/lit/ - Literature

is this for an ap english essay? jesus, do your own homework

>>1661935
Just wanted to start a conversation.

>>1661935
I certainly hope it isn't

A Mary Sue is a character based on the author.

Conan is more of a wish fulfillment fantasy because if you ever study Robert E. Howard's life, Howard was a fucking loser that stayed in his room all the time and leeched off his mother until the age of thirty-five and then killed himself when shit got rough.
Conan was what Howard wished he was - someone who was strong, smart, competent, attractive and cool. So kind of the opposite of a Mary Sue.

Conan is the best fantasy character ever.

>>1661935
>ask a thought-provoking question
>get accused of clandestinely soliciting homework advice

>>1662351
>>1661935

Exactly. What self-respecting English teacher would assign this kind of pulp trash as homework? Much less use a silly term like "Mary Sue"?

No, Conan's a little more badass than that

>>1662348
>A Mary Sue is a character based on the author.

no it's not

>>1662348

howards more fun than you though, how did things come to such a pretty pass

Based upon his correspondence, Howard seemed to have had a lot of reasons for making Conan, but one of them was to explore the idea of the 'noble savage' and to contrast the more-absolute morality of primitive cultures with the moral relativity of 'civilized; cultures, usually making the civilized people the villains.

>>1662348
Actually, Howard travelled extensively as a child, grew up in rough-and-tumble oil towns, and was an avid bodybuilder and amateur boxer. He went off to boarding school and college as a young man, as well. As a young adult he worked a variety of jobs, seeming to prefer ones that required hard labor, and saw them as helping him get ready for being a professional writer.
The legend that Howard was a shut that leeched from his mother is as false as the one that Lovecraft never left his small town, never kissed a girl, etc.

Howard *did* MarySue, but it was very obvious and in his many boxing stories as an inside joke with his fellow boxers

>>1662372
This is what I was thinking. To be honest, If it weren't for Mary Sure being a term used in fanfiction you could quite easily see Conan that way, I have no doubt.

>>1662354
Yeah, why would *anyone* be interested in an author whose highly-influential works started an entire sub-genre of fiction and haven't been out of print for 80 years?

im a old upper middle class guy

>>1662381
>mfw boobies

>>1662381

Because the works in question are not literary fiction.

They're commercial fiction, written to entertain and, by extension, sell.

Certainly works written to sell can have literary merit (the works of Mark Twain and Charles Dickens often did) but I would need to be convinced this is the case with the original Conan canon.

>>1662419
Well disregarding the aforementioned fact that it created an entire sub-genre of fiction, the Conan canon is rife with historical and Biblical allusion.

Honestly, I still fail to see why Tolkien is the subject of academic scrutiny and respect, yet Conan, which has been arguably as influential as Lord of the Rings, is derided as "that pulp trash".

>>1662427
There's probably why.

Before that? I dunno... not old enough.

>>1662432
Conan is older than LOTR. The first stories started coming out in the early 30s.

But yeah, those terrible movies might have something to do with it.

>>1662472
>those terrible movies
>implying Conan the barbarian is not a masterpiece

>>1662475
A masterpiece of B movie film making does not equate to a good film.

>>1662419
Ah, that old argument again; Conan may be an interesting character that grows over times, addresses social injustice and class warfare, in works that have bibilical and classical allusions and delve into such concepts as race, inequality, the role of religion in society, and the impact of tradition on the modern world, but he sold them for *money* and, thus, can't be literature.
Mark Twain, though, was a misanthrope, so he wrote literature.

Quick - Poe's Dupin stories: Literature or not?
Hammett's Red Harvest: Literature or not?

>>1662554

Ah, a dumb piece of shit wasting his time and ours on /lit/ again.

This shit was ONLY WRITTEN TO BE CONSUMED. It doesn't represent serious thought on anyone's part.

Poe is literature, Hammett isn't.

>mfw they're all books.

>>1662574

> mfw people pull this shit to protect their weak convictions from the glare of common sense

>>1662583
>mfw it's the undeniable truth. All literature is in book form.

>>1662573
>>This shit was ONLY WRITTEN TO BE CONSUMED
>implying that means anything
>implying most "real literature" wasn't written to be consumed by pretentious people

>>1662590

You see, you got nothing. Nothing.

