Genre and Literary Fiction

8/7/2019 Genre and Literary Fiction

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/genre-and-literary-fiction 1/4

Are Stieg Larsson and Dan Brown a match for

literary fiction?

The Millennium trilogy and Da Vinci Code authors sell millions– but according to novelist Edward Docx

their books are 'amateurish'. Here, he argues that even good genre fiction doesn't bear comparisoworks of true literary merit

Edward DocxThe Observer, Sunday 12 December 2010

Stieg Larsson creation Lisbeth Salander (Noomi Rapace) in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Photograph: KnutKoivisto

On my way back to London the other day, I was clawing my way toward the buffet carwhen I noticed with a shock that more or less the entire train carriage was reading…novels. This cheered me up immensely: partly because I have begun to fear that we areliving in some kind of Cowellian nightmare, and partly because I make a good part of myliving writing them. Where were the Heats and the Closers, I wondered? The Maxims and the Cosmos? Where the iPads, the iPhones, the Blackberrys and the Game Boys, theDingoos and the Zunes? Why neither the ding of texts, nor the dong of mail? Barely anyonewas even on the phone, for Christ's sake. They were all reading. Quietly, attentively,reading.

My cheer modulated into something, well, less cheerful (but still quite cheerful) when Irealised that they were all, in fact, reading the same book. Yes, you've guessed it: The GirlWith the Dragon Tattoo who Played With Fire and who, some time later we are led tobelieve, Kicked the Hornet's Nest. In the next three carriages it was the same story – men,women, toddlers. A glance out of the window revealed that even the cows were at it – nosedeep, hay forgotten. And when, finally, I arrived at the buffet car, I was greeted with a sigh



and a how-dare-you raise of the eyebrows. Why? Because in order to effectively conjure mycup of lactescent silt into existence, the barrista in question would have to put down his…Stieg Larsson.

In terms of sales, 2010 has been the year of the Larsson. Again. His three books have been

the three bestselling fiction titles on Amazon UK. Along with Dan Brown, he hasconquered the world. The success of the Millennium trilogy is a tale of unimaginablepublic appetite, staggering international sales, big-screen boosts, perplexed publishers and (let's face it) not-that-originally-reformulated formula fiction. Not least among the reasonsfor the bafflement of the industry (and fellow writers) is the amateurishness of the books – something, curiously, that Larsson has in common with Brown. Readers, publishers and writers alike can agree that John Grisham, Robert Harris, Tom Clancy or Danielle Steelbuild up their massive readerships by knowing precisely what they are doing; they aremaster practitioners of their highly skilled craft. Conversely, Brown and Larsson – in theirdifferent ways – are mesmerisingly bad.

Here is Dan Brown, for example, describing – without flinching – how women find hishero's voice like "chocolate for their ears" before having said hero muse to himself that "heknew what came next" – "some ridiculous line about 'Harrison Ford in Harrison Tweed'".Leaving aside the queasiness of the gender politics (another communality with Larsson isthe cod feminism), ridiculous is not the word we're after here. Larsson, meanwhile, opensPart 1 ("Incentive") of his first book with the most tedious acronym-packed exchange – nota conversation, not dialogue – that I have ever read. His two characters sit stranded inharbour because one of them can't start his engine (no joke) and begin "to explore whatwas ethically satisfactory in certain golden parachute agreements during the 90s". Says

character "B": ''The AIA obtained government guarantees for a number of projects… TheSwedish Trade Union Confederation, LO, also joined in… [and] Wennerström presented aplan, seemingly backed by interests in Poland, which aimed at establishing an industry forthe manufacture of packaging food stuffs." Pause for a line or two to take this in before – again without irony – says character "A" in reply: "This is starting to get interesting." No itisn't.

I realise we are sailing into choppy waters here. With Larsson now dead and so decent achap, how dare I go up on deck and start explaining – amid the storms of publicity and howl of Hollywood and the relentless sluicing of the sales – that his work is not very good

even by the standards of his genre? Well because, in my view, we need urgently to remind ourselves of – for want of better terminology – the difference between literary and genrefiction; because, to misquote the literary essayist Isaac D'Israeli, "it seems to me a wretched national compulsion to be gratified by mediocrity when the excellent lies before us".

We need to be clear-eyed here because although there is much written about this subject,there is also much theatricality to the debate. And this serves to hide (on both sides) afundamental dishonesty. The proponents of genre fiction are not sincere about the



limitations even of the best of what they do while being scathing and disingenuous aboutliterary fiction (there's no story, nothing happens etc). Meanwhile, the (equally insincere)literary proponents say either: "Oh, don't blame us, it's the publisher's fault – they label thebooks and we really don't see the distinction"; or, worse, they adopt the posture and toneof bad actors delivering Shakespeare and talk of poetry and profundity without meaning agreat deal or convincing anyone. Both positions are bogus and indicative of something (alsointeresting) about the way we talk of literature and culture more widely.

