# Literary Writing vs. Genre Writing



## Banana_Brother (Sep 2, 2009)

Can someone explain the difference and maybe provide a few books as examples? I know it's a fine line but no one's been able to explain it clearly. I sometimes also see hate directed towards genre writing... what's wrong with it?


----------



## C.M.C. (Sep 2, 2009)

The main thrust, as I see it, is that literary writing is as concerned with the actual writing as it is with the story.  Genre writing is usually seen as being the realm of inferior writers, because there is more importance placed on the story, and very little to how well the author is able to put his or her words together.  Literary writing is often seen as being for the egotistic author, the one who loves to turn a phrase more than tell a story.

These aren't the 'official' definitions, but they're a rough idea of why each is viewed the way they are.


----------



## Patrick (Sep 3, 2009)

I tend to prefer reading the so-called literary authors but I simply have no idea what a genre book is. The different subjects authors like to write about? It wouldn't do to say that one should aspire to decent writing of their own and to enjoy decent writing by others? Is there not ample opportunity for the literate writer to turn a phrase no matter his/her subject?


----------



## Leyline (Sep 3, 2009)

It's a ridiculous and comical distinction.

Theodore Sturgeon, Fritz Lieber, Gene Wolfe, Jeffery Ford, Ursula LeGuin, Chip Delany, Harlan Ellison, and (I could go on and on)...all wrote science fiction, fantasy, and horror for pennies a word in genre magazines.

Now. You kick back and read 'A Saucer Of Loneliness', 'Space-Time For Springers', 'The Fifth Head Of Cerebus', 'Creation', 'The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas', 'Time Considered As A Helix Of Semi-Precious Stones', 'The Deathbird' (I could go on and on) and you think about and you come back and tell me that those aren't literature.

I'll stab you in your fucking _face_.

Read. Enjoy. Be moved. Get pissed. Laugh. Cry.

_Then_ decide.


----------



## Rob (Sep 5, 2009)

Leyline said:


> It's a ridiculous and comical distinction.
> 
> Theodore Sturgeon, Fritz Lieber, Gene Wolfe, Jeffery Ford, Ursula LeGuin, Chip Delany, Harlan Ellison, and (I could go on and on)...all wrote science fiction, fantasy, and horror for pennies a word in genre magazines.
> 
> ...


When you've finished stabbing people in the face - literary fiction and genre fiction are all literature. That isn't the issue.

Cheers,
Rob


----------



## Leyline (Sep 6, 2009)

Rob said:


> When you've finished stabbing people in the face - literary fiction and genre fiction are all literature. That isn't the issue.
> 
> Cheers,
> Rob



Not gonna happen. Way too many stab-worthy faces in the world. Alas.

And you know exactly what I mean.The writing in all the stories I mentioned, and by all the writers I mentioned, is as literary as it gets.


----------



## Black_Board (Sep 6, 2009)

Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery." Is that a genre? Or it that literary?


----------



## Skye Jules (Sep 19, 2009)

I would say The Lottery is literary. We had a discussion on this short story in my AP Lit Senior class, and we only read literature-based things. Genre fiction is practically shunned in classroom settings, and I've never seen a genre book on a reading list, unless you're taking a children's literature class in college. Those lucky bastards get to read Harry Potter. 

But to me, literary fiction focuses more on the elements of writing than genre fiction does: literary fiction seems to put more emphases on literary devices, such as symbolism, theme, motifs, ect...It doesn't concern itself so much with the story as with the message the story is trying to portray.

What I got out of The Lottery was this: certain traditions are stupid and need to be broken and not kept around just for the sake of tradition. 

But, to me, that does not mean genre fiction is inferior. My current novel, Witch Tourniquet, is genre fiction, but I focus equally on literary devices, the story, characters, and all of that to make it a well-balanced, intelligent, interesting read. The purpose of my choosing fantasy for this novel is to aid in my theme. Witch Tourniquet would not mean much if I wrote it in the "literary genre." It means more in fantasy.

Now, I don't think you want to argue the difference between literary and genre. I think you want to argue the difference between mainstream and non-mainstream (can't think of any other way to word it). Mainstream gets slammed for having poor quality. One of my old textbooks slammed mainstream, stating that the quality of writing was often poor, character development was sloppy, and plot development was often simple, and not good simple.


