READER'S ADVISORY, INNOVATIVE FICTION and the LIMITS OF GENRE
Readers come into libraries and, on occasion, ask librarians what to read next. Answering this question (and other less interactive techniques, e.g. book displays) is traditionally grouped under the term reader's advisory services and has become a set part of the library's role. A philosophy of genre has come to dominate the policy and technique of RA as it's conducted in public libraries across the land. Though in many ways helpful, there is a limit to its applicability which rarely gets acknowledged.
This philosophy is especially dangerous for the types of books reviewed here. At best innovative fiction is herded under the misnamed genre "literary fiction" (usually middle brow, bourgoise books, widely reviewed by hacks and winners of dubious awards, ahem). Shunned by the reviewing establishment and now evidently flying under the radar of genre-lensed librarians, these novels will have no choice but to continue to rely on what has always been their chief advertisement method: direct marketing and word of mouth to the already-in-the-know.
Not naive enough to think this will ever change, it is still another form of intellectual dishonesty, namely pessimism, to not make an effort to fight for innovative fiction's promotion.
Readers for innovative fiction exist, just like romance aficionados and science fiction junkies, though in smaller numbers. The populist mission and the democratic mission of libraries are often, if not in direct conflict, then at least in tension over limited resources. Genre philosphy then, though with obvious benefits, if applied mindlessly, subdues the democratic impulse (many voices, plural) to the populist (majority voice, singular) -- a visionless error.
____________________
That the Readers Advisory interview is a complex process of analysis no less difficult than reading tea leaves or psychoanalysis is a given. And though grateful for the philosophy of genre as well as the RA reference tools which provide basic structure and agency in moments where previously librarians only had their own reading experience, the OPAC, and the adrenaline-occasioned motivation of panic to guide them ?there is a very real danger of assumption inherent in the philosophy of genre.
This danger might be likened (admittedly somewhat melodramatically) to the psychiatric professions?oft criticized over-prescription of anti-depressants. The dilemma might be described as twin fold. First, that by assuming divisions of genre, the reader's advisor is eliminating from their repertoire of prescriptions those works which are either cross-genre or outside the current definitions of genre. (The psychiatrist grows to depend on prescriptions of Zoloft and less readily explores other options like stress-reduction or exercise or even other possible drugs). And secondly, the philosophy of genre may pre-mold the reader, in the eyes of the advisor, as a genre reader and therefore allows the advisor to erroneously reduce the complexity of their analysis/conversation. Furthermore, and more dangerously, this may limit the population who considers readers advisory appropriate for their needs. (The first effect would be like the psychiatrist who quickly diagnosis into set categories of neuroses and the latter would be like those sufferers who, for example, think of mental illness as some particular caricature of depression and therefore don't think to seek therapy for their own chronic, more hidden, instabilities).
Readers advisory could become, a Pollyanna might dream, a ubiquitous function of the library and, gasp, society, where all felt comfortable and excited about their next novel and that next novel would turn out to be both expansive and familiar, a meeting of reader and book which did not diminish the complexity of either. Such a fantasy is a reach to which we librarians may collectively extend our grasp. However back in the nitty-gritty present day, such concerns as outlined above may understandably seem a bit impractical if not altogether out of touch. To exemplify this last admission, try going into a public library and asking for a "read alike" of your fave book and you'll find even the current benefits of RA reference tools and genre analysis have yet to be fully implemented -- not to mention the bewlidered look a query based on an "obscure" novel might produce.
RA interviews, in the end, suffer from what is most likely an intrinsic problem for readers advisory: the advisors suggest only what they are familiar with. Furthermore, the conversation between advisor and reader is usually woefully reductive. However, I wonder also if, even given a meaningful interview, how easy it would be to find an appropriate title. My own searches through one of the premier RA databases -- NoveList -- informed often with my very specific ideas about what I want, hardly ever brings up appropriate titles. I do believe that if I was searching for a more traditional genre title I would get more seemingly related suggestions. For instance, if I was searching for science fiction novels about time travel to Nazi Germany I could probably find other science fiction novels about time travel to Nazi Germany. However, even then it seems like the reference tools would have difficulty (based as they are, by necessity, on matching controlled terms) with the non-algorithmic complexity of matching moods and styles as well as content. In no way am I dismissing the usefulness of these reference tools, but they should be secondary devices (and not primary or only ones) which should support the labor-intensive but much more effective technique embodied in a widely and well read advisor who is familiar with their collection.
Reference tools then, embody the assumptions (and crutch) of genre in that they do seem to be more effective in handling genre readers' questions (but might, in closer analysis, be somewhat less so than appears). This apparent success, as well as the basic assumption behind genre, may lead us to ignore the population of readers who are interested in cross-genre books or books unclassified in our current genre definitions, or, those who think of books more in terms of style and mood than genre or content. That this population's needs are more difficult to answer (how can you attack a non-systematizeable problem via a systematized answer?), does not make it in any way dismissible.
Joyce G. Saricks gives the following caveat in her The Readers' Advisory Guide to Genre Fiction:
Frankly, all this genre classification is really antithetical to reader's advisory work, where we focus on what a reader wants to read and cross genres with abandon as we make suggestions. So why devote years of reading and writing to create a book that defines genres and establishes themes and authors? Because understanding fiction is the backbone of our work, and understanding the genres and conventions and the authors that exemplify them is what allows us to move readers from one to another, to be the knowledgeable resources readers expects and deserve.
The above rationale from this skillful and dedicated readers?advisor can serve as a warning not to be glossed too lightly. To be effective advisors it seems necessary to use genre study as a foundation for understanding. However, one must also humbly keep in mind that it is not an end in itself, but a process whose ambition is non-rigid insight into all the varied possibilities of fiction.
RA literature by YA advocate and Libschool prof, Chelton, and NoveList founder, Smith.
Some print and online RA tools
Ursula Le Guin on despising genre
-------------
NEXT TIME: (really) Younghill Kang & Youngsoo Park
