# Is serious literature dying?



## miamiajp (Jan 28, 2012)

Is serious literature slowly dying, drowned by a tsunami of vampires, werewolves and mutants? Every other book on Kindle (or here for that matter) seems to have fangs or tails in it. 
First I must disclose I am not a fan of supernatural books. I love science fiction and some fictional stories that involve a scientific or plausible explanation. But monsters and fangs, let's face it they are for books with pictures in them. Even as a child, I loved Jules Verne, but disliked the Grimm Brothers.  I never really got into Poe, but didn't dislike him either. 
That said, I think the Salingers, Tolstoys, Hemingways, Garcia Marqueses, Swifts, Steins, Faulkners, even the Poes of our generation are been pushed into oblivion by a sea of supernatural fantasy that for the most part belongs in comic books. 
The worst thing that ever happened to serious literature is J.K Rowling. Worse yet, the likes of her, Anne Rice and Stephenie Meyer have launched a crusade of people who think of writing as a sure road to billionaireship. They have a following of millions who ignore thousands of years of rich literary legacy to consume these “feel good” stories like drug addicts.
I don't advocate the end of supernatural fiction. It has always had a place in books. For the most part, it used to be children or young adults books. I just think is time for a lot of people to grow up. 
There, I've said my peace.  You guys can kick me out now.


----------



## Sean Patrick Fox (Dec 3, 2011)

Nope. Writers of "serious literature" have generally taken a backseat to more accessible writers, as far as popularity goes. I wonder why...


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Welcome to the board, Mr Franzen.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

So true!

Only fools and children are dumb enough to read for pleasure. It takes a real genius to read for the mind-numbing pain.


----------



## ETS PRESS (Nov 4, 2011)

There is a place for both. We have classics, literary fiction, and commercial fiction. The mass populace reads commercial fiction. Classics require deeper thinking and harder work from the reader. The language of the times is often a barrier to successfully comprehending a classic piece of literature. In addition, classics require deep background knowledge of the history and culture of the times in which the piece was written. Classic literature takes a dedicated reader and learner.

Literary fiction is alive and well. It is a thriving genre that digs deeper into characterization. Crafting literary fiction requires patience on behalf of the writer and the reader. In this fast moving, instantized world, we have many readers who cannot slow down long enough to appreciate the beauty of language and the thoughtful crafting of words. They want it now. It takes a special reader to embrace literary fiction.

Commercial fiction is generally fact paced, packed with action, plot driven (but not always), and written for the purpose of entertainment. Shakespeare also wrote on commonalities in human nature with the purpose of entertainment. Literature reflects the times in which we live. For all intents and purposes, commercial fiction is literature. It reflects our times. One is not better than the other, but in general, commercial fiction is more accessible to the average reader.

The important thing to remember is that reading is now accessible to more of the population. At one time, only the well-to-do could read. Reading is valued and cherished by all of society. People read at varying levels, for different purposes, in a variety of formats (including online), but, and this is important,_ people are reading._


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> The worst thing that ever happened to serious literature is J.K Rowling.


And yet she's turned a generation of children into avid readers. Therefore I see her books as a good thing. 



> I just think is time for a lot of people to grow up.


"There's no point in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes."


----------



## ElizabethJasper (Jan 20, 2012)

Crikey! Do I detect a groundswell of opinion here that wishes serious literature _would_ disappear? Of course, every reader has his/her view of what 'serious literature' is. Are we talking Classics here, or the Great American Novel, or Literary Fiction (whatever that is).

My view is that there should be something for everyone who wants to read, whether they get their jollies from fangs, tails, magic, or something more along the lines of literary fiction. Me, I love the occasional fantasy - really enjoyed the George R R Martin series - Songs of Ice and Fire, but I also like a decent historical romance, a good thriller - though perhaps there are fewer really good ones around than there used to be, and I adore what I consider to be more serious stuff.

I hate sloppy, amateurish writing, shallow characterisation, poor grammar and spelling, trite plots, over-writing (especially descriptive), and writers who don't seem to know how to write a satisfying ending.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

miamiajp said:


> Is serious literature slowly dying, drowned by a tsunami of vampires, werewolves and mutants? Every other book on Kindle (or here for that matter) seems to have fangs or tails in it.
> F
> I don't advocate the end of supernatural fiction. It has always had a place in books. For the most part, it used to be children or young adults books. I just think is time for a lot of people to grow up.
> There, I've said my peace. You guys can kick me out now.


Sales of literary fiction are doing quite well, I don't know what you are whining about. Sure werewolves and mutants are selling well too--so just what is your beef?

ps: not a werewolf/vampire lover myself, but it sells by the pound.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

ElizabethJasper said:


> Crikey! Do I detect a groundswell of opinion here that wishes serious literature _would_ disappear?


I don't see that opinion being expressed in this thread.


----------



## Rachel Forde (Nov 4, 2011)

I'm not really following your logic, here.

You disclose that you are not a fan of "supernatural books". At first, I assume you mean the deluge of teen paranormal stuff that currently swamping the market. I hear you on that one, but I have a feeling that bubble is going to burst soon, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

But then, I see you lumping that together with the "Grimm Brothers," which is assuredly _not_ teen paranormal romance, but a collection of remixed folk tales that have been a part of our cultural canon for almost 200 years, and many of the stories were being told and retold for centuries before that. 
Never mind your own personal tastes--if we're talking about "good literature," most people would include Grimm's Fairy Tales in that category, even they don't care for the stories themselves (myself included). I strongly doubt that in 200 years, scholars will be analyzing _Twilight_ in search of its cultural subtexts and rich symbolism.

I didn't read the Harry Potter books until I was an adult, and I loved them. Not because of the wizarding duels and Quidditch, but because of all the allusions to World War II and the Holocaust--all very "adult" subjects dealt with in a creative way. Fantasy and supernatural stories can be rife with that kind of symbolism and metaphor, if the author so chooses, and it takes an adult mind to be able to unpack that.


----------



## ETS PRESS (Nov 4, 2011)

Rachel Forde said:


> I didn't read the Harry Potter books until I was an adult, and I loved them. Not because of the wizarding duels and Quidditch, but because of all the allusions to World War II and the Holocaust--all very "adult" subjects dealt with in a creative way. Fantasy and supernatural stories can be rife with that kind of symbolism and metaphor, if the author so chooses, and it takes an adult mind to be able to unpack that.


Now I'm interested. I only read the first book. HP is not my cup of tea, but really, I never made WWII / Holocaust connections. That's fascinating. Could you elaborate?


----------



## Feenix (Jan 14, 2012)

I'm a retired HS English teacher so I am very familiar (and a bit tired) of the debate.

When I was teaching, many parents would say "Give my kids something to read that is interesting to them. We don't care about the classics authors like Twain, Melville and Hemingway." School board members, etc. would ride the fence. School administrators would encourage to teach reading and thinking skills using whatever means possible.

My take on how our society is reading "popular" literature over the classics is look at what is offered on cable, etc. 

The law of supply and demand...


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

"If you have a success you have it for the wrong reasons. If you become popular it is always because of the worst aspects of your work."
- Ernest Hemingway

When your definition of 'literary' is basically 'stuff that doesn't sell well' then you can't simultaneously gripe when literary fiction _isn't selling well._

Besides, this is just a common empty complaint, no different than "In my day, young people actually had respect/intelligence/balls".


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Courtney Milan said:


> So true!
> 
> Only fools and children are dumb enough to read for pleasure. It takes a real genius to read for the mind-numbing pain.


Haha! Right on.


----------



## sbaum4853 (May 3, 2010)

2 observations about this thread. 

1) Paper still has a strong hold on the literary fiction market. While readers in genre fiction have been quick to embrace the eReader, readers of literary fiction have been slower to abandon their paper. 

2) The original poster says JK Rowling is the worst thing to happen to serious fiction, and then compares her to other popular authors of fantasy/paranormal. I think this is a poor argument. JK Rowling and Stephanie Myer don't belong together. Rowling is better grouped with Hemmingway, Franzen, Jane Austen, and so forth. She is a world class wordsmith who happens to write fantasy.


----------



## Guest (Feb 25, 2012)

I don't believe they're dying, they're just very-very rare as for many, serious literature is hard read these days. I've faced with this problem during the development of Crystal Shade, which is a supernatural fantasy where I mix the English literature with the style of Hungarian serious literature. It's also can be a hard read to those who was grew up on Harry Potter and Twilight, as the language of that book is more beautiful and elegant, so as some reviewers had said, but because of this the pacing is also slower and these days people understand only the action (Actually I've made a joke about this in the book as well.  ).


----------



## Kathelm (Sep 27, 2010)

> HP is not my cup of tea, but really, I never made WWII / Holocaust connections. That's fascinating. Could you elaborate?


A man of mixed heritage gathers a cult of personality around himself in an effort to install himself as a dictator using increasingly brutal methods. His main tools are racism and crazy supporters. In the process, among his goals are to wipe out the entirety of an ethnic group, which just so happens to consist of one half of his own heritage. He makes great progress in this plan and is basically successful before everyone else is willing to admit that he had such a plan in the first place, leading to a frenzied attempt to kill him a few years too late.

The main difference is that in the Harry Potter universe, this sort of thing happens every few decades.


----------



## Rachel Forde (Nov 4, 2011)

> Now I'm interested. I only read the first book. HP is not my cup of tea, but really, I never made WWII / Holocaust connections. That's fascinating. Could you elaborate?


The political and social subtexts don't really come through until the later books. Rowling actually drew inspiration from a _lot_ of political situations; the WWII and Holocaust references are just some of the stronger ones. What's most striking, whether you agree with her politics or not, is how many of her fans were inspired by the books to tackle major social issues in the real world, i.e., the crisis in Darfur.

http://thehpalliance.org/

Just goes to show you what a bunch of mass-market "kid's stories" are capable of, and why I wouldn't be surprised if people are still talking about Harry Potter 200 years from now.


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

In my experience (and, don't get me started, this is one of my soapbox topics!), it's usually the people who love a strand of something that sets itself up as superior to all other strands of that something, who think everything else shouldn't be allowed to exist.  Be it literature, theatre, art, food, whatever - it's nearly always the people in the 'superior' section calling for the removal of the other sections, not the other way around. 

As for why the non 'literary' stuff is so popular, think of it in terms of food. Multiple Michelin star winning cuisine is the pinnacle of dining to foodies, the more extreme of whom scorn anything less. However, how many people think, "I really fancy going out tonight for lobster ice-cream with crayfish wafers"? The majority might try award winning cuisine at some point, and might enjoy it - but for the most part, if they fancy eating out then they're going to crave a take-away, or decide that tonight they're going to go to one of their favourite restaurants, the ones they take visitors to.  Because the food is tasty, the atmosphere is great, the prices are reasonable - and they're not in the mood for lobster ice-cream.  

Food aside - it's important to note that, to a lot of people, it's not an either or.  I read popular fiction but I also love Jane Austen, Shakespeare and Restoration comedies.  Dickens is on my to be read list along with the popular fiction titles - and I've read and enjoyed some other 'literary' works over the years.  By putting down people who read anything other than high-brow literature, you're actually insulting a large section of your target market.  That's something to bear in mind...


