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?

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.

Quote:

I believe your primary thesis is flawed.

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

Care to expand? My crystal ball is in the shop.

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.

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]

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."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi,

This issue is quite difficult. It seems to me that the term of "genre" is a confusing one. What is the definition of a "genre" ? According to Aristote, there is only two genre : theater (representation) and epic (narration). According to the XIX century theories, there is three : poetry, novel and theater. But one can also consider the genre with a sharper definition, also being codified since Antiquity : tragedy, comedy, elegy, ethopeia... . And yet we can see there is already some kind of confusion : for is it a formal definition or a thematical definition ? For example, what is defining Tragedy ? Is it its thematics or is it its forms which help you to say : "this is a Tragedy" ? Aye ! Both, I guess. Yet, modern tragedy are pretty different from, say classical tragedy. Specially in the form, it seems. But is it so sure ? In fact, I think one should admit there is a genre when there are parodies of it, this is to say texts which are making a close formal imitation while turning signification in a totally different way (ex: possesed by the devil, you're murdering a tomato to make a soup). Making a close formal imitation suppose formal regularities one can identify as such. It is the ability of identification of formal regularities, -ability itself due to memories of similar forms - which allows to say : this belongs to this genre, and as such it has this and that formal caracteristics.

After thoses litteray consideration of the genre, are coming the editorial consideration of it. And here come the fablulous expansion of denominations more or less pertinents : horror genre, thriller genre, sci-fi genre, who-done-it genre, romance genre, historical-drama genre. I suppose you willingly did not mention all thoses labels for science-fiction : "It's SF ?" "What SF ? Swords and Filthy ?" "No ! Science and Fantasy, but it's the Road Movie of a Serial Killer close to Hard-Science in a kind of Space-Opera universe !"
All those "genre" are thematics oriented, but not formal oriented. They don't say anything but the bookshelf you're supposed to find them at your shopkeeper. And, well... (Let's make some ennemies) I always felt sad to see Master Tolkien was in the neibourhood of ... appaling David Eddings.
In French, we are not speaking about "weird litterature", but about "Littérature Fantastique", which is not exactly covering the same field. "Fantastique" supposes a supernatural event, which is not a condition for "weird" litterature. "Supernatural Horror" is not the equivalent of "Fantastique", for many fantastique stories can be deprived of any horror (ex : O. Wilde, Dunsany).
And if fantastique - or weird - litterature is a genre, thematicaly defined by the term "weird" or "fantastique", it does not state anything about its formal caracteristics.

And yet, formal caracteritics are existing to fantastique or weird litterature : oxymore(living-dead),allegories,double meaning of words,... Well, mostly "figures" one can find among Baroco arts (for ex : Theophile de Viau).

There was a dispise of french university toward fantastique litterature, but on the whole, it started to decrease 30 years ago. It seems that for a generation or two in the middle of the XX century, science-fiction, fantasy and supernatural stories have been moved to the child books, probably in this period where rationalism and ingenering was highly praised and imagination and dream wonderfully despised.

Well, I don't mind to much about a separation between "Great" Litterature and Weird or fantastique litterature. Maybe it is the sign that weird and fantastique litterature are much more popular than the "great classics". And, well, it's a good sign !

Cheers !

David!

You should note the various polls in England, and the recent one in Australia, listing readers' favourite books. Lord of the Rings consistently comes in first, which says a deal about the fantastic.

What you may need to remember is that different cultures categorise differently. Thus in France you have the fantastic, which differs from the English scemas, confusing as they can be (I once spent a class that tried, stupidly, to define the difference between horror and terror on the lines of probability of happening). In English we define the difference between 'the romance' (as in Wells' 'scientific romance') and 'the novel', whereas this split is not apparent in many continental systems (such as the use of the German 'roman' to cover both).

I had a teacher who once said good literature tells a story or makes a point about the world, and great literature does both; that latter definition is what has stuck with me, and that's what I look for irregardless of whether it is highbrow or lowbrow in 'nature'.

