To hinge off yesterday’s post, I’d like to talk about a few more of the arguments presented here. Last time I talked about this idea of “artistic expression” and how, generally speaking, it’s a load of crap to assume that one form of literature is artistic and the other isn’t. This time it has more to do with the issue of the supposed differences between “literature” and “pulps,” a distinction that Roby made. Roby begins this topic with this bit of nonsense: …there is a very large difference between participating in a dialogue through the written word and consuming a product designed to make you feel good. They are, really, fundamentally, completely different things that share superficial similarities. It’s all just reading, right? Wrong. When you read literature, you are a participant; when you read pulps, you are a consumer. An example is probably in order. No, not really. There used to be this difference before the invention of the printing press, but the way literature is consumed and produced these days has little to do with the delusional fantasy of being in “dialogue” with the written word. All literature, with the exception of that which is not put into book format and shipped out for us to buy in the store, is a consumable commodity. Literary fiction doesn’t get an out simply because it has flowery prose. We consume literary fiction in much the same way as pulp fiction: by reading it. There is no difference except in how we read it. This nonsense about being a participant in reading literature and a consumer in reading pulps is absurd. Since publishers produce based on profit, there is a necessity for all published work, including literary fiction, to be a commodity and, thus, consumable. A publisher doesn’t intentionally put out drivel; the publisher, producing any form of literature, is in this to make a profit; that’s their purpose. You may be a participant and a consumer, but you don’t get to pick and choose unless you get all your books for free and the person that gave it to you didn’t pay for it, and so on and so on. Since we pay in some fashion for books, we are consumers of them. And basing this critique on how one feels after having read a work of fiction is somewhat contradictory. The work he considers to be pulp do not always produce this “feel good” emotion. Literature produces all sorts of emotional connections. Plus, if you consider that human beings are not all the same, our emotional reactions are poor indicators of literary quality precisely because there would be little to no consensus on the matter. Someone might feel quite good reading a literary novel about apartheid, or someone might feel like crap–and, likewise, someone may take joy in reading something literary, or may find it dull and meaningless. What is shared, however, is the joy in the reading experience, which isn’t the exclusive domain of pulp fiction, but the domain of all literature. But the absurdity doesn’t stop there. Roby has to give a good example of where fantasy has failed, pulling out George R. R. Martin’s A Game of Thrones from its dusty perch: When you read George R. R. Martin’s A Game of Thrones, you have a very different reading experience. Within the first page or so, you are assaulted with strange words and concepts, none of which are really explained…This is thrust at you without context, but if you are the sort of reader Martin expects you to be — adolescent, introspective, considering yourself to be a little smarter than most of your peers, and versed in medieval and fantasy tropes — you will figure out “for yourself” that the culture the character comes from marks time by the melting down of candles. And you can give yourself a little pat on the back for proving to yourself that you really are a smart fellow. So, essentially Roby doesn’t like GRRM primarily because the work, being a fantasy work and thus the domain of an imagined, non-existent world that you shouldn’t know much of anything about in the first place, attempts to make itself authentic in its presentation by having the characters count time by candlewidths and the like; and Roby perceives this as a deliberate attempt on Martin’s part to make the reader feel proud of him or herself at having figured it out (but Roby is offended because, I guess, he sees this as patronizing). Well hold on a second. What did Roby expect? Did he think he would dig into this book about a place that doesn’t exist and find familiar references? This is equivalent of someone from the U.S. reading a book from a country he just found out existed and then expecting it to reference American pop culture (and then being disappointed when it, in fact, stays true to its cultural roots). When you read work set in a place you’ve never been and know very little about, there is always a lack of context, even if it is literary fiction. I certainly know little about Nigeria, and if I were to read a fiction novel written by someone from there who remained culturally true, I certainly wouldn’t be upset that I had to figure out some of the references on my own. And I wouldn’t see it as a patronizing moment on the part of the author that I had figured it out. To add, I suspect that Roby is not that well read in the fantasy genre, which explains his dislike for GRRM. One should really attempt to understand the roots of the genre if one is going to take it so seriously. And to top it all off, there is this from Roby (speaking about fiction like GRRM’s A Game of Thrones): If that wasn’t enough of an insult on its own, this sort of bad pulp works by coopting the tropes of actual literature that preceded