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

This is the customary time in such argument to point out that Dickens and Austen (and Shakespeare) weren't considered "serious literature" in their time. The literati considered it mindless fluff for the masses.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

ElizabethJasper said:


> I hate sloppy, amateurish writing, shallow characterisation, poor grammar and spelling, trite plots, over-writing (especially descriptive), and writers who don't seem to know how to write a satisfying ending.


I agree with this but I also realize that many of those concepts are in the eyes of the beholder. In recent months I have been in a lot of discussions on various reading sites with readers who adore stuff that I think is mind-numbingly awful and they think the stuff I like is "difficult" and "tedious." It all depends on your own background in literature. I can't tell you how many times a reader has told me "just try this (romance, sci-fi, vampire, zombie, whatever) book -- it is so good, you won't be able to put it down!" So I try it and I can't get past the third page out of sheer boredom. Then someone will complain about how boring another book is and I won't be able to put it down. It's all about individual tastes and fortunately there are enough readers and enough writers to fill all the niches.

The most important thing is that people are reading voraciously these days. I don't know if they were before the e-readers or not but it doesn't matter. I'm just so thrilled that so many people are buying and reading whatever makes them happy.


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

Ooooh!  You're gonna get it.


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

Rachel Forde said:


> I'm not really following your logic, here.
> 
> You disclose that you are not a fan of "supernatural books". At first, I assume you mean the deluge of teen paranormal stuff that currently swamping the market. I hear you on that one, but I have a feeling that bubble is going to burst soon, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.
> 
> ...


Now this is interesting, the bit about the bubble. Two things. The Twilight and Torn books have succeeded wildly, teens snapping them up as quick as they come out... but did they foster a false sense of mega sales, writers pulling in thousands of readers every time they released a new book on Kindle? Maybe. And, perhaps this bubble is slowly collapsing, and that is why sales seem to be flattening a bit.


----------



## Guest (Feb 25, 2012)

Yes.

The first time a pedantic idiot uttered the term "literary fiction," serious fiction died.  It went out with a pathetic, damp squeak.

And Oprah's Book Club was born.

What rough beast, dragging Dr. Oz's tofu-encrusted entrails, slouches from Chicago toward New York?


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

I have no problem with people reading what is popular like werewolves and vampires and shifters. The point is that they are reading and they are young and maybe reading will become a lifelong passion. Hopefully they will turn into readers of other works and genres as they grow older since I'm sure their reading tastes will evolve. The most important thing is that they are reading and not watching some really stupid TV show. 

I started off reading those pulpy Jules Verne stories. Gotta start somewhere.


----------



## Rachel Forde (Nov 4, 2011)

> Now this is interesting, the bit about the bubble. Two things. The Twilight and Torn books have succeeded wildly, teens snapping them up as quick as they come out... but did they foster a false sense of mega sales, writers pulling in thousands of readers every time they released a new book on Kindle? Maybe. And, perhaps this bubble is slowly collapsing, and that is why sales seem to be flattening a bit.


Could be. I was thinking more in terms of trends in general. It happens with fantasy. When the LOTR books first came out, teenagers were snapping up Tolkien, Paolini and others like crazy. A couple of years later, Twilight started becoming popular, and the teen paranormal genre picked up in much the same way. Now, with video games like Skyrim, George R. R. Martin's books, and the Hobbit movie slated to come out some time this year, maybe fantasy will start to pick up again.

*crossing my fingers*

Now, let's hope some of those readers like Victorian lit, too, and then I'll really have it made.


----------



## Rachel Forde (Nov 4, 2011)

> The most important thing is that they are reading and not watching some really stupid TV show.


The most vacuous, shallow, brain-melting-out-your-ears fiction in the world still requires more thought and imagination than 90% of what is on TV today. True that.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Doesnt serious literature die every 20 or 30 years?  Usually this supposed death is declared by some pretentious dorks who are writing boring drivel that borders on unreadable.  Then someone comes along and writes something good, ala The Road, and it reminds us that serious literature isnt dead.  It's simply rare.  If it was commonplace it wouldnt be so brilliant when it comes along, would it?  Pop fiction is always going to outnumber serious literature.  That's hardly new or noteworthy.  More people drink cola than fine wine and more people watch reality TV than educational television.  It's okay to lament these things, but as Dalglish pointed out, it does kind of make you look like a cranky old man complaining about how the kids today have it easy and you had to walk 5 miles in the snow uphill to get to school every morning!


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Let's say 100 people read serious literature, and 900 read crap. That shows serious literature having only 10% of the market. I'll presume that's what it means to say it is being drowned.

Would we be better off as a society if 100 people read serious literature, and the other 900 read nothing? Why?

I realize proponents of serious literature will opt for another scenario where 1,000 people read serious literature. But people have that choice, it's readily available, and they are rejecting it. So, having rejected the serious literature, should they also reject Harry Potter and read nothing?

I wish fans of serious literature the best, and I note the success of other types of literature has produced a situation where a great deal of serious literature is now free. Just go to Amazon and click the Kindle BUY button.

And as for the notion that everyone should be as enlightened as I? God save us...


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

dgaughran said:


> This is the customary time in such argument to point out that Dickens and Austen (and Shakespeare) weren't considered "serious literature" in their time. The literati considered it mindless fluff for the masses.


beat me to it. thanks.

serious is in the mind of the beholder. i'm still trying to figure out just what "serious" literature is, actually...


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)

There are so many wonderful fantasy writers who frequent this board.  I'm guessing that the majority of them never post but just come here to read the threads and stay current with their fellow ebook authors.  Many of the authors here write about werewolves and vampires, and are highly creative and imaginative people.  And many are terrific people too.

I'm still trying to figure out why you would want to come here and demean their chosen genre?  Why you would want to hurt their feelings and make them feel small.  

I don't care for Vampire fiction, but I marvel at how many of the wonderful writers here can always find a new and fresh way to spin the tale.  That takes talent.

Look around you.  Life is filled with people in pain, the news makes you want to almost give up on your fellow man.  If a writer can take people away from that for an hour or two with a good ghost, vampire, or werewolf story, God bless them.

There is a need and a place for everyone in the world of writing.  I don't care for "literary" fiction even though it hasn't been quite defined yet.  Is it Steinbeck, or Twain? I don't know,  but I would never want to speak against it as there are so many nice literary writers here, and I would never want to hurt their feelings.  

I guess I'm just really confused as to why you said such condescending things about fellow authors.  I'm guessing there are a lot of fantasy writers here today who aren't feeling so good about themselves right now.  I hope most of them didn't see this thread.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

I like to read just about everything except romance. (Sorry to all my romance friends here.) I went through a period in college where I even read 1800 century French romance poetry (it was a class at UF). I love "literary" fiction at times, but lately I've been on an indie kick and there is a wide variety of genres available from indies.


----------



## John Blackport (Jul 18, 2011)

oliewankanobe said:


> Yes.
> 
> The first time a pedantic idiot uttered the term "literary fiction," serious fiction died. It went out with a pathetic, damp squeak.
> 
> ...


I suppose this all depends on what you consider "literary fiction".

In my experience, it's sort of an unspoken pact between a bunch of people who want to feel superior, without having to accomplish anything.

One of the most cost-effective ways to do this is to read stories where nothing happens. This creates a shared bond of suffering among the readers, and supplies their pseudo-intellectual bravado with a flimsy veneer of pretentious justification.

Every once in a while a good story sneaks through, despite everyone's best efforts. But even these have to be sanitized to take out all the enjoyment: action scenes must be told in slow motion, whatever sex makes the cut must be unrelentingly bad, characters who are examined closely must be morally repugnant and repulsive to boot. Most importantly, it must be rife with poorly punctuated, indecipherable freight-train sentences of 100 words or more.

The payoff is that the readers get to hang out together in specific chat rooms --- before the Internet, it was cocktail parties --- and pat each other on the back to reinforce one another's delusions about how superior they are. The reasoning is simple: "literary fiction" is agony to read, so if getting through the book is so hard to accomplish --- why then, it must merit the reader special praise!

Prying off my own fingernails might be difficult too, but you won't catch me doing it just for the bragging rights.

If this kind of "literature" died, I sure wouldn't miss it. But it never will. As long as there are people, a few of them will be shallow and self-important enough to lap this up like a toddler chugging a plastic jug of pancake syrup.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

I'm pulling this study out again...



> Reading on the Rise documents a definitive increase in rates and numbers of American adults who read literature, with the biggest increases among young adults, ages 18-24. *This new growth reverses two decades of downward trends cited previously in NEA reports* such as Reading at Risk and To Read or Not To Read.





> Literary reading increases
> 
> * For the first time in the history of the survey - conducted five times since 1982 - the overall rate at which adults read literature (novels and short stories, plays, or poems) rose by seven percent.
> * The absolute number of literary readers has grown significantly. There were 16.6 million more adult readers of literature in 2008. The growth in new readers reflects higher adult reading rates combined with overall population growth.
> ...


http://www.nea.gov/news/news09/readingonrise.html

Maybe "serious" literature was killing literature. Maybe JK Rowling saved it.

So, in conclusion,










B.


----------



## Ian Fraser (Mar 8, 2011)

According to Nationmaster, only around 19% of the US population operates at a 'high literacy rate' - given that statistic, arguments over literary fiction vs 'what the majority of readers are reading' are a little absurd. Like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Only around 19%? No apologist for serious literature would ever be caught in such a large group of lumpen.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> Then someone comes along and writes something good, ala The Road, and it reminds us that serious literature isnt dead.


I've only seen the movie version, but to me The Road just seemed to be a generic post-apocalyptic story with anything that hinted of fun removed. If it had been submitted to a genre publisher they'd probably have said 'add some zombies, or maybe they could be driving along The Road in a muscle-car and fighting for gas or something?'. The characters in Mad Max felt far more realistic to me, because they at least tried to create a new life for themselves rather than being depressed all the time. Is the book any better?


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Only around 19%? No apologist for serious literature would ever be caught in such a large group of lumpen.


So true. 19% is absurdly populist, lowest-common-denominator sort of territory. I mean, hell, only 5-10% of the population is elite enough to use a Macintosh, and even that's hardly the reliable indicator of taste and sophistication it once was, alas.



> "Dear creature! how much I am obliged to you; and when you have finished Udolpho, we will read The Italian together; and I have made out a list of ten or twelve more of the same kind for you."
> "Have you, indeed! How glad I am! - What are they all?"
> "I will read you their names directly; here they are, in my pocket-book. Castle of Wolfenbach, Clermont, Mysterious Warnings, Necromancer of the Black Forest, Midnight Bell, Orphan of the Rhine, and Horrid Mysteries. Those will last us some time."
> "Yes, pretty well; but _are they all horrid_, are you _sure_ they are all horrid?"
> "Yes, quite sure; for a particular friend of mine, a Miss Andrews, a sweet girl, one of the sweetest creatures in the world, has read every one of them."


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

miamiajp said:


> First I must disclose I am not a fan of supernatural books.


Who knew. 



> I love science fiction and some fictional stories that involve a scientific or plausible explanation. But monsters and fangs, let's face it they are for books with pictures in them. Even as a child, I loved Jules Verne, but disliked the Grimm Brothers. I never really got into Poe, but didn't dislike him either.
> That said, I think the Salingers, Tolstoys, Hemingways, Garcia Marqueses, Swifts, Steins, Faulkners, even the Poes of our generation are been pushed into oblivion by a sea of supernatural fantasy that for the most part belongs in comic books.


