it becomes a tragedy. The story's mood and pacing drastically changes. Nevertheless, what remains as the primary aspect of the story is the Romance, not the Tragedy.

Another example is The Mummy...No, not the 2017 theatrical release...No, not the 1999 theatrical release either...The original one in 1932. In the story of the classic Horror, most of it's story revolves around combating against the mummified creature now resurrected in flesh once again, Imhotep. There is a romantic interest involved within the story, a beautiful human woman named Helen Grosvenor. However, having a romantic interest did not suddenly change the tone of the story. Helen's character was designed to be a damsel in distress, a goal and a source of higher motivation to defeat the Mummy and end the curse. It was only until the demise of Imhotep did the moving picture end on a romantic tone. Despite how the story may have ended, The Mummy was still heavily enriched in Horror. It retained it's focal point and remained consistent until the end.

Having a story that focuses on more than one specific genre can be done, can be done even well, but one must be dominate over the other, otherwise the result is a conflicting story.

I shall continue to discuss more on this topic for another occasion, until then, I hope you found this latest installment insightful.

With humble regards, and sincere gratitude,

-Crowscythe.