YES.

[rj_anderson]

Thanks to thegameiam for linking to a splendid essay by Dave Wolverton that explains the difference between literary and genre fiction, and reveals the little-known origins of the modern literary novel. It also does a very good job of explaining why I read very little so-called literary fiction, and don't feel a bit embarrassed about not writing it either:

On Writing as a Fantasist.

Comments

Pardon me if I disagreeify and exceptionate.

[becominghuman.livejournal.com]

I am pretty sure, right off the top, that there are a few extremely awkward, or mis-used words in that essay, that set me on edge. Elitist that I am.

I am a huge fan of so-called "Genre" fiction. Not romance novels. But SF/Fantasy/Speculative-Fiction, yes.

I think that mainstream literature has a few characteristics, each of which is a mixed blessing, not all bad, and not always good, that define it:

1. intellectual sophistication, which he would put down as elitism and snobbery. Intellectual sophistication includes truly fabulous writing, like the short stories of Flannery O'Connor and the novels of Graham Greene, and also includes what I consider to be unreadable dreck. Just because it's intellectually sophisticated, doesn't make it bad writing, nor does it make it good.

2. avoiding conventions in how the story is written, wherever possible, to an almost pathological extent. For example, if the Old Way was telling stories in a plot-driven, character-driven way, the literary elite may consider this "too easy" by some within the "literary" world, and so there has been some (maybe a lot) of inaccessible writing in the mainstream literary world. Inaccessible to those of us who care about characters, plot, and conventional novel structure. Let's read something entirely narrated in the second person, shall we? Uh, no thanks.

3. a pathological need to break taboos, shatter sensitivities, jar your readership, and otherwise upset morally conservative or religious (christian, jewish) people, or anything to whom something is sacred. In Mr. Smith's brave new novel, the themes are X rated, and filth is somehow passed off as sophistication. Nothing must remain sacred. It is the writer's duty to tear down whatever he can, destroy and desecrate.


So, I don't like those tendencies, but when they're held in cheque, there is a kind of emotional realism that mainstream fiction reaches that genre fiction almost never reaches. I know there are exceptions. But they are not the rule. Show me a science fiction novel that has depth of insight into the human condition that can compare with Graham Greene, Flannery O'Connor, or Evelyn Waugh, anyone?

That being said, 90% of everything is crap, including SF/Fantasy, and most Literary stuff.

Warren

Re: Pardon me if I disagreeify and exceptionate.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Show me a science fiction novel that has depth of insight into the human condition that can compare with Graham Greene, Flannery O'Connor, or Evelyn Waugh, anyone?

A Canticle for Leibowitz sprang to mind within about 0.02 seconds of you asking this question. To use a more recent example, M.T. Anderson's Feed -- which is not just SF, but YA at that. And since we're talking not only about F/SF but genre fiction as opposed to non-genre fiction, if Dorothy L. Sayers' Gaudy Night is not a great novel which speaks to the human condition, nothing is.

There is no reason whatsoever that genre writing can't be every bit as deep and insightful as the best "literary" fiction -- or more so. Unfortunately, due to the very snobbery Wolverton mentions, many intelligent young authors who might have written wonderful genre books have been cowed into forsaking genre in an effort to prove they are "real" writers.

On the other hand, there are "literary" authors like Margaret Atwood writing works which anywhere else would be recognized as genre, but who get a free pass because they made their name with the drab pseudo-realistic stuff. If Atwood wrote a novel about superheroes or vampires, the lit establishment would be all over it -- if not to praise it for its cleverness, at least to analyze its faults. Whereas there are some very fine authors working in genre who will never be so much as glanced at by the same literary establishment.

Re: Pardon me if I disagreeify and exceptionate.

[becominghuman.livejournal.com]

I just read A Canticle For Leibowitz two weeks ago. And it's probably the best example I could have thought of, and yet it also illustrates my point. The characters are each quite transitory. Well drawn, well written. A Canticle for Leibowitz is better LITERATURE than most "LITERATURE". In fact, it transcends genre. Genre fiction that transcends genre is that most rare of creatures. Those who recognize great writing must stop being "literary snobs". That is where you and I, and the article writer probably agree.

I don't even like Atwood. I dislike Can-Lit especially. I don't like Ondaatje either. I think both are probably great writers, but their stuff doesn't move me. Kind of like the band Rush, which lots of people seem to like, I just can't stand 'em.

I say, forget the literary establishment. Lots of people are reading lots of new authors. The literary establishment is mostly irrelevant to most people who read.

Genre fiction writers don't need to throw stones at "literary" types, or prove anything. Just try to write books as good as "A Canticle for Leibowitz". If angry rants (like his) empower him to write better books, then good for him. I just think it all comes off badly, and makes everybody look chintzy.


Warren