This is why I hate Johnny Depp. Because he is so fucking superior about the fact that he doesn't watch TV or even movies. HOW IS THAT SOMETHING TO BE PROUD OF? You're an actor. That is your craft--and TV and movies are your medium--you aren't a stage actor, dude. That's just plain unprofessional to not keep abreast of what's going on in your field.
But anyway. I agree with everything. (Well... except for magical realism being the same as fantasy. But that's not important.)
And you're right--it is related to the genre fiction vs. literary fiction division. And, I'll admit--that's something I have a hard time with. Those are difficult waters to navigate--because I think there's an enormous amount of value in genre fiction--and I think there's plenty of genre stuff that could be marketed as literary fiction. But, somewhere in there, there's a difference--and I don't think it's just my snobbery speaking. It's hard to put your finger on--but I always remember the arguments people would make in middle school, that Stephen King will be taught in literature classes in 100 years. And... well.... no. He won't be. Unless it's a class on popular genre fiction of the 20th century.
Now, Terry Pratchett? Yes. Neil Gaiman? Yes. And there're probably a jillion more that I don't know of.
Stephen King would be like Vampire Diaries--well written, well plotted--but not really innovative. Good, not great. Pratchett would be more like Buffy. Innovative. Genre busting. There's value in both. And one isn't MORE valuable than the other--but they aren't interchangeable either.
And I think that's exactly what the situation is with mediums as well--different mediums CAN'T replace each other. There are things TV can do that no other medium can do (long term character development couched in visual metaphors and whatnot), just as there are things that books and movies and comics and poetry and visual art can do that other mediums can't. We need them all--to dismiss a genre or a medium out of hand is just... snobbery, yes. But more than that, it's sophomoric. It's a false sophistication that really reveals how little the dismisser has thought about the nature of art and communication. It's... not the best way to impress anyone who actually has given a good amount of thought to those things.
no subject
This is why I hate Johnny Depp. Because he is so fucking superior about the fact that he doesn't watch TV or even movies. HOW IS THAT SOMETHING TO BE PROUD OF? You're an actor. That is your craft--and TV and movies are your medium--you aren't a stage actor, dude. That's just plain unprofessional to not keep abreast of what's going on in your field.
But anyway. I agree with everything. (Well... except for magical realism being the same as fantasy. But that's not important.)
And you're right--it is related to the genre fiction vs. literary fiction division. And, I'll admit--that's something I have a hard time with. Those are difficult waters to navigate--because I think there's an enormous amount of value in genre fiction--and I think there's plenty of genre stuff that could be marketed as literary fiction. But, somewhere in there, there's a difference--and I don't think it's just my snobbery speaking. It's hard to put your finger on--but I always remember the arguments people would make in middle school, that Stephen King will be taught in literature classes in 100 years. And... well.... no. He won't be. Unless it's a class on popular genre fiction of the 20th century.
Now, Terry Pratchett? Yes. Neil Gaiman? Yes. And there're probably a jillion more that I don't know of.
Stephen King would be like Vampire Diaries--well written, well plotted--but not really innovative. Good, not great. Pratchett would be more like Buffy. Innovative. Genre busting. There's value in both. And one isn't MORE valuable than the other--but they aren't interchangeable either.
And I think that's exactly what the situation is with mediums as well--different mediums CAN'T replace each other. There are things TV can do that no other medium can do (long term character development couched in visual metaphors and whatnot), just as there are things that books and movies and comics and poetry and visual art can do that other mediums can't. We need them all--to dismiss a genre or a medium out of hand is just... snobbery, yes. But more than that, it's sophomoric. It's a false sophistication that really reveals how little the dismisser has thought about the nature of art and communication. It's... not the best way to impress anyone who actually has given a good amount of thought to those things.