----------



## GraysonMoran (Sep 19, 2009)

The fact that people argue over what is and what isn't "literary" might just be a clue that there's not much of a distinction.

And if anybody wants to start defining what "mainstream" is, they better pack for the winter.   

The big question would be this:  what does it matter to a writer?


----------



## Shawn (Sep 19, 2009)

GraysonMoran said:


> The fact that people argue over what is and what isn't "literary" might just be a clue that there's not much of a distinction.



Laymen argue over what is literary and what isn't. There isn't so much controversy in academics. Literary fiction is largely based around the types of themes that are addressed in the writing.

The easiest way that I can put it is this: if a piece of fiction addresses a fundamental human flaw, rather than a personal one, in an indirect way, then the piece is literary. It really just so happens that the type of writing that has those qualities defies categorization, because it is so focused on the character.

To Leyline, science fiction is a bit of a strange thing, because we have a tendency to put anything that is set in a time in the distant future or on a different planet into the genre... even if, sometimes, some SciFi pieces are clearly literary.


How do I know this? I've done nothing but bury my fuckin' head in journals from the past sixty years ever since I fuckin' got to college. Books are the only things that don't sleep with other men for as long as I have them checked out.


----------



## Leyline (Sep 19, 2009)

> The easiest way that I can put it is this: if a piece of fiction addresses a fundamental human flaw, rather than a personal one, in an indirect way, then the piece is literary.



Then almost all SF from the 60's till now is literary. Since then, the basic point of SF has been the study of human nature by way of technological and social advancement or (sometimes) regression. Until the late 80's the overall theme could have been stated as: "Despite evolving technology and increasing knowledge, human nature remains basically unalterable." THAT all changed as the concepts of nanotechnology and self-programming AI became common knowledge and predicted 'just around the corner' in the scientific community. It transformed into "How will human nature survive in the world it has made ?"

Put another way, until the Vingean singularity postulation (and, even more importantly IMO, Drexler's publication of _Engines Of Creation_), SF revolved around the drama of making the world _known_. After the postulation, it revolved around the world advancing beyond comprehension into the _unknown_.

How the human being deals with the conflicts generated by those situations is, still, the focal point.


----------



## GraysonMoran (Sep 20, 2009)

> Laymen


??????????????????????????


So, all you have to be to be literary is address a *flaw*?? What a crippling concept. Mostly put forth by crippled people: who dissect things they can't create.

The idea that there's a difference between what is "personal" and what is "human" flies directly in the face of what I'd call "the humanities". 

And sounds like we're saying that most hardboiled private eye potboilers are "literary" because the guy going for the chick and getting screwed is really a human failing. Whereas something like Macbeth or Othello, with their insanely rigged-up royal failings, aren't.

The problem here is people trying to define "literary" (even people who would not be stupid enough to try to define "art"). 
When it's really easy to define genres. Which are basically, defined by trappings, the way a costume defines a person's character. If there is no murder in it, it ain't a mystery. If there's not a stud with no shirt on, it's not a romance. If people have normal names, it's not fantasy. Or words to that effect.

Genres define themselves. There is no definition for literature.


----------



## Shawn (Sep 20, 2009)

GraysonMoran said:


> So, all you have to be to be literary is address a *flaw*?? What a crippling concept. Mostly put forth by crippled people: who dissect things they can't create.



Does a perfect being have internal conflict?


The difference between what is personal and what is human is the difference between a teen who is self-conscious about his skin and a teen who tries to find his identity. They might be entwined, but if the author only addresses the self-consciousness, then it wouldn't be literary. It would just be a short.

That's pretty standard. No controversy.



> (even people who would not be stupid enough to try to define "art")



Wilde attempted to define art. Would you say that you know more about the definite nature of art than Wilde?

I apologize that you aren't at the very epicenter of the academic field to make these distinctions; but, whilst we have people more knowledgeable than ourselves, let's recognize that we don't know everything.



			
				Shakespeare said:
			
		

> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]...the wise man                                knows himself to be a fool.


