Maybe I just need to vent. I'm really getting irritated with academia taking this high-brow, holier-than-though attitude about literary fiction VS genre fiction. In class tonight the instructor gave the class (of graduate students) an hour long lecture that included the following gems: 1. Literary fiction has lyrical language. Genre does not. 2. Literary fiction pays attention to character. Genre does not. 3. Literary fiction does not have to explain the fantastic. Genre does. 4. Literary fiction is capable of invoking human emotion. Genre is incapable. 5. Literary fiction is "good writing." Genre is not. 6. Literary fiction does not solely rely on plot/narrative. Genre does. It went on and on. For. An. Hour. This is pretty much how the entire English department feels (save for a few upstart adjuncts). At the graduate level, we (apparently) aren't smart enough to know when writing is GOOD, regardless of its genre, sub-genre, label, etc. This instructor, admittedly, hasn't read a lot of genre, but that's what he believes. Period. No holds barred. I get that writers must learn the basic elements of craft, that a young painter has to study Picasso and DaVinci in order to create their own works of art. I get it. I get a LOT of genre has conventions. But . . . so does literary fiction. All fiction has some form of convention. What I think it all boils down to is the fact that many folks in academia think that they cannot workshop a genre story. They "don't know these conventions." Well, how about this: do the characters work? Is my dialogue believable? Is the narrative sound? Is there good conflict? Why is this so hard? I'm really baffled and highly frustrated with this all. Would love some thoughts and feedback on this one.