Stephen Mitchelmore in an new post at This Space (who I’ve mentioned before here) writes about the distinction between genre fiction and literary fiction.

If there’s one reason why this blog exists, it is to challenge the assumptions of British culture about what it means for work to be ‘literary’. Over two years and longer, I’ve posted blogs defining literary fiction, and observed that it tends to be only genre writers and their fans who are perplexed about their exclusion from the literary prizes (which, I must say, aren’t terribly literary anyway). I’ve even asked an apparently taboo question: why aren’t literary writers given genre awards? But it seems I’m having no impact and the dummies are winning the day. At least in that respect I’m following in the finest literary tradition.

Although he says that he’s defined literary fiction here, he starts his definition by saying that he’s only offering another evasion but then goes on to say that:

I seek an engagement at the deepest level. It’s not always the most comfortable of experiences, and if I had any intelligence maybe I’d avoid it by getting lost in some genre fiction.

In this analysis two words stand out: engagement and intelligence. Engagement points to seriousness (which we need from time to time, but not always); the way Stephen uses the term intelligence indicates that somehow genre fiction is stupid. A pity.

Let me round up this quote (introduction mine) by a certain George Walden who represents my view on this matter best:

The perceived contradiction between high and low culture is a recurring theme on Jahsonic.com. I believe that both high culture and low culture are minority tastes and as such can be described as subcultures, both influencing mainstream culture. I also believe that both high and low culture have produced masterpieces and works of mediocrity. As George Walden puts it:

Three points appear self-evident.

1. First, there is no conflict whatever between popular and more demanding culture, and no need to choose.
2. Second, that the majority of popular culture is commercially produced ephemera of mostly lamentable quality which needs absolutely no help or encouragement from government, still less nauseous ingratiation.
3. Third, that there is such a thing as high art, and that some things will always remain for the privileged few – privileged not in the tired old class-conscious meaning of the word, but in the sense that by hard work and/or natural ability they are able to appreciate, eg highly refined musical forms or classical literature that it is not given to everyone to understand, even if we are given every opportunity to do so.

— George Walden, source unidentified (website offline)