Dav’s review of Boneshaker (The Clockwork Century, #1) > Likes and Comments

Comments (showing 1-7 of 7) (7 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Josh (new)

Josh Hmm a shot at "mindless hipsters" and Eggers praise in the same review, great logic

message 2: by Williwaw (new)

Williwaw This is not a good sign. Not sure I'm going to make it through this book. I should have a copy tomorrow. Fortunately, I'm just borrowing it from the library.

message 3: by Lisa (new)

Lisa why would you knowingly read a book of a genre that you dislike?

message 4: by Dav (new)

Dav Great literature transcends genre.

message 5: by John (new)

John Hupp Yeah, it's totally a genre book, but as far as genre books go it seems pretty good. It sounds like you prefer "literary fiction", which is a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison here.

message 6: by Williwaw (new)

Williwaw So, if fiction is not "literary," does that mean it's "illiterary fiction?"

If a book is "genre book," does that mean we should apply a lower standard?

It seems to me that there's no reason to lower our standards simply because a book or story fits a particular genre. Otherwise, the genres could rightfully be dismissed out of hand.

I happen to love the science fiction genre. But I hate it when people refer to it as "that kids' stuff."

message 7: by John (new)

John Hupp "Genre fiction" and "literary fiction" are terms that I'll put in scare quotes because they're both conventional and contentious. (I think they are both derived from the historical structure of the publishing business.)

I wouldn't say standards for genre fiction are lower, per se, but different. People expect certain things out of certain genres—and "literary" is a genre—and judge books on their adherence to certain tropes.

I think what I meant was that Boneshaker uses lots and lots of tropes—air pirates! mad scientists! zombies!—but doesn't sink under the weight of all of them. On the other hand, it isn't exactly Thomas Pynchon. Sorry.

back to top