|
There are certainly a number of people both on and off the internet, in the world of academia, etc. who scoff at genres like fantasy and sci-fi and dismiss them as being schlock. Regardless of your interest in these genres as entertainment, are they (or can they be) literature, and what criteria must be met for this to be the case? I don't want to seem like I'm picking on those two genres in particular, either -- what stops a Nancy Drew mystery book from being "real" literature? Is it because it's 'meant' for fun and pure escapism? The way it was taught to me was basically any piece of writing that attempts to tackle the metaphysical questions that have plagued man since the dawn of time constitutes "literature." "Who am I?" "Where am I going?" "What is my purpose?" I've accepted this as true but I'm curious to hear other opinions. Essentially I don't think it matters: you can read whatever you want to read and as long as you're having fun or getting something out of the experience, who gives a poo poo? But I am highly interested in your take on what constitutes literary value as opposed to something simply being a collection of words on a page.
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
It's like I always say, the distinction is basically one of marketing rather than any quantifiable difference in content between real literature and genre fiction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Genre fiction, especially sci fi and fantasy, tend to be plot driven and emphasize world building rather than complex characterization or well crafted sentence construction. To use examples of two books I read years ago: When I think back to reading the Foundation series by Isaac Asimov what I remember are the ideas animating the story: the way societies rise and fall, the role of technology in driving history, how people react when prophecy fails, etc. The characters and the writing itself (i.e. the moment to moment way the sentences bring the story to life within my mind) haven't really stuck with me and never seemed particularly important to Asimov - they were mostly functional props for moving along a plot that spanned centuries. On the other hand when I think back to 'Little Man, What Now?' by Hans Fallada, what stands out are the internal conflicts faced by the characters, and the way the author effectively brings this to life through his writing. I think of scenes where the protagonist struggles with the humiliation of being poor, the personalities of his co-workers and boss, etc. There are exceptions cutting both ways and getting overly fixated on what exactly defines literature or genre fiction seems mostly pointless but in terms of a broad organizing concept I think that's the most common division. I also think it needs to be said that while genre fiction can be legitimate art or entertainment there's an undeniable tendency for the average work of genre fiction to have flatter, less memorable characters and flatter, less interesting prose.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
I find the only distinction comes when somebody decides to label something as literature or genre. It has no bearing on actual quality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:I find the only distinction comes when somebody decides to label something as literature or genre. It has no bearing on actual quality. Exactly. It's all pretense, like any other artistic set. Often coupled with frustration that their darlings are impenetrable to the average consumer, but bad Twilight fanfiction has made the author over $60m and a fat beardy goon who doesn't even write is still raking in press and $15m a year for rights to words he'll die of sheer corpulence (or a poo poo-dick relapse) before writing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
Oliver Reed posted:Essentially I don't think it matters: you can read whatever you want to read and as long as you're having fun or getting something out of the experience, who gives a poo poo? I don't care about the definition of literature but this is a really poor attitude, since reading nothing but stupid books is going to make your brain turn into liquid. if you read books that aren't stupid, you'll be able to think about things better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
honestly i think some of the stuff better sci-fi has been dealing with for decades in terms of the implications of technology has as much if not more societal relevance as a book about someone growing up in the countryside in post-ww2 scotland or whatever, though the themes might be a bit less timeless than 'real' literature.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 11:11
|
|
|
Literature is everything that isn't genre, but if your literature is lovely and generic enough (eg its about a young girl growing up in *spins dreidel* nazi *spins again* spain with a *spins* overbearing aunt) its also genre ("hallmark books")
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 12:55
|
|
|
CestMoi posted:It's like I always say, the distinction is basically one of marketing rather than any quantifiable difference in content between real literature and genre fiction. you mother fucker
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 13:11
|
|
|
