Literary Writing II

[egem]

I'm starting this thread over, and I will not say one bad word to James. We will take it outside.

I think that literary writing is about us. It is about everyday problems and people and it tells us about ourselves, but you can't really define it like a genre. It's just good writing. Kafka doesn't write anything like Joyce, but they are both literary writers. Long after people have forgotten about Stephen King or John Grisham [grief from others] people will still be reading David Foster Wallace or Junot Diaz.

One of the most recent movements in literary fiction has been minimalism. I know I’ll get some grief from Greer here (may not be the most recent), but I’m wondering for all of you who want to talk about this, do you see minimal writers influencing your work? Carver is a great influence of mine, and I have found that my writing is much more detail orientated after studying him.

[Jenny]

You said "It's just good writing." It may be, in fact, it may often be, but I don't think the equation "literary writing = good writing" works. Especially if you check it out as "good writing = literary writing". To me literary writing isn't a phrase conveying the quality of the work. It's about exploring different forms of prose and ideas about people. Sometimes I think it's devalued into being a catch all for general works which don't fit into a genre.

[egem]

You said "It's just good writing." It may be, in fact, it may often be, but I don't think the equation "literary writing = good writing" works. Especially if you check it out as "good writing = literary writing". To me literary writing isn't a phrase conveying the quality of the work. It's about exploring different forms of prose and ideas about people. Sometimes I think it's devalued into being a catch all for general works which don't fit into a genre.

In many cases good writing from other genres end up under literary writing. I don't think that all literary writing is good writing.

[FolkloreFanatic]

FWIW, I believe that the category for general works is 'mainstream/contemporary,' not 'literary.'

They simply don't mean the same thing, at least not from what I can deduce.

[pdr]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You don't have to agree with it. You won't understand it completely unless you have stood in that person's shoes all their life and experienced what they have. Please try to be tolerant of their opinions especially as here on this Board the opinions are not a matter of life and death, of grave harm to other people or of world damaging importance. The fact that someone disagrees strongly with your opinion doesn't make them right and you wrong nor is it a personal attack on you. These are opinions we are discussing so please everyone take a deep breath and talk about the points raised not the people who've made them.

Before I do that I'd like to comment on some of the opinions:

1. Mike Coombes makes some strong comments about Fantasy and SF. He merely reflects what many people think. 'Fantsy is not true, it's about things that don't exist, it's pure escapism.' Therefore many people think that readers of SF or fantasy are escaping from reality because they are not good at coping with real life. 'They're losers!' They think that Fantasy readers want 'magic wand solutions' when the average person knows that this is: 'wishful thinking and a load of codswallop! Life's not easy like that!'

2.
The majority view of the Romance genre is the same. The fact that it is the last remnant of the Mediaeval knight's code of honour watered down into our century's thinking is lost. Romance writers get it in the neck for writing a load of 'sentimental rubbish' but they and their readers know it's a dream world that makes a nice escape from nappies, housework and paying the bills. I actually know of a marriage counsellor who prescribes a list of Romance books to some of the husbands so that they can understand what women value in a man!

3.
Women's Writing, Chick lit, these genres are sneered at. Good old MCP chauvinism is alive and well although heavily disguised as reputable book reviewing.

4.
Literary writing is held up as the best, even the only way of writing. The attitude is a hang over from the days where education was for the priviledged and the size of your vocabulary and ability to speak in complex structures meant that you were not one of 'the ignorant great unwashed' or 'the working class'. There's a strong remnant of this opinion still in academia and the publishing world.

I teach my students that the Literary Genre is about ideas, universal themes of importance to all people. In the Literary Genre the characters will be memorable, the theme one that leaves the reader thinking. I believe that a good literary novel is not self indulgent navel gazing by a writer but makes a universal statement that is true. Honesty, the writer's honesty is one of the keys to the Literary genre. It might not be your version of the truth but it is the author's and it makes you think.

Literary writing can been seen in many types of fiction. PD James' crime novels, in some of Patricia McKilip's fantasy novels, in John Irwin's mainstream fiction, to name only a few.

Literary writing is more complex than every day writing, using what my linguistics prof used to call 'the language beyond the lexical bar.' That is the writer can use Latinate words and complex structures. At one end of the literary writing scale there are literary writers who are experimenting with language in the use of words and structures so that to the ordinary reader the writing becomes impossible to read or understand. At the other end are those so full of a love of language that they write prose like Gerard Manley Hopkins's poetry.

I find myself writing the literary genre because ideas are important to me. I hope I also write in a literary way. I get drunk on words! As a Kiwi I'm often depressed by the state of writing in my country. Only the correct NZ style Literary Genre is valued and it's not always the best of literary writing. Our Arts Council grants and our New Zealand Society of Authors all encourage the belief that only their NZ literary genre written in their NZ literary style has value. Unfortunately this means the more pretentious and arty-farty, particularly about New Zealand's 'deep dark underbelly' or 'Maori consciousness' writing the more it is preferred with grants and publicity.
James MacDonald's comments reflect on the similar attitude that seems to exist in the States. It is extremely frustrating to see some story or first novel lauded as a great literary triumph, and the author presented with grants and great reviews when the ordinary reader will never read the story or novel. The Literary Genre has become a form of intellectual snobbism to the detriment of the genre and its writers.

[egem]

consciousness' writing the more it is preferred with grants and publicity.
James MacDonald's comments reflect on the similar attitude that seems to exist in the States. It is extremely frustrating to see some story or first novel lauded as a great literary triumph, and the author presented with grants and great reviews when the ordinary reader will never read the story or novel. The Literary Genre has become a form of intellectual snobbism to the detriment of the genre and its writers.

I'm sorry if you feel this way. I feel that even work that I read by literary writers welcomes me. I've met poets and literary novelists, and they are from snobs. Writers like Stephen Dunn or Tim O'Brien are amazing people that do not turn their noses up to writing. They like good writing of any kind. On the flip side of your argument literary writers do not like the fact that scifi and romance novelist make so much money from their books. I think both sides have the same complaint toward one another. Scifi writers get mad if you haven't read every famous scifi book out there and then try to write a scifi story. Literary writers are being no different. It doesn't take much to understand a literary story, and I don't believe that all scifi stories are all that simple.

We not getting anywhere. I too have sat in a workshop at a university with all types of writers. We've reviewed many pieces of lit. We talked about Stephen King along with all the rest. We talked about Joyce and Carver. I think there is a call for writing that is written above an eigth grade level. There are scifi writers and romance writers that do this. If the complaint about literary writing is that literary writers study the language too much I can't understand that.

I would like to hear from people that read literary works. Have you read Joyce Carol Oates, Raymond Carver, Thom Jones, or any of these writers. Did you like them. Do you write literary in the literary genre? I would rather talk about the craft.

[Jamesaritchie]

I'm starting this thread over, and I will not say one bad word to James. We will take it outside.

I think that literary writing is about us. It is about everyday problems and people and it tells us about ourselves, but you can't really define it like a genre. It's just good writing. Kafka doesn't write anything like Joyce, but they are both literary writers. Long after people have forgotten about Stephen King or John Grisham [grief from others] people will still be reading David Foster Wallace or Junot Diaz.

.

I wouldn't go that far for a second. Odds are about ten to one that Stephen King will still be read long after David Foster Wallace has been forgotten by the general populace.

Good literary writing is important, and it does have meaning that most genre fiction ignores. Dismissing either literary or genre fiction out of hand is patent nonsense. Both produces lasting fiction, and if you take a close look at classic fiction that has lasted for hundreds of years, a sizable chunk of it, perhaps the majority, could be considered genre fiction front to back.

What matters is what the fiction has to say, and how well it's written. Genre fiction can say just as much about the human condition as literary fiction, and it can be just as well written. It usually doesn't and isn't, but it can, in the hands of the right writer, do both.

Most genre fiction is crud that will, in a few months or a few years, disappear without trace, and good riddance. But the same thing can be said of most literary fiction.

The best literary fiction, and the best genre fiction, will both last for centuries. The only test of good fiction is the test of time, and none of us are likely to be around long enough to see which writers will pass the test. At most, we'll watch as writer after writers fails the test and fades into oblivion, but we won;t be around to see who is still being read a hundred years form now.

But this I can say with certainty. Some of the writers still being read in a hundred years will be literary writers from today, and some will be genre writers from today, and in all likelihood, the genre writers who last will outnumber the literary writers.

Fiction is fiction. It isn't any better because it's literary, and it isn't automatically crap because it's genre.

My personal opinion is that a great deal of wonderful literary fiction has been written in the last fifty years, and if some find it boring, that's their problem, and their lack of judgement. And some wonderful genre fiction has been written in the last fifty years, and if some literati find all of it meaningless and inferior, that's their problem and their lack of judgement.

[egem]

I wouldn't go that far for a second. Odds are about ten to one that Stephen King will still be read long after David Foster Wallace has been forgotten by the general populace.
Why do you think that King's writing will last?


What matters is what the fiction has to say, and how well it's written. Genre fiction can say just as much about the human condition as literary fiction, and it can be just as well written. It usually doesn't and isn't, but it can, in the hands of the right writer, do both.



I think the main focus of literary writing is society and the human condition, and genre writing tends to have a different focus. Do you agree?

I agreed with most of you post. I just had these two questions.

[Jamesaritchie]

I would like to hear from people that read literary works. Have you read Joyce Carol Oates, Raymond Carver, Thom Jones, or any of these writers. Did you like them. Do you write literary in the literary genre? I would rather talk about the craft.

I've read these writers often. I love them. Raymond Carver is, I think, an absolute Master of the short story, and I've seldom read a story better than "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love." Or "Cathedral."

Joyce Carol Oates has been a favorite for many years, and if it's possible to fall in love with someone just from reading their writing, Oates would be the one. I don't understand how anyone can write as much as she does while still never failing to write extremely well.

But I could name fifty literary writers that I think are simply wonderful. I think one of the best short stories ever written was Hemingway's "Big Two-Hearted River." It astounds me when people read it and say there's no plot. The story is one big, major plot from front to back. But all the Nick Adams stories are good, and it may be true that you have to read them all to fully understand any. I don't think so, I knew what "Big Two-Hearted River" was about without having read any of the other stories, but maybe there is someting to this. The Nick Adams stories are, taken as a whole and read in order, more like a novel than a collection of stories.

But where do you draw the line with literary writers? My own opinion is that Twain, Dickens, and London all qualify as literary writers, but in their day all except London were considered more genre than literary.

What about Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and Chekov? All wonderful writers, but were they writing literary fiction or romance or war stories? Or all of the above?

What about Proust, Flaubert, Hugo, and Camus?

What about Honoré de Balzac? As fine a writer as I've ever read, but is he really literary?

Better question, what about Dumas? Where do novels such as "The Count of Monte Cristo," "The Man in the Iron Mask," and "The Three Musketeers" fit into the literary canon? They've certainly stood the test of time, but are these merely genre novels that were written well enough to last, or are they something more?

And what about P. G. Wodehouse. I can read him over and over and over, but is he too funny to be literary?

What about O. Henry? He has an anthology named after him, for heaven's sake. But are his stories literary?

And what about Edgar Allan Poe? I think most of his stories are safely genre, but I also think he's one of the best literary writers of all time. No matter how fantastic the plots of his stories, they were about real people, real emotions, real probelms. "The Cask of Amontillado" and "The Murders in the Rue Morgue" are wonderful stories. And his poetry, particularly "The Raven" and "Annabel Lee" should never die. How can anyone read this are not be hooked forever?

How about Sir Arthur Conal Doyle? His stories are definitely genre, but if there's a more realistic, more compelling, more lasting character anywhere in fiction than Sherlock Holmes, I haven't found him.

The craft of literary writers seems even more varied to me than the craft of genre writers. It's much less formula driven, but the best of it has plots as strong as any genre fiction. And it contains character who somehow manage the impossible task of remaining life size on the page. They don't shrink with time, or grow larger than lofe in order to make up for lack of skill.

I really don't understand the animosity bewteen literary and gere writers. It's silliness. The best of both is something special, and most of each will, and should, disapprear down the sewers of time, and none of us controls where our own fiction will fit into the scheme.

[Mistook]

It is extremely frustrating to see some story or first novel lauded as a great literary triumph, and the author presented with grants and great reviews when the ordinary reader will never read the story or novel. The Literary Genre has become a form of intellectual snobbism to the detriment of the genre and its writers.




PDR, this is not directed at you, but I felt your quote was a good entry point. This is just my opinion for the general record. It seems to me there's snobbism on both sides of the fence, and writers in both camps complaing about a lack of readership, and a lack of recognition.

I've been branded 'illiterate' for confessing not to have read any fiction in the past 8 years, either literary or otherwise, and that's fine, I've been called worse, but I do think the label sheds light on the deeper problem - the disconnect between the "ordinary reader" and the fiction writer.

I live in... perhaps the most ordinary place on Earth, and am surrounded by ordinary readers. My job takes me into people's homes on a regular basis, and I confess, I often look at the bookshelves to see what they've read. I also worked at a library for four years, and of course, I have friends and family whose reading habits I know.

