ellen_datlow

I'm amused to see that horror did not make the brief list of notable genres...I just finished John Langan's _House of Windows_ and it's probably going to be my example of how horror fiction is just as qualified to be included under the category of "literature" as any other genre, especially as the book takes us on a tour of the many literary classics which fall under the horror genre: _The House of Seven Gables_, _The Turn of the Screw_, "A Christmas Carol" and all of Dickens other ghost stories, etc.
I'm also intrigued by the way many people still see "literary" fiction as being in opposition to "commercial" fiction. Pat Conroy is on the NY Times bestseller list this week: surely he is a fine example of how fiction can be both literary and commercial? Most of all, however, I worry that the sort of writers, reviewers, and readers who so often have this discussion through blogs, conventions and conferences, book events, small press journals, etc., are continuing to have a discussion in a vacuum which does not necessarily take into account what the majority of readers want to read. I participate in Bookshare.org, a project that provides accessible ebooks for visually imapired people and other people with disabilities, and the books that show up there are what many critics would dismiss as "commercial"--the NY Times bestsellers, Dean Koontz, tons of fantasy series and media-related books--I often joke that Peter David is one of the most popular authors on Bookshare because pretty much all of his media-related books are on there.
My point is, I am forced to recognize that those critics who rant against "commercial" fiction seem to be ranting against the sort of books that the majority fo readers want to read. It's not just that some money-hungry second-rate author is writing a paint-by-numbers novel that manipulates the tastes of the mainstream readers: the mainstream readers have a different set of desires and expectations from the critics, and I keep wondering if it is the critics who are missing something important about the dichotomy they have set up in polarizing "commercial" fiction from "literary" fiction.

(comment posted to Cheryl too)

My $.02. It seems to me that you can’t really divide genre and literary fiction by subject matter (literary fiction recently has included the post-apocalyptic survival story, alternate history, and raising clones for spare parts) or quality (the worst “literature” is as bad as the worst “genre”, and the best genre gets shelves as literature).

I’ve been coming to the conclusion that genre v. literary is mostly a status-based class issue. Te best definition I’ve got of “literary fiction” is fiction that portrays the person reading it as belonging to a higher status group.

It makes these debates about genre v. literature a little embarrassing to watch. Poor bunnies think they’re championing quality. If they won and all genre fiction went away, there would still be just as many detective stories, just as many romantic stories, just as many clones being grown for spare parts. And some would be better than others. and (because we’re human) some would be higher status than others, and poof, genre would rise up, zombie-like, again.

These poor folks are getting angry at the sun for setting.

What I also wonder is how they categorize someone like J. G. Ballard? Or do they just excise his sf/f work from his oeuvre?

Well, if it's good, it transcends genre, right? :)

Remember his editor's quote in the obit?

Sure. But do you think the Brits consider him the same way?

Or it's not really sf, as Atwood would have it. :-(

Yes, the cherry-picking definition of SF:

"SF is all this stuff. But not that--that has literary quality, so it can't be SF."

A little post hoc redefining goes a long way.

I for one wonder why these people who hold their noses up in the air regarding genre fiction, fail to smell the fail in their arguments. Perhaps the problem is that there is a difference between literary fiction and literate fiction which is not being addressed. Literary fiction is not immune to being crap, and Cheryl's point about genre not automatically being formulaic is well taken, too.

Early on I thought I aspired to write literary science fiction. But some literary works are too full of themselves to capture an audience. Now I think I want my writing to be literate. And as a physics professor, scientifically literate as well. It is the latter, methinks, which dooms many literary proponents from reading SF --what they don't understand/comprehend must therefore equal crap, same as the formulaic pulp.

It is indeed an endless and pointless battle. I've read far too much quality genre to believe otherwise.

Dr. Phil

Ooh thanks for posting this. I hadn't heard we were having another go 'round at genre. And just in time for me to send Cheryl's response off to my MFA professors, who are, as I type this, gearing up their "you can't write genre in this program" speeches for the workshops that start tonight. Every semester I make the same argument as Cheryl does, they say they don't read genre so they can't really comment, and finally they relent and tell me I can write whatever I want as long as it's as good as all the literary genre I give them as examples.
Some friends and I did a panel on the literary vs. genre debate, and what we concluded was that literary shouldn't be regarded as a genre unto itself, but as a label, a sort of award, that is given to works that use language in new and interesting ways to illustrate the human condition. (Possibly convoluted, but it was the best compromise we could get to.)

