When will People Realize that Genre Fiction can be Just as Great as Literary Fiction?

[Anonymous No.5031663]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5485572
>One thing you tend to notice after a while, though: it's almost never writers of genre fiction who are picking the fight. To be fair, it's often not "literary" writers either -- it's academics taking up the cudgels on their behalf; considerately telling us which stories are worth serious consideration and which aren't. And I guess we appreciate the help, right? Because it's a bewildering fictional landscape out there and an innocent young seeker after truth could easily go astray
>Yes, of course there are constraints when you write genre fiction. There are also constraints when you write literary fiction. Totally unconstrained writing would be (to paraphrase Kurt Vonnegut) gibberish interspersed with exclamation marks. When you write -- when you write anything at all -- you write on the end of a tether. But it's a flexible tether, and it's all about the dance you perform on the end of that thing and how you work with it or strain against it or in some cases tie it into knots that were never seen before
>But special pleading aside, look at the works of Ursula LeGuin, China Miéville, Lord Dunsany, Angela Carter, Ray Bradbury, Connie Willis, Mervyn Peake, Ted Chiang, Raymond Chandler and Don Winslow (just for starters) and see whether writing in genre made their work less resonant, less profound, less valid and affecting, than the work of any canonically approved genius you care to mention
>And while you're at it, there's fun to be had in trying to think up reasons why Hamlet and Macbeth aren't genre fiction. Because they're old, maybe? Because there's an R in the month? One's a ghost story, the other one has witches in it, and both were written (whatever else was in Shakespeare's mind) in a sincere bid to break the record for "most groundlings in a theatre the size of a pocket handkerchief."
>If I'm honest, I tend to see the entire "literature versus genre" debate as a dead horse so cruelly and relentlessly flogged that it isn't even vaguely horse-shaped any more. It lies in a neglected corner of the academic meadow close to the intentional fallacy and the vast midden of post-modernism.

What say you, /lit/?
>pic unrelated but somewhat relevant

[Anonymous No.5031677]

Who is the asian gentleman in OP's pic?

[Anonymous No.5031686]

People who consume genre fiction have a specific intention. They want to be scared or read about dragons and shit. Those who read literature are there to think about the ideas communicated and the narrative. You can do this with genre fiction as well but suffice it to say that these are just convenient categories to seperate different demographics and consumer groups.

[Anonymous No.5031687]

>>5031677
Yoshiyuki Tomino

[Anonymous No.5031689]

>China Mielville

Nope. HuffPost can't meme him into achievement.

[Anonymous No.5031696]

>>5031686
The only reason I care about Game of Thrones is the political ideology within Westeros and the ideas it explores about the real world. Fuck dragons and shit

[Anonymous No.5031700]

>>5031663
There are obvious reasons why say Shakespeare's Hamlet is different than Goosebumps even though both deal with being "a ghost story".

This person wants to get rid of the distinction but only uses other useless categories to fill its place.

[Anonymous No.5031706]

>>5031663
Who said we have anything wrong with genre? The problem is that a 'genre' has turned into a marketing game by writers and publishers to refer to a certain set of archetypes and cliches. Sci-Fi is more akin to fantasy nowadays whereas Fantasy is a sorta mish-mash of a medieval 'mood' and cool action scenes.

Fantasy has its roots in Symbolist and Romanticist authors like Dunsany, Chambers and Machen. It was meant to be a celebration of myth and tradition and an unbinding of the mental borders ; stuff which poets like Yeats aimed for. Now its like a narrowing of the mind.

[Anonymous No.5031707]

>>5031696
>I read game of thrones to learn about politics
Why do I come here again?

[Anonymous No.5031712]

>>5031696
>Fuck dragons and shit
As much of a fantasyfag as I am, the dragons and shit are the weakest part of the series. Then again, maybe it's because they're associated with Queen Mary Sue of the Every Dumb Decision I Make Turns Out Great in the End Isles.

[Anonymous No.5031714]

>>5031707
to reinforce the fact that you're intellectually superior and that fun is for filthy casuals?

