Literary Elitism

[sologdin]

there anyone here who does hold their view? If so, can you elaborate?

heh. what in so-called "genre fiction" compares with

Joyce, Pynchon, Kafka, Dostoevsky, Melville,

in any meaningful way?

i personally don't care much for the distinction literary/genre--it's fairly philistine. nor do i care much for the distinction literature/non-literature, to be honest. but: the cited authors are very impressive (i omit DFW because i haven't read any). if 90% of everything is trash, then, yeah, genre is trash, mostly, except for those authors-of-rank who can bear sufficient water to contend with the aforesaid.

nevermind that kafka and pynchon, at the least, are already kinda in-genre.

[Serious Callers Only]

Valente for instance seems to want to do lit in genre (and i'm not so hot about it)

[A Song of Hound and Wolves]

there anyone here who does hold their view? If so, can you elaborate?

heh. what in so-called "genre fiction" compares with

in any meaningful way?

i personally don't care much for the distinction literary/genre--it's fairly philistine. nor do i care much for the distinction literature/non-literature, to be honest. but: the cited authors are very impressive (i omit DFW because i haven't read any). if 90% of everything is trash, then, yeah, genre is trash, mostly, except for those authors-of-rank who can bear sufficient water to contend with the aforesaid.

nevermind that kafka and pynchon, at the least, are already kinda in-genre.

Personally, I like all the authors cited. Well, okay, I'm not a big fan of Joyce (*ducks and hides from the snobs*). I read classic pre-post-modern literature (heh heh...see what I did there?) throughout the year because I have a big list of "must reads".

I don't think anyone here is denigrating classic literature and authors. Or at least, I wasn't.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

there anyone here who does hold their view? If so, can you elaborate?

heh. what in so-called "genre fiction" compares with

in any meaningful way?

That depends on how "meaningful", which I suspect varies greatly between individuals, and really is the core of the debate. So perhaps the most appropriate question is -- who decides what is "meaningful"?

[Errant Bard]

What if I just like authors who happen to be on the "elitist" lists?

The elitism I encounter most often is the one where people say "I don't read literature, I'm better than those lowly hipster/elitists/other forum members/whatever"

[Horselover Fat]

Valente for instance seems to want to do lit in genre (and i'm not so hot about it)

Not only does she want to, she succeeds at it. Many people are quite taken with her work.

Everything is not for everyone. If you try a book and don't care for it then move on (I just can't get going with Ulysses for instance) I just disagree with the idea of walling off a genre, whether literary or SFF, and labeling it as crap. That is elitist no matter which direction the finger points. Or if not technically elitist , then it is a distinction without much of a difference.

[Whitestripe]

I kinda dig lit-fic, but I also read genre. So there. Basically, I'm a book slut who will read anything.

[sologdin]

That depends on how "meaningful", which I suspect varies greatly between individuals, and really is the core of the debate. So perhaps the most appropriate question is -- who decides what is "meaningful"?

absolutely. so, i guess i was challenging the purported anti-elitist side of the debate (if there are sides here) to produce a definition of genre, or at least a listing of representative genre texts, and, then, produce from that unsavory underdark a list of heavyweights that might contend for the title of awesomeness with the 4chan list.

i see that valente is listed as a contender. might we add mieville, delany, butler, wolfe, WM miller? they're all speculative writers--but are they genre? if not, do we rather mean quick nasty nasties like moorcock?

[Mr. E]

who decides what is "meaningful"?

The reader in the short term and the culture in the long term, which can be absolutely infuriating in many cases.

I for one would actually rather remove genre titles to begin with, including the genre known as "literary." I think it's completely inadequate. Sologdin mentioned DFW, so I'll use him as an example: Infinite Jest is probably one of the best speculative fiction novels I've ever read. But that fact is bogged down in insistence on ancillary concerns that don't really matter.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

absolutely. so, i guess i was challenging the purported anti-elitist side of the debate (if there are sides here) to produce a definition of genre, or at least a listing of representative genre texts, and, then, produce from that unsavory underdark a list of heavyweights that might contend for the title of awesomeness with the 4chan list.

