/lit/ - Literature

>>19477747
>What is the functional difference between myth and modern fiction?
This is the central question in the whole discussion.
Myth was taken as true, as an explanation of why the world is the way it is. Myths could be correct or wrong (in Christian vocabulary: heretical), they weren't merely stories to toy with. Literature (fiction), including fantasy, is valuable regardless of its truthfulness.
It's a massive, fundamental difference in how myth and literature are constructed and meant to be perceived. Sure, we today can and do read ancient myths as fictional literature, but that's absolutely not what they were made for. You have to be a retard like Rothfuss not to understand that.

>>19476944
The very idea of a walled space of "serious literature" is taken more seriously by the people (writers, readers) who see themselves as outside of it. This is just an another example.
Stuff like Frankenstein (Shelly), We (Zamyatin), Alice in Wonderland, EA Poe, Hofmann, Gogol, Borges, all sorts of fantastic fables and stories, has been a part of "serious literature" (which I think could be described as the stuff earnestly studied in academia) for well over two centuries. It all could be considered sci-fi and fantasy (unlike myth, it intentionally makes up phenomena that is contrary to the real everyday world). The difference is that modern fantasy is defined by a very limited world-model, satisfying the typically "genre" desires - excitement, "coolness", escapism (so they have the entire concept of "worldbuilding").
There certainly is some modern fantasy literature that could offer something to the readers of "serious literature", e.g. LOTR, Narnia, His Dark Materials (whose active dialogue with literary tradition is unparalleled in the genre, as far as I know), and indeed I come across scholars who treat these three with quite some seriousness. But the genre as a whole will never come to satisfy the "serious literature" readership if it won't reflect the readership's needs - which are not the abovementioned things such as escapism, but aesthetic pleasure, philosophical, psychological and social insight, etc. (of course, the details vary from reader to reader).
On the contrary, there's pic related. It raises the question: what does the genre audience even want? Why do they want fantasy to be considered "serious literature", if they think serious literature is largely lame and boring in the first place?