/lit/ - Literature

There's nothing wrong with enjoying something. What's wrong is conflating your enjoyment of something with objective value, especially when you think your favorite X is the best Y and you're willing to argue about it.

/v/'s been having that argument since day one and it'll never end. Attacking genre fiction enjoyers just brings you down to their level.

>>19306422
What is genre fiction? give me some examples

Forcing yourself to like boring shit for internet street cred is 100x times more pathetic.

>>19306422
No.
For some reason you think that you are above Redditos in some way, but you have tacitly admitted that you go to Reddit since you implied that you get downvoted. I point this out because the anti-genre people on Reddit, which I bet you are one of, all strike me as intellectually inferior to people that keep themselves open to "genre fiction". For instance I was looking at a thread in r/truegaming about the fact that almost all video games are "genre fiction", and the only user who was opposed to "genre fiction" had a post history of praising Jordan Peterson. Among the commentators who were critical of the "genre vs. literary" distinction were people with degrees in English
You hide behind a "Chad" image, but in reality you are here because you're like that commentator: if people saw who you are behind your anonymity, they would not be impressed, and you words would not be frightening.
If you go to r/trueliterature, you will find people with much more balanced views than here. They will be open to "genre fiction" like Gene Wolf, Ursula K. Le Guin, etc. while having the standards to dislike someone like Stephen King or GRR Martin. They have a much more nuanced view of the medium than reductive narcissists like you do, and their opinion is therefore more worthwhile.
What's worth noticing about these people, to respond to >>19306433, is that they recognize objective value in "genre fiction". Wolf and Le Guin are better than Martin or King, if we assume objectivity (as you do because, let's be real, you haven't touched aesthetics in your life; you're just assuming artistic quality is objective to feed your intellectual masturbation), this shows they are of objective high quality. Le Guin is right that the basic reason Fantasy, and other genres, get painted with one brush is the simple fact that tastemakers do not read them.
I am not denying that there exist academics who share your views, or even that they are still a large voice in the academy. But the reality is that they can be pretty easily dismissed on sociological grounds, and some random 4channer posting meme images like you can be even more easily.

>>19306631
Apparantly anything that isn't a boring 5000 page tome about an ancient philosophy

>>19306631
Books that are not about depressed jewish cuckolds doing nothing. If a book dares to have an exciting plot or god forgive fantasy elements, its a filthy g*nre fiction and you're a pleb for even thinking about it.

>because, let's be real, you haven't touched aesthetics in your life; you're just assuming artistic quality is objective to feed your intellectual masturbation), this shows they are of objective high quality.
For a poster on the literature board you sure do write bad sentences. Your argument boils down to "stop liking what I don't like", which is a stupid position to take and leads to endless, pointless arguing.

>>19306676
>you haven't touched aesthetics in your life
wtf does that even mean?

>>19306889
le hecking epic gratuitous swearing! look at me i'm an adult. i'm adulting!

Hehe I am OP and I like habing gay seks with the man I post, I am not midwit I am smartwit I like memes and smart stuff hehe poop peepeee

>>19307256
I meant aesthetics as in the academic field in philosophy, also known as philosophy of art.
https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=aesthetics

>>19307264
>1 curse word and a crass phrase are gratuitous cursing

reddit white hands typed this post

>>19306422
yes and i don't care, fuck you

>>19306422
I recently talked to a guy, his hobby was "reading books". I tried to find a common ground for discussions, but everything he read were retarded YA fantasy books. He didn't even know who Homer was. Even some well known novels like the count of Monte Cristo, "I haven't heard of it". How do I talk to persons like this about books?
He cut me off after talking about some fantasy, I said
>but it's written by a woman
>yes, so?
>I don't read books written by women

>>19306676
With all due respect, which is none btw, your whole post is a mountain of garbage. It's essentially just a bunch of polite ad hom. You give me some smugly written psycho-analysis about how I'm hiding behind anonymity and that I'm not frightening (as if I'm sending death threats?), and then compare me to some Jordan Peterson fan as if that means anything (JP himself is a fan of Harry Potter and Disney movies, so...). And no, I don't post on reddit, I was referring to other people who get downvoted. Then you make appeals to academia which are just factually wrong, or appeals to redditors whose opinions I don't care for at all. Then accusations of what amounts to me being a snob, jerking myself off, "reductive narcissist," etc. Basically you didn't provide a single argument, you didn't say anything. You're just being a massive faggot.

