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

[wahlee-98.livejournal.com]

That is a truly fascinating essay, and it perfectly explains my general disgruntlement with the English Department (collectively) as it now stands-- although there are a few people trying to make strides away from the domination of Realist Fiction. People were so busy trying to open the Canon to minorities and women, they didn't bother thinking about opening it to genre fiction.

I want to be the kind of professor who teaches a class on English Fantasy Literature or the Mystery Novel or Science Fiction and Social Commentary. People who don't read genre fiction miss out on so much.

[yunitsa.livejournal.com]

It's an interesting essay that diagnoses some trends, and before reading it I thought that I would feel the same way you do, but I find myself disagreeing with it - possibly because I haven't encountered the full unpleasantness of the mainstream market yet, or because I'm all about the Joyce and Eliot and elitism and opacity (even in my genre reading, actually), but mostly I think that for every literary magazine full of "Manhattan Angst" stories, there is a bookshelf full of badly-written (but well-selling and -marketed) Tolkien-lite fantasy with a scantily-clad woman on the cover, and one shouldn't judge any category by its worst and least-original examples. Also, I'd argue with what his definition of "postmodern" seems to be, which is "just like modern but more so".

My own view is that it's not that "literary" or "genre" fiction is inherently better or more original, it's the way the distinction is managed (by trolls. with sledgehammers.). And I love that there are writers (postmodern writers!) now who are set on blurring those boundaries.

[drmm.livejournal.com]

That's a really interesting article. As a kid, reading was always an escape from a rather depressing reality. As an adult, while I can read and enjoy the occasional 'modern lit' book or short story (I prefer the short stories), they don't help me escape. Reading a steady diet of modern lit in college nearly killed my love for reading. It took a children's fantasy book to remind me that reading can be fun. I suspect this is why I still love and adore Harry Potter, even though I'm able to recognize some serious flaws. I doubt I'd be reading as much as I am today if Harry Potter hadn't come along to remind me why I loved to read as a kid.

[kalquessa.livejournal.com]

Oh, excellent! Thanks for the link! *goes to post in own lj*

[camillofan.livejournal.com]

I read lots and lots of genre fiction, classic English mysteries (and their clones) being my drug of choice. And I've gone on record (http://camillofan.livejournal.com/13025.html) as hating the "reality TV" genre precisely because I prefer well-formed stories (in fact, what I actually said, in my usual subtle way, was, "I want to hop onto that roller coaster of suspended disbelief and ride the Aristotelian plot diagram up over the hump of peripety and discovery, sliding down the slope of denouement and ideally ending up in the safe haven of catharsis").

So I, like a previous commentator here, thought I'd like the article better than I did. But maybe because I loved Il Postino, remember T.E. Eliot fondly, count Anita Brookner among my top favorite writers, and had no trouble finding a (wonderful, albeit only 200-level) course in "Modern Fantasy Literature" at my good little Jesuit college twenty-some years ago, I just couldn't get all worked up with Wolverton.

[infiniteviking]

Thank you so much for linking to this. "As a writer of science fiction, I find it difficult to conceive why anyone would want to obscure the fact that there are cause-and-effect relationships in our lives...." so much for that teacher that made my class read a Hemingway story which he praised to the skies for having no story to it at all. The fact was that it DID have a hidden plot, and the artfully concealed elements that made sense of the disjointed narrative were what made the piece (sort of) satisfying in the end.

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

Splendid article.

Thanks!

[elizabethcbunce.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link--it gave a backbone and a context to something I've been feeling since I was about 16.

I somehow managed to get a degree in literature without studying anything written post-1900 (or in America) BESIDES a single course in science fiction (it was not until about six months after graduation that this occurred to me. Somehow I never took any modern lit or American lit. And I regret this fact, on an intellectual-if-not-emotional level). But I digress. The fascinating thing about that was that the professor who taught the S/F class *also* taught post-modern American fiction. I remember him confiding in me one day after class that the more he taught S/F, the less he found that Po/Mo had to say. (It's also interesting to note that he later became the head of the English department.)

As for "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?" I think part of the point is that the READER gets to decide whether or not the story/author has anything insightful to say. I have not felt greatly edified by Flannery O'Connor. The insights I gained from Alice Munro are the same I gain from walking down my street and talking to my neighbors. The new ways of thinking that Connie Willis, Orson Scott Card, and Peter S. Beagle have given me, however, did not come from stories tied down by realism. I think this is what spec/fic gives us--the opportunity to free our thoughts and to let them soar beyond the mundane and realistic. There's something to be said for taking the expansive, imaginative view... and seeing how *that* can comment on our own everyday existence.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Actually, I agree with Becoming human and Camillofan. The essayist overstated his case. In particular, I actually resented what he said about Joyce, because, when I read "Dubliners" twenty or more years ago, I was stunned by the sheer reality of it. I *knew* these people; I understood how they spoke and how they thought, and it bowled me over. It still does. I am also a fan of T.S. Eliot and of Flannery O'Connor, but also (as you know) of Tolkien, Lewis, Walter Miller Jr., Nancy Farmer (author of one of the ten best SF novels I've ever read), and Ursula Le Guin - among others. The point, I think, is that great literature can be any genre, or none. There's nothing wrong with realism; there's nothing wrong with fantasy.

That said, I now do understand better the (ridiculous) pressure a young friend of mine was under. He is a writer (age 18); the founding member of our writing club, and loves fantasy and SF. He was always getting told - by his English teachers, for example - that he should stop writing it. I could not understand why, since he knew and loved the genre and had something to say. Well - now I do. I had no idea the literary establishment was so hostile to genre fiction. That's sad. Of course, it goes hand in hand with the lack of respect for children's fiction, which is considered a genre in itself.

(But my young friend will continue writing fantasy, and so will we. And, hopefully, we'll all produce good books that give people pleasure. That's the main thing, right?)