I thought I'd take a second to talk about genre fiction, since it didn't spark a lot of discussion during the class exercise. I'm going to use genre fiction here as a blanket term to describe anything that doesn't fit into the category of "literary fiction," i.e. most fantasy, science fiction, horror, comedy, young adult, etcetera. The tacit assumption, especially among English majors, critics, and scholars, is that these works are not as good as literary works. More, it's assumed they're somehow "easier;" both easier to read and easier to write.
First, I challenge the assumption that being easy and enjoyable to read is somehow worse than complexity and difficulty. A complex work can be rewarding, and I would not say that complexity is bad any more than I would say simplicity is bad. But a good idea, stated elegantly, can be much more rewarding than a complex obfuscation that leaves the reader unsatisfied and in the dark.
Second, I vehemently disagree with the idea that writing a gripping and satisfying story is somehow "easier" than writing a complex and unsatisfying story. Literary people have gotten the idea that a complex work is more difficult to write than a simpler story, but I don't think that's true. Anyone who has stayed up all night to finish a Stephen King story, or read a Harry Potter book in one sitting because the story gripped them by the collar and wouldn't let them go shouldn't be ashamed to call those good books, and shouldn't laugh them off in discussion by saying "ah, it's just junk."
I found it a little unnerving in our class discussion that I was evidently the only one who wanted to bring genre fiction to prison. You're in prison, people. Do you really think you're going to read War and Peace more than once? And the sad thing is, it's an education in English that makes us act this way; we became English majors because we love to read, and then turn our backs on the books we once loved.
10 comments:
I think that there are different forms of what is "good." An entertaining novel can be just as good as a 'literary' one, but they are good in different ways and for different purposes. I love Harry Potter. I'm not ashamed to admit it. I think it's complex and fascinating and calls to light a number of different issues in a stimulating way that helps the primary audience (children) but really anyone understand and relate to key issues of the twentieth century. It also is accessible such that people might want to read more. Harry Potter can open doors. Do I give it too much credit here? I don't think so. If a book has the power to sweep the nation, nay, the world, then I think it's safe to qualify it as good. But is it as good as classic literary works, like Ulysses? I tried to read Ulysses, believe me, I tried. It was God awful. I couldn't understand it and I had to put it down every few pages in most chapters because my eyes glazed over for the sheer complexity and impenetrability of the work. Does that make it bad? As an entertaining read for someone who has never read it before and knows nothing about it, yes. It's not entertaining at all and doesn't really teach me much except that Joyce is confusing and slightly pretentious. But I would still vouch that it is good, but on a completely different level. It's difficult to get through, but when you look into and understand the complexities and the allusions and metaphors etc., it can be great. If really studied, Ulysses probably teaches more about important technical aspects of literature and presents a unique type of read that can be incredibly deep and lead one to much deeper ways of thinking. It's good. So is Harry Potter. But in different ways and for different purposes.
I would take both to jail.
It is unfortunate, but I think genre fiction takes a back seat to what Joe calls "literary fiction" because of the media. Works of fantasy and/or science fiction like Harry Potter, for example, have become so commercialized through television, film, and media outlets that they are easily accessible to anyone.
Yet, we never see news reports about throngs of people lined up outside of the Borders bookstore at midnight for the new reprinted version of "Ulysses" or "Pride and Prejudice." Why? Those works--those "classics"--are not as accessible. Sure, we may come across Joyce and Austen in English courses, but I doubt that we can enter any bookstore today and encounter a large display of the works of Joyce. Instead, we'll see hundreds of Harry Potter books in nice, attractive covers.
Thus, I think English majors take a great deal of pride in reading the "literary fiction" because it's not so commercialized, whereas the popular genre fiction is more "in your face."
Ah, Joe! I've been waiting for someone to bring this up! It didn't occur to me to bring it up first, because, in tandem with your supposition--I was thinking more about "literary fiction" than the so-called "mind junk" of genre.
A text that engages you emotionally will often stay with you far longer than anything "literary" that you read. I know that the Lord of the Rings i can read over and over again and moves me every time. Now, arguably, Tolkien created a language to fit his mythology and ended up creating a world, that is rather further than any formulaic fantasy writer has gone in recent years. Though there are those who have come disputably close: Phillip Pullman for example, Terry Brooks...
