/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21274058]

Who is the closest to be considered literary fiction?

> Tolkien
> Le Carre
> Lovecraft
> Asimov
> Arthur C. Clarke

[Anonymous No.21274100]

>>21274058
Le Carre, no question.

[Anonymous No.21274120]

Lovecraft. But on that same lane we have Clark Ashton Smith who puts many so-called literary writers to shame in terms of prose.

[Anonymous No.21274124]

>>21274058
Most
>Tolkien
>Arthur C. Clarke
>Asimov
>Le Carre
>Lovecraft
Least

[Anonymous No.21274127]

>>21274124
This but backwards.

[Anonymous No.21274382]

>>21274127
You have a peanut size view of reality you are part of.

[Anonymous No.21274388]

>>21274127
Meant for the other guy.

Fuck.

[Anonymous No.21274395]

>>21274382
Tolkien ripped off the Nordics and had a workman-like prose. Very little literary merit. Lovecraft, on the other hand, created his own mythos and had an aesthetically better prose, if a bit purple.

[Anonymous No.21274463]

>>21274058
Lovecraft. But on that same lane we have Clark Ashton Smith who puts many so-called literary writers to shame in terms of prose.

[Anonymous No.21274481]

>>21274463
Anon...you already said that...

[Anonymous No.21274483]

>>21274058
Le Carre

[Anonymous No.21274497]

Lovecraft or Tolkien, both for very different reasons though, Lovecraft's prose rivals some of the most respected modernist writers, he could be called the Faulkner of pulp fiction, and Tolkien is a master of worldbuilding and style and will go down as one of the greatest innovators of the genre of fantasy. Asimov is a close 3rd though because of the concepts explored within his work, he's on the same level as Philip K. Dick though if I'm going to be completely honest.

[Anonymous No.21274503]

>>21274127
I'm from Rhode Island, so it's my own state culture to jerk off Lovecraft, but he was a middling wannabe academic who wrote stories in pulp magazines for a living. Tolkien was a philology professor who wrote his own languages.

[Anonymous No.21274528]

>>21274503
>Tolkien was a philology professor who wrote his own languages.
lmao he just ripped off the languages of other people. He was a fraud. Lovecraft at least created his own shit and had a better prose. Lovecraft is closer to being literary than the goyslop maker Tolkien. Where they published their stuff or what they did for a living is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.21274649]

>>21274528
You used the word "goyslop" unironically, that invalidates your entire argument. Better luck next time

[Anonymous No.21274678]

>>21274649
I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.21274751]

>>21274678
You accepted mine first

[Anonymous No.21274760]

>>21274058
I want to have sex with Asuka.

[Anonymous No.21274781]

>>21274751
You didn't offered a counterargument but an excuse, therefore, you lost.

[Anonymous No.21274795]

>>21274751
You didn't offer a counterargument but an excuse, therefore, you lost.

[Anonymous No.21274909]

>>21274528
Are you retarded? Every language rips off other languages. Just look at English. Elvish is a pretty impressive creation all things considered.

[Anonymous No.21274913]

>>21274528
Finngolian cope.

[Anonymous No.21274918]

>>21274909
> Every language rips off other languages
This is meant to be a constructed language, not a natural language, retard.
>Elvish is a pretty impressive creation all things considered.
Nah. It's not impressive at all once you know where all the stuff comes from. It's a remix, a bastardization, a cheap imitation.

[Anonymous No.21274927]

>>21274913
Not even a Finn, just making a case for my boy Lovecraft agains the overrated Tolkien.

[Anonymous No.21274949]

>>21274918
There's not a single linguist who would agree that Elvish isn't impressive. There's no such thing as a purely constructed language that exists in a vacuum. That's not a real language, just gibberish. Tolkien studied languages, he understood that. You probably think to make a language you just have to come up with a bunch of random vocabulary words. So I'll repeat myself: every language takes from other languages. That's how "language" works, and you see that in Elvish. Try using your brain before giving such retarded takes.

>It's a remix, a bastardization, a cheap imitation.
And you're a cheap imitation of Nabokov by the looks of it.

