Goto Thread: PreviousNext
Goto:  Message ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Goto Page: 12AllNext
Current Page: 1 of 2
Genre
Posted by: Kyberean (IP Logged)
Date: 1 November, 2004 03:33PM
In another thread, Sawfish wrote, regarding Lovecraft and CAS, that "the contrast between these two great masters of this limited genre are very intruiging to me".

Below is a very short essay, written a while ago, expressing my feelings on the subject of genre and limitations. It endeavors to refute the idea that horror of fantasy are any more inherently limited than other forms.


Genre. Many persons separate horror or weird fiction from its mainstream, "respectable" variety. Most perceive it as being formulaic, repetitive, or ritualistic. Of course, horror or weird fiction is no more repetitive or ritualistic than any other literary genre. The more interesting question is, "Except for matters of convenience and ease of communication, why is weird fiction perceived as a separate genre; indeed, why does the idea of 'genre' exist at all?"

The fact that most consider the weird to be a separate genre is highly revealing. It implies that one form of literary representation represents the norm, and that everything else is a deviation from that norm. This notion also implies that the norm is superior to the deviation. Why do so few seem to question these classifications? Why-- outside the general designation of "the novel"--are the works of Dickens or Proust not considered to be part of a "genre"? They are, in fact, highly generic: To be specific, they belong to the genre of anthropocentric fiction that values above all else the "realistic" depiction of human social relationships, whether this "realism" be that of action, psychology, or both. It is only in our modern age that such a genre became primary. In wiser and more ancient days, it was horror and fantasy that were primary, especially in ages before the invention of literature proper, the days of poetry and myth. Unlike the decadent moderns, such peoples realized that fantasy and horror--and the sense of the numinous that accompanies them--were woven inextricably into the fabric of daily life. For them, anthropocentric, "realistic" fiction would be the deviant "genre", not horror or other forms of what we would today call "fantasy".

Now, of course, the genre of so-called "realistic" fiction is dominant. As Foucault and other Nietzschean thinkers have shown, not only does the dominant discourse of the age marginalize other equally valid, but deviant, discourses, it also makes itself invisible in the process. For instance, if someone were to go to any university literature department and state that Dickens wrote genre fiction, most professors would greet him with either uncomprehending stares or gales of laughter. As a coda to this observation, need one add that this phenomenon is hardly confined to the notion of literary genres?

Re: Genre
Posted by: Boyd (IP Logged)
Date: 1 November, 2004 04:19PM
Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In another thread, Sawfish wrote, regarding
> Lovecraft and CAS, that "the contrast between
> these two great masters of this limited genre are
> very intruiging to me".
>
> Below is a very short essay, written a while ago,
> expressing my feelings on the subject of genre and
> limitations. It endeavors to refute the idea that
> horror of fantasy are any more inherently limited
> than other forms.
>
>
> Genre. Many persons separate horror or weird
> fiction from its mainstream, "respectable"
> variety. Most perceive it as being formulaic,
> repetitive, or ritualistic. Of course, horror or
> weird fiction is no more repetitive or ritualistic
> than any other literary genre. The more
> interesting question is, "Except for matters of
> convenience and ease of communication, why is
> weird fiction perceived as a separate genre;
> indeed, why does the idea of 'genre' exist at
> all?"
>
> The fact that most consider the weird to be a
> separate genre is highly revealing. It implies
> that one form of literary representation
> represents the norm, and that everything else is a
> deviation from that norm.



horror genre, thriller genre, sci-fi genre, who-done-it genre, romance genre, historical-drama genre etc.

its just a classification like any other - humans like to pigeon-hole.

>Why do
> so few seem to question these classifications?
> Why-- outside the general designation of "the
> novel"--are the works of Dickens or Proust not
> considered to be part of a "genre"?

They are If I look at Oliver Twist amazon puts it in to the following genre

Subjects > Literature & Fiction > World Literature > British > Classics > Dickens, Charles
Subjects > Literature & Fiction > General > Classics
Subjects > Literature & Fiction > Authors, A-Z > ( D ) > Dickens, Charles > General
Subjects > Literature & Fiction > Authors, A-Z > ( D ) > Dickens, Charles > Paperback

look at any on line library catalogue and they will have a genre attached.

>This notion also implies
> that the norm is superior to the deviation.

I can separate sports car from the norm of car I'm not saying either is better its just convent to use that classification when shopping (no I'm not shopping for one -yet have to win lottery first). Its just a convenience not a judgement.


I believe your primary thesis is flawed.

