So, last night, I was chatting with Scott on the phone and we got onto the topic of books. He's in the midst of reading a book about zombies - apparently short stories or something. His tastes run to Stephen King and horror genre books, but the last three or four he's read have had zombies in it.
Here's how the conversation went:
SCOTT: I enjoy zombie literature.
ME: Literature? Really?
SCOTT: What?
ME: Um, literature? Zombie "literature"? Isn't that an oxymoron? I mean, I read romance, but I don't call it literature.
That conversation has gotten me thinking. In my lifetime I've read very little literature. Sure, stuff while I was in high school and college. But I don't voluntarily read what I would consider literature most of the time. Mostly, I read romance. But I wonder if I'm not doing the genre that I love a great disservice by poo-pooing Scott's claim of literature as it is associated with zombies?
Websters Online defines literature as:
Main Entry: lit·er·a·ture
Date: 14th century
1 archaic : literary culture
2 : the production of literary work especially as an occupation
3 a (1) : writings in prose or verse; especially : writings having excellence of form or expression and expressing ideas of permanent or universal interest
It is the definition that is bolded that caught my attention. I feel like I could make a strong case for a variety of romances fulfilling that definition.
NOTE: For the purposes of this discussion, I'm excluding Austen, Bronte, etc. I'm talking about romance written between 1980-present.
For example, I feel like I could make a strong case that Lord of Scoundrels by Loretta Chase meets the criteria "writings have excellence of form or expression and expressing ideas of permanent or universal interest." I mean, who isn't interested in love? And certainly Chase's prose is unmatched in romance. And the story is a beautifully crafted tale of a rake and an incomparable. It's funny, moving, beloved and touching. Is it literature? I don't know.
But what about a book that I personally would consider to be less elegant: Dark Lover by JR Ward. Now, the Black Dagger Brotherhood does not necessarily have excellence of form or expression. And honestly, most of the book is written in a choppy, conversational style. Yet, when it was written, it took readers of romance by storm. Literature? I don't think so.
How about a romance "classic" like Whitney, My Love? Now, W, ML is a book that is certainly polarizing in the romance community. Some readers, like me, love the book and are of the opinion that it's among the best of the old school of romance. Other readers, and they are legion, hate/loathe/despise the book because of the forced seduction, because Clayton is an asshat, because Whitney is too Mary Sue. It is literature? I don't know. McNaught certainly was a pioneer in popular romance, her trademarks include the Big Mis, and my favorite: the Secret Baby. I mean, she may not have created those themes, but she had a hand in popularizing them. But does that make what she writes "literature"? I don't know.
So, as a rule, the readers of my blog are WAY smarter than I am. What do you guys think? Can a case be made that romance is literature? And if so, what are some of the books that meet the Webster's definition?
6 Comments:
Fantastic post Kati! You've really got me thinking...and I definitely believe certain romance novels could fall under the criteria of literature. I do not believe a HEA negates that.
Hmmm. Well, I adore Knave's Wager (a lesser well know Loretta Chase) and definitely think it should be included :) And what about Lisa Kleypas' contemporary romance novels?
*settles in to see what else the many brains of Kati's blog will suggest*
i loved the books you use as examples, LoS vs Dark Lover, so true that every genre has a huge range in terms of writing style, form and universal interest.
i am hesitant to apply "literature" to romance novels since i feel like it invites immediate criticism, that, like yours with zombies, it would just be a knee jerk reaction to insult romance novels as never being anywhere near "literary quality."
so while i can't answer your question, i agree there are arguements for it.
secondarily i DETEST the term "literary fiction" for all these oprah's book club type books. i feel like that is giving too much credit (somehow? hard to explain?) to some novels that are just trying too hard to be seen as erudite and high brow.
I think for me the defining line for literature would be a story that can stand the test of time. Usually, it's because there is some kind of social/cultural commentary or insight that transcends the story.
I mean there were a lot of books written 100 or more years ago, but that doesn't mean that they automatically become "literature" because they are old.
And, just because something current is held up as "literary fiction" doesn't mean that it will be of any relevance to anyone 5, 25 or 50 years from now. (I always think of SNL's Jack Handey's "Deep Thoughts" when I think of a lot of this kind of fiction.)
Yet, there are some romances that I would consider literary contenders (though there would only be a few, imo). Lord of Scoundrels is one that rises to that bar for me.
Of course, I'm more than happy with my (mostly non-literary) romances, uf, spec fic, m/m! :-)
I guess in the end, literature is in the eye of the beholder.
literature for me is creative fiction that has value. The question then becomes WHOSE value. As a general rule of thumb, romance, sci-fi, horror, mystery, etc. are considered genre fiction simply because they're for the unwashed masses (take that NYT editors), while literature is something that's supposed to expand your mind.
Personally, I don't consider Jane Austen romance, it's social commentary with some romance. Ok, stop throwing the tomatoes. Austen's okay, I just don't think she's all that.
As for me, I don't care if someone calls me literature or not. I write for the pleasure of my readers and for myself. Literary critics be damned. *grin* (Besides they're just jealous because romance has such a HUGE section of the reader pie. *evil grin*)
I would say yes. I love the LoS suggestion. I would also say Laura Lee Gurhke's Guilty Pleasure and In My Wildest Dreams by Christina Dodd, and Twilight (although I'm not sure that one counts, since it's YA).
Well, since I know of marketing teams that refer to their brochures as "literature," I'd say that the bar is low for the term.
Post a Comment