My point is pretty straightforward. Genre fiction vs literary fiction is like McDonalds vs a quality dine-in restaurant. You can still enjoy the former of course, but to suggest they're on the same level, or to try to blur the distinction between them, or to start seething and coping because one suggests the latter has higher standards, makes you look retarded. All the criteria for what conventionally measures good writing - realistic character behaviour, powerful prose, ideas and dialogues that make us reflect on the real world - all attribute themselves way more to literary fiction, whereas genre fiction is more escapist/consumerist, it doesn't say anything new or interesting about our world or the human condition; and even if it does, it's never the author's own original thoughts and always in reference to someone else. Hardly anyone in English departments is analyzing Dune or Harry Potter or whatever, but Shakespeare and Proust will forever be talked about as if it's still new. It takes far more abstract thinking and cognitive development to discuss the meaning in Anna Karenina than Tolkien lmao.

I just think it's funny you accuse me of intellectual masturbation, then you posture by saying pretentious shit like "you can be dismissed on sociological grounds," "you haven't touched aesthetics," "your words are not frightening." Like Jesus this is the whitest shit I've ever read in my life.

>>19307540
>It takes far more abstract thinking and cognitive development to discuss the meaning in Anna Karenina than Tolkien lmao.
I agree with what you say but it's a bad example, Tolkien's books are filled with autistic Catholic meanings and symbols.

>>19306422
All the things that make fantasy fiction fantastic—the magic, the spirits, the gods, the objective morality, the fate—also happen to be staples of Scripture, be it Christian or ancient Greek or Hindu or what have you. Fantasy celebrates and critiques our most natural way of conceiving the world, a way that has been and continues to be undermined by the findings and proceeds of science. The way I see it, fantastic literature is the dirge of our civilization, a final retelling of our most ancient and primordial songs. The song ends when our voices fall silent. No one knows what follows the song. We can only hope that we’re somehow stronger for the singing.

>>19307552
Yeah fair enough, Tolkien is way better than, say, jk rowling or grrm

>>19307572
When I say genre fiction I don't mean fantasy, otherwise Divine Comedy is genre fiction which obviously isn't the case. By genre fiction I mean stories that are written for the sake of superficial entertainment and consumption, where the author draws upon stock emotions already present in the mind of the reader, and any attempt to convey some central idea or present a new way of looking at life is of secondary importance, if not non-existent. Fantasy literary fiction exists, as does realist genre fiction.

>>19307540
Your OP started with an ad hominem, i.e. calling genre fiction readers "midwits". My post was perfectly in line with the tone you started the thread with. Glass houses and all that.
>Basically you didn't provide a single argument, you didn't say anything.
I made allusions to, e.g., arguments Le Guin has made in the past. But anyway the only argument I see in your OP is the recycled cliche that literary fiction is the only form of fiction that explores the human condition (you don't even say this explicitly, it's implied, in fact presupposed). As I said in my post, genre fiction readers deny this. Hence Le Guin's claim.
>My point is pretty straightforward. Genre fiction vs literary fiction is like McDonalds vs a quality dine-in restaurant.
Yeah, this is what's being denied, you asserting it again means nothing.
> Hardly anyone in English departments is analyzing Dune or Harry Potter or whatever
You need to read my post again, one of my arguments (notice, indeed, that it is an argument) was that genre fiction defenders are perfectly happy to grant that there is lots of bad genre fiction. People have pretty mixed opinions of Dune and Harry Potter I'm pretty sure is seldom defended. Furthermore hardly anyone is studying Martin or King in academia. I pointed to the examples of Le Guin and Wolf, and indeed Le Guin definitely is studied a lot in academia. Don't know about Wolf, but regardless it shows that there is nuance you are not getting, as exemplified by another one of your cliches:
>Genre fiction vs literary fiction is like McDonalds vs a quality dine-in restaurant.

>>19306422
Scifi isn't imo as it is the only thing new to write about. Every other theme under the sun has been beaten to death and scifi changes as technology changes and different outcomes can be extrapolated.

>>19307540
>Genre fiction vs literary fiction is like McDonalds vs a quality dine-in restaurant. You can still enjoy the former of course, but to suggest they're on the same level, or to try to blur the distinction between them, or to start seething and coping because one suggests the latter has higher standards, makes you look retarded.
Nothing says high IQ like a good ol' food analogy. Decades of reading western canon prepared you for this, the ornate composition of comparing thing you dislike to fast food, and thing you like to restaurant meal. Mmmmmm, exquisite.

>>19307612
Not him but I enjoy a fast food feast every now and then, places like McDonald's are consistent with the standard of their food. I've been to quality dine-in restaurants and have had literally burnt toast, runny cheesecake with lumps of gelatine, unnecessary bacon hidden in mashed potatoes and on one occasion a bread roll, creme brulee wiith granular sugar top, and you get the idea.

>>19307612
Stop acting like a dumbass, it's a good example.

