"Speculative fiction is trash."

[wayfriend]

I have to agree. Having recently read The Lost Symbol, you have to admit that the settings of Brown's stories, and for the most part all of the artifacts he pulls into the story, are real. (Google "George Washington Zeus".) And the plots, while fictitious, borrow significantly from plots that many believe are real.

Dan Brown categorically does not write fictional fiction. The fictional board of the Fickie Awards would doom him to perpetual exclusion, were it not for the fact that nothing could be more fictional than Dan Brown winning a Fickie.

[[Syl]]

Russell Smith Shrugged

The topic, predictably, is genre versus literature. And the argument, predictably, is the standard ‘argument’ given by those at the high end of any cultural authority gradient: Those on the bottom have no reason to bellyache because there is no bottom, the implication being, of course, that really, when all is said and done, ‘they’re just jealous.’


Smith is confused by what, for him, amounts to a mythical injustice. “Every day,” he writes, “I read angry emails and posts from sci-fi writers complaining about the terrible snobbery and irrelevance of the literary establishment which still doesn’t give major awards to the speculative or fantastical, or give it enough review space in the books pages of newspapers.” Now group specific dissatisfaction of any sort always begs for some kind of consideration of motivations. But Smith glides over this question, perhaps realizing the trickiness that awaits. Implying ‘They’re just jealous!’ is one thing, but actually writing as much would place him in some uncomfortable company. So he simply declares that he has never heard anyone in his ingroup explicitly dismiss genre–as if only those who explicitly embrace bigotry can be bigots. And as if he and his cohort don’t regularly deride the ignorant masses via their ignorant tastes. The guy doubles as a fashion columnist, after all.


Because make no mistake, Russell Smith is a cultural bigot through and through–and of the worst kind, in fact. He is a status quo apologist convinced he has nothing to apologize for, who feels hurt and bewildered and quite frankly, annoyed, by the deluge of small-minded belly-aching he has to listen to. And since he belongs to an ingroup that self-identifies itself as ‘critical’ and ‘open’–namely, as all those things each and every ingroup is not–he simply assumes that he has to be right. His is the enlightened institution. There’s no need to ask the motivation question, no need to consider the possibility that the perception of cultural inequity is all that cultural inequity amounts to (even though, it is the case that only writers that primarily self-identify themselves as ‘literary’ win the awards and the funding).

[Orlion]

Great. R. Scott Bakker goes on another rant Within his own genre, he is not even remotely as influential as other writers who get a lot less attention then he does and yet he is somehow able to talk about literature as a whole? And genre divisions are equivalent to racial divisions? Grow...up...

Everybody just needs to stable their high horses. Writing in the 'literary genre' does not make your work superior. Playing around with fantasy tropes does not make your work literary.

And when fantasy work tends to be in long series... how are they suppose to treat it? How do you give a detailed review of book 6 of ??? in a series that will be meaningful to the wider public? How do you give an award to an incomplete series? What if the last few books are awful? That's like giving a Nobel Prize to a President that has not done anything: chances are, you and your prize look like a fool. And how do you know if a series is complete? What constitutes a complete series? Is Thomas Covenant one or three series? How should they be viewed? As one long work? As two? As three? Ten? Eleven?

People's tastes are different, and most people prefer to pursue that which entertains them rather then whatever you happen to find "substantial"... whatever that's suppose to mean.

[ussusimiel]

I agree, Orlion. He's not doing his cause much good with such ranting. However, I found this an interesting point that I hadn't considered before:

Unfortunately for us, mainstream literature is not nearly as irrelevant as it should be. It remains a fat, greasy parasite that continues to feed on far too much talent, continues to convince far too many bright and sensitive souls to turn their backs on their greater culture (in what is, without any doubt, the most momentous epoch in human history) all in the name of accumulating ingroup prestige within a socially obsolescent institution.

I was at a talk last week by the Irish novelist, John Banville. He writes the literaryiest of 'literary fiction' (scare quotes for luci ), but in recent years he has also started writing detective fiction (using the pseudonym Benjamin Black) with no overt 'literary' pretensions. I don't know if this is an example of what Bakker would like to see, but it is notable.

One of the markers (in my experience) of 'literary fiction' is density of writing and I have no doubt that series and trilogies etc. are often full of padding to stretch them out for the sake of marketing and sales. To expect books that have made a compromise like this to be winning mainstream prizes is laughable. Quality is apparent in lots of things and no less so in writing.

u.

