The state of modern literature

There IS a lot of crap out there, but I also realize that that is just my opinion. What I view as crap, others think is absolutely rivetting. What I think is absolutely rivetting, others may view as crap.

My suggestion? Stop reading magazines and start reading more books. Magazines have a tendency to be of poorer quality than a full fledged book.

A book on how shitty literature is these days?

One of these threads again I see.

I suppose it's all about what you're looking for. Most books I pick up, I enjoy, but then again I'm reading them to be entertained. I'm reading them to see into another world. The writing doesn't have to be amazing, but it can't stop me either. When it interrupts my pace or whatever, the book is dead to me. So I set it aside and pick up a new one.

And if the publishers are publishing mostly drivel, blame the submissions. If they had amazing writing crawling up to their doors, they wouldn't bother with the lesser stuff. And rememeber over 250,000 books are published a year, if you're only reading four or five, you can't hardly call that a sampling.

Good luck and happy reading.

P.S. This arguement has been going on for as long as there have been books being published.

I appreciate this is technically a rant but a lot of folks who might be interested in responding to this thread don't visit Take It Outside, so I'm moving it to AW Roundtable, hope that's OK.

Of course, depending on how rowdy things get, it might end up right back in TIO. We shall see.

-Derek

A lot of literary stuff drifts into the realm of "performance writing." Basically, writing for other writers--which I think bores the general public.

Sometimes it's a matter of taste. There are people who love literary fiction not for plot (or even characters) but for the use of language. It's like poetry in prose form.

And there is still good stuff out there, balancing the art of storytelling with scrumptious word-wielding. You can't help but marvel at their mastery even if the plot is not as "exciting and straightforward" as genres. Gourmet food serves a different purpose than a burger. They can both be satisfying, but just don't expect the same thing.

Then of course there is crap in every genre.

Not all literary magazines are created equal.

The only short stories I really like are published in The New Yorker. I could sit down with a stack of New Yorkers and read all day. Often they are quite bizarre and pointless, and play with language in ways that would be unacceptable in a longer work. In fact, I expect that short stories are of a different sort of writing than novel writing. The writer can toy with ideas that would not sustain a full sized novel. Even some longer novellas would run out of story before hitting the proper word length. There are different demands and requirements on a 12 page short story and a 350 page novel. If I read a small "literary" magazine, I would expect "weirdness." Knowing literary works are more character driven, I would also expect a certain type of navel-staring story, thank God not possible in jumbo size. I also would expect quite a range in writer ability if the submissions are from the general population.

It is quite possible that since there really is no percentage to submitting to a lit mag, the people who end up submitting are below par. Many long work writers don't write short pieces. Time is money. There is really no benefit to writing, polishing, and publishing a short story other than it is fun and you like to do it.

Oh well, just another opinion.

Not only are short stories financially stupid, they also teach next to nothing about how to write novels. Since novels are the only way a fiction writer can make nontrivial income, any time wasted on short stories is insane.

That said, I'm both poor and crazy.

Regarding litfic, yes, a lot of it is bad and pointless. Every now and then, you'll run into something good. Sounds a lot like genre fiction, doesn't it?

my own complaint about some of the literature that is being put out these days is that it's overflowing with gratuitous sex and violence along with gimmicky thrills to entice readers and retain their attention. When I read these books and stories I feel like I'm being prodded along, as if I'm suffering from ADD and can't sit still and focus on anything unless my hormones are brought into play. It's really insulting and unnecessary. Just give me a well put together story and I will read it. And if it becomes a bit slow moving at times, don't worry. I'll sit through those sections. I'm not taking a rollercoaster ride, after all. I'm reading a book and have the patience to sit and enjoy it and to invest the mental energy needed for that.

SPMiller said:

Not only are short stories financially stupid, they also teach next to nothing about how to write novels. Since novels are the only way a fiction writer can make nontrivial income, any time wasted on short stories is insane.

Click to expand...

You are correct that short stories do not teach one to write novels. They aren't supposed to.

But you might just as well make the same sweeping - and pig-headedly wrong - assumption about poetry being a similar waste of time.

As a matter of fact, short stories can pay a reasonable amount if you write quickly and well, have a high placement ratio, and realize that financial gain is not the only object. I am still getting $$ from stories I wrote years ago, and still getting editing & teaching jobs based on stories that paid very little upon publication.

The short story form - like the sonnet, the personal essay and the novella - may not be the place to cash in big financially - but to label any writing endeavor as a waste of time explains some lack of success.

All writing endeavors can teach a writer valuable lessons useful to novel writing.

Okay - literary fiction:

Real literary fiction can be a transcendent experience that leaves you shaken & stirred.

But there's a lot of crap out there - so read where you'll get the best. This goes for genre fiction, too (I write genre fiction - like all fic out there, there are good works and drivel)

If you are just reading drivel - which proliferates at an astonishing rate - go to the sources where there is stringent editorial control and try there. The New Yorker is certainly a good venue, but it's not the only one. Cruise your local bookstore or library for good literary fiction, learn to distinguish authors whose work you enjoy from authors whose work makes you wince, cringe or vomit.

One literary magazine that I really enjoy is One Story. They have rigorous standards and they never publish the same author twice. It's worth checking out.

It's been said before me: there is crap in every genre.

There's still good literary fiction out there.

