I was flipping through the November issue of Locus a few days ago, ensconced on my couch and trying to get over an unpleasant cold, when I came across Gardener Dozois’s review of “Dream of the Arrow,” a mainstream story by Jay Lake that was in Subterranean’s Summer 2010 Issue. Mr. Dozois says this story is:
…a story good enough to suggest that Lake’s talents may be wasted working in the genre, as he has the literary chops to make it as a significant mainstream author instead.”
Since I’ve become more educated in the field, I have grown accustomed to the speculative genre being dismissed and marginalized. I had no idea of any such stigma before my decision to pursue writing seriously, in spite of spending nearly twenty years making a beeline to the science fiction section of any library or bookstore I happened to enter, but I’m certainly not arguing that it doesn’t exist. Usually when I encounter such sentiments, I blink, shrug, and move on.
But I was actually shocked when I read the above quotation in Locus. For those of you who aren’t deeply involved in the science fiction and fantasy community, Locus is the trade magazine of the field, and Mr. Dozois is a highly respected writer, editor, and anthologist in the field. He’s won twenty Hugo awards for his work in professional editing, which should give you some idea of his stature. And yet, even so, his comment seems to imply that genre writing is in some way not as inherently worthwhile as mainstream (aka literary) writing.
Let’s unpack this quote a little further, shall we? If it were merely a question of suggesting that Lake might consider a career as a mainstream author due to his particular talent for it, I wouldn’t have paused. I have no doubt Lake has the abilities to become a literary author if that’s what he wants to do (whether or not he would achieve critical acclaim for it is another question, but not one connected to his abilities as a writer). There is also no discussion of the possible merits of Lake’s speculative novels being shelved in the general fiction shelves as have books by such crossover successes as Susanna Clarke, Isabel Allende, and Kazuo Ishiguro.
What we get instead is the idea that Lake is wasting his talents working in science fiction and fantasy, and with this idea, I must respectfully disagree. As a reader, I want variety in my speculative fiction, and I want to read speculative books written by authors with literary chops. I balk at the implication (perhaps unintended) that writers only work in the science fiction field because they don’t have the ability to do otherwise. The last thing our field needs is internal ghettoization; we get enough flak from the outside.
I’m proud to be a science fiction and fantasy writer, and I don’t write in those genres because I think it’s easier. For me personally, writing in the speculative genres is more difficult (world building, I’m looking at you). I don’t feel the need to apologize for the kinds of stories, worlds, and structures I find interesting and compelling.
Now Lake, of course, can do whatever he wants. An author makes the decision on what genre to write within based on any of a number of factors (financial gain, critical acclaim, artistic inspiration or satisfaction, etc.) If Lake wishes to make the leap over into mainstream fiction, I would certainly support that decision (and really, it’s none of my business). But if he spends his entire career writing in the speculative genres, I believe his creative contribution will be just as valuable.
The Practical Free Spirit 
I’m really surprised that someone in our field would say that.
Perhaps it was just an unfortunate word choice. But yeah, I found it disappointing.
Ha ha ha ha!!!
Jay wasting his talents? He writes Steampunk and other Spec Fic because he likes it!
I assumed that was probably the case. 🙂
Definitely a poor choice of words. For my part, the majority of ‘literary’ fiction is just a load of pretentious claptrap, best read with a cup of tea and your pinkie held high.
“Rain poured from the heavens on Tuesday, so, as was her wont, Auntie Mathilda opened a bottle of sherry and waxed poetic on the dire state of the world.”
Blech.
I read some speculative fiction and some literary fiction, and works in both categories have been very important to me. I think it’s fine to have a preference between the two, but I do wish people could resist the temptation to talk smack about whichever one they don’t like. It does seem like a preference for polarization is in human nature, though.
Interesting analysis. Thank you.
For my part, I took Gardner’s comments as an issue of word choice, and interpreted them as a compliment.
Which is the most gracious thing to do. 🙂 I’m sure it was meant as a compliment.
Of course, for an editor of Dozois’ reputation/pedigree to choose words poorly is surprising in itself. The idea that he might consider sf inferior to literary fiction is probably best left as a clue to be pounced on by a biographer.
The idea that one genre is inherently inferior to another (and, yes, “literary fiction” is a genre, and despite its pretentious label, a genre that I am often damned fond of) sets me off on a fairly regular basis. If a guy wakes up and he’s turned into a bug overnight, that’s clearly science fiction. Or wait, there’s no science in that, so it’s speculative fiction. But all fiction is speculative, it has to be or it isn’t fiction. So, does it become literary because the science is no good? Or because of how we already think of the author?
Of course, if it sells, it is by definition commercial, at which point it can be dismissed as inferior by all of us whose sales are either relatively or totally nonexistent.
Clearly, then, in terms of merit, fiction should be ranked as follows:
1. Literary
2. Genre
3. Commercial
In terms of profitability, just flip the list.
The question of genre is an interesting one and one I’ve been thinking a lot about recently. I have heard genre described as basically marketing categorization (and also then a bookstore shelving system). This is one answer, and explains for instance choosing genre on the basis of an author’s previous reputation.
I don’t think it’s necessarily seeing the whole picture, though. I think there’s more to genre than just marketing, at least part of the time. But I also think that one of the inherent flaws of most categorization systems is that they are most suited for generalizing and less suited for hybrids, edge cases, and the like.
[…] Wasted Talent? I don’t think so. — Amy Sundberg on Gardner Dozois on me. (And I suppose this is me on Amy Sunberg on…) […]
From what I know of Gardner, he meant it as a compliment to Jay and a tongue in cheek criticism of folks who think science fiction has no literary value.
My mentor in U.C. Davis’s grad program in creative writing told me when I graduated that he didn’t think I would have much of a writing career. He said that my science fiction was too literary for the science fiction markets to buy, and too science fictiony for the literary markets.
He meant it as a compliment, I think, but all I could conclude from it is that he didn’t know much about science fiction.
I think we’re all happy that your mentor turned out to be wrong. 🙂
And yes, it’s quite possible to read Gardner’s comment as you suggest. Perhaps I am just not yet sufficiently experienced with his sense of humor.
Great post, Amy. I’m really with you on the “spec fic is harder” part. These days, SF/F needs to be as literary in emotional texture and impact as any literary story. But it also needs a unique idea and rich world building.
Sure, sometimes you get away with less of the former and more of the latter, but not often.
Yes, exactly! After I wrote my first novel (spec YA) and several spec short stories, I decided to take a break in order to write a straight contemporary YA novel. Part of my decision process was that in so doing, I could focus on the basics of my writing that still needed lots of work (plot, character, voice) without adding in extra elements (world building, magic system, speculative idea, etc.) And now in retrospect, I’m really happy I made that decision.