[Orlion]

I agree, Orlion. He's not doing his cause much good with such ranting. However, I found this an interesting point that I hadn't considered before:

Unfortunately for us, mainstream literature is not nearly as irrelevant as it should be. It remains a fat, greasy parasite that continues to feed on far too much talent, continues to convince far too many bright and sensitive souls to turn their backs on their greater culture (in what is, without any doubt, the most momentous epoch in human history) all in the name of accumulating ingroup prestige within a socially obsolescent institution.

Which seems like something his Mr. Smith might also say. The simple reality is that literature is, first and foremost, a business. So there is going to be a lot of catering to the lowest common denominator and trying to suck all the blood of the latest craze. Without the business aspect, though, you end up mostly with fan-fiction or impenetrable dribble from the pen of a perpetually angsty teenager. ( I do not include 'indie fiction' that ali might refer to, because they still sell their work and are therefore a business).

I was at a talk last week by the Irish novelist, John Banville. He writes the literaryiest of 'literary fiction' (scare quotes for luci ), but in recent years he has also started writing detective fiction (using the pseudonym Benjamin Black) with no overt 'literary' pretensions. I don't know if this is an example of what Bakker would like to see, but it is notable.

Authors who branch out seem to be trying to improve their craft... or just have a little bit of fun. Writing average novels is work, how much more work do you think a bonafide 'literary' novel would take?

I also tend to think that Bakker has a hyper-inflated image of himself... and with his ego constantly be deflated by a declining readership and an inability to win arguments online with a run-of-the-mill feminist blogger, he decides to lay the blame of his failure at the feet of those wascally critics.

Maybe he's not as good a writer as he thinks he is. Maybe he does not succeed because his novels ARE garbage... and not in the fun, Val Kilmer in Top Secret way.

One of the markers (in my experience) of 'literary fiction' is density of writing and I have no doubt that series and trilogies etc. are often full of padding to stretch them out for the sake of marketing and sales. To expect books that have made a compromise like this to be winning mainstream prizes is laughable. Quality is apparent in lots of things and no less so in writing.

u.

An excellent point. I'm glad you're my Ulysses-reading buddy.

[Avatar]

Interesting posts guys.

--A

[I'm Murrin]

I also tend to think that Bakker has a hyper-inflated image of himself... and with his ego constantly be deflated by a declining readership and an inability to win arguments online with a run-of-the-mill feminist blogger, he decides to lay the blame of his failure at the feet of those wascally critics.

I don't think I'd call that particular blogger "run-of-the-mill". You can't win an argument with someone who doesn't argue and has spent years making an art of trolling. That said, I'm not saying she's wrong about Bakker. The more he gets criticised, the more he proves the critics right.


Aaaanyway.

While "genre" fiction as a whole might seem to be held in low regard, you still see plenty of evidence that mainstream readers are receptive of genre novels. Just look at the popular success of Neil Gaiman, or Lauren Beukes' latest novel.

[[Syl]]

Great. R. Scott Bakker goes on another rant

Forgive me, but I quite like Bakker and his rants. And it's not like he's some kind of genre Al Sharpton. He has a blog. He's been trolled by someone with a fairly high profile, as I see Murrin pointed out, but it's not like he's putting out op-eds in the NYT or slamming disillusioned fans in Rolling Stone.

Within his own genre, he is not even remotely as influential as other writers who get a lot less attention then he does and yet he is somehow able to talk about literature as a whole?

I'm not influential at all. Does that mean my opinion is invalid? By the same token, any opinions proferred from Donaldson in the GI would be almost as worthless. Popularity does not equal authority. Unless we want to cede it to sales over time... but then we have to acknowledge Terry Goodkind or, hell, Piers Anthony as eminent scholars. I'd rather die.

And genre divisions are equivalent to racial divisions? Grow...up...

That would be an extremely silly argument if that was what he was saying. It wasn't.

Everybody just needs to stable their high horses. Writing in the 'literary genre' does not make your work superior. Playing around with fantasy tropes does not make your work literary.

I believe the first part was the point of the article. Other than slamming mainstream media, which artists have been doing for millenia. It would be like dismissing Gordon Ramsey's critique of fast food culture because he's an arrogant jackass; just because he is, doesn't mean he's wrong. As for the second part, I don't see anyone saying that.

