The People vs Reading, Part II, or Classics revisited
So, I said a post ago that I’d return to the question of why popular genres and fun stories are disparaged, and, if not ignored, disapproved of when it comes to writing.
I think it’s twofold.
One. Romance (and all its related subgenres, e.g. romantic crime, which is what I write) is read overwhelmingly by women. Like it or not, a woman sitting reading is a woman who is not doing the washing, the childrearing, the cooking...or any of the domestic wifework which she is expected to do by society as a whole instead of doing something that solely pleases her. Women, I’m afraid, are still expected to put themselves last – and reading is putting yourself first. So if you turn the single biggest genre which predominantly women read into a guilty “this isn’t a real book” – you discourage women from reading and talking about it. You make it a second-class activity, which they shouldn’t really enjoy. Just to be totally provocative, one might compare it to how women have been conditioned to think that sex is something they shouldn’t really enjoy.
Two. Literature shouldn’t be for the masses. Popular genres and fun stories aren’t what “clever” people read. I was, in my profession, respected as “clever”. As I said in the first post on this topic “The Story Trap”, I’ve read a lot. Most of it is in these disparaged, “popular” genres. And you know why? Because after fighting my way through hugely complex, technical, dense legalese all day, with millions of dollars and our reputation on the line if I got it wrong – I don’t want to read dense, technical, complex prose. I want to read a *story*.
There is a place for clever-clever literature. But if you look at the classic British authors (I make no claim to know about US authors: my knowledge is basically Mark Twain), and one or two others – they wrote stories. Austen and Burney wrote romance novels, with social satire. Mrs Radcliffe invented the Gothic horror novel, and Mary Shelley Frankenstein and his monster. Jules Verne and HG Wells wrote science fiction with a side of fantasy. I’ve left out Shakespeare, because I’ll address him separately another day. Chaucer’s Canterbury tales are a set of entertaining stories: high knightly saga to vulgar humour. Malory’s Knights of the Round Table is military fantasy, with spirituality baked in. And Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables – now a smash hit mega-musical – is a classic redemption story.
Not one of those classic authors wrote clever-clever literature. They wrote *stories*. Complex stories, with complex characters, sure. But they were stories, with a plot which anyone can follow, and characters with whom you can identify. Who, released from prison, unable to find a job and unable even to vote, would not identify with Valjean, turning back to crime and only saved by the grace of the Bishop who gave him his seed funding to start again? Who, reading about Elizabeth Bennett, doesn’t identify with her instant dislike of an arrogant man or her annoyance at her flashy, bling-loving younger sister, ruining her chances of looking cool?
And yet, according to “clever” people, these genres are... second rate. Lower class. Less intelligent.
Really?
I bet they all claim to have read the names I’ve checked above.
Death in Focus
I think it’s twofold.
One. Romance (and all its related subgenres, e.g. romantic crime, which is what I write) is read overwhelmingly by women. Like it or not, a woman sitting reading is a woman who is not doing the washing, the childrearing, the cooking...or any of the domestic wifework which she is expected to do by society as a whole instead of doing something that solely pleases her. Women, I’m afraid, are still expected to put themselves last – and reading is putting yourself first. So if you turn the single biggest genre which predominantly women read into a guilty “this isn’t a real book” – you discourage women from reading and talking about it. You make it a second-class activity, which they shouldn’t really enjoy. Just to be totally provocative, one might compare it to how women have been conditioned to think that sex is something they shouldn’t really enjoy.
Two. Literature shouldn’t be for the masses. Popular genres and fun stories aren’t what “clever” people read. I was, in my profession, respected as “clever”. As I said in the first post on this topic “The Story Trap”, I’ve read a lot. Most of it is in these disparaged, “popular” genres. And you know why? Because after fighting my way through hugely complex, technical, dense legalese all day, with millions of dollars and our reputation on the line if I got it wrong – I don’t want to read dense, technical, complex prose. I want to read a *story*.
There is a place for clever-clever literature. But if you look at the classic British authors (I make no claim to know about US authors: my knowledge is basically Mark Twain), and one or two others – they wrote stories. Austen and Burney wrote romance novels, with social satire. Mrs Radcliffe invented the Gothic horror novel, and Mary Shelley Frankenstein and his monster. Jules Verne and HG Wells wrote science fiction with a side of fantasy. I’ve left out Shakespeare, because I’ll address him separately another day. Chaucer’s Canterbury tales are a set of entertaining stories: high knightly saga to vulgar humour. Malory’s Knights of the Round Table is military fantasy, with spirituality baked in. And Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables – now a smash hit mega-musical – is a classic redemption story.
Not one of those classic authors wrote clever-clever literature. They wrote *stories*. Complex stories, with complex characters, sure. But they were stories, with a plot which anyone can follow, and characters with whom you can identify. Who, released from prison, unable to find a job and unable even to vote, would not identify with Valjean, turning back to crime and only saved by the grace of the Bishop who gave him his seed funding to start again? Who, reading about Elizabeth Bennett, doesn’t identify with her instant dislike of an arrogant man or her annoyance at her flashy, bling-loving younger sister, ruining her chances of looking cool?
And yet, according to “clever” people, these genres are... second rate. Lower class. Less intelligent.
Really?
I bet they all claim to have read the names I’ve checked above.
Death in Focus
No comments have been added yet.