[Anonymous No.5031719]

People realized this ages ago and it is one of the core characteristics that forms postmodernism. People who still make this distinction (from either end of the spectrum) are just self-important pedants. But many of the really interesting works of postmodernism rely heavily on "genre fiction" influences. Pynchon is a great example of this. "Lot 49" could not exist without "The Long Goodbye" or "The Big Sleep." Borges, Carter, Murakami, or even someone like Bret fucking Easton Ellis all blur this line, to various ends. Anybody with half a mind can see through this shit.

[Anonymous No.5031725]

If that where true we wouldn't be able to act superior to everyone anymore.

[Anonymous No.5031730]

The more a book includes drastically impossible elements, it becomes less about meaning and more about escapism. This is tautologically true; the elements have to be conceivable as a possible real-world item, or it's nonsense.

For instance, Jurassic Park would be impossible not even because of DNA replication, but because the oxygen in the atmosphere is too thin now to support such large creatures. The same would apply to dragons, etc. which would imply wholly different things about ecosystems and life itself.

This literature then loses any historical context or importance. Pride and Prejudice, while its fiction, also serves as a plausible still of 17th century English gentry, and the political/social/cultural elements are clear.

GRRM and GoT does nothing but to serve as a reminder that vapid, pornographic violence needs to be perpetuated onto a gross fantasy medium to be consumed, and maybe reflects neofeudal sentiments in middle class America, e.g. celebrity culture.

[Anonymous No.5031736]

>>5031696
If you like politics then read Leviathan or something. GRRMs politics are naive and stupid

[Anonymous No.5031737]

>>5031730
>Muh realism

Please fuck off.

[Anonymous No.5031739]

>>5031706
>unbinding of the mental borders
Ha
What is a mental border?

[Anonymous No.5031743]

>>5031719
Nah, the idea that any work is "good" or "bad" as an intrinsic property of its unique existence is not sensible, but that's never been the argument. We respect and read Plato because of cultural significance and for other specifics elements that we compare and conclude thereupon a heirarchy, which you're going to be very hard-pressed to argue against.

[Anonymous No.5031746]

>>5031739
You have to experience it phenomenologically.

[Anonymous No.5031752]

>>5031737
Pulp fiction isn't inherently bad; that's not my claim. I'm saying that pulp fiction is not as culturally significant or important as "the classics" and as such do not have a place in academic literary studies.

[Anonymous No.5031755]

>>5031677
Kill em all Tomino, creator of Gundam. Despite the fact that he makes anime aimed at teens he has a tendency to kill of characters at random in meaningless sudden depressing ways like in Ideon or Victory Gundam to teach the youth how nasty real war actually is (and to give outlet to his depression). You may have seen a gif of an anime in which a space suit wearing toddle has his head taken clean off by laser fire - thats Tomino

[Anonymous No.5031764]

>>5031746
Not sure if this is sarcasm.
Is there a tolkien brand of nothingness?

[Anonymous No.5031765]

>>5031730

What of allegory then ?

Some fictions contain implausible or impossible elements but aim to recreate symbolically familiar situations and conflicts. I wouldn't say this is escapism.

[Anonymous No.5031770]

>>5031752
Why? Why cant the excellent way Rober Howard writes action scenes be studied? Looking at the garbage that passes for action in lit today it clearly needs it, hell, the same author could ne studied for its celebration of archetypal masculinity, we certainly need a counterpoint to all the idiots who think Jane Austen could write.

[Anonymous No.5031771]

>>5031755
Ah yes, I remember watching whatever Gundam series were out when I was yougn. Depressing shit.

[Anonymous No.5031774]

>>5031770

Anything that makes money isn't art, haven't you heard

[Anonymous No.5031777]

>>5031730
>The more a book includes drastically impossible elements, it becomes less about meaning and more about escapism. This is tautologically true.

>escapism
>tautologically true

You need a good dose of phenomenology. I recommend Bachelard's Poetics of Space. Then read the Book of Disquiet.

[Anonymous No.5031783]

>>5031663
>Ray Bradbury

[Anonymous No.5031788]

>>5031765
It's a matter of degree. All fiction (and even nonfiction, but that's besides the point) are divorced from the reality and "Geist" of their days, the point is that some works capture the spirit and attitude of a time period, etc.

