I really like the notion of genres as being long-running conversations between all the participants in them - that's such a good way to look at it, and the advice to read within those genres in order to become fluent in the conversation is so correct. It's both useful for writing within the conventions of the genre and learning how to break them, on purpose, in order to subvert the anticipated path of the story. I read a lot of genre fiction, aside from Horror, and am real comfortable with the generally accepted ways these stories are going to play out, be it a fantasy epic or a sci-fi short, or a historical romance. I absolutely love when a writer masterfully pulls the rug out from under me through subversion, and you can tell it's because they fully understand the conversations of the genre or genres and are saying, 'fuck it, let's try something else'. Big fan.
I also love the repositioning of plot vs character driven towards prose-forward vs not prose-forward as a way to think about the differences between what is and isn't considered 'literary'. I think you are right on the money there - personally, I prefer prose with some character, and I tend to write that way myself - and I think that there's something in here about readership numbers and perceived accessibility, given the mainstream audience's attention spans these days.
Likely, more digging would need to be done to see whether there's a correlation between attention span and the push that I feel is going on towards less prose-forward writing within many genres, but I do think there's some kind of relationship there.
The textured vs aerodynamic prose reminds me a little bit of Calvino's essay on lightness vs weight in 6 Memos For The Next Millennium (albeit it's been a while since I've read it)! I'll have to go back and reread it.
Thank you for sharing this link. I love tis especially, a quote from the article abut Calvino:
Calvino argues, “lightness is a way of looking at the world based on philosophy and science,” but also “something arising from the writing itself, from the poet’s own linguistic power, quite independent of whatever philosophic doctrine the poet claims to be following.” Shakespeare, he later adds, “recognized subtle forces connecting macrocosm and microcosm.” And therein lies the paradoxical yet reconciliatory essence of lightness:
There is such a thing as a lightness of thoughtfulness, just as we all know that there is a lightness of frivolity. In fact, thoughtful lightness can make frivolity seem dull and heavy.
Thank you for this! I find it so inspiring as a reader and as a writer. The way Calvino links Lucretius and Ovid to lightness—wow. Love Invisible Cities. Heading out to find Six Memos.
Lincoln, thanks for this—I'm always interested in your conversations here & on twitter re: genre. I hadn't heard of Gene Wolfe until this post and I'm really excited to check out his work. I read pretty much exclusively literary fiction these days, but I think my engagement via video games and the SFF I have read should be solid enough that I can (hopefully) penetrate his work re: SFF conventions etc.
I think this is largely spot-on, but regarding SFF tolerances for prose, I do recall reading several reviews of _The Fifth Season_ that were very put off by the use of second person. Typically, the review went something like, "I didn't like it at first, but then [SPOILER]
I found out a character was literally narrating those sections and it was okay."
Playing with second person is pretty basic prosework from the literary side (and you certainly don't need an in-plot justification for it!), though I will say that the mainstream literary side has been pretty conservative experimentally for the last few decades, since most MFA programs certainly don't encourage it. So while the prose-forward binary certainly does exist, perhaps it's a little less intense than it used to be for that reason as well.
I wouldn't blame that on MFA programs per se. I think a lot of MFA programs are still pretty sentence focused and a lot of the experimental prose you see on small presses are from MFA grads. But I agree that mainstream fiction (across genres) has gotten even less experimental. Many of the books that win Pulitzers or NBAs would have been considered "middle brow" a generation ago and difficult prose is increasingly a barrier to get published by a Big 5.
Well, I think that there are certainly exceptions, but my impression (as well as experience) is that *pervadingly* MFA programs are absolutely concerned about beautiful prose, but kind of-- I'm not sure how to describe it. With the exception of select experimental teachers and schools, people *allow* experimentation and give lip service to it as an option, but reinforce more straightforward prose as more 'approachable to the reader'-- it's usually in couched in language about obligations to the reader. Of course there are the Browns of the world and the beloved experimentalists working in various schools, but the anti-experimental streak is a pretty common complaint.
