The Birth and Death of Genre?
Katharine Kerr October 8th, 2006
An interesting review appeared in the (London) Times Literary Supplement of a mighty tome indeed: WRITERS, READERS, AND REPUTATIONS, Literary Life in Britain 1870-1918, by Philip Waller, Oxford University Press, 1,181 pages (!). Waller is a man of prodigious reading — he’s been plowing his way through the popular literature of this period, bestselling writers who are long forgotten: Nat Gould, whose books sold over 6 million copies; Charles Garvice, Hall Crane, Florence Barclay, Pearl Craigie — the list goes on and on. During Waller’s chosen period there was an explosion of popular books and reading, which he links to the spread of literacy, especially the passage in 1870 of the “Elementary Education Act” in the UK, which insured that all children would be taught to read and figure at the very least. In the USA, of course, educating all free-born children had been a goal even earlier. After the Civil War, ex-slaves were more than eager to learn to read — like the working class poor in the UK, they saw literacy as a way out of poverty.
Waller points out that reading as entertainment went hand in hand with reading as self-improvement. For every book on the many Victorian lists of “best books”, there were a hundred titles that were considered trashy, cheap, vulgar, you name it — just like our books, in other words. 
 But these were the books that the newly literate read in great quantities.
I wonder if we can say that this is the period that gave birth to true genre, that is, popular fiction that falls into certain well-defined patterns of narrative and theme. Fantasy writers like to point out that many medieval and earlier words contain fantastic elements, but as we’ve discussed elsewhere, in works like BEOWULF or The ILIAD such elements are not “fantasy” but part of a world-view that we no longer share.  Certainly there were popular entertainments in earlier eras — Hellinistic Greek adventure/romances come to mind. But these flourished in societies where literacy was the privilege of the few, not the many, and where books, copied by hand, were expensive.
Nat Gould’s novels of racetrack life sold for sixpence. You could get a Dickens for 2 shillings. Money was worth more, then, but these prices are comparable to $6 paperbacks or 11 pound trade paperbacks. Then as now books could be passed around and read by more than one person, too.
Before radio and the movies, if you wanted a story, you had to read it This is sometimes hard to imagine now. Everyone talks about TV and Movies and the Internet killing off literature, but I’m beginning to think that literature will survive just fine, that there will always be a large group of people who love to read it and will pay for the books they want.  Not even the best TV drama can really compete with a really great work of fiction. The rewards and joys are different twixt the two media.
It’s the flood of popular writing, the genres, that might well dry up because it answers needs that TV, Movies, and the like can also fill. Consider how modern special effects in film create the “sense of wonder” that written SF used to strive for. In some cases, at least, the non-book entertainments are more entertaining than the written.
The huge number of books newly being printed at this time probably played a role in the creation of multiple genres, simply from the room for division and more specialized focuses.
I sort of suspect that today’s literature genre was shaped the most strongly (of all today’s genres) by the advent of the lower classes being able to read and buy books. (I’m not saying that this was the only influence.)
Reading had been something associated with the upper class, or at least with those who had the money and leisure to buy/read books. Because of the role of class in British society, the established literary world would have wanted to hang on to that status. They would have wanted to differentiate their books from those written for and by shop assistants, clerks, etc. regardless of how good the book was (such as Jerome K.Jerome’s Three Men in a Boat). The shop assistants, on the otherhand, wanted to appear of the leisure class, and copied the upper classes in many ways.
So what was the established literary world to do? How to keep its upper class status? Was there anything they could do that the masses wouldn’t copy? I find it interesting that today’s literature genre gives emphasis to traits that most reader’s aren’t interested in: an intellectual appreciation of its art, unheroic chararacters, and—I wish I knew a better way to say this—a “voice” that seems to lack hope that things can get better.
Maybe more modes for storytelling will lead to more genres due to the room for diversification.
[...] 4 – The Birth and Death of Genre? “Not even the best TV drama can really compete with a really great work of fiction.” Katherine Kerr muses at DeepGenre. (tags: development decline future crime fantasy sf scifi science genre history literature fiction) [...]
But does the “upper class” exist today? More or less everybody can read. (Which doesn’t mean everybody does.)
Reading Vivian’s post, it struck me: when I ask people who are busy making a “career”, business types, social climbers, go-getters, “What books do you read?” many of them reply “I never read” or “I don’t have time to read”.
And I wonder, will these people be the “modern illiterates” who will dominate our future, or are they disadvantaged from a lack of reading experience? Reading a lot of novels is not a guarantee of “success” or even status in this day and age.
I suspect that the actual “upper class” of today’s Western society – politicians, influential businesspeople – either don’t read much, or are too busy to read that many books except on vacations and during travel…
You know: “airport literature”.
This raises the dreadful specter that the most influential novel of the past five years is THE DA VINCI CODE…
What the role of reading is in today’s society is an interesting question. I’ve been reading a book called The Victorians and their Reading by Amy Cruse, first published 75+ years ago. I haven’t read many of the chapters on fiction yet, but I wonder if the politicians of their day generally read many novels. I’m not sure.
It’s hard for me to tell, but the idea I get is that when a new book by a famous author came out, it was more widely spoken of—more like T.V. shows today. So it could be those were novels that politicians would have read.
