tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7119990365479009764.post5185189671385992239..comments2024-03-14T18:09:09.667-05:00Comments on Do Some Damage: (Literary) Fight ClubUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7119990365479009764.post-39064536279359312022010-05-21T13:50:03.506-05:002010-05-21T13:50:03.506-05:00While agree with your basic point -- the literary ...While agree with your basic point -- the literary vs. genre argument is inane -- there is one point I'd like to hit on, if I may.<br /><br />You ask, "Why do they have to be in competition at all?" You're speaking about genres overall, but the question could just as easily apply to writers individually.<br /><br />The answer is that they have to be in competition because there are only so many people and there are only so many hours in the day. There is only so much currency available -- not just literal currency, but the currency of audience and time, as well.<br /><br />It isn't just doing the writing that we care about, is it? It's the getting published part, as well. And it's the making enough money to keep doing the writing part, too.<br /><br />The truth of the matter is that every person who chooses to read someone else's book instead of ours is a lost opportunity for us, and every dollar that goes to that other writer is a dollar we aren't going to get.<br /><br />So, depending on what our goals are, yes, we're all in competition. It doesn't matter if one writer writes "literary," whatever that means, another writer writes crime fiction, another writes fantasy -- we're all competing for the limited audience available, who have limited cash and limited time, and so must make choices.<br /><br />And we're not even competing just against other writers. We're competing against TV, movies, radio, music, exercise, eating dinner, driving for pleasure, playing golf, playing games, playing the piano, playing with the kids, having a conversation, downloading pr(/)n -- whatever it is, we're competing against it.<br /><br />If you've ever just paid attention during a political campaign or watched any sort of advertising or even just listened to athletes talk trash to each other, you know that competition brings out the worst instincts in a lot of people. It isn't enough to present oneself and one's work in the best light; one must also attempt to gain stature by running down one's opposition. And this generally works pretty well because, let's be honest, people being people are more often than not ready, willing and eager to believe the bad things you say about someone else than the good things you say about yourself.<br /><br />So, yeah, the "literary vs. genre" argument is nonsense, but it will only ever go away because it has been replaced by another, more current comparison.<br /><br />No, I'm not bitter and angry.<br /><br />L.Lamarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14109525668934092971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7119990365479009764.post-4219005312281631652010-05-21T09:43:28.191-05:002010-05-21T09:43:28.191-05:00Good post, Russell. The funny thing about niches (...Good post, Russell. The funny thing about niches (any niches) is that folks of one niche can look down their nose at residents of other niches. At first, I didn't watch reality shows when they started airing a decade ago. Then, I started watching Project Runway and, despite my protestations that it was better than the Bachelor, it was still a reality show. Who cares that I think the Bachelor is a dumb show? Folks like it. And that's all that matters. Period. <br /><br />The same holds true for books. I've never read a romance novel but there are millions of readers out there that devour them. BTW, you see what I just did? I looked down my nose at a genre that lots of people love. Just because I don't particularly like romances, I use them as an example. So, I'm guilty, too.<br /><br />I liked this line from you post the most: "I honestly wish any writer – yes, even James Patterson and Dan Brown – well in what they do because, even if I don’t approve of it, clearly their work is connecting with someone somewhere." Funny, Brown and Patterson get dissed often, too. Heck, in this week's "Castle," Castle gets a funny, if not true, dig at Patterson. But, you ask any writer and they'd all trade places with Patterson in less than a heartbeat. <br /><br />Fiction is entertainment. Entertainment comes in different ways to suit different people. Like you said, if we all wrote/watched/read the same stuff, how boring would life be?Scott D. Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15293540073601809197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7119990365479009764.post-8385136879134010132010-05-21T08:23:58.712-05:002010-05-21T08:23:58.712-05:00The literary vs. genre debate has been a successfu...The literary vs. genre debate has been a successful IQ reduction tool for many years.<br /><br />Since I'm not interested in lowering my IQ, I choose not to participate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7119990365479009764.post-31335637334236170002010-05-21T07:19:38.570-05:002010-05-21T07:19:38.570-05:00The thing is, genre writers came late to the big p...The thing is, genre writers came late to the big publishers' table.<br /><br />For decades guys with publishing companies named after themselves published hardcover books of what they liked - what they knew and understood. It has mostly become what we call, "literary."<br /><br />Genre was published in paperback by 'pulp houses,' and we love it for that.<br /><br />But when the publishing companies named after guys got bought by faceless corporations they saw that the pulp books sold a lot of copies so they started publishing those, too. But for the most part the people working at those companies weren't fans of that kind of book - they didn't know it very well and they didn't love it. But it sold.<br /><br />That's changing as now the people working at the big publishing companies do love what we call genre - and not just because it sometimes sells.<br /><br />It's the same thing that happened with sci fi and the movies. For a long, long time movie studios were staffed by people who didn't like sci fi. Actors worked in sci fi but didn't really like it, directors made sci fi movies but tey were usually B movies. When big-name people worked in sci fi they always said theirs weren't really 'sci fi,' and so on.<br /><br />So there's always this... conflict, as things change, as the people involved change.John McFetridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09442198820998606682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7119990365479009764.post-91199179960621696412010-05-21T06:01:53.923-05:002010-05-21T06:01:53.923-05:00Child was enjoying himself, wasn't he? And I e...Child was enjoying himself, wasn't he? And I enjoyed him too. It was a wind up and it worked. It's al marketing at that point in the game, for him and McEwan. There's no such thing as bad publicity,eh?<br /><br />I've never read Child but have read a fair bit of McEwan.I'll give Child a try at some point though.Horse for courses.<br /><br />Mindy you, at first I really did think Child was talking about the bloke that played Magneto ...Paul D Brazillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12881642426845398389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7119990365479009764.post-28746841154931224692010-05-21T05:30:22.304-05:002010-05-21T05:30:22.304-05:00I, too, think the literary vs. genre debate is mos...I, too, think the literary vs. genre debate is mostly baseless. Literary fiction is a genre of its own. The debate only serves to keep "literary" books separate from "genre" books in the minds of those who label books one or the other (which arguably may be the largest portion of buyers). So the debate serves a purpose, just not one that helps me decide what to read.Gerald Sohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03571407711439433431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7119990365479009764.post-84610272308413978512010-05-21T04:34:35.190-05:002010-05-21T04:34:35.190-05:00You're right. And you know, sometimes, the re...You're right. And you know, sometimes, the reasons people have a big audience is because they write what will sell, instead of what they really want to write. Is that more noble or less noble? It's really neither. But just because you're more popular than someone else, it doesn't mean you're superior.<br /><br />At the end of the day, we're all writers. There are genre writers who are formulaic, and there are literary writers who aren't good, but that can be said of every genre out there. I suppose I can see Banville/Black having more interest in this, since he plays in both fields, but beyond that, how many people really care? Does Lee really think McEwan's readers are the kind that are going to abandon McEwan and read Child? I think for the most part it's a vastly different audience, so I don't see what this accomplishes.Sandra Ruttanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06109584805469336742noreply@blogger.com