Genre fiction should be taught. One of my ideas for a curriculum course was for a popular fiction course. Even though it is, as Marcus pointed out, very much commercialized, it is just that commercialization which makes it worthwhile. There is a HUGE audience--certainly a larger one, I would argue, than literary fiction provokes, unlimited possible interpretations, and the opportunity to expound on many theories.
Genre fiction is overlooked in English classes. It shouldn't be.
You are not the only one who would bring genre fiction to jail, Joe. I have Harry Potter and Sherlock Holmes firmly written on my list.
Of course, other people thrive on literary fiction and kudos to them but, as Joe declared, that does not mean that genre fiction is "not as good as literary works."
Vive le genre!
Emily Franzen
Joe, I heartily agree with a lot of what you said. And Emily, it sounds like our lists for jail books would be very similar. I have to admit that when asked to bring my favorite books to jail, most of them would be considered genre fiction. I started to think more about this after Prof. Chapman's parting words about "brain hurt." I think that genre fiction, or anything dubbed less complex has to coexist with "literary fiction." I think they feed off each other. As english majors, I think we enjoy complexity, and picking apart difficult works. However, so many of us have a special place in our hearts for other books that would probably not work their way into a college class. For me, going back and rereading those books makes me remember why I'm an english major, and how much I truly love to read. However, I feel like every difficult book, or instance of brain hurt, opens my mind that much more and even enables me to see more things in the books I love. Reading without growth or expansion would be incomplete. However, reading without emotional connection, without a genuine enjoyment and pure fun would also be complete. They may not always appear in the same book (of course, when it does those books are all the more amazing) but both sides of reading need to exist to keep us going, to motivate us to keep reading and striving to learn more from what we read.
Joe,
usually i would say that, sure, genre fiction is great and i love it as much as the next avid reader. but it's not "good literature." this post and these comments have made me think a little more about what exactly it is that pulls us into genre fiction. what's more, what is it that distinguishes good genre fiction from bad genre fiction? I ask this because, honestly, i love those british chic lit books, you know, they usually have a pink cover and are all almost essentially the same story...but i love them. i can't put them down. they're funny, and always have a beautifully happy ending. nice break from the daily grind, right? why do i like these books? i have to say that i think it's because they are such a break from reality. everything goes wrong in the books--but only in the funniest and most enjoyable of ways. and then everything goes more perfectly than you ever could have imagined. in a world that is pretty much the opposite, i enjoy these mind breaks. they're also a break from reading the heavy, complex literature. when i do so much reading for class, sometimes i just really need this mindless stuff. and it essentially is mindless, but that's okay with me, it's what i want sometimes!
however, 10 years from now you can bet i won't remember so much as the title of most of these books, much less any plot, message, or themes. what i want in true, good literature is something that will resonate with me; something that will stay with me long after the last pages. will that happen after i finish, oh say, "something borrowed, something blue" or "confessions of a shopaholic"? not likely. will i keep reading them? absolutely. because at the end of the day, i'm going to read what i like. and i'll defend these books, they're not crap! but they may be mindless.
and as far as the books i'd take to jail? i'll take whatever books i think will make me feel better when i'm staring at the same 4 walls for the next however many years; and what's more, the books i will still want to be reading in a few years.
I suppose my problem with the opinions here is that I don't entirely agree that there exists anything that *isn't* a genre piece. Yes, it is easy to distinguish our heavily-developed, well-defined categories of science fiction, detective novel, horror, comedy, etc., from other such well-defined categories. But how do we distinguish "literature" or "literary fiction" from these?
If we define genre fictions as having driving plot, strong contrasts (between good and evil for example), and developing a predictable mood, wouldn't Crime and Punishment seem part of a "genre"--the dramatic novel, moral story, tale of repentance, or some other permeation? Is it not, though, commonly held to be "literary"?
Conversely, if we define literary fiction by complexity of writing, character, and emotion, *isn't* Lord of the Rings squarely literary? And The Stand? And many of the writings of Dean Koontz?
I think it *is* easier to read and to write "genre fiction," but only because these genres are so well-developed: writers and readers know what to expect, what to do, how they should react.
As Smith indicated in our final class article, a "school" is formed and upheld through the common assertion of a canon and a methodology of canon formation. Our persistence in believing that certain texts are--or should be--set apart from others is both as result of and the very basis of our commonly held culture, the culture of "the university" (or whatever you want to call it) that we share. We *think* that genre fictions and fictions that are somehow "beyond genre" exist because of our need to assert shared culture.
