I learned to read when I was three years old. My mother taught me by reading to me every afternoon. Once I could read on my own, she took me to the library once a week while I was growing up, where I checked out countless books over the years, steadily working my way through the children’s novels, then progressing to both the classics and the popular fiction of the day.
I didn’t know anything about the differences in literary and popular fiction then. I read anything and everything that struck my fancy. To me, a good book was a good book. Period.
Lately, however, I’ve been hearing a lot of discussion about literary versus popular
fiction—usually coupled with complaints that the romance genre isn’t taken seriously and doesn’t get any respect.
I find that, for me, such discussions tend to go in one ear and out the other. I’ve heard them for nearly thirty years now—and also heard the very same complaints from colleagues who write in the horror, mystery, science fiction/fantasy, suspense, and/or western genres.
According to the Guinness Book of Records (aka Guinness World Records and the Guinness Book of World Records), the best-selling fiction author of all time is Agatha Christie, with two billion books sold worldwide. She wrote mysteries and, under the pseudonym Mary Westmacott, romances.
But do all these sales add up to her work being taken seriously, to her receiving respect for it? Not according to BBC News Magazine, which reports that:
“Novelist Anthony Burgess, for example, accused her of flimsy characterisation and cliché, and the Oxford Companion to English Literature notes her ‘undistinguished style’ and ‘slight characterisation,’†and “Christie may be a great writer but having her studied in schools is taking it too far, says crime writer Robert Barnard. ‘I’m dubious about this. We have been fleeing from the 19th and early 20th Century texts in education. Christie is a fine read. Read her when you’re 13 but then forget about her and read Great Expectations. She doesn’t stretch them as far as language or psychological complexity is concerned.’â€
That sure sounds like a lot of the stuff written about romance writers, too. In fact, here’s some of what Zoe Williams had to say about the romance genre, in an article that appeared in both the Guardian and the Sydney Morning Herald:
“Mills & Boon is changing. It would like to reflect real life a bit more. It is bored with its sexless courtships and happy endings. It is launching a new line, Next, that will tackle the harder edges of life – cancer, divorce, difficult children, the dissatisfaction that might beset the modern female as she lights some candles, sinks into a bath and, er, does those things that ladies do. Depilates. It’s being heralded as a swerve towards Thelma and Louise, so we can probably expect some rape, murder and suicide as well, though please don’t think this will make for a depressing read, since the suicide vehicle will be pink and everything will feel very upbeat.â€
Many of my colleagues were outraged by what Williams wrote. But the fact is that in the final analysis, despite all these kinds of criticisms and sweeping dismissals of popular fiction by those who value only literary fiction, Christie has sold two billion books worldwide, and according to Romance Writers of America, the romance genre is a billion-dollar industry accounting for 48.8% of popular paperback sales and read by 51 million people a year.
The truth is that regardless of what our detractors appear to believe, a book doesn’t have to qualify as literary fiction to be either good or enduring. In his own time, Charles Dickens, for example, was considered a writer of popular fiction. A book doesn’t have to qualify as popular fiction to be either bad or fleeting. Plenty of books classified as literary fiction have received scathing reviews and sunk without a trace. The reality is that both literary and popular fiction have their own share of outstanding novels and bottom-scraping books.
So, what are our critics missing? Author Peter Swirski has some ideas about that. My own thought is that it’s as simple as what I learned at age three: A good book is a good book. Period. What do you think?
No related posts.
I think that entertaining people with a good, fun, humorous story and characters they can love and root for matters more to me than whatever label someone hangs on the books. Romance will always have detractors. There will always be journalists who tee off on our books and applaud themselves for their witty slams. Given the choice between the negative critics or the 51 million romance fans, guess which group is more important?
Excellent post, and I think you said it best: a good book is a good book!
I agree Rebecca. Critics are paid to complain, find problem, talk negatively, in other words. . . be critical! They will pick anything apart to find thorns in the magnificent rose!
I agree Rebecca. Critics are paid to complain, find problem, talk negatively, in other words. . . be critical! They will pick anything apart to find thorns in the magnificent rose!
I couldn’t say it any better! Unfortunately it’s true that romance will always be knocked around, but we know the truth, our readers know the truth, and that’s what matters.
A good book is a good book!
A good book is a good book!
A good book is a good book!
A good book is a good book!
A good book is a good book!
need anything else be said?? Oh yeah one thing I guess…why does reading have to stretch my brain…I am reading…that is working my brain…I am processing words-why should they be words I can not understand? OH and why would a child-and I mean young-be reading Great Expectations or Romance at that age…for most it is too much anyway…the students reading Great Expections should be understanding the words anyway.
I am a firm believer that until our children are allowed to read what really interests THEM, they will nerver understand the joy of reading!!
Books are a way for people to escape the daily grind, or even to see that things can work out in the end.
Not too long ago, I had a friend tell me that during a time when she’d been in a bad marriage, she read a lot of romance novels, and they reminded her that things didn’t always end up badly, and that she could meet her prince charming someday. And she said that it kept her going when the days were very dark.
And now, she’s married to her prince charming, happier than she’s ever been and in a great place. She still contributes that to reading romance novels and showing her that dreams can come true. Just usually not how you expect them to…
PS: So when people say something derogitory to me about writing romance, I just smile and tell them to shove it up their old wazzoo..
Oh, exactly. Rebecca, you sound like me–the reading at three and the weekly trips to the library–and the attitude that a good book is a good book.
Good books can be found in any genre. The trick is, I think, to take a book for what it is, and not complain when apples don’t taste like oranges.
As for the books that stretch my mind–sure, I like an occasional difficult, thought-provoking read, but how many of those can you read back to back without needing a break? How often can you re-read Great Expectations before you’re heartily sick of it?
Mary Stella…I couldn’t agree more!
Robyn, Donna, and Cheyenne…thanks!
Glenice…everybody has their own levels of reading and comprehension, but I do hope that outside of school, kids are reading what they love and finding joy in it.
Candice…I’ve heard that so many times about romances, that it’s one of the many reasons why readers read them.
Darla…I think that’s why I’ve always been an eclectic reader and like to mix things up — a thought-provoking tome one week, something light and fun the next.