I totally agree with you about the state of publishing, of course. I really do wonder what's driving the recent push toward less experimentation. It doesn't feel like *that* long ago more open experimentation was allowed.
Thanks, really loved this analysis, as someone who reads on both sides of the "divide" I think this really gets at which genre writers also get read through a literary fiction lens.
Thank you for writing this. when I saw that tweet I was so dismayed. It actually threw me down a hole for a while. I don't think I'm exactly a writer of literary prose but i'm always trying to do something with the words I choose. This post was the knotted rope I needed.
Another great conversation-starter. I love the idea about each genre having its own continuing conversation and references, and the idea of adding to or even changing those conversations. Then there's the cross-pollination aspect when you read across genres, which makes everything more fruitful and lush. And prose-forward, yes, that is a middle way to attend to the whole plot versus character divide, another way to think about and extend the conversation we're having here. Much to love here.
Great post and the “genre as conversation” metaphor is especially useful, especially when talking with students and readers who are baffled by the term genre.
Prose-forward makes so much more sense than the character-driven/plot-driven split. I'm going to be re-reading and thinking about this piece for a while.
Thank you for this in-depth piece! I write literary fiction, but I LOVE blending, smashing and juxtaposing genres (and formats too!). I’m all for fluidity, but it’s also interesting to know other points of views.
When I read the news that a former astronaut was kicked out of a movie theater because it was complaining “the space movie had errors”, I came onto the realization that maybe chatgpt is a good thing. That way we can do that thing when on a barbecue you put a plate with all the bones and food leftovers far away so the flies go onto that one instead of getting onto the nice plate of food that you are eating. It might just be barbecue, or tamales but hey If I’m enjoying it thats what matters.
So yeah oh Mr Astronaut you want to complain on Asimov? Here are ten thousand bad space scripts written by chatgpt, please go at it while I sit here reading an amazing 1920 Scifi story by Clare Winger Harris
I really like the notion of genres as being long-running conversations between all the participants in them - that's such a good way to look at it, and the advice to read within those genres in order to become fluent in the conversation is so correct. It's both useful for writing within the conventions of the genre and learning how to break them, on purpose, in order to subvert the anticipated path of the story. I read a lot of genre fiction, aside from Horror, and am real comfortable with the generally accepted ways these stories are going to play out, be it a fantasy epic or a sci-fi short, or a historical romance. I absolutely love when a writer masterfully pulls the rug out from under me through subversion, and you can tell it's because they fully understand the conversations of the genre or genres and are saying, 'fuck it, let's try something else'. Big fan.
I also love the repositioning of plot vs character driven towards prose-forward vs not prose-forward as a way to think about the differences between what is and isn't considered 'literary'. I think you are right on the money there - personally, I prefer prose with some character, and I tend to write that way myself - and I think that there's something in here about readership numbers and perceived accessibility, given the mainstream audience's attention spans these days.
Likely, more digging would need to be done to see whether there's a correlation between attention span and the push that I feel is going on towards less prose-forward writing within many genres, but I do think there's some kind of relationship there.
This is absolutely fantastic - thank you! I would very much like to assign it in a class on Popular Fiction that I teach - might that be possible?
Sure thing!
The textured vs aerodynamic prose reminds me a little bit of Calvino's essay on lightness vs weight in 6 Memos For The Next Millennium (albeit it's been a while since I've read it)! I'll have to go back and reread it.
https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/10/15/italo-calvino-six-memos-for-the-next-millennium-lightness/
Thank you for sharing this link. I love tis especially, a quote from the article abut Calvino:
Calvino argues, “lightness is a way of looking at the world based on philosophy and science,” but also “something arising from the writing itself, from the poet’s own linguistic power, quite independent of whatever philosophic doctrine the poet claims to be following.” Shakespeare, he later adds, “recognized subtle forces connecting macrocosm and microcosm.” And therein lies the paradoxical yet reconciliatory essence of lightness:
There is such a thing as a lightness of thoughtfulness, just as we all know that there is a lightness of frivolity. In fact, thoughtful lightness can make frivolity seem dull and heavy.
