Okay, so I've been trying to "expand" my literary horizons by reading "literary fiction" instead of "genre fiction"...?

[Condesln]

...because everyone tells me how infantile and weird it is to be stuck exclusively reading fantasy and science-fiction. Oh... you only read that? You should try some literary fiction so it will enlighten your soul and widen your scope on the human condition, and you know, make you a better... person? Oh, the way they play it up makes it seems as though as soon as I finish their book, a god-ray will immediately come through a stained-glass window and illuminate me. Well, I tried their advice and picked up "CAIN" by Jose Saramago. Shit, relatively popular literary fiction author, right? The book has been translated to English, recommended on Amazon, and mentioned by various people. Okay, worth checking out? I get to the second page...

...and for the first time in my life I'm actually convinced that either I am absolutely mentally retarded and have just never been diagnosed with it, or the authors that write this kind of stuff try to write it in the most pretentious and vapid way possible to wax their egos and insult my intelligence, or just for the sake of hoping that someone is going to sit down and sift through their prose to find a story.

"It’s likely that the lord’s violent assault on his offspring’s silent tongues had another motive, namely, given that, in principle, you can’t have one without the other, that of putting them in contact with the deepest depths of their physical being, the so-called perturbations of the inner self, so that, in future, they could, with some authority, speak of those dark and labyrinthine disquiets out of whose window, the mouth, their tongues were already peering."

Page after page after page...

I mean, yes, I understand the passage, but I have to slow down to a snail's pace and sometimes re-read the passage several times to know what the hell I'm being told. But why should I have to? Why should I have to do this page after page after page? It takes the joy out of reading. It makes me feel like I'm not doing this for fun, but for some analytical purpose. It feels like it's breaking up the narrative so bad. Look, don't get me wrong: I like language. I like language in a sense that it can be an amazing vehicle to create stories and convey information... but language just for the sake of language, to me, is not fun. I get this awful feeling that the author is just sitting behind his keyboard trying to come up with the most ostentatious way to tell his story, or a lack of one. Oh, I don't have a story to tell. Oh well, I can always disguise it by stumbling prose... after all, everyone will just think that I'm a genius! Just because I like listening to music shouldn't mean that I need to go learn the circle-of-fifths so I can understand it.

Is this the way all "literary fiction" is meant to be read? Am I just way too spoiled and used to trite science-fiction and fantasy books that hold my hand through the entire story? Should I persevere with this? No kidding, I just finished the first MISTBORN book, and then I read go ahead and read a few pages of CAIN... and it makes me feel, like I mentioned previously, and rather candidly, that I'm fucking retarded. I feel like: shit, no wonder people give me weird looks on the bus when I'm reading. They're probably wondering who the hell let me travel by myself.

[Whitestripe]

Is this the way all "literary fiction" is meant to be read? Am I just way too spoiled and used to trite science-fiction and fantasy books that hold my hand through the entire story? Should I persevere with this?

No, it's not the way all "literary fiction" is, although sometimes books *do* make you concentrate pretty hard to get it, but I love a book that really makes me think.

I think you might have picked a really hard book for your first attempt at something other than genre. First off, it's his last book, and it seems to me that sometimes an author's books get more and more dense throughout their careers. Also, from what I've read, Jose Saramago had a pretty peculiar writing style that isn't especially accessible. Not to mention that since it's a retelling of the Old Testament, knowing your Old Testament might go a long way toward greater understanding of this book. (I have no idea if you do or don't know your Bible, I certainly don't beyond the very basics and would therefore be totally lost on Cain.) Plus, no matter how fantastic the author is, I have always found that books in translation are just harder than books that are written in English.

If you don't like that specific book, why not try a different one? (the beauty of the library is that they are free!) Don't give up on all literary fiction just because the first one didn't do it for you.

[SkynJay]

I cant tell you how many passages I had to reread in the second book of Prince of Nothing. Every genre has different styles within it.

I say switch books.

[DanielAbraham]

I could never get into Saramago either, but it was Blindness that defeated me.

I'd vote for trying some early Kazuo Ishiguro -- The Remains of the Day or An Artist of the Floating World.

Or if you want to see literary pretention done right, try Jeanette Winterson's The Passion. It's right on the edge of being poetry, but it works.

[Whitestripe]

You know, I found The Remains of the Day incredibly slow. I recently read The Good Earth by Pearl S Buck and found it incredibly wonderful. It was so *sparse* and yet I was right there in China with her. I love, love, love Steinbeck also.

[Errant Bard]

I have a pretty basic question:

What is "literary fiction"?

Is it stuff like Eco, Borges, Joyce or Murakami write? I thought it all fell into the lap of "speculative fiction"? What are the boundaries of the genre? The Count of Monte Cristo? Harry Potter? Kavalier and Klay? To kill a Mockingbird? Good Omens? Pouchkine, Marquez, Tolstoï?