Neurosis posted:honestly i think some of the stuff better sci-fi has been dealing with for decades in terms of the implications of technology has as much if not more societal relevance as a book about someone growing up in the countryside in post-ww2 scotland or whatever, though the themes might be a bit less timeless than 'real' literature. i'm not sure what's meant by "better sci-fi".... like soft/social sci-fi rather than ringworld nonsense? bradbury, pkd, ballard, gibson, etc? but i'm also not sure why youre choosing atonement or whatever your arbitrary hypothetical is supposed to signify when theres a very real "literature" analog in burroughs, pynchon, delillo, etc, and then at that point i'm not really sure what to tell you if you think that the sci-fi writers have more social relevance to the vicissitudes of post-war/post-industrial capitalism i think what is literature? is a dumb ontological question though i don't understand why genre fiction readers still have a chip on their shoulder about not being taken seriously by institutions when the books are insanely popular. the other way around makes sense though, educated people have an obligation to not let their brains pickle and die. Radio Spiricom fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Jul 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Radio Spiricom posted:i think what is literature? is a dumb ontological question though i don't understand why genre fiction readers still have a chip on their shoulder about not being taken seriously by institutions when the books are insanely popular. the other way around makes sense though, educated people have an obligation to not let their brains pickle and die. I've noticed that genre-heavy readers and literary-heavy readers both think they are getting the short end of the stick. Literary readers think genre is way more popular because it dominates pop culture more but genre people think lit is more popular because it gets more mainstream credibility Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Jul 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I've noticed that genre-heavy readers and literary-heavy readers both think they are getting the short end of the stick. 'Lit' doesn't actually get more mainstream credibility though? It's given grudging attention at times but only because that's what people are 'supposed' to pay attention to, and even then they'll usually avoid genuinely innovative or challenging authors in favour of like a murakami or someone similar.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
A human heart posted:'Lit' doesn't actually get more mainstream credibility though? It's given grudging attention at times but only because that's what people are 'supposed' to pay attention to, and even then they'll usually avoid genuinely innovative or challenging authors in favour of like a murakami or someone similar. I am talking about perceptions. For example, in reality for all the assumed popularity of genre fiction it makes almost no money
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
It can be arbitrary, Kurt Vonnegut was considered sci-fi gutter trash for a good chunk of his career and when he shook that stigma off he was all of a sudden regarded as a writer of "real" literature. And there's nothing stopping shamelessly genre books from being insightful, moving and complex pieces of literature. *sets "Days without hawking Book of the New Sun to strangers" board to zero*
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
Literary books get "mainstream credibility" but unless Opera recommends it or some other celebrity it's probably going to get ignored by most of the public. Genre fiction in many ways has the same problem where it mostly only gets noticed if it has a tv or movie adaption then when the one odd book out gets noticed outside of that it's something like Name of the Wind  But overall as a genre reader I feel like we have the better end of it. There appear to be enough heavy genre readers to keep the prolific indie authors writing and tons of sub-communities that can kill whatever itch you are looking to scratch. This might also be true for literary works too and I just don't know what to look for. Mel Mudkiper posted:I am talking about perceptions. Genre fiction appears to be making pretty good money in the self published market. Just push out a ton of stuff and as long as it's moderately passable you will eventually start moving books on amazon kindle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
I care insanely little about whether there is a literature market or whether we are producing literary content for literary customers, I just want people to read Voltaire and Céline and abhor modern society
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Do a bunch of 'lit' authors put their weird fetishes in their books or is that much more a genre thing. Mentioning Murakami is cheating.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:I care insanely little about whether there is a literature market or whether we are producing literary content for literary customers, I just want people to read Voltaire and Céline and abhor modern society You're right at home with the genre crowd in spirit, then! There is no one who abhors modern society more than those deeply steeped in escapism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
bewilderment posted:Do a bunch of 'lit' authors put their weird fetishes in their books or is that much more a genre thing. all of them do, it's genre that's strange for demanding that an author's hosed up sexuality be excised or condemned. (psst, every author's sexuality is hosed up). Of course artistic/intellectual merit redeems things in a way that most genre hacks could never achieve.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 11:39
