On the Legitimacy of Genre

One of the things that has always bothered me as a reader, a writer, and a consumer of media is the way the artistic establishment treats "genre" fiction as opposed to "realistic" or "literary" fiction.

Typically, people argue that serious literary fiction, like that of Joyce, or Atwood, or Ondaatje or Hemingway, exposes the truth of the human condition and makes us question the way the world works, whereas genre fiction is nothing more than cheap escapism. I don't think it's a stretch to say that any fiction that falls within a clear-cut genre (sci-fi, fantasy, horror, romance, western, mystery, thriller, action-adventure) is frequently discounted as being "serious", or having real artistic merit.

To that, I say: bollocks.

 Genre fiction has just as much to say about the world we live in and the human condition as genre fiction. Sure, in high school we get the token examples of 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 or  The Handmaid's Tale, held up as literary works of dystopia. And those are all good books. But what gets my goat is that they're always taught in this sort of apologetic "Well, they're really very good books, they just happen to be science fiction, sorry about that."

This completely discounts all the brilliant, incisive work of hundreds of authors for hundreds of years. What about Octavia Butler, whose Bloodchild explores the intersection of slavery, sexual abuse and co-dependancy - in a story about parasitic aliens who have conquered the human race? What about Stephen King's The Shining, a beautiful character portrait of a desperate man struggling with alcoholism and his own abusive nature - all the while being tormented by the malevolent spirits of the Overlook Hotel? What about Blade Runner, which examines the very crux of the question "What does it mean to be human?"

The literary and educational establishment totally dismiss genre fiction as having literary merit, when it so obviously does. Personally, I think it's because (God help us) genre fiction also has the desire to be entertaining. Heaven forfend that an audience be entertained.

Hell, you know who wrote entertaining, supposedly "low-brow" genre fiction? William Motherfucking Shakespeare. Macbeth features witches, ghosts, prophecies and curses, and in some productions the Devil himself. It's also a brilliant depiction of ambition, greed, and a disintegrating marriage. That's just the most obvious example, but every Shakespeare play falls into one of the three predominant genres of his era (Comedy, Tragedy, and History) and every one of them features a) violence, b) sex (or at the least, sexual innuendo) and c) clowning or slapstick humour, in order to keep the punters in their seats. You know what else every Shakespeare play features? Meaningful insight into the human condition and the life and times of the author. Shakespeare has lots of powerful things to say, but at heart, he's an entertainer.

Now, that's not to say that there isn't bad fiction out there - meaningless shallow trash, badly written and poorly conceived. Of course there is. Bookshelves are stuffed with it, movie theatres and bargain DVD bins are packed with 'em. But that bad fiction is not limited exclusively to genre fiction. 90% of all art is crap. There are plenty of examples of empty, navel-gazing aimless literary fiction, more interested in flowery, meticulously crafted prose or artful swoops of the camera than, you know - telling a goddamn story.

That's what it boils down to people. Telling a story that matters, that grabs your audience and doesn't let go. Doesn't matter if it's about spaceships and aliens or the quiet disintegration of a marriage. What matters is that we are made to care.