[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]


----------



## JosephB (Sep 20, 2009)

Wilde _attempted_ to define art.


----------



## Shawn (Sep 20, 2009)

JosephB said:


> Wilde _attempted_ to define art.



Yes.

Wouldn't you agree that it is the attempt that matters? I suggest you begin listening to Miley Cyrus, if you don't.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 20, 2009)

> Wouldn't you agree that it is the attempt that matters?


No. But if it's interesting to you, fine.

Someone else's definition of art isn't going to enhance how I experience it. It won't make me a better painter or artist either.

I can say the same thing about literature.

Maybe I'll think about it later. I have a football game to watch.


----------



## Shawn (Sep 20, 2009)

Philistine.


Just announcing it here, that's a JK. I repeat, a JK.


----------



## Patrick (Sep 20, 2009)

The only thing real art doesn't deal in is merely.

I do take the view that better understanding things increases my appreciation of them. Yes, it would diminish my enjoyment of art if I wasn't prepared to really contemplate what it is.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 20, 2009)

I've read essays that attempt to define art. There's one by Tolstoy that I enjoyed -- a fairly straightforward, common sense take on it. It's all very interesting -- as far as it goes.

But when I'm standing in a museum or gallery, looking at a painting, I'm not thinking about Tolstoy's definition of art or anyone else's. My experience -- how I see, feel, interpret -- is what matters. Not what anyone has to _say _about.

That doesn't mean I don't consider a critic's or an art historian's view or interpretation. I certainly do. As an artist, that interests me. But it doesn't influence how I _feel_ about the art or whether or not I am moved by it.


----------



## Leyline (Sep 20, 2009)

JosephB said:


> I've read essays that attempt to define art. There's one by Tolstoy that I enjoyed -- a fairly straightforward, common sense take on it. It's all very interesting -- as far as it goes.
> 
> But when I'm standing in a museum or gallery, looking at a painting, I'm not thinking about Tolstoy's definition of art or anyone else's. My experience -- how I see, feel, interpret -- is what matters. Not what anyone has to _say _about.
> 
> That doesn't mean I don't consider a critic's or an art historian's view or interpretation. I certainly do. As an artist, that interests me. But it doesn't influence how I _feel_ about the art or whether or not I am moved by it.



Well said. I consider, for the most part, the 'professions' of professional critic and scholar to be useless. Their 'work' can be entertaining, even interesting, at times. But it's really pointless in the end. Individuals have personal tastes, and individual reactions to art.

It's amusing, really. Every work of art is a personal experience. Critics and scholars seem to think they can make a public decision on those works and have 'em by God _stick_. In truth, they can't even fall back on the 'most people' argument, since critical and public opinion are usually at odds. What they really say is: "A small group of self-proclaimed elite individuals more or less agree that ____ is ____."

Bah. 

I respect and like Roger Ebert, but more as a fellow film fan than as some 'expert'. Our tastes align well enough that I know if something interests or excites Ebert, it's probably worth checking out. Many of the same styles and themes and artists resonate for us, but not always in compatible direction. I might hate a movie he loved, but I'll usually understand why he loved it. I might not agree but I'll understand.


----------



## Patrick (Sep 20, 2009)

JosephB said:


> I've read essays that attempt to define art. There's one by Tolstoy that I enjoyed -- a fairly straightforward, common sense take on it. It's all very interesting -- as far as it goes.
> 
> But when I'm standing in a museum or gallery, looking at a painting, I'm not thinking about Tolstoy's definition of art or anyone else's. My experience -- how I see, feel, interpret -- is what matters. Not what anyone has to _say _about.
> 
> That doesn't mean I don't consider a critic's or an art historian's view or interpretation. I certainly do. As an artist, that interests me. But it doesn't influence how I _feel_ about the art or whether or not I am moved by it.



It's not an exact science. If you're thinking about the processes involved in your own work and possibly that of others - if it is of sufficient depth to inspire you to do so - that is the contemplation I was speaking of before. I agree arbitrary definitions of something as multifaceted as art aren't particularly inspiring. Perhaps one could say they know art when they see it and operate with a loose definition in mind.

