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

[DiapDealer]

Around the same period as "asphinctersayswhat" no doubt.

No, no. I believe asphinctersayswhat preceded both f*cktard and a$$hat by nearly a generation.

[Prestidigitweeze]

ramsey_isler:

I liked your post because it gives evidence of the power and importance of style despite your general lack of interest in it as compared to, say, narrative.

That feeling of being floored by the emotion and music of language is the main reason I read, not just for the story or "information" (do people actually read made-up stories in search of factual information and, if so, what are encyclopedias?). I tend to respond to the cresting and ebbing of music in its various forms. My sensitivity to it is one of the main reasons I love so much literary fiction.

Ransom:

The one writer about whom I agree with you is Harold Bloom -- not because he "knows a lot of words" but because he makes a lot of bad and arbitrary judgments. Bloom seems to have nothing new to say about Shakespeare despite his parlor-game theory of misreading and his pseudo-Shakespearean way of writing about the subject. Charles Lamb has a wrought and latinate style, too, but is more accomplished and original. De Quincey's famous essay on Macbeth does mimesis better as well.

Bloom's also dead wrong about Yeats.

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.

(1) Coincidentally, your choice of objurgation is an unfortunate one, as it's commonly used in heroic fantasy. I recall reading an entire Jack Vance novel as a kid and finding that every other paragraph seemed to end with "Cudgel uttered an objurgation." This was intended to be a funny and excessively polite way of referring to a person doubled over with pain and screaming a four-letter word. That use of stylistic irony -- writing about low-lifes, murderers and vagrants in the most flowery language possible -- seems to be a trait of Vance's and is shared by other writers in that genre.

(2) You would do well to avoid attributing base motives to other writers -- in literature and even on internet forums -- whenever you're not privy to their intentions or disbelieve the intentions they've stated overtly, since you have no way of knowing whether your suspicions/misgivings are correct.

Originally Posted by 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.

(1) I'd judge the writing by its effectiveness, not by its avoidance of unusual terms. In fact, I'd probably find the excessive use of odd terms interesting.

(2) Again, not a great example, as lots of specialized terms from legalese and the DSM-IIIR became popular because laypersons do enjoy the sound and special meanings of specialized language in context.

Besides which, one of the great books of all time is Sir Thomas Browne's Religio Medici, which uses medical terms and situations to demarcate his spiritual beliefs. It's a beautifully written book -- one that I've enjoyed reading ever since I first discovered it in my parents' library.

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.

As a classical pianist and studio musician, I can pretty much assure you that that analogy doesn't work. You're better off comparing the writer to a composer who goes out of her/his way to write music which is difficult to play, or a musician who looks for such music to perform. You could then argue there was no reason for writing/playing a difficult passage where an easy one would do.

However, the analogy would still be a bad one, since great composers do write intentionally difficult pieces all the time and they are called things like studies and etudes.

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. . . . It is not to sit and look at all the pretty words, which seems to be your only motive for picking up a book. . . . Why lie to make a false point? Kicks? . . . Why—so you can lie about it afterwards?

Here's where the disquieting generalizations you're making about LF writers, lit professors and others become personal and unpleasant.

You have no right to call other members "worthless humans," nor to assert they're "lying," which degrades the discussion to some sort of post-Jerry-Springer, post-Fox-News accusation tournament, which is exactly what a thread with a title like this one's is in danger of becoming. I'm going to ask you politely to reign it in a touch and speak to others here as if they were worthwhile human beings. Everyone here is worthwhile in the fairest sense.

[TGS]

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. 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.

Which demonstrates my point - the purpose of literature is no more restricted to the conveying of information than the purpose of painting is restricted to conveying information about what, for example, sunflowers look like, or the purpose of music is to covey information about what, for example, a bassoon sounds like. Your promise, which you broke subsequently, to take no further part in this thread is to be welcomed.

[DiapDealer]

Well, that was straight-up rude.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Well, that was straight-up rude.

In response to, "You know, it's really pointless to converse with such a thoughtless human." You thought, 'I'd rather not talk to you, either,' was rude?

[TGS]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Well, that was straight-up rude.

What was rude about it?

[odiakkoh]

Diap was probably responding to the spam that was there but was deleted.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by taosar

In response to, "You know, it's really pointless to converse with such a thoughtless human." You thought, 'I'd rather not talk to you, either,' was rude?

It's hard to grasp the reasoning, isn't it?
Even though leaving it unexplained would amuse me on a certain childish level...

... I was responding to a spam post (before mine and after TGS's) that has since been removed by a moderator. Leaving my "rude" comment rather orphaned.

EDIT: Thank you odiakkoh.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

... I was responding to a spam post (before mine and after TGS's) that has since been removed by a moderator. Leaving my "rude" comment rather orphaned.

EDIT: Thank you odiakkoh.

Feeling rather sorry for your orphaned post - take a stroll over to the Politics and Religion thread, I'm sure there's a good home for it there

[DiapDealer]

Feeling rather sorry for your orphaned post - take a stroll over to the Politics and Religion thread, I'm sure there's a good home for it there

That's no place for a poor little orphaned post.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by Ransom

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

Then, if you do not know much about what you are talking about, why talking about it?

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

... I was responding to a spam post (before mine and after TGS's) that has since been removed by a moderator. Leaving my "rude" comment rather orphaned.

It might be time to master the "reply with quote" buttons--third time in this thread I've been at a loss for which way your post was pointed, though I'm sure this time would have been clearer if things hadn't been rearranged on you.

ETA:

Originally Posted by beppe

Then, if you do not know much about what you are talking about, why talking about it?

He is convinced that he has inferred the gamut of 20-21st century literature from an obscure Modernist, C.S. Lewis, and some fantasy novels (plus those 40-odd pages of Foucault's Pendulum).

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by taosaur

It might be time to master the "reply with quote" buttons--third time in this thread I've been at a loss for which way your post was pointed, though I'm sure this time would have been clearer if things hadn't been rearranged on you.

I assure you that my mastery of all things button-y and quote-ish are quite complete. I oftentimes choose not to use to use the quote button—mostly because I find it so tiresome, but also because I consider the technique to be a bit of a conversational "crutch." Surely, someone as astute as you is not opposed to a little closer (or repeated) examination of the written word to discern hidden, obscure or even simply contextual meaning?

In this case however, I didn't think it would be appropriate to quote almost two full pages of solicitation. I don't care for clutter.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I oftentimes choose not to use to use the quote button

Was the use of the double "to use" an example of the much vilified literary bravura which, apparently, literary fiction is much prone to?

[DiapDealer]

That was an echo.