I’ve been thinking about this for a while; the concept of ‘elitism’ in what people choose to read, watch or listen to.

Now, I think every single one of us is guilty of this. We constantly make the choice to be entertained by something and we reject other songs/books/shows/movies as a result. Why do we do this? Mostly, it’s just personal taste:  we’ve tried watching something similar and we don’t like it or the topic just doesn’t catch us. Easy enough.

But then there is the other situation: we don’t want to ‘consume’ something because it (as a genre) is not worth it. Now, sometimes we’ve made this decision through experience, but a lot of the time, I think people just decide that it won’t be 'good'.

This article linked at Ellen Datlow’s LJ, discusses why SciFi writers just can’t win. It got me thinking. The topic already had me pondering, but I guess this just got those rusty cogs working a bit harder.

You see, when I was at university, I did creative writing. Out of the classes I took, only one tutor actually tried to help me refine my craft. I was otherwise told to try something other than ‘genre’ work: basically, write literary fiction or don’t bother.  Most of my tutors admitted they wouldn’t touch a genre book; so how could they dismiss something as unworthy without ever opening a cover?

Why are some works considered brilliant ‘classics’ - like Wells’ Time Machine & War of the Worlds, Verne’s 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Shelley’s Frankenstein, Wilde’s Dorian Gray and even Bronte’s Wuthering Heights – rather than brilliant works of science fiction and horror? Easy to answer: because literary types are ‘elitist’! (Ignore the massive generalisation). 

As you can guess, I don’t think it is fair to dismiss a genre of work because of its tropes. It’s true, I don’t like post-modernism; I want stories with plots, and to me, post-modernist tales like White Noise don’t have one. Sure, it’s beautifully written, but I need more than that. It doesn’t mean that I think post-modernism is a waste of creative space.

However, I find it strange when people complain that the genres they like (such as SciFi, fantasy, horror etc.), are maligned and marginalised because of their tropes, but find it equally valid to knock, for instance, romances.

Why did I pick romance as an example? Well, it’s because I’ve heard/seen so many folks knock ‘heaving bosom’ books: it’s a waste of paper; utter crap; it’s clichéd; the characters are 1D etc.

I love a good historical romance! I call them ‘brain fluff’, because they aren’t hard work to read; unlike Baxter’s work (Origin, Time, Space etc.) or even Dick’s (I know, I shouldn’t admit it, but I struggle with his style). And well, authors like Quinn are witty, their stories flow, their characters are 3D and even though there are mentions of throbbing manhoods and a little bit of swooning (on occasion), it works – there’s a plot that often isn’t solely concerned with the characters’ desire for one another.

Same goes for pop music. I know so many people who rail about the uselessness of pop. Well, to me, pop music is ‘popular music’. The genre is so broad that anything can be dragged in; what would have been classified as alternative (Kings of Leon) is now pop. And pop can have meaning; look at Pink’s song, Dear Mr President – it’s hard to get more meaningful than that, really.

Sure, romance novels and pop songs are often designed to be ‘disposable’; they’re there to be enjoyed rather than pored over to discern the themes, authorial motivations etc. But that doesn’t make them worthless.

So I guess my point is this (and aimed at myself for a reminder): don’t knock genres because you think they aren’t ‘worthy’ – not if you get annoyed when others knock yours.