When I pick up a book of fiction, my primary goal is to be entertained. While I prefer the books I read to be well-written, if forced to choose between a dull literary tome (think Middlemarch), or a fun read with the occasional grammatical error (think Janet Evanovich in her heyday), I’d choose the fun book every time. Ironically enough, many books which fall under the category of genre fiction are well-written, so it’s not a choice I necessarily have to make.
In general, readers tend to excuse themselves for reading genre fiction. Unless a book has been nominated for a renowned literary prize, or – these days – pimped by Oprah, many people feel the need to justify their choice of reading material. Romances are particularly vulnerable to ridicule, but also other genres such as mystery, fantasy and science fiction are deemed inferior to the vaguely termed general fiction. Why is this?
Prolific bestselling author Nora Roberts was recently profiled by Lauren Collins in The New Yorker (22 June 2009 issue). The profile was mostly positive but a couple of comments jarred. For example, Roberts is described as a “self-taught” writer. What, exactly, does this mean? That she has no university degree? Aren’t other writers “self-taught”, and if not, where do I sign up for a course to qualify as a professional writer?
However, the part which really annoyed me is as follows:
Most writers have worked out the kinks in their writing by the time they are published, but in romance many writers develop on the job. Roberts’s writing, by her own estimation, has improved markedly since her early novels, which featured a lot of passive constructions and thesaurus words. – p. 67
Ouch! Talk about condescending, not to mention inaccurate. While I might bemoan the number of crappy books on the market, tastes differ. I seriously doubt any publisher purchases a book which they think is unlikely to sell, be it a romance, a thriller, or any other genre.
The New Yorker article also mentioned that although Nora has spent over 700 weeks on The New York Times bestseller list, they’re reviewed her only once. When they finally deigned to do so, this is what the NYT reviewer had this to say about Northern Lights (2004), a romantic suspense set in Alaska:
In ”Northern Lights,” the suspense hovers over a much less complicated question: not whether Burke will track down the murderer but whether Burke and Meg will fall in love, despite their differences and against their better judgment. And that leads to another question: How many more pages need to pass before there’s another sex scene? Roberts’s fans may claim to be reading ”Northern Lights” to find out whodunit, but they’re keeping the lights on late for the promise of heaving bosoms and consciousness-altering orgasms…
OK…did the reviewer read the same book I did? I’ve read it at least three times and found it to be an excellent mystery with a romantic storyline. It’s definitely not all about sex. I’m assuming the reviewer felt the need to emphasise the sex aspect to perpetuate the usual stereotypes which surround romance novels. Obviously, this reviewer has never read a sex scene in literary fiction, so I guess we’re not reading the same material.
Whatever one thinks of Nora Roberts, there’s no denying she’s more popular than almost any other author writing today. One would think that fact alone would garner her books a mention in print review publications.
While we’re on the subject of worthy and less worthy books, I recently mentioned – gasp! – that I prefer Georgette Heyer to Jane Austen. That’s not to say I don’t like Austen, or don’t recognize her literary superiority. But I must confess to finding Heyer’s books more entertaining.
There a few more instances where I’ve preferred the – shall we say – less respected version of a particular type of story. While I remember enjoying Gone With the Wind, I was entranced by John Jakes’s North & South. Similarly, I found Jackie Collins’s Mafia books (Chances, Lucky, etc.) vastly more amusing than Mario Puzo’s The Godfather.
Honestly, do you really find the quality of writing in genre fiction to be inferior to some of the books classified as literature? Obviously not all books in any given category are well-written, but I don’t think decent prose is confined to a specific genre. Do you feel the need to justify reading genre fiction? Do find yourself dismissing it as escapism, beach reading, something light, or any of those other terms we use to make it more acceptable to be seen reading certain types of books?
{ 16 comments }
Well done post. I’m so tired of having to justify my love of romance or of being a romance writer. It’s turned positively exhausting. I honestly can’t wait to get some fat check and let the money do the talking. LOL. But really the work is the work. And crafting a good story is hard work whether it be genre or literary and frankly I find good genre very hard to craft in some cases. I think literary can give leeway to meander in directions that genre does not. So to answer your questions I don’t dismiss it at all but I do end up defending it way too much.
Really interesting post, Sarah.
It really infuriates me to see how condescending these reviewers can be. Seriously, Nora Roberts has some of the less descriptive sex scenes out there. This is pure snobbism from people who think they know better.
I think that the fact that Nora Roberts has spent over 700 weeks on The New York Times bestseller list speaks for itself.
Anyway, I feel that it is always the same people that likes the stranger books and rave and go mad about them.
I’m choosing romance and fantasy over any Pulitzer winner books any day. Actually, I make a point to avoid all the books that suddenly become blockbusters such as The DaVinci Code, Harry Potter, Twilight, etc.