Perhaps neuroscience would be a better tool for understanding why we think there is such a thing as art in the first place? I don't know. Clearly there has to be a sufficient level of complexity, balance, emotional engagement, etc for something to be deemed a work of art. We could perhaps examine why those aspects of art inspire us so much. You'd also have to look more intensively at the evolution of society. The renaissance, etc. It requires much more than a cursory glance and it's not entirely necessary to the artistic process itself. I understand your point there.


----------



## GraysonMoran (Sep 20, 2009)

Well, no, "it's the effort that counts" doesn't really mean much when you start trying to apply things to other people. Somebody could try to play basketball and never sink a point... that wouldn't make their opinions on basketball very important to others.

Your quibblings about Wilde are beside the point...argument for the sake of argument. Most people know the folly of art definitions. If you don't, goodie for you.

The "perfect being" business in your post is just too inexplicable to treat. I guess one can acheive "no controversy" by sticking to loopy proclamations. But just in case you're open to anything from outside: that definition of literature is a joke. Best bet might be to get your head out of books written by dilletantes and just read real books. This might help you shake the academic wrong-headedness and will certainly give you a better feel for what reading/writing is about.

Again... it's silly to try to define what "literature" is. Pretty easy to define what genres are. Why go around the ulna to get to the anus?

And no, art criticism is very, very definitely not "an exact science".


----------



## Shawn (Sep 21, 2009)

GraysonMoran said:


> Your quibblings about Wilde are beside the point...argument for the sake of argument. Most people know the folly of art definitions. If you don't, goodie for you.



Except that Wilde could _do_, and yet he tried to define art. So wouldn't that invalidate _your_ argument? What do you mean by "most" people? Do you mean most academics? Because, as I said, there's a standard for determining what is literary fiction or not; and it's applied widely.



> that definition of literature is a joke.



And yet it is used by _actual_ writers who write _actual_ books. Isn't that strange? Academic writing is _writing_. Who would have thought? And here I thought that every word written down was fiction. How appalling. How foolish of me.



> This might help you shake the academic wrong-headedness and will certainly give you a better feel for what reading/writing is about.



I gave an opinion on categorization, not reading or writing. So I don't exactly see how you could derive "academic wrong-headedness" from that. It seems to me that you believe you actually have some sort of authority on the matter; but if you had any sort of authority on academic classifications of literature, then you wouldn't be so keen on railing against academic thinking. Your comments are about as effective as saying that scientific theories are wrong-headed because they aren't like _real_ scientific theories.

Literary fiction is academic by nature, and writers know that. Those that write popfics really don't have any say in that, lest they write literary fiction themselves.

If I were an ounce crazier at the moment, I would say you were Lin under a different pen name. But, then, it could just be that Adoro only publishes obnoxiously self-righteous folk.


----------



## Leyline (Sep 21, 2009)

> Your comments are about as effective as saying that scientific theories are wrong-headed because they aren't like real scientific theories.



Wrong. If scientific theories were decided by small groups of sheltered nerds and required no proof other than those nerds opinions, you might have a point. Scientific theory lasts for one reason only: it's not proven untrue.

Literary theory, like all artistic theory, is opinion. That's what makes it so funny.


----------



## Black_Board (Sep 21, 2009)

Skye Jules said:


> I would say The Lottery is literary. We had a discussion on this short story in my AP Lit Senior class, and we only read literature-based things. Genre fiction is practically shunned in classroom settings, and I've never seen a genre book on a reading list, unless you're taking a children's literature class in college. Those lucky bastards get to read Harry Potter.
> 
> But to me, literary fiction focuses more on the elements of writing than genre fiction does: literary fiction seems to put more emphases on literary devices, such as symbolism, theme, motifs, ect...It doesn't concern itself so much with the story as with the message the story is trying to portray.
> 
> ...


 
Wrong answer Skye. The Lottery is neither literay nor genre writing. 

It is actually _both. _It combines the two. 

This is what actually separates the timeless classic to the arid, dry wasteland of literature. A story that has etched itself in the history of literature has both genre writing and literary writing. It combines the two so seamlessly, it reads clear, succint, and smooth. Have you ever read "An Occurance at Owl Creek Bridge" or any of Poe's short story/poem or even Bram Stoker's "Dracula" and Stevenson's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde?"

