/lit/ - Literature

quality
no. yes.

It's a nebulous, subjective definition that will usually amount to "I know it when I see it."

I generally think of it as a sense of interaction between the work in question and the greater body of literature that makes up the author's cultural understanding.

So yeah, genre work can be literary, and non-genre work can be self-absorbed or just unaware enough to be non-literary.

Really, the tricky part is defining literature in the first place.

> Can genre fiction be literary? Can fiction that doesn't fall into a specific genre be non-literary?

No, and yes.

>>1947337
So speculative fiction that takes place in the future and contains elements of technology that doesn't yet exist automatically can't be as good as literature that takes place sometime in the past? That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard.

>>1947350
The time period has nothing to do with it. If you wrote a "speculative fiction" novel that took place in the past under an "alternate history" it'd still be worse than most fiction books.

I generally consider literature to be something which helps me understand or sheds new light on the world in which we live.

If I read a book for the opposite reason, like escapism, I don't consider it literature. I fucking love fantasy novels, but honestly, they're basically the opposite of literature.

How come Ovid can be literary, when he's got God's, and magic, and battles, and all that fantasy nonsense going on?

>>1947357
So it has to take place in the real world to be good. Is that what you're saying?

The Odyssey isn't literary because it has gods and magic?

The Eddas or Sagas of the Icelanders?

Lord of the Rings isn't literature, when it's used to express an idea about real philosophical ideas?

You are stupid.

Literary fiction is challenging and complex. Non-literary fiction is easy and simplistic.

>>1947400

So Hemingway isn't literary now?

>>1947403

If you think he's easy you've been seriously mislead.

>>1947389
The classics you mentioned now get a free pass because they allow us cultural insights into a time and place that we almost have no information about and very little from.

Escapism is not literary. It can have literary elements, but that does not make it culturally valid or important.

Good job on picking the one contemporary fantasy series that anyone takes seriously, by the way. Chances are you wouldn't be able to name another one.

>>1947375
Because genre fiction can be literary. /lit/ is full of angry teens who read basic, essential lit and have high noses because of it.

Genre has nothing to do with it being literature, it's the quality and nature. If it's well written and concerns big themes, it's lit. If it's a story meant to entertain without asking any questions, it's entertainment.

Entertainment is not bad, and you should remind snooty kids that rail on genre fiction that their kiddy 1984 is sci fi as well.

>>1947408
COMPARED TO MOST, NO HE'S NOT 'EASY'. BUT COMPARED TO MANY OF HIS CONTEMPORARIES, HE IS.

>>1947412
1984 is speculative fiction, asshat. And I still consider it genre fiction.

>>1947416
It's all of that. It's also literary. Maybe most importantly, it's also literature.

>>1947426
UNFORTUNATELY EVERY BOOK IS LITERATURE.

>>1947434
1. Written works, esp. those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit: "a great work of literature".

>>1947430
>dictionary
>literature
lolwut

>>1947430
I'd disagree on that point, but really, we'd probably just end up arguing from different definitions of the word "literature". So hard feelings, though, right?

>>1947412
OP here. So The Dispossessed and Neuromancer are literary, but Hitchhiker's Guide isn't?

>>1947416
Speculative fiction set in the future, futuristic scifi, same diff, asshat. Doesn't matter what you call it, you caught my meaning.

>>1947437
>>1947434

I KNOW, IT SUCKS. BUT A DEFINITION IS A DEFINITION AND ANY WRITTEN WORKS FITS THAT DEFINITION, SO BY CALLING IT 'NOT LITERATURE' IS ERRONEOUS.

>>1947435
Scifi focuses on technological speculation, speculative fiction focuses on cultural and political speculation. They can, and sometimes do, co-exist in the same book, but 1984 is certainly more the latter than the former.

also, itt: a bunch of butthurt subjectivists. Not all books/genres are created equal. Some have more merit and importance than others on average and in general.