Excellent point. Genre fiction has certain rules and expectations and authors have to write within those boundaries, while still offering something fresh to their audience.
@nath I’m more of a fan of classical literature than modern literature. The classics tend to tell a good story well, which is what popular fiction offers today. While I still read a fair number of books which are considered literature, I find it frustrating that so many read as though they were written with a view to being dissected by scholars. Does anyone else get this impression? I’m sure neither Charlotte Bronte nor Charles Dickens wrote their novels with future academics in mind.
Okay, I have a whole lot to say on this subject!
First off, I think it’s great that Stephen King pimps Nora Roberts (in a summer reading list he did last year; the year before he pimped Sandra Brown), that NPR has a long piece on the women who review romances on Smart Bitches, Trashy Books, that The New Yorker does a profile on Nora Roberts, and that the New York Times reviews one of her books. Believe me, that’s more mainstream media coverage than in all of the preceding 40 years that I’ve been reading romances.
But to expect all that coverage to be universally positive is, I have to say, unrealistic. Genre books — romances, westerns, horror, thrillers, and mysteries among them — aren’t usually as carefully crafted as more “literary” fiction. I read a great description of the difference (from a writing instructor in New York City; can’t remember his name, though — sorry). In a literary novel, the author is the architect of a gorgeous building, and s/he leads the reader through a careful exploration of the plans for that building. All the detail, artistry and conscious effort are evident, and the book is a complex, challenging, and intellectual exercise in appreciating that artistry.
In a genre book, the author is some schlub on the street who pulls on your arm in a frantic effort to get you to come into a deserted house. No, not later, now; you have to come — no, don’t look in there, it’s not in there. It’s up here. Up these stairs. Really, you have to come see! You get swept up in the author’s enthusiasm and when the book’s really good, you get a jolly good ride in the process.
What you don’t get is realism. I agree with Kwana that genre fiction is hard to do. I also agree with Sarah that most genre authors are “self-taught,” usually by being voracious readers of the same genre(s) that they want to write. Literary authors usually are not self-taught — they go to the University of Iowa or any of the other nationally famous writing programs, attend writers’ workshops, get selected for an artists’ summer program (e.g., Yaddo), etc. And (theoretically) what you get in literary fiction is a sort of hyper-realism: the story is fictitious, but the writing is meant to evoke truths about the way we live, feel, relate to each other.
There’s more than enough room in the world for both classes of fiction, but it has historically been the case that literary writers get lauded & reviewed, but don’t enjoy the big pay days that genre fiction writers can enjoy. That could fuel some resentment. It also seems to fuel a lot of negative assumptions by both groups toward the other. What a waste of time. I’ve enjoyed some “more-literary” fiction on occasion (Bel Canto by Ann Patchett comes to mind, or The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold) but what I really really love is that pull on my emotions by a great author who’s dragging me up those stairs.
Two last points: Sex. And Nora Roberts. About sex in romances. Let me just say how relieved I was to read one of the Janes at Dear Author says that she would skim sex scenes, particularly after the first one. I do that too! Mostly because (in my opinion, and I’m not trying to justify this, just explain) sex scenes in romances tend to be neither sexy enough nor romantic enough for my tastes. Really sexy scenes (think Emma Holly — and not just her paranormal stories, but the full-out stories about sex) are porn. Sorry, but they are (I agree with Potter Stewart: can’t define it, but I know it when I see it). (And that’s great. Women should have porn available if they want it! Porn’s a genre too.) If romances were realistic, heroines would have trouble having an orgasm, would have trouble having an orgasm through coitus, would have trouble having an orgasm as fast as the hero does. Heroes would have trouble maintaining an erection for 20 minutes (or longer); would be shy/awkward/inexperienced in performing certain acts; would miss the point of cuddling. And we’d have all the indignities of sex spelled out for us (e.g., there’d be a lot more Kleenex). But we don’t because romances aren’t realistic. They’re evocative. We get unrealistic sex scenes because when they’re well-done, they evoke the sense that when two people are emotionally and physically attracted to each other, sex is just great. Given the limitations of physiology, repertoire of sexual activities, and non-tantric positions, most sex scenes in romances are a bit generic. So I agree with The New Yorker about how those scenes read; I disagree with the assumption that readers enjoy them as much as everyone assumes we do.
And finally, Nora Roberts. She’s amazingly prolific, but I (personally) haven’t read a single one of her books that I either wanted to re-read or even keep. However, as I own and treasure every book Betty Neels ever wrote (and she was nearly as prolific and even more homogeneous), I can’t criticize anyone who adores Nora Roberts. Being prolific is great financially, but it does mean that your books will — simply through the magic of probabilities — start to seem indistinguishable from each other. To her fans, that’s a good thing. To her detractors, it’s catnip. But if anyone is laughing all the way to the bank, it’s Ms. Roberts.
