What everything is about or... literature as it is not.

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by OneandonlyDoc

Am I the only writer that gets the heeby-jeebies when I see the term "literature"?

Probably not, which I think is a shame. Margret Atwood says the same about genre fiction, even though she writes genre fiction. I think it's as much a mistake to dismiss literary fiction as a monolithic whole as it is to dismiss genre fiction--especially when so many amazing writers fit equally well in both places. Jorge Luis Borges, for example. Absolutely literary. Absolutely fantasy.

I don't write what the marketplace, critics, and scholars would consider literature.

I probably don't either, but while there may be a large statistical blob in the middle of those groups, I don't think the definition of literature is anywhere near unanimous. At its broadest, literary fiction just means that writing style and "presentation" are at least as important as the other aspects of story.

Sure, the stories tend to be smaller and more introspective, but not always. A Tale of Two Cities (I'm trying to remember what I read in tenth grade) isn't a small-scale story and Victor Hugo's Notre-Dame de Paris is an incredibly immersive job of world-building--equal to, say, Dune in that respect.

[Native]

"I personally make a distinction between two types of literature."

...At which point I thought your distinction would fall between good and bad. That would imply faith in the value of your work and acceptance of its judgment. But when you place a distinction between enlightening and entertaining, you begin the same divisive manipulation by class that the literati thrive on. Good literature and good philosophy transcends your division - Winnie the Pooh comes to mind. Welcome to the forum. I enjoy thinking too, but big words make my head hurt.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I have an even more shameful confession. When I was a textbook author (about 15 years ago now) I wrote for (hangs his head in shame) MONEY. Yes, it's true. A publisher PAID me to write physics textbooks. It was a job. I didn't do it for love. I did it for the money. Shocking, huh?

Harry, don't be that way! Hang your head high, man! Don't let the flower children sully your accomplishments! Capitalism is good.. it runs the world. I, too, have done things for money--even writing--and there's nothing to be ashamed of!

(Except maybe not making enough off your work...)

So stand up, and in a loud voice, proclaim: "I am a Capitalist! Hear me jingle! Then pay me what you owe me, you cheapskate!"

I, personally, have never given a second thought to the distinctions of "literature," or whether my work could be so labeled. I write what I like to read, and I sell the stories to others who like to read them.

I think of myself as the literary equivalent of a carpenter: I make chairs for people to sit in; and when I'm done with a chair, I sell it for a reasonable price, and start to making another when I'm ready. I enjoy chair-making, but that doesn't mean I feel I must give them away, for the sake of knowing some lucky soul sat in my chair. And when the market decides it won't buy any more chairs, I'll stop making them. Because these aren't thrones that maybe one person can sit in, and no one will ever fully appreciate... they are chairs.

But these chairs are crafted by me, using skills and tricks that I've developed for decades. Every book contains a piece of me; and even if there are a few rough spots in the work, even if others would have written a scene differently, that doesn't take away the sum of my accomplishment. My works are unique, and I'm proud to offer them... even if they're just chairs.

[apbschmitz]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

I think of myself as the literary equivalent of a carpenter: I make chairs for people to sit in; and when I'm done with a chair, I sell it for a reasonable price, and start to making another when I'm ready. I enjoy chair-making, but that doesn't mean I feel I must give them away, for the sake of knowing some lucky soul sat in my chair. And when the market decides it won't buy any more chairs, I'll stop making them.

I've done a bunch of writing for money as a journalist and consultant, and in those realms I'm happy to give the people what the people want. They're buying a utilitarian product and I understand that. It's a straight-up business deal: my time and skill for their money.

I feel differently about my novels. If I want to make money writing, there are better ways to do it than by writing fiction. So novels, for me, have to be about something else. Sorry to say it, particularly in light of all the lit fic bashing above, but it has to be fun and it has to contain some note of (really, forgive me here!) artistic expression.

Of course I'd love to sell a godzillion copies of my novels. But in an ordered ranking of my goals, in the fiction category I'd first much rather write what I actually want to write. If I sell Amanda Hocking-ish quantities, well, great. And if not — I won't be whining about it. It's not really the first thing I'm trying to accomplish.

Sometimes writing is a business. Sometimes it's not. And sometimes it's in a gray zone in between that isn't so easy to explain or understand.

[miguel1626]

Originally Posted by apbschmitz

I feel differently about my novels. If I want to make money writing, there are better ways to do it than by writing fiction.

You remind me of Charles Stross, in the introduction to his short story collection, Wireless:

Actually, I'm not sure I know anyone who writes fiction at any length solely for money. If you've got the skill to string words into sentences, there are any number of ways to earn a living, most of which are far less precarious than the life of a freelance fiction writer. At the risk of overgeneralizing, it's one of those occupations you go into because you can't not do it, and any attempts to justify it by pointing to commercial success are, at best, special pleading. If Stephen King had failed to get his big break with Carrie, if J. K. Rowling's first Harry Potter book had sold out its first thousand-copy print run and thereafter gone out of print, I'm willing to bet that they'd have kept on writing regardless.