And it's always funny because besides the "don't write genre" note, there's usually a lot of verbiage about how you should be free and open with your writing. Terms like "honest" and "brave" tend to replace "well written" and "interesting" but then again, you can't really teach decent writing in a classroom setting - you can only point the way.

Although I think that by the time one gets to graduate school, honesty and bravery should already be taken care of.

I learned some good stuff in an extremely small (three students total) screenwriting class that was taught as an online workshop.

Regular lecture classes.... no. But they're also aimed at people in their late teens or early twenties who've never sold anything. Still, I don't know how some people thing that boring the whole class, and sometimes neglecting relevant information, is going to convey a point.

The funny thing is that even though I bitch and complain about these classes, I DID write some good stuff. Mostly because I had an instant audience and I knew tht I had to deliver. As opposed to writing for publication where I write, revise, revise again, send out, wait for rejection, send out, wait, repeat.

A lot of it was geared toward bugging the teachers but it was still good material.

Similar experience here. Deadlines can be a very good thing. And I can think of some teachers I liked, but the classes themselves seemed primarily geared to teach 20-year-olds to write as themselves, not Byron/Bukowski/Austen/Shakespeare/Kerouac. Some of them don't even know how to give real feedback, because they're still struggling with the basic mechanics.

I had much the same problem when I did creative writing at my university (in Australia). I write 'genre' fiction, and it wasn't worthy in the opinion of my tutors. I was happy to try writing 'literary' fiction - new styles could only teach me more about the craft - but it was a bad fit. I decided that I didn't want to sell myself out just to get a good grade. Writing is too much of an enjoyment for me to do that. So my grades suffered, but at least I had fun writing for the subject.

Out of a English major at uni, only one tutor actually tried to help me in my chosen field. And the stupid thing? The subject was called 'writing across the genres', but the genres were poetry, 1st person, 2nd person and 3rd person fiction.

To clarify... their thoughts of literary versus genre were what was outlined by Cheryl. Even if was a different style, if it had aliens or whatnot, it was genre...

That's a awfully depressing and rather pointless use of the word "genre.'

I did think that at the time. I was disappointed when I found out what their definition of 'genre' was.

The Australia Council's definitions of 'genre' are just as bad: as far as I can tell, they are: poetry, fiction, literary non-fiction, and stageplays (they're not interested in screenplay). They may give children's and YA another genre, but I wouldn't swear to it.

If it's any consolation, I do get to specifically teach sf/fantasy writing to uni students every other year.

I decided not to go into an MFA program when I got that sort of snobbery about genre. I was told that I could write sf/f only if I wrote like LeGuin. While I appreciate that many people do like her and she's done amazing things with the genre, I don't personally happen to care for her work and thus couldn't agree with that constraint.

Thus, I got my MA at Seton Hill rather than opting for an MFA. I was considering getting an MFA at Stonecoast (also genre-friendly), but then Seton Hill changed and is now offering an MFA, so I'll be going back.

Seton Hill is on my list of places to apply.

Did you like their program?

Very much. If I hadn't, I'd be starting over from scratch with an MFA from Stonecoast (which is also, I'm told, a very good program, but it's not my alma mater).

Because of the sudden influx of MA -> MFA students, I believe they're full for January's term.

Mind you, I don't need an MFA, I just happen to want one. I learn best in an academic setting and like the mix of people they have at residencies.

Stonecoast has a mix of literary and genre writers, but Seton Hill's program is all popular fiction.

Thanks! I don't graduate until 2010, so should be no problem.

This actually reminds me of Aldous Huxley stating that children shouldn't be kept away from such vulgarities as jazz and detective fiction but they should be exposed to Classical Music and Crime & Punishment as a way of letting them know that there is good art out there and lead them down the path to sanity.