This is only one aspect, I mean, there are dozens of aspects that are shared within all literary works and can be contrasted, but it seems to follow to me that if you are to study literature, the works that manage to impact certain aspects of society

For instance, Jurassic Park is somewhat of a commentary on science funding, ethics, private ownership and other concerns. Dinosaurs are tertiary to the plot; and overwhelmingly the plot elements of the book are speculative and inhuman. I would suspect that Jurassic Park will be mostly forgotten in fifty years

[Anonymous No.5031794]

>>5031770
They probably can be!

[Anonymous No.5031802]

>it's academics taking up the cudgels on their behalf

ah, good to see huff-po making pulling shit out of their asses again

[Anonymous No.5031804]

>>5031700
Doesn't matter, if Beowulf or the Odyssey were written today it would be written off by tons of /lit/ asshats before they even opened a page as "fantasy genreshit"
Its idiotic and lame. You know who else on 4chan ignores entire genres because it has no hipster cred? /mu/. You really wanna be as limited as them?

[Anonymous No.5031810]

>>5031804
Yes, but the odyssey has a wide cultural impact that is intrinsic to understanding a huge subset of western literature. Reading GRRM reflects upon absolutely nothing cultural besides the most contemporary

[Anonymous No.5031814]

>>5031802
Pls link a quote from any worthy literary writer that isnt some academic douche like Bloom that disses genres. Back up your bullshit or fuck off.

[Anonymous No.5031819]

>>5031788
If the point of literature was solely to capture 'the spirit and attitude of a time period' then there would be no great works of literature because they would be historically transient. The truth of Literature rests not on historical worth but on that eternal aesthetic divorced from reality which can be sought after through 'realistic representation' but may not necessarily have to.

[Anonymous No.5031820]

>>5031788

So do you agree that deeming Jurassic Park pure escapism is being narrow minded and missing the themes ?

There's a whole slew of books being produced now more than ever and it only stand to reason that not all of them will impact their culture with the same order of magnitude. However the fact remains that they are not devoid of meaning besides entertainment.

You can comment on the quality of that commentary, however. The Hunger Games for example tries very hard to be a commentary on totalitarism and class war but its vision of it is extremely shallow.

[Anonymous No.5031823]

>>5031814
Why the fuck should I care what writers say? Being a writer and doing literary studies are not the same activity

[Anonymous No.5031824]

>>5031810
Yeah I agree with Martin being nothing more than a cross of war of theroses with soap opera, but do you really believe In a few hundred years something as nuanced as Lotr wont be discussed with similar (although lesser of course since we ate talking about fuckin Homer) respect? Get real.

[Anonymous No.5031834]

>>5031824

Tolkien is nuanced now ?
I always found much more worth in Moorcock and I was positively gleefull when he wrote an entire essay about shitting on Tolkien.

[Anonymous No.5031835]

>>5031819
No; you're being retarded! Did you even read my post? GRRM is couched in current modes of thought about mythology, philosophy, meaning, etc. so do older works. Older works are required to understanding newer works and the development of thought!

If you're writing a novel where two people are friends, there is a theory about what makes friends that underlies that fiction! It's the profoundness of the implicit theories that makes the work good.

[Anonymous No.5031846]

>>5031820
I'm arguing that if you reduce the book to its themes, then you will find Jurassic Park is vapid, not that is has none. Jurassic Park had nothing especially good about it besides the novelty of the plot; however, novelty wears off and all that's left is the cultural implications

There's a reason no one at all, besides obscure academics, read the pulp of moden times. GRRM is virtually pulp

[Anonymous No.5031849]

>>5031663
I don't give a shit about the literary vs genre fiction because it's bullshit. it's just one step above console wars on /v/.
It does irk me though that authors make a big deal out of killing characters. Whether they complain about it or boast about it, like gurrm, it makes me wanna slap their shit. For fuck's sake you're not doing anything special, just kill that retard and shut the hell up.

[Anonymous No.5031856]

>>5031824
Except Tolkein is respected academically, and certain aspects of GRRM may be too. We won't know how it holds up until 1. It's done and 2. It's been around long enough for the hype, novelty and aggressive marketing to fade and criticism can start analyzing it historically

[Anonymous No.5031858]

>>5031834
I like Moorcock too but he just has a Hateboner for people who mindlessly rip off tolkien and went into hyperbole to illustrate that. Lotr was created replacement for lost european mythology (ironically destroyed by oppressive catholic culture, not sure if this dawned on Tolkien) it works beautifully .

