LITERATURE

Hello, everyone! Tonight we revisit my examination of Genre Fiction by taking a look at a novel that embodies everything the stuffy scholars say about it. I am, of course, talking about The Happening rehash James Patterson's ecological thriller, Zoo.

Here we go.

First, let me say that if you have seen M. Night Shyamalan's The Happening, you have read Zoo. Except in Zoo, it's animals who have turned against humanity... and are killing people... okay, so it's not exactly The Happening, but... well, let me explain.

Zoo is the story of Jackson Oz, evolutionary biologist. Well, he used to be, before he noticed something strange about the global animal populations: an increase in the yearly number of animal attacks on humans, as well as bizarre deviations from normal behavior patterns. Oz attributes this increase to what he calls H.A.C: Human-Animal Conflict. Basically, because humanity is stupid and evil, animals have somehow evolved a hatred of and desire to kill humans. Oz's colleagues have laughed him out of the scientific community for this theory because they are all blind and can't see the evidence in front of them, and not at all because Oz does everything he can to make his theory sound like something you'd hear about on crazy conspiracy websites or the modern History Channel.

H.A.C.

Also, this theory about animals evolving a hatred of humans doesn't keep Oz from keeping a chimpanzee in his apartment as a pet. Yes, a chimpanzee. In an apartment in New York City. A species known for its strength and the violence of their attacks. Needless to say, this ends horribly for everyone involved.

Of course, Oz's idiotic brilliant handling of his theory and the situation in general does not stop him from being vindicated by the story. He is the hero, and he needs to find proof of his theory (picking up a lovely French scientist along the way who, of course, instantly falls in love with our hero after he saves her life), drum up support for his theory (nearly impossible as humans would rather blow their problems to Kingdom Come), and find the solution H.A.C., or else humanity is doomed.

In my last post, I mentioned that, while this is not necessarily true of all Genre Fiction, many works of Genre Fiction are "fluff" stories; These are novels that are meant for entertainment only, no thinking necessary, essentially the literary equivalent of the summer blockbuster. Zoo, I believe, is one of these works. In addition to the many writing no-no's committed over the course of the novel (telling instead of showing, point-of-view changes in the middle of a scene, etc.), Zoo is the perfect example of what scholars of Literature think genre fiction is. Characterization is shallow and driven entirely by the plot, the writing style is kept simple to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and the themes are simple and heavy-handed.

Now, that's not to say that the theme of the novel is unimportant; humanity's impact on the environment and its probable repercussions do need to be discussed (Me? A tree-hugging liberal? I have no idea what you are talking about). However, the way this theme is handled in Zoo leaves much to be desired in the subtlety department.

CAUTION: WATCH YOUR HEAD

So, what does this mean for " Literature"? Should its themes be more subtle, and open to more interpretation? Should "Literature" make the reader think about what they are reading, not switch their brains off for empty entertainment? Could this be what separates "Literature" from other fiction?

Next time, I read Clive Cussler's The Tombs, and continue my exploration of the line between Genre and Literary Fiction.

A Discovery of Literature

Hello, everyone! In tonight's rather belated post, I will examine the term "Genre Fiction", and how stuffy, scholarly types differentiate Genre Fiction from "Literature". Of course, I will do so by analyzing tonight's book:

Here we go.

A Discovery of Witches is the story of Diana Bishop: historian, tenured Oxford professor, and witch. You see, humans are not alone. They unknowingly share the world with three species of creatures: the daemons, creative souls as prone to genius as they are to madness; the vampires, superhuman beings who sustain their extended lifespans by consuming blood (and who do not sparkle in the sunlight); and the witches, blessed by their pagan goddess with supernatural magics.

Diana, a witch who has thrown away her heritage, comes across a mysterious, enchanted alchemical text during her studies. While she thinks nothing of it, preferring to block out any trace of magic from her life, she finds that her discovery has drawn the attention of representatives from each of the three races, not least among them the dazzling handsome vampire Matthew Clairmont. Matthew reveals to Diana that this alchemical text may hold the key to understanding the history and destiny of the three races, and that there are factions of witches and vampires who will do anything to possess it. The two soon form an alliance to discover what is hidden within the text, and how it connects to Diana's discarded heritage; however, this alliance soon develops into a romance that threatens to upset the delicate peace between the three races that has kept them hidden from humans for so long.

In my last post, I talked about how Literature should have an elevated writing style, or at least should not read like a middle-school writing assignment or bad fanfiction. I may be biased after the last post, but this novel is practically a godsend after Fifty Shades of Grey. Believable, interesting character interaction! Wonderful imagery! The writing style of someone who actually cares! Sweet literary prose, my oasis in the desert of bad fiction!

Of course, not all is sunshine and rainbows in the writing style department; this is Harkness' first novel, and it does show. In addition general writing mistakes, as well as a disappointing tendency to tell instead of show, Harkness tends to spend pages and pages detailing not only the main characters' budding romance, but mundane details of Diana's everyday life; I'm not kidding, the first half of the book reads almost exactly like Fifty Shades of Grey or that other vampire romance book series. And while the level of attention and detail Harkness gives to obscure historical historical details, or  to the many wines the main characters drink, would be fascinating in in one of her history books or her wine blog, in what purports to be a fantasy story these details cause the book to drag on... and drag on...

...and drag on...

*zzzzz-* Huzzadragons!

Of course, this brings me to my next point: the story. Again, "Literature" is supposed to focus on deep characterization and development of overarching themes rather than plot. Despite my above complaints about the story's tendency to drag, there is a rather large amount of plot. However, the plot does serve to examine and develop the characterization; the story of Diana and Matthew is a story of history and of destiny; it is a story of accepting who you are and of accepting others for who they are.

This is where the matter of Genre Fiction comes in. You see, in order to keep "Literature" pure and distinguished, scholars have elevated so called Literary Fiction above what they term Genre Fiction: Science Fiction, Fantasy, Romance, Mystery, etc. It is argued that books placed in the realm of Genre Fiction cannot be "Literature", that vampires and witches somehow detract from a book's literary merit.

As a fan of Science Fiction and Fantasy, I disagree wholeheartedly with this practice. While there are many "fluff" pieces of fiction, books written solely for entertainment with no regard for literary value, in the realms of genre fiction, there are many books that explore human and universal themes as well. However, because the book contains a few spaceships or wizards or talking animals, it supposedly loses all literary merit. What about the many pieces of "Literature" (Midsummer Nights Dream, Faust, and Paradise Lost spring readily to mind) that contain supernatural or fantastic elements? What (besides age), elevates these pieces of fiction above others?

The plot of a book is oftentimes what causes a reader to care about the characters; the way the characters grow and develop in reaction to the plot allows the audience to connect with the characters, to learn and grow with them. In my opinion, there can be no characterization or theme without some kind of plot; this connection with the the characters is what gives a work literary merit, and the addition of genre elements does not detract from this in any way.

Of course, this is all my opinion; what do you think? What is the difference between Genre Fiction and "Literature"? Does the line between the two need to be redrawn, or perhaps erased entirely? Or do we need this distinction to preserve the "merit" of "Literature"?

Next time, I read James Patterson's Zoo; judging by the Amazon reviews, it looks like this is going to be another fun one.