B.

Re: Genre
Posted by: Kyberean (IP Logged)
Date: 1 November, 2004 06:05PM
Quote:
I believe your primary thesis is flawed.

And I believe that you haven't understood it very well.

Re: Genre
Posted by: Boyd (IP Logged)
Date: 1 November, 2004 08:24PM
Care to expand? My crystal ball is in the shop.

Re: Genre
Posted by: NightHalo (IP Logged)
Date: 2 November, 2004 12:59AM
Excuse my rather prosaic interruption, but I think perhaps what Kyberean was getting at was the question of why CAS's work and Lovecraft's are often grouped into fantasy/weird tale rather than literature.
In other words, why is it that their work is not seen as worthy as say, the short stories of someone like Mann or Zola, when both incorperate "fantasy" in the sense that it includes the author's imaginings?

I don't really have an answer to this, but I can pitch in that most professors I have seen do not consider fantasy and weird fiction as "literature."

Has anyone noticed how before the Lord of the Rings movie, Tolkien works were grouped in the fantasy shelves whereas now they are being put into the literature section quite often? It is something to think about...


Sorry if I am way off base...





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2 Nov 04 | 01:05AM by NightHalo.

Re: Genre
Posted by: voleboy (IP Logged)
Date: 2 November, 2004 01:40AM
I've seen LotR in with the media section, that is works adapted to or from film, etc., but have yet to seen it shelved among general literature.

In regards to Boyd, I remember when he asked me to help hunt up some dates for the associates page. I tried my best at the university library, but failed; however, the librarians there sniffed and said, icily, "We think some of these may have been science fiction authors." I thought at the time: idiot bitch, and I still would now.

Briefly, with genre, literary fiction is just one more genre. The problem is that the mainstream, and the academics, refuse to apply the term genre to it at all. Everything else is categorised as genre; as genre is formulaic, populist and barely worth considering, then all fiction other than literary fiction is not worth reading or writing about. It is this sort of privileging that postmodernist thought seeks to tear asunder. Popular fiction can be as worthy as elitist fiction. Martin Amis is on par with equivalent writers, since it is not what you talk about, but how you talk about it that matters.

People forget that kunstlieder used to be the pop songs of their time, too. And we must remember Dickens, now great literature, was a populist writer.

P

*Author of Strange Gardens [www.lulu.com]


*Editor of Calenture: a Journal of Studies in Speculative Verse [calenture.fcpages.com]

*Visit my homepage: [voleboy.freewebpages.org]

Re: Genre
Posted by: Sawfish (IP Logged)
Date: 2 November, 2004 11:35AM
Hugely interesting discussion!

May I butt in?

voleboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've seen LotR in with the media section, that is
> works adapted to or from film, etc., but have yet
> to seen it shelved among general literature.
>
> In regards to Boyd, I remember when he asked me to
> help hunt up some dates for the associates page.
> I tried my best at the university library, but
> failed; however, the librarians there sniffed and
> said, icily, "We think some of these may have been
> science fiction authors." I thought at the time:
> idiot bitch, and I still would now.
>
> Briefly, with genre, literary fiction is just one
> more genre. The problem is that the mainstream,
> and the academics, refuse to apply the term genre
> to it at all. Everything else is categorised as
> genre; as genre is formulaic, populist and barely
> worth considering, then all fiction other than
> literary fiction is not worth reading or writing
> about. It is this sort of privileging that
> postmodernist thought seeks to tear asunder.
> Popular fiction can be as worthy as elitist
> fiction. Martin Amis is on par with equivalent
> writers, since it is not what you talk about, but
> how you talk about it that matters.

Wholeheartedly agree, and would add that, while obtaining my BA in English Lit, I belatedly realized that many of the minute qualitative distinctions my profs wanted me to recognize in certain writers were merely personal prejudices. However, they wanted them validated by succeeding waves of young sycopahnts, and went to great lengths to...ah, "manufacture" external rationales for why, e.g., Fitzgerald was demonstrably superior to Hemingway--for such was the bias at the time. The reality was that they were both exceedingly effective artists, but if you liked the tone and themes that Hemingway seemed interested in exploring better than Fitzgerald's, you'd probably "like" Hemingway's works more. And this is not a qualitative judgement, but rather a matter of taste.

The more wily profs realized this and, if they personally disliked Hemingway's *life* (which basically means that they disapproved of Hemingway, and therefore found it difficult to give his work its due), they could fairly honestly show that Fitzgerald might handle characterization of women better, and that because of this *minor* point, this proved that Fitzgerald was a better writer, QED.

