Pamela D. Lloyd (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
pameladlloyd) wrote2008-08-20 10:18 pm
pameladlloyd) wrote2008-08-20 10:18 pm
Entry tags:
When Genre Fiction Goes Literary
I knew there was a reason, beyond simple pique, that I disliked seeing genre fiction being marketed as mainstream or literary fiction. Now Kit Whitfield, discussing Saki and Angela Carter's writings about werewolves, in her article "The Story of the Werewolf" in the farewell issue of The Journal of Mythic Arts explains why this is a bad thing for genre fiction.
Saki and Carter are too good to fiddle around with — they stand alone, and elaborating on them seems rather pointless. Besides this, they have both managed the trick we sometimes witness in non–mainstream writing: an author writes a story, in a certain genre, and produces something so well–crafted and intelligent that people end up not thinking of it as a member of that genre at all, but rather as a literary work, which happens to include elements of a particular genre but, as it were, rises above them. Write a good enough genre story, and it doesn't get considered genre. It's a self–perpetuating trend, because if all the best works get officially sublimated out of, say, the horror category, then what's left are the less advanced works, and any author who writes another good horror story will be likewise sublimated out of a kind of critical courtesy, so as not to confound him with the works that have officially failed to transcend their genre and remain just plain horror, romance, or whatever. With all the best examples labelled [sic] as something else, a genre's reputation sinks, ambitious and innovative writers start to avoid it, and it remains publicly perceived as trashy, even when there's no artistic reason why it should be.What do you think? Is it bad for genre fiction when all the best works are labeled something else? Or does it help the status of the genre to have works that might otherwise be categorized as genre fiction be labeled as literary fiction?
no subject
In general, though, I think this sort of thing occurs most often with the full consent of the author. I've heard about some authors who've written works I consider SFF, that they refused to allow their publisher to identify the works in question as SFF. That sort of thing does take me aback when I hear it, but as it's entirely hearsay, I don't feel comfortable naming names.
no subject
My own thought on the subject is that it's stupid to get snotty about what a book is, if you intend to make a living as a writer. I hope never to have to cut off my nose to spite my face on the subject.
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
I's funny, I can remember reading a number of books as a kid, when I'd graduated to the adult shelves, that had what I'll call a romance ethic, since I've no idea now who wrote them or how they were categorized. But, I didn't have any awareness of them as romance novels, per se. So, later, when I ran into the more, er, overt type of romance, I became guilty of forming a negative opinion of the whole genre. (Even as I was annoyed by people who criticized my favored genres.) It was only later that I realized how hypocritical I was being. My favorite romances, by and large, have been cross-overs (even before this was common), but there's one romance book with no fantastical elements, Too Deep for Tears by Kathryn Lynn Davis that I found extremely moving.
One thing I like to remember, when people fuss over reading choices, is that just by being a reader at all, of anything, we are only ten percent of the total population. To the extent that we value reading, then, being a reader of any kind, regardless of whether we have a preferred genre, means that we're engaging in a valued activity.
no subject
Hey, at least you realized you were being a hypocrite. A lot of people never quite see the irony in their complaints about people dissing their genre.
I'll have to see if I can find a copy of Too Deep for Tears.
no subject
Since I didn't have the book in my hands, I looked it up on Amazon to get the author's name. If you can't find it elsewhere, you can find it there.