popular fiction in public libraries

8/12/2019 Popular Fiction in Public Libraries

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/popular-fiction-in-public-libraries 1/12

University of Texas Press

Popular Fiction Selection in Public Libraries: Implications of Popular Culture StudiesAuthor(s): Robert WagersReviewed work(s):Source: The Journal of Library History (1974-1987), Vol. 16, No. 2, Libraries & Culture II(Spring, 1981), pp. 342-352Published by: University of Texas PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25541200 .Accessed: 02/03/2012 22:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of Texas Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Library History (1974-1987).

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=texas

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25541200?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25541200?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=texas



Popular Fiction Selection in Public Libraries:

Implications of Popular Culture StudiesRobert Wagers

Public libraries have traditionally provided access to the products of elite culture?works of greatest interest to a select groupof cultural arbiters whose tastes are regarded by many as exemp

lary. Librarians have not demonstrated much difficulty in selectingthese works since well-known criteria for literary or artistic excel

lence are available. Witha

certainamount

of reluctance, however,public librarians have recognized that the needs of large segmentsof their audience were not being served by these elite products.The majority public chose to use the works of the mass media and

press, and public libraries responded by forming collections of

popular materials that often fell short of the high standards of the

cultural tastemakers. In the area of popular fiction?suspense, ro

mances, westerns, science fiction, social melodrama?many Ubrar

iansresponded

to thechaUenge by creating

two collections based

upon totally different standards. The traditional Uterate fictioncoUection was formed on the basis of the usual rationales?vivid

characterization, complex, imaginative plotting, nonconventionalthemes?while the popular fiction coUection was built uponknown popular authors, bulk acquisition plans, dimly perceivedsubject interests, and gifts. As a result, great numbers of novelsthat featured flat, stereotyped characters, repetitious, simpUsticplots, conventional moral values, and liberal doses of sex and violence and somehow met the needs and desires of the reading public were acquired in a haphazard fashion.

Robert Wagers is assistant professor of library science at San JoseState University.

Journal of Library History, Vol. 16, No. 2, Spring 1981? 1981 by the University of Texas Press 0022-2259/81/020342-12$01.35



343

If this distinction is maintained, librarians cannot honor a com

mitment to standards of selection and explain why they acquiredor

rejecteda work. Most

important, theycannot meet the needs

of identified library publics. Gordon Stevenson has asked if it isthe function of librarians to 'read' cultures?to learn to understand the role of information systems as they support the 'myths'

which sustain daily rituals?or is it to change the cultural preferences of people?

x Both are big jobs, but the second ismon

strous. Even if librarians decide that their mission is to changetastes, they cannot succeed without understanding the ways in

whichexisting

works serve the needs of thereading public.

Ipropose that librarians abolish the conflict between high values and

low tastes by formulating selection plans in which value is in

strumental?conditional upon the degree to which a work of fiction meets or fails to meet identified needs. Contemporary students of popular culture have taken precisely this approach tounderstand the appeal of popular artifacts. Librarians might en

rich selection plans by comprehending the methods and findingsof these theorists.

Popular culture encompasses all elements of life that are not

narrowly intellectual or creatively elitist. These elements are ex

pressed in artifacts that are recognized by a significant percentageof the population. The pervasiveness of ideas and patterns in theseartifacts is guaranteed by disseminating them through the mass

media. Three important approaches to explaining the impact ofthese works have been proposed. One method has been to studythe mass audiences that consume popular materials. This method

has been promoted significantly by Herbert Gans.2 Theoriststaking this approach emphasized the importance of the type of

taste culture to which a work appeals. Those who saw the crucial elements in popular culture acceptance to be the vehicle (following Marshall McLuhan) usually stressed the fact that mass de

livery limits the choices available to the public and incorporatescontrols imposed by the media.3 Some writers have combinedthese approaches to urge a unified study of the mechanisms by

which common cultural elements are transformed into a form thatmatches the expectations of use groups.4 Both of these methodsare valuable, but they involve a considerable amount of pollingand surveying. Unfortunately, librarians are limited in the time

they can devote to such activities. It can be argued, however, thatthe common patterns discoverable in audience reaction and mass

delivery are represented significantly in the common themes,ideas, plots, and characters of specific genres. The assumption is



344 JhH/Popular Fiction Selection

that genres or subgenres such as mysteries and gothic romances

wiU display certain commonalities that can be identified and used

to develop selection criteria appropriate to their readership. Thisapproach has several advantages. (1) It is largely free from theoretical assumptions and is, in fact, pre theoretical in emphasizingdescription and classification of elements. (2) Accordingly, deepstructure?underlying or archetypical features?is not a major con

cern; careful description is the first chore. The effect is to forestaU

judgment, especiaUy the attacks on trash that popular cultureworks so often inspire. (3) Certain established techniques, such as

contentanalysis,

can be usedconfidently

for thepurpose

of dis

secting artifacts. Librarians seeking methods of selecting fictionare definitely served by popular culture researchers. The power ofthis approach comes from a useful blending of different orders of

discovery that enrich accounts of the impact of popular materials.

