Art versus Commerce?Back to Banana OilThis entry was posted at Dear me, I'm posting a lot about Michael at 2 Blowhards today. Another interesting post he made yesterday involves literary versus genre fiction. He notes that, after the initial phase of pretentious angst over having to publish self-help books and mysteries and other unworthy endeavors,
Well, of course. I mean, truly, would you rather deal with the pretentious and oh-so-precious Dave Eggers, or with the consumate gentleman and master craftsman Poul Anderson? The best American writing has long been in the "ghetto" of genre fiction. Science fiction is, in my view, the quintessentially American literature. I mean hard SF, not skiffy. And the mystery genre has long boasted some of our best literary stylists, from Raymond Chandler to Rex Stout, amongst many, many others. I mean, even westerns are better than most of what passes for Important Literature. Jack Schaefer's Shane is one of the best American novels there is (considerably better than the classic film, too). Now quick, name three Important Authors whose work you enjoy reading at all. I can't get past one, personally. John Irving has hits and misses, but damn if I don't enjoy reading The World According to Garp and A Prayer for Owen Meany -- that last is doubly shocking, considering that I'm an atheist. But who else is there? Well, I happen to enjoy Edward Cline's work, but does he qualify? I don't think so, yet. He started out in the mystery ghetto with the interesting and well-written First Prize, had the adventure novel Whisper the Guns published by a small press, and is now publishing the multi-volume Sparrowhawk through the Literary (capital "l") MacAdam/Cage company. But he hasn't made waves in the litcrit community (and probably won't, he's too clear a writer), so he isn't Important. Supposedly. But who else? Catherine Asaro is SF, as are Vernor Vinge, Nancy Kress, C. J. Cherryh, Gregory Benford, and many others. Elmore Leonard remains shelved in the Mystery section, despite the respect he's finally gaining more generally. Dickens was paid by the word, but he was also an extraordinarily popular writer. In order for a writer to achieve greatness, he must first connect with an audience. Then, he must continue connecting with them. Just ask Shakespeare. My point is, putting it bluntly, that there is no contradiction between Art and Commerce. Any "artist" who sniffs at the thought of being popular (Jonathan Franzen, anyone?) is distinctly outside of centuries of artistic tradition, during which most artists actually had to eat, and saw no problem with making money from their work, becoming popular, and profiting thereby. Strictly speaking, that isn't what Michael was discussing, but I think it goes to (one of) the root cause(s) of the point he was making. |