[taosaur]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Yeah. Because you have me pegged, and I fit in the stereotype you just plopped down, right?

I didn't mean to include you in those "going off half-cocked." It was my error not making it clearer, given that I was responding to your post. I was referring to the specific individuals who have in fact gone off half-cocked and stereotyped literary fiction in this thread. In general I was attempting to clarify my prior posts (as you seemed to be asking me to do), not to characterize you or your reading preferences in any way shape or form. Sorry for any confusion.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I've actually read quite a few of the works you mention. And even enjoyed several (although when it comes to Vonnegut, I consider his musings, essays, and speeches to be vastly superior to his fiction—which I would consider fun, but not even remotely "literary." Oops! Did I say that out loud?). Hemmingway wasn't trying to be "literary" when he wrote, so why should I approach reading his work any differently? And Chekov is just boring. Sorry (I say that at the risk of you simply pointing to your second bulleted item and exclaiming; "aha!").

Not to get bogged down in the details, but whatever Hemingway's protestations, his work, influences and personal acquaintances were decidedly literary--he was at the center of a whole cadre of the most prominent literary figures of his time. Whether Vonnegut's work is literary is already the subject of roughly 2.76% of the internet, so hopefully we can set it aside.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The problem is that in "literary" circles, people want to focus on why good writing should be raised up on a pedestal and revered above all other writing,

As I put to the author of the article: really? Is that what goes on in literary circles? Because I only seem to encounter these characterizations from people who have set themselves quite apart from--if not in open opposition to--literary circles, whereas from in here, in these circles, it just seems like we talk about the books themselves. Actually, we mostly talk about people we know, and where we ate out last, and what great beer/wine/liquor we just tried... but when the conversation comes around to books, we don't don sacred robes and light candles and bow to a statue of Joyce Carol Oates.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

So until you can come up with something a little better than; "my BA tells me what's 'literary,'" I'm going to continue to assume that it's an imaginary term used to justify tuitions. And start arguments.

Hey, I provided a more specific set of criteria by which to identify literary fiction than anyone in the thread. Go ahead and swing at some "egghead" strawman if you like, but I only put my background out there to say that I'm not pulling those criteria completely out of my a$$, or even if I am, I've at least digested some relevant material beforehand. Also, I wasn't emphasizing my literary background any more than my readings in general and genre fiction (ETA: in fact, I also took classes on popular and genre fiction, and genre theory). An equal part of any qualification I'd claim to speak on the matter is that I don't confine myself to only one sort of literature, or consider one of inherently greater quality than another (as I said explicitly in my first post).

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

By the way, where do McCarthy and Foster Wallace fall on your literary scale?

Both are obviously literary. Again, it doesn't aggrandize their work or denigrate any others to say so. Personally, I'll take DFW and leave McCarthy.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Can you honestly swear that you've read no genre fiction whatsoever that you would consider "literary?"

I can't and I haven't. Genre fiction and general fiction are not one and the same. Much general fiction is not genre, and much literary fiction (especially lately) is genre, which is precisely why I'd consider the distinctions I put forth in my first post more relevant to recognizing literary fiction than just saying 'It's not genre.'

Yes, an excessive reliance on categories can obscure the qualities of existing works and even obstruct the emergence of the best qualities in new works. The utter abandonment of categories, however, will prevent us from ever finding any work, or ever discussing similar or related works should we manage to discover them. You want to wish away the classification, but you're still relying upon it to have this conversation. The category is not the problem. It's the insecurity of both genre and literary partisans, leading each to feel they must devalue the others' tastes to validate their own, that muddies the water.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

If so, I find that most stuffy; and I would prescribe Dan Simmons' The Terror, Guy Gavriel Kay's The Lions of Al-Rassan, and Neal Stephenson's Anathem for your edification.

Anathem is probably the best book I've read in the past three years, and definitely draws on both literary and genre influences. It's obviously going to get shelved in the sci-fi section of a bookstore, but I don't hesitate to recommend it to friends with more literary tastes (if they also like math and physics).