I was doing the internet lol after reading a snippet about Harrogate, the mystery writer's convention in the UK.
John Banville, who writes under a pseudonym as a mystery writer (and I'm totally unfamiliar with him in that guise), basically on a panel said that his Booker nominated fiction is harder to write and therefore of more value. Better because all male endeavors are a competition. Even when a male author talks about his own work, one book "wins" over another. Well the panel audience was a bit stunned. I mean you come to a mystery gathering and tell people they are reading and writing inferior books. That's a way to win friends and influence people. I personally just crossed him off my list of must reads.
But my hero comes to the rescue. Reginald Hill (who I'm completely familiar with in the guise of mystery writer) said that it's always a toss up when he goes to write a book, but when he and his wife discuss it, they always decide he'll write best-selling mystery novels instead of a Booker prize book.
Laughter and relief fill the room. But the big ugly question remains out there--is genre fiction somehow a lesser commodity than Literature (note caps)? And who decides? And what does it say about a reader who doesn't read Literature?
I am an omnivore when it comes to reading. There are few categories of books that I do not read. I really like mystery books, but I read the Booker shortlist usually if I can get my hands on the books. I've read 2 books in the past year that I felt were beautifully written. Lyrical almost. One was On Chesil Beach by Ian McEwan, a Booker award winning author. The other was Still Life by Louise Penny, a first book by a mystery author. These were both just well-written. And Ian McEwan is not a better author than Louise Penny.
And I've read some books that I labored through or just finally gave up on completely. I won't name names, but the books fall into all categories of fiction. I've quit reading lots of Booker authors. I've put down mysteries. The writing is the touchstone. I borrow this from Matthew Arnold, not because I think he's right. I think he's dead wrong. He wanted to compare to other works, touchstones of (male) writers who we all just "knew" were good. That isn't it. Being able to put the words together to achieve your goal. That's the touchstone.
So what gives? Beyond short-sightedness and a certain prejudice and bigotry, the answer is the same here as in all human endeavor. 95% (or more) of everything is crap. Whether you buy cars, dishwashers, or books, lots of them will be worthless. With books, a crime against the environment for killing the trees. And some books are just middlling. I don't hate it that I read them, but they are not my favorites. Or memorable. Just like a car. It's not a lemon, and it might serve the purpose right then. But it's not a Ferrari.
And as readers, we should recognize the Ferraris when we find them. Without thought to race, color, creed, or literary categorization.