As for the drivel you're running into? Personally, I blame all the MFAs coming out of colleges these days who have been fed a cookie-cutter idea of what makes a good literary story. Most of them write the same sort of go-nowhere wordplay that has neither plot, nor character, nor often even the good prose, simply because they're all trying too hard. That said, there are some great writers out there who came out of those MFA programs, too, like David Foster Wallace.

There always has and always will be crap in every genre. The only difference is that we've largely forgotten yesterday's crap.

Not everyone can tell a truly profound literary story. Those who want to, but will fail, will likely rely on gimmicky devices to label their story "literary". Those who want to, and succeed, make their readers stop and think in a big way. It's kind of the same as it's always been, IMO. Some people enhance the mold, and others are dependent upon it (or suck the life out of it).

kuwisdelu said:

I blame all the MFAs coming out of colleges these days who have been fed a cookie-cutter idea of what makes a good literary story. Most of them write the same sort of go-nowhere wordplay that has neither plot, nor character, nor often even the good prose, simply because they're all trying too hard.

Click to expand...

I agree. Too much pretension, too little content. Which is why the principal readers for the lit zines are the writers hoping to get into them.

JamieFord said:

A lot of literary stuff drifts into the realm of "performance writing." Basically, writing for other writers--which I think bores the general public.

Click to expand...

A lot like the state of much non-fiction writing (philosophy, general cultural topics, etc) these days: they are written to be published in journals that are only read by others in the same field. There was a time when an insightful cultural or philosophical piece could be found in a general-readership periodical, and could be expected to find readers who would a) be interested in the subject matter and b) be capable of understanding what it wsa about, but those days are long gone.

I don't understand most literature. I feel dumb to admit it, but it's true. Whenever I try to read something described as "literary," I always end up confused about how this can possibly be considered good or interesting reading. But I'm a genre person myself, and SOMEBODY out there must like literature, since so much of it is published and praised. I don't hate literature. I just don't connect to it.

I can tolerate this, it's just the kind of snobby view that many literary types take of genre types that bothers me. I understand not all lit types are like this but I make sure to keep out of a lot of online writing forums because genre writers like myself are frowned upon for some reason. I can't count the times I've wandered into forums, saw the people there posting their inscrutable prose and sniffing at how too many people out there write fantasy drek nowadays, and then crept back out never to return.

I wouldn't ever frown upon a literary type, I'd just not understand them! To each his own though. This is why I don't buy literary mags or books.

(I'm glad though that I'm not the only one who wonders about lack of plot and such in a lot of literature nowadays! I thought it was just me.)

tehuti88 said:

(I'm glad though that I'm not the only one who wonders about lack of plot and such in a lot of literature nowadays! I thought it was just me.)

Click to expand...

Well, depends on what literature you're talking about. I like a lot of literary fiction that I know leaves a lot of people scratching their heads, but I also know there's a lot of bad "literary fiction" out there. Like has been said before, there's crap in every genre, and if it's on you're unfamiliar with (like you and literary fiction, perhaps?) it's easy to only see the crap without knowing how to find the good stuff.

But then, the good stuff might not be up your alley, either. As I mentioned, I like a lot of books that some would claim don't have plots... Of course, they do have plots...they're just not always as obvious as in genre fiction.

First, there's a difference between literature and literary fiction (modern definition).

Second, literary fiction can have a plot. Many do. Good ones, too.

Much like anything else, there's good and bad and you just need to know where to find them. Like Jane said, we just don't remember yesterday's crap. What has stood the test of time became "literature." The rest were discarded.

icenine said:

If the writer was smart he'd write something EVERYBODY could understand.

Click to expand...

Although I don't write at an advanced level (like only Ph.Ds can read it) I don't think a child should or could read my writing. (Child= someone with vocabulary and reading skills less than an eighth grader). I don't write for everyone, I write for AN audience, one of many. To illustrate, although Harry Potter might be easily readable, and "good" I have never knuckled under to read it. I opened one book in the bookstore, and felt the irresistible notion to pitch it across the room. I am sure that there is an audience for literary fiction. I've read a few literary stories and books and don't consider them all unintelligible.

I think there are various reading levels, that is why there are divisions for YA in the library and book store, but to write adult (non YA) books at a YA level is only doing the reader a disservice. I think when a person reaches 17 or 18 they should be reading fully advanced adult level literature (or books). Why? Because there is no incentive to read at an adult level if all an adult (18 is an adult) needs to do is go to YA. Next thing you know college textbooks will need to be written at YA level because these readers have never read at an adult level. This is not all blowing smoke. The ability to read is going down hill and I do think that YA and "dumbing down" is partially to blame.

Some people who write popular books obviously chose to write for an audience that has less than high-school reading skills. Some readers are impatient with what can be considered the "dumbing-down" of the vocabulary used in books in order to lure a larger audience into buying the book.

I also don't think that "experimental" writing is useless and elitist, remembering that the beat writers of the 50s were once experimental, and literary, earlier, writers like Hemingway were more experimental, Sci-fi writers of inner space in the 60's were "experimental" and could be considered "literary" in some cases (Harlen Ellison).

In fact, although reading experimental writing is sometimes not easy, you end up learning new techniques from it. Writing stands still for a while, but then, when it moves, it moves in the direction of the "experimental" literary style.

oh well, Just a few observations from the dark side.