Taking Sides: 'Literary' Fiction vs 'Genre' Fiction

i tend to read books of the "you got your literary fiction in my genre fiction" variety. that said, print is dead, as a great man once opined.

I read sci-fi and crime novels as if they're non-fiction. I read literary fiction only to rip stuff off from. Indifferent to war novels and thrillers because journalism in those areas is always more interesting, if not more 'true' - and yes, I thought that before 9/11. Out of 'literary' novelists, currently I find only Mailer interests me as much as genre refugees Ellroy, Thompson, Dick, Ballard, Delaney. I believe the discipline imposed by genre confines works really well for perceptions of the work in the long term.

Although, bad crime fiction is REALLY REALLY bad.

I too tend to be in the mixed-lit camp, but I am always amazed (and slightly envious) at friends who are avid genre readers.

My fiction reading has dropped off in huge amounts over the past few years, and I've gone on before about how I loathe the presumption among second-half 20th century lit crit that quality = 'suburban heterosexual angst, preferably set on a campus.' What 'literary' fiction I've stumbled across and enjoyed recently tends towards supposed subgenres, such as 'gay fiction' like Alan Hollingshurt or Christopher White, where the tropes aren't quite so codified/overfamiliar, at least to me (others may find them patently obvious, I realize!). Michael Nava is someone I wouldn't mind exploring more, writing in a genre field (mystery novels) from a gay point of view -- met him in a class I took on gay lit at UCLA when he guest lectured for a session, friendly fellow but very shy! Being an avid sf/fantasy reader in my adolescence (oh, so obvious), I maintain that to this day, though many books just appear on my shelves and then wait to be dealt with, and are still waiting (in some cases for more than ten years now). I think if there's a line, it's one of boredom with 'reality' (even if it's just my own reality) and a search for something different. When it comes to nonfiction, though, reality is great, thus my pursuit of innumerable books on history of all stripes and sorts.

FWIW, I always thought the phrase "literary fiction" was synonymous with "boring fiction." I like SF-antasy and suspense "thrillers" for various reasons. And it's not that I like two-dimensional cardboard cutout characters. I'm just not that interested in the private, day-to-day struggles of ordinary people unless they're myself -- or close friends (VERY close).

I read a tiny bit of speculative (disch mostly) and crime ( ellroy and perry)

I'm just not that interested in the private, day-to-day struggles of ordinary people unless they're myself -- or close friends (VERY close).

But this begs the "where is the line drawn" question, doesn't it? Because obviously not all literary fiction is naturalistic, and in fact, the farther you go into avant-garde or pomo literary fiction, the more you're in essence returning toward the fabulism of sci fi, etc.

Example: Calvino's Cosmicomics, while squarely literary fiction, is surely more sci-fi than any sci-fi on Earth -- its main "character" spends time existing in a pre-Big Bang singularity, frets over the evolution from water-dwelling to amphibious life, uses a boat and ladder to collect fermented organic matter from the surface of a close-orbiting moon ...

I don't really read genre fiction. The problem I'd posit with it is that it entails a set of conventions in each case, which to me is basically the equivalent of reading naturalistic "struggles of ordinary people" midlist fiction -- either way, you still know where you are.

Because obviously not all literary fiction is naturalistic, and in fact, the farther you go into avant-garde or pomo literary fiction, the more you're in essence returning toward the fabulism of sci fi, etc

A very good point, but at the same time when one considers the critics likely to support said explorations and writers, too many of them give off the air of, 'well, see, this is sf done RIGHT.' Which is why you'll find people who never try to read beyond, say, Doris Lessing's quite wonderful Canopus in Argos series, because they feel that more openly 'genre' stuff is unsalvageable. Which is a crap stance.

For my money, we could all do with a reading of Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game right about now. The implicit commentary on power struggles and the current American way of war (bomb, destroy, don't question) is all too appropriate right here, right now.

Ned brings up an interesting point, which leads to - why is it that 'genre' novelists who try to assault the 'lit' mainstream usually have more success than the reverse? Think of such things as Amis' 'Night Train' for the latter.

Ned
As much as i respect you , the last thing we need is to read Car. He is a small and hateful man.

Ned
As much as i respect you , the last thing we need is to read Card. He is a small and hateful man.

What, like Louie DePalma?

To Anthony -- look, for all I know he's turned into the type of raving LDS loony we should all avoid. But you can't tell me that Ender's Game or Speaker for the Dead, for that matter, don't convey in direct, heartfelt terms scathing critiques of jingoism, militarism and bigotry and then some. There are more adept takes on these subjects in fiction, to be sure, and Card's eventual failing with the whole series was when he let the characters specifically become mouthpieces for essays rather than people reacting to circumstances. But I'll take the end of Ender's Game, when Ender suddenly realizes it *wasn't* a game and then tries to find out exactly what the hell happened in the first place, any day, any time.

On this subject we must agree to differ, though. :-)

Ender's Game was a wonderful book; after that the series got dull and dragging, but that book was incredible. That seems to be Card's problem in most of his series, anyway.

Actually, the Chicago Sun-Times had a weird little round-up of people's reactions to the 11th, and two of the respondees were (weirly) Ray Bradbury and Orson Scott Card. I was surprised and disappointed to find that Bradbury's two-sentence commentary amounted to "We need to kill something, right now." Card's, on the other hand, I found really, really admirable. So this keeps with what you're saying about Ender's Game, Ned -- although I must admit that this has been recommended to me countless times and I still haven't read it. Chalk me us as an anti-genre snob, I guess. I used to have the excuse that I was a lit student, and therefore I might as well read things that would be applicable to my studies. Now that I'm supposedly writing, I no longer have that excuse.

What was Card's response, Nitsuh?

I'm just not that interested in the private, day-to-day struggles of ordinary people unless they're myself -- or close friends (VERY close).

that rules out lots of contemporary womens genre fiction, Marian Keyes, Bridget Jones, et al. Now while these are not great works or literature utilising the discipline imposed by genres, qua Dave Q's formula, they are CONFESSIONS, with the addictive quality that lots of genre fiction has plus that added by the confession, and as confessions, they tend to be ahead of feminist theory for example (because the subject areas are not important, too abject, embarressing?)

This may be clunky and I'd like to hear an objection, but Marian keyes (of course you probably won't know she's an uber- best seller who writes about the contemporary female dilemma ie 'Last Chance Saloon' about 30-something women who can't marry) is the female equivalent of houellebecq, female equivalent and stupid equivalent. Both grasped the idea that economic liberalism/sexual liberalism are systems that lead to deprivation and are connected, though of course Marian just confesses and remains thoughtless, not like Houellebecq.

i suppose I should have said 'both exposed the problem' rather than 'both grasped the idea'.

Martin Amis once said something to the effect that the way to piss off a writer is to give their great novel a prize for genre fiction.

He was editing a sci-fi compendium at the time.

Fuck You Ned ,
You made me get my copies out of storage and re read them
I hate this board, you get a perfectly small minded opinon steeped in anger and bitterness and someone comes along and ruins it .
Can you give me the ocassional(sp) piece of pettiness.

Sarcasm Button off

I love you too, Anthony. :-)

bloody modernists seeking resolution/closure...