Hey Kids, Let's Transcend Some Genre

I think the Guardian's Stuart Evers is making mountains out of molehills, but it does sound like John Banville rubbed some folks the wrong way at Harrogate last weekend:

About mid-way through their joint event at last weekend's Harrogate Crime Writing Festival, there was a palpable crackle of tension between Booker prize winner John Banville and Cartier Diamond Dagger recipient Reginald Hill. Appearing as Benjamin Black – his crime writing alter-ego – Banville was asked to describe the difference between writing his literary novels and his genre work. His answer went to the heart of a debate that bubbled under in many of the seminars and panels: why isn't crime writing taken more seriously?

Writing under his own name, Banville manages around 100 sweated-over, teased, honed and polished words a day; but as Benjamin Black, he can manage a couple of thousand. The intimation was quite clear, "Black's" sentences simply weren't as important. Perhaps realising what he'd unwittingly said, he tried to backtrack, but the damage was done and there was more fuel for his critics. "He's slumming it," author Ruth Dudley Edwards said the following day. "He says he isn't, but he is."

Hill's reaction to this was not to defend the crime writing art, but to deliver a piquant rejoinder. "When I get up in the morning," he said dryly, "I ask my wife whether I should write a Booker prize winning novel, or another bestselling crime book. And we always come down on the side of the crime book." It got the biggest laugh of the weekend, but it did have a serious point. As author and critic Laura Wilson said later, Hill "should have won the Booker already".

Now, a couple of points: there's no way a crime writer's going to win the Booker Prize with the way the rules are set up, with publishers only allowed to submit two books on their own unless the judges call in specific books. With the submission list set so artificially low, why would a crime novel make it through from, say, Faber when there are a host of literary titles that won't even get considered?

But the main one, which is that my "favorite" old saw is back in the news to court so-called controversy yet again. Maybe Banville's choice of words wasn't right for Harrogate, but this is hardly news; if anything, the sense I get is that he wishes he'd invented Benjamin Black years ago because he's having much more fun writing those books than those under the John Banville brand - and make no mistake, literary novels are branded just as much as crime novels, just under different criteria of sentence structure, language, ideas, themes instead of plot, story structure, character development, ideas, themes. 

If crime fiction wasn't taken seriously, why all the ink of late for Donald Westlake? It can't just be because he's dead; it's because his work endures, has the salient intangible qualities that talented writers of every stripe create, unwittingly or otherwise. Even John Banville knows this. Why do people keep coming back to Chandler and Hammett, whether to pay tribute, rip them off, or some such activity? Hell, why is Stuart Evers writing this piece when romance - which is only now getting some positive ink in the mainstream press, for real - barely merits mention at all from the critical class? 

Granted, back in 2004 I said Westlake didn't transcend genre, but I still pretty much agree with this ending paragraph:

Maybe the problem is that “transcending genre” implies going beyond a group form, when writing is so very individual and comprises a volatile mixture of craft, talent, technique and imagination. That last one, imagination, is the most important thing of all. Some people’s ideas are wide-ranging and barely tamed; others are smaller and require stretching. No person is created equal, and hence no book is created equal. Instead of saying one voice or style is inferior to another’s, why not celebrate those who make the most of what they do while encouraging others to challenge themselves further because they are able to?

But old saws, even if their teeth are a little ragged and have dulled over time, still have the power to hurt and sting...especially if we're still unclear as to what said saw really means.

UPDATE: Declan Burke does not mince words in response: "what’s all this nonsense about being offended because John Banville writes Benjamin Black novels quicker than he writes John Banville novels? Are crime writers and readers so insecure in their choice of reading that they need to be flattered by the literary crew? Are they so delicate in their reverse snobbery that they can’t accept criticism, be it implied, perceived or otherwise? Are they so narrow-minded that they can’t take on board a contrary point of view without resorting to name-calling and pigtail-pulling?"

Comments

[Joe W]

Excellent piece, Sarah. Banville/Black couldn't have come up with a pithier description of the gulf between "literary" and "genre" fiction if he'd planned it in advance.

And right after Reginald Hill, Kate Atkinson should have won a Booker for CASE HISTORIES.

[I.J.Parker]

Perhaps. Still, how much polishing a writer does surely is an individual choice and not tied to genre. As for Banville/Black: I read his literary novels and one of his mysteries and didn't see all that much difference. Mind you, I love his descriptions, but his plots just aren't all that satisfying. Plot/story is certainly more important in a mystery than in a literary novel where one can go quite happily with the flow of beautiful language and the emotional content, but for me story also matters there.

