The Reading Vent & Rant Thread

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I wasn't trying to be insulting when I used "just" and "only", but I'm not sure that there was any way for me to describe books that don't fit into the literary genre without it being perceived as a slight by some.

For me, the problem is that "literary genre" seems to be totally subjective, a "you'll know it when you read it" genre. For most genres, you can point at elements of the book to say this fits in science fiction, horror, mystery, whatever genre though many books will have elements from more than one genre—science fiction/mystery for instance.

OTOH, I keep Sturgeon's Revelation in mind.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

All fiction books are stories. That's the way it i like it or not.

You said "just" stories before. That's what I objected to. Of course all fiction books are stories. No one rational would argue with that. I just feel bad for you that you've apparently never read a work of fiction that became more than the sum of its plot and characters for you. That the way it was written, or the particular words that were used to convey the plot didn't move you any more than any other words used to present a similar plot did. That one author's mastery of language/humor/dialog doesn't make their works stand out from the others writing the stories you consume.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You said "just" stories before. That's what I objected to. Of course all fiction books are stories. No one rational would argue with that. I just feel bad for you that you've apparently never read a work of fiction that became more than the sum of its plot and characters for you. That the way it was written, or the particular words that were used to convey the plot didn't move you any more than any other words used to present a similar plot did. That one author's mastery of language/humor/dialog doesn't make their works stand out from the others writing the stories you consume.

Personally I've read many such works. But very few of them would be considered literary fiction or win any literary awards. Because they're not the right genre. And, well, because I have low taste.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Personally I've read many such works. But very few of them would be considered literary fiction or win any literary awards. Because they're not the right genre. And, well, because I have low taste.

You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about high or low tastes. Or awards. Literature is anything that left a mark on me that stays long after I've finished it. Literature is that which was most decidedly NOT just a story to me. Regardless of what the "literary critics" (or anyone else, for that matter) might think of it.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about high or low tastes. Or awards. Literature is anything that left a mark on me that stays long after I've finished it. Literature is that which was most decidedly NOT just a story to me. Regardless of what the "literary critics" (or anyone else, for that matter) might think of it.

As I said, subjective. And that makes it almost impossible to define. Everyone will have their own definition that we will defend to the metaphorical death.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You said "just" stories before. That's what I objected to. Of course all fiction books are stories. No one rational would argue with that. I just feel bad for you that you've apparently never read a work of fiction that became more than the sum of its plot and characters for you. That the way it was written, or the particular words that were used to convey the plot didn't move you any more than any other words used to present a similar plot did. That one author's mastery of language/humor/dialog doesn't make their works stand out from the others writing the stories you consume.

If they aren't just stories, what are they?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by DNSB

As I said, subjective. And that makes it almost impossible to define. Everyone will have their own definition that we will defend to the metaphorical death.

Yes. And? Much like "good" and "bad", there need be no consensus for such terms to still be valid. My beef is not with those who find little or no value in using it in a subject search. My beef is with those who seem to take deep offense any time someone describes a book as being "literary." As if it's being used as some sort of slap to the face.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If they aren't just stories, what are they?

Well they're clearly beyond you, aren't they Jon? I gave examples. If you want to ignore them, fine. But don't pretend I didn't clearly mention several things that I think makes some books more than just stories.

[jbjb]

For me, Pratchett is the exemplar of the argument here. His books are intentionaly comic, clearly in a genre, but have some serious points to make, and are beautifully written. Are they literature? He himself said, on receipt of an award for literature, that his greatest contribution to literature was to avoid writing any.

I'd say that Pratchett is as much literature as anything the literati rave about.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

But don't pretend I didn't clearly mention several things that I think makes some books more than just stories.

Certainly there are some books that are more than just stories, but that set isn't entirely congruent with those popularly classified as "literature".

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by jbjb

Certainly there are some books that are more than just stories, but that set isn't entirely congruent with those popularly classified as "literature".

Nor did I claim it was congruent (or that it should be). Again: my objection is with those who see something described as "literary" and get all het up and defensive. It's not a label that on its own will help me find books I know I'll enjoy. Most labels are incapable of that on their own for me. But that doesn't mean it's not still a useful label for me. Calling a work "Literary" or "literature" can certainly bring my attention to it. But it's common sense after reading a description (or a review or three) that tells me whether it might be my cup of tea or not. I've never purchased any book based on the publisher's choice of label alone.

[ownedbycats]

Maybe we make a thread, debate genres.

[DiapDealer]

I thought it was just a "literature" beef more than a genre debate. Seemed fairly relevant to the thread to me. But I'll happily let it go if people wish to vent and rant about other reading beefs without interruption. *shrug*

[DNSB]

For me, literature as a genre is just too vague. It encompasses virtually all writing from a hack's 10 finger romantasy exercise to James Joyce's Ulysses including most non-fiction and fiction. That I have read Ulysses and would—probably—prefer a 10 finger exercise in the science fiction genre, well, my eyeballs and my choice what I will subject them to.

As for debating genres? Is this going to be debating which genre a book belongs in? Debating which genre(s) is/are the best? If the latter, include me out. De gustibus non est disputandum

[LostHisMarbles]

Labels help, that's all
- Because the average biped lacks attention span, time and/or patience (help me out, i just want to buy and leave); and many other qualities i shall refrain from mentioning.
- And bookshelves are thus arranged accordingly. Even before online sales, this was the system. When money enters the art equation and all that.

Just labels.
You've seen them before, never understood why one'd fuss about it..
We call Justin Timberlake an actor.
We call Laurence Olivier an actor.
Labels, is all