That's an interesting opinion. And it is one person's opinion--not a standard.



> I don't advocate the end of supernatural fiction. It has always had a place in books. For the most part, it used to be children or young adults books.


The Epic of Gilgamesh and thousands upon thousands of other works since then that feature supernatural themes stand in stubborn rejection of that notion.


----------



## Nick Steckel (Sep 2, 2010)

John Blackport said:


> I suppose this all depends on what you consider "literary fiction".
> 
> In my experience, it's sort of an unspoken pact between a bunch of people who want to feel superior, without having to accomplish anything.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## Rachel Forde (Nov 4, 2011)

> There are so many wonderful fantasy writers who frequent this board. I'm guessing that the majority of them never post but just come here to read the threads and stay current with their fellow ebook authors.


*Raises hand*

I'm also one of the people who chooses to read Classics over current, popular stuff, but within reason. I love Mark Twain, Sinclair Lewis and Edith Wharton. But Nathaniel Hawthorne? Or Herman Melville? Why yes, I'd love a whole chapter on whale biology! *Snore* Thomas Pynchon? *hides under the bed*

I liked Zelah's foodie analogy. Yes, I like to shop at Farmer's Markets and buy local and all that goodie-goodie two-shoes stuff, but sometimes, I need to just dive into a bucket of fried chicken. I'm not going to pretend that the fried chicken is as healthy as the strawberries and sauteed swiss chard, but sometimes, I'm just in the mood for fried chicken. I don't ever recall being in the mood for lobster ice-cream (see above Thomas Pynchon reference). But for most of us, can't we have both?

*And I don't want to knock anyone who writes or enjoys paranormal, even if I may be coming off that way. It's the "trendy" genre right now, but I'm sure there are a lot of writers/readers who loved the genre before, and will love it after the _zeitgeist_ has moved on, for reasons they could name if you asked them. Lord knows, it's not like Fantasy doesn't have its own cornball side.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)




----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

Monique, I bloody love you. 



> I'm still trying to figure out why you would want to come here and demean their chosen genre? Why you would want to hurt their feelings and make them feel small.


I write paranormal romance. The OP's opinion neither hurts my feelings, nor makes me feel small. Everyone has his or her own opinion, and while I agree that the OP probably could have been more tactful, one person's opinion doesn't bother me even a little bit. I'm perfectly happy and comfortable writing what I write.


----------



## emilyward (Mar 5, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> Pop fiction is always going to outnumber serious literature. That's hardly new or noteworthy. More people drink cola than fine wine and more people watch reality TV than educational television.


Yep. It's like asking why the Transformers movies get way more ticket sales than 'serious' movies. For a lot of people, reading is a hobby to take a break from life. They want to be entertained. They may not want to undertake a heavy book that feels more like work than fun.

But I agree with those who've said that it's a matter of opinion what constitutes "good" and "bad" literature. There is plenty of "nonserious" literature that still has merit and quality. Harry Potter may be fantasy, but it has themes about racism and war, courage, love, friendship, the importance of family. Same with The Hunger Games trilogy -- it deals with war, classism, PTSD, death, and more, even if it's all wrapped up in fast-paced action novels.


----------



## Rachel Forde (Nov 4, 2011)

> Monique, I bloody love you.


And here I am, still trying to figure out the reference. 

I should probably start consuming some media more recent than the Gilded Age.


----------



## mac4665 (Nov 18, 2011)

Serious literature is alive and kicking. Pop music didn't kill off classical music, and fantasy has little effect on the popularity of classical literature. It is, however, very difficult to market serious work as an Indie publisher if you are unknown.   
By the way, I must admit a fondness for stupid vampire stories. Along with more serious work, I've published several particularly silly ones in magazines.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

"Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book."

_Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BCE)_


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Rachel Forde said:


> Thomas Pynchon? *hides under the bed*


Pynchon was great until he started writing thousand-page doorstops. I loved much of his early work, but I've had one of his recent books on the shelf for two years and I can't be more than ten percent of the way through it. Too slow and rambling with no obvious point yet.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Well, I'd rather dig my eyes out with a spoon than read Pynchon or Roth. But it's interesting that some people consider the novels of, oh, say, Doctorow or le Guin as pretty darn literary. *shrug*

Whatever.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

mac4665 said:


> It is, however, very difficult to market serious work as an Indie publisher if you are unknown.


Seriously, when many of the lowest of the food chain, traditionally published genre writers are still turning up their noses at self published books, how exactly is one expected to win over the hoity tauty MFA crowd?


----------



## John A. A. Logan (Jan 25, 2012)

I published my novel 6 weeks ago and have knocked into this conundrum about what is literary and what is genre, quite a bit...I wish the distinction wasn't there, because all I want to see promoted is a great story...from either side of the "divide".
I was a bit suprised to see the kicking and disrespect that "literary fiction" was getting on many forums, so I can understand some people defending it...but I also started to notice that people were not at all clear on which books were "literary" when they said they despised the literary fiction...
It seems on some forums or threads there is a prejudice against genre fiction, on others there is a prejudice against literary fiction...oviously, I think both prejudices are wrong!
I found people saying they hated literary fiction, who were actually reading books now, or their last book read, would be classed as literary fiction, or had been nominated for the Nobel Prize for Literature etc...they didn't realise they were reading and loving "literary fiction", they just loved the story they had found!
So I think there are sometimes great misunderstandings, unless you name the particular books you have in mind as "literary", as lots of people have done on this thread, which is good. 
Personally, I had written what I thought was a thriller...my literary agent wanted to send it out as literary fiction...in the end, I think he was sending my book out as a thriller one week, and as literary fiction the next...
6 weeks after publication, my novel went to number 13 in the UK literary fiction Top 100 paid bestselling list....and to number 18 in the list of all paid UK literary fiction, including the paperbacks...but it also went to number 80 in the Top 100 bestselling UK thriller list...
When I say literary fiction, I mean stuff with a fantastic story....One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.......A Confederacy of Dunces....The Master and Margarita...these books are classed as literary fiction, but they are far far from the inaccurate description of literary fiction that does seem to crop up now, that lit fic is slow, tedious, and has no narrative drive...(maybe BAD literary fiction is like that!)
All the lit fic that I love has enormous pace and narrative drive, but is also more than just that...if it was only that, and did not hold "something more" I would be bored on page 3 as someone posted above!
But I love Kubrick, and Bergman, and Rohmer films too, fot the same reasons...or Milos Forman's film of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (Forman himself taught early on by Milan Kundera of course, the great Czech novelist)
Now, isn't Kubrick an example of how intelligence and careful craft.. can be brought to almost any subject matter....sci fi....war....period drama like Barry Lyndon....satire like Dr Strangelove...that freedom to bring an artful eye to great stories with varied subject matter may be just ahead on the horizon for the new wave of kindle authors in USA and UK...and their readers...in whatever genre...ahem...as long as we all respect each other and don't fall out over misunderstandings by Easter!


----------



## Ian Fraser (Mar 8, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> Seriously, when many of the lowest of the food chain, traditionally published genre writers are still turning up their noses at self published books, how exactly is one expected to win over the hoity tauty MFA crowd?


a) Calling MFA folks (or any other group of people) 'hoity tauty' isn't making you or anyone else doing it, look like a serious writer to begin with.

b) You 'win them over' by writing a good book, preferably delivered via a submission from a good literary agent.

c) Unless you consider getting a good Agent to be part of some conspiracy of 'hoity tauty' people as well


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Edward M. Grant said:


> I've only seen the movie version, but to me The Road just seemed to be a generic post-apocalyptic story with anything that hinted of fun removed. If it had been submitted to a genre publisher they'd probably have said 'add some zombies, or maybe they could be driving along The Road in a muscle-car and fighting for gas or something?'. The characters in Mad Max felt far more realistic to me, because they at least tried to create a new life for themselves rather than being depressed all the time. Is the book any better?


The Road is a bleak vision. It wasnt intended to be fun. Comparing it to Mad Max seems off; Mad Max was intended as light entertainment.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Ian Fraser said:


> a) Calling MFA folks (or any other group of people) 'hoity tauty' isn't making you or anyone else doing it, look like a serious writer to begin with.
> 
> b) You 'win them over' by writing a good book, preferably delivered via a submission from a good literary agent.
> 
> c) Unless you consider getting a good Agent to be part of some conspiracy of 'hoity tauty' people as well


We were discussing self publishing literary work...


----------



## HemiMG (Feb 23, 2012)

Literature is a complex and evolving thing. I think H.G. Wells was right in his prediction in The Time Machine that by the year 800,000 something our language will be over simplistic and child-like to our standards. The evidence existed in his time, English had already went from its heavily inflected germanic roots to one of the most grammatically simple languages in the world. Now, a mere century on many of the words that I think make literature from that time so beautiful have fallen out of disuse. Growing up I heard plenty of my fellow students ask the teacher what the point of two words with the same meaning were. I still hear it out of some young adults. 

As I said, I love the language of H.G. Wells, Sir Author Conan Doyle, et al. so my latest novella is set in a parallel universe in which people still speak like that. It's about trans-dimensional travel so that fits with the story rather than just being an excuse to use archaic words. But peppering the word 'presently' instead of 'just then' doesn't suddenly make me H.G. Wells. In fact, I'm sure most people will find it boring and over-pretentious. I'm not writing for those people. I'm writing for me.

Conversely, one of my longer works in progress is about vampires. Granted, it's not vampire romance because my view of vampires is that they are formidable villains and not swooning wimps, but the OP didn't mention a prejudice merely against paranormal romance. The cover for that book will have fangs and a whole new set of people will not like that work. I'm not writing for those people. I'm writing for me.

I think the difference between good literature and bad literature isn't subject matter, it's whether the author is writing a story he genuinely cares about, or just trying to make a quick buck. (That's not to say I'm calling my works good literature) The same goes with music, or any other art form. But tastes change over time. My grandparents hated the Beatles, my parents and I love them. My parents hated KISS and Alice Cooper (despite them being from their time and not mine), I love them. Of course literature of today is different from literature of the past. It doesn't make it any worse, it's just a shifting audience.


----------



## Ian Fraser (Mar 8, 2011)

John A. A. Logan said:


> I published my novel 6 weeks ago and have knocked into this conundrum about what is literary and what is genre, quite a bit...I wish the distinction wasn't there, because all I want to see promoted is a great story...from either side of the "divide".
> I was a bit suprised to see the kicking and disrespect that "literary fiction" was getting on many forums, so I can understand some people defending it...but I also started to notice that people were not at all clear on which books were "literary" when they said they despised the literary fiction...
> It seems on some forums or threads there is a prejudice against genre fiction, on others there is a prejudice against literary fiction...oviously, I think both prejudices are wrong!
> I found people saying they hated literary fiction, who were actually reading books now, or their last book read, would be classed as literary fiction, or had been nominated for the Nobel Prize for Literature etc...they didn't realise they were reading and loving "literary fiction", they just loved the story they had found!
> ...


+1 Well said. Sorry to quote such a huge block of text just to say this. But you've hit the nail on the head. There _is_ good literary fiction. But unfortunately, there's a larger percentage of human beings who lack the capacity to recognize it.

