Comments on: The Birth and Death of Genre? http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/definitions/the-birth-and-death-of-genre Writing and Reading. Commerce and Art. Fantasy and Science Fiction. Discuss. Sat, 22 Nov 2008 20:10:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Marle http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/definitions/the-birth-and-death-of-genre#comment-13121 Marle Sun, 04 Mar 2007 00:06:42 +0000 http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/definitions/the-birth-and-death-of-genre#comment-13121 "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 “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

]]> By: home equity line of credit http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/definitions/the-birth-and-death-of-genre#comment-12976 home equity line of credit Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:08:33 +0000 http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/definitions/the-birth-and-death-of-genre#comment-12976 <strong>home equity line of credit...</strong> ok... home equity line of credit…

ok…

]]> By: Graeme Talboys http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/definitions/the-birth-and-death-of-genre#comment-3780 Graeme Talboys Sun, 15 Oct 2006 11:38:29 +0000 http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/definitions/the-birth-and-death-of-genre#comment-3780 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). 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).

]]> By: Constance Ash http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/definitions/the-birth-and-death-of-genre#comment-3749 Constance Ash Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:06:51 +0000 http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/definitions/the-birth-and-death-of-genre#comment-3749 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. 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.

]]> By: Vivian Francis http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/definitions/the-birth-and-death-of-genre#comment-3694 Vivian Francis Thu, 12 Oct 2006 06:24:12 +0000 http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/definitions/the-birth-and-death-of-genre#comment-3694 There is a new book out, <em>Welcome to the Homeland</em>, 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. 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.

]]> By: Katharine Kerr http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/definitions/the-birth-and-death-of-genre#comment-3687 Katharine Kerr Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:53:50 +0000 http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/definitions/the-birth-and-death-of-genre#comment-3687 There are a lot of people <em>here</em> 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 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.

]]> By: Gwen http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/definitions/the-birth-and-death-of-genre#comment-3686 Gwen Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:56:32 +0000 http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/definitions/the-birth-and-death-of-genre#comment-3686 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, <em>they</em> 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?) 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?)

]]> By: Vivian Francis http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/definitions/the-birth-and-death-of-genre#comment-3678 Vivian Francis Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:53:43 +0000 http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/definitions/the-birth-and-death-of-genre#comment-3678 What the role of reading is in today's society is an interesting question. I've been reading a book called <em>The Victorians and their Reading</em> 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. 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.

]]> By: A.R.Yngve http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/definitions/the-birth-and-death-of-genre#comment-3670 A.R.Yngve Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:10:01 +0000 http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/definitions/the-birth-and-death-of-genre#comment-3670 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... ;-) 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…
;-)

]]> By: Velcro City Tourist Board » Blog Archive » Links for 09-10-2006 http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/definitions/the-birth-and-death-of-genre#comment-3486 Velcro City Tourist Board » Blog Archive » Links for 09-10-2006 Mon, 09 Oct 2006 02:20:13 +0000 http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/definitions/the-birth-and-death-of-genre#comment-3486 [...] 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) [...] [...] 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) [...]

]]>