[[Syl]]

A 1982 Video Interview with Isaac Asimov, Harlan Ellison and Gene Wolfe Wherein They Discuss the Label “Science Fiction”

[I'm Murrin]

I'm reading the posts in question now. Going to read and respond to each seperately, not reading Bakker's post yet.

Firstly, right from the start I'm noticing what's wrong with Russell Smith's article: It's encouraging the genre equivalent of colourblindness.

In race relations, some people see the idea of colourblindness as a great ideal: see the person, not the colour. There's often an edge there of "We're all equal now, so we shouldn't think about race." The problem is, however, that racism still exists, particularly institutional racism within structures that don't tend to be open to questioning themselves. To be able to question such prejudice, you must be willing to "see" race. To be colourblind, to ignore colour, often leads to the unwitting acceptance of passive forms of racial prejudice.

Now I think we can all agree that genre prejudice is a much less serious affair than racism. However, since there does exist prejudice in areas against giving genre writers recognition, against acknowledging their worth - often many still summarily dismiss genre works regardless of indivudual merit - the same problem exists when you attempt to say that people should be genre blind.

Namely, your being genre blind does not prevent others keeping their prejudice, while at the same time it prevents you from being able to notice and call out such prejudice.


Now on to the Bakker post - Apparently Bakker has picked up on the same thing I mention above, but has been a bit more abrasive in his response to it. I'm not sure there was actually any undertone of "you're just jealous" in Smith's article; Bakker is reading more into it than I would, which perhaps speaks to his own experience and opinion on genre prejudice.

But yeah, he saw the problem with Smith's post and called it out.

[Orlion]

Syl, popularity does not (necessarily) equal influential. My main point is that every time I read one of Bakker's rant, it sounds more to me like he's whining about how no one appreciates his genius. Furthermore, Smith is also hardly influential in his field as well. He only is known because he has been chosen as a target from self-proclaimed genre-elitists. So we have someone arguing against something that does not matter to most people at the end of the day (except to those involved in the literary elitists vs. genre elitists clash).

And do not get me wrong: Bakker is not the only one guilty of this 'man is keeping us down' mentality. Erikson does it (and I enjoy his works immensely even as I find his pretentiousness a little absurd) and I imagine Donaldson does it to a much lesser extent... though he also seems to understand more of what's going on and does not rely on a 'cultural elitists are keeping us down!' argument and accepts that time will be the ultimate determinant of what makes the cut.

So, let's get back to why genre titles tend not to be awarded "prestigious prizes". One of the reasons these prizes are awarded is not just to draw attention to a particular work of art, but to provide funding so the artist can create more. Many "literary" authors hold second jobs (I'm sure there are exceptions). Genre writers usually end up living based on their writings (once again, there are exceptions like Glenn Cook, but I'm going for patterns here). Genre writers do not need any help for funding. They do not need any help for promotion. If their stuff is marketable, and if they do not piss off the fantasy fan base too much, they'll do fine. Probably not George R R Martin fine, but they'll be able to make a living.

And as far as recognition, there are plenty of awards withing genre writing that provide that.

Finally, consider this: with a truly literary masterpiece, one's reaction often centers on its mastery, its feeling, its poesy. What about fantasy lit? What are the praises it gets? *Gasp!* A main character is female and is only treated as a sexual object thrice in the story line! There are dark-skinned people who are not necessarily under the employ of the Dark Lord! Look at how Eastern-seeming this story is! This story about faeries and dragons is soooo realistic!

Frankly, I'd rather a trained critic guide me towards the former. I can choose what I want to read from the latter.

[I'm Murrin]

Now you're just showing off your own prejudices. Started off strong then somehow descended into implying all fantasy is crap.

[Orlion]

Now you're just showing off your own prejudices.

Never really try to hide them.

Just because something is not 'literary' or does not win the 'Booker' prize or the Nobel Prize in literature does not mean it won't be meaningful to you or anyone else. Just like mine finding Ginsberg's writing to be merely competent does not change that Howl is a significant piece of American literary history.

There is a huuuuuge difference between literary quality and even the best in typical genre fare. It's something I have not really applied to Donaldson's writings because I'm a huge fan boy and I no longer have to justify my taste in entertainment by maintaining that Donaldson is one of the best American Writers to ever tinker about in language. Which is a good thing, because I would lose that fight. Donaldson may be one of the best in his field, but he can not compete with Mervyn Peake.

