I bet he "values intellect", too

[cimorene]

Using the word "literary" in a sentence like

It wouldn't be confused with ~*~Literary~*~ fiction...¹

of something that is, in fact, fiction, =AUTOMATIC FAIL.


1. Sparklewaves added by yours truly to indicate the speshulness of Literary Fiction with its inherent superiority

Comments

[dreamnnightmare.livejournal.com]

I love the sparkle waves! They really add a lot of sparkle and, um, waviness.

yeah, well, I wasn't exactly sure what he thought literary fiction was. Or even whether he prefers it. If he meant that kind of stuff that people are forced to read in eighth grade English class than I am happy enough to be excluded. if he meant stuff like Lord of light or the Lord of the rings then I have to say I think I need to practice a little more before I can run with that crowd.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

No, I think you're not as genius as Zelazny or Tolkien. For the latter, though, your talents lie in rather different areas of writing! But it makes no sense to have a purportedly genre word that people attempt to use to imply the quality within the genre. And it's not possible for a genre to be inherently superior in any remotely logical sense, since each type of writing is a task that can be excelled at like each other, and each effect achieved with words is a different skill (or might be composed of many skills).

[cimness.livejournal.com]

For that matter, people who say stupid things with the term "literary" never have any sensible definition of genre for it. It usually means something like "Stuff That Old Upper-Class White Dudes of a Particular Philosophical Tradition Deem to be Particularly Worthwhile". It's like the things that win Oscars. What does the Academy like? (There's been a lot of controversy about the nominations for foreign language Oscars for years and years. They always want the Holocaust tearjerker type and never even nominate anything violent or funny, no matter how critically or universally acclaimed or popular.)

[dreamnnightmare.livejournal.com]

the same thing happens in music. People who like classical music mostly agree that classical music is inherently superior to any other kind. It has some aspects of its inherent nature that permit kinds of excellence that are difficult in other genres. But the same is true for every genre. Long complicated difficult instrumental pieces that take you from point a to point and see and stuff but all of the other points in between are common in classical music and not in most other stars, for instance.

I'm not sure there is a meaningful definition of literary fiction. If you know the person writing you kind of get a sense of what they mean. Problems arise, aside from people feeling insulted, when the reader doesn't have a definition anything like that of the writer. Not everybody uses literary fiction to mean the best fiction and those people who do are obviously a little bit confused about the naming of things.

[mecurtin.livejournal.com]

Who is "he"?

[dreamnnightmare.livejournal.com]

I meant Don Noble, the book reviewer.

Actually, I have the feeling from something he said that he meant serious literature when he said literary fiction. In other words, things that are not necessarily fun to read. He bemoans the fact that people don't send him enough humor to read.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

Another categorisation FAIL. Think about it: If "literary" = "srs bzness", does that mean that it includes everything making a serious attempt at a moral message? Then it would include Star Trek, which I'm sure he would deny! Or does it include attempts at a moral message which are not comedies? There goes the entire ouvre of Tom Stoppard, including Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead which is certainly Srs Bzness. Attempts at a moral message not set in a fantastical or speculative setting? Well, there goes The Lord of the Rings and Fahrenheit 451, among others. Moral messages not primarily intended for entertainment? Bye-bye, Dickens and Shakespeare.

[dreamnnightmare.livejournal.com]

well I don't know what he meant. But none of those are quite what I was speculating that he meant. I realize that the phrase "serious literature" already has several meanings, all different from what I was trying to say. Which is: fiction that isn't fun to read. If it's intended as entertainment it's not entertaining. Now, some of those things you mentioned may not be fun to read. And, like I said, he may well have meant something a lot more like one of the things you suggested. but I thought "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead" was funny even though it did also have a serious message. Any kind of humor can have a serious message and it often does. At least a quarter of the Pogo comic strips had serious messages.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

..But why would you need a separate word for things that aren't fun to read, aside from 'boring' or 'depressing' or whatever. I mean, if it seriously tackles Serious Issues with intent, surely that is a more important distinction. R&GAD no doubt does a much better job, with its black humour, than many non-funny assays at the same themes.