Web Hype
Genre followup, here and at Tin House blog
Christopher Higgs’ post from the other day, “Tin House & Genre Fiction,” has broken 100 comments. One of those comments is from Tonaya Thompson, the author of the Tin House blog post, “To Genre or Not to Genre,” that Higgs was posting about. Thompson has also written a followup post on the Tin House blog, “Genre Redux.”
Anyone who read my original post as saying that we will discount any piece of writing out of hand is willfully misreading it. And I think that’s because my attack on “lazy” writing put a lot of people on the defensive, especially since I equated that with genre writing.
It’s a good piece, and if you’ve been following the thread, you should definitely read this new post. She seems rather generous to me, in terms of treating her detractors with credulity. She’s certainly more conciliatory than I’d ever dream of being, if similarly treated. (Ironically enough I have an obligation to disclose that I am published in the current issue of Tin House: an essay celebrating Needful Things by Stephen King, the very existence of which would seem to put the lie to a whole raft of commenter claims about TH’s–and my–genre-related biases.)
Anyway, for ease of access, after the jump find a copy of Thompson’s comment in the Higgs thread. It’s worth reading the comment before proceeding to the followup post, and you’ll notice that she asks for recommendations of genre writing to read, so feel free to leave those on her blog or on ours. You–or she–could also do much worse, I’d just like to mention, than by reading the Michael Moorcock book pictured above.
Hi there, thought I’d pitch in. Seems, in part, the conversation I was hoping to have on my own blog is happening here instead.
Listen, since it’s been pointed out that I may have not read enough “genre” fiction to judge it, I’d love for someone to give me a –SHORT– reading list. I’ve got a lot on my plate, but I’ll definitely try to squeeze in a few over the next couple months. I really have been intending to read stuff people think is good but never shows up in the Times. The only thing I ask is make it contemporary and semi-off-the radar as far as mainstream literary interests are concerned.
Also, I’ve updated some thoughts on Tin House’s blog if anyone’s interested in checking it out. And to re-iterate, my presumptions are in no way Tin House’s presumptions, which is something I didn’t think about when I published that first post.
I think the wonderful and difficult thing about this discussion is that art is so damn wiley. Things start at the fringes and become mainstream and then people rebel against them by starting back up at the fringes. Lines are crossed and re-crossed. People are desperate to classify things. Things are, on an organic level, impossible to classify.
You know, if we’re all here for the right reasons, as people who love books and stories, then I’d bet anything we can put our differences aside.
Tags: genre, tin house blog, Tonaya Thompson
Man, I have to say that it’s hard to have a conversation on the Tin House blog when you first have to register, when their registration emails go to gmail’s spam box, and when your comments sit in moderation for twelve hours!
Man, I have to say that it’s hard to have a conversation on the Tin House blog when you first have to register, when their registration emails go to gmail’s spam box, and when your comments sit in moderation for twelve hours!
Ha. My brother brought a slew of M Moorcock’s books at a garage sale. Every one had “I want” written between the first and last name – on the cover, inside, and on the back. 20 years later that’s the first thing I think of when I see the guy’s name. Good times.
Ha. My brother brought a slew of M Moorcock’s books at a garage sale. Every one had “I want” written between the first and last name – on the cover, inside, and on the back. 20 years later that’s the first thing I think of when I see the guy’s name. Good times.
I’m really happy to see there is discourse and conciliation involved here. I thought Higgs came off feeling a little threatened by the Tin House piece, which was strange, since the only genre he even likes is crap that’s unreadable.
Anyway, I found this New York Times Magazine feature on Jack Vance to be interesting in the way it asks why Vance, a language master, is relegated to the genre shelves: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19Vance-t.html
I’m really happy to see there is discourse and conciliation involved here. I thought Higgs came off feeling a little threatened by the Tin House piece, which was strange, since the only genre he even likes is crap that’s unreadable.
Anyway, I found this New York Times Magazine feature on Jack Vance to be interesting in the way it asks why Vance, a language master, is relegated to the genre shelves: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19Vance-t.html
i have an idea. lets stop discussing this now and then two years later lets have the exact same discussion. and then two years after that, again.
i have an idea. lets stop discussing this now and then two years later lets have the exact same discussion. and then two years after that, again.
oh darby, your critical objectivity and detachment is endearing (i mean that). but don’t you know girls just wanna have fun? there is stimulation in coversation. and some people just like drama (which is a genre, no?) we live our lives behind the guise of genres. admit it, you like talking about this shit, you just don’t like the self-gratification of running in circles, of debate that yields no apparent fruition. but isn’t sex just a circle extended along the x-axis, which eventually leads to back to the O(rigin)?
oh darby, your critical objectivity and detachment is endearing (i mean that). but don’t you know girls just wanna have fun? there is stimulation in coversation. and some people just like drama (which is a genre, no?) we live our lives behind the guise of genres. admit it, you like talking about this shit, you just don’t like the self-gratification of running in circles, of debate that yields no apparent fruition. but isn’t sex just a circle extended along the x-axis, which eventually leads to back to the O(rigin)?
i liked the Times article. it’s good to see contemporary writers–and genre writers at that–lionized/celebrated. thanks for sharing.
i liked the Times article. it’s good to see contemporary writers–and genre writers at that–lionized/celebrated. thanks for sharing.
