English questions

[Linguoboy]

I'm looking for a word, or a phrase, in English. How would you call a work of fiction that has no fantasy or supernatural element, and no sci-fi technology? The first word that comes to mind is realistic, but it doesn't fit what I want to say: the average action movie doesn't have magic or androids, but its exaggerated stunts and firefights mean it's hardly realistic.

"real-world"?

[Raphael]

I'm looking for a word, or a phrase, in English. How would you call a work of fiction that has no fantasy or supernatural element, and no sci-fi technology? The first word that comes to mind is realistic, but it doesn't fit what I want to say: the average action movie doesn't have magic or androids, but its exaggerated stunts and firefights mean it's hardly realistic.

Thing is, there are several fiction genres set in the real world (even if the works aren't always realistic), and I don't think anyone ever saw a need for a collective term for them. People usually just specify the genre.

(This reminds me of the short discussion I started in the Random Thread here years ago:

https://www.verduria.org/viewtopic.php?p=19894#p19894

)

[linguistcat]

I'd probably have an easier time saying what it's not. So I'd call things like that "non-speculative fiction" since the umbrella for scifi and fantasy (and similar genres) is speculative fiction.

[Ares Land]

I'm looking for a word, or a phrase, in English. How would you call a work of fiction that has no fantasy or supernatural element, and no sci-fi technology? The first word that comes to mind is realistic, but it doesn't fit what I want to say: the average action movie doesn't have magic or androids, but its exaggerated stunts and firefights mean it's hardly realistic.

What do you guys think of 'mainstream fiction?'

[Raphael]

What do you guys think of 'mainstream fiction?'

Not sure. Isn't that term specific to what is usually called "literary fiction" or "serious literature"?

[Linguoboy]

What do you guys think of 'mainstream fiction?'

Not sure. Isn't that term specific to what is usually called "literary fiction" or "serious literature"?

I would say it's often contrasted to literary fiction, at least at it the latter's more experimental edges.

There may have been a time when speculative genres like high fantasy and hard scifi could be easily termed "genre fiction" in contrast to "mainstream fiction". But I think that day is long past; just glancing at the NYT bestseller list for hardcover fiction, I see at least four titles in the top ten that are either fantasy or scifi.

A Song of Ice and Fire alone has sold something like 100 million copies worldwide. If that's not "mainstream", then I don't know what the term means.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I don't think I would have a specific word for this genre (of real-world-set fiction with no elements of fantasy or science fiction). An exaggerated firefight would be a trait of what would be termed "Action" or "Thriller" in film. If I needed to describe it, I think I would use a phrase — "fiction with a real-world setting" or "fiction with a setting approaching our reality". I tend to view "realism" and "naturalism" as more techniques than genres (one can write a fantasy with psychologically realistic characters, or science fiction with extremely naturalistic descriptions).

[Raphael]

There may have been a time when speculative genres like high fantasy and hard scifi could be easily termed "genre fiction" in contrast to "mainstream fiction". But I think that day is long past; just glancing at the NYT bestseller list for hardcover fiction, I see at least four titles in the top ten that are either fantasy or scifi.

<pedant mode>
I'm not sure if the term "genre fiction" was ever limited to fantasy and SF. I'd say it covers everything that's not "literary fiction", including thrillers, mysteries, romance, historical fiction, etc.
</pedant mode>

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I would consider "literary fiction" just another genre, too.

[bradrn]

I would consider "literary fiction" just another genre, too.

I like the definition of ‘genre fiction’ I saw in one of Neil Gaiman’s speeches:

If the plot is a machine that allows you to get from set piece to set piece, and the set pieces are things without which the reader or the viewer would feel cheated, then, whatever it is, it’s genre. If the plot exists to get you fro mthe lone cowboy riding into town to the first gunfight to the cattle rustling to the showdown, then it’s a Western. If those are simply things that happen on the way, and the plot encompasses them, can do without them, doesn’t actually care if they are in there or not, then it’s a novel set in the old West.
When every event is part of the plot, if the whole thing is important, if there aren’t any scenes that exist to allow you to take your audience to the next moment that the reader or the viewer feels is the thing that he or she has paid for, then it’s a story, and the genre is irrelevant.

…although he then goes on to freely admit that this is far from a rigorous, cut-and-dried definition. (This is from The Pornography of Genre, or the Genre of Pornography — ‘It’s actually nothing at all about the genre of pornography. That was just put in to make it a catchy title. I make no apologies.’. I found it a very interesting speech, actually.)