[Anonymous No.21274953]

>>21274528
>Lovecraft
>better prose than Tolkien
Genuinely the most low IQ take I've seen in a long time

[Anonymous No.21274992]

>>21274949
>There's not a single linguist who would agree that Elvish isn't impressive.
I never liked these kind of omniscient, generalizing statements. Sure, like you know every linguist ever and did an exhaustive poll.
>There's no such thing as a purely constructed language that exists in a vacuum.
I never said that it was but people can at least try not being copy-cats.
>Tolkien studied languages, he understood that.
He made an artificial dialect of Finnish. I'm not sure where the impressive element is supposed to be. And the other ones are barely even developed.
>You probably think to make a language you just have to come up with a bunch of random vocabulary words.
I know you need to establish a syntax, a grammar, and all that beforehand. Considering that, there are far more original and interesting conlangs than don't just blatantly rip off existing languages.
>And you're a cheap imitation of Nabokov by the looks of it.
I didn't even intend to sound nabokovian but being a cheap imitation of Nabokov, a much superior writer to Tolkien, is a compliment in my eyes so thank you for that.

[Anonymous No.21275057]

>>21274992
>I never liked these kind of omniscient, generalizing statements. Sure, like you know every linguist ever and did an exhaustive poll.
Dude you can't be this retarded. This is like saying any physicist will tell you flat earth is bullshit and you respond "but have you polled every physicist?" The point is that anyone who understands linguistics will tell you Elvish is a good made up language. You can actually study and speak it. There's a reason why it's held as the pinnacle of made up languages.

>I never said that it was but people can at least try not being copy-cats.
You can't create a working language that can be spoken without "copying" other languages. Everyone has a biological language instinct that creates universal similarities. A good example is how in almost every language mother sounds similar. This isn't a real criticism, you're just mad Tolkien gets more respect and attention than some loser like Lovecraft.

>He made an artificial dialect of Finnish
I don't think you know what dialect means. Elvish and Finnish are entirely separate languages. One is not a dialect of the other.

>Considering that, there are far more original and interesting conlangs than don't just blatantly rip off existing languages.
Examples? I hope you don't mean Cthuvian, which is a great example of a bad language. The reason no one studies it or speaks it is because there's no substance or coherence to it, it's just a bunch of gibberish.

>I didn't even intend to sound nabokovian
I think you're trying way too hard to sound smart lmao

[Anonymous No.21275069]

>>21274124
This is the correct answer.
>>21274127
This is the edgemaster fedoralord answer.

[Anonymous No.21275076]

>>21274395
>workman-like prose
What form of retardation is this?

[Anonymous No.21275082]

>>21274760
Then thou shalt remain a consternated virgin all thy days, *raises a pointed finger slowly in condemnation* for she is an imagination and her imitators, witch-harlots!

[Anonymous No.21275107]

>>21275076
His prose is closer to GRRR Martin and other genre writers than to a literary writer like Peake or Nabokov.

[Anonymous No.21275111]

>>21274058
Lovecraft's aesthetic is a major contribution to 20th century literature (and art as a whole). He may not be the best writer but he is clearly the most respected of the lot even among literary writers and poets and painters.

[Anonymous No.21275113]

>>21275111
trips of truth

[Anonymous No.21275130]

>>21275057
>This is like saying any physicist will tell you flat earth is bullshit and you respond "but have you polled every physicist?"
That's not the same at all. You're mistaking opinion with fact. It is statistically impossible that every linguist has the same opinion on a fake language.
>There's a reason why it's held as the pinnacle of made up languages.
Maybe in your delusional mind but the go-to conlang is Esperanto.
>The point is that anyone who understands linguistics will tell you Elvish is a good made up language.
Again, it's a glorified artificial dialect of Finnish. And even if it weren't, that still doesn't make Tolkien more literary than Lovecraft.
>You can actually study and speak it.
That's cool and I'm sure the classroom will be filled with sex-having manly men with big brains. Doesn't mean that a meme of this size makes one a more literary writer.
>You can't create a working language that can be spoken without "copying" other languages.
There is copying and there is copying. Tolkien stole from existing languages A LOT and also from existing mythologies A LOT. So what is the supposedly impressive thing, then? What am I supposed to be looking at? He doesn't even have a remarkable prose which would make his phony folklore more bearable. Lovecraft was far more original, even without attempting so. When I look at Tolkien all I see is an overrated try-hard thief. When I look at Lovecraft, I see an original artist with a unique vision.

