Yesterday I reviewed Elizabeth Hanbury’s debut novel, The Paradise Will, over on Vulpes Libris. (You can see my effort here). Writing about a Regency romance was an entirely new experience for me, and it raised all kinds of questions. Specifically, what do you do when reviewing a piece of genre fiction? Do you treat it like any other new novel and assess it on its merits, or do you adopt the expectations and standards of the genre?
I went with option 1. There were several reasons for this. First of all, I know the Regency romance genre, but I’m not a particular fan or a practitioner; I’m not part of that community, although I respect it. Second, I wasn’t writing for a specialist website; Vulpes Libris has a very diverse remit and readership. Third, one of the things I really enjoy about VL is how what many people would regard as commercial/genre fiction – chicklit, romance, TV tie-ins – is reviewed alongside classic novels, poetry collections, academic history books… While all these things are obviously reviewed from different angles, they are all taken seriously; and every review is open to debate. It would seem inconsistent, not to mention condescending, to write a review that essentially said: “The characterisation and plot are excellent and very engaging, but I had some issues with the historical context and language. However, this is a genre novel, so that’s OK; nobody expects anything else, right?” That would be as bad, to me anyway, as dismissing the novel outright simply because it belonged to a certain genre. A genre novel can be a good book, like any other; just as a self-proclaimed literary novel can be a bad book. Genre defines many things – notably with regard to the structure of the book and the conventions of the plot – but it does not define quality.
In the case of The Paradise Will, too, I felt that this was a novel which in some respects reached beyond its genre. Hanbury included elements of social, economic and local history; an interesting decision and one that merited discussion. It is undoubtedly the case that many of her readers won’t particularly look for historical accuracy, and that the merits of the book as a romance novel more than outweigh any questions I may have about the period aspect. Nothing can be lost, then, in looking at this novel like any other and asking the questions that come to mind. I think it’s the least that any book deserves, “genre” or not.
Hi Kirsty, I agree that there’s good and bad in all genres and the category title is not an indication of ‘quality’ of writing, however that might be defined. But I do think that by placing a book in a genre the writer (or publisher) is triggering off certain reader expectations which the writer must then respect. What makes a ‘good’ genre book might not always be what makes a ‘good’ novel per se. Of course there will be lots of things that do apply to all novels but I’m thinking here about the differentiating elements. Taking for example ‘The Lovely Bones’ by Alice Sebold (a book I thought was just OK but anyway…), I think this isn’t a ‘good’ crime/detective novel or whatever that genre is because it didn’t respect the rules of that genre. So it was posititioned as a ‘literary’ novel. The reason IMO why the notion of ‘quality’ has become attached to the ‘literary’ novel is because in order to transcend the rules and still manage to attract a readership it must do something else exceptionally well. It must cut its own path in unknown territory so success is even tougher to achieve. That doesn’t mean that genre novels can’t be/ aren’t ‘good’ too, just that a literary novel, in order to succeed, (and lots don’t) has to really ‘good’ in some area.
Sorry for rambling here, I’m not sure I’ve been very clear in my thoughts but it’s a very interesting discussion.
Mary x
By: marygm on June 6, 2008
at 8:05 am
Hi Mary, thanks for commenting and I see what you mean – when dealing with genre novels, it’s not always so clear cut, you are right. I think genre does have to be taken into consideration when reviewing. I suppose what I was trying to say was that considering the genre is one thing, but adopting the standards of the genre is another. I do think a well written genre novel can stand alone, and be read and enjoyed by people who aren’t necessarily fans of the genre. That’s why I felt justified in giving TPW a thorough review; if I’d been sent a bad or just boring Regency romance, I don’t think I’d have reviewed it at all.
I think to that in writing a broader/deeper review of a genre novel, it *is* important to say how well it functions as a romance/crime novel/historical. That way, the readers who are looking for a good genre novel will be able to decide if they want to read it. I suppose what I’m suggesting is that it’s also valid to look at the text from different angles, rather than that a Regency romance should be reviewed exactly like a new “literary” novel. I don’t think readers who want a good genre novel will necessarily be discouraged by questions about language or historical content; as I’ve understood from reading comments on my piece and the discussions over on C19, many Regency romance readers don’t particularly mind about the details as long as the impression is satisfying. Which is perfectly valid and understandable. But readers from outside the genre might find these questions interesting. I’m rambling too (let’s call it thinking aloud shall we?) but doing this review really got me wondering, and made me think I’d be interested in getting to know certain genres better and understanding how they function, while also interrogating them from “outside” if you see what I mean.
By: kirstyjane on June 6, 2008
at 3:57 pm