Deal with it.

>>1947438
I prefer to connote "literature" with a focus on that "esp." I only consider works of exceptional quality and/or lasting cultural significance to be literature.

That dictionary definition is a little too broad for my tastes.

>>1947412

No, it's full of adults who try to talk about serious books but get drowned out by neckbeard wasters like you.

>>1947446
MINE TOO. BUT WHAT IS, IS. MANY THINGS IN LIFE WE DON'T AGREE WITH, BUT WHAT CAN YOU DO?

>>1947448
Definitions are subjective, though, especially when it comes to classifying the arts. I feel like "literature" as a word is malleable enough for us to use a more nuanced definition.

>>1947408

No, he's pretty easy.

>>1947460
I PERSONALLY VIEW LITERATURE AKIN TO YOUR DEFINITION. ALTHOUGH, I WON'T TELL PEOPLE RANDOM CRAP SCI-FI AND FANTASY AREN'T LITERATURE AS UNFORTUNATELY THE BROADER DEFINITION ENCOMPASSES THEM AS WELL

>>1947460

Do you want to know the truth?

The only reason you think this shit is because the people who make disposable entertainment have more money than the people who write and publish literature. Consequently, they are able to jostle for an esteem they haven't earned. Same reason as public schools serve shit, attention-wrecking, nutritionally worthless fast food, making their own jobs impossible, such is the chemical impact. Money talks. But don't join in, man. It's sad to be a dupe.

>>1947466
I can see what you mean, then, even if I can't wholly agree.

>>1947411

>Good job on picking the one contemporary fantasy series that anyone takes seriously, by the way. Chances are you wouldn't be able to name another one.

Gormenghast

>>1947470
>gormenghast
>same level of cultural and literary importance as LotR

I'm officially done with this thread.

>>1947468
Respectfully disagreed. I think I've a pretty reasonable opinion, and that I've given it a fair amount of personal thought.

Also, why you gotta talk down to folks?

>>1947478

http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtbloom.html

ctrl+f Tolkien

Then ctrl+f Peake.

Deal with it.

>>1947482
NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU PERSONALLY DISAGREE, IT STILL MAKES YOU WRONG.

IT'S NON-NEGOTIABLE.

>>1947487
>bloom's canon
>2011

Really, man. . .? Really?

>>1947494

Yes, really.

Problem?

>>1947488
Why is it non-negotiable?

>>1947498
It's outdated, for starters.

And you do realize Bloom's canon is the opinion of just Bloom, right? And that not everyone, or even most contemporary critics, agree with Bloom. . .?

>>1947498
Bloom disowned it before it was even published and there's been more than 15 years of literature since.

>>1947494
cite someone better, fagbag. We're all waiting.

>>1947505
>>1947507

I'm not seeing a source that contradicts Gormenghast's importance.

>>1947517
I (you) have no idea what's going on

>>1947517
I've yet to see a source other than Bloom that puts it on the same level of Tolkien's work. Mainly because it isn't.

The argument is whether it's on par with Tolkien, not that some people consider it important. There are plenty of important authors, but they aren't all of the same level. That's the entire point of this thread.

>>1947494

OK, I've said this before, I'm going to say it again:

Fantasy readers regularly appeal to authority by saying that "academia" or "the academy" or "universities" study their favorite candy, then try to pull the "ah, what is truth tho" bullshit when you examine the assertion in detail. Their fail isn't important - the claim that "fantasy is literature" occurs because we are living in a time after literacy as we knew it, but when the word "literature" still has cultural capital. So people who would never read literature, who think literature literally means elderly entertainment, desperately aver that Twilight, or Harry Potter, or LOTR, or whatever, IS literature. Soon we will have total second-order illiteracy among the general population. When this happens, a happy side-effect will be the end of the misuse of the word "literature" to mean "something I like for which I want to claim respectability". Literature will once again be what, for most of its history, it was - the pursuit of a minority of people who don't bother the average citizen with what he has no real desire to understand.