Btw. You mentioned Kubrick - almost every Kubrick film was panned on its release - only to gradually be recognized as a masterpiece some time after the film was out. Appreciation of art takes time sometimes.


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

Edward M. Grant said:


> I've only seen the movie version, but to me The Road just seemed to be a generic post-apocalyptic story with anything that hinted of fun removed. If it had been submitted to a genre publisher they'd probably have said 'add some zombies, or maybe they could be driving along The Road in a muscle-car and fighting for gas or something?'. The characters in Mad Max felt far more realistic to me, because they at least tried to create a new life for themselves rather than being depressed all the time. Is the book any better?


You're not far off. The Road is a very generic post-apocalyptic story. The prose is good to great, however, so long as you can abide the total lack of quotation marks, which makes me want to throttle him. Also, it has a deus ex machina ending and its emotional content is simplistic at best. The atmosphere's very effective, though. Grim as a skull. And not one of those happy skulls.

I think part of its success is that it's detail-porn. Sentence after sentence after sentence is all about the very specific leftovers of this world and what the survivors pull from it. It winds up being very immersive. But it rarely if ever goes any deeper than what a Coke tastes like after years without one.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Ian Fraser said:


> a) Calling MFA folks (or any other group of people) 'hoity tauty' isn't making you or anyone else doing it, look like a serious writer to begin with.
> 
> b) You 'win them over' by writing a good book, preferably delivered via a submission from a good literary agent.
> 
> c) Unless you consider getting a good Agent to be part of some conspiracy of 'hoity tauty' people as well


Where did I mention a conspiracy? I dont think everyone with an MFA is hoity tauty...there is an element of elitism in the lit fiction community. And to self publish a book with strong literary intent is an ambitious undertaking. I'd love to see more people do it. If the work is good, I'd be the first to get behind it.


----------



## Ian Fraser (Mar 8, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> We were discussing self publishing literary work...


I still say the same applies for the self published author: get a good literary Agent. Especially if one is writing what some might describe as literary fiction, or one has aspirations in that direction.


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)




----------



## ETS PRESS (Nov 4, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> Seriously, when many of the lowest of the food chain, traditionally published genre writers are still turning up their noses at self published books, how exactly is one expected to win over the hoity tauty MFA crowd?


I recall reading a statistic that a large portion of romance readers have advance degrees. I am one of them.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

ETS PRESS said:


> I recall reading a statistic that a large portion of romance readers have advance degrees. I am one of them.


I apologize if my use of MFA obscured my argument.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Love it, Rex.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> I think part of its success is that it's detail-porn. Sentence after sentence after sentence is all about the very specific leftovers of this world and what the survivors pull from it. It winds up being very immersive.


Thanks. I might have to take a look.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Ian Fraser said:


> I still say the same applies for the self published author: get a good literary Agent. Especially if one is writing what some might describe as literary fiction, or one has aspirations in that direction.


Most of us don't give a flying 'whatever' about finding an agent whether they consider themselves good or literary or not.

Or did you not notice that most of here are not only those lowly, illiterate genre hacks, we're also into self-publishing?


----------



## StephenLivingston (May 10, 2011)

No.    
Best wishes, Stephen Livingston.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

HemiMG said:


> Literature is a complex and evolving thing. I think H.G. Wells was right in his prediction in The Time Machine that by the year 800,000 something our language will be over simplistic and child-like to our standards. The evidence existed in his time, English had already went from its heavily inflected germanic roots to one of the most grammatically simple languages in the world. Now, a mere century on many of the words that I think make literature from that time so beautiful have fallen out of disuse. Growing up I heard plenty of my fellow students ask the teacher what the point of two words with the same meaning were. I still hear it out of some young adults.
> 
> As I said, I love the language of H.G. Wells, Sir Author Conan Doyle, et al. so my latest novella is set in a parallel universe in which people still speak like that.


You're confusing style with substance, methinks. Mistaking the medium for the message. I'm a fan of Victorian populist literature - adventure novels, and much else from the dawn of "genre fiction". Much of it could pass quite convincingly for "serious literature" today, *if* you go purely by the language used. Mackenzie's _Extraordinary Women_ is a great example - the prose rivals anything by a famous master of "serious literature", in terms of evocative beauty and poignancy, and that's to say nothing of the bits that are entirely in French. Or, alas, in Greek. But it wasn't "literature" back then, and it's not "literature" now. It is, when all is said and done, an escapist love story set in the Mediterranean during and just after WWI.

There's nothing stopping anyone from writing in the same "serious literature" style of yesteryear, today. I've done it. You've apparently done it. Others here, I suspect, have done it. People understand it perfectly well with minimal effort, if any. But since about WWII, the big important authorities of the publishing world have decreed that adjectives are evil, said-bookism is always a sin, and that simple, straightforward writing is inherently superior to that which is flowery or verbose or obtuse. They're some of the first rules hammered into the minds of would-be writers, and they're so ubiquitous that a depressingly large number of _readers_ use them as a benchmark for writing quality. So we've come to a time when books that _are_ literature, by design and intent and substance, are being published in the same simple populist style as CSI novelizations and John Locke...


----------



## Ian Fraser (Mar 8, 2011)

StephenLivingston said:


> No.
> Best wishes, Stephen Livingston.


Lol


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Is serious literature dying?

Yes. I'm killing it. I take a beautifully written sentence, and then stick a fork in it. I constantly go through my WIP and say, "That sounds too good, how can I mess it up?" I know I'm not the only one. 

Okay. The thing is, if people want "literary" they are going to turn to the "gatekeepers" (who are mainly people with MFAs in literature) to find that sort of fiction. They rely on The Man Booker short list, the Pulitzer Prize winners, New Yorker magazine suggestions, etc...those sort of things. 

They're like the gated community of neighborhoods. Amazon indies, well they're the mixed-use housing development outside the neighborhood. Sure, you might have a doctor living in the place after a nasty divorce while his new manse is being renovated. But what are the chances?


----------



## Michael Kingswood (Feb 18, 2011)

miamiajp said:


> Is serious literature slowly dying, drowned by a tsunami of vampires, werewolves and mutants?


I would counter with the following: Did serious literature ever exist in the first place? Or do academics and others read far more into just about everything than the authors ever intended to put into the work?

I suspect the latter.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

_Quote from: miamiajp on Today at 06:18:23 AM
Is serious literature slowly dying, drowned by a tsunami of vampires, werewolves and mutants? _



Michael Kingswood said:


> I would counter with the following: Did serious literature ever exist in the first place? Or do academics and others read far more into just about everything than the authors ever intended to put into the work?
> 
> I suspect the latter.


Michael,
Nope. I just threw some demons into the tsunami this morning.


----------



## Guest (Feb 25, 2012)

I'd comment, but my MFA track class on classical literature is waiting on that Stoker lecture...


----------



## miamiajp (Jan 28, 2012)

WOW!
What did I start?
I posted this in the morning and just came back to WW3, hahaha
I guess this would answer another post I saw about whether controversy sells or not. 
To get back into it...
The original post was about how supernatural fiction was slowly drowning more serious works with their popularity. I don't like it, but I didn't call all of it bad. Some of it is quite tasty. But if literature is food for the mind, letting your children read nothing but supernatural fiction would be the equivalent of them eating nothing but ice cream and you not even making an effort to make them eat veggies. We all love ice cream, but we all also know we can't survive barely on it. 
There is good and bad writings on every genre. Farther more, even if its good or bad you may like it or not because as bad as it may be, its still an art form. I like Kubrick and Tolkien as much as I detest Kafka. But I very seriously doubt anybody is going to be talking about Twilight in 200 years in the same category as we look at Shakespeare or Twain.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

miamiajp said:


> But I very seriously doubt anybody is going to be talking about Twilight in 200 in the same category as we look at Shakespeare or Twain.


Personally, I hope you are right. I love Shakespeare and Twain and reread them frequently.

However, they already make classroom discussion guides for _Twilight_ (I own one--which was given to me by a staff member at a booksigning I did at a B&N during teacher's week) so teachers can have the class read the book and discuss the topics addressed in it.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"But if literature is food for the mind, letting your children read nothing but supernatural fiction would be the equivalent of them eating nothing but ice cream and you not even making an effort to make them eat veggies_"

Five minutes of reading _Sister Carrie_ is guaranteed to get the kids to sleep. If the parents can keep their eyes open.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

there were people at the Globe theater who thought that this Shakespeare upstart would never amount to much.
there were people who thought that Twain should have stayed on the river boats.
people who think [insert your favorite author here] is the worst hack in history.
people who think that twilight introduces a new generation to reading and should be celebrated.

you can think whatever you want, but i'm still waiting for the OP to tell me what "serious literature" is.

only time will tell what time will bring, and in the end, we won't be here to care.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

miamiajp said:


> But I very seriously doubt anybody is going to be talking about Twilight in 200 in the same category as we look at Shakespeare or Twain.


Shakespeare wasn't considered a "serious" writer in his time. In fact he was mocked, by people you'd recognize, as a man "of little Latin and less Greek." At the time, knowing Latin and Greek was the hallmark of a "true" literary writer.
Who those people were? Specialists in the History of Literature might be able to tell you. Nobody else will, because they are forgotten and they produced little of value themselves.
I doubt Shakespeare saw himself as a great writer. He was the manager of a theater company and he wrote plays to get butts in the seats of the Globe. When it had to be rebuild after a fire, he re-opened by billing a slasher-horror play, with hands being hacked off and pig's blood flowing over the stage every other scene: Titus Andronicus. Not his best effort, but popular. So were his sappy love stories, his farces and his historical "reenactments."
The man never wrote an original story. He "borrowed," not only from the history of his own country, but also from Roman history. He took plays of others and changed them here and there. He plundered Italian romances.
Was he considered a great artist by the literary people of his day? Of course not. He was far too popular with the common people for that.
He used words and expressions, for the first time, that no serious writer would use because they were derived from the language the "simple" people used. Now, most of them are quintessential English.

We have no way of knowing what will stand the test of time.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Michael Kingswood said:


> I would counter with the following: Did serious literature ever exist in the first place? Or do academics and others read far more into just about everything than the authors ever intended to put into the work?
> 
> I suspect the latter.


I sincerely hope that was intended as a joke.


----------



## T.K. (Mar 8, 2011)

"That said, I think the Salingers, Tolstoys, Hemingways, Garcia Marqueses, Swifts, Steins, Faulkners, even the Poes of our generation are been pushed into oblivion by a sea of supernatural fantasy that for the most part belongs in comic books."

and

"Is serious literature slowly dying, drowned by a tsunami of vampires, werewolves and mutants?"

I am a lover of serious literature - Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Gogol, etc. What I've done, however, is let _their _writing inspire me to write for the YA audience. Yes, the greats have inspired current fiction for young adults. My books offer a great story with romance, a paranormal element, and an old Russian prophecy (things that will entice young readers). My readers are exposed to quotes from these aforementioned authors, brief mentions of their books, their writing, their time periods, their culture, their art, their struggles... My hope is that my readers will be drawn to them just as I am.