Again, I should say, I'm not trying to start anything here. I'm just reporting what I know from the front lines.

But far and away, the preferred reading is non-fiction. The most popular subjects are humor-writing/ humorous biography. After that comes true crime, and then celebrity biography. Spiritual books are big. Anything that claims to be a guide to life or an affirmation of faith is huge among ordinary readers. UFO, JFK, and other conspiracy work claiming to be non-fiction is also very popular. Lastly we have self-help books, and do-it-yourself manuals.

Why?

Because these non-fiction works are now superior to fiction in delivering what readers crave: Laughs, lives, thrills and chills, affirmation of good over evil, philosophical guidance, fascinating possiblilities, and last but not least, education.

And I submit that things are this way for two reasons:

1) Non-fiction purports to be "real" and therefore has an edge when it comes to believability.

2) Printed Fiction (both literary and genre), having been upstaged by movies and television, has fallen under the jealous protection of collectors and afficianado's who look upon the readers of non-fiction as "illiterate".


I'd venture to say that 90% of the fiction writers out there have risen from the ranks of this cloistered readership, and so the cultish nature of the beast has only increased. Ordinary readers simply aren't represented on the fiction shelves, and in fact, are strongly discouraged from writing at all.


That's my assessment of the situation at this time. Obviously people will disagree, and I just know I'll be skewered alive for stating my opinion, but I don't post to cause trouble. I'm just trying to give an honest opinion, for what it's worth.

[Mistook]

I think the main focus of literary writing is society and the human condition, and genre writing tends to have a different focus. Do you agree?


Whatever you're writing, the mandate is always to have realistic characters and a believable plot. Nobody can do that without understanding the human condition and society.

[blacbird]

It is worth noting that certain writers pigeonholed into "genre" categories, some to their lasting personal detriment, during their lifetimes are now being resurrected and reprinted in fancy formats with scholarly forewords and analyses as "literary" writers. James M. Cain and Philip K. Dick are good examples.

These distinctions strike me as marketing-driven, more than anything else.

bird

[egem]

The craft of literary writers seems even more varied to me than the craft of genre writers. It's much less formula driven, but the best of it has plots as strong as any genre fiction. And it contains character who somehow manage the impossible task of remaining life size on the page. They don't shrink with time, or grow larger than lofe in order to make up for lack of skill.



I'm not trying to start a war here, but I think literary writing includes so much of other genres because it is concerned with the craft of writing and not genre conventions. All of the works you pointed to tend to be the best of the best where the craft is concerned (in character, plot, setting...) Is that what literary writing is? Concern for the craft of writing that forgoes convention?

[SJB]

Stephen King not read 100 years from now- are you shitting me?! He'll be read then for the same reasons that Charles Dickens, George Eliot and all the other greats of the nineteenth century are still adored today: he tells a good story and he tells it well.

And most of all: he's real. You read IT and you get a feeling for what it's like to grow up as a black kid in a small town in Maine in the late 1950s- just as you read Middlemarch and have an insight into the life of an ambitious young doctor in provincial England in the late 1830s. King's books, like Eliot's, are a gift to people who live in other wheres and whens.

So, quite apart from the fact that Stephen King peppers his works with literary references, biblical allusions and a host of other literary devices (the "quality" of the writing itself is, usually, truly exceptional, if you measure it in those terms, as you seem to), he is what I'd unhesitatingly call "literature." He'll be read, all right. My great-great-grandkids will be devouring his books along with the Odyssey and the Canterbury Tales, along with all the other stuff that will last forever- well, until we all get obliterated by a huge meteorite, of course.

So there.

[Medievalist]

I still have no clue about what you mean by "literary."

Maybe it's because we're looking at the same thing, and not realizing it; I honestly don't know.

But Dickens, Shakespeare, Melville, Twaine, Hawthorne, Chaucer -- they were all seen as lesser literary lights during their lifetimes. They were "common," and "popular," and absolutely not what university students were reading for class, or their faculty were examining them in.

But now they are leading figures in the canon. They are, I think, literary?

[egem]

Stephen King not read 100 years from now- are you shitting me?! He'll be read then for the same reasons that Charles Dickens, George Eliot and all the other greats of the nineteenth century are still adored today: he tells a good story and he tells it well.

And most of all: he's real. You read IT and you get a feeling for what it's like to grow up as a black kid in a small town in Maine in the late 1950s- just as you read Middlemarch and have an insight into the life of an ambitious young doctor in provincial England in the late 1830s. King's books, like Eliot's, are a gift to people who live in other wheres and whens.

So, quite apart from the fact that Stephen King peppers his works with literary references, biblical allusions and a host of other literary devices (the "quality" of the writing itself is, usually, truly exceptional, if you measure it in those terms, as you seem to), he is what I'd unhesitatingly call "literature." He'll be read, all right. My great-great-grandkids will be devouring his books along with the Odyssey and the Canterbury Tales, along with all the other stuff that will last forever- well, until we all get obliterated by a huge meteorite, of course.

So there.

SJB go to the Take it Outside thread. I've started a post where we can talk about this.

[egem]

I still have no clue about what you mean by "literary."

Maybe it's because we're looking at the same thing, and not realizing it; I honestly don't know.

But Dickens, Shakespeare, Melville, Twaine, Hawthorne, Chaucer -- they were all seen as lesser literary lights during their lifetimes. They were "common," and "popular," and absolutely not what university students were reading for class, or their faculty were examining them in.

But now they are leading figures in the canon. They are, I think, literary?

Yes, we are all trying to define literary writing in this post. We are just getting started. I left off at: "Is that what literary writing is? Concern for the craft of writing that forgoes convention?" Do you agree?

[aruna]

I teach my students that the Literary Genre is about ideas, universal themes of importance to all people. In the Literary Genre the characters will be memorable, the theme one that leaves the reader thinking. I believe that a good literary novel is not self indulgent navel gazing by a writer but makes a universal statement that is true. Honesty, the writer's honesty is one of the keys to the Literary genre. It might not be your version of the truth but it is the author's and it makes you think.

Literary writing can been seen in many types of fiction. PD James' crime novels, in some of Patricia McKilip's fantasy novels, in John Irwin's mainstream fiction, to name only a few.

.

I couldn't agree with you more! To your list of writers I'd like to add John LeCarre, who raised the term "spy novel" toa whole new level.

I'd like to compare books to food. There's gourmet food, wholesome organic meals, vegetarian, junk food, healthy snacks, desserts, salads, full course menus. We have the choice. I love a snack now and then: but I don't like junk food, not even in real life, so I'll snack on apples and other fruit. In fact, I couldn't live without fruit. (A well-written and engrossing genre book.) But I couldn't live on it. I also need a full course meal, vegetarian, and preferably organic, and very tasty.

What I don't like is nouveau cuisine. I think that's what corresponds most exactly to what I call "academic" fiction.

[Josh]

Dickens was hugely popular in his time. The literary establishment often dismissed his work as too sentimental and coincidental (and popular) to take seriously. Yet he's regarded as a master of the bildungsroman now by those in the establishment positions that earlier dismissed him.

Language is a slippery thing. Who knows what the literati will view as worthy a hundred, two hundred years from now. And more to the point, why should it be important? I love Vonnegut. I read all the Vonnegut I can get my hands on, regardless if he's considered cult, pop, or lit.

I'd also like to point out that many genre writers are also considered literary: Ray Bradbury, Edgar Allen Poe, Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien to name a few. It's not an exclusive category.

I read what I love, and write the stories I'm passionate about. I'll let someone else worry about placing the writing in some sort of category. Those PhD's need something to do.

A well-known author once stated (paraphrase) that there are two kinds of writers. The first asks, "What will writing this story mean to me?" The second asks, "What will writing this story mean to others?" And you can find the dubious "literary" tag on both types.

Stephen King will be read 200 years from now for the same reason Dickens is still read: He tells a damn good story, and at the end of the day, that's what it's about any way. Eloquence in language bows to story every time.

It was Stephen King who stated the "two writers" comment above, also.

[blacbird]

All I know is, around this place, if you want something not to get read, post it in the "Literary" sub-forum of Share Your Work.

bird

[azbikergirl]

I'm not trying to start a war here, but I think literary writing includes so much of other genres because it is concerned with the craft of writing and not genre conventions. All of the works you pointed to tend to be the best of the best where the craft is concerned (in character, plot, setting...) Is that what literary writing is? Concern for the craft of writing that forgoes convention?
In my experience, the better genre writers are concerned for the craft of writing AND genre conventions. Is it the exclusion of genre conventions that marks it as literary? If so, why don't you simply call it 'mainstream?' There must be more to it than this.

[Jamesaritchie]

P

But far and away, the preferred reading is non-fiction. The most popular subjects are humor-writing/ humorous biography. After that comes true crime, and then celebrity biography. Spiritual books are big. Anything that claims to be a guide to life or an affirmation of faith is huge among ordinary readers. UFO, JFK, and other conspiracy work claiming to be non-fiction is also very popular. Lastly we have self-help books, and do-it-yourself manuals.

Why?

Because these non-fiction works are now superior to fiction in delivering what readers crave: Laughs, lives, thrills and chills, affirmation of good over evil, philosophical guidance, fascinating possibilities, and last but not least, education.

And I submit that things are this way for two reasons:

1) Non-fiction purports to be "real" and therefore has an edge when it comes to believability.

2) Printed Fiction (both literary and genre), having been upstaged by movies and television, has fallen under the jealous protection of collectors and afficianado's who look upon the readers of non-fiction as "illiterate".


I'd venture to say that 90% of the fiction writers out there have risen from the ranks of this cloistered readership, and so the cultish nature of the beast has only increased. Ordinary readers simply aren't represented on the fiction shelves, and in fact, are strongly discouraged from writing at all.


That's my assessment of the situation at this time. Obviously people will disagree, and I just know I'll be skewered alive for stating my opinion, but I don't post to cause trouble. I'm just trying to give an honest opinion, for what it's worth.

I dont believe your reasoning for a second. Nonfiction has always been more popular than fiction, but this isn't because of any virtue of nonfiction, it's because of fault in far too many people. Ordinary readers? Then just who are the hundreds of millions who still read fiction each and every year? Ordinary readers? Just who are they? As far as I can see, such a group either never existed, or has never gone away, depending on how you look it it.

It's just wrong to even think that there used to be some group of ordinary readers who no longer read fiction.

Fiction hasn't been upstaged by anything, movies or TV. More fiction is read today than ever before. Even on a percentage basis, fiction readers have only decreased a few percentage points in the last fifty years, and is actually higher than in past centuries. I don't know where people get the idea that everyone read fiction in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Most people couldn't read at all. And most of those who could read were nonfiction fans then, as well. Nonfiction is ever so much easier than fiction. It takes almost no effort. Those who watch movies and TV instead of reading are, by and large, the same people who wouldn't have been reading even before movies and TV came about, or who, at most, would have been reading some nonfiction. The human race has never been a group where the majority worried much about knowledge or education. . .or reading.

But there is no cloistered group of fiction readers. There is no cultish nature. Thinking this totally ignores the numbers, which are, and always have been, massive.

As for: Because these non-fiction works are now superior to fiction in delivering what readers crave: Laughs, lives, thrills and chills, affirmation of good over evil, philosophical guidance, fascinating possibilities, and last but not least, education.

No, not hardly. That's silliness. Nonfiction is vastly inferior in every one of these things. Including education. The person who doesn't read fiction is in no way educated. Or at best, is only partially educated. You cannot be educated and read only one or the other. Again, the cause is not in the superiority of nonfiction, but in the lack of understanding, and in the lack of imagination, by those who do not read fiction. What nonfiction delivers is merely what some people want. What some people are willing to settle for. And it's a terribly sad thing.

This also makes it seem that there are two groups of readers; those who read nonfiction, and those who read fiction, and this is even more wrong. Take away the fiction readers who also read nonfiction, and most of the nonfiction market would dry up and blow away.

Nonfiction is in no way superior in any of these categories, and, in fact, can't even begin to compete in most of them. And an awful lot of the nonfiction being read today may purport to be real, which makes it ever so easy to read and believe, but it is, in fact, as far from real, as far from factual, as it's possible to get. The fact that people eat it says very little about nonfiction, and very much about its readers. Easier to believe? Yep, it is easier, isn't it. Even when it's an out and out lie. Easier. Some take the easy path, some the hard.

Cloistered? Cultish? If so, it's the largest group of cloistered, cultish people the world has ever seen. And the largest group of truly educated people the world has ever seen. And a clositered, cultish group that has a distinct advanatge over everyone else.

I certainly don't look upon nonfiction readers as illiterate. I am a nonfiction reader. I read reams of nonfiction. But I do look upon those who don't read fiction as lacking a good education, and of lacking imagination. And the saying, "Those who do not read are as ignorant as those who cannot read" holds as true for fiction as for nonfiction. Probably more so. The best nonfiction may contain many facts, though much more of it contains only opinion, or outright lack of facts, but darned little of it contains anything resembling truth.

Fiction is a very different world from nonfiction, and any superiority you see in nonfiction is only an illusion. But, yep, it sure is easier.

[jackie106]

Non-fiction can be literary. Think of Joan Didion, John McPhee, Truman Capote, VS Naipaul, Paul Theroux, Annie Dillard, David Quammen...

Jackie

[katiemac]

I'm very interested in this topic, but I'll admit I wouldn't know where the draw the line between fiction that is literary and fiction that is not. Based on high school literature, I'll probably always assume that literary writing is "what you read in English class," unless someone else has a better definition.

I liked what James Ritchie built on from James MacDonald's definition, along the lines of ordinary people with ordinary problems, but which are important to the characters. Still, the problem must be important to the reader.

But then I have to wonder, if these characters aren't extraordinary in some way -- why do we care, and why do we read on? Is literary fiction the journey from ordinary to extraordinary? But I can think of so many "genre" novels which fall under this category... Perhaps these are the genre books James MacDonald was referring to; the good ones, when stripped of genre motifs, can become literary fiction, whereas lower-quality genre will have nothing left.

In the sense of "ordinary people," I can see why non-fiction biographies and autobiographies apply -- stories from the Trade Center, Tehran, celebrities stories.... but there is still something extraordinary about these people, otherwise I could write a best-seller on my own life. (Which I guarantee, nobody wants to read.)

[brinkett]

But I do look upon those who don't read fiction as lacking a good education, and of lacking imagination.
Some people don't like to read--it doesn't mean they're less educated or lack imagination. Reading fiction isn't superior to other hobbies. I'm sure there are some who would say you're missing out because you don't participate in activity <x>. It's snobbery.

[Celia Cyanide]

Some people don't like to read--it doesn't mean they're less educated or lack imagination. Reading fiction isn't superior to other hobbies.

Amen, Brinkett!

The trouble I always had being an English major because I could never get with the theory of the "natural superiority of reading." I don't think reading is a more important hobby to have than anything else. Some books are crap. I think we can all agree that some books just plain suck. And yet some people think that if people read crap, it's still good because "at least they're reading," as opposed to watching a brilliant film, which is much more rewarding than reading a crap book.

I'm not knocking people who read crap books. My mom does, as a hobby. She loves books, and she enjoys seeing what is good about some and crap about others. I just have a problem with the fact that if I appreciate film in the same way, she sees it as a waste of time.

I would never look at someone whose favorite film was Armegeddon, and say, "At least they're watching movies. That makes them better than someone who doesn't." (No offense intended if you like that film, I'm just using it as an example of a movie I don't like.)

I'm sure there are some who would say you're missing out because you don't participate in activity <x>. It's snobbery.

I also think it's snobbery. It's ridiculous to assume that reading always challenges you in ways that other activities and interests never can.

[reph]

I'm surprised to see reading classified as a hobby. Reading, at its best, makes you think and feel in ways that collecting teacups or carving duck decoys doesn't.

[Celia Cyanide]

I'm surprised to see reading classified as a hobby. Reading, at its best, makes you think and feel in ways that collecting teacups or carving duck decoys doesn't.

Well, sometimes, it's just a diversion.

If not a hobby, what is it? It's not a profession, for most people.

Reading is capable of this, certainly, but there are other things, that can be classified as "hobbies," like watching movies, acting, or collecting art that also can.

[brinkett]

I'm surprised to see reading classified as a hobby. Reading, at its best, makes you think and feel in ways that collecting teacups or carving duck decoys doesn't.
I classify it as a hobby in the sense that it's one of the many activities someone can choose to do in their leisure time. As for it not making you think and feel in ways..., speak for yourself. Some (most) collectors are passionate about their hobby. Experiences aren't universal. Someone might get much more out of collecting stamps and interacting with other collectors than they would from reading the latest fiction by generic celebrity's dog. As usual, it's all down to each person.

[sandoz]

Joan Didion's a great example. I'd choose reading Slouching Towards Bethlehem over just about any work of fiction (except maybe the Count of Monte Cristo).
((That said, I couldn't finish a single one of her novels, anyone have the same problem?))

Or howbout Nicholson Baker? Hunter Thompson? PJ Orourke? Not all non-literary nonfiction has to be Seven Habits of Highly-Effective Dwarves, to borrow from Disney.

quick edit... Baker write fiction. And it's wonderful.

[aruna]

Put it this way. If I read a book by Dean Koontz (and I have done) I forget it the moment I close the back cover. It's gone from my mind.
If I read, say, The Little Drummer Girl (J. LeCarre) or Family Matters (Rohinton Mistry) the book stays with me long after I've put it down. I think about it for days. I miss the characters; they seem real to me. ONe book I read, I kept breaking out in tears at the outcome, for days afterwards. In some little way these books have changed my life forever; they are events in my life. Dean Koontz doesn't. (I can't even remember the name of the book I read.)

Yes, it's subjective. But, I think, it's also objective. The Koontz book was written simply to entertain, shock, frighten etc. It has no hidden layers of meaning, it is not intended to touch the reader in any way beyond that of pure distraction and entertainment. Whereas the books I mention DO have that intention.

Oh, and they are far better written!

[macandal]

All I know is, around this place, if you want something not to get read, post it in the "Literary" sub-forum of Share Your Work.

bird
blacbird, that is so true! I can attest to that!

[My-Immortal]

Put it this way. If I read a book by Dean Koontz (and I have done) I forget it the moment I close the back cover. It's gone from my mind.
If I read, say, The Little Drummer Girl (J. LeCarre) or Family Matters (Rohinton Mistry) the book stays with me long after I've put it down. I think about it for days. I miss the characters; they seem real to me. ONe book I read, I kept breaking out in tears at the outcome, for days afterwards. In some little way these books have changed my life forever; they are events in my life. Dean Koontz doesn't. (I can't even remember the name of the book I read.)

Yes, it's subjective. But, I think, it's also objective. The Koontz book was written simply to entertain, shock, frighten etc. It has no hidden layers of meaning, it is not intended to touch the reader in any way beyond that of pure distraction and entertainment. Whereas the books I mention DO have that intention.

Oh, and they are far better written!

But this is just your opinion - which is fine - but I think others may disagree with you. Sure, Koontz books are written to entertain, or shock, or frighten but are you sure there are no hidden layers of meaning? Maybe there are and you didn't find them. Is that wrong? No. Are there layers there? I don't know. Perhaps, perhaps not. To each their own. I read Koontz's book "Intensity" years ago and I still remember the two main characters quite vividly. Does that make it better than some literary book that I may have forgotten once I finished it? No. I think it depends on what you as a person connects with when you are reading the book.

Do some authors attempt to write books that do more than entertain while others don't care about anything except entertainment value? I'm sure that is the case - but does the author's intentions make one book more important or more literary than another? What if an author just wants to entertain and does a great job of doing that - does that make the book any less valuable to the world? I don't think so because perhaps THAT book connects with a core of people - perhaps they found something of value in THAT book.

Does a majority of people liking a book make it better...make it more literary...make it timeless? Is the mark of a good book only books that make you think?

I don't think you'll ever find an agreement about that. Too many people have too many ideas about what makes a good book - a timeless book - a literary book. What I may connect with on a personal level and thus find to be a good book is surely going to be different than someone else because I've had different life experiences and so have you.

I suppose the books that last are those that are able to connect with the widest range of people but I don't know if you can set out to write that book. I think it is best to write the book that is inside you, the one that is true to you and then let it go out into the world for others to experience.

But that is just my opinion...

[egem]

Put it this way. If I read a book by Dean Koontz (and I have done) I forget it the moment I close the back cover. It's gone from my mind.
If I read, say, The Little Drummer Girl (J. LeCarre) or Family Matters (Rohinton Mistry) the book stays with me long after I've put it down. I think about it for days. I miss the characters; they seem real to me. ONe book I read, I kept breaking out in tears at the outcome, for days afterwards. In some little way these books have changed my life forever; they are events in my life. Dean Koontz doesn't. (I can't even remember the name of the book I read.)

Yes, it's subjective. But, I think, it's also objective. The Koontz book was written simply to entertain, shock, frighten etc. It has no hidden layers of meaning, it is not intended to touch the reader in any way beyond that of pure distraction and entertainment. Whereas the books I mention DO have that intention.

Oh, and they are far better written!

Aruna,

I agree with you. I've found that well written books stay with me much longer than books written to entertain. Also, literary writing has has a real impact on the world where some books are concerned. Yeats wrote for revolution, The Jungle prompted congress to pass laws to protect workers in the meat packing industry. Many of the moderns changed the way that we all think of the world today. Owen and Siegried Sassoon's writing helped very much to shift the world view of human nature. We are not just talking about impact on the reader we are talking about impact on the world. These are works of fiction and poetry that worked to change how humankind live. That is power in writing. This is one reason why I feel literary writing is more lasting. I feel the moderns were concerned with changing how people look at the world and even the very nature of thinking.

[katiemac]

I don't about memorability. For the most part, I agree... but I remembered the last Harry Potter book for weeks after I put it down. I forgot The Grapes of Wrath the second I shut the cover. Literary?

[egem]

I don't about memorability. For the most part, I agree... but I remembered the last Harry Potter book for weeks after I put it down. I forgot The Grapes of Wrath the second I shut the cover. Literary?

I like Harry Potter very much. It is a great book. The book has many themes, and as an educator what more could you ask: cool teachers:)

[Celia Cyanide]

I don't about memorability. For the most part, I agree... but I remembered the last Harry Potter book for weeks after I put it down. I forgot The Grapes of Wrath the second I shut the cover. Literary?

You know, katiemac, I think you're right. I hadn't thought of it, but some books, ones that I would consider to be literary masterpieces, are not particularly memorable to me. I still remember the character names, and some of the dialog from a book I had to read for pop culture class. That was eight years ago. Why? Because it was pretty simple and obvious. More complex things don't always stay with you as much. I need to reread Being And Nothingness...

[virtue_summer]

I don't know if anyone can assume to know what an author intended when he or she wrote a book, unless they tell you of course. To say that because a book was classified by someone else as belonging to a specific genre category rather than belonging to literary fiction, that the authors intentions must have been simply to entertain is to me ridiculous. Stephen King, for example, has expressed concern over his characters, his themes, and the view of society given in his books. He threw Carrie in the trash because he didn't think he could do justice to a teenage girls point of view. He says in an introduction to Pet Sematary that the book bothered him, not because he thought people wouldn't find it entertaining, but because the themes he found expressed in it were difficult for him to accept. I believe it's in his book On Writing that he talks about the implications made about society and it's future in The Stand. These don't sound to me like concerns that an author who's only interested in entertaining readers for the moment would have.

[katiemac]

I don't know if anyone can assume to know what an author intended when he or she wrote a book, unless they tell you of course.

Yes. This reason is one of many I'm not sure it's possible to start out and try to write "literary" fiction. You may not have a genre in mind when you start, but does that make it literary? If the answer is yes, then I'm writing literary fiction right now. But I don't find that idea very comfortable, because I've always found literary fiction bigger than me. It is what it is, until some publisher says otherwise.

[egem]

I don't know if anyone can assume to know what an author intended when he or she wrote a book, unless they tell you of course. To say that because a book was classified by someone else as belonging to a specific genre category rather than belonging to literary fiction, that the authors intentions must have been simply to entertain is to me ridiculous. Stephen King, for example, has expressed concern over his characters, his themes, and the view of society given in his books. He threw Carrie in the trash because he didn't think he could do justice to a teenage girls point of view. He says in an introduction to Pet Sematary that the book bothered him, not because he thought people wouldn't find it entertaining, but because the themes he found expressed in it were difficult for him to accept. I believe it's in his book On Writing that he talks about the implications made about society and it's future in The Stand. These don't sound to me like concerns that an author who's only interested in entertaining readers for the moment would have.

You are needed in the "Why I don't think Stephen King will be remembered in 100 years" thread. Please go and voice you views there. Honestly, you seem to know a lot about him, and it would be nice to talk about him with you. See you there. :welcome:

[SeanDSchaffer]

I'm surprised to see reading classified as a hobby. Reading, at its best, makes you think and feel in ways that collecting teacups or carving duck decoys doesn't.


I would have to say it depends on how you look at the word 'hobby', reph. I always use my hobbies to improve myself as a person. Plus, a lot of hobbies are very much thinking and feeling hobbies. In Model Railroading, for example, you can use your imagination to build an entire world....and improve upon it over time. The same thing goes for playing an instrument (Mine is the drums.) I have used my hobbies to add to the quality of my writing.

So again, if someone classifies reading as a hobby, it depends on how you look at the word 'hobby'. If it's a mindless distraction, then reading definitely would not be a hobby. But if a hobby is used to make a person better, whether through the use of creativity or through the strengthening of someone's character, then in that case reading can be a hobby and a healthy one, at that.

And to someone, like myself, who might read a single book in a month because of my inability to immediately comprehend things (story-lines, character traits, etc.) the term 'hobby' would be a fitting description.

:idea:

[My-Immortal]

I would have to say it depends on how you look at the word 'hobby', reph. I always use my hobbies to improve myself as a person. Plus, a lot of hobbies are very much thinking and feeling hobbies. In Model Railroading, for example, you can use your imagination to build an entire world....and improve upon it over time. The same thing goes for playing an instrument (Mine is the drums.) I have used my hobbies to add to the quality of my writing.

So again, if someone classifies reading as a hobby, it depends on how you look at the word 'hobby'. If it's a mindless distraction, then reading definitely would not be a hobby. But if a hobby is used to make a person better, whether through the use of creativity or through the strengthening of someone's character, then in that case reading can be a hobby and a healthy one, at that.

And to someone, like myself, who might read a single book in a month because of my inability to immediately comprehend things (story-lines, character traits, etc.) the term 'hobby' would be a fitting description.

:idea:

Honestly, I don't see why it would matter if you call reading a hobby or not, but using your definition of a hobby then yes, I think it is. I also see it as part of my 'job'. I've always wanted to be a writer, and so I've always been an avid reader. I think the two go hand-in-hand (though I have a friend that is published that rarely reads). I like to see how other authors handle setting, dialogue, characterization etc by reading an assortment of their work. I also read outside the fantasy genre (generally what I enjoy writing the most) because I tend to like tossing other elements into my fantasy writing.

Take care all...

[pdr]

Nope. Reading we do all the time every day. Your and my cultures are built around the written word. We store our information and knowledge in written forms. People who don’t or can’t read have no access to that knowledge and are therefore powerless. (Think of all those new writers who fall for scams because they don't know about them. Think of all those writers who come here to ask about agents or writing or query letters.) Reading is much more than a hobby in our societies it is vital to our well being. Therefore our reaction to people who don’t read is one of horror. People who say they don’t read are, in a way, rejecting the culture.

Blacbird and Macandal I’ll read your literary work if you really want a good critique and not just a load of praise. Send me a PM after the weekend.

My-Immortal, if you write about ideas, if your themes are about those universal ideas you are writing literary genre. And while the gap has narrowed between the Mainstream and Literary genres if you use that yardstick of universal ideas then you can sort out which is which.

Literary writing I’m still waiting for Egem to define and then we can discuss it, arguing the points not the people making them!

[egem]

I'm not sure if I can do this, but I just posted this in the other thread, and I don't want to rewrite it again. Here's what I said there:

I would love to agree on a definition, but we keep getting side tracked. Your words about Hemingway will most-likely side track us again. I think we have come across the definition of literary writing a few times, but many people do not like it:

Literary fiction is a somewhat uneasy term that has come into common usage since around 1970, principally to distinguish 'serious' fiction from the many types of genre fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genre_fiction) and popular fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_fiction). For example, a traditional first novel is supposed not to be science fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction), nor a detective story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detective_story), but with literary content. It has been observed that literary fiction focuses more on style, psychological depth, and character, whereas commercial (mainstream) fiction focuses more on plot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_fiction

The 2001-2002 Writer's Guide to Book Editors Publishers and Literary Agents say "University preses produce approximately 10% of the books published in the United States each year. University presses win approximately 20% of the annual major book awards. Yet university presses generate just 2% of the annual sales revenue."

I could fight to call literary fiction "serious" fiction, but I'm not going to do that. We can go on talking about how good or bad writers are or about whatever else, but I'm not going to force my definition on other writers. We can still talk about this. We can be civil. I don't think talking a little about commercial publishers and literary publishers is a bad thing. Some people in this thread have made very good points about literary writing. This is the type of writing I write and read. So I want to talk about it. It's not meant to be an attack. It's not meant to be anything other than a discussion on writing that many of the writers here like. You can say whatever you like about it, but Joyce, Yeats, Carver, and others mentioned here are not coming up too often in other threads. That a start.

[egem]

Reading IS a hobby until you become a writer. It then becomes a professional quest or professional study. Building rockets is a hobby too until you become a rocket scientist.

[SeanDSchaffer]

Nope. Reading we do all the time every day. Your and my cultures are built around the written word. We store our information and knowledge in written forms. People who don’t or can’t read have no access to that knowledge and are therefore powerless. (Think of all those new writers who fall for scams because they don't know about them. Think of all those writers who come here to ask about agents or writing or query letters.) Reading is much more than a hobby in our societies it is vital to our well being. Therefore our reaction to people who don’t read is one of horror. People who say they don’t read are, in a way, rejecting the culture.

....Snipped.


pdr, I think you misunderstood the points about reading as a hobby. Or at least my point. I wasn't talking about reading the newspaper or reading a sign alongside the road. I was referring to reading novels, as this thread is in the 'Writing Novels' section. I never referred to not knowing how to read or simply not reading. Neither does the 'Reading as a Hobby' mentality say anything of the sort.

I was simply pointing out that not everyone reads all the time, book upon book upon book, not stopping for a rest, ever. I for one cannot do that. If I'm going to read a book, I have to do it over a length of time that spans more than a few hours. Sometimes, I have to take more than a month to finish a single book. That's why I call reading a 'Hobby'. Because I am referring to reading a novel, not everyday, ordinary, pick-up-the-newspaper-and-read-the-morning-headlines, style reading. It's a given that the majority of writers do that.

[My-Immortal]

Reading IS a hobby until you become a writer. It then becomes a professional quest or professional study. Building rockets is a hobby too until you become a rocket scientist.

Again, I think it depends on your own personal definition of what a hobby is. Sometimes I read just for the pure joy of reading with no thought to how this could help my writing career.

I would guess that even rocket scientist are still able to come home and build model rockets just for fun (of course, their model rockets are probably better than everyone elses...)

I would assume that Lance Armstrong would on occasion just ride his bike for fun....Michael Jordan would just shoot some hoops....

Just because you make money on a profession doesn't mean you have to stop doing it 'as a hobby' - (otherwise I'm really going to start feeling sorry for hookers and strippers and . . . and the men that are involved with them).

Okay - a little off topic there. Sorry! :) It's late...

Geez...now I don't know if reading is a hobby or not.... :)

take care all

[reph]

What surprises me about calling reading a hobby is that it reduces reading to a mere pastime, something you do to fill empty hours that isn't important in itself.

[SeanDSchaffer]

What surprises me about calling reading a hobby is that it reduces reading to a mere pastime, something you do to fill empty hours that isn't important in itself.


The thing about reading as a hobby or a pastime is that those empty hours are being filled by something other than sitting around collecting dust all day.

I myself am disabled, and therefore cannot hold down a job. By filling those empty hours with a pastime or hobby such as reading a novel, I am thinking much less about the fact I'm at home, alone, with very little to do; and instead I am thinking far more about the world I'm reading about. I'm also thinking a lot about how to improve my craft.

I guess the real issue of 'hobby' or 'pastime' is the individual doing the reading. For some, it's a job; for others, it's a pastime. But no matter how much or how little one reads, to me it's the idea that that person is reading at all. Whether it's a simple hobby or a part of the job description, what matters is that they're getting something from it.

[Mistook]

I dont believe your reasoning for a second. Nonfiction has always been more popular than fiction, but this isn't because of any virtue of nonfiction, it's because of fault in far too many people. Ordinary readers? Then just who are the hundreds of millions who still read fiction each and every year? Ordinary readers? Just who are they? As far as I can see, such a group either never existed, or has never gone away, depending on how you look it it.


Take every member of the cooler, and ask them, "How many people do you know of who read less than three novels a year?" Include everybody from the maid to your deadbeat brother-in-law in that total. Compare that to how many people you know who read over three novels a year.

For me the break down is roughly 150 to five.

Now, switch the word "novel" with the word "book" and the shift is dramatic. Every person I know of reads at least three books a year.
Unless I live in the lazy-reader capitol of the world, I'd have to say that this world is teeming with people who don't see the distinction between fiction and non, or literary and genre.

In other words, to most people, a book is a book.




It's just wrong to even think that there used to be some group of ordinary readers who no longer read fiction. Fiction hasn't been upstaged by anything, movies or TV. More fiction is read today than ever before. Even on a percentage basis, fiction readers have only decreased a few percentage points in the last fifty years, and is actually higher than in past centuries.


Okay, so as the population grows, the fiction demographic continues to be a given percentage of all potential readers. I won't dispute that, but I'm suggesting this percentage is, and always has been a substantial minority. More could be done to tap the lazy-reader market. Speaking as one, I'm sure they could be won over.

How can you expect me to care about fiction when it doesn't care about me? The story is always in the city, or it's an exotic location, or it's rural new england. It's nearly never the midwest, and when it is, they get it wrong. We are not all hayseed farmers out here. When it's set in the working class, they get it wrong. We're not all Joe-polooka with an IQ of ten. Musicians never appear in novels, while writers abound as characters.

Single people never appear unless it's a romance, as if all the unmarried long for is sex and eventual marriage. Every thriller protag has a wife who's been kidnapped. She's always a helpless waif who has more squeels than dialogue.

Why is outlandish fantasy the only safe outlet for superstition? Every (blinkin') body I know believes in ghosts, in ESP, fate, magic, you name it. Where's that taken seriously in the cannon of literature? I gave up looking.




Nonfiction is ever so much easier than fiction. It takes almost no effort. Those who watch movies and TV instead of reading are, by and large, the same people who wouldn't have been reading even before movies and TV came about, or who, at most, would have been reading some nonfiction. The human race has never been a group where the majority worried much about knowledge or education. . .or reading.


I'm not sure what you mean by nonfiction being easier. Every science, business, art, hobby, sport, philosophy, history and religion falls under non-fiction. If by easy you mean - more fascinating for hungry minds, then okay.

If you mean easy like a Bazooka Joe comic, I don't follow.





But there is no cloistered group of fiction readers. There is no cultish nature. Thinking this totally ignores the numbers, which are, and always have been, massive.


The five that I know who read more than three novels per year read hundreds per year. Their homes look like bookstores, and bookstores are their homes. They can improvise oral book reports on the fly for every novel in their vast collections.

I call it a cult because there seems to be no middle ground, and because the avid fiction readers I know are literally out there every day trying to convert people. Not that it's a bad thing, but talking to a person like that can be both overwhelming, and off-putting.

If I thought I could get away with reading just one or two of the five dozen books they recommend for me, I'd probably do it, but they're always looking for that born-again conversion. I can't even buy a book on my own without one of these guys weighing in on my choice, and it's never a good enough book, and they always spoil the surprises so why bother? Obviously fiction belongs to them and I have no business exploring it (or not) on my own terms. So nevermind.




As for: Because these non-fiction works are now superior to fiction in delivering what readers crave: Laughs, lives, thrills and chills, affirmation of good over evil, philosophical guidance, fascinating possibilities, and last but not least, education.


No, not hardly. That's silliness. Nonfiction is vastly inferior in every one of these things. Including education. The person who doesn't read fiction is in no way educated. Or at best, is only partially educated. You cannot be educated and read only one or the other. Again, the cause is not in the superiority of nonfiction, but in the lack of understanding, and in the lack of imagination, by those who do not read fiction. What nonfiction delivers is merely what some people want. What some people are willing to settle for. And it's a terribly sad thing.



Again, Non-fiction covers quite a span of Dewey decimals including all text books for everything including the study of fiction. I find it very difficult to believe that none of this has any educational value. I taught myself how to hand code HTML from library books, and the resulting website not only blows the pants off what most people can do with webspinning software, it's packed to the gills with proof that I have an imagination for imagery, music, and design.

I created the entire thing myself. Every blasted pixel, sound wave, and word. Every script and line of code developed by me. I'm sure you're thinking this is an empty boast, but it's two clicks away from that screen name up there, so anybody can go judge for themselves.

I could go on about Carl Segan, writing about astrophysics in a way that captures the imagination. Asimov - a brilliant master who has at least one book in every section of non-fiction. There are stories from naturalists who observe wildlife from remote locations - always piqued my imagination. I once read a book by a microbiologist that forever changed the way I see the world, not to mention the way I shave my face. non-fiction is brimming over with ways to stimulate the imagination.

Not that fiction isn't, but non-fiction certainly offers as much of a universe to those who would otherwise be ignorant. Non-fiction manuals can show a man how to do everything from fixing his brakes to building a skyscraper. How does that not count as education?




This also makes it seem that there are two groups of readers; those who read nonfiction, and those who read fiction, and this is even more wrong. Take away the fiction readers who also read nonfiction, and most of the nonfiction market would dry up and blow away.


I see your point, but I don't think you grasp the scope of everything covered by non-fiction. I don't think you realize that there are people who read it for the sheer pleasure, just as with fiction. I'll agree, most people read both, but I don't think people read both equally.

I can almost understand myself seeming foolish and arrogant to presume to write fiction when I prefer non-fiction, but if you turn it around, I very much doubt that you as a carreer fiction writer, would get much flack if you wanted to break into non-fiction. Maybe you're as well versed in non as in fiction, but I doubt that the question would ever come up.






Nonfiction is in no way superior in any of these categories, and, in fact, can't even begin to compete in most of them. And an awful lot of the nonfiction being read today may purport to be real, which makes it ever so easy to read and believe, but it is, in fact, as far from real, as far from factual, as it's possible to get. The fact that people eat it says very little about nonfiction, and very much about its readers. Easier to believe? Yep, it is easier, isn't it. Even when it's an out and out lie. Easier. Some take the easy path, some the hard.


I think it can and does compete because non-fic writers... well, they're like Avis. They try harder to engage every reader. Fourty years ago, non-fic, especially in the sciences was dry and boring, but they've turned over a new leaf since then, and I suspect it started with Sagan. These days, I do believe they have won the hearts and minds of the public.

Contemporary non-fic is popular even among high school drop-outs, because it's free of recrimination and full of love for the subject at hand. When I read a non-fic, I feel like part of the audience, rather than a disoriented interloper.




Cloistered? Cultish? If so, it's the largest group of cloistered, cultish people the world has ever seen. And the largest group of truly educated people the world has ever seen. And a clositered, cultish group that has a distinct advanatge over everyone else.


More or less, that's the attitude that 19th century scholars had with regard to their lordly volumes. These days, most research can't survive without public enthusiasm. Hence, the about-face. How can you deny cult status, and in the same breath claim to have the one true education, and the distinct advantage over everyone? Most of that is a matter of opinion.

In the universe of painters, there is a class respectfully known as "Naive". Grandmaw Moses is just one from this "un-school" of painting. Their work is a source of fascination to scholars and the general public.

In music, we have Folk. We also have Blues, created by slaves who had zero knowledge of Bach, Beethoven, and their ilk. Blues has proven to be so brilliant that it lies at the root of every form of American music to this day.

I would think these slaves had some kind of advantage that doesn't figure into your philosophy.




I certainly don't look upon nonfiction readers as illiterate. I am a nonfiction reader. I read reams of nonfiction. But I do look upon those who don't read fiction as lacking a good education, and of lacking imagination. And the saying, "Those who do not read are as ignorant as those who cannot read" holds as true for fiction as for nonfiction. Probably more so. The best nonfiction may contain many facts, though much more of it contains only opinion, or outright lack of facts, but darned little of it contains anything resembling truth.


I'll grant you, if the subject is biography, or self-help, or even history, then there's bound to be as much fiction as fact, and anybody who doesn't see that needs a clue. I'll also grant that a fully rounded education would include equal and generous portions of both, and in that respect, I'm lacking. No question. I won't win at Jeopardy. But it doesn't mean I lack imagination.

In the world of painting again, there's an old argument that obsessive reverence to the masters, and over-schooling in technique serve to quash true creativity. Again, the Naive's prove this is true, because their work goes on the auction block for as much or more than any schooled master.

Obviously education is important, and it's nice to think that it's still possible for one human being to absorb the whole of human endeavor and still have a brain cell left for their own original thought, but it's not possible in practice.



Fiction is a very different world from nonfiction, and any superiority you see in nonfiction is only an illusion. But, yep, it sure is easier.



I never said nonfic was inherently superior. My point was that it's doing a better job of reaching that lazy-reader demographic than fiction. If you think it's easy to turn chemistry, or economics into enjoyable reading, I'll eat my baseball cap. If you think a novel about chemistry could teach as much or more than a nonfic, I'll eat my other baseball cap.

And if you think it's easier for me to debate than to lie about my reading habits, I'll eat the hat stand.


Like you, I want to capture the audience from which I sprang. To them, a book is a book, and I chose fiction for my presentation because it makes the most sense for the story in question. If that offends professional sensibilities, it's par for the course.

[Tiaga]

Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book. - Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

of course he didn't say if those books were fiction or nonfiction....

[pdr]

Thank you Sean D for your kind explanation but NO I am talking about fiction. I didn’t want to post a long screed that wouldn’t be read but I say again reading fiction is part of our culture. It’s a way of understanding about people and their relationships.

The theory goes that our cultures store their knowledge in a print form. And it is understood that fiction is part of our culture because it is a way of understanding the human condition. Our lives are too short to experience everything but through reading fiction we can learn about how people might think or act in ways we would not consider. However this means fiction that is about universal concerns. That means literary fiction.

Hence the gulf between genre fiction like Horror or Romance and the Literary genre.
Literary fiction tries to examine the universals that are important to our culture. Genres like SF or Mystery are specifically about the future or a crime. Doesn’t mean to say the writing won’t be good or even excellent but it won’t be ‘of cultural importance’ and 'help a reader understand what being human is all about’.

So to many people it does sound shocking to hear you say that reading is a hobby not a vital part of your life. You are taking what Reph (I think, I’m not taking a liberty here, Reph!) and I consider one of the necessities of life and saying it doesn’t have that meaning.

And for Egem (Did you choose your name from the expression to egg 'em on by the way?) to keep muddling literary writing with the literary genre is confusing. Can we use another source as our research resource. I have my doubts about wikipedia's validity and don't know their research sources.

[brinkett]

Genres like SF or Mystery are specifically about the future or a crime. Doesn’t mean to say the writing won’t be good or even excellent but it won’t be ‘of cultural importance’ and 'help a reader understand what being human is all about’.

What a load of horse twaddle.


So to many people it does sound shocking to hear you say that reading is a hobby not a vital part of your life. You are taking what Reph (I think, I’m not taking a liberty here, Reph!) and I consider one of the necessities of life and saying it doesn’t have that meaning.

Perhaps we're saying it doesn't have that meaning for *everyone*. I love to read, but I love to do other things too. I learn about myself and the 'human condition' from all sorts of activities. Reading isn't unique in that respect.

[SeanDSchaffer]

Thank you Sean D for your kind explanation but NO I am talking about fiction. I didn’t want to post a long screed that wouldn’t be read but I say again reading fiction is part of our culture. It’s a way of understanding about people and their relationships.

The theory goes that our cultures store their knowledge in a print form. And it is understood that fiction is part of our culture because it is a way of understanding the human condition. Our lives are too short to experience everything but through reading fiction we can learn about how people might think or act in ways we would not consider. However this means fiction that is about universal concerns. That means literary fiction.

Hence the gulf between genre fiction like Horror or Romance and the Literary genre.
Literary fiction tries to examine the universals that are important to our culture. Genres like SF or Mystery are specifically about the future or a crime. Doesn’t mean to say the writing won’t be good or even excellent but it won’t be ‘of cultural importance’ and 'help a reader understand what being human is all about’.

So to many people it does sound shocking to hear you say that reading is a hobby not a vital part of your life. You are taking what Reph (I think, I’m not taking a liberty here, Reph!) and I consider one of the necessities of life and saying it doesn’t have that meaning.

....Snipped.

I can see where you're coming from in the first few paragraphs of the post I quoted above; I'm thinking maybe our definitions of the words 'hobby' or 'pastime' might somehow be different from each other. In other words, maybe we're speaking on two different wavelengths.

I believe wholeheartedly that reading is central to the society in which we live. If I did not, I would not have picked up writing as my chosen career. But when many of us refer to a hobby or pastime, I think we're referring more to where and when we read than how voraciously we read. I, for one, have to take the bus if I go anywhere. Therefore, I enjoy sometimes taking a book with me to read along the way. I mean, looking at the traffic moving by can be quite boring.

Others might bring a book with them to work, to read on their lunch breaks. Still others might read a little bit of a book just when they get up or just before they go to bed. These examples are what I personally am referring to when I say 'Hobby' or 'Pastime' in connection with reading. Maybe the others who spoke about it weren't. I couldn't say.


On to the subject of literary writing, I think it should be pointed out that not all genre fiction works are about the limited issues of a crime, or the future, etc. I can think of a couple good SF books that have to do with more than just the future; and I can think of plenty of Fantasy works that discuss what it means to be human.

I think when we speak of literary writing, we ought not to look at it based solely on Genre. Try to remember that literary writing deals with issues that are universal to Humanity. Just because it might be labeled 'Science-fiction' or 'Fantasy', or any particular genre, does not mean the work is not literary in the terms of its writing or its message to people. In my own humble opinion, the term 'literary writing' is defined not by the style of writing, but the message brought forth by the writer through his or her work.

[reph]

Our lives are too short to experience everything but through reading fiction we can learn about how people might think or act in ways we would not consider. However this means fiction that is about universal concerns. That means literary fiction.
I agree with that part. However, . . .
Hence the gulf between genre fiction like Horror or Romance and the Literary genre. Literary fiction tries to examine the universals that are important to our culture. Genres like SF or Mystery are specifically about the future or a crime.
I can't agree with that part. A novel can be "about" anything – love, crime, war, travel, fishing, work, motorcycle maintenance – and illuminate the human condition.
So to many people it does sound shocking to hear you say that reading is a hobby not a vital part of your life. You are taking what Reph (I think, I’m not taking a liberty here, Reph!) and I consider one of the necessities of life and saying it doesn’t have that meaning.
That's pretty much what I meant. To me, calling something a hobby trivializes it, reduces it to occupational therapy. As Sean said, though, we don't all seem to agree on what makes an activity a hobby.

[brinkett]

As Sean said, though, we don't all seem to agree on what makes an activity a hobby.
Or on what the word hobby means. I don't understand why calling something a hobby trivializes it, but I think my definition of hobby is broader than yours.

[brokenfingers]

What surprises me about calling reading a hobby is that it reduces reading to a mere pastime, something you do to fill empty hours that isn't important in itself.This may come as a big surprise to you but that's EXACTLY what it is for millions of people in this world.

Of course, not for those who frequent this forum (obviously) - but for the rest of the people in the world that do not have reading/writing related careers - reading is exactly that - a hobby.

Before I decided to write, reading novels was something I did in my leisure/spare time to pass away the hours. Along with drinking, sports, watching TV, chasing women, and a multitude of other things that I could choose to do when I wasn't having to do whatever I had to do to make a living.

It was just one of many hobbies or pastimes.

Obviously, it means more to you and that's fine but I can't understand your confusion that not everybody on this Earth feels that way. There are many people in this world who seem to do fine and dandy without any desire to ever lift a book for reading pleasure.

[Perks]

Or on what the word hobby means. I don't understand why calling something a hobby trivializes it, but I think my definition of hobby is broader than yours.

I don't find that it's unusual for a person's hobbies to much more telling about who they are than their profession.

[Euan H.]

... I could never get with the theory of the "natural superiority of reading." ... And yet some people think that if people read crap, it's still good because "at least they're reading," as opposed to watching a brilliant film, which is much more rewarding than reading a crap book.

Actually, reading *is* objectively better. At least in terms of cognitive development of children, and in learning to write well.

From: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=473979

“When a child learns to read and write, he must access the schema
developed in his brain. As he reads, the child creates pictures in his
mind and uses imagination and points of reference to put the story
together. Television images do not go through a complex symbolic
transformation. ... Watching television (and
playing video games) does not develop a child's skills in word
recognition, decoding, vocabulary, spelling or high-level thinking. “

"the connection between television's effects on
children's reading abilities and the decline in their writing skills
is clear: there is no question in the minds of educators that a
student who cannot read with the true comprehension will never learn
to write well. Writing, after all, is book talk . . . and you only
learn book talk by reading." Winn makes a direct connection between
television watching and inadequate writing skills. She notes that
reading and writing are simply neglected by a generation raised on
television.”

There's a link on the page I linked to that goes to the full text of the original.

Watching TV (or movies) and reading are also associated with different amounts and types of neural activity. You can find out more about that here
(http://www.causeof.org/brainwaves.htm)
It seems obvious to me that the very nature of reading is going to make it more cognitively demanding than watching TV or a movie. The very nature of the writing system necessitates this. Reading a 'crap' book is going to demand more of someone than watching a movie--ANY movie--simply because of the packing and unpacking of symbol/referent relationships that reading involves.

[reph]

I don't understand why calling something a hobby trivializes it, but I think my definition of hobby is broader than yours.
Your definition probably is broader.

I mean that calling something a hobby trivializes it because a hobby is an activity pursued without expectation of insight, self-improvement, learning, and the things in that cluster. Something pursued more seriously, such as amateur astronomy, which has a quite respectable history, I'd call an avocation.

A hobby, by my understanding, is something you take up because your evenings are empty between dinner and bedtime.

[brokenfingers]

Once again, I ask: What is wrong with reading being a hobby for some people - no matter how you define it?

[SeanDSchaffer]

To me, the definition of 'Hobby' is similar to what my Dictionary says. My Dictionary defines a 'Hobby' as a "Pursuit of interest for the purpose of relaxation."

Like most people, I have a lot on my mind almost all the time. I love to sit down and read just for the sake of reading. It gives me something to think about other than bills or budgets, publishers or what's coming in the mail today. This is why I like to consider reading a hobby. It's something that I do for the purpose of relaxing. If I cannot relax while reading a good novel, I might as well not read it.

That's what I personally am talking about when I refer to reading as a hobby.

But I might point out that just because I consider it a hobby, doesn't mean I consider it trivial. As I cannot afford very many hobbies, what ones I do participate in, I take very seriously.


---


I believe someone asked us to define what we think 'Literary writing' is.

I think Literary Writing is any writing--regardless of genre--that gives either answers to life's questions, or is willing to ask questions that maybe society has been afraid to deal with in the past.

As a Fantasy writer, I see much of the F/SF Genre does indeed deal with the tough questions. I think of something J. Michael Straczinsky said in an interview concerning one of his television programs (Babylon 5, if I remember correctly). He said (I don't remember his exact words, but I'll try to get them as close as possible) that everyone seems to have "too many answers, and not enough damn questions."

I think that quote pretty much gives what I believe 'Literary writing' to be, in a nutshell. IMO, asking questions that aren't normally dealt with by our society, for whatever reason they might not be, is really the crux of the matter. Whether the questions are asked in the form of futuristic war stories, or in the form of a knight going forth on a quest, if it deals with questions that are relevant to our day, then I would personally say it could qualify as literary writing.

[reph]

Once again, I ask: What is wrong with reading being a hobby for some people - no matter how you define it?
Nothing's wrong with its being a hobby for some people if that's the way they use it. I just didn't expect that people who are deeply invested in writing would think of reading as a hobby.

[brinkett]

A hobby, by my understanding, is something you take up because your evenings are empty between dinner and bedtime.
Okay. I think of a hobby as something you take up without the expectation of being paid. Dictionary.com says it's "An activity or interest pursued outside one's regular occupation and engaged in primarily for pleasure." Your definition of hobby is much narrower than either of those.


I just didn't expect that people who are deeply invested in writing would think of reading as a hobby.

You can be interested in writing, but still read for pleasure (or try to, anyway--once you get past the grinding your teeth every time you see one of the 'rules' being broken stage).


But I might point out that just because I consider it a hobby, doesn't mean I consider it trivial.

I think most people take their hobbies seriously. :)

[Celia Cyanide]

So to many people it does sound shocking to hear you say that reading is a hobby not a vital part of your life. You are taking what Reph (I think, I’m not taking a liberty here, Reph!) and I consider one of the necessities of life and saying it doesn’t have that meaning.

It's a necessity for your life, but not for everyone. Many people do not read novels, at least not very often, and live happy, productive lives. And I do think Brinkett was correct to use the word "snobbish," to describe the implication that these people are somehow less intelligent, incomplete, or otherwise not as good as people who read all the time. I'm not saying that you mean to imply this, but the fact that people are just fine without reading proves that not everyone needs to do it.

Book clubs aside, reading is a solitary, sedentary activity. I know many people who don't like to read. Many of them are extroverted, and only truly love doing things that involve interacting with other people. Others are only truly happy being physically active. To them, lots of excercise is one of the necessities of life. As for myself, I can't stand it. And I'm fine the way I am.

And no, when brinkett first used the word "hobby," it was not to say that reading has no meaning. Regardless of the definition of the word "hobby," I don't think anyone considers their hobbies meaningless. One way to define a hobby is something you enjoy doing that isn't your profession. Unless you are a professional book reviewer, you probably don't read for a living.

Also, for some people reading is only a hobby, in the same way that collecting beer mugs is a hobby. They enjoy reading, but don't consider it a necessity of life.

[Celia Cyanide]

It seems obvious to me that the very nature of reading is going to make it more cognitively demanding than watching TV or a movie. The very nature of the writing system necessitates this. Reading a 'crap' book is going to demand more of someone than watching a movie--ANY movie--simply because of the packing and unpacking of symbol/referent relationships that reading involves.

Reading is good for children, but when we're talking about adults, I don't agree. People who are interested in film, and take the time to pay careful attention to the films they watch, are infinitely more interesting, IMO, that people who just read crap books all the time.

[brokenfingers]

It's a necessity for your life, but not for everyone. Many people do not read novels, at least not very often, and live happy, productive lives. The owner of this site, Jenna Glatzer, is one such person.

[virtue_summer]

I don't know how anyone can say that genre stories are just about the plots that they present and that works classified as literary fiction automatically address universal concerns. Anyone who reads Ray Bradbury's stories, for instance, should immediately catch on to the fact that his future worlds and other planets are not supposed to be interpreted in any sort of literal manner but are tools that can be used, a background against which he can explore human issues. His short story "The Other Foot", for example, is about racism. Other works of his explore a concern for technology's influence on society, the human need for social contact, our fear of getting old, etc. The idea that these aren't universal issues and concerns, is absurd. It's like saying that Animal Farm is just a funny little story about barnyard animals, or that Johnathon Swift really did want to feed the poor Irish Catholic children to the English. It's refusing to look beyond the literal statements or events at what they actually mean. Seriously, how can people look beyond the obvious of works like Gulliver's Travels and see the metaphors but get so blinded by whatever superficial category a publisher or bookstore has decided to put a book in, that they can't do the same for contemporary works? And not all of the stories I've read that are classified as literary fiction address universal concerns either. Some of them just read as shallow attempts to gain attention by throwing out anything associated with genre fiction (like plots) and replacing it with supposed psychological analysis or philosophical ranting. Really, if I want to read straight psychological analysis, I'll read a psychology book and if I want to read philosophy, I'll pick up a book about that. Not to say there aren't equally atrocious genre writers. There are. I just believe that each work and each author should be judged individually.

Note: I know Bradbury is now classified as literary by some but I see the same kind of metaphorical use of science fiction and fantasy settings in more contemporary works.

[brinkett]

And no, when brinkett first used the word "hobby," it was not to say that reading has no meaning. Regardless of the definition of the word "hobby," I don't think anyone considers their hobbies meaningless. One way to define a hobby is something you enjoy doing that isn't your profession. Unless you are a professional book reviewer, you probably don't read for a living.

Also, for some people reading is only a hobby, in the same way that collecting beer mugs is a hobby. They enjoy reading, but don't consider it a necessity of life.
What I initially responded to was the attitude that people who don't read fiction are somehow inferior to those who do. I know several people who don't read fiction--they gain insights into the human condition and broaden their horizons in other ways. Sometimes, nothing can substitute for experience, not even brilliantly written fiction. And as several others, particularly brokenfingers, have pointed out, even for many people who do read, it's nothing more than to pass the time, and so what?

Celia, believe it or not, I know someone who's a professional reader. She isn't a book reviewer--she works for a media company that supplies clients with clips about their subjects of interest. She reads newspapers all day.

[Celia Cyanide]

Celia, believe it or not, I know someone who's a professional reader. She isn't a book reviewer--she works for a media company that supplies clients with clips about their subjects of interest. She reads newspapers all day.

No way! I suppose the million dollar question is...does she read as a "hobby"? ;)

[goatpiper]

From the Compact Oxford English Dictionary:

literary - adjective 1 concerning the writing, study, or content of literature, especially of the kind valued for quality of form. 2 associated with literary works or formal writing.
---ORIGIN originally in the sense "relating to the letters of the alphabet": from Latin litera 'letter of the alphabet'.

I think the definition displayed against the origin conveys how this word (like all words in human culture) has evolved to represent a category of literature that exclusively contains writing of 'quality'. Exactly what 'quality' is, though, seems very subjective to me. I'm sure many people could come to a consensus on what it is, but that's true of many things.
I've always been interested in how humans have some undying need to put every bloody thing in a box and label it, and are confounded by things that refuse to submit to a single label. I am aware that categorization is an important part of how we communicate and understand different things, but I do think we get a little excessive with trying to isolate everything - trying to cram it into one 'box', as it were.
That's my brief two sense on that aspect of things. On another angle, I think this is a great thread to bring up Neal Stephenson's whole Beowulf writer/Dante writer concept.
Go here and scroll down just a bit to 2) the lack of respect... (http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/04/10/20/1518217.shtml?tid=192&tid=214&tid=126&tid=11)
It's a very fun and well-put perspective, imho. I'm biased, though, since I think Neal is the bee's knees and the cat's meow. Is he literary? I really don't care, 'cuz he rocks it out and makes some pretty dern good stories, with some really fun writing.

[aruna]

II just believe that each work and each author should be judged individually.

.

Amen to that. And on the subject of Hemingway:
th efirst book I read by him, about 15 years ago, was "For whom the Bell Tolls". It blew me away. I wept for days after I finished it, I couldn't sleep for thinking about it. Every time I've seen a field of cropped wheat, since then, I've remembered Maria's hair.

I immediately declared Hemingway to be my favourite author, and went on to read as many of his books as I could get my hands on (not too easy, as I was livingin Germany at the time and didn't have the internet.)

What a disappointment! The worst was "The Sun Also Rises", which I have learnt is regarded as some to be one of the greatest literary works of the last century. Poppycock! It was the most boring book I've ever read (well, almost).

I do believe that there are objectively "better" books, in that they are better written. And some books really don't go beyond a shallow plot line intended to titillate (porn) or shock (horror) or thrill, (well, thriller). But at the end of the day there's good and bad fiction, deep and shallow fiction within each genre.

And after that, there's the subjerive response of each and every one of us. A bok that blows me away and moves me to tears may leave you cold; a book that makes you reflect on the Meaning of Life, Death and the Survival of the Soul may leave me wondering what's for dinner.

I do believe that good books can be signposts along our paths through life; but different books mean different things to each of us.

[Medievalist]

On another angle, I think this is a great thread to bring up Neal Stephenson's whole Beowulf writer/Dante writer concept.
Go here and scroll down just a bit to 2) the lack of respect... (http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/04/10/20/1518217.shtml?tid=192&tid=214&tid=126&tid=11)
It's a very fun and well-put perspective, imho. I'm biased, though, since I think Neal is the bee's knees and the cat's meow. Is he literary? I really don't care, 'cuz he rocks it out and makes some pretty dern good stories, with some really fun writing.

Except Stephenson, like Egem, is relying on false premises:

http://www.digitalmedievalist.com/news/archive/2004_10_01_archive.html

[goatpiper]

Nice! Thanks for the link. I love Neal, but have no problem with him being inaccurate.
Despite the incorrect model, I still think he makes an interesting statement. Either way, I'm still in the camp of judging things on a case by case basis, not on the mold they fit or don't fit into.

[SeanDSchaffer]

Either way, I'm still in the camp of judging things on a case by case basis, not on the mold they fit or don't fit into.


I'd have to agree here. Literary writing, IMO, should not be defined so much by genre, as it should be by the quality of an individual written work. If all 'Literary fiction' is in fact written well, then by sheer necessity all 'Genre fiction' would have to be poorly written, or at least of inferior quality.

I'm pretty sure you'll agree that such an idea is ludicrous. No one author's writing can be relegated to 'good' or 'poor' based solely upon what subject matter they write; rather, it must be judged upon its own merit.

[Medievalist]

I'm still in the camp of judging things on a case by case basis, not on the mold they fit or don't fit into.

I'm with you. Perhaps because I'm constantly having to deal with issues of canonicity, I think using classifications like "literary fiction" is a waste of time, in part because such efforts are really saying:

I/we like texts like these { }.

I/we suggest calling such texts {literary fiction}.

I/we feel {literary fiction} is qualitatively {superior} to other prose styles.

It is, at best, a naive argument.

[egem]

I did post a definition of literary writing a little while ago, and then we got on the subject of writing being a hobby (that's good too, I think). Getting back to the definition:

Literary fiction is a somewhat uneasy term that has come into common usage since around 1970, principally to distinguish 'serious' fiction from the many types of genre fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genre_fiction) and popular fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_fiction). For example, a traditional first novel is supposed not to be science fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction), nor a detective story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detective_story), but with literary content. It has been observed that literary fiction focuses more on style, psychological depth, and character, whereas commercial (mainstream) fiction focuses more on plot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_fiction

I don't think many will like it, so maybe we can make a two pronged attack on this. What do you think of the definition or better yet how would you change it to fit "literary works"? Second is in relation to Medieval's comment:


I/we feel {literary fiction} is qualitatively {superior} to other prose styles.
It is, at best, a naive argument.

Does everyone agree that it is "naive" to judge one book superior to another? Do we really feel that we cannot classify one work as being better than another by the merits of the writing?

[HConn]

Does everyone agree that it is "naive" to judge one book superior to another? Do we really feel that we cannot classify one work as being better than another by the merits of the writing?


Egem, do you see the difference between what you just said and what you quoted from Medievalist?

[goatpiper]

I don't think Medievalist (correct me if I'm wrong here, Med.) was taking exception to the subjective classification of one work as superior to another one. By categorizing things, we move into the realm of generalization, and that's where the problem arises. I think this is the point that some of us are trying to make - if you say that a novel is 'literary', is it therefore automatically of superior quality to something that is 'non-literary'? What is the basis for that judgement? Do you look at something and say "wow, that's a really ripping-good yarn told with awesome writing" and therefore classify it as 'literary'? This is where we fall into the great file cabinet abyss. If it smacks of a genre, but is told really well, is it literary or, say, sci-fi? Is it literary sci-fi, or sci-fi literary? Is the term 'literary' therefore a qualitative term that simply means 'excellent quality writing'? If I'm getting confusing, then I think I'm making my point.

[egem]

Egem, do you see the difference between what you just said and what you quoted from Medievalist?

If you read the definition you will see I'm proposing that the best works of fiction become literary. He's saying it is naive to have a classification for them, and I would guess he has already classified them.

[goatpiper]

I would argue that all writing is literary, since the basis of the word is 'having to do with the letters of the alphabet'.
Have I said I hate categories yet?

person at party: What do you do?
writer: I write.
pap: What do you write?
writer: Well, it's kind of a mix of different things.
pap: Whaddayamean? Do you write sci-fi, thrillers...what? Or do you write literary stuff?
writer: Well, I hope it's considered literary one day, when I'm dead. Until then, I guess its like thriller/mystery with a dash of surrealism and a pinch of sci-fi.
pap: Whaddayamean?
writer: I'll call you in 50 years when it debuts on the bargain rack at Barnes and Noble. Then you can read it and see.

Laugh it up...very close to actual conversations I've had.

[FolkloreFanatic]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Medievalist
I/we feel {literary fiction} is qualitatively {superior} to other prose styles.
It is, at best, a naive argument.


Does everyone agree that it is "naive" to judge one book superior to another? Do we really feel that we cannot classify one work as being better than another by the merits of the writing?


Medievalist is not proposing that we refrain from calling one book better than the other, as far as I can tell. It seems like Med is pointing out the silliness of having a genre called 'literary,' where, in a system that separates by plot/setting/thematic structures, one single genre exists on the merit of 'critical review.'

[egem]

I would argue that all writing is literary, since the basis of the word is 'having to do with the letters of the alphabet'.
Have I said I hate categories yet?

person at party: What do you do?
writer: I write.
pap: What do you write?
writer: Well, it's kind of a mix of different things.
pap: Whaddayamean? Do you write sci-fi, thrillers...what? Or do you write literary stuff?
writer: Well, I hope it's considered literary one day, when I'm dead. Until then, I guess its like thriller/mystery with a dash of surrealism and a pinch of sci-fi.
pap: Whaddayamean?
writer: I'll call you in 50 years when it debuts on the bargain rack at Barnes and Noble. Then you can read it and see.

Laugh it up...very close to actual conversations I've had.

I think you make a good point. I'm sorry by the way, but you may have had the same reaction if you said you were a literary writer. You said you hope your work will be considered literary. I'm saying that there are people out there writing only for this purpose (literary genre). If you write scifi works you have many things on your mind about the work, not just being literary.

[goatpiper]

Well...I'm not overly concerned with becoming or being a 'literary writer', as the generally accepted definition goes...that last post was close to conversations I've had, but like many autobiographical pieces of fiction, it was padded with lies.

[SeanDSchaffer]

If you read the definition you will see I'm proposing that the best works of fiction become literary. He's saying it is naive to have a classification for them, and I would guess he has already classified them.

My emphasis.

Just FYI, Egem, please refer to Medievalist's signature line before assigning a gender.

And frankly, I've read what she said. Her quote reads nothing like what you've claimed above that she said. I happen to agree with Medievalist on the idea that assigning a classification for what comprise 'literary' works and 'other' works is rather naive. It's as if to say, "This story is about this, so therefore it is a Literary work," or vice-versa, without ever looking at the quality of the writing or at the content of the story itself. It makes sense to me, therefore, that assigning a classification for 'literary' fiction versus anything else is rather naive.

[HConn]

If you read the definition you will see I'm proposing that the best works of fiction become literary. He's saying it is naive to have a classification for them, and I would guess he has already classified them.

So that would be "no," then.

[egem]

My emphasis.

Just FYI, Egem, please refer to Medievalist's signature line before assigning a gender.

And frankly, I've read what she said. Her quote reads nothing like what you've claimed above that she said. I happen to agree with Medievalist on the idea that assigning a classification for what comprise 'literary' works and 'other' works is rather naive. It's as if to say, "This story is about this, so therefore it is a Literary work," or vice-versa, without ever looking at the quality of the writing or at the content of the story itself. It makes sense to me, therefore, that assigning a classification for 'literary' fiction versus anything else is rather naive.

How about the scifi genre then? Can you classify a scifi novel as scifi or would you just say let's see what's inside the book first, and if it's not a very good book then we'll call it junk, but if it is a good book we'll call it scifi. That's maddness. There is a nature to literary writing (the genre) just like their is a nature to any other genre.

I was being a little ironic in what I said about the post. What she (and I'm sorry I got that wrong) is saying is that we can classify any work except a literary work? Works that are not in a genre that speak to the human condition and win a lot of literary awards are literary then?

[egem]

Just out of curiosity if there is not a literary genre how would you classify Joyce Carol Oates or Thom Jones or David Foster Wallace or Raymond Carver or Richard Ford or Ha Jin, or any other writer that is considered literary? That big invisible whole that you have on your book shelf is the literary writing section. When you have a bunch of writers writing the same way for the same purpose you have a genre.

[My-Immortal]

Wow - is anyone else getting a headache yet? :)

It seems there are two definitions of the word 'literary' being floated around here and people are discussing the two as if they are the same and it rather seems like comparing apples and oranges...

#1) Some people seem to think a 'literary' book is simply a very well written book.

#2) Some people seem to think a 'literary' book is one that focuses on universal themes, common people experiencing common problems etc.

#1 - is using the term to define the quality of any given book.

#2 - is creating an entirely diferent genre apart from scifi, fantasy, romance, westerns etc.

Some people write genre books that are so good / well written that they remain in that genre but are also called #1.

Some people write books that fall into category #2 (thus avoiding a specific genre) and hope that it is also #1.

And then there are some people that write books that are #2. (that one was meant to be humorous) :)

I don't know if any of this helps - but to use some basic terms that's what I got out of this entire thread.

Take care all and have a great weekend. :)

[My-Immortal]

Just out of curiosity if there is not a literary genre how would you classify Joyce Carol Oates or Thom Jones or David Foster Wallace or Raymond Carver or Richard Ford or Ha Jin, or any other writer that is considered literary? That big invisible whole that you have on your book shelf is the literary writing section. When you have a bunch of writers writing the same way for the same purpose you have a genre.

Fiction...?

When I was in school there was a section of books that was simply called "Fiction".

There was sci-fi, fantasy, western, romances, mysteries and FICTION...(and on the other side of the library was the non-fiction divided up by the dewey decimal system) The FICTION section was pretty much everything else that didn't fall into a specific genre.

[virtue_summer]

Literary fiction is a somewhat uneasy term that has come into common usage since around 1970, principally to distinguish 'serious' fiction from the many types of genre fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genre_fiction) and popular fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_fiction). For example, a traditional first novel is supposed not to be science fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction), nor a detective story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detective_story), but with literary content. It has been observed that literary fiction focuses more on style, psychological depth, and character, whereas commercial (mainstream) fiction focuses more on plot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_fiction


What, pray tell, is "literary content"? Does this mean the work should have none of the subject matter associated with genre fiction? So no romance, mystery, or suspense? Does this mean that if a work like Gulliver's Travels were written today that it would be classified under fantasy and because of this you would overlook it as a work of quality? I also think it's incredibly presumptuous to assume that if a book contains a space ship its focus must be on plot rather than character. That's like walking into a theater, examining the stage scenery, a few props, then proceeding to tell the playwright and director their vision for the work and why they decided to produce it.

[clintl]

How about the scifi genre then? Can you classify a scifi novel as scifi or would you just say let's see what's inside the book first, and if it's not a very good book then we'll call it junk, but if it is a good book we'll call it scifi. That's maddness. There is a nature to literary writing (the genre) just like their is a nature to any other genre.



These genre definitions are mostly marketing categories. They have little to do with what's inside the book. In my opinion, there many thematic similarities between Paul Auster's In the Country of Last Things and Samuel R. Delany's Dhalgren. Auster's book is stocked in the Literature/General Fiction section, and Delany's is stocked in the science fiction section. And the only reason for that is that Auster is regarded as a mainstream/literary writer, and Delany made his reputation as a science fiction writer, so that's where their respective readers are going to look for their books. But there's no reason at all to assign them to separate categories based on what's between the covers.

[rodentone]

I joined the Book of the Month Club once. They kept sending books and I kept buying them. I also frequented the Public Library a lot. After about a year I noticed my bookshelves. Most of the books the club had sent me were sitting there unread. The ones I had started had bookmarks less than half way through. I cancelled my subscription and decided Literary writing wasn't for me.

I like the action type paperbacks. The ones that I jokingly tell people I could tear the middle out of and not miss anything. They're action sequences, one after the other, from front to rear. The kind with little plot to memorize. I can read them five or ten minutes at a time.

I read War and Peace by Tolstoy once. It took me about five years. I'd read a little and put the book down. Next time it took me days just to remember all of the plot, then read a few more days and put it down again. No more of that.

Consequently that's the type I normally write, with no point beyond entertainment.

Oscar Rat

[scarletpeaches]

I think it's wonderful that a rodent can read at all, never mind War & Peace!

You are an inspiration to other rodents, and I shall tell my hamster all about you. :D He would do well to follow your example.

[FolkloreFanatic]

Just out of curiosity if there is not a literary genre how would you classify Joyce Carol Oates or Thom Jones or David Foster Wallace or Raymond Carver or Richard Ford or Ha Jin, or any other writer that is considered literary? That big invisible whole that you have on your book shelf is the literary writing section. When you have a bunch of writers writing the same way for the same purpose you have a genre.

General/Mainstream Fiction. Plenty of it may, in fact, look like Oates on the outside, but it's crap on the inside.

[SeanDSchaffer]

Originally Posted by goatpiper
I'm still in the camp of judging things on a case by case basis, not on the mold they fit or don't fit into.



I'm with you. Perhaps because I'm constantly having to deal with issues of canonicity, I think using classicfications like "literary fiction" is a waste of time, in part because such efforts are really saying:

I/we like texts like these { }.

I/we suggest calling such texts {literary fiction}.

I/we feel {literary fiction} is qualitatively {superior} to other prose styles.

It is, at best, a naive argument.


The above is the exact post, copied and pasted from higher up on this thread, which you have been trying to quote from, Egem.

I've noticed that you seem to 'read into it' what you want it to say, so let me explain that you need to read the entire thing in order to get the meaning of it. If you are familiar with the term "Read it in context", I think you'll understand that you're slightly mistaken in what you believe the poster to have said.


I see someone who believes in taking each work on a case-by-case basis, not fitting something into a 'class' because it is written in a particular genre. In this way, anything can qualify as 'literary' or not qualify as 'literary' based on its own merit instead of a pre-fashioned mold.


[BTW, I would like to apologize for rebuking Egem the way I did in such a public manner, concerning the issue of a particular poster's gender. I would have been a better person, and far more respectful toward both Egem and that poster, as my fellow writers, to have PM'ed Egem that particular information. For any public embarrassment I might have caused, I apologize.]

[Zonk]

"How come the United States, the country of Ideas on the March, for so long neglected fantasy and science fiction? Why is it that only during the last thirty years attention is being paid?"


If you went into the average library as you motored across America in 1932, 1945, or 1953 you would have found:
No Edgar Rice Burroughs.
No L.Frank Baum and no Oz.
In 1058 or 1962 you would have found no Asimov, no Heinlein, no van Vogt, and, er, no Bradbury...What were the reasons for this?
Among librarians and teachers, there was then, and there still somewhat dimly persists, an idea, a notion, a concept that only Fact should be eaten with your Wheaties. Fantasy? That's for the Fire Birds. Fantasy, even when it takes science-fictional forms, which it often does, is dangerous. It is escapist. It is day-dreaming. It has nothing to do with the world and the world's problems. So said the snobs who did not know themselves as snobs.

Then the students
...walked into the classrooms...and placed a gentle bomb on teacher's desk. Instead of an apple it was Asimov.
"What's that?" the teacher asked, suspiciously.
"Try it. It's good for you," said the students.
"No thanks"
"Try it," said the students. "Read the first page. If you dont like it, stop." and the clever students turned and went away.

And the bomb exploded.
They not only read the first but the second paragraph, the second and third pages, the fourth and fifth chapters.
"My God!" they cried, almost in unison, "there books are about something!"
"Good Lord!" they cried, reading a second book, "there are Ideas here!"


The children sensed, if they could not say, that fantasy, and its robot child science fiction, is not escape at all. But a circling round of reality to enchant it and make it behave...The children guessed, if they did not whisper it, that all science fiction is an attempt to solve problems by pretending to look the other way.
In another place I have described this literary process as Perseus confronted by Medusa...


That Truth again: the History of Ideas, which is all that science fiction has ever been. ideas birthing themselves into fact, dying, only to reinvent new dreams and ideas to be reborn in yet more fascinating shapes and forms, some of them permanent, all of them promising Survival.

Quotes from Ray Bradbury, On the shoulders of Giants..., originally published as the Preface to Other Worlds: Fantasy and Science Fiction Since 1939 John J. Teunissen, ed., Univ. of Manitoba Press, 1980
reprinted in Zen in the Art of Writing...


Just to stir the pot.

:D:D:D

[rodentone]

I left my hometown in Ohio and was gone thirty some years. When I finally got back I went to the Public Library.

One of the things I wanted was to reread some of my old favorites. To my surprise most weren't even there, they had been sold off at the yearly reject sales.

Not very encouraging to a would be author. It looks like, at least in smaller libraries, if you're not famous, you don't last long.

Oscar Rat

[aruna]

I am confused out of my mind. I am putting this thread on ignore and will read a thumping good book instead.

[egem]

Literary fiction is a somewhat uneasy term that has come into common usage since around 1970, principally to distinguish 'serious' fiction from the many types of genre fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genre_fiction) and popular fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_fiction). For example, a traditional first novel is supposed not to be science fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction), nor a detective story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detective_story), but with literary content. It has been observed that literary fiction focuses more on style, psychological depth, and character, whereas commercial (mainstream) fiction focuses more on plot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_fiction


The above is the exact post, copied and pasted from higher up on this thread, which you have been trying to quote from.

I've noticed that you seem to 'read into it' what you want it to say, so let me explain that you need to read the entire thing in order to get the meaning of it. If you are familiar with the term "Read it in context", I think you'll understand that you're slightly mistaken in what you believe the poster to have said.



[BTW, I would like to apologize for rebuking Egem the way I did in such a public manner, concerning the issue of a particular poster's gender. I would have been a better person, and far more respectful toward both Egem and that poster, as my fellow writers, to have PM'ed Egem that particular information. For any public embarrassment I might have caused, I apologize.]

[jules]

I don't understand what Egem was trying to say in that post anyway. Could you clarify it for me, Egem?

[mysteryhost]

Literary fiction is a somewhat uneasy term that has come into common usage since around 1970, principally to distinguish 'serious' fiction from the many types of genre fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genre_fiction) and popular fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_fiction). For example, a traditional first novel is supposed not to be science fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction), nor a detective story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detective_story), but with literary content. It has been observed that literary fiction focuses more on style, psychological depth, and character, whereas commercial (mainstream) fiction focuses more on plot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_fiction

All of your arguments are based on google searches. Can you debate with original thought?

Internet-based facts are nothing more than a student showing he or she is very good at search terms. You are very good at that. So is my 6 year old Daughter.

mh

[egem]

I'm making this post in this thread as well as in the Stephen King thread. I do not want to make anything here worse:

This has gotten out of hand. I want to say I'm sorry to everyone on the board, and to those that feel that I took their words out of context. I have very different views than what I see written in these posts. I don't want to start a war here but already have. So I apologize.

I will address anything that anyone askes me honestly. If do not want to run off from the board, but I do not want to make things worse either. If you want to PM me with a message maybe that would be the best way to talk about this issue further. I do not feel it would be wise to go through the post and give more words to these question because I feel it will cause more grief to the boards. Again I'm sorry for whatever trouble I have caused.

[mysteryhost]

An excellent post. Thank you egem.

[Medievalist]

I was being a little ironic in what I said about the post. What she (and I'm sorry I got that wrong) is saying is that we can classify any work except a literary work? Works that are not in a genre that speak to the human condition and win a lot of literary awards are literary then?

I seem to have opened up a hornet's nest, without intending to, and I am sorry.

To be blunt, I think that to use the phrase "literary work" is foolish. It's going to mean something different to everyone. It is also a matter of individual taste.

And, lest you think I'm "anti-literary," or something, I assure you, I am not. Some of my best friends are novels <g>

But I think "literary" in this instans is one of those Humpty-Dumpty words--remember he tells Alice:

"When I use a word, it means exactly what I choose it to mean -- no more and no less."

[My-Immortal]

I mentioned this earlier, but perhaps some of you didn't notice the post. To put it in slightly different terms, let me see if I can understand what many of you have said / suggested / argued about etc...

1) Some of you believe "literary fiction" is defined as high quality writing and can also be genre fiction...Bradbury's sci-fi becomes "literary sci-fi" or Tokien's fantasy epic becomes "literary fantasy" (you don't need to argue about my choices for examples...they are JUST examples).

2) Some of you believe "literary fiction" is actually its own genre and is made up of specific authors that don't write in a specific genre...ex: Oates, Carver, Hemingway (again, you don't need to argue about the examples).

Does this pretty much sum it up?

My own opinion...(not that anyone probably cares! LOL)...actually combines the two and let me explain how...

Use the term "literary" to mean - high quality of writing AND place the books you would normally place in my example #2 above into a simple FICTION genre category.

Now...you have FICTION, Sci-fi, Fantasy, Romance, Westerns etc for genre titles and if ANY of those books are high quality writing they get the term "Literary" added to it...

Literary Sci-fi, Literary Fantasy, Literary Romance, Literary Westerns and ....wow...look what happens....Literary Fiction.

Does this make sense to anyone? Would this settle the debate? (And yes, I was the middle child and I like to see people get along....LOL).

Take care everyone...and good luck with your writing endeavors! :)

[clintl]

Well, I think both definitions are valid, even though they are not identical. The thing stopping the categories from being combined into one big "Fiction" category is marketing. Publishers and bookstores believe (accurately, I might add) that categorizing books into genres makes it more likely that a book will be noticed by the people most likely to buy it.

[clintl]

I'm making this post in this thread as well as in the Stephen King thread. I do not want to make anything here worse:

This has gotten out of hand. I want to say I'm sorry to everyone on the board, and to those that feel that I took their words out of context. I have very different views than what I see written in these posts. I don't want to start a war here but already have. So I apologize.

I will address anything that anyone askes me honestly. If do not want to run off from the board, but I do not want to make things worse either. If you want to PM me with a message maybe that would be the best way to talk about this issue further. I do not feel it would be wise to go through the post and give more words to these question because I feel it will cause more grief to the boards. Again I'm sorry for whatever trouble I have caused.

I don't really think this has gotten out of hand. Actually, it's been a very interesting discussion.

[My-Immortal]

Well, I think both definitions are valid, even though they are not identical. The thing stopping the categories from being combined into one big "Fiction" category is marketing. Publishers and bookstores believe (accurately, I might add) that categorizing books into genres makes it more likely that a book will be noticed by the people most likely to buy it.

I'm sure there is no way to get everyone to agree, and I don't think it is necessary to get everyone to agree.

Using "literary" as a genre title will obviously target "literary genre" fans just as "fantasy" targets "fantasy genre" fans.

Frankly, I don't care what you want to call the books - call them literary fiction, call them mainstream fiction, call them classic fiction, academia fiction...but whatever you call them to differentiate them from either other fiction or genre books - don't simply say then that because it's "literary" it's better. I think that is where some people get their noses bent out of shape. You're using one term to mean both genre and quality and I think it should only be one or the other.

[macandal]

May I share with you the best definition that, to me, best defines what 'literary writing' is? Please note that he doesn't say that it must not be sci-fi/fantasy/romance/western/etc. Here goes:Although the short story is not in vogue nowadays, I still believe that it constitutes the utmost challenge to the creative writer. Unlike the novel, which can absorb and even forgive lengthy digressions, flashbacks, and loose construction, the short story must aim directly at its climax. It must possess uninterrupted tension and suspense. Also, brevity is its very essence. The short story must have a definite plan; it cannot be what in literary jargon is called “a slice of life.” The masters of the short story, Chekhov, Maupassant, as well as the sublime scribe of the Joseph story in the Book of Genesis, knew exactly where they were going. One can read them over and over again and never get bored. Fiction in general should never become analytic. As a matter of fact, the writer of fiction should not even try to dabble in psychology and its various isms. Genuine literature informs while it entertains. It manages to be both clear and profound. It has the magical power of merging causality with purpose, doubt with faith, the passions of the flesh with the yearnings of the soul. It is unique and general, national and universal, realitic and mystical. While it tolerates commentary by others, it should never try to explain itself. These obvious truths must be emphasized, because false criticism and pseudo-originality have created a state of literary amnesia in our generation. The zeal for messages has made many writiers forget that storytelling is the raison d’être of artistic prose.
--Isaac Bashevis Singer

Sure, he's talking about the short story but I think his definition ("Genuine literature informs while it entertains") can be applied to novels. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm not saying he's right, I'm just sharing with you.

[goatpiper]

I don't think things have gotten out of hand, either. This is a fun discussion.

It seems that the major discussion we're having here is over the qualitative definition of 'literary'. Put simply, people are arguing over what is literary based on whether they think it's excellent writing or not. Therein lies the rub - the two definitions don't directly complement each other. If we're suffering under two different definitions of one categorical word, it will be difficult to reach a conclusion to the discussion. If a literary work is one of real-life exploration, but also one of excellent writing, we often arrive at a catch-22 (that was somewhat pun-ish, neh?). I guess you could say that a literary work that lacks quality could merely be called fiction, neh? Things could get quite complex in that regard, but at the end of the day, it is all quite subjective.
Interesting thing I just thought of...as a child, my first novels were Stephen King novels, and I've loved plowing through his stories with the force of a hurricane ever since. As I tend to equate King as a 'writer of the people', I wondered if he would be moved on over to the 'literature' category in bookstores before he died. I've noticed, specifically at Barnes and Noble, that sometime over the last year, all of his books have been moved over to 'Fiction and Literature', whereas they had previously existed under bookstore categories such as 'Sci-Fi and Fantasy', 'Horror', and 'Mystery and Suspense'. All of a sudden, he seems to be genre-busting at the bookstore level (though he's never been confined to one genre). As always, you usually have to lump things under a category for those things to become convenient, organization-wise.

Wow...I just rambled on for a bit, didn't I? More coffee is needed, I think.

[popmuze]

Asthetics aside, opinions aside, elitism aside, probably the only time it's important to know if you want to be classified as a writer of literary fiction is when you're submitting your novel to agents who want to know what type of fiction you write.

Of course, at that point, you'd better be good, because you're going to be competing with the heavyweights.

That's why I always refer to my stuff as humorous/satirical/offbeat & quirky, rather than literary.

[goatpiper]

Funny, lately I've just been calling my stuff 'schlock'. I'm sure I'll not label it that way when sending it off, however.

Oh, the bitter search for self-confidence. :Hammer:

[popmuze]

Most books become shlock soon enough, when they enter the remainder bins two weeks after publication.

[AncientEagle]

The term "literary fiction" was in use when I was in college, and that was well before 1970. It's meaning was pretty slippery then, depending a lot on each individual's personal understanding of it, and it seems to be so still. I found often, though not always, that it meant to me a work that was difficult for me to understand, or not very exciting, or both.

I don't buy or read books according to whether they fall into an arbitrary category, so worrying over the category and definitions thereof strikes me as useless exercise.

[maestrowork]

James MacDonald's comments reflect on the similar attitude that seems to exist in the States. It is extremely frustrating to see some story or first novel lauded as a great literary triumph, and the author presented with grants and great reviews when the ordinary reader will never read the story or novel. The Literary Genre has become a form of intellectual snobbism to the detriment of the genre and its writers.

I just had a similar discussion with a good friend/writing buddy of mine. While I considered my work "mainstream," she (as well as my publisher) categorized it as "literary" -- something someone might study in English classes somewhere some time... My initial reaction was exactly, "What? Do you mean my book is some kind of intellectual snobbery? That some professor at some university would argue about why I chose the color 'red' in a certain passage instead of 'blue'?" She was rather amused by my protest. It surprised me, though, that I would have the same prejudice WRT literary writing, while I would totally enjoy certain types of "literary works" such as those by Hemingway or Chabon. So why do I, along with many people, think "literary" means "snobbism"?

I think there are a few reasons:

1. We are conditioned to think that "literary" means "not many people read or care to read them" because they don't fit anything else such as sci fi or mystery. Or it takes a PhD degree to understand all the big words and symbolisms, etc. etc. Seems like the only people who care are the snobbish Ivy League professors or elitists.

2. "Literary" means reading a 200-page book about three people arguing about something trivial (as JDM said about Proof), or something about human conditions that are borderline preachy (how many ways can we say 'find yourself'). No plot. Boring! Or it's "experimental."

3. "Literary" means it's about ordinary people with ordinary problems. It's all about the language, so unless you're into studying the language itself, such works are too abstract to be meaningful. And ordinary people prefer extraordinary tales to take them away from the mundane world -- they want to be entertained.

...

I see some validity in these reasons, and I certainly have come across "literary" fiction that conform to these points, and I personally wouldn't want to touch them. However, like the argument that "genre fiction" are crap... I think if we try to put these "terms" neatly into separate boxes, we're limiting ourselves, disallowing ourselves to see the wide spectrum of literature. And "literature," I think, is a better word to describe what many people really mean by "literary."

I have read "genre" fiction that I feel would stand the test of time. That 200 years from now people would still be reading those books. I have also read "genre" crap. Same with "literary" works. Sometimes it's a matter of true quality. Sometimes it's just a matter of taste. And yes... artsy fartsy is still "taste."

Perhaps "genres" are just ways for people to categorize what the story is about, and nothing about the "quality." And "literary" is just another way to categorize fiction since it can't be fit into any of those standard genres such as "sci fi" or "romance." But good writing is good writing, no matter the genre... and I think "literature" is a good way to describe these books with regard to their quality. For example, I'd argue that "Pride and Prejudice" is a romance (genre). But it's literature because it's so well written and it stood the test of time. "A Christmas Carol" sounds like a ghost story/fantasy to me. But it's also literature...

I wouldn't mind my works being called "literature" and studied in schools some day! But as long as people have the bad connotation associated with "literary," I probably wouldn't want my books to be categorized as such. Call me pragmatic, but I want to sell books. If someone like JDM would automatically skip the "literary" aisle, then I probably don't want mine to be stacked there.