"I sure as hell don't read it."

[Doug]

This weekend, I picked up Florida Frenzy, an essay collection by Harry Crews. Crews, who died last year, wrote novels and short stories, and taught creative writing at University of Florida. I discovered him through the novel A Feast of Snakes, a harsh, funny, and profane character study.

Something struck me in Florida Frenzy's first essay:

You've got to understand that what I'm talking about here is the making of literature. I'm not talking about detective stories, or westerns, or science fiction, or spy novels. That stuff is formula writing. You can pretty much figure it out ahead of time, make an outline, and then fill it in. Make the clever maze and then run your characters--who are not people at all, but ciphers-- through your maze. There is nothing wrong with reading that stuff, and there is nothing wrong with writing it. But I wouldn't walk across the street to write it, and I sure as hell don't read it.

Shortly after, he says of students in his classes who want to write genre fiction, "I just want to make sure they know what they are doing, to make sure they realize they are not writing the kind of fiction that can crush the heart with a living memory."

So I'm torn. On the one hand, I respect this man's ability (Feast of Snakes is a remarkable work), but I think he's dead wrong. Most of the truly memorable novels I've read, novels that have left their mark on me, have been genre fiction. Raymond Chandler's novels (detective stories). True Grit -- a western. The City of Gold and Lead -- YA SF, and the first book I ever read that stayed with me for days, and gave me some idea of the emotional potential of a novel. John le Carré's novels, especially the George Smiley novels -- spy stories, right? But I can't imagine anything less formulaic than a le Carré novel.

In contrast, I'm having a really, really hard time thinking of more than a few works of capital-L Literature that have stuck with me. As I Lay Dying, perhaps, or Lord Jim. I've enjoyed the classics, but they don't often "crush my heart with a living memory" -- or at least, they do so no more often than genre fiction.

So I'm thinking Crews is showing his ignorance here. What do you think?

[Moira]

In short, I think Crews is very, very wrong.

To elaborate, however: in my personal view, literature acts as a lens, showing us a specific picture that illuminates some aspect of life, humanity, or the world. Through literature, as through fine photography, we are given a glimpse at an essential truth of some sort. And to be frank, most of the books that have shown such essential truths to me have been genre fiction. Thought fantasy, science fiction, and spy novels, I have experienced some of the most devastating moments of my life (and I do mean that in the very best way). I see no reason that a book should be disqualified from counting as "literature" simply because it contains aspects that push it into a genre; frankly, the idea that genre fiction cannot be literature because it is too formulaic is ridiculous to me.

This is by no means to belittle Crews' talent. If anything, it reminds me of Roger Ebert's insistence that videogames could never be art. These are both people with an appreciation for fine craftsmanship in media. However, in both cases, I find their conclusions short-sighted.

[Doug]

Moira wrote: "In short, I think Crews is very, very wrong.

Yup.

My first thought -- and the reason I used the word "ignorance" -- was that Crews hadn't read enough genre fiction to make such a judgment. Perhaps he'd only read a handful of novels, chosen on a whim, rather than recommended to him by a friend. I wonder if the same is true for Roger Ebert. (Guess we may never know the answer for either man.) I've played a lot of games I consider art. Braid comes to mind.

[Shaun]

While there are a lot of genre books out there which would fall under the category of "just ok writing" or worse, to write off all genre work in such a fashion is just rather sad, particularly from a writer.

Honestly, a passage like that, combined with what I know of his biography, really kills a lot of respect I would have had for him as a fellow writer. To start with is the question, "If he doesn't read it, how would he know it's bad?". It's one thing to have an opinion like that, but then to be a teacher and push that kind of prejudice into a classroom is just something I find inexcusable.

[Amanda]

I think the irony is that Crews' work is honestly a genre unto itself.

[Doug]

Shaun wrote: "While there are a lot of genre books out there which would fall under the category of "just ok writing" or worse, to write off all genre work in such a fashion is just rather sad, particularly from..."

That's my problem, too. Later in that same essay, he talks about what great lengths he goes to as a teacher to avoid killing his students' ambitions. But with an attitude like that, how could he have done otherwise? (Unless the student were an aspiring SERIOUS LITERATURE author.)

I should stick with reading Lethem's and Chabon's commentaries on genre fiction. Both are "serious" authors who have embraced genre fiction, and done quite well with it (my opinion as a reader!)

[Moira]

My first thought -- and the reason I used the word "ignorance" -- was that Crews hadn't read enough genre fiction to make such a judgment. Perhaps he'd only read a handful of novels, chosen on a whim, rather than recommended to him by a friend. I wonder if the same is true for Roger Ebert.

In situations like these, I think there's really no convincing people. If they don't like a genre and will read it only under duress, the odds of convincing them are nearly zero. It just seems sad to me that people can't say, "vampire novels have never really done it for me," and move on with their lives.

[Abigail]

I never had a class with Crews (Go Gators!) but I know folks who did and said he was a tad on the egocentric side.

[Doug]

Moira wrote: "In situations like these, I think there's really no convincing people. If they don't like a genre and will read it only under duress, the odds of convincing them are nearly zero. It just seems sad to me that people can't say, "vampire novels have never really done it for me," and move on with their lives."

My favorite vampire series: the Joe Pitt series by
Charlie Huston. Fun stuff.

[Doug]

Abigail wrote: "I never had a class with Crews (Go Gators!) but I know folks who did and said he was a tad on the egocentric side." Just a tad, eh?