While researching something else entirely, I ran across a scathing review of Conversations With Texas Writers from the Winter 2006 issue of Great Plains Quarterly (#26:1 for those who are counting) by Don B. Graham of the Department of English at the University of Texas at Austin.
(Full disclosure time: I interviewed Joe R. Lansdale and Bruce Sterling in Conversations.)
While I agree with some of Graham’s assessments especially the book’s lack of focus, I, not surprisingly, have serious issues with his elitist attitude regarding genre writers.
Another problem is that genre writers are accorded the stature of Flaubert or Dostoevsky. This is perhaps the inevitable result of posing questions to an author of young-adult fiction or adult crime novels: the very, act of treating such authors seriously, as artists, produces what we might call the Fog of Literature. All writers are good on the subject of their own fiction, poetry, drama, whatever; indeed, everybody sounds like Tolstoy when asked about their intentions, their influences, their feelings.
What the flip?!?! As if YA and mystery authors are not “real” writers (not to mention Robert E. Howard, who you disparage directly). Their art should be treated seriously and is as valid as any other form of creative output.
Let me tell you, Mr. Graham, I included a horror story by Flaubert in my apes anthology. And your lauded Dostoevsky penned one of the great crime novels.
Literature is just another type of genre with its own style, form, and content just like mystery, science fiction, young adult, etc.
In the early 21st century, where the distinctions between the genres continually blur and morph, it’s time to put away these classicist distinctions. Since arguably the most influential book on the 21st century writer was originally published as an Ace original science fiction novel and one of this century’s most lauded novelists has won both a Pulitzer Prize and a Hugo Award, just perhaps the “lesser” genres should be re-examined and seen as legitimate forms of art.
Just a thought…
I enjoyed your polite address of Graham’s unusual criticism of genre authors.
Graham has a classical education, and has obtained a coveted position teaching English at an University. A position in society I normally respect. The disrespectful tone of the review, attempting to coin “Fog of Literature,” then not providing a sufficient contextual definition was sophomoric. Also, his use of the royal “We” wrongfully implies that he speaks for literary scholars beyond UTA’s break room. Klaw, I believe we both realize a writer who can seamlessly transition from multiple genres, while tailoring their style, vocabulary, and tone successfully to an intended audience is truly a rare artist.
Klaw, when I pictured Graham I had a vision. A vision of a man with an obsolete education, a man that still blames Webster’s Third for ruining the English language back in the sixties. He serves his purpose in life well enough.