Even if we can all agree on a definition of "genre", isn't the real question how we determine (or who determines) what qualifies as "awesomeness"? Because that's really the underlying point in the OP's post about literary elitism:

"They seem to only recommend and commend the books and authors that English professors and the literary establishment celebrates: Joyce, Pynchon, Kafka, Dostoevsky, Melville, David Foster Wallace, among others. And some poetry as well. Everything else is trash to them, especially "genre" fiction.

If you're looking for a definition, then probably wikipedia's rather exhaustive entry on "genre" is a good starting point. I suppose if you wanted an example of what most would agree is "genre" fiction, just go to your typical bookstore -- online or otherwise -- and get books other than those in the "Literature" section. So, ASOIAF would be an easy example.

[Errant Bard]

Just as to verify, the assertions in the OP, I quickly googled "literature 4chan chart", and I got this (click on the image thumbnails in the thread), which rather definitely contradicts the idea that "all the rest is trash" to "them".

Aren't blanket statements such as the one in the opening post the real problem here?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Just as to verify, the assertions in the OP, I quickly googled "literature 4chan chart", and I got this (click on the image thumbnails in the thread), which rather definitely contradicts the idea that "all the rest is trash" to "them".

Aren't blanket statements such as the one in the opening post the real problem here?

I think A Song of Hound and Wolves really captured the central issue, even if the OP made an overstatement. Does a piece of writing have to contain some sort of philosophical message, greater point, profundity, or innovative literary device/style to be considered great, or is good storytelling more important even if it doesn't contain any of those other things?

I'm sure most of us would agree that a basic command of grammar, the ability to write clearly, etc., matter as sort of baselines. But after that, I think you're really venturing into criteria that are far more subjective.

[Serious Callers Only]

Not only does she want to, she succeeds at it. Many people are quite taken with her work.

The thing that annoys me is the narrative minimalism which is characteristic i think - extremely simple plot; if any,

1 2 3 characters. Very detailed but not actually affecting anything else except those other 2. The world is a 'tool' for the writer, stream of consciousness for the obscurantism, etc.

Is it any wonder people call this kind of book boring? I mean sure, there are thousands of books that are poorly disguised copies of various LotR successor subgenres tomes, but they all have some small emphasis on plot and they are all slightly different in voice, yes, even the yeard

Take Silently and very fast i read recently: it's a book about the most revolutionary thing humans can possibly do; true AI, but it's worried about the internal incestous ecosystem that the 3 main characters build and transfer into their descendents. It's implied by the ending that their particular scheme went down particulary badly with both AI's and humans, but she's emphatically not interrested to get into that non-oneiric plot mess.

[Elder Sister]

I think A Song of Hound and Wolves really captured the central issue, even if the OP made an overstatement. Does a piece of writing have to contain some sort of philosophical message, greater point, profundity, or innovative literary device/style to be considered great, or is good storytelling more important even if it doesn't contain any of those other things?

I'm sure most of us would agree that a basic command of grammar, the ability to write clearly, etc., matter as sort of baselines. But after that, I think you're really venturing into criteria that are far more subjective.

FLOW, where have you been? I have been missing you (in a non-stalker, strictly friendly way :)) on here!

I used to worry about what people thought about what I read or listened to, but I don't care as much anymore. As you and Song and several others have stated, I read for enjoyment; for my enjoyment.

Having said that, if something is entertaining or interesting, I'll read it. I'll read crap like Charlaine Harris, then turn around and read some E.M. Forster or Henry James. I read The Road and while I thought it was well done, it was horrifyingly depressing. I loved No Country for Old Men and hated Blood Meridian. I tried to read Shakespeare, and don't enjoy it. I have read some of the authors that Solo/OP listed. Some I could understand and enjoy; some I just couldn't follow. I do pay attention to what Solo says, though, so I may give some of them another chance.

I don't pretend to be an intellectual, but I do value the opinions of those who are, if I sense that they are genuine (and this is totally subjective judgement) and not some poseur trying to impress me with some big words strung together. I actually want to learn, and enjoy enlarging my little brain, but if someone is a pretentious wienerhead, I am going to ignore them and their opinions. And if they tick me off enough, I may tell them where to stick it.

