[Catlady]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

You simply are not getting the point TGS made or that I made. Now you are misconstruing the point that Catlady made.

What does she mean by "substance" except a conventional story? She's making a strict delineation between "style" and "substance" which many forms of literary fiction does not do. In other words, she's saying that an author should only use nonstandard style if it doesn't detract from a conventional story. To which TGS replied

No, you are the one misconstruing. Where the heck did I ever say that substance = conventional story? Where did I make a delineation between style and substance? I made a very simple and rather obvious point that because unconventional usage distracts the reader, an author needs to have a good reason for it.

In other words, in literary fiction very often the style is the substance. Sometimes, the substance is all about "calling attention" to the style itself. Ulysses isn't about the story. It is about the way language and style affects meaning and experience. The story is simply a day in the life of Leopold Bloom. Of course one could say that Joyce's montage of styles "detracts from the substance" of the story, since it would have been much simpler to tell the story of a day in the life of Leopold Bloom with conventional prose. But the "substance" of the novel isn't the story itself.

I said: "The problem is that any use of a nonstandard style calls attention to itself, which distracts the reader from the substance--so an author should have a darn good reason to abandon conventional practices of punctuation."

Do you see anywhere in that statement a mention of STORY? You are the one who is equating substance with story, and then telling me how unenlightened I am to conflate the two, ignoring the fact that I never so; YOU did.

What do you think "presupposes the substance is what you think it is" means except that her expectations of what constitutes "substance" in a novel are contrary to what they are in literary fiction, which he expands upon in the next line

"There is often more to literary fiction than telling a story." He finishes the post by saying that a work of literary fiction doesn't warrant you "rubbishing" it because "it rubs up against your expectations."

Again, to reiterate, TGS is saying that some people, like catlady, have expectations for literary fiction that are contrary to what the genre is about.

I said nothing about my expectations, for literary fiction or anything else. But I'll tell you one expectation I have: to let my words speak for themselves and not be analyzed to such an extreme that the meaning is totally distorted.

I said nothing about story. I said nothing about literary fiction. I said nothing about expectations. Got that?

TGS was not being condescending. He was pointing out that not all kinds of fiction adhere to Catlady's notion of a separation of style and substance. In response, she decided to attack TGS, which he deflected with sarcasm.This isn't a case of him attacking her or being condescending, this is a case of her being hypersensitive.

BS. He twisted what I said to suit his own purposes, and decided I was some sort of dull-witted dolt who couldn't understand Literature with a capital L. As it is fruitless to argue with someone so lofty, yes, I responded with sarcasm. And then I left the field, only to find my original simple comment has become the subject of considerable back-and-forth.

Again, another failure at reading comprehension. I never said a reader has no right to say they hate a work. I said it is ridiculous to pick up a work with faulty expectations and then to criticize that work for failing to meet those faulty expectations.

How funny that you are criticizing others for the same failing you exhibit. My initial comment had NOTHING to do with expectations.

Of course many people simply don't like literary fiction. Many people don't see any point in literary experimentation. This has nothing to do with literary fiction being "art" and other forms of fiction being "commerce." I never once said that literary fiction is "art" and other forms of fiction are "commerce." What I said is that literary fiction attempts to do things that other forms of fiction don't.

Oh, someone claimed you said something you never said? Join the club.

The same logic applies to literary fiction. If you change a story so that it focuses on a conventional story or "substance" and doesn't experiment with style, it's no longer a work of literary fiction. Maybe you have to do that to sell the work. But if you do, it isn't literary fiction. This isn't a good or bad thing. There is no divine mandate that authors must write literary fiction, no imperative that literary fiction must exist or be popular, no necessary reason why it must be published. It is simply a form of fiction.

One more time: it is YOU who equated the word substance with conventional story. Not me.

Sometimes the reader is at fault, such as when a certain poster repeatedly fails at reading comprehension even when the posts he is responding to are written in plain conventional english.

Gosh, that's what you did with my post, isn't it? Good thing I didn't try to be unconventional and literary.

It is okay to criticize a piece of experimental literary fiction if you come into the work with the correct expectations. It is okay to say that "the author doesn't use quotation marks for some literary effect, but fails to achieve any effect."

So happy to have your permission.

Yes it is. Since people keep criticizing literary fiction for failing to tell conventional stories or for using unconventional style, clearly your example of people "not getting what they paid for" is faulty.

Who are the people who "keep criticizing literary fiction for failing to tell conventional stories or for using unconventional style"?

This is irrelevant to the points I made or this discussion. This has nothing to do with authors insulating themselves from criticism. This has to do with ignorant and narcissistic consumers buying products based on their own faulty expectations and then complaining that it is the producer that failed them. Here is what I mean by "the commercial standard isn't the only standard."

"Ignorant and narcissistic"? "Faulty expectations"? Seriously? How do you know what expectations the reader had before picking up a certain book? Seems to me that you're judging after the fact--if the reader complains that some book with literary aspirations is garbage, your default is that it's the reader and not the book that is the problem.

That's nice. It has nothing to do with the points I or TGS have made.
Right, you spend a whole post misconstruing and digressing, then based on your own biases and prejudices insinuate that I'm a snob. Whatever.

You've misconstrued and digressed and used your own biases and prejudices to insinuate that I'm "ignorant and narcissistic." And you did this based on a SINGLE mildly-worded sentence, not a diatribe.

Whatever.