Genre is actually quite a useful concept when deciding which bookshop to enter. It's very much a question of marketing. Outside of that, can't a genre work become accepted by the literary establishment and eventually become a "classic"? If I want to find "Frankenstein" or even "Melmoth the Wanderer", this is the shelf I would have to look on.

Of course, where there is an "establishment", there will also be snobbery and all that goes with it. There will be stereotyping and rejection of what is not approved of by the establishment. But then these people have careers to pursue. They have ulterior motives. It's a game. Who knows - every now and then someone will pluck a work from the "genre" bin and declare it a masterpiece, just to show what a clever person they are for finding it.

So I wouldn't worry too much about it. It isn't the literary professors who pose a threat to readers and writers, but the shareholders and money men who call the shots in the publishing industry - who would rather spend money promoting the latest David Eddings than risk it on an untried author.

This discussion has made "genre" out to be an entirely passive thing, imposed from without. Are writers never self-consciously generic? Was Lovecraft not defining his own genre when he wrote "Supernatural Horror in Literature"? Does it have to be a major problem?

There is a possibility that genre has a lifespan - leading from innovation through to self-parody - with the dull stuff in the middle. This is the view of Michael Moorcock - a writer who has straddled the "mainstream" and "genre" worlds yet identifies with neither. Certainly CAS, Lovecraft and Howard were great innovators; I think it would be very hard to write in their style today without resorting to parody or pastiche...

Quote:

Was Lovecraft not defining his own genre when he wrote "Supernatural Horror in Literature"?

Not really. Look closely at the title. It's Supernatural Horror in Literature, not Supernatural Literature or Horror Literature. Lovecraft's study discusses a thematic element within literature; it does not refer to a genre per se.

Quote:

Does it have to be a major problem?

I don't recall suggesting that it is a "major problem", just that it is arbitrary, as is the entire notion of "genre". My entire point is that one can make a "genre" out of anything, including mainstream fiction, as I indicated using the example of Dickens. I dislike the notion of norms and (ostensibly inferior) deviations from that norm in the arts, that's all. If others don't care, then that's fine with me. I should add (if I didn't make this clear from my prior posts here, although I believe that I did) that there is nothing wrong with using genre as a practical matter (bookstore signage and the like), so long as one does not get attached to the idea, or assume that it reflects a reality beyond the mind that creates such notions.

Hi,

What I was trying to point out, is that we may seriously speak about "genre" only when it has some formal caracteristics. Thematics cannot be enough.
However, from E.T.A. Hoffmann to Smith through Balzac and Henri James, we have pretty different forms of "fantastique" or "weird" literrature. And still, we recognise they have something in common : A glogal signification, a global meaning. And since Matthew Lewis's Monk, fantastique points out that there's no meaning. It an existentialist litterature.
There is another argument against the use of "fantastique" or "weird" to consider this type of litterature since gothic novels : it has much changed in its forms. Thus can we speak of a "genre" fantastique ? When there are novels (or romances), theater, poetry, paintings, sculpture we can consider as "fantastique". No, Fantastique or Weird are not "genre". They are rather a global signification : Allegories of a philosophical speech, "Fables" or "contes philosophiques". Yet, we the concept of "fable" we have something generic.

David Dunais Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi,

Hello, David!

This is a fine discussion from which I will learn much.

I am intruigued by your discrimination between genre and thematic content on technical grounds. I think that this has real validity and is the key to this discussion. I think perhaps we have been using the term "genre" inprecisel--that is, until your contributions.

However, I do have other points that I wish to raise throughout the discussion.

>
> What I was trying to point out, is that we may
> seriously speak about "genre" only when it has
> some formal caracteristics.

Such as verse, theatre, epistles, etc., if I understand you correctly. This make a lot of sense to me.

