What’s in a (Genre) Name?

Recently, I was reading about a new-ish trend in publishing—memoir plus. And I have to say, despite being a big fan of many books that can be categorized in this way, I kind of hate the label. As an industry term, it refers to a memoir that offers more than your standard personal narrative, whether that’s research or cultural criticism. But while it’s not hard to see where such a genre distinction might come in handy, I see some issues with the framing.

There’s memoir, which is purely personal and individuated, and then there’s the plus, which is something…else. Something that’s been added on for additional market value, as though the “personal” and the “plus” are completely atomized and separate.

If you’ve read this kind of memoir before, you’ll know that separating out the strands that make it up is hardly straightforward or easy task. This is because the strands are fairly inextricable. There’s a synthesis there.

Whatever my issues with memoir plus as a term, however, I don’t disagree that it’s naming a powerful literary force, of which I would certainly like to see more published.

A question I find myself repeatedly asking: what might our own proximity as writers to our objects of study do to the shape and tone of the narrative? Perhaps we should be calling this kind of thing autotheory…