None of those are considered literary yet are dubbed classics. Why? Because it has both. It spreads the message by delighting and entertaining the readers, whereas literary writing do not entertain nor delight.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 21, 2009)

Another wholly subjective and useless pigeon-holing of a story or stories.


----------



## Shawn (Sep 21, 2009)

> Literary theory, like all artistic theory, is opinion. That's what makes it so funny.



I was drawing a parallel; don't get all worked up thinking there's any such thing as "literary theory." Again, this anti-academic sentiment, and I'm not quite sure where it comes from. It only reveals the arrogance that comes from thinking one is unalterably correct, rather than just discussing the subject matter in an organized way.

Studying literature allows us a way to transfer the meaningful qualities of a piece of text over to plain English, so that it can be understood by _all_ people. I'm not sure what everyone thinks happens in literary analysis, I can assure you it's not an isolated or opinion-based thing. It's taking text, critical analysis, and established precedent (there are such things in writing) to determine the nature of the story. It's not voting yay or nay on whether a piece is good. That's for critics, not for scholars.

Why is it done? Because understanding literature allows us to see the patterns that arise in human thoughts, across individuals, and across time. It allows us to better understand the conditions under which people in the past have lived. It allows us to supplement our own understanding of the world, even whilst we learn through life experience. It is anything but useless.

Or maybe it is...

"All art is quite useless."


----------



## Shawn (Sep 21, 2009)

Leyline said:


> Wrong. If scientific theories were decided by small groups of sheltered nerds and required no proof other than those nerds opinions, you might have a point. Scientific theory lasts for one reason only: it's not proven untrue.



Okay, let's break this down, because it is apparent that no one is actually _reading_ what I'm writing.

I said that Grayson's comments are *as effective* (that's a simile, you know, comparing two unlike things with like or as) as saying that scientific theories are incorrect because they aren't like _real_ scientific theories.

I did this to make the point that academics is totally separate from the sort of discussions people outside the academic community have. What you say is completely inconsequential to them. What they say is, perhaps, completely inconsequential to you. But it doesn't mean that their understanding of literature is inherently less valuable than yours.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 21, 2009)

Shawn said:


> Studying literature allows us a way to transfer the meaningful qualities of a piece of text over to plain English, so that it can be understood by _all_ people. I'm not sure what everyone thinks happens in literary analysis, I can assure you it's not an isolated or opinion-based thing.





Shawn said:


> I did this to make the point that academics is totally separate from the sort of discussions people outside the academic community have. What you say is completely inconsequential to them. What they say is, perhaps, completely inconsequential to you.


Seems like kind of a disconnect between these two.


----------



## Shawn (Sep 21, 2009)

JosephB said:


> Seems like kind of a disconnect between these two.


 
Not at all. Just as the public is allowed the enjoyment of scientific discovery, so are they allowed the enjoyment of academic analysis. But, as in science, the real debate in the analysis lies in the journals.

I meant that it's not isolated in that there isn't just one person making decisions about works. There's debate, certainly.


----------



## GraysonMoran (Sep 21, 2009)

> So wouldn't that invalidate _your_ argument?


 
No.  And it's YOUR argument.  You are the one getting "worked up" here, peppering posts about whatever it is that you're trying to say.  Evidently that there are standards that define what is literature and what isn't and you know about them while others are in the dark.

Pretty much everybody knows it's a useless task to try to define beauty or justice or art...and therefore literature.  Trying to drag essayists (especially Wilde, who probably just did his to twit bookmoths like yourself) into it to give credence to your weird criteria is silly.


I'm going to try this again.  You want to draw lines between literature and genre fiction (for whatever reason)... don't try to define lit, define the genres.  They exist by definition.


----------



## GraysonMoran (Sep 21, 2009)

_



			Studying literature allows us a way to transfer the meaningful qualities of a piece of text over to plain English, so that it can be understood by all people.
		
Click to expand...

__And end up writing nonsensical sentences like that one?_

_



I'm not sure what everyone thinks happens in literary analysis, I can assure you it's not an isolated or opinion-based thing.

Click to expand...

__LOL   Dream on.   The idea that lit anal isn't opinion is too bizarre to take serioiusly.  And guess what...it's very, very extremely isolated.   The term "ivory tower" didn't just fall out of the sky._


----------



## Shawn (Sep 21, 2009)

GraysonMoran said:


> _LOL   Dream on.   The idea that lit anal isn't opinion is too bizarre to take serioiusly.  And guess what...it's very, very extremely isolated.   The term "ivory tower" didn't just fall out of the sky._



Analysis is text based. You're confusing analysis with criticism, when it isn't the same thing.


----------



## Shawn (Sep 21, 2009)

GraysonMoran said:


> Evidently that there are standards that define what is literature and what isn't and you know about them while others are in the dark.



Others are _not_ in the dark. You are thinking that the average hack that pushes out stories is the definitive authority on writing, but they are not. Just like _anything_, writing can be broken down into its constituent parts. Describing those parts is what is called analysis, and that is what I'm talking about. Through analysis, it is possible to determine what is literary fiction and what is not. Is that too hard to understand?



> Trying to drag essayists (especially Wilde, who probably just did his to twit bookmoths like yourself) into it to give credence to your weird criteria is silly.



"Weird criteria?" I would say that my criteria is reasonably broad. But, then again, if one is so determined to not categorize anything, then anything would be unreasonable.

Wilde wrote his only novel on art, I don't really think he would do that just to stir the pot... especially when he had other, more important things going on.



> I'm going to try this again. You want to draw lines between literature and genre fiction (for whatever reason)... don't try to define lit, define the genres. They exist by definition.



I want to draw lines between_ literary fiction_ and the rest of the written body. That is because there _is_ a difference, which is readily apparent to anyone that actually reads literary fiction. And I'm not the only person that thinks that there is a distinction. There is, very blatantly, a distinction between works that are considered in the academic fields, and works that are popular fiction.

Your defense of this idea of an ephemeral creative process is admirable. But good writing does not fall out of the sky, the author takes the intent to put across a theme and writes according to that intended theme.  It is the job of analysis to decipher the author's intent and to relay that intent to readers. It is as simple as that and there is absolutely _nothing_ wrong with its practice.


----------



## Shawn (Sep 21, 2009)

GraysonMoran said:


> _The term "ivory tower" didn't just fall out of the sky._



Precisely. Whoever came up with it had an intention.


----------



## Leyline (Sep 21, 2009)

> I was drawing a parallel; don't get all worked up thinking there's any such thing as "literary theory." Again, this anti-academic sentiment, and I'm not quite sure where it comes from. It only reveals the arrogance that comes from thinking one is unalterably correct, rather than just discussing the subject matter in an organized way.



Uh, I said that each reader has the right to their own interpretation. That's about as far from "thinking one is unalterably correct" as you can get. Please read and respond to the content of posts you quote, rather than just use them for a springboard to blather some pretentious semi-scholarly twaddle, ok? Thanks.


----------



## Shawn (Sep 21, 2009)

Leyline said:


> Please read and respond to the content of posts you quote, rather than just use them for a springboard to blather some pretentious semi-scholarly twaddle, ok? Thanks.



Semi-scholarly twaddle is leaps and bounds better than unrealistic, contrived drivel, if you're inclined to speak that way.

You said a _little_ bit more than "people have a right to their own interpretation." A statement I wholly agree with, by the way; but why should that get in the way of serious discussion?

You likened literary scholars to sheltered nerds. Now, personally, I love nerds; but you didn't mean that literary scholars are fun and zany people. You meant that literary scholars are _too_ intellectual, didn't you? You also implied that what is accepted by the academic community is little more than personal opinion.

If that's not disdainful of academia, then I don't know what is. 

Now, what I don't get, is how you can't see that the position that any interpretation is as good as the other (I assume this is what you mean) is just that, a position, and requires... faith in its correctness. So, really, debating to reach consensus is the position that doesn't require much belief, because the consensus is alterable, is it not?

But if you shut down every serious argument about literature just because you don't agree with the consensus on the basis of "everyone is allowed their interpretation," then there isn't any argument at all... no controversy. People just grab their opinions and go home. Academics, in large part, is about being correct... and there isn't any humanities without the recognition that not _all_ opinions on a text are equal.


----------



## Leyline (Sep 21, 2009)

Yes, I am disdainful of academia, like I'm disdainful of all pointless, worthless 'professions' that produce nothing but twaddle. I'm also disdainful of _your_ opinion on literature and most other things because the bulk of your posts reveal you to be a whiny little punk who's massive post count was mostly you sticking your nose up Hodge's dumb ass like it was a rose-flavored oxygen dispenser in a room full of tear gas.

Clear? I hope so. Ignored.


----------



## GraysonMoran (Sep 22, 2009)

> You're confusing analysis with criticism


 
I don't think it's me (or all those out there who scoff at the idea that lit anal is some sort of science) that's confused here. You are muddying up the waters, tossing in all these off the wall references to Willde and to "hack writers" and such. But in fact, there is nothing particularly objective about ANYTHING to do with literature. Or, in fact, any art form. You just get structures that get agreed upon (by a teensy, tiny academic elite) and surive until they get re-invented.



> Precisely. Whoever came up with it had an intention.


 
LOL. That's the most hilarious post I've seen anywhere in months. Yes, the heinous conspiracy to flout your theories has deep roots and a long, sneaky history. What a scream.

Oh, somebody might say something like... "a phrase like that only catches on if it strikes a chord in the minds of the unwashed out here" but if they had gone to the right schools they would realize that it's just a deeper current of the cabal.



> You meant that literary scholars are _too_ intellectual, didn't you?


 
See, the very idea that somebody could come up with a weird idea like that one is pretty much evidence of the profound influence of this intentional distortion of reality.


Okay, I'm going to quit twitting you here.   But I'm going to say this first: you keep acting like anybody that doesn't accept your narrow view is some sort of anti-intellectual conspiracy tool.   When actually it is you who have the agenda--arguing frantically that your system be applied and accepted. 
The original question was not "what is literary"  (and if you really, truly think you have an answer to that, god bless your cute little head) but "what is the difference between genres and literary (and later the term "mainstream").   This can be pretty easily dealt with.   
Instead you're leading a personal crusade.


----------



## Shawn (Sep 24, 2009)

Leyline said:


> Ignored.



You say that as if it suddenly bands me and my ilk from your bubble.

Twaddle Software

I will take offense for them.


----------



## Shawn (Sep 24, 2009)

GraysonMoran said:


> You just get structures that get agreed upon (by a teensy, tiny academic elite) and surive until they get re-invented.



Okay? When, exactly, does a _reader_ need to distinguish between literary and (your term, not mine) "mainstream" fiction? Think about what these terms are being used for. They aren't for everyday discussion of what book you're reading, and they certainly shouldn't be for the fiction writer.

They are used in... *gasp* ... academics!

And marketing; but fuck that.


----------



## Farror (Sep 25, 2009)

> like I'm disdainful of all pointless, worthless 'professions' that produce nothing but twaddle



You say this on a writing forum?

I'm not entirely sure why people are so reluctant to accept that those who devote years of their lives to studying literature can't be considered authorities on the subject. Not only that, but there's a fair bit of open disdain being displayed towards them. 



> you keep acting like anybody that doesn't accept your narrow view is some sort of anti-intellectual conspiracy tool.



To be fair, that's not coming out of nowhere. There's more than a little anti-academic sentiment being thrown around in this thread.

Is the idea of literature being definable as being literary so strange to you? Even if it's an imperfect definition, which is most certainly is, what's the harm in trying? People try to define everything, and logically, those who devote their lives to the study of literature would have the best definition of it.

All that aside, keep personal insults out of the discussion please. It doesn't help anyone's arguments, and lowers the tone of the entire discussion.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 25, 2009)

Farror said:


> Is the idea of literature being definable as being literary so strange to you? Even if it's an imperfect definition, which is most certainly is, what's the harm in trying? People try to define everything, and logically, those who devote their lives to the study of literature would have the best definition of it.



I know you weren't directing this to me, but personally -- as a writer I don't find it strange, and I'm not hostile -- rather I'm pretty indifferent about the idea of defining literature.