[Anonymous No.21275470]

>>21275107
>his work is closer to GRRM
>GRRM
>JRRT
Of course it is. Martin, like nearly every fantasy writer is caught within an anxiety of influence to Tolkien. It isn't Tolkien who is like Martin, but Martin who is like Tolkien - a completely different phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.21275480]

>>21274058
there's no distinction between genre and literary fiction, the discussion only exists for psueds to feel smart

[Anonymous No.21275484]

>>21275480
genrelet cope

[Anonymous No.21275535]

>>21275484
you enjoy the drama genre, you are a genrelet

[Anonymous No.21275541]

>>21275535
I'm a literarychad. Try again, pleb boy.

[Anonymous No.21275547]

>>21275541
i would just be repeating myself. you read genre fiction, you're just in denial

[Anonymous No.21275597]

>>21275547
"Drama" is not a genre.

[Anonymous No.21275628]

>>21275597
it is

[Anonymous No.21275673]

>>21275480
No one can be this ignorant.

[Anonymous No.21275676]

>>21275673
you're in denial, and you can't refute me

[Anonymous No.21275680]

>>21274058
psychoanalysis
Alectura lathami
on one's guard

[Anonymous No.21275686]

>>21275676
No one can refute you in your mind because you've already decided that your retard take is the objective truth. But to anyone else it's readily apparent that you don't have the slightest clue. When even was the last time you read a book that didn't revolve around irrelevant non-literary filler like magic systems, world building, plot, etc?

[Anonymous No.21275696]

>>21275686
post of lead.

Happy birthday!

crayon board
tanru
topsoiling

[Anonymous No.21275698]

>>21275686
you have to resort to thinking about magic systems and dance around my claim because you can't refute me. last book i read was runaway horses, can you guess what genre that's in?

[Anonymous No.21275750]

>>21275686
Kek the retard can't understand that if there weren't any distinction, the terms wouldn't exist to begin with but they do exist and they define different things. I would advice you not to waste your time with this troll.

[Anonymous No.21275765]

>>21275750
the reason the distinction exists is for people like you to pretend they're not reading genre fiction. only reason you call me troll is because you can't prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.21275790]

>>21275765
But my reading diet consists of both genre fiction and literary fiction, Mr Troll.

[Anonymous No.21275797]

>>21275790
they're the same thing, just different genres

[Anonymous No.21275802]

>>21275797
>they're the same thing!
>but they're different!
lmao alright. spoiler alert: they are not the same.

[Anonymous No.21275803]

>>21274528
>Lovecraft had better prose
It’s so obvious you have no clue what actually means

[Anonymous No.21275811]

>>21275803
>normo tears
>simps for the most reddit commercial normie schlock writer after Stephen King and JK Rowling
lmao @ your life

[Anonymous No.21275812]

>>21275802
when you say literary fiction you're just referring to another genre

[Anonymous No.21275820]

Who actually is the last truly canonical writer in Western literature? Beckett?

[Anonymous No.21275833]

>>21275812
It's not a genre.

[Anonymous No.21275839]

>>21275833
it's a collection of books that you'd like to pretend aren't part of whatever genre. usually they're in the drama genre

[Anonymous No.21275871]

>>21274760
i fucked her

[Anonymous No.21275880]

the literary vs genre fiction divide is a crude proxy for the more important (but still nebulous) distinction between "novel-as-art" and "novel-as-entertainment". Literary fiction is not genreless, it has simply been deemed more important than the genre boundaries that would contain it.

[Anonymous No.21275886]

>>21275880
Depends what you mean by genre.

[Anonymous No.21275906]

>>21274058
tolkien

[Anonymous No.21275912]

>>21275597
realism is

[Anonymous No.21275921]

>>21275912
The genres that are called genre fiction, predominantly fantasy and scifi, are so utterly filled with garbage when compared to "genres" like modernist literature, realism, or whatever, that your point is totally meaningless. You're just masturbating with semantics.