Therefore, assuming that we are limiting this discussion to the literary arena, the *largest* classification is genre, in the sense, above? Then an attribute of the genre might be thematic content, as well as possible other attributes at the same hierarchical level.

I would like to posit that maybe term "theme" used in this context (horror, fantasy, war, social manners, etc.) might be too loose a use of theme. Perhaps we could define theme with similar precision as we have "genre".

The first grab off the web, I got:

"a unifying idea that is a recurrent element in a literary or artistic work; "it was the usual `boy gets girl' theme""

I once had a professor who maintained that if a theme cannot be expressed in a simple delcalrative sentence, it's probably not a theme, at all.

Perhaps "theme" is associated with the notion of "archetype"?

> Thematics cannot be
> enough.
> However, from E.T.A. Hoffmann to Smith through
> Balzac and Henri James, we have pretty different
> forms of "fantastique" or "weird" literrature. And
> still, we recognise they have something in common
> : A glogal signification, a global meaning. And
> since Matthew Lewis's Monk, fantastique points out
> that there's no meaning. It an existentialist
> litterature.

Please expand this idea that fantasy is "existential" in nature. If possible, please contrast it with an example of modern literature that is not existential.

> There is another argument against the use of
> "fantastique" or "weird" to consider this type of
> litterature since gothic novels : it has much
> changed in its forms. Thus can we speak of a
> "genre" fantastique ? When there are novels (or
> romances), theater, poetry, paintings, sculpture
> we can consider as "fantastique". No, Fantastique
> or Weird are not "genre". They are rather a global
> signification :

I agree with this reasoning. A global attribute of a genre, or something else. But are they actually thematic (fanatsy, horror, historical fiction, etc), or is "theme" a more narrow definition, since I would hold that "man's recognition of his own mortality" ss a theme that could be treated in both fantastic and non-fastastic literature. Therefore, what fantasy is (or horror, etc.) may actually be some component of setting: the universe in which the story takes place. E.g., the classic "where/when" of setting in definitely affected by fantasy. The time may be an unknown epoch; the place may be non-existent.

I'm just stabbing around here, and would truly like your opinion. I'm really intrigued that this might be laid out hierarchically, like class in object-oriented programming. Maybe this was done in some of my Literature classes, but I was asleep, or was trying to get a date with an attractive co-ed.

> Allegories of a philosophical
> speech, "Fables" or "contes philosophiques". Yet,
> we the concept of "fable" we have something
> generic.

This is a *fine* discussion!

Quote:

I think perhaps we have been using the term "genre" inprecisel--that is, until your contributions.

I think that I'll demur from the over-inclusive "we". The sense in which I used the term genre was quite evident: Horror fiction, fantasy fiction, realistic fiction, romance fiction, etc. If these aren't "genres", then tell me what they are, please, because these categories do seem to correspond to forms of literature as people conceive them. My post that originated this thread wasn't about defining the niceties of the term genre, though; for my purposes, the schema I outlined above was quite sufficient. As so often happens, however, the discussion has mutated in such a way that it no longer has anything to do with the concerns that prompted me to start this thread. That's fine, of course--hijackings occur all the time, and I'm as guilty of this as any--but this fact means I don't really have much to contribute to the current discussion. I'll simply repeat what I wrote in response to Mikey_C: The notion that there exists one category called "literature" and a series of sub-sets of literature denoted by their (alleged) dominant attributes is arbitrary. My entire point is that one can make a "genre" out of anything, including mainstream literature, as I indicated using the example of Dickens. I dislike the notion of norms and (ostensibly inferior) deviations from that norm in the arts, that's all.

Hi

Quote:

"hijackings occur all the time"

Yeah, it surely does. But I was interested to see that part of the discussion was due to different understandings of "genre".

Quote:

"The notion that there exists one category called "literature" and a series of sub-sets of literature denoted by their (alleged) dominant attributes is arbitrary".