What I think is a little silly is the idea that writers set out to write something literary. People make that judgment after the fact. Just a guess, but I'm thinking Fitzgerald set out to write a good or even a great novel that would be _popular_. People only later considered it to be "literature." You sure could say the same about Dickens, who wrote serials that appeared in periodicals for a wide audience.

Reminds me of a teacher who told us that in the _Great Gatsby_,  Daisy's name was derived from a daisy being white on the outside and black on the inside. Now unless you can attribute that to Fitzgerald, I'd say _that's _twaddle. Shit people make up to justify their existence.


----------



## GraysonMoran (Sep 25, 2009)

> Okay? When, exactly, does a _reader_ need to distinguish between literary and (your term, not mine) "mainstream" fiction? Think about what these terms are being used for. They aren't for everyday discussion of what book you're reading, and they certainly shouldn't be for the fiction writer.
> 
> They are used in... *gasp* ... academics!
> 
> And marketing; but fuck that.


 
Amazing. Just amazing.

First of all, you missed it. Nobody is trying to diff lit from mainstream, quite the opposite if you'd paid attention. The poster was trying to separate "genre" from "other stuff". If "literary" and "mainstream" (the term introduced earlier, not by me) aren't snynomous for you, then YOU define the difference. After your fashion.

And no, READERS don't really care about it the way academics do. But WRITERS might run up against it. Which prompted this thread, I guess you'd say. 

And marketing????? Gee, yeah, the immense "literary" market is so desireable. That's why you see all those sections in bookstores saying "Literary". 

For a guy who claims to study objective text-based analysis (in some advanced fashion that makes those who don't "laymen"--outside of that bubble) you don't read very carefully.



> what's the harm in trying?


Nobody has said there is "harm" in attempting definitions of art, just that it's a bootless task.
Especially since...here we go again... it's so easy to define the difference under discussion from the genre side and so obscure from the "literary" side.

By the way, you know what they call the little multi-language brochures and manuals and stuff that come with your new gadgets and toys and appliances:
Literature.
And some of that literature contains "artwork". 
Be siure to factor that in.

Meanwhile, it's SO easy to describe what a detectibve or romance novel is.


----------



## Rob (Sep 25, 2009)

JosephB said:


> What I think is a little silly is the idea that writers set out to write something literary. People make that judgment after the fact.


Um, no. There are authors who set out to write literary fiction.



JosephB said:


> Just a guess, but I'm thinking Fitzgerald set out to write a good or even a great novel that would be _popular_. People only later considered it to be "literature." You sure could say the same about Dickens, who wrote serials that appeared in periodicals for a wide audience.


Um, all fiction is literature, including mainstream, genre and literary fiction. Literature is not the same as literary fiction, the two terms have quite different meanings. If you already know this, fine, but your post suggests otherwise (to me).

Cheers,
Bob


----------



## JosephB (Sep 25, 2009)

Rob said:


> Um, all fiction is literature, including mainstream, genre and literary fiction. Literature is not the same as literary fiction, the two terms have quite different meanings. If you already know this, fine, but your post suggests otherwise (to me).


Um, I guess I didn't. But um, thanks for the information.

When I finish my novel, I’ll do the necessary research and identify agents who represent novels similar to mine.   

  Otherwise, I'm not too concerned about all this.


----------



## Farror (Sep 25, 2009)

> Nobody has said there is "harm" in attempting definitions of art, just that it's a bootless task.



It's certainly difficult, but something is better than nothing. And I think that while any definition thought up will be inherently imperfect, it can still be useful. And if it's useful, than we should keep it until we come up with something better.


----------



## GraysonMoran (Sep 26, 2009)

The only harm comes (well, absurdity, really)  in buying into those definitions and trying to browbeat others into accepting them.
You could probably do a history of the world consisting of showing all the messed-up things that ever happened as being somebody trying to forice their definitions on somebody else.   And the more abstract and idiotic those definitions are, the more harmful they get.
Defining surveyed borders (my own specialty) has led to some trouble.  But NOTHING compared to people forcing their definitions of God and Public Good and The People on others.


----------