[Condesln]

I have a pretty basic question:

What is "literary fiction"?

Is it stuff like Eco, Borges, Joyce or Murakami write? I thought it all fell into the lap of "speculative fiction"? What are the boundaries of the genre? The Count of Monte Cristo? Harry Potter? Kavalier and Klay? To kill a Mockingbird?

"Genre fiction is plot driven and attracts a broad audience. It may fall into any category, such as mystery, romance, science fiction, etc. Bestselling genre authors would be John Grisham, Sidney Sheldon, Stephen King, Dean Koontz, Michael Connelly, Janet Evanovich, Danielle Steel, among others.

Literary fiction is character driven and appeals to a smaller, more intellectual audience. A work of literary fiction may fall into any of the genres. However, what sets it apart are such things as excellent writing and originality of thought and style that raise it above ordinary writing. Examples of literary fiction: Cold Mountain, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Grapes of Wrath. Popular authors of literary fiction would be John LeCarre, Barbara Kingsolver, and Toni Morrison, among others."

If you were to compare this to movies... genre would be Transformers, Cheaper By The Dozen, The New Guy, Larry The Cable Guy, Big Momma's House, SAW , and literary would be... I don't know, Man on Wire, Project Nim, The Interrupters, Thunder Soul, Restrepo, Marwencol?

[jurble]

Bakker has some nice essays on literary fiction and why its authors and proponents should all die.

[Condesln]

Bakker has some nice essays on literary fiction and why its authors and proponents should all die.

Please share.

I believe it would be easier for publishers to put out the shitty genre fiction because it wants to cash in a fad. Genre fiction is what sells. It's what makes the NYTBS. Literary fiction, on the other hand, sells very little. Wouldn't a publisher be a little more careful about publishing bad literary fiction because it would be considered a risk?

[Errant Bard]

Literary fiction is character driven and appeals to a smaller, more intellectual audience.

Oh for fuck sake. It's the hipster genre.

Bakker has some nice essays on literary fiction and why its authors and proponents should all die.

Erf, if the above definition is correct, Bakker writes literary fiction.

....

This being said, not everything in the hipster genre is bad. Everyone should have read To Kill A Mockingbird, for example, it's a wonderful book. (and Bakker, Eco, Joyce and the like write very cool stuff, too)

[False Alarm]

Is this the way all "literary fiction" is meant to be read? Am I just way too spoiled and used to trite science-fiction and fantasy books that hold my hand through the entire story? Should I persevere with this?

i guess saramago's not for everyone, and i ain't read cain, but i don't really think it's accurate to describe him as a language-for-the-sake-of-language writer. he's heavily stylized--to the point that his style is an unmistakable signature--but i've always thought that once you get attuned to him he's pretty much an elemental storyteller, that you can practically see him sitting by the fire and spinning these things to a captive audience. or sometimes his narration creates more of a choral effect, where you could imagine multiple people, maybe a group of old brothers or something, taking turns telling the story, often interrupting each other to add this bit or talk about some aspect of the story. fascinating writer, and definitely uses a lot of fantastical elements in his fiction.

but like i said, not for everyone. if transparent language is vital for you in a story, there are plenty of great writers of all types of fiction--mimetic, "literary," SFF, "literary SFF," whatever, etc--who do that well. i'm sure some will get recommended to you in this thread.

[Raksha the Demon]

Most works of literary fiction leave me cold. I did enjoy To Kill A Mockingbird; and heartily recommend The Count of Monte Cristo (I believe it's the best of Dumas' works). I adore the Iliad; though I prefer the prose translation (and, sadly, find it difficult to remember how many 'l's there are in the word). And I love Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories; also Kipling's Jungle Books. And I am very fond of Galsworthy's Forsyte Saga.

My true love is science fiction/fantasy, as well as some more populist fare, including historical novels. To me, the story is the most important thing; I want tension, drama, conflict, humor. My favorite non-fantasy/SF novel is probably Susan Howatch's Wheel of Fortune, which is a family saga based to some extent on the lives and families of English kings Edward III through early Henry V - but only in the sense that the characters share certain conflicts and interactions; they are not the exact same people (the book chronicles a family of English aristocrats living on an estate in Wales; and how a series of cataclysmic events long before the book ever begins ripples down the generations and sows more disaster and affects everyone's lives). I loved the characters and found their voices genuine, sometimes heartbreaking and sometimes hilarious.

But that's just me. My tastes are eclectic; but probably not particularly sophisticated.

[DanielAbraham]

I'll give you my take.

I think the real difference between literary fiction and genre is how it reflects on the person reading it. There are any number of "literary" books that participate in "genre" conventions -- Roth's "The Plot Against America" or Michael Faber's "Under the Skin" ferinstance. And there are boatloads of "genre" writers whose work isn't particularly plot-driven -- Carol Emshwiller and Jonathan Carroll, ferinstance. And a lot of people who sit well in either camp -- Maureen McHugh and Karen Joy Fowler.