I suppose you're partially right in your observation. And I would extend it to what is not "fantasy". Well, with limitations due to personal examples : I'm preparing a litterature degree to teach litterature at School, in France. Well, it's almost like there is nothing but french literature. It is not considered in its relations with german, english, american literature. Spain and Italy are considered for their influence upon XVI and XVII century. That's all. Well, it's the same phenomenon of discrimination than between "Grande Literature" and "genres". I'm afraid it is not specific to univeritarians. Narrowminds are well shared everywhere. Of course, it is a kind of a stupid.

Maybe there are historical periods which are favorables to a kind of "genre" (I mean specific forms illustrating/serving/"speaking" a specific theme) : Can't we find in arts throught history a kind of pendulum between gothic/baroco/romantic, extreme attitude and antic/classic/reasonable, "middle path" attitude.
So, yes, it is arbitrary, as history is arbitrary for us, coming after ;-)
The way to escape it ? Better cope with it (does "cope" exists in english ???)

Quote:

" I'm really intrigued that this might be laid out hierarchically, like class in object-oriented programming"

Well, I'm thinking about it since years, but I now believe it to be senseless (and I did something totally different, [indexfantastique.phpnet.org], but? yeah ! it's in french !). In fact, explosion - demultiplications - of the forms, "pulverisation" fo forms since XIX century made things impossible through a "pragmatic" approach : one cannot make the inventory of modern forms, they're too numerous. But I suppose we could imagine something as such with "traditionnal" forms. And for sure, keeping in mind this is just a comparative tool. I believe I have a strong argument for that : all literature was made considering former literature, consciously or not. All the writers up to the first quarter of XX century were latinists and a good number of them hellenists. I strongly suggest to read Horace's Ars Poetica to compare with the weird art.
Yes, of course it is a question of norm. I hate norms as constraints to mass mediocrity . OK. This being said, it might prove to be usefull as a comparing tool....

Quote:

"I would hold that "man's recognition of his own mortality" ss a theme that could be treated in both fantastic and non-fastastic literature. Therefore, what fantasy is (or horror, etc.) may actually be some component of setting: the universe in which the story takes place. "

You point it out ! The difference between the fantastic or not fantastic does not lay in the nature of the supernatural event described, but in its acceptability or non-acceptability in the mind of the reader, in the reader's universe (I'm not too sure its depending on the universe depicted in the story). Well, for example, in a traditionnal society, say India in contry side, if a ghost is awaking someone asleep by murmuring in his hear, well, there is a solution : "there is nothing impossible to God". But if in modern society, well, it would results most probably into insanity of the subject : for "such things cannot be". Fantastic lays in this impossibility which is and forces me to reconsider my conception of the world. IT build a tension between what is not-acceptable and what yet could be (modern trash literature is going further, forcing us to consider that what is non-acceptable is).
In fact, my conceptions about fantastique literature are quite close to S.T. Joshi's ideas about HPL. Yet, I don't say that ALL fantastic writers are atheists or believers. But fantastic literature is a product of modern atheist society. And it asks the existential question : "What the hell are we doing here ? Does I mean something in that mess". And first it tries to give a "romantic" answer : "theres are some mysterious "correspondances" linking things to things, there is a principle unifying the world" (sturm&drang,gothic novel,romantics up to Poe and Baudelaire, but still with the suspicion that it does not work). And second it states that "this underlying principle is evil", which is sliding to the concept of chaos (decadentism from Swinburne up to HPL and CAS(?)). And third it turn to absurd and non-sense, childs of chaos.
That was for :

Quote:

"Please expand this idea that fantasy is "existential" in nature. If possible, please contrast it with an example of modern literature that is not existential."

