/lit/ - Literature

It's not really literature.

Books are different from literature, just as movies are different from films.

>>1403888
then what is literature?

>>1403888
I'm sorry, but you just went full-retard. To assume that if something does not meet your standards for "Literature" is to take a massive dump over the definition of the word. Fantasy and Science-Fiction Novels are just as "Literature" as your Romance and Crime Novels, whether you blow 10,000 dicks over it or not.

those are not the only literary genres

>>1403896
a miserable pile of secrets.

woops wrong board.

How could you forget Westerns?

>>1403888
Here's something that hopefully your high school mind can comprehend:

Brave New World (babby's first dystopian novel) is a piece of science fiction literature.

Are we done here?

>>1403888
This presuposes that all science fiction and fantasy is concerned purely with plot, and a gimmick
Having no story or characters or dialogue or ideas or etc
Now this might have been true in the days of the pulp anthologies of the 1930s an 1940s
But things have moved on.

science fiction is rad, fantasy is rad, novels
are rad, everything is rad

>>1403888
you dumbfuck (define literature in a way that is coherent and useful please tia)

>>1403908
Yes, dear. But "Brave New World" is roundly lauded, here. I'm pretty sure OP was talking about the shit this board rejects. You know, prompting her question about why it's rejected?
Now, we're done, yes.

>>1403916
OP didn't cite any examples
Did he mean licensed media like Star Wars and Star Trek and et cetera?
Or did he mean legitimate works?
Dude dissing all science fiction & fantasy also didn't cite any examples
In fact whenever /lit/ does this it never ever cites any authors, works, reviews, critiques, or essays
It just makes a blanket statement that assumes everything

>>1403926
Right, here we go. In all genres, there are works so well crafted that they fall into the realm of literature, connoting that it is art.

While all genres have awful shit that is not literature, Sci-Fi and Fantasy have the lion's share of it.

I'm so very glad I could explain this obvious thing to all of you. Any and all questions or comments can be directed to my e-mail address, stupidfuckscanttellartfrommindlessgarbage@gofuckyourselfwhores.com

>>1403888

fuck you you stupid fucking fucker

>>1403939
theres plenty of so-called high brow literature thats shit and people are just mutually masturbating one anothers ego going on about it
And I am going to make that a blanket statement, an assumption so obvious and self evident I need not cite any examples or authors or critical work

>>1403939
Isn't art subjective?
Who really can decide what is universally 'art' or not?

Twilight was one of the biggest turds I ever wasted an afternoon reading, but as we know some people worship it. It's art to them.

I don't think ART is the right word to use, boyo.

>Sci-Fi and Fantasy have the lion's share of it.

Debatable. There's so much trashy Romance shit out there.

Sci-fi I don't mind.
Fantasy on the other hand is almost universally shit.
It's all a bunch of nerds trying to rip off Lord Of The Rings and failing.
Shit, LOTR was read like a fucking history textbook anyway, what was so awesome about it?

>>1403949
I disagree. The debate about what art is has been going on since art itself. It's the right word, because it's the reason why we have threads such as this on 29 Dec 2010.

>>1403954
ACTUALLY, it's 30 dec (5am) here for me.

STOP ACTING LIKE YOU NO EVERYTHING

>Shit, LOTR was read like a fucking history textbook anyway, what was so awesome about it?

Not to derail but DEAR GOD YES. If ever a book needed a movie. Reading it was such a fucking chore. I've never finished a book.

>>1403952
Don't get me started on romance novels.
When you make lovey dovey wish fulfillment shit the center of the story it will always suck, no matter what it is.
I don't mind a good love story now and then, but only if it goes along with something interesting(What Dreams May Come, for example).
Not if it's just a load of mindless shit for the sake of making fat housewives feel better about themselves.

>>1403888
>Sci-fi and fantasy aren't literature

I don't know, man.
People love to intellectually masturbate over Brave New World and 1984 just as much as Crime And Punishment.

