What People Are Saying
Also known as: An Argument in Five Parts. Rather than talk about it, I thought I'd let other people speak. Yes, I'm lazy.
skinny posted something about the problem of speculative fiction veering towards the literary rather than to the pulp side. He sez:
see, i'm beginning to think that our problem, unlike with other markets, isn't that we're saturated with 'substandard' commercial mass marketable fics, that we don't have 'literary-grade' SF (whatever that means); in fact, (ok, here it comes) it seems to me that what we actually have is a terminally acute insistence on literary writing standards that might actually be detrimental to the natural evolution of SF.
Or, as one reviewer stated in a negative review of Kelly Link's Stranger Things Happen which had been deemed by critics as the best of 'literary speculative fiction' lot:
If I have to choose between skiffy with literary pretensions and skiffy with bug-eyed monsters, I will gladly choose the latter, any day of the week.
Science-fiction/ fantasy writer John C. Wright replied in the comment section to a similar proposition and explained why the two sides of this debate will never get along:
The reason why we cannot all get along, is that even those of us whose taste range from high to low... even if we do not look down our noses at other fanboys, the mere fact that we make any distinction at all between high and low offends those who make no such distinction.
And, again, those who cannot or will not make the distinction between high and low, between books we enjoy because they are touched with divine greatness, and books we enjoy because they are Way Cool action-splattered pulp, offend those of us who think it admirable and necessary to maintain standards in art, even in popular art like SF.
However, Wright offered assurance that the reading world is bigger than that:
I do think great books are better than potboilers, but I would not call this snobbery, bcause it is no crime to like something light and shallow if you are in the mood for light and shallow. Not all swimming needs to be deep sea diving. Sometimes you are not in the mood for profound. Sometimes you are in the mood for a luxurious feast, and sometimes you want a McBurger meat-flavored patty.
Finally, noted local writer Gilda Cordero-Fernando wrote a piece on being boxed in and the importance of the artist (that Ian has kindly posted):
Now the prestigious Palanca has been cut up into so many little categories -- 15 at last count, with first, second and third prizes for each category in English and Tagalog and some vernaculars. I always try to remember who the young winners are. But with 40 or so names to keep up with each year, I just gave up. Dare one suggest that the awards be cut down and the prizes raised to dazzling amounts? Surely complaints will arise. Bakit elitista? (It's elitist!) Why stop the multiplication of the loaves? Because an award is a distinction. It recognizes a major achievement and should be as elitist and exclusive as it can be!
(Emphasis mine.)
What does it all mean? I'm not sure. It's like a literary piece: all meandering, a lot of emphasis, no point. Take of it what you will.