It's funny just because he's being a complete snob but he's trying to be open minded to the fact that the audiences for "low art" aren't all drooling morons.

Consequently, I have never liked Aldous Huxley. I just tried reading After Many Summers Dies the Swan and I barely managed to get to the requisite 50 pages that I give to novels in hopes that they get better (same thing happened with SImone de Beuvoir's The Mandarins for similar reasons - these philosophers cannot write fiction apparently.) and I was very disappointed when I finally forced myself to read all of Brave New World (having failed several times to get through it but thinking that I was just not ready for it at the time).

And it all comes down to his snobbery. And as much as I agree that you can bring the same enthusiams to classical literary works as you can to genre or comic books or action movies (and I'm eternally grateful to my 12th grade Humanities teacher for leading by example with that enthusiasm) that doesn't mean that genre or comic books or action movies are necessarily low art that needs to be shuffled aside.

Besides so many classics like Wuthering Heights and Madame Bovary are firmly in the genre categories (with a little bit more insight than the average gothics or romances).

And I really can't see anyone preferring Crime & Punishment over The Big Sleep.

The so-called "literati" would still leave "us" out.

btw love the kitten photo--is she yours?

If you'd read before commenting, you would have seen that's exactly what Cheryl says ;-)

Ok. I will go read it now. :-)

Yowza! I love a good discussion and I'm all for freedom of speech but it sounds to me like Mr. Kelman has a bug up his butt.

No matter what one's personal taste in reading might be, Rowlings got millions (and I don't think that's an exageration) of kids to turn off the TV for once and read and to read a book without sex, graphic violence or a good looking hero. I thank her for that.

Ah, yes, the crap I regularly deal with doing science fiction at a university.

A few years ago, I wrote a little essay and sent it to the English Department discussion list. This was in response to someone suggesting that we wouldn't accept MFA students who wrote genre fiction. My essay discussed and defined "genre," including "the literary journal genre." Which is perhaps even more not-new than our genres. I suggested that limiting student creativity was a great way to produce mediocre writers, and pointed to how modern "literary" writers were embracing genre conventions and tropes (though seldom crediting them).

My favorite part? No one flamed me; in fact, I got a few supporters.

ohmigod. The walls of Jericho are falling!

I ask you, how many literary giants have written fantasy? Homer. The poet who wrote Beowulf. Geoffrey of Monmouth. Sir Thomas Malory. Dante. Milton. Dickens. Robert Louis Stevenseon. Poe. SHAKESPEARE. Do you really mean to tell me that SHAKESPEARE is a generic writer?

The crime is not in writing genre, but in not writing genre well. If a fantasy has nothing but pastel-pink unicorns and sequin-scaled dragons and women in chain mail bikinis, then yes, it's bad fantasy. But not all fantasy is bad. Yes, fantasy has tropes, but the good fantasy writers know how to weave those tropes into a story that has as much greatness and meaning as any "literary" piece.

You could just as easily argue that all "literary" writing is plotless, self-absorbed, pretentious navel-gazing -- and that argument would be equally untrue. My preferred genre (in both reading and writing) is fantasy, but if you want to read something else, that's your business. So my advice to Mr. Kelman is, take whatever books you wish, retreat into your country club, sit back with Fluffy on your lap and a cup of tea and some peppermint bon-bons at your side, have a good read, and simply leave the other genres alone. There's a good fellow.

Jason

Jason, I don't know if you read Cheryl's piece, but that's what she essentially responded.

Yes, I read it. But I felt the point needed a little hammering in. :-D

Actually, Kelman is a slightly more interesting case than an establishment writer (or critic) railing against the barbarians at the gate. Thirty or so years ago he WAS the barbarian, being one of the first Scottish authors to write in the demotic, and was roundly condemned by the literary establishment for his use of authentic working class dialogue (complete with all those sweary words you've blanked out). Thirty years on, when he's been followed by such as Irvine Welsh, he looks a lot less hairy eyed and dangerous, but still likes to throw bombs.
I haven't looked at the Grauniad's blog on this, and I'm not likely too, but I'd suggest folk familiarise themselves with Kelman's work before ascribing establishment credentials to him.