Popular culture researchers stress three levels of analysis. Thefirst level, generaUy the foundation for explaining the structure

and appeal of popular works, is description. What are the essentialelements and patterns of specific

genres?To answer this

question,researchers apply textual criticism and quantitative measures to

the traditional literary units?theme, setting, plot, character, andso forth. Representative of such studies is Gans's finding that con

temporary romances and melodramas feature characters with thesame attributes. These characters, such as Jennie in Erich Segal's

Love Story (New York: Harper and Row, 1970), rise out of de

prived backgrounds to chaUenge higher society for position. Theyshow great initiative that sometimes earns them success or is over

whelmed by powerful natural or social forces.5 Why these patterns

persist in the popular representatives of certain genres requires a

second level of analysis?explanation. Turning to behavior studies,Thomas Kando argues that characters such as Jennie represent our

economic system's assumptions concerning the attributes of suc

cess.6 He predicts that a postindustrial society, such as the ones

foreseen by Theodore Roszak and Herbert Marcuse, may favor

characters who have transcended material striving. A considerable

portion of popular culture studies is devoted to ways to explainthe findings of descriptive research. At a stiU higher level of anal

ysis, researchers critically examine the presuppositions and conse

quences of these theories of popularity. The results are metatheo

ries providing explanations of popular works based upon majoranthropological, Unguistic, or Uterary movements. Throughoutthese studies, the aim is to explain the sources of popularity and

to develop reliable tools for the investigation of these sources.



347

for appreciation without analysis or comparisons.15 At the secondlevel of analysis, other researchers have accepted this basic finding,

but have sought the mechanisms by which conventional treatments engage the reader. For example, Jan Cohn has theorizedthat popular authors succeed when they provide a set of guarantees that moral values will not be overturned and the status quo

will be supported.16 In social melodramas such as Judith Krantz's

Scruples (New York: Crown, 1978), characters are rewarded for

kicking and clawing to the top, but only when they do not ac

tually trample on others. If characters violate this law, they are

marked as losers in thegame

of human relations. In the sameway,characters (and readers in fantasy) are permitted to experiment

lavishly with all varieties of sexual activities, schemes for success,and near-criminal behavior. The only requirement is that no oneis hurt. The readers are protected from traditional moral scru

ples by this omnibus guarantee. It could be argued from Cohn's

explanation of the appeal of formula that popular social melodramas cannot be written about unambitious, but high-principledcharacters or ambitious, seamy ones. The first type offends the

readers' need to justify their striving while the second violatestheir need to believe that one can be decent in the course of bat

tling to the top.It is important to realize that these levels of research do not ex

haust the problems associated with the structure of popular fictionworks and the dynamics of reader behavior. In particular, the manner in which authors captivate readers requires study. For exam

ple, Linda Busby claims that popular culture artists use symbolswhich have a commonly held cultural understanding and requireminimum delineation. 17 This useful observation partly explains

the value of the concept of formula in explaining popular tastes,but it does not help us to distinguish among formula stories. Forthis reason, critics have implications of broader theoretical viewsfor the impact of works designed for mass publics. Two recent

analyses, an extension of the formula approach by Janice Radwayand an attack on the concept by David Feldman, suggest the direc

tions from which deeper understanding of popular fiction dynamics may come.

Radway attempts to explain the differences between elite and

popular works of the same genre, for example, any work by Phyllis Whitney and Faulkner's Sanctuary (New York: J. Cape and H.

Smith, 1931)?two gothic novels. She finds a possible solution instructuralist approaches to linguistics such as those of Merleau

Ponty. Literary works can be seen as language systems and



348 JLH/Popular Fiction Selection

arranged on a continuum according to the number of rules, norms,and conventions they break or observe.18 In clearly eUte works,the artist

expressesideas

by deforming language, producingnew

meaning by altering the syntactic rules governing the language system.19 In popular works, the writer violates very few conventions,

relying instead upon the basic structure of the system. In this case,readers discern meaning immediately on the basis of traditionaltreatments.20 Radway tested this view by describing in a detailed

manner aU the message units in the novels mentioned above andCarson McCuUers's Member of the Wedding (Boston: Houghton

Mifflin, 1946).All three used a standard

gothic meaning structure,but Faulkner and McCullers profoundly altered the plotting,themes, settings, and so on, to produce radicaUy different mean

ings from those common to the genre.This theory of fiction structure explains the force of formulaic

writing in popular novels and the attraction of conventional worksfor the average reader. In brief, popular novels employ devices re

sembUng those that appear in day-to-day uses of language. In both

cases, readers and speakers discern meaning directly on the basis ofmutual understanding of traditional treatments. Speech acts andworks are referential since little room for interpretation or anal

ysis is permitted.21 In contrast, elite fiction goes beyond the limits of the language institution itself and . . . constantly adds to the

possibUities of expression contained within it. 22 Radway impliesthat all artistic productions can be compared by the number and

magnitude of deformations included, but the fiction selector mustknow further what characteristics account for popularity.