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:You're right at home with the genre crowd in spirit, then! There is no one who abhors modern society more than those deeply steeped in escapism. no because modern society actively encourages consumptive unthinking escapism to remove desire for political action genre crowds have practically leapt off the cliff to be absorbed into late-capitalist modern society as fandom's social forms ( esp. the convention for example) and obsessions have been reformed into the dominant mode of culture it's the consolation that social rejection won't mean a rejection of their money/productive energies genre fans are alienated socially/interpersonally not systemically reading just genre poo poo is the rabbit starvation of intellectual activity, it sustains without nourishing
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 11:49
|
|
|
yeah, escapist genre stuff is about as steeped in contemporary society as you can get.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 12:06
|
|
|
Genre, with its conventions and nerd culture isn't that far removed from lit authors, or aspiring lit authors with their difficult interviews and literary festivals where they read an extract and answer questions from lower-tier aspiring authors and middle-aged people fawning over their intellectual insight. Insight that would be out hit by a first year post-grad in a political or social science PhD, but without the cult of personality around them. For a huge amount of authors the reality is their lifestyle won't be supported by royalties (unless they're dead) and teaching, the festival circuit and in some cases workshops costing megabucks all support both their cost of living, and their image. This isn't necessarily true for the high end of literature, but if you're talking about the jobbing writer, who's featured in famous lit mags, is publicising their book, and trying to build a bigger name in the literary culture there's just as much pandering to meet-the-author/have their wisdom rub off consumption bollocksology as anything else. I've had plenty of conversations with people (poets and authors) who seem to live for their workshops with a published author, or the monastic retreat that their author-du-jour wrote a paragraph of their book at after winning a competition, and made sure to praise it in as many places as they could. I'm not talking about stories that will last the ages here, but if you're trying to play the literary game and get anywhere, the resemblance to a pyramid scheme where you have to pay your dues and get that first level of fandom/fawning before you can rise the ranks is definitely evident. There's as much conspicuous consumption as anything else with godheads and plebs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 12:53
|
|
|
A human heart posted:yeah, escapist genre stuff is about as steeped in contemporary society as you can get. It most certainly isn't, which I guess could be the reason why Liquid Communism posted:There is no one who abhors modern society more than those deeply steeped in escapism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 13:39
|
|
|
i don't have the energy to add in all the žižek lisps, so you'll have to insert those yourself: fiction only has the potential to be revolutionary if it is engaged with the lived conditions of real people, even aspirationally. there is a reason that soviet realism was the official artistic and literary style of the soviet union. by retreating to fantasy worlds, we cede control over affecting the existing order, and so act to reinforce it (c.f. adam curtis' "hypernormalisation"). escapism necessitates a retreat from these conditions, and so, paradoxically, is the most beholden to them. marx claimed that "the hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist" so too, are the works of verne and gibson indebted to the material conditions at the time of their creation. gibson himself acknowledges this with his short story "the gernsback continuum," which deals explicitly with the combination of nostalgia and second-hand naïveté when we reflect on science fiction written even a decade or two older than our own.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
Tree Goat posted:i don't have the energy to add in all the žižek lisps, so you'll have to insert those yourself: Don't know about lisps but quote:fiction only has the *touches nose* potential to be *touches nose* revolutionary if it is engaged with *touches nose* the lived conditions of real people, even aspirationally. there is *touches nose* a reason that soviet realism was the official *touches nose* artistic and literary style of the soviet union. by retreating *touches nose* to fantasy worlds, we cede control *touches nose* over affecting the existing order, and *touches nose* so act to reinforce *touches nose* it (c.f. adam curtis' "hypernormalisation").
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Don't know about lisps but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIWUMkKZhus
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:I find the only distinction comes when somebody decides to label something as literature or genre. It has no bearing on actual quality. It does. A genre label is generally a fool-proof indicator for lack of quality, because the culture of genre writing encourages all sorts of hackwork. It's fundamentally corrosive to quality. A literary label isn't a guarantee of quality, but it does guarantee from genre hackwork.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
The "lit vs genre" argument is a tired circlejerk. Just read good. In other words, 
Lightning Lord fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/LibraryComic/status/887698182251171840
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
library comic dot com the webcomic about libraries!
