I agree with you. While I am no doubt one of the less sophisticated readers in your gang, even I can't read Danielle Steele novels anymore because it's always the same damn thing over and over again with different characters. Bo-ring! All I ask is that i go on an enjoyable journey while I read, and it's OK if I learn some things along the way.
The problem, I think, is the muddying of waters between "genre" and "formula," and I think the writer of this article fails because he doesn't attempt to disentangle the two.
As you say, not every book in a genre is formulaic. But while it may seem preposterous even to suggest that they are, I think it's easy for "outsiders" to any genre -- people for whom a particular conceit is not their thing -- to make these sorts of widespread generalizations
( ... )
It's perfectly sensible ranting! I particularly like this bit: I think that's just human nature -- anything we don't immediately understand needs to be categorized and compartmentalized so we can justify not taking the time to experience it ourselves. Just look at the way many people still consider all animation and video games to be "for kids," despite all the ample examples to the contrary in our modern society.Completely right. I think why the whole mainstream vs genre thing bothers me is that mainstream writers/editors/critics present themselves as the intelligentsia, but they have this parochial thought process: categorization without analyzation
( ... )
Actually, yes, you're totally right that it goes both ways. I tend to be more of a movie buff than a book buff, so the example that's closest to my heart is how on movie-related message boards you'll always hear people say things like "I don't care what the critics say, I always hate the movies they like and like the movies they hate." (Which of course is just an amazing bit of generalization to begin with!)
(For example, it's amazing how many people -- myself included, for a long time -- will buy into the popular conception that Citizen Kane is some kind of high art snoozefest, when in fact it's actually really entertaining and interesting if you just sit down to watch it with an open mind. Which is one of those things that makes me wonder how many people got ruined on literature by having to study it in school.)
I guess the thing is that it's just so easy to fall into this pattern. Even if you're usually a reasonable and analytical person, there's something so natural about making that step from "not my thing" to "objectively bad
( ... )
"What we look for in genre writing, Mr. Updike suggested, is exactly what the critics sometimes complain about; the predictableness of a formula successfully executedI wonder if perhaps what the journalist is trying to get at here is actually about 'expectation' - predictability in the sense of confidence that we're getting what we think/hope we're getting. If we liked a particular author's work before, we pick up their next thing hoping for more of the same goodness - not a ditto-book (a la Eddings), but those same things we loved last time round, be it their excellent plot, characterization, prose, whathaveyou
( ... )
Genres exist in the same way that demographics exist, and for much the same reason. But as with demographics, the concept applies to groups of stories, not so much individual stories.
Genres exist because people tend to think the same ways about similar concerns. In thinking the same ways we become responsive to certain kinds of story treatments. That depends on culture, but it tends to run in streams.
Genre 'conventions' reflect how we think. They also shape how we think, but they're not entirely arbitrary. We think certain ways because they're efficient and effective for us. Our culture keeps things of value.
But all this aside, I agree that the 'mainstream vs genre' debate is a crock. Mainstream literature also has its conventions. It's an artifact of culture and tends to follow how we think. Originality is not about breaking all convention necessarily -- it's sufficient to find and present new insights in interesting and unpredictable ways.
Comments 7
"Genre vs Literature: Debunking the False Dichotomy"
I <3 you.
Reply
Reply
As you say, not every book in a genre is formulaic. But while it may seem preposterous even to suggest that they are, I think it's easy for "outsiders" to any genre -- people for whom a particular conceit is not their thing -- to make these sorts of widespread generalizations ( ... )
Reply
Reply
(For example, it's amazing how many people -- myself included, for a long time -- will buy into the popular conception that Citizen Kane is some kind of high art snoozefest, when in fact it's actually really entertaining and interesting if you just sit down to watch it with an open mind. Which is one of those things that makes me wonder how many people got ruined on literature by having to study it in school.)
I guess the thing is that it's just so easy to fall into this pattern. Even if you're usually a reasonable and analytical person, there's something so natural about making that step from "not my thing" to "objectively bad ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Genres exist in the same way that demographics exist, and for much the same reason. But as with demographics, the concept applies to groups of stories, not so much individual stories.
Genres exist because people tend to think the same ways about similar concerns. In thinking the same ways we become responsive to certain kinds of story treatments. That depends on culture, but it tends to run in streams.
Genre 'conventions' reflect how we think. They also shape how we think, but they're not entirely arbitrary. We think certain ways because they're efficient and effective for us. Our culture keeps things of value.
But all this aside, I agree that the 'mainstream vs genre' debate is a crock. Mainstream literature also has its conventions. It's an artifact of culture and tends to follow how we think. Originality is not about breaking all convention necessarily -- it's sufficient to find and present new insights in interesting and unpredictable ways.
Reply
Leave a comment