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I like the definition of ‘genre fiction’ I saw in one of Neil Gaiman’s speeches:

If the plot is a machine that allows you to get from set piece to set piece, and the set pieces are things without which the reader or the viewer would feel cheated, then, whatever it is, it’s genre. If the plot exists to get you fro mthe lone cowboy riding into town to the first gunfight to the cattle rustling to the showdown, then it’s a Western. If those are simply things that happen on the way, and the plot encompasses them, can do without them, doesn’t actually care if they are in there or not, then it’s a novel set in the old West.
When every event is part of the plot, if the whole thing is important, if there aren’t any scenes that exist to allow you to take your audience to the next moment that the reader or the viewer feels is the thing that he or she has paid for, then it’s a story, and the genre is irrelevant.

Oh, I hadn't heard that, but I like it, too.

[azhong]

Q: Is the sentence more natural with "being" or without? Or does it make little difference? Or is the sentence just unnatural in either way?
Thank you.

He came by scooter with two pre-school kids being carried on it.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Q: Is the sentence more natural with "being" or without? Or does it make little difference? Or is the sentence just unnatural in either way?
Thank you.

He came by scooter with two pre-school kids being carried on it.

This sounds a little awkward to me both ways. I think the most natural casting — to me at least — would instinctually be He came by scooter with (his) two pre-school aged children, but this might change depending on whether or not they're his children (your original casting sounds like they're just incidentally there). If they are incidentally there, I think I would cast it as, He came on a scooter that also carried two pre-school aged children ("pre school kids" isn't wrong, but it gives the air of a child being the one saying it — this may be the case, of course).

"He came by scooter with two pre-school kids" (dropping the rest; I understand the meaning, but being carried on it feels unnatural here, and is also redundant because of course the children will be on he scooter if they came with him — it would only be noteworthy if they weren't).

[azhong]

"He came by scooter with two pre-school kids"

Thank you. (I was still thinking if I need to say,
He came by riding the scooter with...
to say clearly it's he who rode the scooter. But I think it's also redundant now.

("pre school kids" isn't wrong, but it gives the air of a child being the one saying it — this may be the case, of course).

Do you mean the term "pre school kids" implies the narrator is a child but not an adult? If so, does the implication come from "kid"? Is it because "kid" is an informal word, a word which is mostly used only by children, rarely by adults?

kid noun [informal] a child:
He took the kids to the park while I was working.

Thank you.

[bradrn]

("pre school kids" isn't wrong, but it gives the air of a child being the one saying it — this may be the case, of course).

Do you mean the term "pre school kids" implies the narrator is a child but not an adult? If so, does the implication come from "kid"? Is it because "kid" is an informal word, a word which is mostly used only by children, rarely by adults?

I think I’d disagree with Rounin Ryuuji’s assessment here — ‘pre-school kids’ sounds oddly specific to me, but not child-like at all.

[azhong]

...pre-school kids’ sounds oddly specific to me..

I don't know what "specific" means here.

I have a hunch the sentence will become more natural if I leave out "pre-school"?

He came by scooter with two kids.

(I intended to emphasize the kids are at the pre-school age.)

[bradrn]

...pre-school kids’ sounds oddly specific to me..

I don't know what "specific" means here.

In this case, roughly the same as ‘precise’ or ‘restricted’.

I have a hunch the sentence will become more natural if I leave out "pre-school"?

He came by scooter with two kids.

(I intended to emphasize the kids are at the pre-school age.)

Indeed, this is more natural, but the other one is fine if you want to emphasise their age.

[azhong]

I see now. You just thought it was oddly specific because you wondered why I'd like to emphasize the two kids were pre-school, and there is no other sentences to show the need, although the expression was grammatical.

[bradrn]

I see now. You just thought it was oddly specific because you wondered why I'd like to emphasize the two kids were pre-school, and there is no other sentences to show the need, although the expression was grammatical.

Yes; this is correct.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

("pre school kids" isn't wrong, but it gives the air of a child being the one saying it — this may be the case, of course).

Do you mean the term "pre school kids" implies the narrator is a child but not an adult? If so, does the implication come from "kid"? Is it because "kid" is an informal word, a word which is mostly used only by children, rarely by adults?

I think I’d disagree with Rounin Ryuuji’s assessment here — ‘pre-school kids’ sounds oddly specific to me, but not child-like at all.

I suppose the contexts in which I'd been accustomed to hearing it (I tend to encounter more adults who would say pre-schoolers nowadays, too) were mostly children referring to each-other. It may just be a fluke, or it may be a dialectal difference.