I try not to dig into these sorts of issues primarily because, generally speaking, the arguments against genre fiction (specifically science fiction and fantasy) are almost all the same, almost always utterly ignorant, and almost always the mark of someone who, unfortunately, takes pride in thinking he or she is above someone else because he or she reads a certain kind of book (which is like saying that George W. Bush is better than Al Gore just because he won; I think we all now wish Gore had won). But, on occasion I come across an argument that is particularly idiotic and makes points that are largely irrelevant or contradictory. And that is what this post is about. I use Google Alerts to send me blog posts based on a set of keywords, and this post sprung up for “fantasy literature.” After reading it, I knew immediately that I had to blog about it. For identification purposes I’ll stick to calling the author Roby. Roby is one of those folks who, while apparently not someone that dislikes fantasy as an idea or mode of expression (he seems okay with a literary novel containing fantasy elements), but holds a particular disdain for fantasy as a genre (the popular form as we know it today). His argument, however, offers a lot of explanation as to why it is that fantasy is popular and literary fiction has largely fallen to the wayside, and why it is that literary purists simply do not understand literature at all. Roby starts off by saying that fantasy isn’t literature, but pulp fiction, and goes on to make this distinction: Literature is created out of a desire for artistic expression, commentary on life, and contributing to humanity’s understanding of itself. It’s part of a giant, centuries-spanning dialogue that informs our identity as a species. Yeah, this is all high-minded, but really, it boils down to this: if the author sat down and wrote something they thought was important and worth others’ time, it’s literature. The pulps, by contrast, are written purely for your entertainment. The author sat down and tried to figure out what you would like, and then tried her level best to serve you exactly that on a silver platter. There’s no attempt to communicate there, nothing that the author thinks is important. The book or short story or whatever is purely intended to allow you to spend time enjoyably. It’s fluff. I’m sorry, but what? Let’s break this down: literature is about artistic expression and the author’s intent to produce something that is worth our (the reader’s) time, while pulps are there for entertainment purposes. That doesn’t compute, at all. First off, sitting here and presuming we understand every author’s intent in creating some piece of written work is foolish; often times we don’t know. Secondly, he just said that literature and pulps are the same thing. Both forms have to be “worth others’ time,” otherwise nobody would read either of them. It stands to reason that the problem with literary fiction is that it fails to connect with most readers and is, as such, not worth their time, while popular fiction forms, invented to be worth their time, are, well, popular as a result (and none of this is an indication, in my book, of whether one form is necessarily superior to the other, as this is often up to taste). Then there’s this bullcrap that you constantly see in the literary world about how literature is about expression and yadda yadda. Yes, of course it’s about expression, but no individual can sit there and say that a fantasy novel written in a modern, popular fiction style isn’t an attempt at expression. It’s just a different kind of expression. While literary fiction places heavy focus on language to convey hidden meanings, etc., popular fiction tends to shift focus to the plot and ideas. That doesn’t make it fluff; that makes it different, just like rock music is different from pop. Just because you don’t get it doesn’t mean the expression isn’t there; there are many ways to show artistic expression and literary fiction isn’t the only way. And I’m calling bull that there is no attempt to communicate in fantasy. If anything, fantasy authors are attempting to communicate to the human imagination, offering an escape from the mundanity, or banality, of the real world so they can play the hero or heroine. That communication, that allowing for the reader to become a part of something that isn’t real and thus be consumed into the fantasy, is as important and valuable as the communication provided through clever uses of language that make up literary fiction. Because this critique of Roby’s argument is quite extensive, and I understand that folks don’t like reading extremely long posts (the same can be said of myself), I’m going to cut it up based on the theme. So, stay tuned for other installments and feel free to leave a comment with your opinion!