>>1947514
Michael Heyman. It's a integral part of his "Nonsense Works" class.

>>1947525
Thank you for being a voice of reason here.

I enjoy Tolkien, I've enjoyed Gormenghast, but jesus fucking christ, Fantasy isn't on par with other types of literature.

>>1947524

Bloom didn't put it on the same level as Tolkien, he put it above Tolkien.

And why do I need multiple sources, but you don't need any at all.

I've got Bloom. What have you got?

>>1947525
>"literature" means special books that make me feel special

>>1947534
What makes Bloom's opinion important? How is it any better than if some random jackass agreed with you?

>>1947533
>2011
>thinking in terms of genre

Mervyn Peake is a writer of minor literature. Tolkien was a writer of popular fiction. Peake is superior, obviously. I'm surprised there's even an argument. Tolkien's atmosphere is easier to forge, and Peake's books address the world in a relatively uncoded manner - the reader who tries to take something about life away from his work won't be led entirely astray. Tolkien's own unlovely values of absolute monarchy and racial purity are hedged with a thousand pig-eyed obscurities, and make sad figures of their adherents.

>>1947534
No, you don't have Bloom. Bloom denounced it as bullshit himself.

So you have exactly what I have up until this point. Since you're so adamant about genre fiction being just as good as other types of fiction, does that mean romance novels are on par with Lolita?

Just curious, since you're the supposed subjectivist here.

>>1947533

Thank you, glad to be of help!

I don't know how anyone can say The Dispossessed isn't literature...

What is inherently wrong with the fantasy genre?

>>1947551
Most if it is nothing but weak worldbuilding and escapism. Essentially, it has all the qualities of a book without actually saying anything meaningful. Most of the time. There are exceptions.

>>1947537

Sterling Professor of Humanities at Yale University.

His dozens and dozens of publications regarding literature.

That's the difference, for starters.

>>1947544

Whether he's denounced it or not, the fact remains that he wrote it.

>Since you're so adamant about genre fiction being just as good as other types of fiction, does that mean romance novels are on par with Lolita?

You're asking me if every romance novel is on par with Lolita?

Also, I'm not a subjectivist. Do you know what that term means?

>>1947544
I think he means it's possible for a romance novel to be on par with Lolita. That being about romance doesn't automatically put it behind Lolita.

I personally would say that any "genre" of fiction can be literature, but certain types of fiction are less likely to produce something of literary value than others.

>>1947552
EGGFUCKINGXACTLY. EVERYONE READ THIS POST.

JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS PIGEONHOLED INTO A GENRE TO FULFILL MARKET DESIRE DOESN'T MEAN IT IS INHERENTLY INFERIOR TO SOMETHING ELSE PIGEONHOLED INTO "MODERN FICTION"

>>1947554
>There are exceptions.

The same goes for every genre, be it "literary fiction" or "fantasy". There are good and bad, completely independent of their genre labels.

>>1947554

I agree with you. The point of my post was simply to ask people whether they think the genre itself somehow prevents authors from producing literature from it or do they have this dislike for it because of the reality of the situation (most fantasy is escapist fluff)

>>1947553
>Whether he's denounced it or not, the fact remains that he wrote it.
>implying you can simultaneously claim the author doesn't matter but that their cultural capital does without being a tool

>>1947553
Are you listening to yourself?
>Whether he's denounced it or not, the fact remains that he wrote it.
Yes, and he also WROTE HIS DENOUNCEMENT OF IT. Are you really so blind as to see that you're trying to appeal to an authority that you are subsequently trying to dismiss simply because he no longer supports your position?

If his list is valid because of his credentials, then so is his denouncement of it as bullshit. Thus invalidating the list.

And, yes. I know what subjectivism is, and I'm obviously not using the metaphysical version. I'm using the term to denote a disturbing trend among folks to suggest that literature's objective quality is completely relative to what the individual reader thinks of it, and no critically evaluative and objective statements can be made of it.

