The Emptiness of 'Literary Fiction' and the Stereotyping of Genre Literature

[TGS]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

But I do reserve the right to assume that there just may be a handful literary critics (and doctors and mechanics, too) out there who are full of shit up to their eyeballs.

Oh, one finds people full of shit everywhere.

Incidentally, what is it that is on me, man?

[Ransom]

We have, after all, all read novels, so we are all equally qualified to think analytically about them

But you just said... oh well.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Ransom

But you just said... oh well.

See first line of my previous post.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by TGS

Incidentally, what is it that is on me, man?

The assumption that I embraced/suggested/implied the following notion:

Originally Posted by TGS

Are you claiming that professional literary critics and theorists have no more expertise than you or me or the bloke down the pub.

I said nothing of the sort. I, of course, was simply claiming that a professional literary critic and theorist more than likely IS "the bloke down the pub."

I kid, I kid... a little.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by Ransom

I gave up on Hesse after he butchered both Hinduism and Buddhism in Siddhartha.

To be fair, Siddhartha is Hesse's most accessible and least substantive work (at least of the half dozen I've read). It gets recommended in New Age circles because it has that shallow, meaning-y aura that characterizes the movement, and it gets recommended in general because it's quite short. Steppenwolf suffers somewhat from a similar excessive conviction of its own depth and importance, but also mirrors aspects of your pet narrative about Western literature and civilization. It won't give you the 'secret Jesus code' erection of C.S. Lewis, but should at least tickle your Grand Narrative receptors.

I find both the above books worthwhile despite their shortcomings, but regardless, Magister Ludi (aka The Glass Bead Game) and Narcissus and Goldmund are much more mature and developed, even mocking the kind of self-importance that informed Hesse's earlier works.

Then again, you may just want to read Don Quixote six or seven times until it starts to make an impression.

[Ransom]

The book? Don Quixote without Sophia Loren is just is just words.

[Ransom]

See first line of my previous post.

Nah, that's okay. I just had to do a password re-set for someone who wasn't bright enough to write it down or have a HD backup. I've had my dose of silly for the day.

[JSWolf]

Literary fiction may discard an advancing plot..., specific characters

When did Bobby Ewing's two year dream become literary fiction?

[crich70]

Originally Posted by TGS

Well, I certainly acknowledge it. Are you claiming that professional literary critics and theorists have no more expertise than you or me or the bloke down the pub. We have, after all, all read novels, so we are all equally qualified to think analytically about them, is presumably the thinking, (to stretch the meaning of the word), going on with this kind of argument.

The problem with thinking analytically about things is that even at our best the average person has personal bias in what they think is good or bad in terms of writing. We all have our own view on things which can lead to blind spots. After all we are only human. So what one person considers literary another might consider dull and uninteresting and what one person may consider a classic may also be considered literary by another person. Many books fit under several different descriptors in that way.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by crich70

The problem with thinking analytically about things is that even at our best the average person has personal bias in what they think is good or bad in terms of writing. We all have our own view on things which can lead to blind spots. After all we are only human. So what one person considers literary another might consider dull and uninteresting and what one person may consider a classic may also be considered literary by another person. Many books fit under several different descriptors in that way.

I have no argument with anything that you say here - I find many literary works difficult to get on with. However, I do reflect that if these works have been judged to be of merit by a number of people with expertise over a number of years then, that I find them difficult or uninteresting is something to do with me rather than something to do with the intrinsic nature of the works in question.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by TGS

I have no argument with anything that you say here - I find many literary works difficult to get on with. However, I do reflect that if these works have been judged to be of merit by a number of people with expertise over a number of years then, that I find them difficult or uninteresting is something to do with me rather than something to do with the intrinsic nature of the works in question.

You have a point though we also have to guard against coming to think of the 'experts opinions' as holy writ as well. After all the experts also have their own bias as to what they like. In essence everyone is both right and wrong depending on the individual point of view. Course I imagine the argument over what is and isn't literary has been going on since people have been able to read and isn't likely to end soon.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by crich70

You have a point though we also have to guard against coming to think of the 'experts opinions' as holy writ as well.

Indeed, but if I encounter something by, for example Ernest Hemingway, that I don't like - and mostly I don't like things by Ernest Hemingway - then if I am to express an opinion, given the amount of criticism and analysis that has been accumulated over the years, it is incumbent upon me to say something beyond, "I don't like it because it's literary fiction and literary fiction is rubbish", don't you think.

[DiapDealer]

it is incumbent upon me to say something beyond, "I don't like it because it's literary fiction and literary fiction is rubbish", don't you think.

Absolutely. In fact I think you could go on and on about why you didn't like it without even having to mention the words "literary fiction" at all. Just like I could go on and on about why I don't like Harry Potter without mentioning literary or genre fiction.

And if you peruse this thread, I think you'll find the number of people—who have suggested that everything given the label of literary fiction is rubbish—to be quite small. The fence that some have constructed between what others have deemed literary and all other fiction is what is rubbish.

[Ransom]

I could go on and on about why I don't like Harry Potter

Me too! Actually, I thought it was very inventive and fun for kids of all ages, but what bothered me about it was that Harry always wins. I mean, always. All the games and tests--everything. It was very predictable in that regard.

[Ransom]

Originally Posted by TGS

Indeed, but if I encounter something by, for example Ernest Hemingway, that I don't like - and mostly I don't like things by Ernest Hemingway - then if I am to express an opinion, given the amount of criticism and analysis that has been accumulated over the years, it is incumbent upon me to say something beyond, "I don't like it because it's literary fiction and literary fiction is rubbish", don't you think.

Not one person in this thread has said anything at all like that. People have of course spoken in generalities, but all adults understand generalities for the time-saving rules of thumb that they are. Obviously when someone says they don't care for literary fiction we realize there will be exceptions that they do like.

I also think that some of you don't understand the difference between literary fiction and a classic. Bookstores often lump them together in the "literature" section. A classic book does not often have the snooty vocabulary that's generally found in what is termed LF. Sometimes it may seem that way simply because an older book comes from a generation of folk who talked and wrote differently in bygone days. The term "threadbare" which I mentioned earlier would certainly seem snooty if used today; it would have been part of everyday speech in 1750 though.

I think what most of us object to is modern authors writing as though they are anything but modern. It's the books from our own day being placed in the LF category where most of the problem lies. It's in these that we find writers using a thesaurus for all the wrong reasons along with tiresome lengthy descriptions of every bush and flower they see.