[Anonymous No.5031862]

>>5031814
i'm not saying that writers are saying anything. i'm saying that academics aren't, either. bloom doesn't get to act as a figurehead of academia as a whole.

[Anonymous No.5031866]

>>5031835
>muh start wiff da gweeks logic
Fuck off
>respecting things only when it influenced lot of other shit
Have fun missing all the hidden gems buried by misfortune and capitalism

[Anonymous No.5031867]

>>5031846

But this vapidity is not caused by the fact it has dinosaurs in it, it's how it handles and presents its themes.

GRRM doesnt handle it's themes with much depth and this is why its pulp, not because it's fantasy.

[Anonymous No.5031873]

>>5031856
Well you will be dead by then so I dont see what you gain by that attitude. Moby Dick was hated in its time and not rediscovered until years after the authors death in poverty.

[Anonymous No.5031878]

>>5031866
Then YOU become an academic and write essays on your subjects and revolutionize literary studies. Whining about it is a waste of our time

[Anonymous No.5031882]

>>5031862
Then who does eh? /lit/ obviously, which is assumedly why OP made the thread.

[Anonymous No.5031887]

>>5031867
I disagree. Both GRRM and The Brothers Karamazov confront gossip and celebrity culture, yet TBK manages to be far more profound because it confronts it in a much more believable setting


>>5031873
Sure, we can't always tell; but this doesn't validate dismissing hundreds of years of literary influence and studies

[Anonymous No.5031891]

>>5031878
Sounds alot like
>if you dont like this artist id like to see you act/write/play better!!!!111!!
Which is about the most obnoxious thing ever. I have no interest in the Bullshit of academics, I have an interest in talking about whatever book I fucking want to here without being spammed with bitchy /a/ tier faggotry because genre fiction isnt respected here.

[Anonymous No.5031892]

people who say things like this never seem to understand the distinctions between what is and is not 'literary'.

[Anonymous No.5031899]

>>5031887
Who said I was dismissing anything? Wanting people to broaden their horizons to 'uncool' books is dismissing the literary study thats already been done? What kind of logic is that?

[Anonymous No.5031900]

>>5031887

>be far more profound because it confronts it in a much more believable setting

I find this outlook very shallow, but I believe that holds true for a lot of people, sadly enough. Oh well no skin off my back.

[Anonymous No.5031904]

>>5031892
And what are those, O wise one? The approval of your authority figures? HA

[Anonymous No.5031913]

>>5031891
Or maybe genre fiction sucks! But since that point isn't up for contention, you've established that you are unreasonable, so I have no reason to try and argue with you

[Anonymous No.5031916]

The gap is closing. As genre fiction is becoming more popular, there are more skilled writers emerging because there are more fans. Soon enough it will close--not saying which I prefer, between genre and literary fiction. Just that if you're going to be elitist about it, your time is limited.

[Anonymous No.5031917]

>>5031899
"The Odyssey" is uncool.

>>5031900
What? Objects aren't able to be divorced from their physical incarnation

[Anonymous No.5031919]

>>5031916
Oh sure, no one said all genre fiction is intrinsically bad by it's own nature

[Anonymous No.5031926]

>>5031663
>Yes, of course there are constraints when you write genre fiction. There are also constraints when you write literary fiction. Totally unconstrained writing would be (to paraphrase Kurt Vonnegut) gibberish interspersed with exclamation marks
is this guy talking shit about finnegan's wake

[Anonymous No.5031927]

>>5031913
Yeah because "x sucks because I said so!" Is entirely reasonable.

[Anonymous No.5031929]

>>5031916
The gap isn't going to close. What is going to happen is people will cease to discern the gap.

[Anonymous No.5031931]

>>5031929
In other words no one will care about such pointless faggotry anymore. Good.

[Anonymous No.5031934]

>genres

modern convention...literature existed for centuries without them. no need to pretend this is a real issue.