Well, I don't speak about "fantasy" but about "fantastique" (that's where the discutable word "genre" comes of some use). Maybe it is also existential in nature because it push asides limits of man (in connection with limits of writings), because its conquering its field upon impossibility, turning it to possible, but thus meeting its own limit : behind, there is still some "impossibility". It is a conscious construction upon vertigo of chaos, designed to show the chaos. Fantastique has a programme lying in impossibility.
Still, you're right, i'm afraid it does not make it different from the rest of modern literature. Well, if you put the big "L". And *That* is a sign that Fantastique has something to do with "Great Literature".
There is another strong sign : each major writer, "mainstream" writer of the XIX century commited himself more or less into Fantastique, Weird or "Fantasy" (I don't clearly kown what you mean with that ? REHoward, JRRT ? ) : Hawthorne, W. Irving, W. Scott, Byron, Balzac, Hugo, Flaubert, Dickens, Stevenson, O. Wilde, H. James. Even Zola, Zola the naturalist. I think one cannot separate Fantastique/Weird Literature from "Literature"

Quote:

I suppose you're partially right in your observation.

Silly me--I think that I'm completely right, but I'm weary of arguing the point....

Good luck with your literature degree. I hope that you are familiar with, and fond of, the works of Julien Gracq. I've dropped his name in this forum a couple of times, to no response. That's a shame, as anyone who appreciates CAS's poetic prose would appreciate Gracq's magisterial prose-poetry, as well, even though Gracq does not write "weird fiction" (Uh-oh, it's that "genre" thing, or whatever it is, rearing its head again.... ;-) ).

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quote:I think perhaps we have been using the term
> "genre" inprecisel--that is, until your
> contributions.
>
> I think that I'll demur from the over-inclusive
> "we". The sense in which I used the term genre was
> quite evident: Horror fiction, fantasy fiction,
> realistic fiction, romance fiction, etc. If these
> aren't "genres", then tell me what they are,
> please, because these categories do seem to
> correspond to forms of literature as people
> conceive them.

I believe that this is the conventional usage, against which you are railing.

Here's a conventional definition that I pulled off of the web:

GENRE: A type of literature or film marked by certain shared features or conventions. The three broadest categories of genre include poetry, drama, and fiction. These general genres are often subdivided into more specific genres. For instance, precise examples of genres might include murder mysteries, western films, sonnets, lyric poetry, epics, tragedies, etc.

[guweb2.gonzaga.edu]

Seems like a good, broad-based, commonly held definition, doesn't it?

> My post that originated this thread
> wasn't about defining the niceties of the term
> genre, though; for my purposes, the schema I
> outlined above was quite sufficient. As so often
> happens, however, the discussion has mutated in
> such a way that it no longer has anything to do
> with the concerns that prompted me to start this
> thread. That's fine, of course--hijackings occur
> all the time, and I'm as guilty of this as
> any--but this fact means I don't really have much
> to contribute to the current discussion. I'll
> simply repeat what I wrote in response to Mikey_C:
> The notion that there exists one category called
> "literature" and a series of sub-sets of
> literature denoted by their (alleged) dominant
> attributes is arbitrary. My entire point is that
> one can make a "genre" out of anything, including
> mainstream literature, as I indicated using the
> example of Dickens.

Up to this point I can agree wholeheartedly. This seems emminiently sensible because works well to describe the actual logical delineations: poetry, prose, theatre as the 1st level of literature (itself a genre); horror, SF, war, etc., as sub-sets. It could go lower, perhaps: "feminist fantasy", or even "militant feminist Marxist fantasy".

I'll agree that it gets silly after a while, but there is value in categorization, if for no other reason than to ease the comparison of similar works. We won't likely try comparing Hemingway against Tolkein, unless we're out for something pretty unusual.

>I dislike the notion of norms
> and (ostensibly inferior) deviations from that
> norm in the arts, that's all.

But from here on, you are evidently flogging a dead horse, the saving grace being that it's *your own* dead horse, to do with as you wish.

This is like nothing so much as the dowager aunt who detests flatulence and therefore never mentions it, in hopes that somehow this will rid the world of it. Of course, it won't; it only "marginalizes" her--or rather, she willfully marginalizes herself.

But no doubt this is the way she likes it...