Which review was that quote from?
Transcends the genre is exactly equivalent to if it’s good it can’t be genre.
Nothing transcends the genre. If it’s that good it *exemplifies * the genre.
Transcends the genre is so much one of my pet peeves that I’ve devoted a Law to it.
Mapcase’s Law 13: As soon as you see the words “transcends the genre” you can stop reading because nothing after that is worth the ulcer it will give.
Can I subscribe to your newsletter? (Or at least get a list of the other laws?)
From the review by Sophia. (It’s at or near the top.) I actually made a comment about this issue under her review, and she responded by amending the line to say “SF Worldbuilding” instead of just “SF.” I think that’s fair enough–though I also think the original wording remains telling.
-FrL-
I can’t speak for Exapno Mapcase, but these are my first two laws:
-
The Ray Bradbury Rule: Any work by a science fiction author is automatically science fiction.
-
The Margaret Atwood Clause: Any work that incorporates themes and elements already explored by other science fictional works is, despite any protestations by the author, also science fiction.
I’d have to look it up, but I think Ralph was from the early '20s, and from one of Gernsback’s radio magazines (when radio is where computers were for the general public at about 1980.)
Is Vernor Vinge space opera? Is even Stephen Baxter? Star Trek is, and so is Star Wars, so I can understand people who spend all their time on that area of the sf display in the bookstore thinking there is hardly anything but. Not all sf involves BEMs either. 
You need to get out more and read more science fiction.
I do not agree. “Exemplifies the genre” means, to my mind, incorporating every cliche of the genre; that is, something so obviously “genre” that it cannot possibly be mistaken for anything else, something that has no particular depth of characterization or any other features which would distinguish it from all of its fellows. An example would be any one of the elf-dwarf-questing novels that clearly follow Tolkein’s lead (though without his obsession with and knowledge of mythology and languages). They exemplify a certain strand of fantasy that is instantly recognizable as such; no one could possibly mistake 'em for anything else.
In contrast, Gormenghast is also of the “fantasy” genre; love ot or hate it (and I happen to love it), it clearly “transends the genre” which is why it is widely considered a classic.
To my mind there is considerable validity to this POV and it is widely held by others, perhaps explaining why you have come across it before.
Though if you are of the opinion that the point isn’t worth arguing because it makes you angry, I’m happy to not argue it and move on to more profitable pursuits.
What he said. Seriously. Try Elizabeth Moon’s The Speed of Dark, my candidate for the best thing she has written. Kim Stanley Robinson’s latest trilogy, or Charles Stross’ Halting State. And just because it takes place on spaceships, that doesn’t make it Space Opera. (Now you have me wondering where my Lensman books are. :p)
What you say you mean by “exemplifies the genre” is what in English would be expressed as “exemplifies the genre and is written poorly.” 
It is impossible to reasonably mistake Gormenghast (I assume, having only read about it) for anything other than Fantasy. To say further that Gormenhghast accomplishes things most Fantasy novels don’t accomplish is by no means to say Gormenghast is not a Fantasy novel. In fact, it is very likely tantamount to saying Gormenghast is a very good Fantasy novel.
To transcend Y-ness is, strictly speaking, to not be an example of Y. But X can be a very good Y without “transcending Y-ness.”
-FrL-
But the very word ‘transcends’ implies that regular genre fiction is of less value. And while it probably is, it’s not the genre tropes that make it so. Why not just say that it’s a wonderful book?
If you don’t mind, just as an exercise, please explain just what it is about Gormenghast that “transcends” the fantasy genre.
I think my point is that Gormanghast is a fantasy novel (hence my statement that it “also of the “fantasy” genre”); but that it also is more than simply an example of the genre - it transcends the categorization, by overcomming the apparent cliches of the genre.
From the Webster Dictionary:
Don’t see any requirement that “transending X” of necessity means “no longer thought of as X”; and in any event, that’s not how I’m using it.
If “transcends the genre” means “overcoming the cliches of the genre”, then there are scads of science fiction and fantasy novels that do precisely that. But I’ll bet most mainstream critics wouldn’t admit most of them to the realm of literature. In practical use, “transcends the genre” seems to mean that people who don’t normally think of themselves as fans of the genre find themselves liking it, for whatever reason.
What is wrong with implying that genre fiction which fails to transcend the limitations of genre fiction is of lesser value than genre fiction which succeds?
I’m not seeing why making value judgments is a bad thing. Moreover, even saying “it’s a wonderful book” is a value judgment, at it imples that other books are not “wonderful”.
I am not of course claiming that my particular value judgments carry any more weight than those of persuation.
As for Gormenghast, I fear to inflict others with a possibhly tedious digression at any length; I will merely state that what seperates the work out from the usual run of genre fiction in my mind is the use of the darkest of dark absurdist humour; the mastery of descriptive language employed; the sheer oddity of the setting; and the subversion of many of the typical cliches of gothic fantasy fiction.
The use of regular tropes may, or may not, be limiting; very often they are, because they demonstrate a limitation of the imagination.
There’s still an unspoken assumption here that fantasy (or whatever genre) inherently has something wrong with it. Gormanghast is still a fantasy novel. To say that it transcend the genre is like saying that that genre is by definition limiting. How about just saying that it’s an example of a good book within the genre?
Depends. Are you having a conversation with these mainstream critics, or with me?
Because if it is with me, I’ll say in my own defence that I happen to love lots of fantasy and science fiction - and yet, here I am, making this distinction.
I also like westerns and mysteries. Romance novels, not so much.
And it might be unique to you.
Harry Potter won a Hugo, too. More than one, I think, though I’m not certain of that. And Harry Potter isn’t sf- it’s fantasy. Wands and spells, elves and dragons, broomsticks and wizards… Claiming that it’s sf is silly. The Hugo award, while sometimes a good indicator, isn’t a catch-all proof.
Oh, and if Flowers for Algernon is sf, than so is Frankenstein. I’m comfortable with that, too.
To say that X is better than Y is not to say that there is something wrong with Y.
To say that literature that stays safely within the cliches of genre fiction is not as good as literature that transends the genre, is not to say one cannot enjoy genre fiction.
Take science fiction. To my mind a great work of genre science fiction would be A fire upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge. I liked it alot. It replicated for me a lot that is good about space opera - a grand setting, a terrible peril, interesting alien races, a titanic conflict, a smattering of mind-teasing ideas. But is it great literature? As much as I enjoyed reading it, I do not think so. It was an enjoyable read, but not something that is really going to stay with me after I finished reading it.
Then, compare with something like Olaf Stapelton’s classic Star Maker. It is clearly science fiction, just as much as A Fire Upon the Deep. But there is a more serious purpose there. The range of ideas is deeper. Its effects transcend the genre. It influenced writers like Jorge Luis Borges. It transcends the genre in a way that A Fire Upon the Deep does not, even though in many ways the former is the more fun read.