Quote:
Originally Posted by apbschmitz
I think of "literary fiction" as mostly being a description of what a novel is not: not romance, not crime, not science fiction, not fantasy, not zombie-mermaid. "General fiction" might be a better term.
|
I highly disagree. Any type of book can be literary fiction. In fact, I've read more books that you'd not lass as LF that are so much more enjoyable then LF. The problem is that LF is usually saved for boring tedious old stuff books that are not really enjoyable.
War of the Worlds is science fiction. It's a classic. It's literary fiction.
Quote:
|
That said, sometimes those "literary" classics can knock you out. I recently read Hadji Murat, the old Tolstoy novel about Russians fighting Muslims. Ripped out of today's headlines, you might say, except it's about 110 years old. And narratively speaking, it gallops along.
|
Not all books classed as classic are unenjoyable. Some are quite good. But some are total rubbish. In fact, a lot are rubbish disguised in fancy prose.
The idea of "classic" or "literary fiction" just makes little to no sense. A classic does not have to be from dead authors only. A book can be a classic that is not that old. I would class Harry Potter as a classic. Given a lot of definitions of classic, it fits. The only things it doesn't fit is old or dead author.
This is why for book clubs, having books in a classic or literary fiction categories is a bad idea. Because what is a classic to some is trash to others. Take Anna K. for example. I think it was OK for it's time, but for today it's just had it.