Genre Fiction: A problem of connotation

On Monday, I think we were talking about the categorization of "genre fiction" and "literature". I share the general sentiment that separating genre fiction from literature on grounds of quality, professionalism and "worth" is a fallacy, a value judgement that should not permeate scholarship, since intellectualism should lead to neutrality. Unfortunately, at least in my experience, it is scholarship itself that insists on a stark separation between the good, valuable, timeless "literature" and pop, cheap, dime-a-dozen, formulaic "genre". I don't exactly buy that argument at all, but I do want to acknowledge that literary exclusion/elitism seems to be the norm.

[Actually, before I go on, I should acknowledge that exceptions to the rule do exist. "The Hobbit", for example, is becoming required reading in some schools, and even our Lit class focuses on narrative from a very nontraditional, open-minded perspective. Having said that...]

What, exactly, is the difference between literature and genre? Is there a difference? I would say there is, but the difference is purely categorical and superficial. I'd like to bring in the example of a mainstream book-store, like Barnes and Noble or Books-A-Million, and their method of categorizing and organizing material. If you notice, usually the front of the store showcases best-sellers, some of which are genre (Harry Potter, for example), but most of which exist under this nebulous umbrella of "literary". Furthermore, most book-stores display a "Literature" aisle up front, usually next to the required reading shelf, adequately separated from the Science Fiction, Western, Fantasy, Mystery and Romance sections.

The obvious explanation is that genre fiction is far more widely published. There's more 'genre' out there than 'literature', so 'genre' demands its own shelfing. That would make some sense, on a pragmatic level, until we begin to question whether or not literature should be considered a subsection of genre itself.

The term genre carries with it a mostly unavoidable connotation, as does the term literature, and I believe this connotation has simply been conditioned into the reader primarily through our education system. Literary tradition exists within scholarship circles and dominates the "value-choices" of what will and will not appear on an English syllabus, especially prior to college. (In college, this focus tends to shift towards the non-traditional). What are some of the most common required readings, and why are they required at all?

Moby Dick, Beloved, Things Fall Apart, Romeo and Juliet, A Raisin in the Sun, Sound and the Fury, for example. One could argue that such texts constitute the literary tradition of the English discipline, and that would be a more or less fair argument. But that argument asserts that we read Hemingway and Faulkner because our predecessors did so, not necessarily because their works are exceptional, seminal, groundbreaking, redefining. But that isn't exactly true in every case. Literary canon is not infallible. For example, and I am no expert by any means, but I dislike Hemingway on a personal level. The same applies to Ezra Pound. Sure, I realize their works are influential from an historical perspective in the evolution of history, and sure, I admit they coined a very particular style (but so does nearly every successful author).

But I would certainly contend the implication that Hemingway and Faulkner rest at the top of a tall literary pedestal, and all "genre" exists beneath the shadow of their laurels. I don't want to dismiss literary canon as useless, but I do assert that "genre fiction" is a dismissive term, applied largely via literary curriculum (or more subtle tactics, such as never making it into a Norton Anthology of Literature) to almost sanctify a certain canonical collection of works. The problem with sanctification is two-fold.

First, it discourages criticism. High school students, at least in my experience, aren't "usually" invited to criticize and dissect given literature. Assigned literature is taught under the premise that a higher lesson and greater meaning must be passed on from a top-down hierarchy, beginning with the genius of the author and ending with the student.

This is not to say that literary authors are overrated, or the acclaim of their writing is a fabricated veneration. But they *are* being separated from genre writers in terms of value. A genre writer has a tall hurdle to leap, and must--in many cases--prove themselves authors worthy enough to claw out of this pit of pop genre and onto the pedestal of timeless literature.

A lot of it has to do with criticism of the setting of genre itself. Fantasy and Science Fiction can often be considered frivolous, because wizards, elves and spaceships are just there to tantalize the imagination and not provide any incisive, deep insight into the human condition (which seems to be the criteria for being literature). I don't exactly buy that sort of judgment at all, but it seems to be a common complaint. After all, if it's quality of writing that separates genre from literature, then by consequence, genre fiction should be laterally less enjoyable.

Which simply isn't true. Three of my favorite authors, George R R Martin, Neil Gaiman and J R R Tolkien are all, in my not so educated opinion, fantastic writers capable of employing the very same techniques that make literary authors so acclaimed, and yet from a largely academic perspective, their respective works must still escape incarceration within the connotations of genre.

Anyway, I'm not entirely sure I'd ever want Tolkien's works to be considered literature, on second thought. They're much too important for the Norton Anthology.