All because they liked Fitzgerald, as a person, better--or rather, found him less offensive than Hemingway.

This is what you have to contend with if you want to make a traditional study of literature. After one semester of post-grad, I decided that this was not for me. Now I try to judge a writer by their effectiveness in communicating to me some clear effect. I feel that I'm a reasonable test: I'm fairly cognizant fo literary device--although no match for many here on this board. And I'm willing to let them take their best shots at communicating. But they need to do so within the *basic* rules of the genre in whihc they write, or else provide a believable reason why they inject new rules, and that hey stick to these new rules, as well.

In closing, an example of what is extremely shoddy writing in terms of plot development is the screenplay for a movie I just picked up for my daughter, and watched with her in slack-jawed horror. The film was "Van Helsing", and the mere fact that the screenwriter(s) were not frog-marched outside of a theatre somewhere and shot summarily (no trial would be needed, the heinous nature of their transgressions being so obvious to all), proves beyond doubt that no objective notion of Justice exists. I would even go so far as to speculate that the places on the firing squad would have to have been awarded by lottery, since more people would have demanded to be on it that there would be room for them to stand and aim.



<SNIP>

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re: Genre
Posted by: calonlan (IP Logged)
Date: 2 November, 2004 12:42PM
Enjoying this - Byron wrote in his his rarely read "Thoughts on a College Examination" of the undergrads who "prate 'gainst that which they ne'er could imitate." The University is the last place one should go to learn to write, act, or perform great music - It is also, of course a lousy place to go to acquire the capacity for rational and disciplined thought in any of the humanities - children, it was not ever thus -
Once there was a fair land called Academe, where ideas flowed freely, and the demon of the politically correct, and the horror of academic thought police did not hold power over the contents of either your mind or your theses and dissertations - few indeed are the oases that remain.
drf

Re: Genre
Posted by: Kyberean (IP Logged)
Date: 2 November, 2004 05:58PM
Quote:
Care to expand? My crystal ball is in the shop.

It shouldn't require expansion or a crystal ball, but, since you asked....

Quote:
horror genre, thriller genre, sci-fi genre, who-done-it genre, romance genre, historical-drama genre etc.
its just a classification like any other - humans like to pigeon-hole.

Yes, that's a commonplace, but it should be obvious that my little essay has nothing to do with this. In fact, I already covered this point as much as it needs to be covered. Let me repeat: "The more interesting question is, 'Except for matters of convenience and ease of communication, why is weird fiction perceived as a separate genre; indeed, why does the idea of 'genre' exist at all?'" [my emphasis]

>Why do
> so few seem to question these classifications?
> Why-- outside the general designation of "the
> novel"--are the works of Dickens or Proust not
> considered to be part of a "genre"?

Quote:
They are If I look at Oliver Twist amazon puts it in to the following genre
Subjects > Literature & Fiction > World Literature > British > Classics > Dickens, Charles
Subjects > Literature & Fiction > General > Classics
Subjects > Literature & Fiction > Authors, A-Z > ( D ) > Dickens, Charles > General
Subjects > Literature & Fiction > Authors, A-Z > ( D ) > Dickens, Charles > Paperback

look at any on line library catalogue and they will have a genre attached.

First, as a Master's degree candidate in library and information science, I'm quite familiar with library catalogues. You seem to think that I'm describing practical classification schemes, when, in fact, what I am discussing is the idea of a norm and a deviation from a norm. As NightHalo states, such a distinction between norms and a deviation from them allows for the "ghettoizing" of the deviations.

Also, look above at the classification scheme that you cite. The only comments pertinent to genre in the sense in which I'm using the term are incredibly broad: "world literature", "classics", etc. When one refers to Dickens, one thinks "novelist", without any notion of genre (in the sense of "Western", "Science Fiction", "Horror", etc.) attached to his name. Dickens's sort of fiction is simply the norm, one that reflects a particular world-view and a particular set of values. Again, as NightHalo realizes, my question is this: Aside from matters of convenience, why are Lovecraft, M.R. James, Clark Ashton Smith, et al not simply considered as authors who produce literature, as well? Why, aside from convenience, must we always qualify their work with the generic epithets "horror", "ghost stories", and the like, whereas the works of Dickens and others are rarely, if ever, qualified by the genre of fiction to which they belong?

>This notion also implies
> that the norm is superior to the deviation.

Quote:
I can separate sports car from the norm of car I'm not saying either is better its just convent to use that classification when shopping (no I'm not shopping for one -yet have to win lottery first). Its just a convenience not a judgement.

