The Genre v Literary “discussion” has spilled over today into The Guardian’s book blog. The post derives from a new item a few days ago in which Scottish Booker-winning author, James Kelman, speaking at the Edinburgh Book Festival, lambasted his fellow Scots for writing “crap” about detectives and middle-class teenage magicians. Much local angst has followed, and today Alan Bissett takes up his sword (or perhaps claymore) on Kelman’s behalf.
Much of what Bissett has to say runs contrary to what Lev Grossman has to say in the WSJ. While Grossman felt that authors ought to write what people want to read, Bissett holds out against crass materialism and bemoans the focus of publishers on the profit motive to the exclusion of literary merit. It is an argument where I tend to come down on the side of literary merit most of the time but recognize that everyone has to earn a living. Much of what I do these days is intended to help people whose writing has literary merit earn a living. No one, however, is ever going to “win” an argument of that type. It is probably as old as Homer.
Where I take issue with Bissett (and for that matter Kelman), however, is one small sentence:
But genre fiction is, by definition, generic.
If that were true we’d have a lot less confusion.
Let’s step back a little. From the commercial point of view, the idea of “genre” is very simple. There are many readers out there who prefer to read simple, predictable books with happy endings. They want a particular style, a particular setting, a particular form to the story. So, for example, there are people who love to read books about clever detectives who solve mysterious deaths; there are people who love to read about young farm boys who discover, over 10 adventure-filled volumes, that they are long-lost princes; there are people who love to read about lonely girls from dull towns who go on holiday to an exotic country and end up marrying tall, dark handsome and very rich strangers. Much of of the book trade is geared towards fulfilling this sort of market. Often these books are very formulaic and are written by lazy writers making money from lazy readers.
But when people talk about “genre” they don’t talk about “a book with X type of formulaic plot”, they talk about “mystery” or “epic fantasy” or “romance” or, perhaps most confusing of all, “science fiction”.
Why is it so confusing to describe science fiction as a “genre”. Well, can you tell me what the stereotypical plot of a “science fiction” novel is?
No, when people talk about genre they often don’t recognize it by its plots, they recognize its by its tropes. So any book that has elves or dragons in it is “fantasy”, any book with a detective is “mystery” and any book set in the future or featuring talking squid in space is “science fiction”; and therefore, by Alan Bissett’s definition, is genre and has a lazy, formulaic plot and bad writing.
Except if the book happens to be written in 1948 but set in 1984; or if it contains talking pigs; in which case Mr. Bissett and his ilk will look at it with amazement and say, “that’s not science fiction!”
So by all means, Mr. Bissett and Mr. Kelman, complain about poor writing, encourage your fellow Scots (and the rest of the world) to write better. After all, I was unimpressed with Ms. Rowling myself. But when you do so, base your complaints on the quality of the book in question, not on the subject matter, or the label that the publisher might have given it, or its popularity.
All I have to say if anyone thinks literary and genre can’t mix, they have been reading the wrong books. Some of the most thought-provoking, well-written books I’ve read have been “genre”.
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.
Daniel:
I’d agree with you if it were not for one thing: exposure. Things are better in the US, but here in the UK it is still pretty much the case that newspapers, radio, TV, literary festivals, independent books stores and so on turn their noses up at certain classes of books because they are “genre”. The only way to get around it is to say that you write for children.
I’m also of the opinion that Mr. Kelman and Oprah Winfrey are soul mates on this issue too; I would be a great help if she were to pick book like Le Guin’s The Dispossessed, Alfred Bester’s The Stars My Destination, John M. Ford’s The Dragon Waiting, Rex Stout’s The Doorbell Rang or A Dark-Adapted Eye by Barbara Vine (Ruth Rendell).
It’s not going to happen. why? Because she ( and apparently Mr. Kelman) are afraid of liking something that may taint their precious reputation or draw an unfavorable impression from their core audiences.
Well, pfui, as Nero Wolfe would say. A good book is a good book and the final judge of which should be the individual reader, not literary critics.
“But genre fiction is, by definition, generic.”
If he’s that subliterate, the focus ought to be damage control toward people uninformed enough to take him seriously, rather than direct rebuttal.
“No, when people talk about genre they often don’t recognize it by its plots, they recognize its by its tropes.”
Chip Delany on genre, as quoted by me in 2005 quoting me quoting him in 2000 on what he actually said years earlier. 🙂
As relevant today as any of those past times. Click link to agree or argue.
“Except if the book happens to be written in 1948 but set in 1984; or if it contains talking pigs; in which case Mr. Bissett and his ilk will look at it with amazement and say, ‘that’s not science fiction!'”
Another dinosaur fighting on on a formerly Japanese island, eh?
(I didn’t respond on that thread with the Godzilla reference that sprang to mind. :-))
Comment split in two since preview is still showing a problem with more than two links per comment, so it’s simpler to make two comments, and apologize for that.
Daniel Abraham: “I’ve been coming to the conclusion that genre v. literary is mostly a status-based class issue.”
I wouldn’t argue.
Chris M. Barkley: “It’s not going to happen. why?”
I don’t know that it’s fair to try to mind-read someone’s aesthetic tastes.
Maybe she just doesn’t like sf. Maybe she likes mysteries, or maybe she doesn’t, or maybe she does, but hasn’t found a mystery writer she thinks is worth touting.
Or maybe she has less admirable concerns, but who is to say, in the absence of clear evidence?
I’m not an admirer of Ophrah Winfrey’s, a person who promotes all sorts of pseudo-science drivel, and actively does harm in that, but aesthetic choices are a different category of issue.
I’d also throw in that I’ve always adored Rex Stout, and have read all the Nero Wolfe books many times, but I don’t think I’d argue the case for spending an hour tv show on The Doorbell Rang, myself.
I mean, you could do it, but while I can’t speak to the Rendell/Vine, since I haven’t read it, but the other three strike me as having considerably more depth to them then — much as I’m immensely fond of it! — The Doorbell Rang.
I’m open to opposing argument, to be sure.
Hi, Neil!
Cheryl@3:
[H]ere in the UK it is still pretty much the case that newspapers, radio, TV, literary festivals, independent books stores and so on turn their noses up at certain classes of books because they are “genre”. The only way to get around it is to say that you write for children.
I reply:
Or have a reputation as a real “literary” writer, and your slumming in the genre ghetto with be tactfully ignored if not actually forgiven. Just ask Margaret Atwood. 🙂
“Just ask Margaret Atwood.”
Doris Lessing. Who has always embraced the fact that she’s written lots of science fiction, was delighted to be a Guest Of Honor at the 1987 Worldcon, and spoken admiringly of science fiction:
Well said.