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

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