And you really think that this analogy applies to, say, horror literature versus Literature with a capital "L"? Lol. If so, then there's really no need for further discussion.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2 Nov 04 | 06:24PM by Kyberean.

Re: Genre
Posted by: Boyd (IP Logged)
Date: 2 November, 2004 07:05PM
Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And you really think that this analogy applies to,
> say, horror literature versus Literature with a
> capital "L"? Lol. If so, then there's really no
> need for further discussion.
>
oh we are smug. you may see this global conspiracy against one genre vs another, I simply don't.

Re: Genre
Posted by: NightHalo (IP Logged)
Date: 2 November, 2004 07:07PM
On a side note, I have seen one professor break the mold. This is the booklist for the Spring 2004 course for Honors English Thesis (undergraduate) at UCB:


Recommended Texts: Wallace, D.F.: Infinite Jes; Anderson, B.: Imagined Communities; Michaels, A.: Fugitive Pieces; Pramoedya, A.: The Earth of Mankind; Forster, E.M.: Maurice; Davis, K.: Hell; Lahiri, J.: Interpreter of Maladies; Lovecraft, H.P.: The Call of Cthulhu ; Gaskell, E.: Gothic Tales; Lodge, D.: Souls and Bodies, Paradise News, Out of the Shelter



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2 Nov 04 | 07:08PM by NightHalo.

Re: Genre
Posted by: Sawfish (IP Logged)
Date: 2 November, 2004 07:23PM
Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Care to expand? My crystal ball is in the shop.
>
> It shouldn't require expansion or a crystal ball,
> but, since you asked....
>
horror genre, thriller genre, sci-fi genre,
> who-done-it genre, romance genre, historical-drama
> genre etc.
>
> its just a classification like any other - humans
> like to pigeon-hole.
>
> Yes, that's a commonplace, but it should be
> obvious that my little essay has nothing to do
> with this. In fact, I already covered this point
> as much as it needs to be covered. Let me repeat:
> "The more interesting question is, 'Except for
> matters of convenience and ease of communication,
> why is weird fiction perceived as a separate
> genre; indeed, why does the idea of 'genre' exist
> at all?'"

Is your argument with the idea of the existence of genre, or is it with the perceived status between works classified as "genre" and mainstream works, and to extend it, among genres, themselves?

If the former, then you're aguing against the idea of classification, in general, it seems, and this is probably the very definition of "quixotic".

If the latter, you have a point. So, what do you propose we do about it?

>
> >Why do
> > so few seem to question these
> classifications?
> > Why-- outside the general designation of "the
>
> > novel"--are the works of Dickens or Proust
> not
> > considered to be part of a "genre"?
>
They are If I look at Oliver Twist amazon puts it
> in to the following genre
>
> Subjects > Literature & Fiction > World
> Literature > British > Classics >
> Dickens, Charles
> Subjects > Literature & Fiction >
> General > Classics
> Subjects > Literature & Fiction >
> Authors, A-Z > ( D ) > Dickens, Charles >
> General
> Subjects > Literature & Fiction >
> Authors, A-Z > ( D ) > Dickens, Charles >
> Paperback
>
> look at any on line library catalogue and they
> will have a genre attached.
>
> First, as a Master's degree candidate in library
> and information science, I'm quite familiar with
> library catalogues. You seem to think that I'm
> describing practical classification schemes, when,
> in fact, what I am discussing is the idea of a
> norm and a deviation from a norm. As NightHalo
> states, such a distinction between norms and a
> deviation from them allows for the "ghettoizing"
> of the deviations.

But not necessarily so!

I'm getting the feeling that, to prevent this "ghetto-izing," you would dispense with the natural tendency to generalize along lines of similarity. Is this correct?

>
> Also, look above at the classification scheme that
> you cite. The only comments pertinent to genre in
> the sense in which I'm using the term are
> incredibly broad: "world literature", "classics",
> etc. When one refers to Dickens, one thinks
> "novelist", without any notion of genre (in the
> sense of "Western", "Science Fiction", "Horror",
> etc.) attached to his name. Dickens's sort of
> fiction is simply the norm, one that reflects a
> particular world-view and a particular set of
> values. Again, as NightHalo realizes, my question
> is this: Aside from matters of convenience, why
> are Lovecraft, M.R. James, Clark Ashton Smith, et
> al not simply considered as authors who produce
> literature, as well?
> Why, aside from convenience,
> must we always qualify their work with the generic
> epithets "horror", "ghost stories", and the like,
> whereas the works of Dickens and others are
> rarely, if ever, qualified by the genre of fiction
> to which they belong?

