I recently finished a third reading of The Road, prompted in no small measure by an essay written by Michael Chabon in his new non-fiction book Maps and Legends. Chabon argues, rightfully so, that there ought to be no artificial distinction between literary fiction, by which he means serious fiction, and "genre fiction," by which he means mystery, science fiction, fantasy, romance, etc. He uses McCarthy and The Road to point out that serious writers of literature often write "genre fiction" and that the only difference is how such books are perceived by publishers (primarily), critics, librarians, and others whose job is to categorize. Chabon makes an excellent point. And to his point, I would add the following: writers of so-called "genre fiction" walk a more difficult path because their readers have higher expectations of conventions and rules and formulae. This is not to say that a sci-fi writer cannot break the conventions; it is merely to say that genre writers must prove they can walk the walk and talk the talk before their readers will let them get away with bending the rules. In true irony, writers of staid literary fiction walk an easier road because the conventions and formulae of literary fiction are so loosy-goosy that anything goes; and furthermore, to have any expectations for literary fiction is to restrict oneself as a reader, and that simply cannot happen. Or so we are meant to believe.
Chabon goes on to argue that writing is about entertainment, nothing more and nothing less. Therefore, artificial distinctions mean nothing when the only true criterion that exists is entertainment ability. I believe that Chabon is correct and that such dubious categorizations should be thrust aside to make way for the megalithic entity that is entertainment. (Having said that, I obviously don't support the dumbing down of cultural phenomena that seems to coincide with the centralization of entertainment, but that is another post.) We should read and judge and critique based on how well or poorly we are entertained. Chabon makes this argument partly because he admits that he writes to entertain more than anything else. And I suspect that this is true of the vast majority of writers as well. The implicit part of the argument is that "genre fiction" must be pretty darn good because of its popularity and because critics, thinking it an insult, refer to this form of storytelling as "mere entertainment" or some other coded phrase implying "genre" rather than "literary."
Many of the essays that follow in Maps and Legends are serious discussions and considerations of "genre literature" of one kind or another. I was drawn to Chabon's book because I notice a lack of serious discussion about the "genre" texts that are extremely entertaining and that I enjoy. I suspect that Chabon himself is guilty of the categorization trap. He starts off by mentioning McCarthy and The Road to lure literary elitists into the conversation; McCarthy has been considered for the majority of his career as a very serious writer of literary fiction. But Chabon quickly relabels McCarthy as a science-fiction writer based on the post-apocalyptic premise of The Road. By this point, hopefully, Chabon has convinced those literary fiction elitists that they need to broaden their perspective, and he then invites us all into conversations about entertaining reading. The main reason I love Maps and Legends is that Chabon makes it cool to talk about writers and texts that I enjoy and, yes, am entertained by. Chabon follows with essays on Sherlock Holmes and fan fiction, Philip Pullman's rethinking of Paradise Lost in the His Dark Materials Trilogy (which I reviewed here), the comic book industry and its perhaps fatal turn toward the adult audience, and comic great Will Eisner, among others. Maps and Legends talks about the stuff that I read and that my friends read, never mind the fact that these friends of mine aren't friends with each other, that they live thousands of miles and in some cases whole oceans apart, and that the main thing that unites us all is our love of comics or mysteries or sci-fi books; in short, we are bound together because we are entertained together. And those doing the entertaining should not be degraded because they choose to entertain via "genre."
Maps and Legends is a wonderful collection of essays on a wide variety of literature. Included are a few in which Chabon discusses his own motivations, fears, and loves. The proceeds of the book go to support 826 National, a national nonprofit that supports youth writing centers in seven US cities. I highly encourage folks to buy and read this book.
*********
-Phillip Roth, The Plot Against America. Reason: This book uses the sci-fi convention of alternate-history (sometimes called alternate universe) to rethink the history of the USA if pro-fascist Charles Lindbergh had run against and defeated Franklin Roosevelt in 1940's. Roth, of course, is probably one of the most famous "literary" American writers still alive. He's taught all over college curriculums and won all sorts of serious "literary" fiction awards.
-Michael Chabon, The Yiddish Policeman's Union. Reason: Since Chabon made the argument that provoked my experiment in the first place, I thought I'd give his alternate-history / detective story a chance. There are a couple of things going at once in this book. One: the story takes place in Sitka, Alaska, in the modern age. Chabon's Sitka was settled by European Jews fleeing the Nazis in the 30's and 40's. Sitka is given temporarily to the Jews for 60 years, but when the time is up the district will undergo reversion. The story takes place more or less right now; Reversion is fast approaching. Two: the story's protagonist is Meyer Landsman, a hard-boiled detective in the Chandler/Hammet mold. There is a murder that Landsman must solve. And he'll get pummeled once or twice in the ensuing drama. In addition, Chabon has a "literary" reputation, despite the fact this his last few publications have been strictly "genre" (see my review of Gentlemen of the Road).
-Audrey Niffinegger, The Time-Traveler's Wife. Reason: My partner recently finished this book and loved it. She hates "genre." Rather ironically (for my partner and I that is) Chabon writes about this book as another example of book that crosses/transcends the categorical distinctions of "literary" and "genre" fiction. He considers it sci-fi, and it does have a rather sci-fi plot from what I read of the back cover.
