Conflict might be too strong a word, but in the past week there have been a few different major discussions to show up in various elements of the lit blogosphere. Here's a round-up.

The "Why do literary reviewers have to review genre titles?" debate started with a link from the NBCC blog to an entry at J. Peder Zane's blog that made this broad sweeping generalization:

"Of course there are many fine genre writers who deserve - and receive - critical attention. But one of the main reasons reviewers don't focus on their work is that there is only so much one can say about books that, like sitcoms, are formulaic and predictable."

I commented on all this myself (with appropriate linkage) but Sarah Weinman also picked it up and asked the question of just who is reviewing genre titles to begin with (and why more genre readers/reviewers aren't doing their part). Lots of words exchanged in the comments, I think Ed insulted someone (or she thought he did), and well - there you go. What do I think about this one? Simple - it's not about the genre, it's about the story, period. If the so-called literary reviewers would get off their high horses and just judge a book by its story and not its classification, then we would all be hearing about a much more varied group of books. Reviewers need to learn to judge a book on its merits, and not through their own snob-colored glasses.

I imagine I will get in a bit of trouble for writing that, but ah - it's annoys me, so there.

Second big discussion was all about how n+1 magazine thinks lit bloggers are the end of civilization as we know it (or something like that). The article is not online but Garth quotes from it in his major response over at The Millions. And yes, much commenting ensued. TEV then decided to hit back at the magazine by posting the emails he has exchanged with the n+1 editor in the past, back when n+1 was all about courting the attention of lit bloggers. Those emails are still being posted, a little bit at a time. Meanwhile, Eric just came right out and said that n+1 was "...the worst literary magazine on the market". Ed picked that link up with a nice glossy picture of the n+1 crew and in the comments, the n+1 folks came after him for picking on their pretty picture. But wait there's more!

Garth, over at The Millions, saw that the discussion was still going strong so he came back with some more thoughts on his original post and on what everyone else was now saying. Scott at The Valve then weighed in on the whole deal, quoting even more from the original article and telling us all what n+1 thinks we should be doing. He also stamped down hard on TEV for publishing those emails and on Ed for his "biting response". At this point Gwenda noted that if blog posts were supposed to hit the 5,000 word mark she would stab herself in the eye.

No big surprise that I think Gwenda's post is the best of the bunch.

Okay, my thoughts on all this? I think there is a basic confusion here over just what a lit blog is or should be. Is a lit blog a site that links to various literary reviews, interviews, etc about authors and books? Is it a site that runs interviews and reviews? Is it a site that delves into long critical examinations of literary styles, forms or genres? If I post an entry on Captain America dying is this still a lit blog or did I lose my status? And if an author posts about their current plotting struggles is that still literary enough? When Gwenda posts on the Nebulas is that literary but if she posts about Veronica Mars is she now no longer making the cut? And Ed has a long post on Nicholson Baker today - literary for sure, but if he does one of his "round-up"entries next is that considered meaningless?

I think that n+1 and several other sites that have posted agreement with the magazine, all want lit blogs to be more critical - dare I say almost more academic. (But hip and academic, not stodgy and academic.) In the end though you can't always have what you want. You can't dictate what a person can write about, or tell them they are doing a good enough job at giving their own opinion. Heck, the whole genre wars mess is about what is literary enough to be worthy of even reviewing. Now we must decide who is worthy enough to voice their opinion? I don't think so, and I'm sure that is not n+1's intent. (I certainly hope it wasn't anyway.) The lit blogosphere is a messy place with many formats, thoughts and opinons, but that is what democracy is all about. Sometimes folks, you just have to live with the delightful chaos that freedom of expression brings forth.

Finally, would you believe there was a brouhaha in the kid lit blogosphere last week? It started with a post of Monica's over at Educating Alice where she pointed out "the elephant in the room" that the kid lit blogosphere might be perceived as exclusionary. She doesn't directly mention an article by Mother Reader in the current Edge of the Forest online lit mag, that pointed out ways to make your blog more popular. But Monica does link to the same technorati search deal at Kineda's blog MR initially wrote about that determines if you are an A-list, B-list, etc. blog based on how many other blogs have linked to you recently. Monica is a C-lister (just like me) and used that as her jumping off point about popularity and cliques among kid lit bloggers.

No people, I am not joking. The kid lit bloggers have been posting about cliques. The irony is maddening, isn't it?

Lots of commenting at Monica's site and then Betsy Bird over at Fuse #8 picked it up and lots of commenting followed over there and then Mother Reader posted at her site and tried to figure out just what the hell was going on. And yeah - a ton of more comments over there as well.

This whole thing is so strange I'm not even sure where to begin. I realize that I am a bit of an unusual lit blogger, first because I came to this from Bookslut which is hugely popular and thus already had a wee bit of name recognition when I started. (Plus easy linkage from my column.) Further, I read, comment and link to all kinds of lit blogs, from kid lit to SFF, to comics to the more literary stuff found at Ed's or TEV or Scott Esposito. But I'm still at a total loss as to how you could feel shut out from the blogsphere, or intimidated, or too shy to comment somewhere (especially in the kid lit blogosphere where everyone falls over themselves to be nice). I never thought of this blog as a popularity issue - checking stats is just a way to see who reads or why, not whether or not I'm relevant to the world. I live almost at the Canadian border, people - this is not a literary hub, not by a longshot.

What I find really interesting about the concerns of exclusion in the kid lit blogs is that right now the larger lit blogosphere is all about pointing fingers at who n+1 was referring to. There's a long discussion at The Valve prior to the release of the magazine that included Keith Gessen (n+1 editor) where commenters try to pin down just who the magazine is directing their comments. No surprise, The Valve is not one of them. Here's who Keith is aiming for:

Rich says Gawker is an isolated incident. Obviously its success (of a certain kind) is unique; but Gawker is the model to look at, not the Valve. For every Woods Lot, there are a hundred Ed Rants. For every Josh Marshall, a thousand Daily Koses. (I wonder if that first assertion could be proved… if you did string searches, say, for appearances of the term “asshole� to describe some contemporary writer, versus discussions of Blanchot--yeah, I think 100:1 would be a pretty conservative estimate.)

I will add, parenthetically, that I think it’s a mistake to call the Valve or Long Sunday “blogs� at all--they seem to me to come from the tradition of the List-Serv discussion board, even if initially most of the members had, and still have, more traditional reading diary type blogs. The Valve or Long Sunday--in general the kind of community Rich describes--would not ultimately care if anyone read their discussions or not outside their own community.

So I guess that means the cool kids (or smart kids, or intellectural kids - whatever the goal was here) are the ones who don't need anyone outside their isolated community to read their postings. They don't need recognition or stats or visits. They are hanging out above it all baby, having their deep conversations about so many things the common folk could not possibly understand.

I bet they don't read genre fiction either.

Ultimately dear Monica I think you should be happy you are spending your time in the kid lit blogosphere where bloggers fall over themselves to say they want to include everyone, they will do anything to soothe hurt feelings and really, it's all just about getting along. That place is fairy tale land compared to other corners of the web; be happy you have found a safe place within it.

I'm back on Monday with day #1 of Margo Rabb's blog tour. It will be nice to actually post about an author on this (I think) lit blog for a change!