So I guess to answer your question if serious literature is drowning is a sea of werewolves and vampires... maybe. Or maybe some of these books are inspired by serious literature and help point the way back there to a new generation of readers.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Scarlet and Asher - I agree. I've written about this in other threads. The university writers thought Shakespeare was trying to rise above his station. He was not repected for several years. He did not attend university like all the elite and well-known author/playwrights of the time.



> From Wikipedia and verified by other sources:
> 
> By 1592 he was well enough known in London by then to be attacked in print by the playwright Robert Greene in his Groats-Worth of Wit:
> 
> ...there is an upstart Crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his Tiger's heart wrapped in a Player's hide, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you: and being an absolute Johannes factotum, is in his own conceit the only Shake-scene in a country.[28]


----------



## Guest (Feb 25, 2012)

miamiajp said:


> But I very seriously doubt anybody is going to be talking about Twilight in 200 in the same category as we look at Shakespeare or Twain.


We don't discuss Shakespeare and Twain in the same category. Twilight is a poor example, but it could actually be discussed... we don't know.

I taught English Lit to high schoolers, later to college students, and continue to do so off and on. The very notion that Twain, Dickens, Shakespeare, and other "quick grab" names are all we read/teach/discuss is nonsense. In fact, Harry Potter is in parts of the canon. Hip hop lyrics are. Comic books were a recent (and highly well received) topic in graduate studies at two local colleges.

Reasonably recent "mainstream" fiction is all over the place in the canon. I consider Dennis Lehane, Ursula LeGuin, Margaret Atwood, Sherman Alexie, Neil Gaimon to be seriously kickass literature, and so don't my fellow academics. In fact, I studied a few of those in ancient times when I was a student at one small state college (undergrad) and two of the most hoity toity universities on the planet (and on two continents). I also studied PD James, Steven King, and Joyce Carol Oates.

It always amuses me when people trot Shakespeare and Dickens out as if they are the only authors being studied... but amuses me even more when they clearly would never recognize half the "classics" actual students and professors discuss daily.

*cracking open Thomas De Quincey*


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

oliewankanobe said:


> I consider Dennis Lehane, Ursula LeGuin, Margaret Atwood, Sherman Alexie, Neil Gaimon to be seriously kickass literature, and so *don't* my fellow academics.


I agree with that but where on earth did you learn to speak English?


----------



## Guest (Feb 25, 2012)

Harvard and Oxford.  I didn't hire an editor for the thread.


----------



## HemiMG (Feb 23, 2012)

George Berger said:


> You're confusing style with substance, methinks. Mistaking the medium for the message. I'm a fan of Victorian populist literature - adventure novels, and much else from the dawn of "genre fiction". Much of it could pass quite convincingly for "serious literature" today, *if* you go purely by the language used. Mackenzie's _Extraordinary Women_ is a great example - the prose rivals anything by a famous master of "serious literature", in terms of evocative beauty and poignancy, and that's to say nothing of the bits that are entirely in French. Or, alas, in Greek. But it wasn't "literature" back then, and it's not "literature" now. It is, when all is said and done, an escapist love story set in the Mediterranean during and just after WWI.


Yes, perhaps I was. But to the best of my knowledge, 'literary fiction' is a relatively new phrase anyhow and as someone else pointed out everyone seems to have a different definition of it. The Time Machine is certainly a genre work, but it has also survived for a hundred years and exists as a very biting criticism of the path that capitalism was taking. We are, in our times, starting to see the type of class separation that Wells envisioned. It wasn't simply a man saying, "Let me write a fluff piece about a time machine." Sherlock Holmes, I concede is more of an example of pure 'genre fiction', again depending on how you want to define the distinction.

My friend and I were discussing why we prefer the older writing style and she described it as poetic. I think somewhere along the way prose (as a literary expression) lost some of its meaning. Poetry is just as much about the way the message is delivered as the message itself. It is, by requirement, stylized. Whether by meter, alliteration, rhyme, or all of the above, it sets itself apart from regular speech. Today, in more and more literary prose the art comes purely from the story, and not in the way the story is told. I'm not demeaning new works, or saying that crafting an intriguing story is by any means easy or that there is a lack of talent on the part of those who do it well. But as you said, it has become more simple and straightforward.

Note that in the above paragraph I am using a vastly different definition of the word 'literary' than people who use the term 'literary fiction' are. Every writer on this board, in my eyes, is creating works of literary expression. My distinction puts literature against journalism or casual writing not against genre fiction. I think, however, that this is one of those subjects that could go on forever without everyone ever agreeing.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"It always amuses me when people trot Shakespeare and Dickens out as if they are the only authors being studied... but amuses me even more when they clearly would never recognize half the "classics" actual students and professors discuss daily."_

I'm not sure anyone cares what you study or discuss. Nor do they seem to be trying to identify what you study or discuss. The OP mentioned serious literature. Do you limit your discussion and study to serious literature? If so, what is it?


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

oliewankanobe said:


> We don't discuss Shakespeare and Twain in the same category. Twilight is a poor example, but it could actually be discussed... we don't know.
> 
> I taught English Lit to high schoolers, later to college students, and continue to do so off and on. The very notion that Twain, Dickens, Shakespeare, and other "quick grab" names are all we read/teach/discuss is nonsense. In fact, Harry Potter is in parts of the canon. Hip hop lyrics are. Comic books were a recent (and highly well received) topic in graduate studies at two local colleges.
> 
> ...


I've never studied "Steven King", "Neil Gaimon", "Ursla LeGuin" (I think you meant Stephen King, Neil Gaiman, Ursula K. Le Guin [was this a journalism class?]) lol. You're missing the point. I'm sure most authors here are university, college educated, and/or voracious readers and/or self-educated and have studied hundreds or more authors through out history. Using one or two examples is a way to get a point across and no way implies that is all somone's read, or do you really think that? If so, your psyche is stuck in a level of unsophistication.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

As far as monsters and supernatural creatures go Homer's the _Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_ seemed to possess a few, and what about _Beowulf_? (See the 2007 movie and get extra Neil Gaiman points too!)


----------



## ETS PRESS (Nov 4, 2011)

I think people are misunderstanding oliewankanobe's point. I could be wrong, but I think she (or he) is trying to say that being in academia doesn't necessarily equate to only studying the well-known classic authors. 

I believe in a healthy dose of both classic and modern literature. Although I have love for beautiful language and meaningful storytelling, I also enjoy an entertaining read. I love Shakespeare and Jane Austen as much as I enjoy a good romance novel.


----------



## Kent Kelly (Feb 12, 2011)




----------



## Guest (Feb 25, 2012)

I didn't miss the point.  But I am finding it fascinating that everyone is now trying to sound "the mostest academicest."


----------



## C. S. Hand (May 27, 2011)

oliewankanobe said:


> We don't discuss Shakespeare and Twain in the same category. Twilight is a poor example, but it could actually be discussed... we don't know.
> 
> I taught English Lit to high schoolers, later to college students, and continue to do so off and on. The very notion that Twain, Dickens, Shakespeare, and other "quick grab" names are all we read/teach/discuss is nonsense. In fact, Harry Potter is in parts of the canon. Hip hop lyrics are. Comic books were a recent (and highly well received) topic in graduate studies at two local colleges.
> 
> ...


as a light blue, I feel the need to amicably remonstrate your oxonian sentiments. 

right, but such inclusions (potter, rap, comics, science fiction, etc) might be equally (perhaps even more plausibly) due to the pressure on anglo-american academics to continually publish as based on the german research university model, and having more discourses to analyse, promotes such additions to the "canon"; also, just to note, "value" criticism was cast down from our discipline due to deconstruction, and also essentialist questions like "what is good literature."

If the OP was looking for a more philosophic grounding for his future thoughts, he might begin with the ever popular David Hume, whose Treatise on Taste will abet future meditations. This is a far reaching debate going all the way back to Plato, but the most useful departure is perhaps Horace's dictum that poetry should be *both* pleasing and useful (dulce et utile).

I quite enjoy science fiction and fantasy, even after having read deeply in "philosophy" and "literature"; I would even aver that should an author choose, both of these genres are quite capable of considering philosophic questions in fresh and exciting ways.


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"It always amuses me when people trot Shakespeare and Dickens out as if they are the only authors being studied... but amuses me even more when they clearly would never recognize half the "classics" actual students and professors discuss daily."_
> 
> I'm not sure anyone cares what you study or discuss. Nor do they seem to be trying to identify what you study or discuss. The OP mentioned serious literature. Do you limit your discussion and study to serious literature? If so, what is it?


The OP mentioned a decline in serious literature and further tried to delineate what was serious and not. Others have done the same and have mentioned that academia seems to have invented this topic of "serious literature." Posters in this thread have mentioned that "serious literature" is defined by academia as what they feel is useful for study. Others have noted that academics see what they want to see--things that even the author didn't intend. The OP came back and mentioned that we don't study Twilight like we study Shakespeare and Twain. And Olie responded to this line from the OP's other post. Olie is a graduate of Harvard and Oxford and lectures on English Literature.

The person you're patronizing has been lecturing in academia in relevant topics that analyze literature and its meaning. If she says that academics are having graduate students analyze the very same paranormal works that the OP is uncomfortable with and feels provide no value to the reader, then this seems like a relevant viewpoint to add to the discussion. What she's saying is paranormal works and other "non-serious" fiction, according to the OP, are analyzed quite frequently in English Literature and even Classic Literature. Her point appears to be that the line being drawn in the sand for "serious" versus "non-serious" is certainly not being drawn by academia and seems more the opinions of the OP.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"The person you're patronizing has been lecturing in academia in relevant topics that analyze literature and its meaning. If she says that academics are having graduate students analyze the very same paranormal works that the OP is uncomfortable with and feels provide no value to the reader, then this seems like a relevant viewpoint to add to the discussion. What she's saying is paranormal works and other "non-serious" fiction, according to the OP, are analyzed quite frequently in English Literature and even Classic Literature. Her point appears to be that the line being drawn in the sand for "serious" versus "non-serious" is certainly not being drawn by academia and seems more the opinions of the OP."_

Amusing. Shall we pay her the respect of letting her speak for herself? Can you tell us what serious literature is?


----------



## John A. A. Logan (Jan 25, 2012)

T.K. Richardson said:


> "That said, I think the Salingers, Tolstoys, Hemingways, Garcia Marqueses, Swifts, Steins, Faulkners, even the Poes of our generation are been pushed into oblivion by a sea of supernatural fantasy that for the most part belongs in comic books."
> 
> and
> 
> ...


That's a fascinating aspect to all this...that the influences on a given writer may be transmuted and come out on the other side in all sorts of unexpected creative forms...which can then be understood and accessed by people who may find their way back to the original influences later on...or may not...but subconsciously have had benefit from the nutritious influence anyway.
You get that a lot in films...like the 1970s American films Night Moves or Ulzana's Raid...great "genre" films you could say, but detailed with the artist's eye...then explore deeper and you find behind them the screenwriter, Alan Sharp, and behind the screenwriter Alan Sharp, his earlier incarnation as the "literary" novelist, Alan Sharp.
Dostoyevsky...or Bulgakov...would make great influences for a writer working in any genre...I've always found their work raw, packed with vibrancy...anarchic too...


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2012)

FWIW I may come across snarky, but it is almost impossible to insult me.

Also, if this turns into a flame war you are welcome to use my template:

http://christineolinger.blogspot.com/2012/02/flame-war-template.html

All should feel free to check it for spelling errors, too. 