Life is too short to worry about what people think of me. I have a good friend who says, "It doesn't matter what other people think of me. What matters is what I think of other people."

[sologdin]

genre" fiction, just go to your typical bookstore -- online or otherwise -- and get books other than those in the "Literature" section

that's one of the reasons that i don't care much for the designations--they're made by marketing "professionals" in order to sell products. they have nothing to do with the content, the merits, the aesthetics, whatever.

people who turn their noses up at "genre" or "literature" simply because of the designation are overhasty and trusting marketing language too far.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

genre" fiction, just go to your typical bookstore -- online or otherwise -- and get books other than those in the "Literature" section

that's one of the reasons that i don't care much for the designations--they're made by marketing "professionals" in order to sell products. they have nothing to do with the content, the merits, the aesthetics, whatever.

people who turn their noses up at "genre" or "literature" simply because of the designation are overhasty and trusting marketing language too far.

I don't think you'll get any disagreement on that here. I personally think the more interesting angle is whether the idea of "objectively better" actually exists at a meaningful level. I think that most of us would agree that enjoyability of a work is a critical component of it being considered "better", and that is such a damn subjective quality that it ends up dominating the "better" discussion over more objective/technical criteria.

[Freshwater Spartan]

What if I just like authors who happen to be on the "elitist" lists?

The elitism I encounter most often is the one where people say "I don't read literature, I'm better than those lowly hipster/elitists/other forum members/whatever"

Hit the nail right on the head. I call it the Larry the Cable Guyification of America. If you don't follow the crowd into a lifestyle of thoughtless entertainment and fart humor you are unamerican.

All of the writers in the OP are fine authors. I am not a huge fan of Joyce but I can respect what he did for the craft. GRRM is my favorite fantasy writer and probably the best in the genre but neither he or any other fantasy writer has come close to the accomplishments OP's literature list.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

All of the writers in the OP are fine authors. I am not a huge fan of Joyce but I can respect what he did for the craft. GRRM is my favorite fantasy writer and probably the best in the genre but neither he or any other fantasy writer has come close to the accomplishments OP's literature list.

What are those "accomplishments", and why should they matter to anyone now in terms of selecting what to read?

I really like Dostoevsky, but I can't fathom an objective argument for why anyone should read Crime and Punishment over ASOIAF. Other than your teacher/professor requiring you to read it.

Of course, by the same token, I don't see an objective argument for George Carlin being superior to Larry the Cable guy.

[A Song of Hound and Wolves]

I don't pretend to be an intellectual, but I do value the opinions of those who are, if I sense that they are genuine (and this is totally subjective judgement) and not some poseur trying to impress me with some big words strung together. I actually want to learn, and enjoy enlarging my little brain, but if someone is a pretentious wienerhead, I am going to ignore them and their opinions. And if they tick me off enough, I may tell them where to stick it.

(I might need to start a new topic...) I agree with you Sister, and reading this reminds me of why I absolutely cannot read music reviews anymore. It seems like every music critic has to throw in 3 references to obscure bands just to wink at himself in the mirror and make sure that we know that we are reading the opinion of Someone Very Important that has all the bonafides to peddle his opinion because Hey! he references three obscure bands...

[emberling]

Does a piece of writing have to contain some sort of philosophical message, greater point, profundity, or innovative literary device/style to be considered great, or is good storytelling more important even if it doesn't contain any of those other things?

To an extent, I believe that having some sort of philosophical message, greater point, or profundity is part and parcel of good storytelling. See e.g. how Hollywood builds stories, as explained here.

The distinction, I suppose, isn't whether there is a message, but whether that message is intended to edify and enlighten the reader, or merely have them smile and nod in vindication as the characters learn what the reader already knew. And when you look at it that way, it's hard to see it as objectively measurable in any respect, being entirely dependent on context. Why shouldn't, say, Miles Vorkosigan's examinations of the power of personal momentum be far more transformative to my life and way of thought than 'classics' that mostly restate things I learned in kindergarten, like 1984, Frankenstein, and Fahrenheit 451?