>>1403957
KNOW YOU STOP ACTING LIKE YOU NO EVERYTHING CUNT!

>>1403966
KNOW MAN YOUR WRONG AND YOU NO IT SEW SHUT THE FUCK UP

No offense, but if you diss on reading LotR, I don't respect your opinion

Yeah, it's slow, but it's also really good. If you bitch about it being slow, I basically assume you're reading solely for exciting things happening (in which case I recommend Matthew Reilly)

>>1403953
>Fantasy on the other hand is almost universally shit.
>It's all a bunch of nerds trying to rip off Lord Of The Rings and failing.
>Shit, LOTR was read like a fucking history textbook anyway, what was so awesome about it?
Yes the Tolkien derivative works are a problem
So dont read them
Try Poul Anderson, Fritz Leiber, Robert E. Howard, Evangeline Walton, C.L. Moore, Ursula K. Le Guin, Gene Wolfe, Jack Vance, etc
>>1403976
Nope its shit.
Read what Michael Moorcocks critique, and another author whose name I cant remember at the moment who has also written critically about it

>>1403976
I like how you assume I'm some tasteless philistine because I don't like LOTR.
I read fucking Walden in one sitting. I'm not asking for excitement.
It just didn't catch my interest. It was like reading a history textbook, as I already said.

>>1403965
Crime and Punishment, at least when I read it, wasn't an "I'm so smart I can read this book! Look at me!" book but more of a "Shit man Raskolnikov is goin' fuckin' crazy" kind of book for me, it really didn't feel intellectual at all.

>>1404034
what do you think of the authors I suggested as an alternative
still trying to think of who wrote that other good critique of it, no luck :(

>>1403976

Yes, because the fact that the book is slow and tediously paced is the reader's fault.

>>1403905
ENOUGH TALK

HAVE AT YA

>>1404014
I am familiar with Epic Pooh and I think it presents a lot of interesting arguments. However, I don't think Moorcock's critique proves (or is intended to prove) that LotR is shit. It's worth pointing out that Epic Pooh is primarily a political critique - it's criticizing the worldview underlying the books, which is quite conservative (and also very Catholic in sensibility). I think that a lot of the things Moorcock says are basically true, they're important to think about, and they're even more important when you look at the genre of Tolkien imitators instead of Tolkien himself. But despite Moorcock's critique I think Tolkien's work is without question worthwhile.

>>1404059
If your criticism is "NOT ENOUGH EXCITING THINGS HAPPEN" then that's your prerogative. and it's certainly something that's true of the series. but i'm not going to respect your thoughts on it or respect you as a reader.

i love reading more than anything, but most of what I enjoy is 'genre' / lowbrow shit from the 1920's - 1980's. Like, crime, fantasy, sci-fi, weird post-modernism. I love literature, but I love a clever plot more than anything. That's why I don't post on /lit/

>but i'm not going to respect your thoughts on it or respect you as a reader.

No?

Ok :(

I'm sorta busy right now, but I can I pencil you in tomorrow 10 AM to have a cry about it? Is that good for you? You know what, I'll have my people call your people.

>>1404070
Gene Wolfe is also Catholic, and conservative
Doesn't stop Book of the New Sun, Soldier series, and Wizard Knight from being awesome

>>1404078
Fritz Leibers Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser stories are wittier, contain snappier dialogue, more developed characters, complex plots, rousing stories, and yes plenty of action too

>>1404078

Me again (>>1404092) Just wanted to point out before I left that the only person carrying on about "nothing exciting happens" is you. I said the book is slow and tediously paced. The reason why the movies work and books don't is because Peter Jackson has better delivery. Same story just packaged differently. Anyway whatever, I'll be sure to cry about losing your respect tomorrow.

>>>>1404117
gene wolfe is rad
>>1404093
fritz leiber is rad
>>1404099
cool whatever

this is a messageboard on the fucking internet.

you really think there's even a slim chance 90% of us don't love scifi and fantasy? Really?