But no matter the genre you write in, if it can't be fairly clearly discerned from your 13 line fragment, it's nice to let potential readers know the genre, among other things.

Mr. Card writes extensively of the "ghettoization" of American letters in his book How to Write Science Fiction & Fantasy, which many members here have read (and continue to read). He goes through great lengths to explore the boundaries between sf and fantasy, which I liken to the border between Canada and the US, but doesn't have much to say on the boundary between sf and lit fiction, which to me is more like the division between Catholics and Protestants. It can get very ugly.

Writers can learn a great deal from work outside of their "comfort zone" and we are all here to learn and to help each other.

http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/20/1518217&tid=192&tid=214&ti d=126&tid=11

Question 2 is definitely worth reading. And Question 4. I never want to meet Gibson in a dark alley.

[edit: I managed to spell Neal right, but got Stephenson wrong. Strange.]

There's more to it than just publishing/renumeration systems. The gulf is quite wide between how genre people and lit people (esp. uppity elite Iowa Workshop types) see writing and reading, period. There are, of course, many people who deserve credit in that they can comfortably operate in both worlds. But my guess is that most people only think they understand the other world, when in fact they do not, and they will give themselves away. They may never know they've given themselves away, because people are generally too kind to point this out right to others' faces.

Neal, being rather more pacifistic than his dealings with Gibson would seem to indicate, chooses to ignore the obvious in this instance because it is a pointless war. I personally think that he is missing a certain critical point--the "commercial" side didn't start this war and hasn't done anything to keep it going. Therefore, pacifism by anyone on that side of the conflict only encourages attacks from the other side. Basically, these attacks are all made by the sort of cowards that like attacking people who won't fight back.

My solution is to rename the opposition for what they really are, "tenured" writers, and go after them with full vigor. If Sterling would be kind enough to lend me his assistance, I'm sure that we would raze a few of the more obnoxious institutions of literary oppression to the ground.

First, I completely disagree with Survivor's post. I'd like to know where his source is for stating that literary writers don't care about the art and craft of fiction. Just how many has he talked to about it? Perhaps what he means is that literary writers don't care about the kind of fiction he cares about.

Second, commerical writers have indeed continued this war by constantly insisting (as Stephen King did) that they should be considered for the National Book Award, the PEN/Faulkner Award, the Pulitzer. Why can't commerical writers get it through their heads that "literary" fiction is just as much a genre as SF, mystery, or horror--all of which, by the way, have annual awards. But when commerical writers keep on insisting that they too have the right to be considered for these awards, they're begging for attacks.

Further, "genre" readers and writers aren't as big-hearted as they make themselves out to be. How many here have read Philip Roth's new novel ... a alternative history about what would've happened had Linbergh been elected President in 1940? Yet, I doubt that book will even appear on the list for a possible Hugo or Nebula. Yet, it's not "considered" SF, and it won't be read by most SF readers. We can be just as closed minded as they are about things.

Here are my own ideas about literary fiction and genre fiction.

(1) "Literary" fiction (which I do enjoy, even by those damned tenured writers) is just as much as a genre for me as SF, mystery, or horror. It's not objectively better or worse than any other kind of fiction, though a particular literary novel can be better than a particular horror novel.

(2) For my own judgment on writing--and really, the question of literary fiction vs. commerical fiction is always a question of judgment -- I have a two-part test. The first is whether a novel is good or bad ... in the objective sense. I'm looking for clear and lucid writing, vigorous story-telling, and dynamic characters. Basically, everything that keeps me interested in a story. If a novel passes this test, it's a good novel in my book.

But is it a valuable novel? Did it offer me intellectual, spiritual, or emotional sustence? Or, is it like ice-cream: something good on a hot day, but nothing you can live on? Simply put, does the novel or story say anything important about the human condition? For me, that's the hallmark of greatness--telling the truth about humanity, giving insight into human existence, thereby giving me an opportunity to grow. If a novel does this, then it moves from being a good, entertaing novel to being a valuable novel that I'd recommend with greater or lesser vigor, depending on how moved I was by it.

This is why I think John Grisham is a horrible writer. His stories may be compelling, but his characters are superflat and his writing is banal and often illogical and unreadable.

This is why I think, say, the lot of Stephen King is good entertainment but nothing more, because the insights he offers end up being hackneyed ideas proffered by the lamest of radio talk-show hosts. That's not to say he doesn't tell great stories--stories I read and loved as a kid and read and love again as an adult--but that his stories are like ice cream on a hot day: they hit the spot, but in a few hours later I'm gonna want some real food.

And this is why I think a novels as Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead rank up there as some of the most valuable literature we have today, because those novels do give real insight into human condition.

I have to say, I usually don't make a distinction between "well written" and "valuable", though clearly the divide is there in some works. I feel that if the author is showing me characters that come alive, those character must say something about the sentient condition, even if it isn't the human condition per se. At the same time, there are brilliantly written works that have an overwhelming tendancy towards despair, nihilism, hatred, etc.

Just because a work has something important to say about the human condition doesn't mean it is something you'll like. There was this story, really engaging on so many levels, but it was so...painful. It was an idiot plot, of course, but the idiocy was terribly real. You couldn't disbelieve that the characters would do such stupid and destructive things to each other for the sake of love.

And the really sad thing is that most of the audience for that story is at just that level of stupidity. These people won't realize that the pain and heartbreak are caused by stupid actions, they'll think that such things are inevitable.

But for all that something is important in a bad way, I still think that it can be great literature. Some brilliant literature isn't good for your soul. It isn't valuable to a particular person, but that doesn't mean that it isn't valuable in a larger sense.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/20/1518217

This is an "interview" where Neal Stephenson (SNOW CRASH, etc) answers a series of questions, and the second question is the relevant one. He takes the approach of the difference between the two kinds of writers depends on whom they are accountable to for their work.

What do you think started this tangent, anyway? Where've you been, m'lady?

*snickers again and takes off at a (slow) run before kdw can bop her for being impudent!!*

Anyway, consider it a second of Jules' recommendation.