[Declan Burke]

Sarah - this one smacks of inferiority complex to me. Crime writers / readers need to grow up and stop hoping the literary crew are going to pat them on the head some day. And the Booker Prize is a particular kind of competition, one that (currently) favours eloquent, elegant prose, the kind that a crime novel (with its requirements of pace, etc.) doesn't lend itself to. I might as well complain that my novels aren't nominated for the Orange Prize ...

http://crimealwayspays.blogspot.com/2009/07/no-youre-snob-no-you.html

[David J. Montgomery]

How could anyone be offended by what Banville said? He pays more attention to the language when writing one kind of book than when writing another -- this is controversial?

Silly.

[Sandra Ruttan]

I think Banville's decision to pay more attention to the language when writing one kind of book reflects on him, and nobody else. However, I think Banville has made comments before that offended 'genre' readers and author, so this constitutes a trend on his part of saying things that can be interpreted as insulting, perhaps if only to get people talking about him.

I do think there's something that can happen to a writer when they have a certain level of success. They feel the pressure of expectation, and that can hinder their writing. Perhaps the reason Mr. Banville is slow writing 'literature' is because he can't get past that mental hurdle, but when writing 'genre' fiction he doesn't feel the pressure of those constraints.

[ed]

This is a ridiculous topic to get one's panties in a twist over. The frequency that one writes at does not necessarily determine the quality of the work. Anthony Burgess famously wrote 1,000 words a day and he turned out masterpieces like EARTHLY POWERS and utterly bizarre books like M/F. Graham Greene wrote 500 words a day. Will Self writes 1,000 words a day -- sometimes producing literary pyrotechnics, sometimes producing gratuitous newspaper pieces. What matters is the work, not the process. Sometimes one can pay TOO MUCH attention to the goddam language. Deadlines exist for a reason.

[Dan]

Hard to find anything offensive about Banville's comments. He's taking greater care on his 100-word days partly because, let's face it, he knows his "literary" creations will be held to a higher standard, and by a crowd that will be parsing his words ever more carefully in search of deeper meanings, subtler motives, false notes, etc.

One could argue that his more labored writing, while offering a higher gloss, also comes across as more mannered, less naturalistic, and so on. But even those kinds of distinctions might not hold for every writer who attempts both genre and literary fiction. Some novelists might even find the going slower in genre fiction, simply because they wouldn't feel comfortable trying to emulate the form, or adhere to its conventions.

You can make all sorts of arguments about whether more straightforward storytelling is preferable to deeper psychological exercises in which each and every word is parsed several times over, lest any missteps result. But there is no plausible reason (well, other than an inferiority complex) to get upset with a writer who admits to trying both approaches.

[Dan]

P.S. -- Frankly, I also suspect that Banville may be posing a bit for his literary audience when he makes comments like the "hundred word" claim. Hard to believe that, on occasions of great inspiration, that he doesn't break loose with 1,000 or even more words, even when he's shooting for the stars. But he probably wouldn't want to admit that, because it might raise a stench among the pickier critics who see themselves as existing on a higher plane of discernment. They might begin devaluing his work simply because he was choosing to write genre novels as well. So, he offers them this sort of handy distinction. It's probably true for the most part, but perhaps exaggerated for their sensitive ears. If so, hard to blame in. Maybe it's just me, but I've always thought critics on that side of the pond were, in general, a lot more cutting and vicious when it came to highbrow fiction.

[Kevin Wignall]

Dan, it's actually the other way around. US critics are more strident. The perfect example (albeit dated) is Graham Greene's "Brighton Rock", which was quite rightly considered a novel over here (a fine one at that) but an entertainment in the US.

As for Banville, what larks! Having read "The Sea", the only way I can imagine him writing as little as 100 words a day is if he was carving them in stone. Still, he's happy and finding an audience, so good luck to him.

[Dorte H]

No, Declan Burke, we are not :D

I don´t waste my time defending my favourite genre in my own staff room; I just inform my colleages that I read & enjoy crime fiction and let them think whatever they want. If Banville enjoys writing crime fiction & I enjoy reading it, we are both happy, aren´t we?

[David Thayer]

I worry more about pitch counts than word counts. For instance if Joba Chamberlain throws fifty pitches in the first couple of innings you know he's having a literary night and won't reach one hundred. On a genre night though he'll soldier on into the seventh. Then he read Banville in the bullpen.

