Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Sherman Alexie's avatar

This has me thinking of the long battle of Hemingway vs Faulkner. I much prefer Hemingway. And it also reminds me that my father loved Louis L'Amour but thought that Zane Grey got too fancy. But when it comes to "genre" writing versus "literary" writing, I don't measure the work by its writing style as much as I do by the rendition of human complexity. I define "genre" writing as that which is mostly concerned with heroes and villians and "literary" fiction as that which doesn't work in those binaries. But these distinctions aren't binaries for me. There are many sci fi, fantasy, and crime novels that are literary and there are many novels that are marketed as literary but are more genre. I think that a majority of today's most critically acclaimed literary novels are about lightly-flawed heroes of a certain political bent who are surrounded by obvious villains. They are, in other words, genre novels with a slightly larger vocabulary.

Expand full comment
Adrian P Conway's avatar

Hi Winston, solid reflection. Not sure there’s any space for snobbery on matters of fiction. Readers will like what they like - there’s room for all sorts of stories. What annoys me most is when subjective opinions are passed off as definitive literary statements. Some readers are there for the plot and characters, others for the world-building, others for words, and some for a combo. Joyce egregiously foregrounds words in his storytelling - they’re about as visible as it gets - and is still a brilliant novelist. I suspect the choice of invisible / visible prose properly resides in the author’s judgement regarding how best to tell the story. Dan Brown also knows what he’s doing!

Expand full comment
47 more comments...

No posts