And I do not have to get defensive either if someone calls what I'm reading trash (or immoral, as the case seems to be lately). Because I enjoy it, who cares if anyone else does? Besides, even if Donaldson is not the literary giant I would want him to be, it was through him that I discovered or was encouraged to read true literary giants. Like Peake, Ford Maddox Ford, and John Crowley. And you know what? Because I do not expect Donaldson, Erikson, or Sanderson to be Dickens, Homer, or Shakespeare I am rarely disappointed by any of their works... you know, because I don't carry this conceit into the experience that they are going to be any more then what they are.

Started off strong then somehow descended into implying all fantasy is crap

Yeah, too much tongue in cheek will do that

I'm really more irritated at fan bases then actual work. What fans of any thing tend to like or trumpet as the best tends to be.....so petty. And especially on the two sides of this made-up war, the mind sets are just so different. Consider: John W Campbell, to counter claims that sci-fi was just pulpy escapism where puzzles were solved and everything turned out hunky dory published "The Cold Laws", one of the saddest (and classic) sci-fi short stories out there. Now, on the genre side, you have people scrambling to explain how the situation was dumb and how, through a convoluted series of events that takes no part of the setting and purpose into account, this story could be just a pulpy escapism where puzzles were solved and everything turned out hunky dory.

Make up your mind!

[I'm Murrin]

See, there's the thing. You say you can't compare them to the best in "typical" genre fare. Which makes it damned hard for anyone to address you by not stating what you actually mean by "typical".


You just said outright in your previous post that fantasy fiction is both so bad, and so full of racism and/or sexism, that the only praise it receives is when it happens not to be quite as racist and/or sexist. That's a massive generalisation that outright dismisses - and insults - a huge range of literature.



I'm not here arguing that all fantasy literature is great. I'm not here arguing that "literary" fiction is terrible. The truth is only this: The lack of acknowledgement and recognition of genre fiction - that is, science fiction, fantasy, horror, mystery, and romance - comes from a combination of cultural stereotyping and institutionalised prejudice.

The wider culture is easier to get past - witness the success in sales of certain genre works. But the institutional side, the side that tends to make decisions on awards, tenure, canonisation, teaching works in schools - that's the side that's self-sustaining. That's where you've got a system that trains young writers that a certain type of fiction has literary merit, and steers those writers into producing the same type of fiction, so that they go on to perpetuate the cycle later. The genres aren't looked at because they've never been made aware that there's anything here to look at.

It has nothing - nothing - to do with some absolute, inherent difference in quality.

Everything is 90% crud. Everything. Literary fiction as much as genre.


Edit: Just a note to say you annoyed me jsut as I was about to begin my daily 7-minute workout, so now I'm irritated and all worked up from the exercise.

[Orlion]

See, there's the thing. You say you can't compare them to the best in "typical" genre fare. Which makes it damned hard for anyone to address you by not stating what you actually mean by "typical".

Typical: standard fare. If you describe the series as "Like X but with sex/violence/rock and roll" it's typical. From the alleged literary side, Grossman's The Magicians would be typical because it is "like Harry Potter and Narnia, but with sex/violence/and an asshole". Lord of the Rings is something 'original', it's like itself. Same with Elric and Gormenghast.

You just said outright in your previous post that fantasy fiction is both so bad, and so full of racism and/or sexism, that the only praise it receives is when it happens not to be quite as racist and/or sexist. That's a massive generalisation that outright dismisses - and insults - a huge range of literature.

I did not say anything of the sort about fantasy fiction. If anything, I was dismissing and insulting a huge range of readers. mwahaha!

I'm not here arguing that all fantasy literature is great. I'm not here arguing that "literary" fiction is terrible. The truth is only this: The lack of acknowledgement and recognition of genre fiction - that is, science fiction, fantasy, horror, mystery, and romance - comes from a combination of cultural stereotyping and institutionalised prejudice.

There's nebula and hugo awards, plus genre fiction tends to make a crap-load of money. If that's the result of 'cultural stereotyping and institutionalized prejudice', well then sign me up for some of that!

And as I said, I do not think the critic's job is to introduce me to something that is very accessible. I would want them to say, 'hey! This one work that no one knew about? Turns out it is pretty good.'

