ext_5930 ([identity profile] pdlloyd.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] pameladlloyd 2008-08-22 07:03 pm (UTC)

Heh. I hadn't heard that about Gabaldon.

I think there's a lot of variation. Some writers do better with a mainstream audience; I know at least one, but she's never abandoned her genre roots. But, I don't think that's true across the board.

When I was a kid, I ran into the attitude that sff was somehow a lesser sort of writing; when I graduated, my favorite high school English teacher wrote in my yearbook that I had almost convinced her that there was some merit to be found in sff. I was very fortunate that she never let her opinion of the subject matter effect the way she graded my work. There was a fair amount of general prejudice about the field and many people who read sff might hide the fact from those around them. When, after a long hiatus, I returned to college and started taking writing classes, I was fortunate that two of my early instructors were a genre author (mystery IIRC) and his wife. He said outright that if you wanted to make a living as a writer, you had a better chance as a genre writer.

I suspect that the vast majority of authors who choose to be identified as literary, rather than genre, are academics who have no desire to make their living with their writing. Their purpose in writing is tied up more with their academic peers, than with market forces.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not on Access List)
(will be screened if not on Access List)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting