In reading through this thread, I could not help but to think of
this recent review. Note the language employed in the final half of this so-called review (yes, I think the actual review is full of it). Does the terminology employed here represent a certain strident, perhaps "low-brow" opinion of a different type of writing?
Pretty much, yes. What I find more interesting than how people reiterate certain stances on literature and its sub-genres is the language utilized to make those points. For some readers, attention to language, that "fine writing," becomes not a positive attribute but instead a thinly-veiled pejorative. "We won't have any of
that in our reading pool, thank you very much!" When this is followed by the references to "arty" and "academic," one might wonder if the person's opinion has been developed or if rather it had been
received.
Style is everything when writing a narrative. There is no one set "perfect style"; each writer ought to craft the style in order to tell the story in the best possible fashion. I would hope most here would agree with that at least, even if we might have strong differences of opinion on what constitutes "best possible fashion."
Another interesting facet of this particular debate is the implied use of THEY. "THEY think this..." or "THEY look down upon..." or "THEY don't know their rear ends from a hole in the ground..." THEY in debates is rather limiting, as it deprives any argument of a strong, active adversarial point; it's all generalized and nearly devoid of actual humanity. Whenever I see the "academics" or "elites" synonym for THEY, I find myself tuning out, wondering if the person realizes that they are writing a screed rather than having an argument. I wonder what would happen if, for example, a Brian Evenson were to be asked to weigh in on certain matters here. Not familiar with him? Look into what he does and what he has written and see if he ever falls nicely into a THEY category. Or how about Karen Russell, whose first novel,
Swamplandia!, was just published back in February. Ever see her influences cited in last year's "20 under 40" feature in
The New Yorker?
There are times and places for particular stories. While not my favorite sub-genre, I have derived quite a bit of enjoyment from reading several epic fantasies. I also happen to think that several that some enjoy are just utter dreck. Same goes for my opinion of certain writers in other fields. I am a huge fan of Roberto Bolaño's writing but think Coelho's writing is garbage (while also understanding why it appeals to so many). In some contexts, I guess I would be a "high brow" reader/reviewer, while in others I'd show some inclination toward some "low brow" material. It's not a static, sharp divide here. Those who choose to think in such terms I believe are doing themselves a disfavor, particularly if they choose to not open one's self to a variety of storytelling forms and narratives.
And to think I made a whole bunch of points without noting until the very end that "weird fiction" certainly seems to transgress these perceived boundaries...another time, another place, perhaps?