I don't like Harry Potter, but I love fairy tales. The language used in them may not be as complex, and the stories may be formed in a more simplistic way, but there is no difference between the social value of Little Red Riding Hood and Crime and Punishment. Both are, in their own ways, canonical. Both comment on society and social relations. Both are moralistic. Both have didactic messages. In order to say in relativistic truth that one is better than the other, we have to rethink what literature is supposed to do: if it is meant to communicate a meaning (watch out, authorial intention kids), there is no difference between the genre story and the literary story; if the goal of literature is to do something else, though...
I would agree that "a good idea, stated elegantly, can be more rewarding than a complex obfuscation that leaves the reader unsatisfied and in the dark." However, when you get a good idea stated elegantly in a complex text that a reader has to work to decipher (and which may leave them questioning a standard they had previously taken for granted) it can be more valuable in terms of getting people to think in different ways and to expand their horizons. I suppose this would be similar to the "brain hurt" that Megan talks about. *I am not equating "genre" works with simplicity and "literary" works with complexity.*
I think the idea that we require different types of literature for different purposes is interesting. But what happens when people use it for a different purpose than the one it was intended for? (hello, authorial intent and gross misinterpretations of texts...)
If genre fiction is more accessible, then wouldn't it be more important to teach classes on the other less accessible texts in an attempt to broaden their interest base? I agree with Marcus in that the media and modern publicity plays a huge role in the accessibility of genre texts- although I think that schools of literary thought/ criticism play a large role in generating intellectual condescension (or pride felt for reading "classic texts") and the need to "honor and preserve the culture's traditionally esteemed objects."
Following along with Renee, I agree that anything could be considered some sort of genre text. Maybe Sartre is part of the genre of "upset French intellectuals writing about their own despair." The thing that I find missing in Joe's original statement is not about the designation of genre fiction as insufficient--I disagree with how he states that "complex" leads to an unsatisfied reader. Personally, I am very satisfied by reading Tolstoy-but also challenged down to the bone. Maybe it is not the author then that makes a text "genre" but the reader, in his/her act of reading and simplification of all of the books out there, in searching for the "good" ones. Some might not consider certain books genre while others do...Why?
I don't read science fiction because it does not hit me on a gut level. Perhaps (and most likely) it is because I am not vehemently searching for this blow to my stomach when I pick up one of those books, but I have the choice. I don't read Harry Potter for the most part because its text size is larger than the average. It is annoying, and somewhat child-ish. I fear the childish? The more people that choose to read a certain book and call it "good," the more power that choice has. The more that simplification of genre gains social power the more we consider "those" books as such. All books take on some level of genre--and some of this expectation of genre passes on the high shoulders of our expectation.
Even a book that an author intends to be genre may, in the long term, lose that signification in society. While Kafka's Metamorphosis is a science-fiction-like-story, most people shy away from placing the label of that particular genre on it. This is because in society it is viewed for the most part as a good, important story by intellectuals. Maybe we should consider why certain books are genre--is it because this is a stigma applied to books that intellectuals shy away from? Is it a war of classes? Unfortunately, this war won't lead to social revolution and the destruction of war (etc. etc.). We will still go on reading our genres, our books, our favorite stories. I will go on reading Proust no matter what sort of genre is placed on it, because I enjoy it, no matter how long it is, and maybe that is in part because I want to enjoy it, in the sense because it is never genre fiction for intellectuals. It is always the book that grad students must but hate reading, but read nevertheless because their professors expect it from them. I get social credit for reading it. (ha-ha). Oh, how embarrassed I truly should be of reading this amazing book...but I'll keep on reading it, 'cause I can.
I'm really surprised no one talked about how some literature can change from bing "mind rot" to being classified as good literature. Shakespeare is a perfect example of this. When he was writing, he was writing enjoyable works for the different classes to enjoy. Seeing Shakespeare was not the high-class thing to do, there were smelly groundlings, you had to take a ferry outside the city of London, and often you risked getting the plague by being near so many people. However, now Shaespere is revered and it is considered a very fashionable thing to enjoy. Same with Cather in the Rye. When it first came out, it was banned from school libraries, now it is part of the curriculum. I would postulate that no recent/modern work is ever considered a great literary work directly when it comes out. Who knows? Harry potter might be called great literature in 10 years.
Post a Comment