[Anonymous No.5031935]

>>5031927
How about you talk specifics, given that I HAVE in this thread, multiple times, while YOU are shitposting.

[Anonymous No.5031936]

>>5031931
No, what will happen is the shittier elements of genre fiction will be eliminated and they will focus on the more timeless human elements.

[Anonymous No.5031941]

>>5031935
>pointing out logical fallacies in someones hipster posturing
>shitposting

[Anonymous No.5031945]

>>5031934
Yes, because literature has exploded and more is published now than ever before by an exponential function over time. Scarcity precludes choice

[Anonymous No.5031950]

>>5031941
Are you so braindead?

[Anonymous No.5031955]

>>5031936
Sure, Id agree with that. Less tolkien ripoffs and 'its like X but in space!' Books can only be a good thing. It will also happen on the opposite end of the spectrum, such as magical realism (a type of fantasy whatever deniers believe) gaining more acceptance.

[Anonymous No.5031958]

>>5031955
What is magical realism?

[Anonymous No.5031959]

>>5031945
amount of literature has nothing to do with anything. "genres" are convenient for marketing, not for readers. "i want more books like __" is literally treating yourself like a demographic. good is good.

[Anonymous No.5031963]

>>5031950
Are you unable to resort to anything but insults when exposed? Try to calm down and question yourself.

[Anonymous No.5031965]

>>5031959
Okay? I disagree, it's very obvious that genres are simply the product of abundance

[Anonymous No.5031978]

>>5031963
That's all you have done in this entire thread; you disagree and insult. Stop posting until you form an argument of substance. I have done this, so I'm not going to reply to your shitposting again until you try

[Anonymous No.5031979]

>>5031965
It tooootally couldnt be a combination of both eh?

[Anonymous No.5031982]

>>5031965
>it's very obvious

categorization does not naturally result from abundance. it's a concerted effort.

[Anonymous No.5031995]

>>5031982
Do you think detective novels did not become identifiable and distinguishable as a category after the Sherlock Holmes books were published? They made a demand for more of the same, and a genre was born

[Anonymous No.5031997]

>>5031978
Im not even the same fucking guy. Lrn2anon image board and try to be mature.

[Anonymous No.5032010]

>>5031978
That is not what happened. Someone pointe out the lack of substance in your arguement and you got super butthurt.

[Anonymous No.5032018]

>Ze xi zo xum I smell the blood of cis scum

[Anonymous No.5032019]

>>5032010
If substance makes an argument, then you are a hypocrite

[Anonymous No.5032031]

>>5032018
Wrong thread whoops

[Anonymous No.5032040]

>>5031995
detective stories were popular prior to holmes. but either way, your point argues the effect of the market, not the effect of abundance.

technology made it easy to capitalize off of successful literature, since rip-offs could be marketed and shelved next to the genuinely good literature without much cost. it's a total business move. "you already like this actual good piece of art, so we are going to invest effort into convincing you that you'll like this other thing that is just like it so we can make more money."

somewhere down the line this became internalized, and genres became a part of the actual conversation. i'm not going to say that good literature hasn't come of it, but the idea of genres has nothing to do with literature or abundance. its roots are in making money.

[Anonymous No.5032046]

>>5032040
Supply creates demand. Holy shit, this premise is like chapter 1 of any economic text

[Anonymous No.5032048]

>>5032019
Back pedaling! Yeah I made a start with the greeks joke, so what?
>Older works are required to understanding newer works and the development of thought!
If you cant admit that this was a stupid thing to say then you are hopeless. That shit is nothing but a sales pitch for humanities departments. I do not need to know anything about say, mozart to fully appreciate Black Sabbath.

[Anonymous No.5032052]

>>5032048
So reading the Greeks is unimportant to understanding Nietzsche? Reading the ethics is unimportant to understanding medieval moral philosophy? Reading the Bible is unimportant to understanding Milton?

[Anonymous No.5032053]

>>5032046
Yeah and economics classes have NEVER been criticized for clinging to outdated theories or being narrow as all hell. How do you think 08 happened?

[Anonymous No.5032058]

>>5032053
So you're right by the fact that you're denying economic theory?

Also what academic economists say does not correlate to how economic decisions are made

[Anonymous No.5032059]

>>5032046
people don't just buy books because they're there. demand has to be stimulated.

