“For example: A writer sets out to write science fiction but isn’t familiar with the genre, hasn’t read what’s been written. This is a fairly common situation, because science fiction is known to sell well but, as a subliterary genre, is not supposed to be worth study—what’s to learn?

It doesn’t occur to the novice that a genre is a genre because it has a field and focus of its own; its appropriate and particular tools, rules, and techniques for handling the material; its traditions; and its experienced, appreciative readers—that it is, in fact, a literature. Ignoring all this, our novice is just about to reinvent the wheel, the space ship, the space alien, and the mad scientist, with cries of innocent wonder. The cries will not be echoed by the readers.

Readers familiar with that genre have met the space ship, the alien, and the mad scientist before. They know more about them than the writer does. In the same way, critics who set out to talk about a fantasy novel without having read any fantasy since they were eight, and in ignorance of the history and extensive theory of fantasy literature, will make fools of themselves because they don’t know how to read the book. They have no contextual information to tell them what its tradition is, where it’s coming from, what it’s trying to do, what it does.

This was liberally proved when the first Harry Potter book came out and a lot of literary reviewers ran around shrieking about the incredible originality of the book. This originality was an artifact of the reviewers’ blank ignorance of its genres (children’s fantasy and the British boarding-school story), plus the fact that they hadn’t read a fantasy since they were eight. It was pitiful. It was like watching some TV gourmet chef eat a piece of buttered toast and squeal, ‘But this is delicious! Unheard of! Where has it been all my life?’”

  • LiberalSocialist [any,they/them]
    ·
    2 years ago

    Another Ursula K. LeGuin banger:

    “We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.”

      • hypercube [she/her]
        ·
        2 years ago

        can't be a communist unless you're hitting something with a big hammer 20 hours a day

      • Mardoniush [she/her]
        ·
        2 years ago

        It's not a dialectical opinion anyway. Material conditions are basal, and shape ideology and culture and art, but the way people shape those within the conditions is what changes the material conditions.

        Or you know, there'd be no point to being a communist, it'd either be inevitable or impossible.

      • BynarsAreOk [none/use name]
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Of course art can be a vehicle for ideas and change!

        Yes! But I think the usual pushback comes from conflict with libs that start from the extreme opposite end of the argument and who believe no organization, no theory is necessary, all you need is CIVIL DISCOURSE, throw in some controversial piece of art and then go on to unironically believe that alone is enough to change people's mind or even leave a lasting impression, you know in complete contradiction with the treat based society where any media older than 6-18 months is "ancient" and therefore irrelevant.

        TL;DR leftist art is sometimes appropriated by shit libs with civil discourse syndrome and that sometimes leads to bad argumentation etc.

    • GottiGoFast [none/use name]
      ·
      2 years ago

      That's the beauty of the MCU. It fetishizes the status quo and throws cascading fistfuls of slop so milquetoast that it redefines art.