July 10th, 2010 / 3:05 pm
Snippets
Snippets
Nick Antosca—
Peter Straub, a few minutes ago (paraphrased from memory): “Literary writers working with a surreal or supernatural concept tend to be content to just describe it in detail. A genre writer is more likely to feel compelled to turn it into a story, which may succeed brilliantly or fail miserably, but has more potential to be a satisfactory turn.”
Don’t get what he is trying to say. Seems like the opposite of the truth, as it seems like literary genre-ish authors are more apt to describe it more vaguely and just use it as part of the story while genre authors feel compelled to go into more details and explain it in a NON-story way (ie all the exposition in a sci-fi novel or the background plot details of various races in a fantasy novel).
I don’t get it.
You mean like Kafka? Or Ursula K. LeGuin? WTF?
I had more or less the same thoughts. Also sounds like a slightly nasty bit of genre warfare, or maybe I’m just reading too much into it.
Damn. “The Genre Wars.” Peter Straub: Genre Warrior.
As in they’re literary writers working with surreal concepts or genre writers?
Given that I’ve had to spend a few years watching genre writing get shat on, I don’t mind a little genre warfare. My favorite bit though was at AWP when Brian Evenson pointed out that “genre writers” will read anything, including “literary” fiction, and often within days of your suggesting it. Literary writers, on the other hand, often won’t read certain fiction.
True, and funny.
yes, the main knock genre fans seem to have with literary surreal fiction is that it only deals with the supernatural stuff as far as it relates to the plot and don’t put all the time into the boring (or, if you prefer, interesting) backstory, world building, etc. Like Tolkien giving us the entire histories of every single race vs. Cormac not even bothering to tell us what causes the Apocalypse in The Road.
Funny how the reverse is true for genre readers vs. literary readers
True, for some — if you’re primarily in it for the zombies, William Trevor won’t do it for you.
too true
To be clear, he didn’t say it as a diss. Straub is one of the most well-read people I’ve ever encountered, and he certainly doesn’t discriminate in terms of what he reads. He just made it as an observation about stories he’d read while editing an anthology.
Didn’t Straub write the intro to Evenson’s Last Days where he said he taught at an MFA program and asked kids what they read and said he had never heard of any of the popular literary writers the students named (people like George Saunders and Brian Evenson)?
i agree w/ all expept what satisfies.
i would read writers like Straub if i could cut his work into pieces, burn the parts emphasizing plot and story and even character and just keep the disturbing and strange details. a good ghost yarn does not interest me but ghosts do.
Is this true or is the opposite of this true? What’s happening here.
“a good ghost yarn does not interest me but ghosts do.” Yes. I think Straub is largely correct, and not saying it as a dig at him or genre writers/readers, but I think they are more interested in/value conventional plot elements more than a lot of literary fiction peeps. Certainly I’m more interested in the noun than the verb.
Don’t get what he is trying to say. Seems like the opposite of the truth, as it seems like literary genre-ish authors are more apt to describe it more vaguely and just use it as part of the story while genre authors feel compelled to go into more details and explain it in a NON-story way (ie all the exposition in a sci-fi novel or the background plot details of various races in a fantasy novel).
I don’t get it.
You mean like Kafka? Or Ursula K. LeGuin? WTF?
I had more or less the same thoughts. Also sounds like a slightly nasty bit of genre warfare, or maybe I’m just reading too much into it.
Damn. “The Genre Wars.” Peter Straub: Genre Warrior.
As in they’re literary writers working with surreal concepts or genre writers?
Given that I’ve had to spend a few years watching genre writing get shat on, I don’t mind a little genre warfare. My favorite bit though was at AWP when Brian Evenson pointed out that “genre writers” will read anything, including “literary” fiction, and often within days of your suggesting it. Literary writers, on the other hand, often won’t read certain fiction.
True, and funny.
yes, the main knock genre fans seem to have with literary surreal fiction is that it only deals with the supernatural stuff as far as it relates to the plot and don’t put all the time into the boring (or, if you prefer, interesting) backstory, world building, etc. Like Tolkien giving us the entire histories of every single race vs. Cormac not even bothering to tell us what causes the Apocalypse in The Road.
Funny how the reverse is true for genre readers vs. literary readers
Hmmm, perhaps genre writers are more concerned with cause and effect than literary writers who use weird elements in their stories?
Or we might be trying to read too much into this — Nick indicates Straub was talking about stories he was reading for an anthology he edited. Perhaps he was just talking about that subset of the universe of stories.