The wider culture is easier to get past - witness the success in sales of certain genre works. But the institutional side, the side that tends to make decisions on awards, tenure, canonisation, teaching works in schools - that's the side that's self-sustaining. That's where you've got a system that trains young writers that a certain type of fiction has literary merit, and steers those writers into producing the same type of fiction, so that they go on to perpetuate the cycle later. The genres aren't looked at because they've never been made aware that there's anything here to look at.

Students of these groups rarely ever produce anything. Seems like a lot of influential writers are actually journalists. As far as what they teach in schools: you can not study, with any degree of utility, the Wheel of Time in a semester worth of time. You can not even do that with a trilogy. I'm frankly surprised I went through a quarter class that read a Pushkin Novel, Crime and Punishment, and Anna Karenina (plus one small Chekov story). In another class, seven of the ten weeks focused on Plato's the Republic.

It has nothing - nothing - to do with some absolute, inherent difference in quality.

Sure it does. Dickens will always be a better writer. Homer will always be better. Shakespeare will always be better. Joyce will always be better. Conrad will always be a better writer. There is a difference between a master writer and a competent writer. However:

Everything is 90% crud. Everything. Literary fiction as much as genre.

The idea of a "literary genre" is absurd. As such , it would follow your rule... except maybe up it to 98 % A masterpiece is a masterpiece, but a lot of published material is mere escapism (in other words, meant to entertain). Nothing wrong with escapism. But it will fade away and be forgotten once it has served its purpose.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

"Good" literature amounts to "books which you enjoy". "Great" literature amounts to the books that people will be reading 100 years from now and includes writers like Tolkein but neither Ms. Meyer nor Ms. Rowling....in my opinion.

[I'm Murrin]

Picking out the Wheel of Time in your post there is just ridiculous misdirection. You get nowhere trying to argue fantasy isn't good by deliberately picking out the bad examples.

Additionally, you're deluded if you think that fantasy writers in the majority make significantly more money than other writers. Regardless of genre, you have to reach a certain level of fame (or have a spouse with a good job) before you can give up your day job.

[Orlion]

"Good" literature amounts to "books which you enjoy". "Great" literature amounts to the books that people will be reading 100 years from now and includes writers like Tolkein but neither Ms. Meyer nor Ms. Rowling....in my opinion.

That's pretty much the core of my argument. Said much better and succinctly, I might add...or subtract, which is just adding backwards anyway.

And the idea was about length, Murrin, not quality, indicated by my "there's no time for..." statement.

[I'm Murrin]

You still deliberately picked one of the worst examples, by length.

[ussusimiel]

Obviously a hot-button topic! It's not often that I see Murrin all steamed up. Must be that workout

Thanks for the link to the video, Syl, fascinating to hear those guys talk and someone like Studs getting his 'epiphanies' as he listened

I wanted to add a couple of points to the discussion. The first relates to a book I was reading recently on postmodern literary theory (I am prone to such madnesses on occasion ). One of its central concerns is with genre and its importance to discussing literature at all. Without the concept of genre, discourse about literature becomes nigh on impossible. The obvious conclusion from this is that all literature has a genre or a mixture of genres in it (which is why I, at any rate, am quite happy to talk about 'literary fiction' (otherwise you end up with 'high' literature and 'low' literature rather than good or bad literature)).

The second relates to the 'speculative fiction' collection of genres itself. While this may initially have been a marketing strategy, my impression is that the whole area has benefited and expanded a lot in my reading lifetime. This may be a misperception on my part (I haven't looked for the figures), but simply the amount of shelf space that science fiction and fantasy occupy in bookstores now compared to twenty years ago seems to indicate a much wider readership and reach than before. Maybe not anything like the same reach as crime or romantic fiction but still significant (LOTR, Harry Potter, and A Song of Ice and Fire are examples of almost total cultural reach).

An extension of this may be that some authors of 'literary fiction' have taken to writing 'literary' genre fiction e.g. The Cloud Atlas, Life of Pi, Oryx and Crake etc. (which should please Bakker some bit!) 'Classic' novels have always used genres in some way or another (since they are impossible to avoid) and a novel like Ulysses is an attempt to fit all genres into one story. The main argument against 'high' literature seems to me to be mostly a political rather than an artistic one, so it may be that 'speculative fiction' (a collection of genres on the rise) has become caught in a cultural crossfire

u.