I do agree that Fantasy seems have many readers that don’t appear to read below the surface or at the very least comment. I know a lot of people that read it this way I discovered after this thread made me start quizzing them. However for most of these people it counts for around a third of their entertainment and leisure time. I do believe that the sales figures are misleading for a variety of reasons not all of which I’d consider here. One fairly obvious one is that if you are not heavily involved with the community (i.e. you buy the books and read them solely) you have no ready source of critical review.

It also can’t be avoided that books need to be read to discover whether they are ‘good’ or not in the first place. If you do not read much outside the genre but are in fact an avid reader (i.e. it accounts for a third of your leisure time or more as above) is there really enough good stuff to keep you in books all day everyday? To switch awkwardly to a comparable activity: Are all art-house film goers expected not to attend Hollywood movies in between their favoured releases? Tolerance to crap doesn’t equate with the inability to recognise what is good as many have pointed out here.

Although you can’t expect all readers to do this I think ‘genre’ could do with a lot more public commentary on what is good and why. It is sad that we don’t see this kind of activity often enough, putting into words what moved you, what you admired in a writers style and more is a great activity but it doesn’t seem prevalent in the fantasy community and wider readers. This doesn’t mean they didn’t see or think about it they just aren’t commenting. Are all those film goers expected to go home and write analytical reviews of these films to show that they didn’t just enjoy the film?

However our avid contemporary fiction or literary reader types next door do this all the time. They do have national incentive though, their reviewers do it; Richard and Judy (day time TV presenters that are not exactly high brow) do it; everyone involved seems caught up in one level or another of semi to actual analytical review and it is competitive. It sets a president for the treatment of these books that the readers get caught up with. I think this comes directly from the fact that literary writers and their professional reviewers are in fact deliberately and overtly aiming at or predicting the status of Literature along with bestseller. (Here meaning a place amongst those works that have attained exceptional longevity and become very widely respected.)

I wouldn’t say that there is much less crap in this ‘literary’ genre but it seems to get better editing and packaging. Critics might decry its crapiness and some readers may agree but this examination of the work, even if negative, confers a sense of legitimacy. It also becomes highly visible to the reading public and gets favourable reviews on the next rung down (day time TV book clubs etc…).

As to a better type of reader, in my experience deep reading (what a nasty phrase) is a way to read that I have to turn on or consciously attempt. I do this a lot because I was trained to at school and I want to learn to write. This is not the case for every one. Many people did not continue their studies in this area or in fact aren’t looking for this in their reading, no problem there. What is far worse is that I’ve come across examples where people pre-apply a low standard to Fantasy but would otherwise read past the surface.

An example was my literature teacher borrowing a book of mine by a Fantasy writer I respect for the depth of their work. I decided towards the end of my course to use it for my major comparative essay. She told me I couldn’t because it was ‘just a good story’. Although perfectly capable of reading below the surface her expectations of the book meant that she had pigeonholed it prior to opening to first page and did not even attempt to see what was there. While she let me use a contemporary novel that I wouldn’t say had half the symbolism, depth and interesting structures.

If it is true that your ‘better’ type of reader is in fact there as well as surface readers but has condemned the genre to their most lazy days then merely paring away the trash or handing books to ‘better’ readers wont change a thing. It may be that there is an underlying prejudice that is blinkering the readers; where do we start in fixing this?

Literature along with bestseller. (Here meaning a place amongst those works that have attained exceptional longevity and become very widely respected.)

I wouldn’t say that there is much less crap in this ‘literary’ genre but it seems to get better editing and packaging. Critics might decry its crapiness and some readers may agree but this examination of the work, even if negative, confers a sense of legitimacy. It also becomes highly visible to the reading public and gets favourable reviews on the next rung down (day time TV book clubs etc…).

As to a better type of reader, in my experience deep reading (what a nasty phrase) is a way to read that I have to turn on or consciously attempt. I do this a lot because I was trained to at school and I want to learn to write. This is not the case for every one. Many people did not continue their studies in this area or in fact aren’t looking for this in their reading, no problem there. What is far worse is that I’ve come across examples where people pre-apply a low standard to Fantasy but would otherwise read past the surface.

An example was my literature teacher borrowing a book of mine by a Fantasy writer I respect for the depth of their work. I decided towards the end of my course to use it for my major comparative essay. She told me I couldn’t because it was ‘just a good story’. Although perfectly capable of reading below the surface her expectations of the book meant that she had pigeonholed it prior to opening to first page and did not even attempt to see what was there. While she let me use a contemporary novel that I wouldn’t say had half the symbolism, depth and interesting structures.

If it is true that your ‘better’ type of reader is in fact there as well as surface readers but has condemned the genre to their most lazy days then merely paring away the trash or handing books to ‘better’ readers wont change a thing. It may be that there is an underlying prejudice that is blinkering the readers; where do we start in fixing this?

Then when there is pressure to write more books, to write faster, the temptation is to work only on the surface, forget about the more subtle stuff, after all, the readers don’t care – and you’re sliding down the greasy chute towards crap.

Or when the author looks at the featured best-seller shelf at the bookstore and finds it filled with superficial fluff and crap, and her own stuff langishing over in the back shelf in the genre section, she might start to think: to hell with it, if this is what they want, this is what I’ll write.

Assume a universe of readers, some who appreciate the more challenging, multi-layered works, some who prefer the surface-only stuff. Of this universe of readers, the people who claim to be doing literary fiction are targetting the first group, but genre seems deliberately to be targetting the second, in a way that says to the others: go away, there is nothing for you here.

Theoretically, one might be able to write a novel that works on several levels, so that different types of readers can engage in the book.

I mean, surely Homer had to declaim to the entire hall, and keep everyone’s attention as well as he could?

My problem isn’t with the literary people, it’s with genre people, it’s with the trend that I see for dumbing-down the genre and thereby widening the gap, instead of narrowing it.

Ah. I get it now. Sorry.

Well, as someone who keeps being told her books are “too difficult for the general reader” I should agree with this, but I don’t think it’s deliberate. I think the editors themselves often (not always, often) don’t know better. Maybe I don’t want it to be true.

That unfortunate dichotomy is the deathknell for both Litrahture and GenreCrap since it keeps everyone busy with the nonessentials.

*Anyone wanting to argue that antinomianism and nihilism are “moral centres” is welcome to, but not with me. I’m too old and cranky for that sort of thing anymore.

Of course, for all I know they’ll be reading it on a cellphone/TV/camera/movie&musicplayer/wordprocessor/toothbrush.