I tried literature and didn't like it much

Grisham. Now there's someone who understands his audience.

He's being terribly disingenuous in that interview; Grisham is very well read, and not only inside his genre.

He's also a fabulous story teller in the best traditions of the south, and the trial attorney.

Best quote of the whole article is at the end:

"All the usual literary things (Dan Brown) just doesn't know how to do, but he's not interested in those and nor are his millions of readers. There's nothing wrong in writing as he does, but it is not great writing."

Click to expand...

I added the bold because it needed to be in bold. I will firmly admit that Dan Brown and John Grisham are NOT great writers; but they are great story tellers. And that is all they are trying to accomplish, to tell a story. The people who fault them for that, who complain about their success, need to stop. Not everyone needs to be writing literary novels.

I don't write fiction. But I can teach people to write. Some people are better at it than others, but decent prose is generally a teachable skill.

I can't teach story.

Grisham is a natural raconteur. And he's rhetorically adept in every conceivable meaning of the word--including his presentation of self.

And yeah, I like his books.

I always sense that when someone mentions "literature" they mean books where a character learns something about themselves while going through the process of living the storyline of the plot.

Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey is considered literature because it's by Jane Austen - to me, the entire book is about a girl who can't separate life from the romantic fiction she reads. I could, like, totally see some Twilight fan seeing signed of Cullen-like behavior in a handsome mysterious stranger who invites her to visit is family's estate.

When I started working on my latest book, I tried using short chapters and three concurrent storylines, with each chapter ending with a cliffhanger. I decided that I could do that here and there, but doing it consistently would give the reader a headache. I'd like to think my work has enough to offer a reader that they would want to pick it back up after getting up to go to the bathroom or to get another pina colada.

mtrenteseau said:

Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey is considered literature because it's by Jane Austen - to me, the entire book is about a girl who can't separate life from the romantic fiction she reads.

Click to expand...

We keep proliferating these threads.

Look.

Literature means things writ with letters. Qualitative distinctions about literature vs fiction, or novels, or genre fiction are idiotic.

Write a book you'd like to read. Don't worry about what is or isn't literature. It's not worth your time or effort.

it's weird...people are translating the word 'literaure' into literary fiction....

I note, by the way, as a young fervent grad student working in technology, I was horrified to discover that the sales brochures were universally referred to as literature.

So I'm pretty much unshockable.

lol...i once said to a lady who had asked what i had thought of the davinci code that i didn't find it literary enough....she responded by saying that plenty of people thought it to be literal...

Medievalist said:

We keep proliferating these threads.

Look.

Literature means things writ with letters. Qualitative distinctions about literature vs fiction, or novels, or genre fiction are idiotic.

Write a book you'd like to read. Don't worry about what is or isn't literature. It's not worth your time or effort.

Click to expand...

You missed my point. You also took a tone in reference to my comment that I consider impolite.

Grisham states that he tried writing "literature" and preferred to be suspenseful and thrilling. I wrote that I tried being suspenseful and thrilling and would rather be more like what Grisham considers "literature."

Qualitative distinctions about works of art are subjective, but they're never idiotic.

mtrenteseau said:

Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey is considered literature because it's by Jane Austen - to me, the entire book is about a girl who can't separate life from the romantic fiction she reads.

Click to expand...

That's the point. Northanger Abbey was Jane Austen's tongue in cheek take on the 18th/19th century publishing trend of young women reading Gothic novels like The Monk or Udolopho. There was a real anxiety at the time that young, unmarried woman where being led astray by the books.

Worth the read for the 'it's only a novel . . . it's only Cecilia' segment. The best defence of the novel in English Literature:

"And what are you reading, Miss -?" "Oh, it is only a novel!" replies the young lady, while she lays down her book with affected indifference or momentary shame.-"It is only Cecilia or Camilla or Belinda"; or, in short, only some work in which the greatest powers of the mind are displayed, in which the most thorough knowledge of human nature, the happiest delineation of its varieties, the liveliest effusions of wit and humour, are conveyed to the world in the best-chosen language."

Medievalist said:

He's being terribly disingenuous in that interview; Grisham is very well read, and not only inside his genre.

He's also a fabulous story teller in the best traditions of the south, and the trial attorney.

Click to expand...

