Ark of the Lost Angels

Librarian by MachiavelliCro (Credit: DeviantArt)

There is little true distinction between genre fiction and literary fiction.

We’ve all thought it before, “How does the Marvel Cinematic Universe keep getting such huge movie stars to be in dumb comic book films?” Everybody’s seen Martin Scorsese’s comments about the MCU not being ‘real cinema’ but the crowds of people cheering in the theaters at every pivotal moment of Avengers Endgame counter that notion. At the end of the day, art is meant to connect with the audience in some way and inspire genuine feelings. Audiences connect with a variety of things in different ways, so perhaps it’s time to put these arguments as to what constitutes real art to bed.

The definition of literature has vastly expanded in recent years. Video games like The Last of Us have narratives that rival the prestige of TV series like The Sopranos by executing intimate character-driven stories in interactive fashion. Fiction counts as literature in its many forms, it’s not just reserved for books. Meaning that, while we are told there is a significant separation between genre fiction and literary fiction, there really isn’t.

These are certainly not the first words written arguing that genre fiction and literary fiction don’t have nearly the same degree of separation as many people who choose to believe. What is the real difference between a schlocky movie based off of a comic book, like 2005’s Fantastic Four, and a schlocky movie based off of Arthurian legend like 2017’s King Arthur: Legend of the Sword? Neither movie was supremely well-received, but there is something seen as more noble in adapting Arthurian myths than a comic book.

Adaptations are a cornerstone of every fiction journey. Books are rewritten into new books. Books are reinterpreted through modern lenses with new settings. Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness became Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now. Both are still well regarded and seen as respectable. Akira Kurosawa’s The Hidden Fortress is seen as respectable. But Star Wars isn’t. Yet reinterpretation of literature is the core of the creative experience. So why does the way things are adapted have a bearing over whether they’re deserving of respect as serious literature with themes that could resonate with the audience?

Movies like Logan take the best of comic books and adapt them as phenomenal films in their own right. Movies that, when given the proper care and attention to their writing, directing, cinematography, and so on can rival movies which adapt acclaimed novels, such as No Country For Old Men. Both movies are well-regarded, but does Logan have less of an intrinsic value as No Country For Old Men simply because of its source material? Should esteemed actors like Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart have their performances thought less of than Tommy Lee Jones and Javier Bardem based on the source material of the movies they performed in?

So why do we as a society still tend to look at genre fiction, comic books, and other “nerdy” material as being subpar?

The answer lies with society’s intrinsic biases. For so long, fantasy, science-fiction, comic books, video games, and anime have all been the domain of people labeled as nerds/geeks/dweebs/etc. Someone with some measure of influence declared these things to not count as being worthy of being called respectable. So, you could like them, but it meant you had questionable taste. Only since the rise of the internet meant that those communities of people into nerdy things started becoming more mainstream.

John Williams is seen as one of the greatest composers of the 20^th century. He is one of few composers who can conduct as well. The last guy who was famous and well regarded enough that could compose and conduct lived in Vienna a long time ago. His name was Ludwig van Beethoven. John Williams makes his living as a film composer, and he became a household name through films like Jaws and Star Wars. These movies are equivalent to schlocky genre fiction in literature but have become well-regarded over the years as seminal films. Because they gained reputations for being influential over time, nobody is arguing that John Williams is a hack just because he scored them. That’s not counting his work on acclaimed films such as Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan, and the criminally underappreciated Empire of the Sun. Williams’ work on the Indiana Jones movies is just as high quality as the pieces he wrote for the Olympics held in America or the “Libert Fanfare” for the rededication of the Statue of Liberty in 1986 for its centennial. The reason why these musical pieces were written doesn’t matter when assessing the quality of the piece.

To take a step further, Jaws and Star Wars both have their origins in less “dignified” manners but are held in high esteem by the filmmaking communities. Jaws is, in essence, a horror movie about a shark attacking a beach community shot in a way to obscure the fact that the mechanical shark didn’t work well, leading to more tension and dread. Star Wars is a retelling of the classic hero’s journey mixed with healthy doses of Akira Kurosawa and classic westerns set in space. These movies became popular because people enjoyed them, and what they had to say on the screen resonated with them.

The Lord of the Rings are some of the most well-regarded works of fantasy. J.R.R. Tolkien is spoken of as an incredibly influential author and literary academic. Fantasy as a genre is seen as not having much value, but Lord of the Rings is one of the works that is “acceptable” as literature. The series was influenced by Tolkien’s experiences during World War I, but transposed to a more fantastical setting, marked by fears over industrialization, the dangers of complacency, and often how the machinations of people tend to make even the most noble turn corrupt. It is highly doubtful that something not seen as respectable would get taught in university courses. But why does Tolkien get to be the one fantasy author that gets the respect for the genre and nobody else has that mysterious “mainstream appeal” that puts their work in front of audiences who aren’t typically into fiction? Even George R.R. Martin didn’t get that same level of notoriety until after A Song of Ice and Fire was adapted into HBO’s Game of Thrones.

Are their creators who can hit both? Yes.

William Shakespeare is seen by many as the greatest writer of all time. His plays are still beloved, performed, and taught five hundred years later. Shakespeare has been perhaps the most influential writer in history, due to how many common phrases he coined within his works are still used widely today. Many of his contemporaries have been lost to history, but The Bard remains prominent. Yet, Shakespeare did not write to be well-lauded. His plays were written so that the common person could enjoy them. The Globe Theatre saw both prince and pauper within its walls, and Shakespeare wrote for both. His works were bawdy and low brow but touched on impactful themes. They constitute perhaps the best argument that genre fiction and literary fiction are in fact one and the same and no distinction needs to be made.

The idea that fiction has to hit some arbitrary threshold of qualities in order to make it respectable is a laughable concept. Every creator is different, every consumer is different, and different works will resonate with different audiences. It’s time, once and for all, to put the battle between genre fiction and literary fiction to rest and dissolve the dividing line.

Even schlock is worthy of its place on the bookshelf.