I think it's true that certain segments of society paint certain genres as "proper" or "smart" or "socially acceptable" and others not. It's regrettable, but it's true. And yeah, things with girl cooties get the shortest end of that stick.
And I'm also sure it's true that some number of people do read things because they think they're supposed to because otherwise they won't look smart or with it or educated, or whatever. And I'm sure there are writers who would rather eat worms sprinkled with ground glass than have their work described as sci-fi/romance/chick-lit.
But those writers--how do you know that's their motive for putting whatever markers of "serious fiction" in their work they do? I myself don't sit down and say "Oh, I'd better put some fantasy genre markers in this!" I write fantasy and science fiction because that's what I like. Because my aim is to be a fantasy and science fiction writer. The writer of "serious" fiction is also working in a genre, that has genre markers, and whatever social or cultural implications we or anyone might think "serious" fiction has, in the end the writer puts those markers in because that's the sort of story s/he wants to tell. Whether that's out of "pretension" is something only the writer and the Unconquered Sun know--I'm not sure that's a call we can make, sitting from here.
The reviewers? It's true that if they don't give the kinds of reviews their publication's readers expect, they'll lose their jobs. But why assume they're faking it, out of pretension or ambition, rather than assume that they really do like and appreciate the works they're reviewing? Sure, there's cultural cachet that goes with certain genres ("serious" or "literary" fiction) but why do we assume that those reviewers aren't reviewers of such fiction because they really like it and are good at and enjoy articulating why? That's part of the game, with that sort of fiction, that's part of the fun you get out of it. The snobbery is a separate deal--bad news, something I really don't like, but it's not an indicator that the snob is only praising a given work because otherwise he'll be out of step. The only way we could know that a reviewer was just angling for Elite Brownie Points is if we were there in hir head. We aren't--why not take hir at hir word when s/he says s/he likes a book?
And readers? Sure, I don't doubt that any number of people pick up books that are aspirational--a certain group reads them and has a high opinion of them and this reader wants to be a member of that group. But when that reader finishes the book and then says, "Yeah, that was good," why not believe them? Why assume they're faking it just to look cultured? Once again, that's between them and Mithras. We can't see it.
Even if they came to liking it by reading a bunch of whatever the NYT recommended, that liking is probably still entirely sincere--I've found that repeated exposure to genres or styles or techniques leads to my eventually appreciating them better, even if they're not my cup of tea generally. So, sure, I'd say maybe some aspirational readers come to like that "serious" fiction because they kept banging their heads against it in an attempt to become someone who appreciated "serious" fiction. Their ultimate enjoyment is no less sincere for that, IMO.
There have been a number of, let's say, artistic endeavors, that for various reasons over time I've come to appreciate better than I once had. And having come to that point, hearing someone say "This is bullshit, a scam, these people at this exhibit/concert are just trying to look smart," and thinking, "Wait a minute, I really like this music/painting." After a few of those experiences, I realized that the only basis they had for making that judgement was the fact that they did not like the work.
Maybe if they spent time with it they'd understand it better and come to like it--maybe they'd understand it better and still not like it. No problem. Why conclude that no one else could really be honest when they say they like it?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-08-31 12:35 pm (UTC)And I'm also sure it's true that some number of people do read things because they think they're supposed to because otherwise they won't look smart or with it or educated, or whatever. And I'm sure there are writers who would rather eat worms sprinkled with ground glass than have their work described as sci-fi/romance/chick-lit.
But those writers--how do you know that's their motive for putting whatever markers of "serious fiction" in their work they do? I myself don't sit down and say "Oh, I'd better put some fantasy genre markers in this!" I write fantasy and science fiction because that's what I like. Because my aim is to be a fantasy and science fiction writer. The writer of "serious" fiction is also working in a genre, that has genre markers, and whatever social or cultural implications we or anyone might think "serious" fiction has, in the end the writer puts those markers in because that's the sort of story s/he wants to tell. Whether that's out of "pretension" is something only the writer and the Unconquered Sun know--I'm not sure that's a call we can make, sitting from here.
The reviewers? It's true that if they don't give the kinds of reviews their publication's readers expect, they'll lose their jobs. But why assume they're faking it, out of pretension or ambition, rather than assume that they really do like and appreciate the works they're reviewing? Sure, there's cultural cachet that goes with certain genres ("serious" or "literary" fiction) but why do we assume that those reviewers aren't reviewers of such fiction because they really like it and are good at and enjoy articulating why? That's part of the game, with that sort of fiction, that's part of the fun you get out of it. The snobbery is a separate deal--bad news, something I really don't like, but it's not an indicator that the snob is only praising a given work because otherwise he'll be out of step. The only way we could know that a reviewer was just angling for Elite Brownie Points is if we were there in hir head. We aren't--why not take hir at hir word when s/he says s/he likes a book?
And readers? Sure, I don't doubt that any number of people pick up books that are aspirational--a certain group reads them and has a high opinion of them and this reader wants to be a member of that group. But when that reader finishes the book and then says, "Yeah, that was good," why not believe them? Why assume they're faking it just to look cultured? Once again, that's between them and Mithras. We can't see it.
Even if they came to liking it by reading a bunch of whatever the NYT recommended, that liking is probably still entirely sincere--I've found that repeated exposure to genres or styles or techniques leads to my eventually appreciating them better, even if they're not my cup of tea generally. So, sure, I'd say maybe some aspirational readers come to like that "serious" fiction because they kept banging their heads against it in an attempt to become someone who appreciated "serious" fiction. Their ultimate enjoyment is no less sincere for that, IMO.
There have been a number of, let's say, artistic endeavors, that for various reasons over time I've come to appreciate better than I once had. And having come to that point, hearing someone say "This is bullshit, a scam, these people at this exhibit/concert are just trying to look smart," and thinking, "Wait a minute, I really like this music/painting." After a few of those experiences, I realized that the only basis they had for making that judgement was the fact that they did not like the work.
Maybe if they spent time with it they'd understand it better and come to like it--maybe they'd understand it better and still not like it. No problem. Why conclude that no one else could really be honest when they say they like it?