Boundaries in literature: does genre-fiction count? Harry Potter. Middle Earth. Percy Jackson. These are worlds and characters well-loved by millions of children and adults alike. However, despite the impact that these books have had on pop culture, their status as ‘true literature’ remains subject to debate. Can a novel focused on heroism, dragons, witches and wardrobes really be considered the kind of book worth studying? If you’re anything like me, any challenge to the literary integrity of a novel with as much majestic horse-riding as The Lord of the Rings is enough to get the blood boiling, and so the discussion surrounding ‘genre-fiction’ tends to be a passionate one. Is it enough, though, to defend the inclusion of these infamous (if a little tropey) titles within the boundaries of literature – or is it time to reject such boundaries altogether?
Before answering, let’s first define what is meant by ‘genre-fiction.’ Genre-fiction is a term given to books which are plot-centred and a little formulaic, rooted in tropes which make it easy to categorise each story, such as romance, mystery, fantasy and so on. These tropes not only characterise the story as a whole, but provide a basis for its storytelling success: Percy Jackson and Harry Potter, for example, both utilise the ‘golden trio’ trope to great effect. Genre-fiction’s counterpart, on the other hand, is ‘literary-fiction’, a term referring to more reality-based novels with complex character-driven themes, which are usually a little harder to categorise. Take Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov – although the storyline focuses on themes of relationships and lust, its rejection of conventional romantic tropes make it impossible to classify as a ‘romance novel’ in itself. Lit-fiction is broadly considered the more formal of the two – yet there’s no doubt that genre-fiction holds great personal value, and is growing increasingly significant even in political contexts. The recent controversy surrounding J.K Rowling, for example, is an obvious instance of genre-fiction asserting a real presence on the socio-political stage, whether it involves a ‘golden trio’ or not.
Regardless, many would argue there are plenty of reasons to keep genre-fiction on the other side of the literary fence. Perhaps literature demands boundaries to protect its own integrity: it’s a little laughable to imagine any scholar hunched over a dusty copy of Twilight: New Moon, candlelit amongst ancient tomes. Besides, in the face of our varied human interests, it seems inevitable that fiction will portray innumerable perspectives and lend itself to innumerable roles: sometimes, novels cater to the apparently widespread need for sparkly vampires, and at other times they lend themselves to complex, philosophical explorations of war and peace. With such a variety of subject matter, the distinction between serious literature and more playful escapism appears obvious.
Does this mean, though, that lit-fiction can be considered ‘better’? Maybe there are some natural boundaries in literature as a whole – but surely the existence of such boundaries in no way undermines the value and importance of novels on either side of the divide. Both genre-fiction and lit-fiction give poignant and powerful insights into the human condition, whether through warlocks and wands or pride and prejudice. I would argue that the distinction between the two is far more blurred than many would admit: let’s be adults and admit that the inclusion of monster-fighting superpowers does not necessarily undermine a story’s thematic complexity. To paraphrase a certain red-haired wizard: maybe we all need to sort out our priorities, and focus on the sheer enjoyment of reading instead.
“Stacks of Books.” by Andrei.D40 is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0