The Weirdness Constant

[forsyth]

There are strains of literary thought in the US that seem to hate anything fantastic. Sci-Fi and Fantasy aren't "real literature", and don't even THINK of mentioning the word "comics" around them. These strains tend to breed in university literary departments, feeding on inflated senses of self-importance and echo-chamber wankery about Great Literature and the writing thereof. A good chunk of "literature" novels tend to be about someone, say, a struggling writer, who often falls in love with an amazing person of the appropriate sex, and goes on to have their life changed. You know, self-insertion real life fanfic.

As you might have guessed, I'm not really a fan of that strain of thought. Dismissing entire genres as "childish" or "not real literature" or so on, even after over a hundred years with plenty of examples to prove them wrong is just stupid. But lately, I'm starting to think, under all the self-righteousness and ignorance, they do have a germ of a point. Or at least there's a possible point that can support some of their arguments, but I don't think it's what they're getting at.

It comes down to suspension of disbelief. There's only so much weirdness people can stomach before they go "Yeah, whatever," and toss it aside. If you use a lot of weirdness in the setting, there's less available for the characters. The setting isn't realistic, so the characters have to be, to compensate. And to give people something to associate with. On the other hand, if your setting is mundane, then the audience will be more comfortable with it, and more willing to forgive whatever crazy weirdness your characters do. You'll still probably want a "normal" one for the audience to relate to, but the other characters have more room to be weird and/or unrealistic, because the setting isn't. So "literary" fiction set in the mundane present day, in theory, has more ability for colorful, outlandish, and outrageous characters. So if your interests in literature lie on the side of exploring the motivations of complex and strange characters, then yes, "literary" fiction might do a better job of it. Fantasy and SF can have interesting, three-dimensional, complex characters too, but I suspect if you have something with a weird setting and weird characters, it's going to end up being a niche niche project.

And as a side-note to the theory, I also suspect once the weirdness level is "set" for a story, it can only change so quickly without losing the audience, unless it's handled very well. I think this might be part of what contributes to Cerebus Syndrome as opposed to First and Ten syndrome, but I'm just guessing.

I don't have major research or anything to back me up, but it's a suspicion that's been nagging at me for a while, especially a few times when I've been reading things where I've had a nagging feeling that I wish they'd stop with the weird stuff and just get back to the characters. Maybe I'm reading too much into isolated things. Or maybe I'm just getting old.

Comments

[andysocial]

I find it amusing that Kafka's nearly-incomprehensible twaddle about cockroaches is considered Great Art, but Stranger in a Strange Land is "that gay book."

My experience with English professors was that they were/are, to a large degree, failed authors who love to point out the obscure references that only they get because they've steeped themselves in Art for so long that they are in rarefied strata well above us plebes. Meanwhile, they're hoping for tenure at Upper Bumfuck University.

[gwalla.livejournal.com]

My experience with English professors was that they...love to point out the obscure references that only they get because they've steeped themselves...for so long

So, sort of like comic book fans, then.

[andysocial]

Sure, why not? I don't identify as either of the two groups, so I'll go along with bashing both of 'em. :-)