>>1662591
>mfw i've got everything
>mfw u mad

>>1662593

> mfw when you ain't got sheeeeeet

>>1662573
>>mfw dickens
Listen, 'Literary fiction' as a genre is an idea younger than my father and focus upon technique rather than content neither proves there is more thought placed into literary fiction nor means that it will be good any any way.
Likewise, to dismiss work that was written in the hopes that people would actually enjoy the reading of it as being incapable of representing serious thought is to ignore the fact that Twain, Dickens, Melville, etc. were commercial writers who demonstrably crafted treasures or literature that provoke great throught.

>>1662603

Yeah, we've all heard this bullshit before. 1: No, it isn't younger than your father, shut the fuck up. 2: You're saying 'herp derp just because people enjoy it' as though your cretinousness around literature was something to do with an inate 'unenjoyable' quality - what are you, five? Again, shut the fuck up. 3: That shit is not literature unless we use a definition entirely based on what hucksters want to sell to dumb motherfuckers like you - the only people who benefit from this deliberate impoverishment of our discourse concerning literature are con artists and the insecure stupid. Shut the fuck up.

>>1662611
wowaccordingtothisthingyou'regay.jpg

>>1662611
How enlightening! I an tell you are deeply immersed in the finest literary traditions. I must admit, your nuanced description and compelling argument have convinced me that you are, indeed, motivated by a desire to enrich the lives of all readers, not just convince yourself that your dedication to a narrow genre results in self-blinkering.

OK, not really.

Listen, all you guys getting your MA in English Literature can shout 'STFU' as much as you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the genre of literary fiction didn't really emerge coherently until the late 1950's- early 1960's. Which is fine! Also, I enjoy a great deal of literary fiction - my point is that being literary fiction doesn't automagically make it deep, relevant, or good and that being commercial doesn't mean it *can't* be any of those things (sharpen your comprehension skills, bub).

Note I am not saying that Stephen King is teh awesomeist evar, I am saying that there can be literary merit in commercial works - which you implied is impossible.

>>1662611

>>1662626

The first paragraph of this is totally meaningless. The problem is, when people like you try to do the 'me can talk smart too' gag, you sound like a bad attempt at 'classy' ad copy.

If you believe what you're saying about literary fiction, you're too uneducated to have a right to an opinion on the subject. If you haven't encountered any references to the term dating from before then, it may be because no-one used to bother to indulge the insecure self-affirmations of those who don't know shit from clay, and won't be taught. Now shut the fuck up.

>>1662603
Literary fiction has been around as long as fiction has been around. And yes, it is defined as fiction that is more than just genre. It's evocative, it makes you think, question, wonder. It's not your retarded simpletons understanding of "Oh, it's because they were popular." It's a standard.

This fucking thread, goddamn.

>BAWW CONAN SUCKS IT'S TOO COMMERCIAL
>Commercial works can have literary value too
>BAWWW SHUT THE FUCK UP REAL LITERATURE IS FOR LITERATURE'S SAKE
>A lot of famous books were written for a profit, see Dickens and Twain
>BAWWW SHUT THE FUCK UP THAT'S NO COMEBACK
>Literary fiction is kind of recent anyway, in the past it was mostly people writing for money
>BAWWW SHUT THE FUCK UP IDIOT LITERARY FICTION HAS BEEN AROUND FOREVER
>Then what about those people I mentioned earlier? Are they sell outs?
>BAWWW SHUT UP IDIOT

>>1662654
I am glad that you were able to deduce that the first paragraph was meaningless - I was, obviously, mocking your pretentious self-importance.

Based upon how you write here, that was probably a lot of work for you. Bravo.

Of course, you keep repeating 'u r stoopid' and 'STFU' rather than address the very obvious fact that Dickens was an unashamedly-commercial writer who was wildly popular in his own time yet his works have literary merit. But, there is that earlier statement that commercial works 8cannot* have literary merit.

Whom to believe? Dickens and generations of critics, or anon?

tl;dr >>1662693

ugh, this fucking thread.

Pulp Lit is still Lit.
Conan the Barbarian is a good film.

Get over it.