>>19307677
It's a good example against OP's argument is what it is.

>>19307682
>muh food analogy

fat retards defending their dogshit diets and screeching healthy at all size are actually the perfect analogy here. get some self awareness, you are an intellectual obese landwhale.

>>19307604
That's not what a ad hom means. Ad hom is responding to an argument by attacking the person's character, motive, or whatever. Me calling genre fiction readers midwits isn't a response to an argument, it's just a generic observation (otherwise me merely saying midwits exist is an ad hom, which isn't the case; they clearly do exist). You calling me a reductive narcissist in an attempt to devalue my position, however, is an ad hom. And me calling you a faggot is also an ad hom. Glass house n all.

>I made allusions to, e.g., arguments Le Guin has made in the past.
First of all, that's not what "allusion" means, you didn't make allusions to anything worthwhile. Second, no, you didn't really say anything. You claimed that she claimed that people paint fantasy with one brush because they don't read them, which is dumb. I don't need to read 50 shades of grey to know it's dogshit. That's not a good argument.

>But anyway the only argument I see in your OP is the recycled cliche that literary fiction is the only form of fiction that explores the human condition
I never said this, you absolute smoothbrain. Harry Potter technically explored the human condition. That doesn't mean anything. I said that genre fiction doesn't say anything new or interesting about the human condition, at least not interesting enough to be put on the same level as literary fiction, because that's not its intention. You can me snarky and call my arguments recycled but you're not disproving them.

>Yeah, this is what's being denied, you asserting it again means nothing.
Ok but I didn't stop at the assertion, I went on to explain it. What was even the point of writing this? Just to get some easy dunk points?

>one of my arguments (notice, indeed, that it is an argument) was that genre fiction defenders are perfectly happy to grant that there is lots of bad genre fiction.
How is this an argument?

>but regardless it shows that there is nuance you are not getting
It's not that I'm not getting nuance, it's just that you're too busy jerking yourself off over the sound of your voice to understand what I'm saying. For example, what's wrong with my restaurant analogy? I think it's pretty reasonable. You just gonna call it cliched and call it a day?

>>19307604
That's not what a ad hom means. Ad hom is responding to an argument by attacking the person's character, motive, or whatever. Me calling genre fiction readers midwits isn't a response to an argument, it's just a generic observation (otherwise me merely saying midwits exist is an ad hom, which isn't the case; they clearly do exist). You calling me a reductive narcissist in an attempt to devalue my position, however, is an ad hom. And me calling you a faggot is also an ad hom. Glass house n all.

>I made allusions to, e.g., arguments Le Guin has made in the past.
First of all, that's not what "allusion" means, you didn't make allusions to anything. Second, no, you didn't really say anything worthwhile. You claimed that she claimed that people paint fantasy with one brush because they don't read them, which is dumb. I don't need to read 50 shades of grey to know it's dogshit. That's not a good argument. Nor am I calling out all fantasy.

>But anyway the only argument I see in your OP is the recycled cliche that literary fiction is the only form of fiction that explores the human condition
I never said this, you absolute smoothbrain. Harry Potter technically explored the human condition. That doesn't mean anything. I said that genre fiction doesn't say anything new or interesting about the human condition, at least not interesting enough to be put on the same level as literary fiction, because that's not its intention. You can be snarky and call my arguments recycled but you're not disproving them.

>Yeah, this is what's being denied, you asserting it again means nothing.
Ok but I didn't stop at the assertion, I went on to explain it. What was even the point of writing this? Just to get some easy dunk points?

>one of my arguments (notice, indeed, that it is an argument) was that genre fiction defenders are perfectly happy to grant that there is lots of bad genre fiction.
How is this an argument?

>but regardless it shows that there is nuance you are not getting
It's not that I'm not getting nuance, it's just that you're too busy jerking yourself off over the sound of your voice to understand what I'm saying. For example, what's wrong with my restaurant analogy? I think it's pretty reasonable. You just gonna call it cliched and call it a day?