I just read Last Days a few weeks ago — I was surprised Straub hadn’t read George Saunders, or even heard of him. Brian Evenson was an interesting choice for Straub to introduce — Last Days comes off like a literary writer using surrealism and genre material, rather than a genre writer mixing elements in the ways they do. Cause and effect and quotidian logic don’t play much part in that (very fine) book. But then, Evenson heads the writing program at Brown — how many horror novelists lead writing programs? His Mormon-influenced fiction is sui generis.
True, for some — if you’re primarily in it for the zombies, William Trevor won’t do it for you.
too true
To be clear, he didn’t say it as a diss. Straub is one of the most well-read people I’ve ever encountered, and he certainly doesn’t discriminate in terms of what he reads. He just made it as an observation about stories he’d read while editing an anthology.
Didn’t Straub write the intro to Evenson’s Last Days where he said he taught at an MFA program and asked kids what they read and said he had never heard of any of the popular literary writers the students named (people like George Saunders and Brian Evenson)?
i agree w/ all expept what satisfies.
i would read writers like Straub if i could cut his work into pieces, burn the parts emphasizing plot and story and even character and just keep the disturbing and strange details. a good ghost yarn does not interest me but ghosts do.
Is this true or is the opposite of this true? What’s happening here.
“a good ghost yarn does not interest me but ghosts do.” Yes. I think Straub is largely correct, and not saying it as a dig at him or genre writers/readers, but I think they are more interested in/value conventional plot elements more than a lot of literary fiction peeps. Certainly I’m more interested in the noun than the verb.
Hmmm, perhaps genre writers are more concerned with cause and effect than literary writers who use weird elements in their stories?
Or we might be trying to read too much into this — Nick indicates Straub was talking about stories he was reading for an anthology he edited. Perhaps he was just talking about that subset of the universe of stories.
I just read Last Days a few weeks ago — I was surprised Straub hadn’t read George Saunders, or even heard of him. Brian Evenson was an interesting choice for Straub to introduce — Last Days comes off like a literary writer using surrealism and genre material, rather than a genre writer mixing elements in the ways they do. Cause and effect and quotidian logic don’t play much part in that (very fine) book. But then, Evenson heads the writing program at Brown — how many horror novelists lead writing programs? His Mormon-influenced fiction is sui generis.
“perhaps genre writers are more concerned with cause and effect than literary writers who use weird elements in their stories?”
I think that’s what he was getting at, yes. In a general way, it seems true to me.
“perhaps genre writers are more concerned with cause and effect than literary writers who use weird elements in their stories?”
I think that’s what he was getting at, yes. In a general way, it seems true to me.
For me the crucial difference in the genre/literary dichotomy lies in critical intent. Regardless of subject matter (in this case, supernatural) the literary writer is most often mounting a story that is multivalent whereas the genre writer is primarily concerned with sustaining the fictive dream. The nature of writing towards a mindful ambiguity cannot lose itself in the details of cause and effect, or it would commit itself too far towards a single, authoritative reading. So, I agree with what he’s saying to a point, but I don’t understand how he thinks being more straightforward has a greater chance of being a “more satisfactory turn.” Doesn’t that depend entirely on the motives of the reader?
“The literary writer.”
“The genre writer.”
For me the crucial difference in the genre/literary dichotomy lies in critical intent. Regardless of subject matter (in this case, supernatural) the literary writer is most often mounting a story that is multivalent whereas the genre writer is primarily concerned with sustaining the fictive dream. The nature of writing towards a mindful ambiguity cannot lose itself in the details of cause and effect, or it would commit itself too far towards a single, authoritative reading. So, I agree with what he’s saying to a point, but I don’t understand how he thinks being more straightforward has a greater chance of being a “more satisfactory turn.” Doesn’t that depend entirely on the motives of the reader?
“The literary writer.”
“The genre writer.”
Regardless of intent though, he made an evaluative statement there at the end, and a rather thin justification for it. Perhaps something was lost in the paraphrasing though.
July 10th, 2010 / 4:15 pm
Mike Meginnis—
a little genre warfare….“genre writers” will….Literary writers, on the other hand…True, and funny.
Plural vs. singular. Generalization vs. buying one’s own bullshit.
Regardless of intent though, he made an evaluative statement there at the end, and a rather thin justification for it. Perhaps something was lost in the paraphrasing though.
July 10th, 2010 / 4:15 pm
Mike Meginnis—
a little genre warfare….“genre writers” will….Literary writers, on the other hand…True, and funny.
Plural vs. singular. Generalization vs. buying one’s own bullshit.