Laugh, people, you're all gonna get wrinkles!


----------



## John A. A. Logan (Jan 25, 2012)

Ian Fraser said:


> +1 Well said. Sorry to quote such a huge block of text just to say this. But you've hit the nail on the head. There _is_ good literary fiction. But unfortunately, there's a larger percentage of human beings who lack the capacity to recognize it.
> 
> Btw. You mentioned Kubrick - almost every Kubrick film was panned on its release - only to gradually be recognized as a masterpiece some time after the film was out. Appreciation of art takes time sometimes.


Hi Ian...yes, I heard Woody Allen interviewed once, he said he'd been waiting for the next Kubrick film to come out, that he loved Kubrick...I think the last one had been Dr Strangelove...so he went to the cinema and saw 2001: A Space Odyssey when it came out. He hated it. He didn't get it at all. It was so far from what he had been expecting. But then he said he went back to see it not too long afterwards, and the 2nd time he saw it he loved it. He had to get over the shock of it not being what he had been looking forward to all that time...


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

Rex Jameson said:


> The OP mentioned a decline in serious literature and further tried to delineate what was serious and not. Others have done the same and have mentioned that academia seems to have invented this topic of "serious literature." Posters in this thread have mentioned that "serious literature" is defined by academia as what they feel is useful for study. ... What she's saying is paranormal works and other "non-serious" fiction, according to the OP, are analyzed quite frequently in English Literature and even Classic Literature. Her point appears to be that the line being drawn in the sand for "serious" versus "non-serious" is certainly not being drawn by academia and seems more the opinions of the OP.


There's no doubt that "non-serious fiction" of many stripes are analyzed in classrooms the world over, but is anyone seriously claiming they're actually literature? Really? Not all "classics", modern or otherwise, are "serious literature", for any given definition thereof, and I don't think many people are claiming that. If people want to study Gaiman's Sandman comics as a way of getting young people interested in thinking about narrative structure, more power to 'em. It's a classic of the medium and genre - as is The Giver by Lowry, a slenderly horrible tome I had to wade my way through in an English class years and years ago. That doesn't make either of them "serious literature" of the belles-lettres sort.


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

miamiajp said:


> The original post was about how supernatural fiction was slowly drowning more serious works with their popularity. I don't like it, but I didn't call all of it bad. Some of it is quite tasty. But if literature is food for the mind, letting your children read nothing but supernatural fiction would be the equivalent of them eating nothing but ice cream and you not even making an effort to make them eat veggies. We all love ice cream, but we all also know we can't survive barely on it.
> 
> There is good and bad writings on every genre. Farther more, even if its good or bad you may like it or not because as bad as it may be, its still an art form. I like Kubrick and Tolkien as much as I detest Kafka. But I very seriously doubt anybody is going to be talking about Twilight in 200 years in the same category as we look at Shakespeare or Twain.


They might not be talking about _Twilight_, but they may well be discussing a novel that very clearly owes its existence to the trails blazed by _Twilight_. You state as much yourself that there's good and bad in every genre, and it's supremely easy to prove this; Ishiguro and Atwood are immediate contemporary examples of sci-fi as high literature. I wonder what those worried about the future thought about the insidious influence of Hugo Gernsback and E.E. "Doc" Smith.

The bad stuff tends to burn away with time. If you look at decades-old bestseller lists, the only titles you're likely to recognize are the ones that are now recognized as classics. Lowbrow literature has always been popular. Somehow, the highbrow stuff still managed to survive.

I don't see that changing any time soon.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

George Berger said:


> There's no doubt that "non-serious fiction" of many stripes are analyzed in classrooms the world over, but is anyone seriously claiming they're actually literature?


Me.

B.


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Amusing. Shall we pay her the respect of letting her speak for herself? Can you tell us what serious literature is?


Paying her some respect would be a start, I think. But if I were her, I wouldn't address you either.

My opinion of what serious literature is was already expressed in an image. I think it's a non-issue that a few of you are using as an excuse to get worked up and be rude to other people in yet another thread.

It's not for me to decide what literature readers should feel is important enough to analyze and find deeper meaning in. "Serious" literature, if the phrase is even useful in any context other than when attempting to be condescending to books that fall out of the label, is determined by readers and people who make it their business to analyze literature. Most authors believe their work is serious and worthy of deeper analysis so we're the wrong people to be asking these questions--as evidenced by replies in this thread.


----------



## Jorja Tabu (Feb 6, 2012)

scarlet said:


> there were people at the Globe theater who thought that this Shakespeare upstart would never amount to much.


Yeah, I was going to say something about opera, or Lysistrata, or Shakespeare. Even Jane Austen, Jack London, Nathaniel Hawthorne, the list goes on and on--I think 'serious literature' is supposed to imply books about the difficult choices we have to make as human beings, and the resulting consequences; the thing is, lighter reading sinks if it doesn't touch on the same conflicts. Even if there's singing or silliness or the supernatural, it's going to be serious for someone if it also touches on what it means to choose, and to change.


----------



## David Crookes (Jun 29, 2011)

David 'Half-Orc' Dalglish said:


> "If you have a success you have it for the wrong reasons. If you become popular it is always because of the worst aspects of your work."
> - Ernest Hemingway
> 
> When your definition of 'literary' is basically 'stuff that doesn't sell well' then you can't simultaneously gripe when literary fiction _isn't selling well._
> ...


Amen


----------



## KevinMcLaughlin (Nov 11, 2010)

Good grief.  

Guys, what is GOOD literature? At the core, at the heart? Stories which people want to read. And that's in no danger of dying.

As for "serious" literature, I honestly haven't a clue what that is. When my five year old sits down to pen her most recent story, she is VERY serious about the work. Which I suppose means it qualifies as serious literature. What other definition can we use, except the author's intent?

I think, perhaps, "serious" might mean "telling a story which is important to you, and which you hope will be important to others as well".

But then again, what writer doesn't compose stories that way?


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> I think, perhaps, "serious" might mean "telling a story which is important to you, and which you hope will be important to others as well".
> 
> But then again, what writer doesn't compose stories that way?


Well... I would never argue that I write "serious literature." I enjoy writing it, and I hope readers will enjoy reading it. But is it serious, and is it literature? Heck, no. There's a difference between genre fiction and literary fiction. That in no way demeans either category, and I disagree with the OP's apparent argument that genre fiction somehow undercuts literary fiction. I don't agree that people are reading less "serious" fiction because there are more werewolf stories out there. People read what they want to read, and if all the paranormal fiction in the world suddenly disappeared, there's no reason to suppose the reading audience would suddenly turn to literary fiction. In addition, I think the world would be a rather more boring place, but then I've always liked fantasy and paranormal and science fiction elements in my fiction *shrugs*.

To each her own... there's plenty of fiction out there for all tastes. If you think there's a category of fiction out there that's currently underrepresented, then go write it!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Reading this thread makes me wonder what the difference between "literature" and a "heck of a good story" is....

We just watched "Grapes of Wrath," based, of course, on the Pulitzer-winning novel by John Steinbeck.  Equally reviled and praised in its day, it was a best seller and was also burned.  (Perhaps the burning helped sales, as often happens.  )  Literature, I would say, but was it thought of as literature in its day?  Or just a heck of a good story?

Betsy


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"Paying her some respect would be a start, I think. But if I were her, I wouldn't address you either."_

Would you like to be her? I'd respect that.


----------



## KevinMcLaughlin (Nov 11, 2010)

EllenFisher said:


> Well... I would never argue that I write "serious literature." I enjoy writing it, and I hope readers will enjoy reading it. But is it serious, and is it literature? Heck, no. There's a difference between genre fiction and literary fiction.


Technically, as it exists today, "literary fiction" IS genre fiction - writing in the literary fiction genre. Literary is a style, a set of memes, tropes, and forms, which books adhere to in order to be called "literary fiction". The genre has less to do with quality, today, and more to do with style of writing. Plenty of excellent fiction in the literary genre today; plenty of crappy fiction there too. Same with every other genre.

Literature, according to Merriam-Webster, is just writing of prose or verse, especially that of excellent quality. I see a LOT of good literature in every genre out there.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> I see a LOT of good literature in every genre out there.


I suppose. I personally don't expect to see my books held up as an example of fine literary writing fifty years from now. There may be some romance novelists whose books are that good (Laura Kinsale comes to mind), but I'm not one of them, and that's okay with me. I write fluff, for the most part. I like writing fluff. Fluff is fun. And I should add that I'm serious about writing fluff, and do it to the best of my ability-- but it's still fluff.


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2012)

Oh for the love of....

"Serious literature" has never sold like "mainstream" literature.  It isn't dying.  It is still being read by the same people who have always read it.  And to be blunt, "serious literature" is selling more that half the self-publishers peddling genre fiction I know.  

Literacy, literacy of the type that reads literary fiction, has always been the domain of a small portion of the public.  Even the idea of 
"functional literacy," knowing enough to read a job application or a menu, has only been part of the norm for a hundred years or so (and there are days when I believe it isn't the norm now, but I digress).


----------



## Vera Nazarian (Jul 1, 2011)

JeanneM said:


> There are so many wonderful fantasy writers who frequent this board. I'm guessing that the majority of them never post but just come here to read the threads and stay current with their fellow ebook authors. Many of the authors here write about werewolves and vampires, and are highly creative and imaginative people. And many are terrific people too.
> 
> I'm still trying to figure out why you would want to come here and demean their chosen genre? Why you would want to hurt their feelings and make them feel small.
> 
> ...


Thanks, Jeanne.

Actually, this fantasy writer is laughing.

Because this argument is as old as the hills... and as old as fantasy itself -- which, if we want to get technical, encompasses all of fiction and literature and thought and dream, and all of that ancient primeval thing called "story."


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Vera Nazarian said:


> Thanks, Jeanne.
> 
> Actually, this fantasy writer is laughing.
> 
> Because this argument is as old as the hills... and as old as fantasy itself -- which, if we want to get technical, encompasses all of fiction and literature and thought and dream, and all of that ancient primeval thing called "story."


I'm sure Homer heard it in his day too.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

Vera Nazarian said:


> Because this argument is as old as the hills... and as old as fantasy itself -- which, if we want to get technical, encompasses all of fiction and literature and thought and dream, and all of that ancient primeval thing called "story."


Once upon a time, long ago, in a land a long ways from everywhere, there was Throg, who lived in a cave near a pond. Not an airy, well-appointed cave as you or I might have, but a dank, drafty stone thing, reeking of piss and rotten meat and the other sure-fire signs of civilization, which hasn't changed as much as you might think in the intervening epochs. One day he returned to his cave, tired and hungry, and to his partner, Throgina, who was herself tired and hungry, and she gave him a Look (Looks with a capital L being, of course, as old as time) but didn't say anything. (There were plenty of things to say, speech being almost as old as time itself. She just chose not to say anything right then.) She didn't need to. The Look was enough, conveying all her years of frustration and irritation and resignation in one simple little primordial bit of communication. The Look said "Once again, you spent the day off in the woods, napping and playing with yourself, and didn't find a damned thing for us to eat, didn't you?"

