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

[Whitestripe]

I would put Le Carre in genre.

Hipsters hang out at open mics, but don't necessarily read poetry. ;)

[sologdin]

insult my intelligence

this misconceptualizes the debate. if so-called "literary fiction," such as saramago, forces the reader 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," then it can't be fairly said to be an insult to intelligence.

on the contrary, difficult writings are compliments to the audience, acknowledging through their difficulty that the audience is smart enough to apprehend the significance.

an insult to the intelligence, on the other hand, would be writing in the style of children's literature that is purposely designed to teach elementary literacy.

on the basis of the foregoing, i accordingly adjudge and decree this thread to be void ab initio.

ETA--

that said, this thread could use a thorough reading of eagleton's essay on this subject, which is now a classic on the subject: http://www.dartmouth...5vr/Eagle1.html.

[Larry.]

Eh, De gustibus non disputandum est and all that, I suppose. I do find it amusing that the Saramago in question is one of his weakest and most polemic novels (for the record, I have only read The Cave in English; the others in either Portuguese or Spanish translation). Saramago's style may be foreign to some, but he's not the first Ibero-American writer to employ such a writing style (García Márquez's The Autumn of the Patriarch utilizes a similar syntactical structure). It's easier to read than what some might suspect, at least after a dozen pages or so, when the rhythmic prose begins to sway and lull the reader into its grasp. But as I said above, not going to get into the disputing of tastes (much) here.

As for the "literary" fiction vs. "genre" fiction definitions that are being batted about here, I suspect most of those doing said batting abouts are not fans of a huge variety of fictions, or else one might just express bemusement at it all. I know I find it oddly amusing that those who don't care for a certain literary style cast a wide net of haughty disdain towards anything that might resemble the disliked piece, without caring to admit that there's such a wide range of narrative styles, prose structures, and characterization portrayals that it's hard to pinpoint a single, definite term to most anything.

I attended the first day of the 2011 Southern Festival of Books in Nashville last Friday. I went to a reading that Donald Ray Pollock did and heard an interesting question. The questioner wanted to know how well-read in "genre" literature Pollock was; the intent behind it had nothing to do with science fiction or fantasy (the most common quasi-synonyms for that term at fora such as this one). Pollock said he does read a lot of "genre" literature, going on to name several crime and Southern Gothic writers; Flannery O'Connor he cited as a central influence on his writing. It is interesting to see how such terminology has different semantic associations for different audiences. I suppose some here might think Pollock's Knockemstiff and The Devil All the Time is "literary" fiction; the author and his stories set in rural Ohio are as hard-scrabbled and plain-spoken as they come. Just a matter of perspective in all this.

As for the underlying question regarding such a nebulous field/mode/genre/etc. as "literary fiction," I'd say read often and read with an open mind. Some styles won't suit, but others may be brilliant and hit all of your reading "sweet spots."

[NewsToTom]

To the extent there is a useful distinction, my experience has been that segments of literary fiction tend to be much more concerned with the quality of the language and the particular words used for expression while most genre fiction tends to be much more plot-heavy narrative. This is a gross generalization, and there are plenty of exceptions, but I (an admitted plot reader who has found he doesn't much care for literary fiction) have found it a useful rule of thumb.

I haven't read any Saramago myself, but my experience with literary fiction and different types of genre fiction is I don't care for everything, and there's nothing wrong with putting down a work I'm not enjoying and don't have to read.

[Errant Bard]

that said, this thread could use a thorough reading of eagleton's essay on this subject, which is now a classic on the subject: http://www.dartmouth...5vr/Eagle1.html.

While discussing the meaning of the word literature is interesting, it does nothing to define what "literary fiction" currently means in our society, and what books are considered to be part of that group. In fact the author of that essay uses the literary books group as a basis of his discourse, and a measuring stick for his various hypotheses, as if we knew exactly which book is literary and which is not.

So actually trying to see what falls in that group is a mandatory prerequisite to understanding the essay, in any case.

[Happy Ent]

There are so many books and life is too short to read something you don't like.

I think this is not a good guideline.

Not for reading, not for music, not for art, not for food. Heck, not even for people.

It confuses accessibility with quality.

If trustworthy people consistently rhapsodise over a particular author, composer, or way-to-serve-stomach-as-a-dish, then it may be a good investment to actively delve into that.

Even if at first the verse doesn’t scan, you can’t see what the painting is supposed to represent, he heroine in the story apparently takes forever to reject her beta husband in favour of the exotic prince/pirate/vampire/flamenco instructor, or the whiskey tastes strangely peaty. Read some secondary material to appreciate it better. Try a second time. And a third.