I agree with Medievalist. Grisham is being disingenous here. He's a lot more savvy about literature than he is letting on. He's a very intelligent man - and author.

I read [or tried to read] The Pelican Brief a few years ago. I love the movie, and really, really wanted to love the book, but I just couldn't finish the thing.

mtrenteseau said:

You missed my point. You also took a tone in reference to my comment that I consider impolite.

Grisham states that he tried writing "literature" and preferred to be suspenseful and thrilling. I wrote that I tried being suspenseful and thrilling and would rather be more like what Grisham considers "literature."

Qualitative distinctions about works of art are subjective, but they're never idiotic.

Click to expand...

So literature isn't suspenseful or thrilling?

BS. Have you read Red Riding: 1974? 1984? The Woman in White? Kidnapped? LA Confidential?

It really boils my blood when I hear this. The best crime fiction always enters literary conventions. I love David Peace, Ian Rankin and Louise Welsh.

My first book is a kidnap story but it delves into politics, questions of justice and revenge.

The WIP I am planning is a financial thriller and murder story. It delves into the politics of the 2009 financial crash, the moral implications of debt and greed. They are both crime novels.

I'm reading The Confession right now. I'm not impressed. Now, Time to Kill, that was awesome.

gothicangel said:

So literature isn't suspenseful or thrilling?

Click to expand...

That's what I got from Grisham's quote; at no time have I said it was my opinion.

He basically is saying "my books are not literature. They're exciting and plot-driven."

I love Northanger Abbey. But it's not "Literature" to me in the sense that it should be put up on some unassailable pedestal. Of course, that's the surest way to make sure nobody reads it.

I think Grisham is being much less than honest. Maybe even with himself. I happen to know he's very, very well read, too. Far better than the average writer I encounter.

I tend to suspect he says these things largely because a big bunch of reviewers and critics say his novels aren't literature.

And honest to God, some of his books are everything he claims not to like. But I find a lot of sour grapes in much of what Grisham says on several topics.

mtrenteseau said:

I love Northanger Abbey. But it's not "Literature" to me in the sense that it should be put up on some unassailable pedestal. Of course, that's the surest way to make sure nobody reads it.

Click to expand...

That's your opinion, it's not the opinion of scholars, critics or those of us that enjoy classics.

Gothic studies is a legitimate field of study, and the novels such as The Monk are most certainly literature.

mtrenteseau said:

He basically is saying "my books are not literature. They're exciting and plot-driven."

Click to expand...

You seem to believe that literature and 'exciting' books are mutally exclusive qualities. They are not.

gothicangel said:

You seem to believe that literature and 'exciting' books are mutally exclusive qualities. They are not.

Click to expand...

Who are you talking to?

Every time I have said that "literature is not exciting" I have been describing the quotes made by John Grisham in the article that was posted at the beginning of this thread.

mtrenteseau said:

Who are you talking to?

Every time I have said that "literature is not exciting" I have been describing the quotes made by John Grisham in the article that was posted at the beginning of this thread.

Click to expand...

As various comments have said, Grisham is a hell of a lot better read than he's letting on.

I wouldn't take his comments so literally.

gothicangel said:

You seem to believe that literature and 'exciting' books are mutally exclusive qualities. They are not.

Click to expand...

It's also not true that suspense is owned by thrillers or any other genre. You can keep a reader in suspense about anything.

Julie Worth said:

It's also not true that suspense is owned by thrillers or any other genre. You can keep a reader in suspense about anything.

Click to expand...

I agree completely. I find it a bit strange that this thread was posted in M/T/S and not Novels.

gothicangel said:

As various comments have said, Grisham is a hell of a lot better read than he's letting on.

I wouldn't take his comments so literally.

Click to expand...

However one defines what "literature" is and is not, it's a term that intimidates readers with the implication that they're not nearly intelligent enough to understand it. Reading should enlighten and entertain, and people who are not scholars have been trained to believe that great books are complicated, vague, and not-for-them, like a clockwork toy they can look at but not play with.

Which I think was Grisham's point. Literature, with a capital L, is scary. We buy Cliff's Notes because we're afraid to read Anna Karenina or The Age of Innocence because we think it will make us feel stupid.

God knows, I don't want to write Literature.

I've read Anna Karenina and didn't feel stupid at all. I'd feel stupid if I read the Cliff Notes.