This question continues to challenge theorists who see formulaic structure as the principal ingredient in popular fiction. If, for

example, aU mysteries share a common structure, how can we dis

tinguish between the novels of Mickey Spillane and those of Erie

Stanley Gardner? Or, if the genre is narrowed to hard-boiled detective stories as Cawelti suggests, between Spillane and Ray

mond Chandler? In terms of Radway's findings, isn't it possiblethat the appeal of certain popular works lies in their use of the

same creative methods that she found in the work of Faulknerand McCullers? David Feldman argues that the differences between such authors lie in their inventional systems?the noncon

ventional features of popular works. The proper perspective is to

view the effects of handling characters, themes, and so forth, within the context of specific types of works with specific audiences.

Samuel Beckett shocked audiences with the surrealistic setting of

Waiting for Godot, but the premises of the play were familiar to



349

contemporary philosophers. In contrast, the writers of Gunsmoke arranged for Kitty to have an affair after nineteen years of

chaste fidelity to Matt Dillon. Which artifact was the most inventional ?23 Feldman does not abandon the use of formula as a con

cept, but insists that overemphasis on conventional and recurringmotifs?cultural values, icons, myths, and archetypes?ignores themain concern of the artist?to use these elements to alter the

story's structural system. It is the arrangement of these elements

by the author that accounts for a formula's appeal.24Feldman came to this conclusion in an interesting fashion.

Studyingthe works of Russian

Formalism,he discovered that

byattending to the alteration of structure in Perry Mason reruns hecould determine 90 percent of the killers.25 He achieved this feat

by noting themes in the story that deviated from the expected.For Feldman, conventional elements were those developmentsthat were fully predictable within the structure of a genre, whileinventional elements were all deviations in time sequence, plot,character, and so on, that altered this basic pattern. In order tounderstand the crime (the basic component of this type of mys

tery), the reader must pick out the structural changes in the courseof events and explain them in terms of required story elements.

This technique followed methods proposed by the Formalists,who had argued, in the twenties, that what distinguished literaryproductions was their literariness. They meant that the elementsof content in stories did not help to explain the function of anygiven work. Only by ignoring content and concentrating upon the

ways in which specific works were structured for specific effects

could the critic explain the audience's perception of a work. Themethod works in this manner: recognize that an artist takes a

story, a sequence of causal-temporal events, and transforms itinto a plot by altering this sequence to serve his interests. Hedoes this by shifting bound and free motifs. Motifs are the

smallest, most irreducible themes of a work, for example, Raskolnikov kills the old woman, the hero dies, and so forth. Bound

motifs are those parts that are absolutely necessary to the story

whereas free motifs are introduced to lead the reader along thepaths of the plot that the author wants followed. The arrangementof these inventional motifs helps to explain how audiences can beconditioned psychologically to embrace themes they would ordi

narily reject. 26 Conservative audiences could be led to condone

hostility to authority in The Longest Yard by carefully transform

ing ordinary events through free motifs that express the themesdesired by the author.27 By defamiliarizing the audience, the




author's intent could be transmitted in place of the audience's nor

mal, expected reactions. The critic must reverse this process? re

familiarize the plot in order to uncover the structural featuresthat account for the impact of the work.

Feldman illustrates this method with an analysis of Gardner'sThe Case of the Blonde Bonanza (New York: Morrow, 1962).Clearly, the main attraction of a Perry Mason thriller is the chanceto deduce the kUler. Isolating the motifs of the story reveals thatthe first eighty-eight pages are strictly chronological, but the au

thor deviates from this order when he has the actual killer recountto Mason a

complex descriptionof the events

surroundingthe

murder. The point is that this free motif has no purpose in thenovel unless it highlights an action or character who must affectthe plot in an important way.28 Through this type of analysis, thecritic can ignore conventional content and discover the real excite

ment of the work in its formal structure.

I suspect that this analysis succeeds especially well with mysteries because their formulaic structure requires the author to leadthe reader down many false paths. The author necessarily defamiliarizes the story and invites the reader to transform incongruities,apparent free motifs, into acceptable patterns of events?bound

motifs. It is possible that other genres without this stress upon de

mystification wiU not yield as easily to Feldman's method. None

theless, the one common element in the above two treatments offormula literature is their stress on system. Fictional works are

systematically designed to elicit certain effects. These systems de

pend upon the common experiences of the intended audience,

who are invited to transform their everyday Ufe by means of imaginary manipulation of those experiences. Radway explains the pullof conventionality while Feldman shows why we are not bored byanother Perry Mason case. The readers' need to balance danger

with security is explained in these treatments. Critics must re

create the mind-sets of audiences by means of formulaic elements

and recurring deviations from those elements in order to predictaccurately the appeal of a given work.