I'm not saying you fit that category completely, but you seem to be just mad that someone's suggesting your favorite genre isn't as good as other genres.

If you didn't like my first question, here's a modified one: Is the romance novel genre on par with fantasy, then?

>>1947581
Clearly he'd have to write a fucking book denouncing it in order for his opinion after to matter as much as his opinion when he wrote it.

The person you're quoting is an idiot.

>>1947565
>>1947552
>>1947572
"Possibility" doesn't change the fact that MOST OF THE TIME these genres put out more shit than other genres.

Stop trying to pretend the playing field is level and that all genres produce the same quality. I can safely dismiss the romance genre and, if a novel comes along that's quality, acknowledge it as such.

tl;dr Not all genres produce the same regular quality, and what Fantasy has produce, as a whole, is not on par with general fiction or many other fiction genres. Keep pretending they're all the same if you want. It's flatly false.

Saging because this doesn't even belong on page 0 anymore.

Literary concerns literature. Literature is the collection of ideas expressed with words. Fiction, non-fiction, good, bad, lists, poems, prose, artistic, scientific, narrative, descriptive: all of that is literature, all of that is literary.

Comic books, videogames, movies, paintings, melodies are not literature in the sense that I just explained, they are made of texts that are not in the realm of words. However, if you analyze them, if you break them into pieces, you might find a work of words behind it: a script, a dialogue, a concept of narrative. Therefore they are also literary though they aren't limited to it.

On another take of the word "literary" it could simply mean "artistic" and in this way it opposes to non-artistic literature. You are questioning what is art and that is one hell of a problem. But I assume that, in this particular context, we can all see art as a sensible use of the tools of literature. I don't see how a work of fiction can fall into "not literary" or "not art". And on the other hand, it doesn't mean non-fiction is automatically not artistic in nature. We have examples of all kinds.

I didn't read the thread.

>>1947598
OP specifically asked "CAN genre fiction be literary," not "is genre fiction usually literary." How fucking stupid are you?

The answer to the first question is "yes, genre fiction can be literary," and the answer to the second is "no, it usually is not."

>>1947604

You see, this is the kind of knot people tie themselves in for no other reason than that money talks.

>>1947617
I don't even remember what my first post is and I don't feel like reading through this thread again to find it, so I have no idea how I answered OP.

I'll re-answer: Yes, it can be, but it usually isn't.

>>1947598
It's absolutely your prerogative to dismiss it. The question is, would you dismiss a great literary work if it happened to be fantasy, just because it was fantasy?

Why do you give a shit if something is "literature" or not? So that you can feel smarter? No one fucking cares about that, and only idiots think that reading literature makes them smart. Just read what you enjoy reading and shut the fuck up.

>>1947649
pleb detected

>>1947631
Did you read my post? I said I would acknowledge a book from any genre if it was quality. I even specifically mentioned Romance, the worst genre in quality production.

>>1947649
/lit/ talks about it a lot, and I wondered what they meant. Why you so butthurt?

>>1947618
What?

I define escapism as the antithesis of literariness. Basically if you spend more time thinking about how cool it would be to be the main character than you do about the beauty and insight offered by the book, it's not literature, and vice versa.
This doesn't mean all good books have unrelateable shits as protagonists but I think almost all bad books just rely on self-insertion fantasies to tell shallow ideas.

I won't argue that any of this is objectively determinable but that's how I think of it, and the reason genre fiction is almost always trash is because relying on invented parts of the world is something you'll only need to do if you're trying to make the world 'cooler' and more escapist. The exception comes in genre fiction that uses hypothetical worlds to explore genuinely interesting and compelling themes unrelated to escapism. Brave New World and Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? are literature and science fiction in my opinion.

>>1947703
Are there any novels that you might say have both escapism and deep beauty and insight?