Sorry I have been MIA for the past few weeks, but have had a lot of goings ons around here. Been taking a creative writing class through the Gotham Writer's Workshop circuit. It's been great writing stories and getting critiqued. It's also been really good reading the stories of classmates and testing my novice hand at critiquing. As fearful as I can get about writing, I have to say this experience is teaching me that there isn't much to be scared of, except of course, fear itself.
One thing I do feel self-conscious about, with regards to the works I have been producing, is how I mostly lean towards genre-based fiction; whereas, some of my classmates dabble in literary fiction. What's the difference? Well, according to some, genre-based fiction can sometimes be referred to as "supermarket fiction," or "pulp fiction." They're the dime-a-dozen novels you find while waiting on the checkout line. You know what I'm talking about, the books stacked between the tabloids and Baby Ruths. Or you might find them advertised on the subway; the new Danielle Steele or John Grishman or Dean Koontz novel that claims to be their "BEST YET!"
Literary fiction; however, are those novels of such metaphorically and symbolically deep import that it takes much more physical and mental effort to plow through and, because they almost require a degree in literary analysis to truly understand, much less appreciate, they automatically become stories of historical record. These novels might take a 2nd or 3rd read before all the hidden meanings begin to materialize. Such novels where a reader must not only put on their thinking cap, but they must also complete an almost Freudian style analysis of every line, every detail, and every scene of dialogue between characters before they can finally understand what the writer is truly saying.
Suddenly that coming of age, teen drama turns into a social commentary of how big business is ruining the mating rituals of the Swallows of Capistrano. But A) it took me 4 re-reads to figure that out and B) I was disappointed that what I thought was the message, turned out to be quite, quite different.
I've read literary fiction. I even read good literary fiction, but the difference between 100 Years of Solitude and the latest Kim Harrison novel is: It doesn't take me 100 years to read Kim Harrison from cover to cover and I get just as much enjoyment in doing it. Now, am I complaining about literary fiction and advocating for genre-based fiction? No. Absolutely not. Both have their ups and downs. I think both types of novels have messages they are trying to communicate whether by direct action or veiled prose. There is, however, some baaaaad genre fiction out there (cough-Stephen Meyers-cough) and they, unfortunately, ruin it for the rest of us.
Bottom line is, reading should not be left to a group of people who turn their noses up at anything that isn't considered academically challenging. The purpose of fiction is to make the reader feel something. To relate a story. Not confuse the shit out of them so bad that they throw their hands up in disgust, shouting "Reading is hard! Reading is stupid hard!" So read whichever authors makes you feel something, you'll be better off for the experience. Facebook
No comments:
Post a Comment