Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Not at all. Bash away  . It's a fun discussion. I'm happy to talk about it as long as anyone else is interested. |
Cool
So to sum up the thread for TL;DR late comers.
The only definition of Literary fiction everyone agrees with is if it's boring / borderline unreadable drivel (Finnegans Wake again)
Even though 50 Shades is far more popular and just as grammatically poor (Disclaimer, I haven't read it, just going off literary opinion)
Shakespeare, Dickens, Marsh & Christie are Literary because they were popular writers (and, I'm guessing, crucially, still are popular many years later)
Pratchett isn't Literary because he is popular (and it's only been 32 years since the first discworld novel, so we have to wait a good 50 years to find out if he will still be popular </Snark>)
The writer of the original Guardian article was a muppet because he only reads Literary fiction and decides who is good by a form of cultural osmosis instead of reading.
Jon hates Shakespeare.
We can discount sparkly vampires because you have to draw the line somewhere no matter how popular they are.
