Home
All Over The Map - Great Literature? [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
All Over The Map

[ website | Juliet E McKenna Official Web Site ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Great Literature? [Feb. 6th, 2008|10:32 am]
Previous Entry Add to Memories Tell a Friend Next Entry
Spun off the as-we-now-know-erroneous 'fumes made me write dumb books' story, there's a piece in the New York Times by Charles McGrath musing on the whole genre snobbery issue.

Not ground-breaking stuff but concise and thoughtful and the whole article's well worth a read if you're so inclined. If you haven't the time, here's something to think on.
But what’s behind the Brady controversy, of course, is the assumption that genre fiction — mysteries, thrillers, romances, horror stories — is a form of literary slumming. These kinds of books are easier to read, we tend to think, and so they must be easier to write, and to the degree that they’re entertaining, they can’t possibly be “serious.”

The distinction between highbrow and lowbrow — between genre writing and literary writing — is actually fairly recent. Dickens, as we’re always being reminded, wrote mysteries and horror stories, only no one thought to call them that. Jane Austen wrote chick lit. A whiff of shamefulness probably began attaching itself to certain kinds of fiction — and to mysteries and thrillers especially — at the end of the 19th century, with the rise of the “penny dreadful,” or cheaply printed serial. The market and public appetite for this stuff became even larger in the early years of the 20th century with the tremendous growth of pulp magazines, which specialized in the genres and eventually even added a new one: science fiction.
...
Does that make them lesser, or just different? Probably both on occasion. But it doesn’t necessarily make them easier or less worthwhile to write. Henry James’s story “The Next Time” is a tragicomedy about Ralph Limbert, an author who desperately wants to be popular and write potboilers but can’t for the life of life of him manage, as the narrator says, to turn a silk purse into a sow’s ear. Like Ms. Brady, he even moves to the country, but without the benefit of fumes, he is doomed to being highbrow. The story is partly autobiographical, and not without a twinge of both snobbery and self-pity — James, too, wanted to be more popular than he was — but is also informed by a sense that for most writers there is no such thing as slumming. You write, by his lights, what you have a gift for writing; anything else will be revealed as fakery.

James talked a lot about “trash,” and whether he knew the difference between good trash and bad is doubtful. Yet he understood all about genre writing. “The Turn of the Screw,” one of the best things he ever wrote, is an unabashed ghost story.


Certainly some of the worst would-be novels I see reek of fakery because the writers are forcing themselves to tackle what they think they should be writing rather than what they could be writing.
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: [info]martyn44
2008-02-06 02:12 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I loathe this so called 'literary/genre' distinction. It is spurious and seems to me to be the dogma of a self-selected 'elite' that the only work worth anything is either by them and their bum boys from school, or about them, etc, with subject matter that wouldn't appeal to the man on the Clapham omnibus and is expressed in words that the aforesaid man on the Clapham omnibus would not comprehend.

IE, it is intellectual snobbery.

Anyone who commits any literature that is not the very best they can do at the time (be it intended for the Man-Booker panel or the Harlequin rack) is insulting their reader. If we cannot excite ourselves by what we write, how can we expect to excite a reader? Do our readers deserve anything less than the same commitment we expect from a book we read?

The greatest of us all were hacks who wrote genre stuff because that was what the audience demanded. Will anyone remember Alan Hollingsworth (to pluck a name from the air) in 400 years time because he was a 'literary' author and William Shakespeare was not?

I suspect that those who sneer at the notion of 'merely' entertaining an audience have sinecures/trust funds/etc that mean they don't need to bother with anything but pleasing themselves. Which is masturbation. Fun, but nothing like the real thing.
[User Picture]From: [info]admiralandrea
2008-02-06 04:33 pm (UTC)

(Link)

That article is very interesting. Particularly as I'm studying "Crime, Order and Social Control" with the OU this year and this week's chapter was all about the detective story, covering the classic English mystery, the PI novel and police procedurals...
[User Picture]From: [info]martyn44
2008-02-06 07:38 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I subsequently found this World Book Day. Great Idea. But I have heard of exactly two of those books and read a round, fat none.

Am I wrong?
From: (Anonymous)
2008-02-06 10:08 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I've often thought that Dickens would be writing EastEnders, were he alive now. And Henry James's problem was that he dictated his books to a secretary - they are much easier to digest read aloud, as one imagines that he might have spoken them (though I don't attempt the accent, obviously). I think however, there is some truth in James's view that people write what they have a gift for writing, some people simply have wider and more varied gifts. Some writers are let down by poor research, or huge plot holes, or the inability to 'show, not tell', the "data dump" or my personal favourite the "why are these two characters having a conversation, telling each other things that both of them already know". The interesting question to answer would be do we find any of these cardinal sins in James or Dickens?

Sometimes though it doesn't matter if these faults are there, we have all read stuff that has one or more of these errors in it, but if it passes the time and engages us (on a beach, on a train, recovering from 'flu) it doesn't matter. But I suspect that we know the difference, for us, between books like this and great books, even if we cannot put our finger on quite what that difference is. The same is probably also true of great TV, or passes-the-time TV, or films you remember for ever and ones you watched on a dreary evening in a hotel room. Some of this is personal - I can't say I am interested in much 'chick lit' from Jane Austin to whoever, but then I read crime fiction for entertainment, and we are never going to agree on what precisely makes a great book as distinct from a good book, or an ok book - you only have to listen to Radio 4's "A Good Read" to see that some much of what people rate about books is personal to them. Or consider the choices that people make for their desert island book (or their records for that matter).

Sue
From: (Anonymous)
2008-03-24 10:37 am (UTC)

thanks much

(Link)

omg.. good work, dude

Advertisement