The Reading Vent & Rant Thread

[kandwo]

I find the label "literary" helps. It seems to be applied to fiction that's trying to be more than "just stories". There's "literary fiction" for books not being in any clear cut genre. And then there's "literary" added to whatever other genre, e.g. "literary fantasy".

There are authors who explicitly try to write entertaining stories following some established storytelling formula. Brandon Sanderson is a good example of that. Nothing literary about it. Others are trying to grapple with some deeper questions about life and exploring that through their writing, and therefore the story might not be the main point, i.e. "literary".

It might be nice knowing if a book is going to be Dostoyevsky in a fantasy/romance/scifi setting. Or just some formulaic fun.

[Sirtel]

For me, seeing the word "literary" in a book description these days means I'll probably drop the thing like a hot potato. Avoid at all costs. (As with anything, there are exceptions, but very few.)

I've read lots of books considered "literary". Mostly decades ago. Some I even enjoyed. But I no longer want to have anything to do with literary stuff. Now I just want to relax, escape, have fun. Keep those Dostoyevskys and James Joyces well away from me, please.

[DiapDealer]

I will just mention that I've never really found most things labelled "literary" to be synonymous with unrelaxing, or less fun. Not really sure why people seem to equate a work being called "literary" with stodgy "literary classics."

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I will just mention that I've never really found most things labelled "literary" to be synonymous with unrelaxing, or less fun. Not really sure why people seem to equate a work being called "literary" with stodgy "literary classics."

I don't equate them. I just do find most literary fiction I've read/tried to read to be boring and not fun. And yes, most literary classics too.

As I said, I have low taste.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I will just mention that I've never really found most things labelled "literary" to be synonymous with unrelaxing, or less fun. Not really sure why people seem to equate a work being called "literary" with stodgy "literary classics."

Not really sure why people seem to consider a work labeled "literary classic" as stodgy or unrelaxing or less fun! There's nothing like curling up with a Victorian novel and they're the best audiobooks.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by issybird

Not really sure why people seem to consider a work labeled "literary classic" as stodgy or unrelaxing or less fun! There's nothing like curling up with a Victorian novel and they're the best audiobooks.

Well, seriously speaking, no idea. For some people, it may be the lack of exposure, or they only tried lit stuff/classics at school and so it acquired an unpleasant flavor for them.

For me personally, it's not either, as I've read many classics and some contemporary lit fiction (not because I had to at school) and liked several of them. For some reason I lost any interest in them and any desire to read that kind of literature in my mid-to-late twenties, and it never returned. Why, I don't have the slightest idea. Nothing in my life changed at that point.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by issybird

Not really sure why people seem to consider a work labeled "literary classic" as stodgy or unrelaxing or less fun!

I certainly don't equate them that way! But since I was replying to someone who went straight to Dostoyevsky and Joyce as literary stuff they wished to avoid, I felt stodgy was appropriate (having read both).

[andyh2000]

I think a good example of a genre book that's considered 'proper literature' is Dahlgren by Samuel Delany.

I gave up after a couple of chapters...

[kandwo]

Dostoyevsky isn't particularly heavy or boring to read, at least not in the original Russian. His characters are dynamic and his black, sardonic humour is extremely entertaining. The Brothers Karamazov is one of my favourite books not because of the philosophical thoughts in it, but because it's such a fun read.

I do remember reading some of his works in translation early on, though, and they read like dry treatises on religion or philosophy.

I think the view of him being a "serious" writer has done him a disservice in translation, where the "literary" qualities have been prioritized over his dynamic use of language and his humour.

But it is pretty much a failure in it's* genre. A crime novel that constantly loses the crime out of view.




*its

[Sirtel]

I've read some of Dostoyevsky's stuff (in translation, as my Russian was never good enough for the originals, and I was too lazy to work on it) and I remember liking some of it well enough. But that was long ago and my tastes changed. I no longer want to read "proper" or "serious" literature (or whatever else you prefer to call books with widely acknowledged literary value).

[Renate]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I no longer want to read "proper" or "serious" literature.

Eh, whatever floats your cup of tea.

I've never read any Virginia Woolf. I tried to read Mrs. Dalloway. Nope. I can't deal with reading someone else's cluttered mind especially if it's cluttered with flower names and minutiae. I've got enough of a log jam in my own head.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Renate

Eh, whatever floats your cup of tea.

I've never read any Virginia Woolf. I tried to read Mrs. Dalloway. Nope. I can't deal with reading someone else's cluttered mind especially if it's cluttered with flower names and minutiae. I've got enough of a log jam in my own head.

Yeah, maybe that's part of it for me too. If it feels like the book spends too much time inside the author's head, I don't want to read it; I've hard enough time with the contents of my own. So I prefer books that take me away from myself and the world, not books that force me to deal with both even more.

Maybe that's why I could read serious stuff when I was still young enough - my mind was less cluttered then.

Not saying that those who like literary stuff have empty heads - just that there's probably some difference in how they deal with themselves and the world vs those who prefer lighter stuff.

And then, of course, there are folks who don't like to read at all, anything. I think they're probably the majority.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

And then, of course, there are folks who don't like to read at all, anything. I think they're probably the majority.

Quite a few of the people I know prefer to have entertainment supplied for them in videos/movies. Some of them have given me rather odd looks when I tried to describe how I build images of the characters in my head while reading a book. Sadly this has meant that I am often very disappointed when I watch a video/movie and the character in my head does not match the character on the screen.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Sadly this has meant that I am often very disappointed when I watch a video/movie and the character in my head does not match the character on the screen.

I have the reverse view about some Movies made from books:

Oh The got it RIGHT!

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by theducks

I have the reverse view about some Movies made from books:

Oh The got it RIGHT!

Yep. I much preferred Aragorn in the LOTR movies to Aragorn as he was in the books, for example.

(More often, it's vice versa, unfortunately).