[Anonymous No.5032062]

>>5032059
Yes and no.

[Anonymous No.5032070]

>>5032052
Cherry picking. Philosophy is another matter and not the topic of this thread in any way but I don't need to read the bible to 'understand' Milton when its imbedded in our culture already and many of the details of that particular work were drawn from other sources (some oral/cultural) than the bible, which went into little detail about satan. Furthermore, define 'understand', you mean getting the so called 'correct' interpretation? Understanding every reference? You saying I have to read half the canon to get Joyce? Fuck off people have the freedom to read what they like without slogging through years of things they may not be interested in.

[Anonymous No.5032076]

>>5032070
If you're not interested in it then don't criticize literary studies! That's what the whole thread is about!

Are you just here to defend reading genre fiction for fun? Because I haven't been talking about that at all

[Anonymous No.5032097]

>>5031730
>neofeudal sentiments in middle class America, e.g. celebrity culture.

[Anonymous No.5032104]

>>5032097
Do you care to use words, instead of an emotional expression which is entirely vapid?

[Anonymous No.5032118]

>>5032076
No one is criticizing anything aside from saying it should be more inclusive. The obvious point of the link being posted here is to hopefully lessen the amount of shitposters in genre fiction threads. Sorry you missed that.

[Anonymous No.5032141]

>>5031663
You guys are retarded. The only reason this debate exists is because of institutionalism.

[Anonymous No.5032146]

>>5032118
Maybe, just maybe, the people that do literary studies HAVE read genre fiction and they find it unoriginal, uninteresting, cliche and insignificant.

HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THIS? Every word you speak holds the implication that genre fiction IS worth studying side-by-side with literary fiction, which is a falsehood

[Anonymous No.5032259]

>>5032146
The appeal to authority fallacy ride never ends!
Take your lame attitude to where youll find similarly ignorant companions! Just replace uni professors with pitchfork and the needle drop. >>>/mu/

[Anonymous No.5032835]

>>5031958
Magical thinking used in place of logic.
Read Pedro Paramo until Damiana shows up to get the idea.

[Anonymous No.5034198]

>>5031804
Beowulf WAS written off, and valued only for its historicity. Then Tolkein wrote "The Monsters and The Critics," basically a response to geistfag here >>5031788, and here we are.

[Anonymous No.5034321]

>>5031771
That's because Tomino was depressed as fuck during that period.

[Anonymous No.5034538]

>>5031730
So a writers story has to be completely realistic and plausible? Stimulate your imagination every once in a while.

[Anonymous No.5034547]

>>5031788
Jurassic Park may be forgotten, but ASOIAF won't.

[Anonymous No.5034565]

Good books are good regardless of the genre.

[Anonymous No.5034579]

>>5031663
Who give this poor person a book? Shouldn't he be in a factory?

[Anonymous No.5034580]

>>5034565

Woah look out these are some shit hot controversial opinions coming through.

[Anonymous No.5034589]

>>5034580
Just a simple notion that literary critics tend to overlook.

[Anonymous No.5034590]

>>5031804
You have to admit though, the Iliad is basically fantasy tier shit.

There's literally nothing redeemable about that book. It's like the Hobbit. The only reason anyone reads it and "acts" like they enjoy it is because it's the prequel to a much better work.

[Anonymous No.5034648]

>>5034589

Thank you for being brave enough to remind people of this. I'm sure none of us even considered it.

Great post.

[Anonymous No.5035089]

>>5034648
Your welcome

[Anonymous No.5035098]

>>5035089
>Your

[Anonymous No.5035105]

>>5035098
>Obvious troll

[Anonymous No.5035195]

>>5032259
>>5032146
Summer pls go

[Anonymous No.5035534]

>>5031730
The Odyssey confirmed for vapid escapist drivel.

[Anonymous No.5036732]

>>5034590
Are you retarded or something?

[Anonymous No.5036799]

It "can" be, but it's still a massive uphill battle. Genre authors have to wade through stylistic tropes and deal with escapist reader bases before they have the freedom that literary fiction is allowed. And most authors are just as escapist as their readers, so they're not likely to go much past a basic narrative.