[Anonymous No.21275926]

>>21274120
If I were to read but one book from CAS, which should it be?

[Anonymous No.21275929]

>>21275921
the ratio of quality to garbage is exactly the same. there's so semantics, just your inability to accept that the books you read fit within certain genres, out of some delusion of status

[Anonymous No.21275930]

>>21275926
The Dark Eidolon And Other Fantasies has a solid collection of his short stories and prose poetry.

[Anonymous No.21275933]

>>21275929
2 + 2 = 5

[Anonymous No.21275935]

>>21275933
that's all your argument can come down to, unable to show me i'm wrong

[Anonymous No.21275936]

>>21275921
modernist literature isn't a genre but anyway just go and read le guin's essays that refute you, i'm too lazy to get them myself

[Anonymous No.21275940]

>>21275935
It's literally the same argument you use. Anyway have fun trolling.

[Anonymous No.21275944]

>>21275940
you can only dismiss as trolling because you can't counter what i'm saying

[Anonymous No.21275946]

>>21274058
Genre fiction is better than literary fiction.

[Anonymous No.21275947]

>>21274120
CAS is way above Lovecraft. Lovecraft's writings look like a teenager's scribblings in comparison.

[Anonymous No.21275953]

>>21275930
Thank you senpai

[Anonymous No.21275971]

>>21274503
When will this "pulp has no literary merit" shit end? You faggots are insufferable. Clark Ashton Smith routinely blows authors like Hawthorne and Poe out of the water yet because he wrote for a pulp magazine that makes his literary contributions invalid? Dashiell Hammett is one of the greatest authors that America has ever produced yet you're going to try and say that because his work was published in pulp magazines it has less literary merit than fucking hacks like Bellow and Updike? Robert E. Howard's work is more genuine than anything Arthur Miller or Gore Vidal ever wrote.

[Anonymous No.21276005]

>>21275971
whats updike

[Anonymous No.21276011]

>>21274100
>>21274483
Correct
>For the past 30 years the greatest novelists writing in English have been genre writers: John le Carré, George Higgins and Patrick O'Brian.
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/books/011700mamet-writing.html

[Anonymous No.21276035]

>>21275820
GGM, McCarthy, Toni Morrison.

[Anonymous No.21276040]

>>21276035
>Toni Morrison
>Western Canon
Are you braindead?

[Anonymous No.21276046]

>>21275947
CAS had not one original thought in his life though. And he is mediocre compared to the good literary stylists, but better than the good genre stylists. AKA he is the perfectly middling author.

[Anonymous No.21276050]

>>21276040
If you can't read the sign of times to come, then it's on you and your low IQ.
Toni Morrison probably has the most secure position in the expansion of western canon than even the 19th century writers we venerate presently.

[Anonymous No.21276055]

>>21275811
>lovecraft is less normie somehow
How about you read Lovecraft’s own thoughts on his work you ignoramus

[Anonymous No.21276273]

>>21275811
Anon you're actually retarded. Like I'm not even trying to insult you, just based on your comments defending lovecraft over tolkien your iq clearly can't be over 110.

[Anonymous No.21277345]

>>21276273
Lovecraft has better prose, is original, and not a thieving fraud.
>>21276055
That's not based on Lovecraft.

[Anonymous No.21277401]

>>21274058
tfw no asuka gf

[Anonymous No.21277860]

>>21276050
She probably does. She perfectly represents the direction that literature took after the 60s and 70s.

[Anonymous No.21278097]

>>21277345
>thieving fraud

If he were stealing shit he wouldn't have been completely open about where the inspirations came from.

[Anonymous No.21278219]

>>21274058
none of them wrote literary fiction because literary fiction means not-genre-fiction

[Anonymous No.21279262]

>>21278219
Do you know what "closest to" means you FUCKING NIGGER RETARD?

[Anonymous No.21279722]

>>21274528
Your logic is pretty weak and doesn't demonstrate anything other than that quendi is heavily inspired by finnish. It's not enough to make any judgements on the overall quality of the writing or even the language itself desu, since that chart clearly looks like it was made specifically to show similarities between the two languages. By this logic, it's like you think lovecraft is solely good because he comes up with completely original gibberish names like nyarlathotep.