Thank you for this! I find it so inspiring as a reader and as a writer. The way Calvino links Lucretius and Ovid to lightness—wow. Love Invisible Cities. Heading out to find Six Memos.
Saved this one for a re-read when I am not sitting in the dentist’s waiting room. Love it on first pass. So much to sort through.
Lincoln, thanks for this—I'm always interested in your conversations here & on twitter re: genre. I hadn't heard of Gene Wolfe until this post and I'm really excited to check out his work. I read pretty much exclusively literary fiction these days, but I think my engagement via video games and the SFF I have read should be solid enough that I can (hopefully) penetrate his work re: SFF conventions etc.
He's quite good! The Fifth Head of Cerberus is a good place to start imho
I think this is largely spot-on, but regarding SFF tolerances for prose, I do recall reading several reviews of _The Fifth Season_ that were very put off by the use of second person. Typically, the review went something like, "I didn't like it at first, but then [SPOILER]
I found out a character was literally narrating those sections and it was okay."
Playing with second person is pretty basic prosework from the literary side (and you certainly don't need an in-plot justification for it!), though I will say that the mainstream literary side has been pretty conservative experimentally for the last few decades, since most MFA programs certainly don't encourage it. So while the prose-forward binary certainly does exist, perhaps it's a little less intense than it used to be for that reason as well.
I wouldn't blame that on MFA programs per se. I think a lot of MFA programs are still pretty sentence focused and a lot of the experimental prose you see on small presses are from MFA grads. But I agree that mainstream fiction (across genres) has gotten even less experimental. Many of the books that win Pulitzers or NBAs would have been considered "middle brow" a generation ago and difficult prose is increasingly a barrier to get published by a Big 5.
Well, I think that there are certainly exceptions, but my impression (as well as experience) is that *pervadingly* MFA programs are absolutely concerned about beautiful prose, but kind of-- I'm not sure how to describe it. With the exception of select experimental teachers and schools, people *allow* experimentation and give lip service to it as an option, but reinforce more straightforward prose as more 'approachable to the reader'-- it's usually in couched in language about obligations to the reader. Of course there are the Browns of the world and the beloved experimentalists working in various schools, but the anti-experimental streak is a pretty common complaint.
I totally agree with you about the state of publishing, of course. I really do wonder what's driving the recent push toward less experimentation. It doesn't feel like *that* long ago more open experimentation was allowed.
Thanks, really loved this analysis, as someone who reads on both sides of the "divide" I think this really gets at which genre writers also get read through a literary fiction lens.
Thank you for writing this. when I saw that tweet I was so dismayed. It actually threw me down a hole for a while. I don't think I'm exactly a writer of literary prose but i'm always trying to do something with the words I choose. This post was the knotted rope I needed.
Another great conversation-starter. I love the idea about each genre having its own continuing conversation and references, and the idea of adding to or even changing those conversations. Then there's the cross-pollination aspect when you read across genres, which makes everything more fruitful and lush. And prose-forward, yes, that is a middle way to attend to the whole plot versus character divide, another way to think about and extend the conversation we're having here. Much to love here.
Great post and the “genre as conversation” metaphor is especially useful, especially when talking with students and readers who are baffled by the term genre.
Prose-forward makes so much more sense than the character-driven/plot-driven split. I'm going to be re-reading and thinking about this piece for a while.
Thank you for this in-depth piece! I write literary fiction, but I LOVE blending, smashing and juxtaposing genres (and formats too!). I’m all for fluidity, but it’s also interesting to know other points of views.
When I read the news that a former astronaut was kicked out of a movie theater because it was complaining “the space movie had errors”, I came onto the realization that maybe chatgpt is a good thing. That way we can do that thing when on a barbecue you put a plate with all the bones and food leftovers far away so the flies go onto that one instead of getting onto the nice plate of food that you are eating. It might just be barbecue, or tamales but hey If I’m enjoying it thats what matters.
So yeah oh Mr Astronaut you want to complain on Asimov? Here are ten thousand bad space scripts written by chatgpt, please go at it while I sit here reading an amazing 1920 Scifi story by Clare Winger Harris