Perceptions and Contradictions: Author or Novelist?

I was interested (and, okay, a little peeved) to read an article in last week's Daily Telegraph magazine whereby a female writer was referred to as a novelist. This in itself is nothing to feel angst about, except that at the end of the piece, it said, 'Next week: author Adam Thirlwell.' And I thought, what makes her a novelist and him an author? Are the two terms truly interchangeable or do they have subtly different connotations?

To me, the description 'author' sounds more official, more respected, more… authoritative. I mean, the term 'authoritative' even has 'author' in it. Which suggests that to be an author is to be official.

Authoritative: (1) Accepted as a reliable source of knowledge; (2) having authority; official. 

Author: (1) The writer of a book, article, play, etc; (2) someone who writes professionally. 

Whereas 'novelist' just seems a bit more, well, relaxed. A novelist could be anybody, could cover anything. But an author? An author has a voice.

Is this true, though, really? My dictionary says:

Novelist: A writer of a novel or novels.

Novel: (1) A book length fictional story usually involving relationships between characters, their emotional crises and events concerning them; (2) such writing as a literary genre.

This belies my interpretation of the differences between 'author' and 'novelist'. It certainly doesn't make a novelist out to be anything less superior than an author. Except that novelists write fiction, whereas the term 'author' is more all-encompassing: it can include writers of fiction and non-fiction, writers of plays, writers of poetry.

My question is, why did the magazine refer to Samantha Shannon as a novelist and Adam Thirlwell as an author? If she wrote fiction and he wrote non-fiction, the difference would perhaps be clear. Except that's not the case. He also writes fiction; therefore, he is as much a novelist as she is. So why not call him a novelist too? Especially if being a novelist is no better or worse than being an author.

But is it? In my mind, despite the dictionary definitions above, a 'novelist' sits just a rung lower than an 'author'. Not because I think that that is the case (I do not, genuinely), but because that is the leaning that society has put onto the term 'novelist'. That somehow writers of fiction - or writers of fiction that is not literary - are not as 'good' as writers of everything else.

This, of course, brings us to the perceived difference between 'literary fiction' and 'genre fiction'. And perception is everything. Back to the dictionary:

Literary: (1) Referring or relating to, or concerned with literature or writing; (2) said of a person: knowing a great deal of canonical literature; (3) said of a word: formal.

Literature: (1) Written material, such as novels, poems and plays, that is valued for its language and content; (2) the whole body of a particular country or period in time; (3) the whole body of information published on a particular subject; (4) the art or works produced by a writer; any printed matter, especially advertising leaflets.

Genre: A particular type or kind of literature, music or other work.

The definition of literary indicates that anything concerned with writing can be literary, no matter it's content. But the first definition of literature indicates that the quality of language and content reflect on how 'literary' a piece of writing can be considered to be. This hits the nail on the head, I think: 'literary' works - the works an 'author' might produce - have a special quality of language and content, whilst the works of a 'novelist' might perhaps not reach this exalted standard. Even though the 4th definition of literature appears to contradict this interpretation, I'm inclined to say that the standards of 'literature' versus 'genre' are, again, perceived by society to be different.

Which brings me back to the question of why the Daily Telegraph might have chosen to refer to Samantha Shannon as a novelist and Adam Thirlwell as an author, and why this left me feeling peeved.  Because: (1) Samantha Shannon is a female writer while Adam Thirlwell a male writer (female writers being traditionally viewed as of lesser quality than male writers which is obviously a complete fallacy) and (2) Samantha Shannon writes sci-fi/fantasy while Adam Thirlwell's work is of a more 'literary' level (even though I think I've just demonstrated that, strictly speaking, no matter the 'genre' a writer piece of work is, by it's very definition, literary).

My point being that Samantha Shannon is every bit an author as Adam Thirlwell is; and Adam Thirlwell is every bit a novelist as Samantha Shannon is. It is only, perhaps, our perceptions of any difference between these two terms that makes any difference. So if they're ultimately the same thing, perhaps this discussion was completely pointless? Except, of course, that perception is everything, no matter the reality that lies underneath it.

Human Rights

This:

"Friend: Why do you care so much about LBGT rights when you're straight?

 Me: Because I'm not a total fucking asshole?"

Care of author Louise O'Neill @oniello on twitter Sunday 18th January 2015

Blind Preconceptions; Faithlessness

I read this Guardian article by Clare Furniss on the labelling of books and, in particular, of YA books: Sick lit and why labels in literature aren't helpful.

One of the most annoying things that I get in my job are the parents of teenagers who come in, shopping for their children, but with this big wedge on their shoulders about which books and 'types' of books are and aren't appropriate for their child.

(A) They have a somewhat erroneous preconception that all YA books are dystopia or romance and about kids who are dying or *insert latest media fad here*.

For starters, this is not true. There are a million and one books that can be classed as YA, just some of which could potentially fall into one or other (or more than one) of these categories.

(B) They have a somewhat erroneous preconception that the books in said categories are either badly written and/or worthless reading.

For starters a book can be literary and well written AND fall into a 'genre'. They're not exclusive, you know.

And then there's the part where books that could be considered genre are all talking about important things, things that matter, and things especially that are important for young people who are growing up and trying to figure out themselves and figure out the world and people around them - never mind that they're just as important once you have 'grown up' (whatever that means), and in fact never stop being important, ever.

Then there's the part where what does it matter whether or not a book is *worthwhile* reading? They're reading, for god's sake! They're using their brains and thinking and imagining and empathising with events and people outside their own world. Which means that pretty much everything is probably worth reading.

And. And. And.

I know a bookseller who has a twelve year old child who wants to read John Green's The Fault in Our Stars, but the adult in question won;t let her because they say it's too adult for them, that's it's too dark, that there's a sex scene in it.

This young person. This young person is an individual who has a right to choose what they read. If it's too adult and they don't understand it, then they don't understand it and that's that. What's the problem? If it's too adult and it makes them uncomfortable, they'll put it down. And what's the problem with that? And if they DO understand it and it upsets them, then that is because they are old enough and they are processing and thinking about the world and growing up and finding a safe way to come to terms with all that that means. And that is one of the brilliant things about books. So what's the problem with that?

The mother who is shopping for her sixteen year old and doesn't want to buy him a book that has swear words or sex in it. I am gobsmacked. Dumbfounded. Who does she think her son is likely to be? Her son, in all likelihood, has had sex and swears on a daily basis - in his head even if not out loud. And if he hasn't had sex, then he's damn sure thinking about it.

Why don't people have more faith in their children? In their ability to think for themselves, reach their own conclusions, learn, observe, make mistakes, be. An. Individual.


And don't even get me started on 'boy books' and 'girl books'.