The Emptiness of 'Literary Fiction' and the Stereotyping of Genre Literature

[Ransom]

If someone wrote a story about a doctor or a lawyer who used a ton of obscure medical or legal words that you didn't know, would you call that great writing? I've a feeling that you'd be the first to bellyache about it. I fail to see any difference in using legal and medical terms that most people don't know (and which the author can and should explain) and using outdated words that most people don't know. If you read modern LF, you find words like "espy", "remonstrate", "objurgation" etc. that fell out of use a hundred years ago. What on earth is the point unless they're simply putting on airs? It's childish twaddle.

You should always find the simplest way you can to say a thing accurately. To not do so would be the equivalent of a guitarist or pianist actually looking for a more difficult way to play the a passage.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by Ransom

You should always find the simplest way you can to say a thing accurately. To not do so would be the equivalent of a guitarist or pianist actually looking for a more difficult way to play the a passage.

Why? (To the writing)

It is the result that counts, not if it is performed in a difficult or in an easy way. I agree that if it appears simple and easy it is more precious, but that is already on an other plane. (To the music)

[Ransom]

It is the result that counts, not if it is performed in a difficult or in an easy way.

You've got a point there. I suppose it depends on what you're trying to convey and how important it is. I read fiction for the same reason I read non-fiction—to learn, not to be entertained. Of course learning can be entertaining of itself. But what I want to say is, that if you're trying to say something of great importance, and it's something that you believe would be good for the largest number of people possible to hear, then it's best to write as simply and clearly as possible. If you're not going to write something important, why write at all? When a guy like Eco goes on and on and on, and yet never says anything, it becomes pointless drivel dressed in obscurity to impress low-brows. How often has Harold Bloom done the same thing in his non-fiction? There are few people who talk so much and say so little as Bloom. But he knows lots of words.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Ransom

There are few people who talk so much and say so little as Bloom. But he knows lots of words.

At last, something we can agree on. However the rest of your post - which seems to imply that you think literature is primarily about conveying information in much the same way as non-fiction - simply confirms what I said earlier: you are ignorant as to the purposes and functioning of it.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by Ransom

You've got a point there. I suppose it depends on what you're trying to convey and how important it is. I read fiction for the same reason I read non-fiction—to learn, not to be entertained. Of course learning can be entertaining of itself. But what I want to say is, that if you're trying to say something of great importance, and it's something that you believe would be good for the largest number of people possible to hear, then it's best to write as simply and clearly as possible. If you're not going to write something important, why write at all? When a guy like Eco goes on and on and on, and yet never says anything, it becomes pointless drivel dressed in obscurity to impress low-brows. How often has Harold Bloom done the same thing in his non-fiction? There are few people who talk so much and say so little as Bloom. But he knows lots of words.

The problem of Eco is that he does not have a soul. As a writer, because as linguist/philosopher he is good and worth of being studied and followed (at least according to a friend that graduated with him). And as an individual I do not have the faintest idea.

There is a lot of research behind his novels, research performed by a team. There is a lot of work behind the putting in words, wording done by a team of editors. He does not exist. He is an enterprise, a machine to make money. There is nothing human inside Eco, everything is cold, distant. It is not a question of language with Eco but of intergalactic vacuum.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by Ransom

If there's one thing clear from these last three posts, it's that the commentator(s?) have not read much LF whatsoever and are just making things up as they go along. Chaucer? Good grief. Yeah that's what I said—LF is about writing nothing but 14th century English....

Gee, I don't remember Eco or Williams using many terms exclusive to 14th century. I don't remember any 14th century writers using the term--threadbare although that's about the time it was invented. As I said before, had you been paying attention, it's about obscure terms and outdated words whether they be 75 years out of date or hundreds. Boggles the mind is right.

Who was the one going on about 14th century English a couple posts back? It's very difficult to tell when you're employing hyperbole, because you've already stood by several claims that I initially took for deliberately absurd exaggeration.

The 'obscurity' of terms is very much a matter of opinion. Of your examples:

If you read modern LF, you find words like "espy", "remonstrate", "objurgation" etc. that fell out of use a hundred years ago.

The only one that could be called outdated is "espy," which however is not obscure, and the only one that could be called obscure is "objurgation," which cannot really be called outdated given that there was no period in which it was less obscure. "Remonstrate" is both current and commonplace. All of these words are primarily encountered in works of general fiction with weak prose, where the words are employed less to "put on airs" than to avoid repetition.

The only contemporary(ish) literary author you've mentioned is Eco, who is a medievalist, linguist and philosopher, whose work is strongly informed by all of those fields. He doesn't write like a plumber or an English (in his case, Italian) teacher because that's not his background. Demanding that he write for, as Prestidigitweeze said earlier, "some projected normative reader," is asking him to put on airs of populism. Personally, I couldn't get into Foucault's Pendulum, either, but very much enjoyed The Name of the Rose.

Forty-odd pages of Eco aside, it appears that your impressions of contemporary literary fiction are based primarily on a few of the more florid authors of mainstream and genre fiction. You've already mistaken Neil Gaiman, who made his name writing comic books, for a literary author. Please name two living authors of literary fiction (I can probably stop there but...) besides Eco, whose work you've read and found to conform to your allegations of "showing off" and "putting on airs."

[PKFFW]

I can't wait until authors start using lol, lmfao, j/k, ldo, chillax, f*cktard and many others just so they stay current and don't seem to be putting on airs by using some actual words that apparently no one knows the meaning of anymore. That will be real literature written for real men by golly!

As for LF, I do find the category name to be rather vague and unhelpful to me personally but to each their own.