Because the writers you're using as examples of mainstream are sufficiently well-known that it's not necessary to give their work a descriptive label, out of a sense of convenience.

I'm convinced that the reason is a lot more innocuous than you seem to imply.

>
> >This notion also implies
> > that the norm is superior to the deviation.
>
I can separate sports car from the norm of car
> I'm not saying either is better its just convent
> to use that classification when shopping (no I'm
> not shopping for one -yet have to win lottery
> first). Its just a convenience not a judgement.
>
> And you really think that this analogy applies to,
> say, horror literature versus Literature with a
> capital "L"?

Who knows? Who cares? All I can say is that I, for one, am damned glad that someone identified De La Mare as a fanstasy writer who could really do characterization. I want to find examples of fantasy with decent character development, and the classification has help me.

> Lol. If so, then there's really no
> need for further discussion.

What would you prefer: a signed statement by the staff of the NY Times Book Review that they think that all writers previously identified by genre are just as good as those labeled mainstream? What would this accomplish?

This discussion is reminiscent of post-game interviews with college athletes who like to portray themselves as having been wrongfully denied their due respect. In that case, it is comically obvious case of self-aggrandizememt. What's your stake in this?


Re: Genre
Posted by: Kyberean (IP Logged)
Date: 2 November, 2004 07:45PM
Quote:
oh we are smug. you may see this global conspiracy against one genre vs another, I simply don't.

Nothing smug about it; it's just that there's no sense wasting time in a discussion when there seems to be no basis whatsoever for mutual comprehension. And please, spare me the "global conspiracy" tripe. If you can refute my arguments, then do so, but don't distort my position.

Re: Genre
Posted by: Kyberean (IP Logged)
Date: 2 November, 2004 08:17PM
Quote:
Is your argument with the idea of the existence of genre, or is it with the perceived status between works classified as "genre" and mainstream works, and to extend it, among genres, themselves?
If the former, then you're aguing against the idea of classification, in general, it seems, and this is probably the very definition of "quixotic".

If the latter, you have a point. So, what do you propose we do about it?

I'm arguing against the idea of fixed classifications, not against classifications as forms of convenience. I advocate making clear that the notion of genre is arbitrary, and would also advocate reminding others, whenever possible, of that fact by showing that humanistic, realistic, psychological and other forms of fiction are as generic as horror, fantasy, Westerns, etc. Either everything is generic, or nothing is. Better by far, I think, to describe the main features of the work in question, whatever they may be, than to resort to simple-minded pigeonholes--and, in particular, to pretend that there exists literature that could not be so pigeonholed, should one choose to do so, against which one defines "mere" genre fiction, for instance.

Quote:
But not necessarily so!

I never said that it was, but in practice it seems to be so, more often than not.

Quote:
I'm getting the feeling that, to prevent this "ghetto-izing," you would dispense with the natural tendency to generalize along lines of similarity. Is this correct?

I advocate attempts to reach beyond ordinary patterns and limitations of human thought, wherever possible. Take that as you will.

Quote:
Because the writers you're using as examples of mainstream are sufficiently well-known that it's not necessary to give their work a descriptive label, out of a sense of convenience.
I'm convinced that the reason is a lot more innocuous than you seem to imply.

I don't quite follow you, here. There's no question in my mind, however, that to relegate a work to the status of "genre" is to belittle it relative to other, more ostensibly "universal" works. You yourself referred to horror, fantasy and the like as a "limited genre". I simply don't agree with you.

Quote:
Who knows? Who cares? All I can say is that I, for one, am damned glad that someone identified De La Mare as a fanstasy writer who could really do characterization. I want to find examples of fantasy with decent character development, and the classification has help me.

I care, for the reasons I mentioned, but no one else is obligated to care. For the last time: I have no difficulty with classifications as signposts to aid movement; I have great difficulty with the idea of classifications as fixed pigeonholes, and "genre" is such a notion.

Quote:
What would you prefer: a signed statement by the staff of the NY Times Book Review that they think that all writers previously identified by genre are just as good as those labeled mainstream? What would this accomplish?

I despise reductio ad absurdum as a rhetorical tactic, and I never respond to it, so you may as well leave that one in the toolbox. As for your "stake" comment, and your concomitant trivialization of the discussion, I have no comment, either, except that, if you find the discussion to be on the level that you describe, then you are welcome to ignore it.

