332: About the “Memorable Fancies” series

There are now 47 “Memorable Fancies” posted at terencekuch.com. The title is after William Blake, a major inspiration. I’ve been shopping a collection of my short stories around to publishers (almost all the stories have been published in small-circulation periodicals and anthologies, about half of which were paid, the rest ‘for the love’.) My plan is to include an appropriate “Memorable Fancy” between each story, if that makes sense to the publisher.

I have had one good nibble for the collection, but no bites, and am in search of a publisher. If that could be you, let me know. [I have a novel available on Amazon, but that’s “airport reading,” not like the weird/literary stories I write.)

274: Genres of Fiction

A certain literary publication, in its fiction-writers’ guidelines, advised that they do not want “any hint of genre.”

That’s funny. What they really mean is they will accept only stories in the genre called “literary.” It’s a sure sign of overreach when you consider yourself sui generis. “Literary” is a genre of fiction just as surely as “fantasy” or “Western.”

“But ‘genres’ are all formulaic,” you say, “whereas literary fiction is unexpected, new, creative.” Sure, most sci-fi stories are utterly predictable, written to a formula, and boring. But then, so are most “literary” stories. Raymond Carver was a genre writer, as surely as Philip K. Dick was (although Carver was a far better writer qua writer, while Dick’s sentences march to the beat of the inevitable subject-verb-object. His boring prose style is, indirectly, admitted by those who write studies of his work [see, for example, Christopher Palmer’s Philip K. Dick: Exhilaration and the Terror of the Postmodern. Liverpool University Press, 2003, page 23].) Where was I? Oh, yes. The dreaded epiphany.

“Literary” stories are dominated, and have been for some time, by the “epiphany”; the telling moment when the protagonist recognizes something about himself that the reader has been carefully coached to know all along. How predictable! Whenever I find an epiphany I feel cheated: that’s not the story I was reading; that’s someone’s psychotherapy. I’ll have my own psychotherapy, thank you.

But not all literary work is formulaic; only the followers are formulaic. The true originals are there, and celebrated: Beckett [my favorite]; Kafka; Robbe-Grillet; Blake; Walter Abish; Pynchon; Borges; Aeschylus; Robert Coover; Huysmans; Jeannette Winterson; Jean Baudrillard [not much of a philosopher, but a wonderful writer, especially in his journals]; Erving Goffman [forgettable prose style, but brilliant concepts; and, as in Jean Renoir’s films, a brutal hilarity underlies a calm exterior]; and many others.

Can a true original be someone who writes sci-fi, or horror, or fantasy? Certainly; remember Jonathan Swift? But not these days. Publication venues cherish their formulas. So where does the outsider go now?

<END>