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
I'm not sure how to delineate the categories. "Genre" fiction is more than just sci-fi and fantasy, right? Something like, say, Nero Wolfe mysteries or romance novels would be "genre" fiction, yes? I assume that must be the case. As for what constitutes "literary fiction", I'm not sure. I've seen the term used to refer to Cormac McCarthy, as an example, but I've read all his books and I've always just thought of them as westerns (for the most part) rather than "literary". Same with Joseph Conrad, who's another I've seen given the appellation; most of that's standard adventure fare of its time in my mind. No doubt someone will be able to disabuse me of my misconceptions. Maybe those examples I've cited aren't "literary" or "real literature" and I'm simply confused. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Tree Goat posted:i don't have the energy to add in all the žižek lisps, so you'll have to insert those yourself: Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I'm not sure how to delineate the categories. "Genre" fiction is more than just sci-fi and fantasy, right? Something like, say, Nero Wolfe mysteries or romance novels would be "genre" fiction, yes? I assume that must be the case. The best way I had it explained to me was Literature focus on Writing Quality > Deeper Meaning > Characters > Plot While genre more or less goes Plot > Characters > Writing Quality > Deeper Meaning
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
i don't know what the onomatopoeia is for "a sharp intake of breath followed by a long, almost impossibly long guttural scream," but that is the sound i am making, now, because of the posts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I'm not sure how to delineate the categories. "Genre" fiction is more than just sci-fi and fantasy, right? Something like, say, Nero Wolfe mysteries or romance novels would be "genre" fiction, yes? I assume that must be the case. Most people don't give a poo poo about any of this just so you know
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
It's hard enough to write a good story normally. Genre fiction has poor foundations by placing undue focus on affectations, which makes it easier to hide any lack of substance, and quickly leads to stagnation in both the genre and the readers. It becomes harmful when the reader is unable to read anything outside of their specific genre. These works rarely stand the test of time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:library comic dot com Library staff know that the true library comic is Unshelved.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
ShinsoBEAM! posted:The best way I had it explained to me was i think maybe you need to find a different person to explain it
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Most people don't give a poo poo about any of this just so you know Quite. It is amusing to think about, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 09:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
Radio Spiricom posted:i'm not sure what's meant by "better sci-fi".... like soft/social sci-fi rather than ringworld nonsense? bradbury, pkd, ballard, gibson, etc? but i'm also not sure why youre choosing atonement or whatever your arbitrary hypothetical is supposed to signify when theres a very real "literature" analog in burroughs, pynchon, delillo, etc, and then at that point i'm not really sure what to tell you if you think that the sci-fi writers have more social relevance to the vicissitudes of post-war/post-industrial capitalism i mean that sci fi books, by their very nature, may have more to say about some issues which are (exclusively) distinctive of the present day, as well as new events and developments as they occur. of course they're probably not going to deal with things which are as timeless. yes, i mean things like neuromancer, and vinge's rainbow's end, and books about things like the ethics of ai and genetic engineering and the like. sci-fi can also be used as a device for other kinds of social commentary which deals with more enduring matters, but there's less about books of that kind (e.g. ursula le guin's stuff) that is characteristically sci-fi. anyway, i think that gives sci-fi a role to play in making meaningful contributions to literature, even if most sci-fi books do not do it very well and for provocation of thought you may be better on average sticking to more conventional literature. i realise this thread is about fantasy and other genre fiction as well; i guess from the foregoing it's obvious i view sci fi as having more of a niche, though there's no reason other genre books can't tell serious stories too, just that they'll have less that's exclusively theirs. i do read 'real' literature, though genre stuff probably makes up 60 or 70% of the fiction I read, i should add; i an simply suggesting some genre works can have a place with other serious work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 11:35
|
|