I’ll try not to take offense when you say “the only genre he even likes is crap that’s unreadable,” Adam, but it won’t be easy. I’m not sure where that comment is coming from. I recently posted on reading Harry Potter, if you recall, and I loved it.
In terms of coming off feeling a little threatened, not sure where that’s coming from either. My intention with the post was to spur conversation.
Why the ugly vibe?
I’ll try not to take offense when you say “the only genre he even likes is crap that’s unreadable,” Adam, but it won’t be easy. I’m not sure where that comment is coming from. I recently posted on reading Harry Potter, if you recall, and I loved it.
In terms of coming off feeling a little threatened, not sure where that’s coming from either. My intention with the post was to spur conversation.
Why the ugly vibe?
Oh man, I thought it was clear I was just kidding. Sorry.
Oh man, I thought it was clear I was just kidding. Sorry.
You know, having had great success publishing your “unreadable crap.” This is the last time I try to be funny on the Internet.
You know, having had great success publishing your “unreadable crap.” This is the last time I try to be funny on the Internet.
My bad, Adam, I’m no good at deciphering humor. Sorry. Also, I’m too sensitive, and also my wife & I have been rewatching Buffy the Vampire Slayer so obsessively that I am paranoid that everyone I like is secretly a demon. Please don’t abandon humor on the internet.
My bad, Adam, I’m no good at deciphering humor. Sorry. Also, I’m too sensitive, and also my wife & I have been rewatching Buffy the Vampire Slayer so obsessively that I am paranoid that everyone I like is secretly a demon. Please don’t abandon humor on the internet.
i thought the miscommunication was funny. so, theres always that?
good work everyone.
i thought the miscommunication was funny. so, theres always that?
good work everyone.
Phew. At least Ryan got it.
Phew. At least Ryan got it.
the discussion of genre vs. literary is interesting enough, i have no qualms with it or most things that get talked about, i’ve talked about it for years and decided this time to eat lunch instead. my qualm i think has more to do with elevating the importance of the opinion of one editor at a lit mag, which then subsequently and falsely elevates the importance of the discussion itself. taylor seems intent on conveying thompsons opinion here as if its to be revered. it felt weird to me a little. i’m maybe being too intuitive today.
the discussion of genre vs. literary is interesting enough, i have no qualms with it or most things that get talked about, i’ve talked about it for years and decided this time to eat lunch instead. my qualm i think has more to do with elevating the importance of the opinion of one editor at a lit mag, which then subsequently and falsely elevates the importance of the discussion itself. taylor seems intent on conveying thompsons opinion here as if its to be revered. it felt weird to me a little. i’m maybe being too intuitive today.
I agree with Darby. Plus:
“I’ve got a lot on my plate (yawn, it’s summer, relax dude), but I’ll definitely try to squeeze in a few over the next couple months(because I’m so good). I really have been intending (good use of Present Perfect Continuous)to read stuff people (wtf!) think is good (boo) but never shows up in the Times (I just wet myself). The only thing (pay attention children) I ask is make it contemporary and semi-off-the radar (huh?) as far as mainstream literary interests (go get some real work) are concerned.”
Patronising, so fucking patronising.
I agree with Darby. Plus:
“I’ve got a lot on my plate (yawn, it’s summer, relax dude), but I’ll definitely try to squeeze in a few over the next couple months(because I’m so good). I really have been intending (good use of Present Perfect Continuous)to read stuff people (wtf!) think is good (boo) but never shows up in the Times (I just wet myself). The only thing (pay attention children) I ask is make it contemporary and semi-off-the radar (huh?) as far as mainstream literary interests (go get some real work) are concerned.”
Patronising, so fucking patronising.
huh, interesting. i don’t know. your previous statement, i now read totally differently. which is also interesting. who knows. words. strange things. thanks for the clarification though.
huh, interesting. i don’t know. your previous statement, i now read totally differently. which is also interesting. who knows. words. strange things. thanks for the clarification though.
the pay attention children line really sealed it for me…funniest thing i’ve read on this site in months
the pay attention children line really sealed it for me…funniest thing i’ve read on this site in months
I just have to wonder: if the “populist” types hate the Lit Club so much, why are they always trying to get into the clubhouse?
I just have to wonder: if the “populist” types hate the Lit Club so much, why are they always trying to get into the clubhouse?
To bust heads, noodle-arm.
To bust heads, noodle-arm.