Re: Genre
Posted by: Sawfish (IP Logged)
Date: 2 November, 2004 11:06PM
Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is your argument with the idea of the existence of
> genre, or is it with the perceived status between
> works classified as "genre" and mainstream works,
> and to extend it, among genres, themselves?
>
> If the former, then you're aguing against the idea
> of classification, in general, it seems, and this
> is probably the very definition of "quixotic".
>
> If the latter, you have a point. So, what do you
> propose we do about it?
>
> I'm arguing against the idea of fixed
> classifications, not against classifications as
> forms of convenience. I advocate making clear that
> the notion of genre is arbitrary, and would also
> advocate reminding others, whenever possible, of
> that fact by showing that humanistic, realistic,
> psychological and other forms of fiction are as
> generic as horror, fantasy, Westerns, etc.

OK.

> Either
> everything is generic, or nothing is.

I'd agree: if we wanted to spend the time, we could come up with a decent definition of mainstream genre. We could split it up into smaller genres.

But I'm afraid that there's no getting away from the human tendancy to classify on salient similarities.

> Better by
> far, I think, to describe the main features of the
> work in question, whatever they may be, than to
> resort to simple-minded pigeonholes--and, in
> particular, to pretend that there exists
> literature that could not be so pigeonholed,
> should one choose to do so, against which one
> defines "mere" genre fiction, for instance.

I'm reading your rhetoric as becoming increasingly over-wrought. It appears to me--and I could certainly be wrong--that you are all but manufacturing a strawman here.

>
But not necessarily so!
>
> I never said that it was, but in practice it seems
> to be so, more often than not.

...and for the sake of argument, what if that were true?

I don't need the agreement or approval of authorities when juding the quality of art. If they happen to disagree with me consistently, I ignore them.

>
I'm getting the feeling that, to prevent this
> "ghetto-izing," you would dispense with the
> natural tendency to generalize along lines of
> similarity. Is this correct?
>
> I advocate attempts to reach beyond ordinary
> patterns and limitations of human thought,
> wherever possible. Take that as you will.

I could take that almost anywhere. Is that your intent?

>
Because the writers you're using as examples of
> mainstream are sufficiently well-known that it's
> not necessary to give their work a descriptive
> label, out of a sense of convenience.
>
> I'm convinced that the reason is a lot more
> innocuous than you seem to imply.
>
> I don't quite follow you, here. There's no
> question in my mind, however, that to relegate a
> work to the status of "genre" is to belittle it
> relative to other, more ostensibly "universal"
> works.

Even if that were true, I wouldn't care. What I don't understand is why you seem to care so much. There's no cosmic justice here, you know, just personal taste.

>You yourself referred to horror, fantasy
> and the like as a "limited genre". I simply don't
> agree with you.

Perhaps you are right: I don;t necessarily see it as limited, except in relative number of practitioners.

>
Who knows? Who cares? All I can say is that I,
> for one, am damned glad that someone identified De
> La Mare as a fanstasy writer who could really do
> characterization. I want to find examples of
> fantasy with decent character development, and the
> classification has help me.
>
> I care, for the reasons I mentioned, but no one
> else is obligated to care. For the last time: I
> have no difficulty with classifications as
> signposts to aid movement; I have great difficulty
> with the idea of classifications as fixed
> pigeonholes, and "genre" is such a notion.

OK. You have difficulties, and will continue to have them, I fear...

>
What would you prefer: a signed statement by the
> staff of the NY Times Book Review that they think
> that all writers previously identified by genre
> are just as good as those labeled mainstream? What
> would this accomplish?
>
> I despise reductio ad absurdum as a rhetorical
> tactic, and I never respond to it, so you may as
> well leave that one in the toolbox. As for your
> "stake" comment, and your concomitant
> trivialization of the discussion, I have no
> comment, either, except that, if you find the
> discussion to be on the level that you describe,
> then you are welcome to ignore it.

Well, it's moving in that direction pretty much because your only form of discussion is to repeat your pet peeves, then refuse to answer questions concerning the details of your position.

I beg your pardon with regards to my use of "conversational hyperbole": it's merely a personal form of expression. I like to overstate the mundane and understate the remarkable as a way of drawing attention to points. That was my intent wit hte remark about the NY Times BR. But the underlying question remains: what would satisfy your sense of propriety as regards generic classification of literature? I so far can see no workable course. Maybe you've thought of one?




--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Goto Page: 12AllNext
Current Page: 1 of 2


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Top of Page