It seems to me that the mark of literary fiction is that, if someone sees you reading it, they assume you're smart and sophisticated. If they see you reading genre fiction, they assume you're not.

There are some other differences too -- literary fiction has a much wider range of narrative voices than genre permits, but I think those are more historical accidents than anything meaningful. "Literary" vs "genre" isn't something you can identify at the level of the word, sentence, or paragraph. It only comes in when you look at a work on a large enough scale that it has a cultural context around it.

[Errant Bard]

I like that definition, but basically you're saying that the distinction is empty of meaning beyond appearance, and that the OP is mistaking literary with unreadable/highbrow, aren't you?

[Whitestripe]

Oh for fuck sake. It's the hipster genre.

I gotta say that dissing on Literary Fiction with a custom title from Shakespeare is pretty funny. Your name too, for that matter.

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,

To the last syllable of recorded time;

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,

And then is heard no more. It is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

--Macbeth Act 5, Scene 5

[Errant Bard]

I gotta say that dissing on Literary Fiction with a custom title from Shakespeare is pretty funny.

But I was just dissing the wikipedia definition. ("only read by a small number of the cultured elite" stuff)

Anyway, Shakespeare is too mainstream, I was referencing Faulkner, ironically.

(gah, writing that last word was painful)

[Whitestripe]

Anyway, Shakespeare is too mainstream, I was referencing Faulkner, ironically.

I have to admit that Faulkner (who I just cannot read no matter how hard I try) was my first guess but the "Bard" in your name threw me off.

[DanielAbraham]

I like that definition, but basically you're saying that the distinction is empty of meaning beyond appearance, and that the OP is mistaking literary with unreadable/highbrow, aren't you?

I think OP is struggling with something that's intentionally inaccessible, yes. Not that there's anything wrong with doing inaccessible work if that's what you're into. I understand that some folks like modern poetry, Derrida, and fusion jazz. That something requires a bunch of context from the audience to be comprehensible doesn't make it bad, but it does make it pointless and unpleasant for those of us who aren't part of the cognescenti on that particular subject.

I don't think that the distinction is *completely* empty, in that an author who wants their work to be seen as literary will tend to make some stylistic decisions that a genre writer probably wouldn't. But the concern over appearance precedes those decisions, yes.

[Arthmail]

"Genre fiction is plot driven and attracts a broad audience. It may fall into any category, such as mystery, romance, science fiction, etc. Bestselling genre authors would be John Grisham, Sidney Sheldon, Stephen King, Dean Koontz, Michael Connelly, Janet Evanovich, Danielle Steel, among others.

Literary fiction is character driven and appeals to a smaller, more intellectual audience. A work of literary fiction may fall into any of the genres. However, what sets it apart are such things as excellent writing and originality of thought and style that raise it above ordinary writing. Examples of literary fiction: Cold Mountain, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Grapes of Wrath. Popular authors of literary fiction would be John LeCarre, Barbara Kingsolver, and Toni Morrison, among others."

If you were to compare this to movies... genre would be Transformers, Cheaper By The Dozen, The New Guy, Larry The Cable Guy, Big Momma's House, SAW , and literary would be... I don't know, Man on Wire, Project Nim, The Interrupters, Thunder Soul, Restrepo, Marwencol?

Gag. This is elitist bullshit of the highest order. The example that the OP gave was over wrought and terrible, a machine-gun use of commas bordering on criminal, and boring. More can be achieved with less words. Literary fiction does have this perception of being smarter, or attracting a smarter crowd, but thats really not the case.

If you are looking for something that fits within the nearly useless title of literary fiction, do read the Count of Monte Cristo. John Le Carres spy novels are also excellent.

But don't help to perpetuate this bullshit about intelligence and calibre of writing. Bakker is better than half of the authors mentioned. Atonement, by Ian McEwan could probably be considered literary fiction, and its easily one of the worst books i have ever not gotten past the first chapter. There is something like ten pages describing this garden and fountain in front of a mansion, and its boring. There is a key difference between using the english language to its fullest extent, and thereby transcending the written word, and beating it to death with a fucking dictionary.

[False Alarm]

I think OP is struggling with something that's intentionally inaccessible, yes. Not that there's anything wrong with doing inaccessible work if that's what you're into. I understand that some folks like modern poetry, Derrida, and fusion jazz. That something requires a bunch of context from the audience to be comprehensible doesn't make it bad, but it does make it pointless and unpleasant for those of us who aren't part of the cognescenti on that particular subject.

I don't think that the distinction is *completely* empty, in that an author who wants their work to be seen as literary will tend to make some stylistic decisions that a genre writer probably wouldn't. But the concern over appearance precedes those decisions, yes.

you seriously think saramago was more concerned over appearances in his work than you are in yours?