Agreed. Actually, I was annoyed by that piece on the Smart Bitches & Eloisa James, but I think that’s a topic for another blog post!
True. Genre fiction is not usually true to life, which is probably why I enjoy reading it. Yes, ‘Bel Canto’ and ‘The Lovely Bones’ are both excellent!
Absolutely. Both types of fiction are legitimate. I’m not trying to make out that genre fiction is superior to literary fiction, merely that it’s not necessarily inferior. It depends on the author and on why you want to read a certain sort of book. If I want to be entertained, I’ll choose a romance or a mystery. If I want high emotion, I’ll opt for general fiction.
I’m definitely in the less is more camp when it comes to sex in romance. Generally speaking, I prefer the build up of sexual tension to the actual sex scenes. That said, I think readers’ perceptions of what constitutes porn varies. What one person considers a spicy romance, might be someone else’s idea of porn.
This problem I face nearly every time I talk to someone about books. Yeah, I know I read really much fantasy, sf, uf, romance but it doesn’t make me undereducated or something. I also read classics and non fiction books only not as often because they aren’t as much fun as my fictional books. In many occasions I was in the middle of a discussion about these genres with “traditional” readers. When the people accuse fiction to be second class literature it’s mostly because they never read a good one. And when they don’t like it after reading one: It’s their own loss.
I think there are many good authors in all genres and it wouldn’t be fair to judge a book only because it’s fiction and ignore all the other aspects that make a book a good one. A book is so much more than the genre.
Funny how if Stephen King give his own seal of approval on Nora Roberts, it is then okay for all his readers to go read her. Funny also that Nora makes more than Stephen King a year writing romance.
@SusiSunshine I don’t understand why someone who reads genre fiction is immediately classified as undereducated. Statistics say otherwise. You are absolutely right when you say that a particular book is so much more than the genre.
@katiebabs That also occurred to me! The grim irony of sexism.
I was going to write a big long comment.. but am too tired.. But will attempt a poor worded sentence or two, which will hopefully make sense.
- I read for entertainment, fantasy and romance only.. hated university when they made me read boring carp.. Just do not understand why the media can not admit that there are strengths to both genres? (I would argue that literary fiction is a genre) I mean they will review formulaic comedy movies and arthouse, why not with books?
And that really didn’t say what I wanted it too.. whoops..
@Edie I was one of the rare few who actually enjoyed most of the required reading in English class!
Yes, I also think literary fiction is a genre.
Well, practically everything I read is genre fiction, so no I don’t look down on it. The person who review Northern Lights should be fired, though. I’ll be you anything they didn’t even read the book. There was a little voice in their head that said, “You don’t need to read this; all romance novels are the same….”
I nearly made one of my lecturers cry.. (admittedly she was a bit on the soft side.) By absolutely ripping to shreds one of her favourite classics in my essay. Every time she sees me, she shakes her head. LOL I think it irritated her more that she felt she had to give it a high mark. I just feel that I can get more from stuff that I can relate to, same reason why I did Australian history instead of any of the older traditional studies.
Whoops am still rambling.
But I guess what I was trying to say last night, but was too tired to, is that I think there are benefits to any reading at all, no matter what genre, and people shouldn’t have to justify their reading habits.
I think you can get as much value/thinking material in a good genre book, as you can in a “literature” book. If not more, as sometimes I think you absorb more if you are enjoying a text rather than just flat reading something. (Not to say that lit is not enjoyable for many..)
This reminds me of Stephanie Laurens’s speech at ARRC. She said that for literary fiction, what’s most important is the arrangement of words on the page. For general fiction, what’s most important is the subject. For genre fiction, what’s most important is the story. So I can see why genre fiction could be criticised for its writing if you’re assessing it against a standard more suited to literary fiction.
Also, I think it’s a question of numbers. There are a lot more romances published than there are literary novels, and so I think the market bears a wide range of writing styles and abilities better.
I have to say, though, that romantic suspense isn’t a (sub)genre I’m fond of, precisely because it’s difficult for me to find authors who can do both the romance and the suspense justice.
@heidenkind I wondered that as well. Her impression of ‘Northern Lights’ was so different to mine. And the strange thing is that NL is written mostly from the hero’s perspective, so it’s quite different from many other romances.
@Edie Exactly. People shouldn’t have to justify their choice of reading material. It is ridiculous as most detractors of the romance genre have read romance but didn’t recognize it for what it was. I’ve had people tell me they’ve never read a romance yet they have shelves full of chick lit.
@Kat Thanks for the link! I’m very picky when it comes to romantic suspense. Karen Rose does it well but many others fail to get the balance right.
Comments on this entry are closed.