(Emphasis added.)

(Although some people do think that unless you make a ton of money with your fiction, its a waste of time...)

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by miguel1626

(Although some people do think that unless you make a ton of money with your fiction, its a waste of time...)

It's not that writing things that don't selll a lot is a waste of time, it's just a difficult way to make a living.

Art, in any form, is not an easy way to make a living.

I'm not sure what the real problem for the original poster is. They investigated a forum, have been here less than a month with less than ten posts and are stating that it's not the right forum for them. Okay. What's to discuss? Many people sign up to many forums and then ditch them when the forum isn't exactly what they thought it might be. This is like a news story that reads "Some People don't Like Rock Music".

[BenBanned]

It is better, as a fly on the wall.
To just make random posts.

[GreenMonkey]

I personally think a subarea dedicated to talking about actual books would be nice. About the closest we get is the "Reading Recommendations" subforum, which comes close (and I think were most of this kind of discussion occurs IMO).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

I personally think a subarea dedicated to talking about actual books would be nice. About the closest we get is the "Reading Recommendations" subforum, which comes close (and I think were most of this kind of discussion occurs IMO).

Yes, that is one of the purposes of the "Reading Recommendations" forum.

[EWGB]

I could not possibly respond to everyone personally and I do not think that is necessary. The number of you who have read and responded to this thread is indicative of the fact that it is of importance. I am not worried by the difference of opinions. To the contrary - I find it encouraging. The topic is neither social, nor political and I have no intention of pushing it in those directions regardless of the sarcastic or ironic comments about my political views. I simply pointed out some obvious facts and attempted to make sense of them. I do not expect everyone to share my opinion.

I in no way see myself as some sort of brick-maker or see my writing as a product. Literature -- whether entertaining or not -- implies the presence of talent. I am not sure, however, whether pounds or number of books sold are adequate measures of it. For me at least, quality literature should have a cleansing effect on its readers, should create new measures and systems of thinking, not overwhelm the reader with things fake or toxic. The world we have created and the relationships among us are fake and toxic enough. The publishing business, however, like any other business, does not follow such logic. For it, the determining factor is profit, not quality. As a result, morality as a categorical imperative has been pushed out of all social spheres and been replaced by the barbarism that is innate to humans. In that context, it is my personal belief that the writer should have a sense of mission.

I definitely prefer to present myself in this way rather than indiscriminately bolster my image through posting the cover of my book or its description. This is done in the same way and everywhere and, in the end, nobody is paying attention to authors stepping on each other's heads or elbowing each other. Instead of reading an author's book description, I would like to find out what is his or her way of thinking, how he or she perceives the world, what are the main points in his or her value system. The rest is more or less commonplace advertising where the apparent variety in fact conceals the total lack of imagination. Writers should be masters of imagination. Am I wrong?

[DiapDealer]

Is anyone else confused about what this thread is trying to get at. It's a conversation without a topic.

Writers should be masters of imagination. Am I wrong?

Writers of fiction, sure. A Masters of Imagination may not be required for technical manual writers, though.

EDIT: I just noticed the pronoun with which you chose to start each and every one of your paragraphs in the previous post. I think understand the thread now.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I frankly don't know what this thread is trying to get at. It's a conversation without a topic.

It's quite obvious, the OP is advocating for a section dedicated to books where all books are available regardless of local copyright law. This would be the first step towards the creation of a new literary culture.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

It's quite obvious, the OP is advocating for a section dedicated to books where all books are available regardless of local copyright law. This would be the first step towards the creation of a new literary culture.

You, sir, are absolutely incorrigible (and I think you might be projecting—with regards to the OP's intentions—just a tad).

[Penforhire]

lol @ giggleton!

To the OP, you come across snobbish. I suppose that's fine if you want to be an artist rather than a craftsman. Others already pointed out that being a successful independent 'anything' is an impure occupation. You must sell yourself. You must account for your money. I admire the pure artists I know but I sure don't want to emulate their inability to figure out where their next meal is coming from. I agree with Maslow's heirarchy of needs. Take care of baser needs ahead of spiritual satisfaction. You want to perform mental masturbation? Go for it, right after the bills are paid.

If you can't possibly respond to everyone who posted in this thread then I suggest internet forums are not your cup of tea. There are hardly an insurmountable number of people posting in this thread so far. Your phrasing is condescending. The term that springs to mind, your tone, is "neckbeard."

But if you turn out to be our next Dickens, Hemingway, or Thompson I'll be sure to read your work... um, art.

[speakingtohe]

EDIT: I just noticed the pronoun with which you chose to start each and every one of your paragraphs in the previous post. I think understand the thread now.

It's not nice to bait the pompous for they know not what they are and will totally miss the point.

Good one all the same

Helen