And so Throg sighed (Sighing? Sure they had sighing back then. The only thing older than sighing is The Look, as far as communication between men and women goes) and looked at her and said "Actually, I killed a saber-tooth tiger that was THIS BIG," and he held his hands as far apart as they would reach, up high at head level, to really sell the whole image of this enormous, majestic animal. "But it got away."

Throgina didn't say anything, but just looked sad, and did some sighing of her own.

"You're not mad, are you?" asked Throg.

"Of course not," said Throgina.

And thus did the world's first two fantasists come to be.


----------



## Vera Nazarian (Jul 1, 2011)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> I'm sure Homer heard it in his day too.


Exactly!


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

miamiajp said:


> Is serious literature slowly dying, drowned by a tsunami of vampires, werewolves and mutants? Every other book on Kindle (or here for that matter) seems to have fangs or tails in it.
> First I must disclose I am not a fan of supernatural books. I love science fiction and some fictional stories that involve a scientific or plausible explanation. But monsters and fangs, let's face it they are for books with pictures in them. Even as a child, I loved Jules Verne, but disliked the Grimm Brothers. I never really got into Poe, but didn't dislike him either.
> That said, I think the Salingers, Tolstoys, Hemingways, Garcia Marqueses, Swifts, Steins, Faulkners, even the Poes of our generation are been pushed into oblivion by a sea of supernatural fantasy that for the most part belongs in comic books.
> The worst thing that ever happened to serious literature is J.K Rowling. Worse yet, the likes of her, Anne Rice and Stephenie Meyer have launched a crusade of people who think of writing as a sure road to billionaireship. They have a following of millions who ignore thousands of years of rich literary legacy to consume these "feel good" stories like drug addicts.
> ...


The real question is, has "serious literature" every really dominated the market? Usually it is only held aloft by dusty academics who decry whatever the popular literature of the time is.

So your screed is nothing new.

Mark Twain was both hilarious and popular. Is he "serious literature?"

Dusty scholars argue until they are blue as the Naavi that BLEAK HOUSE is Charles Dickens' best work, but what is his most oft-told and retold tale? A CHRISTMAS CAROL.

Archaic academics will cry on and on that TITUS ANDRONICUS or A WINTER'S TALE is Shakespeare's finest play, and yet it is ROMEO AND JULIET and HAMLET that constantly capture the public imagination.

And careful how you refer to "comic books" quite so dismissively. MAUS, anyone?

Popular literature can and does cover "serious" themes. Heaven forbid anyone does that in an entertaining way.

Pick on Stephanie Meyer if you wish; even Stephen King dismisses TWILIGHT as being about "how important it is to have a boyfriend" and nothing deeper.

But Jo Rowling's work hits classic themes of coming of age that resonate alongside TOM SAWYER, HUCKLEBERRY FINN and other great children's literature.

And, wake up call, Jo Rowling's books were written for a middle-school through young adult audience. Adults embraced them because the stories were both meaty and fun.

Aw, but fantasy has to use allegory to make its points, and surely that can't be the realm of serious literature, you say?

Well, then dump Tolkein, Lewis, even Paul Bunyon's A Pilgrim's Progress....

Look, you're free to like what you like and dislike what you dislike.

But to cast all literature you dislike into the "non-serious" bin, and claim that JONATHAN LIVINGSTON SEAGULL (oops, more allegory) is superior to THE HUNGER GAMES betrays more about your personal tastes than it does truths about the current state of literature.


----------



## Vera Nazarian (Jul 1, 2011)

George Berger said:


> Once upon a time, long ago, in a land a long ways from everywhere, there was Throg, who lived in a cave near a pond. Not an airy, well-appointed cave as you or I might have, but a dank, drafty stone thing, reeking of p*ss and rotten meat and the other sure-fire signs of civilization, which hasn't changed as much as you might think in the intervening epochs. One day he returned to his cave, tired and hungry, and to his partner, Throgina, who was herself tired and hungry, and she gave him a Look (Looks with a capital L being, of course, as old as time) but didn't say anything. (There were plenty of things to say, speech being almost as old as time itself. She just chose not to say anything right then.) She didn't need to. The Look was enough, conveying all her years of frustration and irritation and resignation in one simple little primordial bit of communication. The Look said "Once again, you spent the day off in the woods, napping and playing with yourself, and didn't find a damned thing for us to eat, didn't you?"
> 
> And so Throg sighed (Sighing? Sure they had sighing back then. The only thing older than sighing is The Look, as far as communication between men and women goes) and looked at her and said "Actually, I killed a saber-tooth tiger that was THIS BIG," and he held his hands as far apart as they would reach, up high at head level, to really sell the whole image of this enormous, majestic animal. "But it got away."
> 
> ...


*applause*


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Once there was a fellow named George (Berger). Edmund Blackadder was much smarter than him.

THE END. 



EdmundBlackadder said:


> LIEUTENANT GEORGE (BERGER)
> If we do happen to step on a mine, Sir, what do we do ?"
> 
> EDMUND BLACKADDER:
> "Normal procedure, Lieutenant, is to jump 200 feet in the air and scatter oneself over a wide area."


----------



## Vera Nazarian (Jul 1, 2011)

Okay, since I can't resist the heady lure of making definitions, here is mine, and a pretty simple one...

*"Serious literature"* makes you *think* and makes you *remember* -- regardless of the subject matter which might include everything from epic high tragedy to lowbrow comedy, weird quirky genre, and anything else imaginable under the sun.

*The non-serious kind is the kind you forget.* It might be absolute junk, or it might be excellent quality entertainment rising high above "fun fluff." It can range from competently written predictable mediocrity to well-intentioned award-winning social commentary full of profound tragedy, and even something so chock-full of good-for-you and socially conscious morality and introspection that it ends up in book clubs, with reading guides, and is awarded the NBA or Booker and made into an academy award-winning movie... But if you cannot keep it in your noggin, what good does it do? So, poof, it has evaporated! And for that reason it becomes non-consequential. Even the historian completists eventually forget to properly archive it for the future generations.

Now, the *"you"* I'm talking about here is cumulative of *all of us*, all of our combined feats of remembering and acts of forgetfulness (intentional or not). Together we carry the "serious literature" with us through time and pass it on to the kids (and the eventual unavoidable zombies).

To sum up, serious lit -- you remember.

All the rest -- you don't. 

The real question remains, *why?* *grin*

My own private answer to the "why" is, *passion.* I think, in the long run, passion's the only thing that spans time (alongside cockroaches and Twinkies...)


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Vera,

It's Academy Awards season today (Sunday) so here's an appropos example.

E.T., The Extra-Terrestrial was released the same year as Ghandi.

Ghandi was an overlong (3 hours, 11 minutes), ultimately boring biopic of an important historical figure.

E.T. was pure entertainment from Steven Spielberg.

"Gandhi" was seen by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences as the "serious literature" choice that year in film. ALL the awards went to Gandhi, in any category where the film faced off with E.T. (Except maybe special effects... though making Ben Kingsley look not completely weird was probably a pretty complex special effect.)

But here we are, 30 years later, and people still love to watch E.T.

Has anyone post-1982 Oscars watched Gandhi again, even once? (Anyone who says yes is PROBABLY lying to make themselves sound cultured.)


```
[b]1982 Box Office[/b]
1.	E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial	Universal	Henry Thomas, Dee Wallace, Peter Coyote, Robert MacNaughton and Drew Barrymore	Steven Spielberg	  $435,110,554
12.  Gandhi	                    Columbia	 Ben Kingsley	                                                                  Richard Attenborough  $52,767,889
```


----------



## Stu Ayris (Jan 17, 2012)

Very interesting thread and a topic very close to my heart.

Although Kindle has been fantastic for getting people to read again I think, like many innovations, it could be a double-edged sword. 

The books mentioned at the start of this thread (Harry Potter, Twilight etc) have been hugely successful and have enticed many people to read that perhaps had forgotten what an enjoyable experience reading is. Everybody has their own tastes and I'm not one to judge. We must remember however that now more than ever traditional publishers are looking for 'the next big thing' which means 'the next big cash cow' more than anything else. So, yes, people see the success of a series about a boy wizard and suddenly magic is everywhere, then vampires and werewolves etc. 

With the advent of Kindle, any of us can now enter that very same market without being judged on the potential financial potential of our work and therefore perhaps denied the chance to share it. Of course that doesn't prevent people uploading their short stories and their novels full of wizards and vampires and nor should it. But it does even out the playing field somewhat.

So is serious literature dying? I like to think it is just regrouping, taking a breath and dusting itself down. Modern Literary Fiction has often been the domain of the maverick and the innovator and that will never change. But then I've always been an optimist!


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Vera,
> 
> It's Academy Awards season today (Sunday) so here's an appropos example.
> 
> ...


I watched Ghandi three years ago. Does that make me a liar as you claim? If it does, too bad. As far as I'm concerned, Ghandi rocks. But I also dig E.T.. What does that make me? A liar, a an open-minded individual, or a wanna be alien?


----------



## Stu Ayris (Jan 17, 2012)

I'd go for 'open-minded individual'


----------



## kea (Jun 13, 2011)

In my circle of friends, there are many extensive world travelers. I wish I was one of them, but I am not. However, these people who have traveled all over and experienced so much are the most intelligent, well-educated people I have ever met. They are the most open-minded folks when it comes to tolerance of others and many of them are excellent problem solvers. Why are they so great? My theory is that variety breaks people out of limit-inducing comfort zones. Comfort zones that are desperately clung to can cause intolerance, indifference, and ignorance. I believe the same goes for literature. If all you read is the high-brow stuff, how do understand the current world around you? If all that existed was high-brow lit, how do you invite the masses in? The opposite is just as bad: If all you read is the "thing of the moment," how do you expand your horizons? Let's not place limits on literature. We are blessed in this day in age to have writers and genres that entice some people to read who wouldn't have done so otherwise. I think that's worth celebrating. And in the midst of their reading frenzy ... well, perhaps you can throw a little Hemingway their way! Variety is so important in life and there is room for it in literature .... I mean isn't our well-spoken former president Abraham Lincoln a vampire hunter these days? *snicker*


----------



## Stu Ayris (Jan 17, 2012)

Wonderfully said Kea!

You can bet that if there was only 'high-brow' fiction around, this would soon be divided into 'high high-brow' and 'low high-brow'!!

The act of reading is in itself unique and precious and absolutely key in developing imagination, learning, tolerance and all the other essential qualities of a fine person. So I'm very much against any genre being pushed above any other - of course, as I mentioned above, some genres make more money than others and will therefore be pushed more by the financially driven industry. But that doesn't prevent me from reading as much Jack Kerouac and John Steinbeck as I can get my hands on. And it doesn't stop me from writing novels in a genre (literary fiction) that may not be as popular as vampire wizards. Books can enhance the lives of others and it is not for any of us to prescribe literary medicine to people we may never meet.


----------



## FrankZubek (Aug 31, 2010)

Craig- very good comparison on the ET vs Ghandi vs literature

  I use this example myself when I discuss literature as well as films in general with the few ( very very few) friends of mine who care of such matters

While my own work ( see the cover below) contains what I consider adult literature ( everyday people struggling along in their daily routine) there is a paranormal story at the end I threw in to fill the book out to 100 pages

Still... it's selling few copies though it's doing well through the Amazon Prime program

Still... It's doing bad enough where I am working on a thriller short next to see if I can sell in that genre.

