Can Genre Fiction be Art?

Last week, I read Kody Keplinger's great post about the tension between literary and commercial fiction. She makes the excellent point that commercial is not necessarily inferior to literary fiction, and I completely agree. The whole question got me thinking. What makes a book "artsy" as opposed to "commercial" anyway? Like Kody said, we know it when we see it. But what is actually going on that makes us feel like a book is "deep"? And what about all the genre fiction that also feels like great art?

Commercial fiction can also be literary. Think The Dark Knight (Artsy Superhero) or Jane Austen (Artsy Regency Romance). Michael Chabon's friggin mission statement is to craft fiction that blends the line between art and genre. It's a worthy goal. But what exactly makes a book artsy, if not its lack of genre trappings?

Okay, so maybe I have a teensy crush on Michael Chabon. OH GOD DON'T TELL BOYFRIEND.

 It's a tricky and sort of subtle divide. Let's take two very popular (dare I say classic now?) YA books: Twilight and City of Bones. I liked both, but I loved City of Bones. It was funny, exciting, the characters were entertaining and it scratched my eternal Buffy itch. But...I think Twilight is more "literary." Again, I don't why. It's just this subjective sensation of depth I get from the book. Twilight, I think, says something about small towns and the tension between purity and passion. I sure as heck enjoyed City of Bones. But I didn't get a message out of it. City of Bones is straight up commercial. But Twilight is something else--a hybrid of sorts. But WHY?

Do me a favor and imagine Mortal Kombat music now. k thx

I refuse to believe it's just subjective. There has to be some way of quantifying what makes an arty genre book vs. a "just-for-fun" genre book. I having a burning need to find the reason, because 1) I have a secret desire to write artistic fiction but have no idea how, 2) I WAS TRAINED AS A SCIENTIST DAMMIT AND I NEED ANSWERS. Lucky for you, lovely readers, I have the answer (sort of. not at all really. i'm a failure.) After thinking about it all week, I've hit on three characteristics that blur the line between genre fiction and artsy fiction:

1. Less Stuff Happens: Genre fiction is characterized by lots of fast, fun plot. Stuff blows up, there are love triangles, shopping montages and awesome fight scenes. Artsy genre fiction tends to be more focused. There are likely fewer characters and fewer fight scenes (sad panda). The time saved by excising sex scenes is devoted instead to developing characters and their internal struggles. A great example is two very excellent YA Dystopian novels: The Hunger Games and The Giver. The Hunger Games definitely has a message, but it's doesn't quite take the time to be literary--it's too busy fighting mutant werewolves, which is awesome. The Giver finds its drama in small discoveries and epiphanies, like technicolor apples. And if there's anyone out there who wants to argue Lowry isn't literary, you can just get right out of town on the next bus.

2. Scenes are Theme Driven: Genre books like thrillers and mysteries use almost every scene to move the plot forward. If you think back to artsy books you've read, you may recall that there are a lot of scenes where nothing happens (e.g. all of Moby Dick). There is a point to them, of course - the point is they move the theme along, rather than the plot. In Harry Potter, scenes are tight as a drum, and you come out with another clue to check off your list - "Okay, Snape was in the Room of Requirement last night - BUT WHY?" In Lord of the Rings, there are entire chapters about goddamn inns named after goddamn ponies and you have no idea why they're there. But it's that willingness to slow down and provide rich detail about the characters and the world they live in that changes (notice I didn't use the word elevates!) something from genre fic to arty genre fic.

3. The Language is Profound: Excellent genre writers have tight, efficient language that gets the job done. Stephen King is great because every sentence he writes is a shining beacon of perfect folksy-horror voice. But in a truly literary book, the writing is so beautiful or so wise it brings weight and meaning to a tale even if the plot itself is fast and fun. The stellar, wonderful, my-hero Robin McKinley's book Sunshine is a straightforward vampire urban fantasy (the best, says I. That's right, click the link. Buy it. Yeeeessss). But there are a few sort of throw-away paragraphs where she evokes this gorgeous picture of baking bread in the morning and the beauty of daily rituals. McKinley's language makes you feel like you've read a book about the comfort of routine and the danger of self-discovery, even though she never comes out and says any of it. We've got so many YA genre authors who write words like gangbusters: Maggie Stiefvater, Kirsten Hubbard, Kimberly Derting. When you're reading their books, it's hard not to feel like you're reading art, a little. Or a lot.

I suppose no YA writer will argue that genre fiction can't also be art. The question of what makes something art, is course, more subjective. These are just my thoughts. What are yours?