It's worth dealing with the difference again, since everyone seems to have forgotten it orbecome chary of the articulation. Mainly this: that even good genre (not Larsson or Brown)is by definition a constrained form of writing. There are conventions and these limit thematerial. That's the way writing works and lots of people who don't write novels don'tseem to get this: if you need a detective, if you need your hero to shoot the badass CIAchief, if you need faux-feminist shopping jokes, then great; but the correlative of thesedecisions is a curtailment in other areas. If you are following conventions, then a significant

percentage of the thinking and imagining has been taken out of the exercise. Lots of decisions are already made.

So it follows that genre tends to rely on a simpler reader psychology. If you have a body onthe first page, then you raise a question: who killed it and how did it get there? And curiosity will power readers a surprisingly long way. As will, say, a treasure hunt (Brown)or injustice (Grisham) or the locked room mystery format (Larsson). None of this is to saythat writing good thrillers is easy. It is still incredibly difficult. But it is easier.

These are the reasons, too, why a bad thriller or detective novel or murder mystery will feel

so much better than a bad literary novel – why it might even thrive. Even in a bad genrebook, you've still got the curiosity and the reassuring knowledge that the writer willeventually deliver against the conventions. Bad literary fiction, on the other hand, is mostlywithout such fallback positions and is therefore a whole lot worse.

To enlist a comparison, one might choose to set up a vast and international burger chainand sell millions of burgers. Or one might choose to open a single restaurant selling line-caught eel lasagne one night and hand-fondled quail poached in liquorice the next. We alllike burgers – me as much as the next man – and there is absolutely nothing wrong withthat. But let's be honest: there is a major difference in both the production and theconsumption of the two experiences. Again, we can see why bad literary fiction is so muchmore annoying than bad genre. We pay more attention to the restaurant that claims tohave carefully sourced its ingredients and then used skill and imagination to bring those tothe table in a manner that is original, surprising, beautiful, clever and delicious. Failure inthis second case, therefore, is far more irritating. But equally, if you are in the burger-sellingbusiness, then although your burgers may appear different – you can flip them with baconor jalapeño or even Stilton – the truth is that they are all fundamentally the same; you are inthe burger business or you are not in business at all.



This is why genre writers cannot claim to have everything. They can take the money and the sales and all that goes with that. And we can sincerely admire them for doing so. Butthey should not be allowed to get away with suggesting that these things tell us anythingabout the intrinsic value or scope of their work. Here, for example, is Lee Child talking thekind of ersatz machismo bullshit that so confuses the issue: "The thriller concept is whyhumans invented storytelling, thousands of years ago. [Is it?] The world was perilous and full of misery, so they wanted the vicarious experience of surviving danger. [Did they?] It'sthe only real genre and all the other stuff has grown on the side of it like barnacles. [Really?Barnacles?] I could easily write a work of literary fiction. [No you couldn't.] It would takeme three weeks, [No it wouldn't] sell about 3,000 copies [Doubt it] and be at least as good as the competition. [Absolutely no chance.] But literary authors can't write thrillers. Theytry sometimes, but they can never do it. [Crime and Punishment.]"

I'd love to end this piece by dealing with the fallacies of relativism, exposing the othermisconceptions surrounding both genre and literary fiction (class needs tackling) and then

round the whole thing off with a series of extracts from any number of fine contemporarynovelists whom I love – Franzen, Coetzee, Hollinghurst, Amis, Mantel, Proux, Ishiguro,Roth – to illustrate again the happy, rich and textured difference. But there's simply notenough space. Our culture is ever more congested – for lots of good reasons as well as bad.There's huge pressure on books, particular pressure on fiction, and the most pressure of allon literary fiction. And yet, the English language, not football, is our greatest gift to theworld. So, if we are to save our excellence in this from its slow extinction, then we simplyhave to find a way to bring the finest writers of the language more often to the attention of the carriages of people up and down the country who are evidently still willing and able tobuy novels for the journey. Because right now – as you read this – they are being subjected to an atrociously bad (and translated) exchange between character A and character B on abroken-down Swedish boat about the establishment of a Polish industry for themanufacture of packaging foodstuffs. Surely they deserve better. No?

Edward Docx's latest novel, The Devil's Garden, is published by Picador in April

Genre and Literary Fiction

Documents

Transcript of Genre and Literary Fiction