I do find it annoying when someone comes out with "so you mostly just read genre fiction then?" in a tone akin to having realised they have just stepped in something icky. I'm sure it's a massive generalisation but in the circles I mix in it does seem the only judgmental people when it comes to book likes and dislikes are the ones who like LF.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[DiapDealer]

I can't wait until authors start using lol, lmfao, j/k, ldo, chillax, f*cktard and many others just so they stay current and don't seem to be putting on airs by using some actual words that apparently no one knows the meaning of anymore.

F*cktard gained widespread acceptance in the world of literature around the same time as a$$hat, if I'm not mistaken.

[Ransom]

However the rest of your post - which seems to imply that you think literature is primarily about conveying information in much the same way as non-fiction - simply confirms what I said earlier: you are ignorant as to the purposes and functioning of it.

You know, it's really pointless to converse with such a thoughtless human. The purpose of all literature is the same as non-fiction obviously—to convey information, and therefore to learn, whether it be about the uses of the various parts of the sperm whale in Moby Dick, or to gain insight into the motives of a murderous mindset as in Father Brown. It is not to sit and look at all the pretty words, which seems to be your only motive for picking up a book. If you aren't picking up a book to learn, then don't bother reading at all. You're just wasting your time just as you've wasting my time throughout this thread.

[Ransom]

Who was the one going on about 14th century English a couple posts back?

So? I talked about 19th century lit. a lot more. So? And I mentioned West Saxon which is a good deal older yet? So? Apparently you're incapable of normal reasoning, let alone recondite cogitations. Whoops! there I go showing off my vocabulary. No one will read me, but at least I'll be in the LF section.

The 'obscurity' of terms is very much a matter of opinion.

It's a matter of fact in each example. Your absurd claim that it is not in these three cases, "espy", "remonstrate", "objurgation" will not change the fact. All three words are socially remote and can physically be shown as almost completely absent from both contemporary lit. and speech. I have never heard anyone use the words "espy" or "objurgation" in speech during my lifetime, and neither have you. Remonstrate may still be heard, but only on very rare occasion. (It gave way to reprimand, berate, and reproof long ago, not to mention the many slang terms used in its place.) The same is true of their use in modern books. In a stack of one thousand contemporary books, fiction or otherwise, you will not find these words in more than one or two, and probably not that. That is obscure.

You've already mistaken Neil Gaiman, who made his name writing comic books, for a literary author.

No, I have made no such claim, and you are incapable of quoting a post where I said any such silly thing. I said, and was correct in saying, that it is your own LF crowd that continually singles him out as being an LF author and even gave one of many links to articles saying as much. Why lie to make a false point? Kicks?

Please name two living authors of literary fiction....

Why—so you can lie about it afterwards? There's hardly any point of continuing to post to you. I leave you to conferring with the flowers and consulting with the rain. I doubt you'll have any reason to scratch your head though. Oh look! A turn of phrase! I doubt you'll understand it.

[Ransom]

The problem of Eco is that he does not have a soul.

I don't know much about him. Maybe if he did his own translations he would come across better, but I doubt it.

"so you mostly just read genre fiction then?"

The thing is, I doubt that there is a single volume to be found on the LF shelves that I cannot classify to a particular genre (probably more than one) just like every other book. It's a useless category. I'm not saying every book on those LF shelves is appalling. Certainly there are many old classics that end up there which are very good, but I could find a more proper category for them. But it's the contemporary books which end up there which are generally dismal and are continually the butt of jokes.

At any rate, I leave you to find a good book. We've hashed this one around long enough, and I won't be checking the thread again.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by Ransom

You know, it's really pointless to converse with such a thoughtless human. The purpose of all literature is the same as non-fiction obviously—to convey information, and therefore to learn, whether it be about the uses of the various parts of the sperm whale in Moby Dick, or to gain insight into the motives of a murderous mindset as in Father Brown.

As long as you don't expand your vocabulary

Originally Posted by Ransom

It is not to sit and look at all the pretty words, which seems to be your only motive for picking up a book. If you aren't picking up a book to learn, then don't bother reading at all. You're just wasting your time just as you've wasting my time throughout this thread.

Actually, a great many people pick up books to reaffirm existing biases and pet narratives, and experience the sensation of novelty in a predominantly comforting and familiar context.

One generally approaches more literary work with the opposite intent, of genuinely expanding one's horizons with new insight into language, art and/or the human condition. There are other things to be learned from art than "information" communicable in eighth-grade English.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by Ransom

There's hardly any point of continuing to post to you.

But your dogged irrationality is highly engaging

[ramsey_isler]

Labeling genres is often a tricky task, but I can say I don't like most works that have been dubbed "literary fiction". I find them to be usually quite mundane, and as a sci-fi/fantasy writer and reader, I like my stories with a bit more imagination. For a while, I even considered literary fiction utterly boring.

But, some time ago while participating in an online writing community, I had the chance to review a young lady's piece of prose which I can only define as "literary". It seemed to serve no purpose other than to show off the power of words, and it floored me. It was beautiful - so beautiful that I didn't care that the vast majority of it was spent describing a single kiss. One moment, that we've all experienced, exposed in prose that made the act seem exotic and foreign.

So I can appreciate "literary fiction" as a genre, although I don't seek it out. But any genre can be "literary", depending on the author. I've seen a lot of agents and publishers requesting "exciting fantasy with elements of literary fiction", so there's plenty of room for crossover.

[Ransom]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

F*cktard gained widespread acceptance in the world of literature around the same time as a$$hat, if I'm not mistaken.

Around the same period as "asphinctersayswhat" no doubt.