--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, JIM DOHERTY
<jimdohertyjr@...> wrote:
>
> The implication of the phrase is that the "genre"
is
> something that has to be escaped from, which
is
> insulting to the genre and condescending to
the
> specific piece.
Oh heck, I guess I might as well jump in here, too. I agree
with Jim on this. "Transcending the genre" and all its
variants is a phrase I despise for exactly the reasons he
gives.
Not sure how this bears on the discussion of literature, but
I think I've figured out perhaps *the* crucial distinction
between genre fiction and what's called "literary" fiction
(which of course doesn't necessarily count as LITERATURE
simply by virtue of being literary).
Here's where I explain the distinction:
http://groovyageofhorror.blogspot.com/2007/02/horror-high-and-low-pt-2.html
In a nutshell, it's that the genre/literary distinction
corresponds to the primary/secondary process distinction
proposed by Freud.
Here's where I explain why that results in genre fiction
being looked down upon so often, and why it actually
shouldn't:
http://groovyageofhorror.blogspot.com/2007/02/horror-high-and-low-pt-3.html
I'm afraid I've not yet continued the series, in which I
intend to explain in detail how things like emphasis on story
and "cliche" stock characters derive from primary process,
and why it's a mistake to be critically dismissive of them,
and what they contribute to fiction that more literary
emphases or more original, developed characters often
can't.
Bringing this back to the phrase "transcending the genre," I
think that phrase is often applied to fiction that bears some
of the window-dressing of genre fiction, but that is much
more strongly characterized by secondary process.
Anyway, just my two cents on that.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06 Nov 2007 EST