What We Talk About When We Talk About "Literary"

Kristel Autencio has an article up over at Manila Bulletin Online: "What We Talk About When We Talk About 'Literary'". An exerpt:

Since the first volume of Dean Alfar’s "Philippine Speculative Anthology" came out in 2005, a lot of buzz has been generated about the emergence of "speculative fiction" as an alternative to the realist modes of fiction that dominate the literary output in our country. In fact, this has always been their rallying salvo: that we as Filipinos should be free from the "shackles of guilt" which writers and readers have found themselves in, brought about by the dominance of social realism.

The one thing that has made me uneasy, however, is the way the proponents have been polarizing themselves against the perceived establishment. Specifically, that the writer no longer has the responsibility to "literary" and that stories can simply be "entertaining." If you want to write for yourself and your peers, this is fine. But if you are demanding for legitimacy, one that attracts academic criticism and discourse, you have to offer something more than that.

Maybe it’s simply that people who supposedly operate under this umbrella have varying opinions about the purpose of speculative fiction as well to begin with. But that’s the danger of creating a "movement" I guess, the ones who are speaking up will automatically be considered an authority, while the ones who don’t speak up are relegated to the sidelines. Varied voices have banded together as an appeal for acknowledgment from the ivory tower–those in the academe, the editors, and the publishers–to seek out avenues for acceptance, publication, and merit.

So this is my question: why all the protestations against ‘literary writing?’ Isn’t that counter-productive to the cause?

Head on over here to read the whole article.

Link taken from Bhex's Site (thank you, again!).