Maybe the fact that there are fewer T.V. shows overall means everyone is talking about the same ones. Whereas with books, people can find a great number that fit their personal tastes, so there are less that become household names.
Maybe it’s something like: the real “upper class” (actors, politicians, CEOs) don’t have the time to read because they’re working. (Odd to think about.) But the people who want to pretend like they’re upper class, the snobs who think that by being snobbish they can get mistaken for someone who went to an Ivy League college and had their marriage announced in the New York Times, they will read–or pretend to read–the “literary” novel-things, because they’re special that way.
Like I’ll bet the new rich (and the wish-I-was middle-class) are more concerned with being seen to be rich, so they do the gold-plated everything luxury-cars never-used yacht literature thing, whereas the old rich are more confident in their money and don’t worry about all that, so they’re more, you know, normal. Who’d eat escargot unless they just wanted to prove that they were rich enough to? (Well, all right, probably there’s someone somewhere who actually likes literary fiction and would like it even if SF and F were the snooty genres, but the majority in our world?)
There are a lot of people here who like literary fiction, actually, myself included. And no, I don’t read it to show anything. I read it because I like it, even though I write genre because I like that too. Literary fiction does things that genre doesn’t, and vice versa.
I once ran across someone who announced that no one really likes either wine or poetry, despite both having been around for at least 4,000 years, that only snobs would pretend to like them. He simply couldn’t believe that another person would va.ue things that weren’t to his personal taste. To me, that’s the height of snobbery, insisting that your standards are the only real ones.
There is a new book out, Welcome to the Homeland, about the rural/urban divide in politics. One of the points the author (Brian Mann) makes is that individuals from both groups have a difficult time understanding the other group’s point of view. As a result, people can fall into believing that individuals in the other group did not spent much time or thought forming their values. One of the things he recommended was to keep talking with the those from the other group, and to see what their process of thought was in creating their values.
I’ll admit that I have a difficult time understanding why some consider contemporary literature to be more realistic since the “voice” of many of them is too much “glass half empty” for me. Listening to people who do like a lot of contemporary literature talk about it probably won’t change what I like to read, but it can give me a better idea of why others like it.
To put the shoe on the other foot, I read “genre” fiction for more reasons than entertainment. If others read it to pleasantly pass the time, that’s great too. But I read it for, hmm, it’s too late for me to articulate all the reasons I love it, but it isn’t something that can be replaced by a different medium that also provides entertainment. For me, “great works of fiction” are usually “genre” books, not limited to “literature” books.
On one of the other posts, Madeleine Robins asked “why do you read stories set elsewhere and elsewhen?” This is a great question. Maybe we don’t spend enough time talking about why we read fiction.
Clinton reads everything. He went to the Ivy League, and even Oxford. He didn’t start out middle class or upper class by any means.
I love wine — and boy did I not start out middle class, and I am not close to being that now either.
I read ‘literary’ novels, and have degrees in literature even. But I read those books (as well as much else — and less and less fiction as time goes on) and have those degrees because I passionately love literature, not because I was trying to be a different class. If I had been I sure as hell wouldn’t be messing around in college studying literature — I have been business or law, and joined the Young Republicans.
Love, C.
I wonder if the distinction between ‘literary’ and ‘genre’ isn’t false (and it is certainly modern). For me, the only distinction of importance is between well-written and badly-written. Sadly, many books getting into print are badly written – even those that are termed ‘literary’. The reasons for this are legion, but it may have a lot to do with the fact that, in many cases, those who ultimately decide whether a book goes to print do not actually read very much.
I do not read fantasy or science fiction because it is fantasy or science fiction. I seek out authors who have something interesting to say about the world, and say it in a concise, imaginative and literate way. Some of those authors use fantasy and science fiction as a vehicle. Others use the spy story (which has an extremely eminent lineage in the ‘Literary’ world) and thrillers, historical novels, detective stories, romance (in both sense of the word).
Indeed, I find that the authors I enjoy the most are not tied to a specific genre. Rather, they are motivated to tell a particular story (for whatever reason) and then use the genre best suited to making the most of the story. Early Ballard, M John Harrison, Moorcock, Peter Ackroyd, Angela Carter… These authors have used various genre as vehicles for their writing. These authors are far more interesting and far better writers than most of the ‘literati’ (in my opinion, anyway).
home equity line of credit…
ok…
“before movies and television if people wanted story they had to read a book” ???? this statement comes very oddly from the author of a series where the bard enjoys semi-sacred status
Surely before they are writers authors are storytellers. Surely before ‘universal’ literacy writers were storytellers. Copping a free cider dahn t’pub, sitting by the fire with the family, putting the kids to bed
Before they are actors thespians are storytellers. Before ‘universal’ literacy travelling troupes supported themselves and maybe even funded retirement giving story to the unlettered.
Before they are technicians musos are storytellers. Before ‘universal’ literacy think wandering minstrel. Think families playing together revisiting favourite characters and tales in song.
Before they are !!*@!!~s priests are storytellers. Before ‘universal’ literacy the faithful flocked to the next episode of damnation and hellfire, sin beyond redemption, the brand plucked from the burning and maybe even a dollop of hope
“before movies and television if people wanted story they had to read a book”? Indeed ! tsk tsk