[Anonymous No.21279736]

>>21274058
Lovecraft, in the moments he's come back down to earth and earthly things.

[Anonymous No.21279745]

>>21277401
why live?

[Anonymous No.21279875]

>>21278219
Literary fiction is a genre in all but name.

[Anonymous No.21279993]

>>21276005
Butterfly, chime in.

[Anonymous No.21280057]

I feel like, for all that Tolkien is considered the father of modern fantasy, when you actually read his more serious stuff it's surprisingly grounded and concrete.

Like, The Lord of the Rings is heavily invested in very literary concepts: the inevitable decay of time, the seduction of power, the illusion of innocence, the virtue of showing mercy, the hidden power in small things. It doesn't feel like throwaway fantasy fiction. It doesn't feel like fast food, which a lot of fantasy fiction does. It has a great grimness and sadness to it that I think elevates it significantly.

I think if Frankenstein can technically be science fiction and still be considered great literature, then The Lord of the Rings, despite being technically fantasy, can be considered great literature.

[Anonymous No.21280802]

>>21280057
It was always a great literature

[Anonymous No.21281645]

Can you guys stop arguing and come to a conclusion already?

[Anonymous No.21281730]

>>21281645
Le Carre (Cornwell)
Though in time they’ll all be accepted/included. Genre snobs be damned

[Anonymous No.21281775]

why are so many of these replies deleted

[Anonymous No.21281792]

>>21281775
Mods.

[Anonymous No.21281794]

>>21274058
>literary fiction
99% of people who care about this are just trying to vicariously achieve superiority over Le Common Man®. The remaining 1% don't have enough real-life experience, education, and/or humility to find honesty or depth in what is ordinary.
In any case, you're just being a pretentious faggot when care about this stuff. That's was the entire point of Modernism.

inb4 some pseud cries about Modernism being Totally, Like, Le BAD!!™ because it challenges his presumption that he's special because he consumes """"""art"""""""

All that shit aside, I think Asimov and Tolkien had the most to say about being a person - followed closely by Clarke - while Le Carre highlighted the moral ambiguity and disaffection of the post-war world, something that would absolutely be stuffed down in the intervening decades of endless Cold War propaganda.
Lovecraft had lovely prose and an evocative style, and that's all I can really say about that. But, we're discussing art from the Modern era, so it's pretty fucking weird that people would highlight the quality of the rendering of a thing instead of the idea behind the rendering.

Like I said, I'm not really shocked to discover that most posters ITT either misunderstood Modernism or rejected it without investigating it. /lit/ is obsessed with 19th century and earlier philosophers, like the completely childish fanboys they are, so it's no surprise their critiques of art also stopped evolving past the 19th century schools. All you idiots are caught in the romanticism of how good it feels to read words on a paper instead of how inspiring or elucidative the ideas held by the words are. You conflate lovely language with lovely ideas, mostly because it is often that lovely ideas are incidentally behind lovely words - that intelligent creatives will be good at the art they choose to make should be fucking obvious to anyone bothering to think for just a single moment.

Stay pseud and mid forever, /lit/.

[Anonymous No.21282080]

>>21281794
Or it could just be that genre fiction is mindnumblingly boring and doesn't leave an impact?

[Anonymous No.21282622]

>>21282080
>The remaining 1% don't have enough real-life experience, education, and/or humility to find honesty or depth in what is ordinary.

[Anonymous No.21282652]

>>21282622
Genre fiction is never about the ordinary, so your point doesn't make sense

[Anonymous No.21282671]

>>21281794
Unfathomably based post. Trying to talk about anything post 19th century is impossible on this board. It's too hard for some retard to understand that you can Like Ezra Pound and Shakespeare at the same time. Fucking hell even this anon >>21282652 is too stupid to even read and accurately understand what you just said within your comment

I really like how "epic" Clark Ashton's smith poetry is, the language is beautiful and mythologica--but it's a far cry from what I consider great because the actual ideas behind it are trivial and he isn't really saying much with it.