To me, that makes his diatribe even more loathsome.

No one's as pious as a convert.

"I understand where you're coming from--I used to be just like you and even thought the same way..."

Cheryl's right. Additionally, all further genre criticisms should be directed to sirs Statler and Waldorf, from my avatar. I'm sure they would treat it with the respect it surely deserves. ;)

I suffer from the problem of having discovered Philip K. Dick's later novels before I ever realized there was a debate about genre vs literary fiction. Since then, I suffer a reflexive kneejerk response to any claims that genre is crap and therefore can't be literary (and vice versa), because Phil's last four novels read as strongly as anything I've read by supposed literary authors.

I guess some folks have to argue for their differences to justify their shortcomings.

Lee.

When I read the other day about Kelman's rant, I was unsure as to which Scottish detective writer he was referring; I see it now seems to be accepted that his target was Ian Rankin.

I'd guessed Alexander McCall Smith, in which case Kelman's point would be a reasonably cogent one: Smith and Rowling, whatever their skills and talents, are not in any sense literary writers. It would be crazy (at least on the basis of works so far published) to give either of them the Nobel Literature Prize, or even the Booker. This isn't to demean them: I'd be astonished if either has any aspiration towards that kind of "lit'rary" recognition, their concerns lying elsewhere. So one might not agree with Kelman's case, but at least it's an arguable one.

If indeed Kelman was referring to Rankin, then of course his case collapses and he's fallen into the trap of, in effect, judging books by their cover blurbs rather than by their contents.

Is wot I think,

Mm, well, actually, I would say McCall Smith's 'Dream Angus' is on the literary side of the line.

(And I wouldn't say Harry Potter was upper-middle class either. I suppose he goes to a private boarding school... but he does grow up in a cupboard.)

There was a program on in Austrlaia recently (on the ABC, which is our public station) discussing Utopian and Distopian novels. They managed to get through the entire program without even mentioning the words "science fiction", let alone really discussing it. This is all the more astounding when you look at the list of books and authors discussed.

The following is the list of books discussed or mentioned in the show:

Utopia - Thomas Moore
Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
Nineteen Eighty Four - George Orwell
Fahrenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury
Looking Backwards - Edward Bellamy
News From Nowhere - William Morris
The Faraway Tree - Enid Blyton
The Handmaids Tale - Margaret Atwood
The Children of Men - PD James
Never Let Me Go - Kazuo Ishiguro
The Holy Bible - Various
On the Beach - Nevil Shute
The Long Emergency - James Howard Kunstler
The Road - Cormac McCarthy
William Blake
Ecotopia - Ernest Callenbach
Carhullan Army - Sarah Hall


Mentioned but not discussed because they ran out of time:

William Gibson
Ian Banks

Books by some of the panel mentioned and discussed:

Company
Syrup
Jennifer Government - Max Barry
Tomorrow when the War Began - John Marsden

I remember when I was in Australia and meeting some friends for dinner downtown (I don't remember which city) and stopped in a bookstore. The discussion came up about sf and horror--oh I don't read anything like that the saleswoman said. I queried her about 1984 and Brave New World and other similar titles and she admitted reading them. So I kindly informed her that they are indeed science fiction.

I wonder, how much of this is due to our culture being mostly derived from movies and TV? (Would you agree that it is?) One thing I keep hearing is that TV/movie SF is about twenty years behind book SF. And when the subject of SF is brought up, most people think Star Wars, Star Trek, the 1970's Battlestar Galactica, or (if you want to spread out into fantasy) Krull and The Dark Crystal, all of which are primarily geared towards kids, at least in their minds. (True, there's 2001: A Space Odyssey, and THX 1138, but I think those movies are off most people's radar.) So might at least part of the problem not be that SF is perceived to be juvenile?

Science fiction was often considered juvenile in its early years. Partly because most of the fans were young geeky boys :-).
But certainly most sf movies and television permanently put the idea that it was aimed at kids into the heads of those readers/viewers who didn't naturally gravitate to the genre in the first place.

Thanks for the link. Much appreciated.

Ugh. This "genre is crap" nonsense gets tiring after a while. Cheryl stated it well.