[Martin Edwards]

Listening to the Banville-Hill discussion at Harrogate, I didn't find Banville's remarks derogatory to the genre. He was just trying to explain, as he has done before, the difference between how he writes crime and how he writes his other books.
But when I talked to a group of readers the next day, I was surprised by how outraged they were. One even said that Banville's remarks were 'disgusting'. I didn't agree at all, and felt this reaction was a real pity, as the discussion between two fine writers was full of interest, even if possibly there wasn't a great deal of chemistry between them. This may be because Reg Hill is one of the wittiest men alive, and anyone doing a double-act with him is almost bound to appear dour in comparison.

[Valerie Laws]

if it's about time spent per word, which it seems to be, I professionally write poetry, plays, and now a crime novel. The amount of time spent per word in a poem > in a play > in a novel, but that reflects the job the word has to do in that particular form... and how condensed and concentrated the form is, it's no reflection on quality. Surely the same applies to difft sorts of prose/genres? If we were talking of wood, is raising a beautifully constructed barn in any way inferior to carving a beautiful, intricate ornament? Also, different crime writers take different numbers of days or months or even years to write their books, this isn't necessarily directly related to the value of the finished book. Re Banville's remark, one could just as well argue that prose which flows freely from a talented writer might be actually better in quality than words polished wafer-thin and overloaded with meaning, so he may in fact equally have been taken to be insulting his own lit fic at the expense of his crime fiction! so his actual statement about numbers of words per day isn't nec an attack on the crime genre. However, no doubt he's now feeling like he's 'done a Ratner'... I was at Harrogate, but I didn't pick up on any great controversy at the time.

[Stuart Evers]

There are many interesting arguments here, but I there are a couple of things to be said about your original piece.

"there's no way a crime writer's going to win the Booker Prize with the way the rules are set up, with publishers only allowed to submit two books "

This isn't true. Most literary novels are published on literary imprints; crime on popular ones. Hence Michael Joseph, Macmillan, Tor, Orion, Quercus, Headline, Hodder, Century etc could easily - and do - enter their crime titles. Really only Faber, Picador and John Murray have crime blended with their literary lists, so I think this is a non-issue. And as yet not one has made it as far as the long list, it goes to prove that there *is* a distinct bias against crime fiction.

"the sense I get is that he wishes he'd invented Benjamin Black years ago because he's having much more fun writing those books than those under the John Banville brand."

Well, yes more fun, less stress, easier writing, not as important, something he can toss off in a few hours . . . and who says he's not denigrating crime writing?

Joking aside, I do take your points, and am concerned that people think I was simply trying to cause or inflame controversy. I really wasn't; I was simply trying to illustrate a theme that was present in practically every event I attended - which was crime fiction's interaction - and standing against - literary fiction. Banville's comments, as Martin Edwards points out, were contentious almosy without him even realising it: for some it was sacrilege, others a moot point. That doesn't stop it from being an interesting topic of debate, though.

Declan - whom I met over that weekend - makes a very good point that it is time for crime writers to stop seeking vindication from the literary establishment. My argukent was, and remains, that crime writing doesn't necessariy need those critics, but those critics really ought to be looking harder at crime fiction. And the same goes for the Booker Prize judges.

[ali]

I missed the event as I was drinking in the bar with Simon Kernick. After a few pints both of us lost the the thread of what we were actually talking about. I do recall Dan Brown came up in the conversation, as well as John Banville, and Miley Cyrus, but the context was what confused me.

Excellent debate

Ali

[Sandra Ruttan]

"I missed the event as I was drinking in the bar with Simon Kernick. After a few pints both of us lost the the thread of what we were actually talking about. I do recall Dan Brown came up in the conversation, as well as John Banville, and Miley Cyrus, but the context was what confused me."

You're confused, Ali. Simon Kernick IS Dan Brown. ;)

[Graham Powell]

A couple of late thoughts: first, the implication that most people seem to take is that Banville writes his crime novels in haste because they don't have to be as good to succeed. In all likelyhood he's not consciously choosing the pace.

Second, I have never been a member of the Cult of the Sentence - I'm a "story uber alles" man. In fact I think that fine writing can throw the reader out of the story as much as sloppy, awkward writing.

I think the main distinction between modern literary and genre writing is that literary writing concerns itself more with internal conflict than with external conflict. At the extremes this is represented by the literary novel in which nothing much happens at all, and the genre novel where Stuff Blows Up Real Good. Both of which have their proponents.