I wonder how much of an overlap there is between audiences who enjoy "focusing on bigotry is the only way to write" or "aspirational escapism only please"
At least one, if we're counting me! (err, well, I like both types, that is, depending on my mood.)
I brought up the issues in women's romance as analogy to this non-mutually-exclusive presentations in genre romances, because it's become considerably more popular in women's fiction to show women being successful, strong, and finding a man (or woman) who respects the protagonist and doesn't treat her like crap. When you think about how that's a major, major genre of fiction and I don't hear anyone attacking it as being "unrealistic and therefore not representative of how it really is and therefore not valid as a way to spend any time" -- let alone using that lack o' realism as grounds to argue that the authors are therefore unqualified to write because they don't include realistic-bad parts... it seemed to me that maybe there's something in that comparison worth picking apart. Why is it that the same approach in mainstream romance (sometimes by the same authors) is accepted as okay in one genre (to reduce/remove the everyday sexism women face) but not okay in another genre? And the undercurrent that really bothers me: why is it that male gay-romance writers can have happy non-negative stories and not get this label, while women writing the same genre are ridiculed? Yes, there are additional intersections and dynamics going on there, that are quite problematic.
Problem is, I think it's a topic that's a real hot button for some, which means I've already edited several times to try and make sure I don't get misunderstood -- because the hotter the button, the faster a person will leap, and higher, as well. When I edited to clarify (and to avoid being leaped on any further), I ended up substantially reducing the significance of the part where I was trying to tease out the dynamics of what's going on. I'll just come back around to it again, later, as I always eventually do, and next time be as explicit as possible as to where I'm going. I just don't have the energy to try it yet again on this post.
Bottom line: I think both types of fiction are equally valid and have their place. I just don't like deriding one approach as worthless and elevating the other to exclusion of the first. Obviously anyone else's mileage may vary, as is always true when we're talking about personal taste.
no subject
Date: 25 Oct 2010 06:33 pm (UTC)At least one, if we're counting me! (err, well, I like both types, that is, depending on my mood.)
I brought up the issues in women's romance as analogy to this non-mutually-exclusive presentations in genre romances, because it's become considerably more popular in women's fiction to show women being successful, strong, and finding a man (or woman) who respects the protagonist and doesn't treat her like crap. When you think about how that's a major, major genre of fiction and I don't hear anyone attacking it as being "unrealistic and therefore not representative of how it really is and therefore not valid as a way to spend any time" -- let alone using that lack o' realism as grounds to argue that the authors are therefore unqualified to write because they don't include realistic-bad parts... it seemed to me that maybe there's something in that comparison worth picking apart. Why is it that the same approach in mainstream romance (sometimes by the same authors) is accepted as okay in one genre (to reduce/remove the everyday sexism women face) but not okay in another genre? And the undercurrent that really bothers me: why is it that male gay-romance writers can have happy non-negative stories and not get this label, while women writing the same genre are ridiculed? Yes, there are additional intersections and dynamics going on there, that are quite problematic.
Problem is, I think it's a topic that's a real hot button for some, which means I've already edited several times to try and make sure I don't get misunderstood -- because the hotter the button, the faster a person will leap, and higher, as well. When I edited to clarify (and to avoid being leaped on any further), I ended up substantially reducing the significance of the part where I was trying to tease out the dynamics of what's going on. I'll just come back around to it again, later, as I always eventually do, and next time be as explicit as possible as to where I'm going. I just don't have the energy to try it yet again on this post.
Bottom line: I think both types of fiction are equally valid and have their place. I just don't like deriding one approach as worthless and elevating the other to exclusion of the first. Obviously anyone else's mileage may vary, as is always true when we're talking about personal taste.