Very interesting article about how defining books as “dystopia” can be troublesome, and why romance and scifi are still at odds with adult readers.

Defining Genre

What’s more, I also despise the publishing practice of labeling any young adult science fiction work “dystopian.” One of my first articles here at the Academy was one delineating the differences between dystopic and post-apocalyptic literature. I know that my standards for definition of these terms are a bit higher than they are for some readers–a “pear-shaped” society filled with corruption isn’t enough for me. I prefer that the term only be used for fictional worlds that are outwardly utopic (either through scientific or political means) but whose perfection hides a sinister interior. In my eyes, futuristic worlds that simply suck are just part and parcel of the broader category of “science fiction.” I’ve seen many YA works mislabeled in this way–Anna Sheehan’s A Long Long Sleep was one that wholly lacked any dystopian worldbuilding but was still saddled with that label by its publishers.

What’s more, I’m not keen on giving a pass to books with bad worldbuilding. If one complaint about these so-called “dystopian romances” came up over and over again, it was that their worldbuilding was weak or underdeveloped, a facet which these readers took as evidence that the authors simply intended the dystopian society to be a contrivance meant to keep young lovers apart. I’m distracted by poor worldbuilding–that’s why Sean and I decided to include a “viability rating” on all of our reviews. However, I don’t think that a science fiction novel with bad worldbuilding is “not science fiction.” Instead, it’s simply “a sci-fi novel with bad worldbuilding.”