I'll let you know how the experiment goes.
Chabon goes on to argue that writing is about entertainment, nothing more and nothing less. Therefore, artificial distinctions mean nothing when the only true criterion that exists is entertainment ability. I believe that Chabon is correct and that such dubious categorizations should be thrust aside to make way for the megalithic entity that is entertainment. (Having said that, I obviously don't support the dumbing down of cultural phenomena that seems to coincide with the centralization of entertainment, but that is another post.) We should read and judge and critique based on how well or poorly we are entertained. Chabon makes this argument partly because he admits that he writes to entertain more than anything else. And I suspect that this is true of the vast majority of writers as well. The implicit part of the argument is that "genre fiction" must be pretty darn good because of its popularity and because critics, thinking it an insult, refer to this form of storytelling as "mere entertainment" or some other coded phrase implying "genre" rather than "literary."
Many of the essays that follow in Maps and Legends are serious discussions and considerations of "genre literature" of one kind or another. I was drawn to Chabon's book because I notice a lack of serious discussion about the "genre" texts that are extremely entertaining and that I enjoy. I suspect that Chabon himself is guilty of the categorization trap. He starts off by mentioning McCarthy and The Road to lure literary elitists into the conversation; McCarthy has been considered for the majority of his career as a very serious writer of literary fiction. But Chabon quickly relabels McCarthy as a science-fiction writer based on the post-apocalyptic premise of The Road. By this point, hopefully, Chabon has convinced those literary fiction elitists that they need to broaden their perspective, and he then invites us all into conversations about entertaining reading. The main reason I love Maps and Legends is that Chabon makes it cool to talk about writers and texts that I enjoy and, yes, am entertained by. Chabon follows with essays on Sherlock Holmes and fan fiction, Philip Pullman's rethinking of Paradise Lost in the His Dark Materials Trilogy (which I reviewed here), the comic book industry and its perhaps fatal turn toward the adult audience, and comic great Will Eisner, among others. Maps and Legends talks about the stuff that I read and that my friends read, never mind the fact that these friends of mine aren't friends with each other, that they live thousands of miles and in some cases whole oceans apart, and that the main thing that unites us all is our love of comics or mysteries or sci-fi books; in short, we are bound together because we are entertained together. And those doing the entertaining should not be degraded because they choose to entertain via "genre."
Maps and Legends is a wonderful collection of essays on a wide variety of literature. Included are a few in which Chabon discusses his own motivations, fears, and loves. The proceeds of the book go to support 826 National, a national nonprofit that supports youth writing centers in seven US cities. I highly encourage folks to buy and read this book.
*********
Addendum:
Taking Chabon's words to heart, I decided on a little reading experiment. With a twist. I supposed that Chabon wanted folks who limited their reading to "literary" fiction to branch out and perhaps break down their presuppositions about "genre" fiction. While I am a great lover of literary fiction, I consider myself more of a genre reader. I love Herman Hesse and Gabriel Garcia Marquez, but I probably spend more time reading mysteries, science-fiction, and comic books than I do reading serious literary fiction. So, I thought it high time that I broaden my own presuppositions about the literary writers. But that wasn't enough -- I wanted to find books by literary types who took a chance and jumped into the genre field. (This way I'd get the best of both worlds.) I wanted to find more writers like McCarthy, writers who took the chance to transcend the artificial categorizations of fiction. I found three books that meet my criteria and will read and review them throughout the summer months. My short list is as follows:
-Phillip Roth, The Plot Against America. Reason: This book uses the sci-fi convention of alternate-history (sometimes called alternate universe) to rethink the history of the USA if pro-fascist Charles Lindbergh had run against and defeated Franklin Roosevelt in 1940's. Roth, of course, is probably one of the most famous "literary" American writers still alive. He's taught all over college curriculums and won all sorts of serious "literary" fiction awards.
-Michael Chabon, The Yiddish Policeman's Union. Reason: Since Chabon made the argument that provoked my experiment in the first place, I thought I'd give his alternate-history / detective story a chance. There are a couple of things going at once in this book. One: the story takes place in Sitka, Alaska, in the modern age. Chabon's Sitka was settled by European Jews fleeing the Nazis in the 30's and 40's. Sitka is given temporarily to the Jews for 60 years, but when the time is up the district will undergo reversion. The story takes place more or less right now; Reversion is fast approaching. Two: the story's protagonist is Meyer Landsman, a hard-boiled detective in the Chandler/Hammet mold. There is a murder that Landsman must solve. And he'll get pummeled once or twice in the ensuing drama. In addition, Chabon has a "literary" reputation, despite the fact this his last few publications have been strictly "genre" (see my review of Gentlemen of the Road).
-Audrey Niffinegger, The Time-Traveler's Wife. Reason: My partner recently finished this book and loved it. She hates "genre." Rather ironically (for my partner and I that is) Chabon writes about this book as another example of book that crosses/transcends the categorical distinctions of "literary" and "genre" fiction. He considers it sci-fi, and it does have a rather sci-fi plot from what I read of the back cover.
I'll let you know how the experiment goes.
No comments:
Post a Comment