Then reject it, proudly. I’ve done this for lots of things.

But I’ve also discovered lots of things that I initially rejected, and my life has become richer for it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I love Charles Frazier. The man's a hell of a writer. That said I usually read Genre fiction. I'm reading Book of the New Sun right now. I would say it and many other works transend Genre. Shryke once said (I'm paraphrasing) "According to literary fiction snobs it's okay to write about fake people just not fake places". There's a lot of truth in that statement in my humble opinion.

[sologdin]

While discussing the meaning of the word literature is interesting, it does nothing to define what "literary fiction" currently means in our society, and what books are considered to be part of that group. In fact the author of that essay uses the literary books group as a basis of his discourse, and a measuring stick for his various hypotheses, as if we knew exactly which book is literary and which is not.

So actually trying to see what falls in that group is a mandatory prerequisite to understanding the essay, in any case.

my impression is that the essay refuses to define the term, and argues that the term is more or less meaningless outside of the concepts of the last couple paragraphs, which lead into a second essay about the "rise of english" as a discipline. the point of noting it here is that the notion of "literary fiction" is equally worthless as "literature" or (heaven forfend) "Literature" as discussed by eagleton.

be advised that he is not necessarily adopting any of the ideas that he discusses, aside from the more or less marxist stuff at the tail end. i'm fairly certain, also, that he ridicules the distinction between the so-called literary works and non-literary mass culture.

[Happy Ent]

So, Solo, Literature is the only word you’ve ever capitalised, right?

[Grack21]

I like books with dragons and wizards.

[Serious Callers Only]

and i cannot lie.

[Happy Ent]

You other boarders can’t deny

that when a gold-haired twin and a gritty, witty dwarf

[Datepalm]

have totally immoral ways

you get sprung

wanna watch em play it tought

cuz its cool bitches havin' it rough

[Errant Bard]

my impression is that the essay refuses to define the term, and argues that the term is more or less meaningless outside of the concepts of the last couple paragraphs

Yes, that is what I understood, too, it argues that the word represents a construct built from personal and societal prejudice, and that the boundaries of that construct are placed more or less arbitrarily, and can shift depending on point of view, making the concept mostly meaningless other than to observe people who define it. However, he never denies that the construct exists and has boundaries that are not so blurry.

However arbitrary, if a group exists, it makes some sense to have people reject it based on the perceived (and maybe real) common characteristics of the items forming the group.

[me399]

My god.... I read that sample you put up and my eyes started to bleed. The entire book was like that?

[Alexia]

My god.... I read that sample you put up and my eyes started to bleed. The entire book was like that?

I read it three times over and I still have no idea what it meant.

[jurble]

http://rsbakker.word...-socialization/

http://rsbakker.word...al-high-ground/

http://rsbakker.word...the-easy-roads/

http://rsbakker.word...the-smith-myth/

http://rsbakker.word...ng-for-baroque/

http://rsbakker.word...modern-fantasy/

http://rsbakker.word...-my-duck-quack/

http://rsbakker.word...shake-his-hand/

http://rsbakker.word...of-imagination/

Thanks for doing something I was too lazy to do.

[Errant Bard]

I read it three times over and I still have no idea what it meant.

It means: "Lo, the Lord gave speech to his children"

(eta: ok, this is reductionist,, it means that the other reason for God to give speech to his children was so they knew themselves cause, you know, speaking is linked to the inner self, and in that knowledge, gain confidence in themselves.)

Rereading, it has an odd rhythm to it, and it's simpler than I though to roll with it. I think I'll check it out the translation in my language.

[Lyanna Stark]

OK, so the conclusions I've reached so far are that most things are genre, I should attempt to read things I don't necessarily like and I am a hipster. A good haul, I'd say! :lol:

Unfortunately someone linked Bakker, but you can't have it all.

[Antonius Pius]

Warning: no real point ahead, just venting some frustration

I read Steinbeck a long time ago, and I loved it. But I hated Ian McEwan. More recently I read A Tale of Two Cities by Dickens, because I wanted to read "serious literature" for a change. I liked it well enough, but now I feel I might just have reached my quotum. I wouldn't suffer through anything like what the OP quoted for anyhting. My spare time is too precious to fuck it up in something I'm bound to resent.

And what really drives me crazy is the presumption that you can only gain understanding of the human condition if you read serious literature. Fuck that, I don't need to feel miserable to realise people are assholes. I've listened to Type O Negative of blessed memory and seen enough daytime and primetime tv to know how fucked people are.*

/rant

* this supposes an elitist preference for nighttime tv, but that would be wrong, because I go to bed at night and then don't watch tv anymore.