Why can't you read something because it says insert group___ Literature on it? There are no laws in the UK at least that prevent me going into a bookstore or library and picking a book off any shelf and thinking that looks interesting, I'll read that. It's only someone's mind that stops them looking at a book because they think it belongs to a certain group. Its no different to any other genre or non fiction its there to help you locate it, so the person that wants to read a book on that subject knows where to go. I studied History but nothing stopped me using books from the astronomy section in my assignments. I think this is a bit like my first assignment at university, I was the only one tackled Roman Women, because the others couldn't find the books. The reason they couldn't find them was they were under anthropology, sociology, psychology etc and not history/archaeology. Basically the other students hadn't checked out the rest of the library
I'll read it anyway. The label doesn't really affect me. But for a lot of people it makes a difference, particularly when you consider where the books get shelved in the store. For example, Octavia Butler was a great science fiction writer who passed away a couple of years ago. I was looking for her work in a store one time and was very surprised that they didn't have any. I asked at the desk, and they said "Oh, she's shelved in African-American Literature." I went and found the book I was looking for, but the African-American literature section was very small and no one was even in that aisle. Think of all the readers of science fiction just browsing the aisles who may miss out on one of the greats in the field because she got sub-categorized as African American literature. Like the fact of her race is more important than her stories. Same with Jeanette Winterson, whom I like. Can't find her work unless I know to look in gay fiction (or some places even separate between gay and lesbian, in which case I have to look in lesbian fiction). Her book Written on the Body is quite good and I think readers of all backgrounds and interests would enjoy it, so why sub-categorize it as gay fiction and shelve it there where fewer people will see it?
But then just a book in each category or a computerised index would solve that problem. And again not sure how its different to someone who says ooh I won't read a book from that genre or in that style. I was brought up with a Gran who had a variety of sayings that amounted to, 'Your pretty, your a decent person, your clever, I love you, and you like you - its them that have the problem.' Its the person that won't look that has the problem. Surely we are more free when we just see them as genre's that represent people in our society than we would be by getting rid of them.
No, I think we're more free when we realize that all people are equal to one another, and therefore a science fiction writer's books should be included as part of that genre whether they black or white, gay or straight. There's no need to perpetuate perceived inequalities amongst people by saying if you're a black science fiction writer we need to have a separate category for you.
Difference is not inequality. I agree a black science fiction writer should go under science fiction. But what about a black writer writing about issues that affect his/her life because they are black? There is a difference between a book with a gay character in it and a book like the God Box or Sprout which I have just read which is about being gay. If someone writes a book about my illness I want it to be categorised under my illness and not general health. You don't get Stephanie Meyer's Twilight under the religion section. As I have said there is a place for both
Look at Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man. A great book about being a black man in the U.S. at that time period. I would put it in general fiction, on the same shelves with other literary greats, not hide it away in an African American literature section. Just my personal opinion. We'll have to just disagree on it. Separate but equal hasn't worked well in this country, and when you separate out fiction into these unnecessary (in my view) sub-categories, I think to some extent you are saying it can't hold up alongside the other literature.
I think we will lol I am not entirely disagreeing with the idea that some books are miscatergorised or that there shouldn't be more of the characters from other cultures in mainstream literature. Part of it is I live in a country which had its culture oppressed, wearing of tartans, speaking of the Scots Language was discouraged, I think Gaelic (to rhyme with Garlic not Gaylick) was outlawed at one point. I don't see why a copy can't be put in each section. I wouldn't expect to see JK Rowlling, Arthur Conan Doyle, Robert Louis Stevenson, Iain (M) Banks etc under Scots Literature, however Walter Scott, Robert Burns, Lewis Grassic Gibbon I would. They write about life in Scotland and issues affecting Scottish people of the time they were writing. Also in the case of Burns or Grassic Gibbon they used a certain amount of dialect in their writings. I guess with my cultural background what you are suggesting feels like assimilation rather than acceptance. Plus I believe differences should be celebrated not made part of what society feels is normal.
I should point out that I was referring to genre in a critical sense, as in the academic division of books into categories that direct how the book is interpreted, how its meaning is generated and how it is considered in relation to the canon, not the ultimately trivial matter of where a book is shelved in a bookstore.
Boy Meets Boy by David Levithan was a really great, short YA read. It's less than 200 pages long, and fiction, but I really enjoyed it.
I completely agree with you. I have read invisible Man and would be so disappointed if it is generally thought to belong to a niche grouping. Perhaps its arguable that its universal appeal/power has been somewhat diminished by pejorative labeling that lots of people seem comfortable with. I hope not. The problem with very specific so-called genres is that they risk telling us what we should be reading. Things like Sci-fi and Romance do not denote a particular readership. African American literature and Gay fiction categories are offensive to me on some level because its kind of like saying "books for black people" or "books for gay people". There's an implication here that the issues at stake in these books aren't somehow universal, that they will only appeal to a certain section of society. It's silly, in a way, because Brokeback Mountain and Milk weren't labelled as 'gay' movies. It was quite clear that anyone could enjoy and be moved by these films. So why should fiction be any different?
I am planning a novel with a gay MC... I'll be offended if it were to be categorize as anything other than 'general fiction' Categorizing as 'African American fiction' or 'gay fiction' is almost like categorizing pornographic videos.
For me the difference is a book with a gay character in it should be in the genre it belongs in - my books I hope will be mainstream because although they have gay characters in it that isn't integral to the story it is just what hey are. However a book like the God Box or Sprout that is about being gay should be in the genre entitled gay literature. I think my views come from studying scots culture that was forced to become mainstream. As a result a lot has been diluted and lost. For me a Scots Literature book has to have certain elements to make it that it has to be in dialect. For me the best example are Robert Burns poems which sometimes have a Scots version and an English version. I just think if we force everything to become mainstream elements of the cultures that the situation has thrown up become lost which for me is sad. For me a better change would be for people to learn to look past their prejudices and just see it as a genre, like fantasy or historical etc Basically its a description of the content of the book, so that when someone walks into the bookshop they know where to look.
I see your point. But specially for 'gay fiction' it will be harmful to be categorize as such, because of the stigma or whatever attach to it... I mean straight men will think twice before they walk into 'gay fiction' area in a bookstore.
But surely the issue is with the straight man rather than the book category? Wouldn't it be better if the straight man can get past the fear and prejudice they have. I have been handing some of my new gay literature books off to my straight male friends I personally feel its more important to deal with the prejudice of the category than to remove it. I feel there should be books that deal with being gay and them be easily accessible. I am not talking about a general fiction or fantasy book etc. I wouldn't expect JK Rowling, Iain (M) Banks etc to be put under Scots literature or Orson Scott Card and Stephenie Meyer to be under Mormon literature. However Lewis Grassic Gibbon I would expect to see under Scots Literature and John Bytheway and Chris Heimerdinger under Mormon Literature because the books deal with being Scots or LDS.
I tried to go through this entire thread to make sure I wasn't repeating anyone but very quickly found that I didn't have the patience for that, so if someone has already mentioned this, please disregard/delete this post. Sarah Schulman is one of the best writers I've ever read, and by far the best lesbian writer. Her works include After Delores, The Sophie Horowitz Story, Rat Bohemia, Empathy, People In Trouble. After Delores and Empathy are the best out of these, but I would recommend anything she's written.