>>19306422
kys

>>19307716
>That's not what a ad hom means.
Ad hominem, I want to point out, is an informal fallacy, so spending this much time whining about it seems counterproductive. But regardless the problem is that you might be not even wrong because it's difficult to discern an actual argument in your OP. Anyway I pointed out that you started first with the personal attacks because I figured you were annoyed at me responding with personal attacks, but it seems you're just stuck in the yourlogicalfallacyis.com phase of your intellectual development.
>First of all, that's not what "allusion" means, you didn't make allusions to anything worthwhile.
Yeah, sure, it might be the case that I used the wrong word. I should have just said "referenced".
>Second, no, you didn't really say anything. You claimed that she claimed that people paint fantasy with one brush because they don't read them
Yeah, that's saying something.
>I don't need to read 50 shades of grey to know it's dogshit
I don't either, I am not defending 50 Shades of Gray. This is something you don't seem to be getting. Ursula K. Le Guin is of higher quality than 50 Shades of Grey.
>say anything new or interesting
"Exploring" implies novelly, doesn't it? You can't explore something unless you're uncovering something new.
>Ok but I didn't stop at the assertion, I went on to explain it.
Not really. You just presupposed that genre fiction has certain qualities and literary fiction has certain qualities. This is what is being denied.
>How is this an argument?
I recommend cracking open a formal logic textbook, they'll explain it within the first few chapters.
> For example, what's wrong with my restaurant analogy?
It shows no recognition whatsoever of my claim that there is good genre fiction. Note, I am not saying that there is good McDonalds, to use your analogy. I am saying that genre fiction is not like McDonalds. It is a bad analogy because it just presupposes that genre fiction is of inherently low quality, you didn't even argue for this you're just asserting it.

>>19307776
>novelly
*novelty

The recent Sally Rooney threads have made me sceptical of 'serious' literature. It's better to read a fantasy novel than some boring shit where rich people go on dates and talk about their feeling

>>19306422
Can you define literary fiction?

You just mean 'good books are better than bad books', don't you?

>>19307540
What is literary fiction? When Borges writes a detective story, is that genre? When Poe writes horror, is that genre and bad? Does Shakespeare's fantasy count as literary, or shall we strike The Tempest from the canon? Can Kafka be considered a literary writer if his most famous work involves a man being magically turned into a cockroach?

What are you even arguing?

>>19307591
Then you don't mean genre fiction.

Genre is a mostly meaningless way to archive works according to their themes and where they fit in the history of literature. To give you a sense of how meaningless, your post boils down to the novel idea that good books are good, while bad books bad.

>>19307688
Anon's point is that it's a pedestrian metaphor. To go a little farther, he's even suggesting that OP is as much of a pleb as the people he criticizes.

>>19306422
No sane person wonders if doing anything at all makes them a "midwit". They just enjoy what they enjoy. If you'd ever let some empty label stop you from doing something you could potentially like then you're a fucking retard.

>>19306422
who fucking cares

>>19307830
Don't mind them, they haven't read anything ever, they're just faggots looking to feel superior about something.
>>19307875
based

>>19306422
why do you even care? why do you want everyone to conform to your shallow worldview?

>>19306433
Japanese has onomatopoeia for smug slurping?

>>19307677
It really isn't. And much like when people compare to music yet know not even basic theory comparing to food and not knowing how to do basic techniques or mother sauces is pure dunning kruger. Genre fiction and movies are harder to do well because of the conventions that have to walk a razors edge to not be a trope. It's the same reason a good horror movie is so incredibly rare.

>>19307983
>And much like when people compare to music yet know not even basic theory comparing to food and not knowing how to do basic techniques or mother sauces is pure dunning kruger

The most ironic post ever made on this website. You are almost on to something.

>>19306422
Because introspective novels about mopey European idiots are the only way to make paper have any value obviously, but some people are just contrarian like that.
There is no criticism of "genre fiction" that is not also applicable to "literary fiction". The fact that the majority or so called "literary fiction" is more of a genre than genre fiction should be a red flag to anyone with a brain. They are labels used to justify tastes and nothing more, zero meaning, not even a useful definition. People saying a book can't have literary merit because it has dragons and deities in it with one side of their mouth while praising the classics out of the other as if them being excellent works somehow makes them immune to the labels they use to dismiss anything they don't feel like approaching in an open manner. Its laughable to attempt to dismiss books as somehow not really art based on a set of standards essentially designed to ensure that only post enlightenment european novels count.
And for what? To deny yourself art because you wouldn't want to risk being seen with the lord of the rings in your hand? The only thing the label "genre fiction" exists to do is allow people who need to feel secure in their superiority to not engage with things. It exists solely so you can let someone else define what is and is not appropriate for you to consider art. It exists to reduce thinking. You would think the well read individuals of this board would be capable of seeing through this inane veil of lazy nonsense masquerading as taste. 90% of fiction is trash and that includes introspective realist novels about neurotic euros. Jesus have you actually looked inside Ducks, Newburyport? Its awful. But it meets the requirements of the "literary fiction" label. Is defending that trash just because it was written to appeal to standards that were dictated to you by some idiot really a hill worth dying on? Meanwhile to be anti "genre fiction" you have to do semantic gymnastics to enjoy Morte D'Arthur or the Aeneid since they check every box for the label. Is a system of categorisationthat requires cognitive dissonance to function worth using?