SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/heroc...

Worth a read. I like his list of consequences of the bias against genre fiction:
1) Wonderful, serious, sophisticated writers who would appeal to a broader audience get stuck in the genre ghettos where "mainstream" readers seldom venture.

2) Writers of "mainstream" fiction whose taste as readers runs to genre fiction (SF, horror) feel shy or hesitant about attempting to write what they love, for fear of being dismissed or, perhaps, perceived as dabbling.

3) The range and depth of literary criticism is narrowed and reduced; after nearly 50 years, people are still talking about Kingsley Amis’ "New Maps of Hell" as if there were something remarkable in a "serious" critic writing about [science fiction].

4) Less fun is had.

I liked his comment about crap:

Timberg: Where did this bias against work created for a popular audience come from?

Chabon: In all fairness, it came from the fact that the vast preponderance of art created for a mass audience is crap. It’s impossible to ignore that. But the vast preponderance of work written as literary art is high-toned crap. The proportion may settle down in the neighborhood of 90/10 — Sturgeon’s law said that 90% of everything is crud. [Science-fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon once said, "Ninety percent of SF [science fiction] is crud, but then 90% of everything is crud."]