Free motifs, language systems, conventional treatments, inventional treatments, experimenting with forbidden experiences, real

izing ideals in fiction, recreating mythological moral universes,success in human relations?aU these findings and theories bringthe critic closer to the attraction of popular fiction. The method

ology of popular culture studies remains uncomfortably soft

with continuing debates concerning the basic units of analysis,but even incomplete investigations of specific genres offer new



351

directions for the critic. The librarian is invited to modify signifi

cantly such criteria as original in plot, unbelievable charac

ters, avoids sensational themes along the lines of the factorsresponsible for popularity.29 In a recent column, the televisioncritic Ron Miller points out that many situation comedies and

soap operas used exactly the same source of conflict to complicate situations. For example, in two episodes of Happy Daysand one of Alice, characters avoided something bad happeningto them by purposely not doing something they always do.30 Miller mentions three other findings equally interesting for our under

standingof the structure of television series. His conclusion, how

ever, is that the tube gobbles up ideas like the shark in Jaws, so

writers fall back on the basic plots to meet their deadlines. 31This may be true, but he misses the importance of conventional

plotting for audience satisfaction. Librarians should probe the

dynamics of popular treatments in order to avoid this value-laden

approach to criticism. The result could easily be collections of

popular fiction formed on discovered principles of audience reac

tion and enhanced theories of popular culture.

Notes

1. Gordon Stevenson, Popular Culture and the Public Library, in

Melvin J. Voigt and Michael H. Harris (eds.), Advances in Librarianship 7

(New York: Academic Press, 1977), p. 218.2. Herbert J. Gans, Love Story: A Romance of Upward Mobility, in

William M. Hammell (ed.), The Popular Arts inAmerica: A Reader (NewYork: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972), pp. 431-436; Herbert J. Gans,

Popular Culture and High Culture: An Analysis and Evaluation of Taste

(New York: Basic Books, 1975).3. Jeffrey Schrank, Snap, Crackle, and Popular Taste: The Illusion of

Free Choice in America (New York: Dell, 1977).4. Pershing Vartanian, Popular Culture Studies: A Problem in Socio

cultural Dynamics, Journal of Popular Culture 11, no. 1 (Summer 1977):281/141-283/143.

5. Gans, Love Story,1' pp. 433-434.

6. Thomas M. Kando, Leisure and Popular Culture in Transition (St.Louis: Mosby, 1975), p. 16.

7. John G. Cawelti, Adventure, Mystery, and Romance: Formula Storiesas Art and Popular Culture (Chicago and London: University of ChicagoPress, 1976), p. 10.

8. Ibid., pp. 285-286.

9. Ibid., pp. 265-267.10. Ibid., p. 267.11. Nora Ephron, Mush, in Hammell, Popular Arts, p. 424.12. Gans, Love Story, p. 435.13. Schrank, Snap, Crackle, and Popular Taste, pp. 21-22.




14. Cawelti, Adventury, Mystery, and Romance, p. 289.

15. Ibid., pp. 2-10.

16. Jan Cohn, The Romances of Mary Roberts Rinehart: Some Problems

in the Study of Popular Culture, Journal of Popular Culture 11, no. 3

(Winter 1977): 581.17. Linda J. Busby, Myths, Symbols, Stereotypes: The Artist and the

Mass Media, paper delivered at the National Meeting of the Speech Com

munication Association, San Francisco, California, 27 December 1976, p. 4.

18. Janice A. Radway, Phenomenology, Linguistics, and Popular Litera

ture, Journal of Popular Culture 12, no. 1 (Summer 1978): 94.

19. Ibid., p. 92.

20. Ibid., p. 95.

21. Ibid.22. Ibid., p. 91.

23. David N. Feldman, Formalism and Popular Culture, Journal of

Popular Culture 9, no. 2 (Fall 1975): 388/36.24. Ibid., p. 390/38.25. Ibid.

26. Ibid., pp. 393/41-395/43.27. Ibid., p. 395/43.28. Ibid., p. 396/44.29. Mildred Vick Chatton and James Cabaceiras, Library Science 214:

Selectionof

Materials, 2nd ed.(San Jose,

Calif.: SanJose

StateUniversity,

1978), pp. 46-48.30. Ron Miller, Worn Plots Keep Coming in TV's Recycling Plan, San

Jose Mercury, 4 October 1979, p. 9C.

31. Ibid.

popular fiction in public libraries

Documents