In fact, I just got a rejection from Glimmertrain on another of my adult fiction stories last night which was disheartening

So I am turning to thrillers and fantasy myself

But for me, the bottom line here is that since such a large portion of the world CAN read but simply hasn't the time anymore to read ( even just casually for entertainment) we should embrace the much much smaller portion of the population that DOES take the time to read our works (despite the increasing distractions). 

FIND THEM out there in that literary haystack and let them know you exist and then market the work to them and see if they nibble.


----------



## ElizabethJasper (Jan 20, 2012)

Overall I'm interested in well-written literature, where the story has some thought behind it be it a moral dilemma or some other interesting conundrum the reader is intrigued enough to discover or unwind by reading the rest of the book.  I don't care which genre a great story comes from - I read across many genres - but for me, good writing is essential to tell a great story.  I don't have much time for 'wunderkind' who produce something completely new or controversal but unreadable.


----------



## miamiajp (Jan 28, 2012)

I agree with Kea, traveling makes you see things with your own eyes and there are no pictures or texts that can compare with the amount of experience you gain from that. 
I also agree with Vera, for the most part, on her assessment of what constitutes “serious literature.”
As the Original Poster, my own definition of “serious literature” is whatever helps to enhance the cultural and spiritual experience of the human race, documents our story of survival against all odds and furthers our advancement. Books were created as a form to keep a record of those advancements. 
I fully understand that books have also evolved into a form of art and entertainment, but at what point our cravings to be entertained trump our need to further our advancement as a race? 
All literature, everything, is better than having none. My concern was about the overwhelming number of fluff that has invaded the market, propelled mostly by the desire to make money and acquire fame and the effects this has on the serious writers that may be drowned by this trend
To answer tattooedwriter: many people also want to sit at home and shoot heroine. Should we allow them to OD? should we supply them with the drugs and tax them?


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> My concern was about the overwhelming number of fluff that has invaded the market, propelled mostly by the desire to make money and acquire fame and the effects this has on the serious writers that may be drowned by this trend
> To answer tattooedwriter: many people also want to sit at home and shoot heroine. Should we allow them to OD? should we supply them with the drugs and tax them?


Heroin is a harmful drug. Are you trying to imply that fluffy writing actually harms people? Are you saying that someone like me, who writes paranormal romance among other things, is actually _harming _readers? If so, how?



> I fully understand that books have also evolved into a form of art and entertainment, but at what point our cravings to be entertained trump our need to further our advancement as a race?


What would you advocate to "further our advancement as a race"? Outlawing paranormal fiction? Or are you just hoping that you can bring us all around to the writing of serious literature instead of whatever fluff we happen to prefer writing?


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

What is serious literature?  Who determines it?  

I always put the challenge to writers of "art" or "serious literature" to try their hand at a science fiction novel or a romance and see how they do.

By the way, isn't Lonesome Dove technically a western?


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

It's funny when people invoke Shakespeare, Dickens, Twain, Thomas Wolfe etc into "serious" literature when they were all writing for the almighty pound or dollar. They were writing during their time to entertain and make money.

Now we confer the honor of "literature" upon their works when they would write whatever would pay their bills. Shakespeare had to write for the uneducated "groundlings" who couldn't afford a seat and would show their displeasure if it didn't appeal to them. He had to write to appeal to the LCD theater goer. Surely they are laughing at us wherever they may be. High brow literature indeed.


----------



## Bilinda Ní Siodacaín (Jun 16, 2011)

miamiajp said:


> To answer tattooedwriter: many people also want to sit at home and shoot heroine. Should we allow them to OD? should we supply them with the drugs and tax them?


I'm sorry, but to equate reading entertaining "fluff" with sitting at home and shooting heroine is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

I'm in agreement with Tattooed Writer, people will read and write what they want. I'm not stopping you from reading what you want. I don't think "serious literature" is being drowned by anything but its own boring self, (some of it is readable and therefore is not included in the boring comment.)

Each to their own book of choice.

Bilinda


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

There's serious literature out there. You can find it in literary journals and in the classics. There will always be people seeking out what the OP defines as "Serious Literature."

Is it popular? I wouldn't guess so, looking at the best seller lists. Is that a problem? No. Just because the majority of the people don't like to read what YOU like to read, that doesn't mean there's a serious problem in the world. People have different opinions.

If you like to write serious literature, go ahead. But don't complain when it doesn't become a best seller. You already know what kind of books become best sellers.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

EllenFisher said:


> There's a difference between genre fiction and literary fiction.


No.

There isn't.

_Pride and Prejudice_ is a romance. _Lonesome Dove_ is a western. _Les Misérables_, _Hunchback of Notre Dame_, _Beloved_ by Toni Morrison and _Wolf Hall_ by Mantel are all historical novels. Much of what is considered literary is in fact genre. Whatever *cough* terribly intelligent people like Jonathan Franzen, et al may say or think.

And people the word is HEROIN. I write about heroines and they don't shoot up anything although maybe they would if they had guns instead of swords. 


jackz4000 said:


> Now we confer the honor of "literature" upon their works when they would write whatever would pay their bills. Shakespeare had to write for the uneducated "groundlings" who couldn't afford a seat and would show their displeasure if it didn't appeal to them. He had to write to appeal to the LCD theater goer. Surely they are laughing at us wherever they may be. High brow literature indeed.


I don't think this even qualifies as a myth. The theatre in Shakespeare's day, just as in our own, was attended by all levels of society although probably closer to movies than Broadway. Many of the attendees were noble and educated; he certainly had noble patrons; and some of his plays were very possibly written for events such as noble weddings, such as _A Midsummer's Nights Dream_. I don't have much patience with the "everything that is popular is trash" argument, but let's stick to something that is credible.


----------



## Rachel Forde (Nov 4, 2011)

> All literature, everything, is better than having none. My concern was about the overwhelming number of fluff that has invaded the market, propelled mostly by the desire to make money and acquire fame and the effects this has on the serious writers that may be drowned by this trend


Other posters have stated, and I will repeat here: this is not a trend. There has always been fluff. It gets acquired, consumed, and forgotten, but the "serious stuff"--and my understanding of "serious" is much like Vera's--will be remembered. Do you seriously think that so many Classics are considered "serious literature" because that's all people ever wrote back then?

Really, we're not qualified to determine what in our contemporary literature is "serious" and will "advance mankind," because it hasn't had the chance to do that, yet. Give it fifty years. Then we'll know if Harry Potter and Twilight were worth all the fuss.


----------



## Vera Nazarian (Jul 1, 2011)

miamiajp said:


> As the Original Poster, my own definition of "serious literature" is whatever helps to enhance the cultural and spiritual experience of the human race, documents our story of survival against all odds and furthers our advancement. Books were created as a form to keep a record of those advancements.
> 
> I fully understand that books have also evolved into a form of art and entertainment, *but at what point our cravings to be entertained trump our need to further our advancement as a race? *


To quote Maxwell Smart (oh-so-serious),"Would you believe... *never?*"

We always want to be entertained, first and foremost.

The "cultural and spiritual advancement" and the "educational value" will never come first in the hearts and minds of humanity. 

However, the role of the writer of "serious literature" is to present the anvil-heavy "serious" stuff in such an entertaining package that humanity (aka general readership) cannot help but embrace it despite themselves. Marry Poppins was right -- "a spoonful of sugar (these days we call it werewolfy sparkly vampire fallen angel fae) helps the medicine go down."

And that is called good writing.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> No.
> 
> There isn't.
> 
> . Many of the attendees were noble and educated; he certainly had noble patrons; and some of his plays were very possibly written for events such as noble weddings, such as _A Midsummer's Nights Dream_. I don't have much patience with the "everything that is popular is trash" argument, but let's stick to something that is credible.


Never said he wrote trash but he did have to keep them entertained and to keep money flowing into the Globe which was not the only theater with The Rose and Swan nearby. The beauty of Bill was that he could bridge both the nobles and the groundlings and only became more adept at it.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Wow, how in the heck did I miss THIS thread?

When I was being built in the laboratory, Papa Victor tried to make me as human as possible. That means that I am fully capable of liking vampire novels and literary fiction, depending on the day, and my mood. Sometimes I want to read about sad lemon cake, sometimes I want to read a little bow chicka wow wow, if you know what I'm saying. Since it's my money, and my time, and I was assembled decades ago -- and perhaps this is a flaw in my manufacturing -- I think it's crazy-pants for anyone to tell me I have to read what they think I should read, as if it were still a student at Modern Prometheus High. 

The whole argument is a losing one since it's predicated on people taking a leisure activity and molding it, for no good reason, to the preferences of a stranger. It's every bit as silly as the expectation some have that people will put down their Kindles and go back to print, because the person asking them to really, really liked paperbacks. 

Literary fiction has always been for a specific type of reader and mood. It's not going to be the go-to for the majority of people, but it has an readership. This readership is moving into an exciting time where there are more books in the marketplace than ever for all sorts of readers to enjoy.


----------



## 39179 (Mar 16, 2011)

Quite honestly, anything labeled "serious literature" would make me want to run in the opposite direction, summoning, as it does, images of weighty tomes full of self-reverential, bone dry, humorless prose of great import but little interest.

Classics? They'll always be around. Over time new ones get added to the list, but - rather like presidential legacies - no one knows what they will be until a sufficient passage of time has taken place.  

As for what constitutes good or great literature, as many have already said, it's purely a matter of personal taste. For me, Sartre's The Roads to Freedom trilogy gave me one of the most memorable reading experiences I've had in my entire life. For others it might be the literary equivalent of a root canal.


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

Vera Nazarian said:


> Okay, since I can't resist the heady lure of making definitions, here is mine, and a pretty simple one...
> 
> *"Serious literature"* makes you *think* and makes you *remember* -- regardless of the subject matter which might include everything from epic high tragedy to lowbrow comedy, weird quirky genre, and anything else imaginable under the sun.
> 
> ...


I think you're right on. Yes, there's forgettable, but fun, and challenging but unforgettable.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> Pride and Prejudice is a romance. Lonesome Dove is a western. Les Misérables, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Beloved by Toni Morrison and Wolf Hall by Mantel are all historical novels. Much of what is considered literary is in fact genre. Whatever *cough* terribly intelligent people like Jonathan Franzen, et al may say or think.


Could we agree that while literary fiction may fit into a genre, a lot of genre fiction can't be classified as literary? I don't have the slightest pretensions to being a literary writer, myself. That doesn't mean I don't work hard at my craft or that my books suck, though. Unlike the OP, I don't think that fluff or fun stuff or lightweight reading or whatever you want to call it undercuts more "serious" works. There's room in this world for both, it seems to me.


----------



## miamiajp (Jan 28, 2012)

Before I am renamed Albert the Vampire slayer here, let me re-state my position. 
My gripe is not against people who write for the passion of it and put out quality fiction of whatever subject it may be. As I said before, we all value the importance of entertainment. My problem is with the influx of people who have decided to become writers because a) it costs them near nothing and b) they may get picked by Hollywood and become the next sensation. 
As for the heroine comparison, many here defended this kind of supernatural fiction saying that is has been around forever. Well, humans have been abusing substances for fun even longer than books have existed. I am not passing judgment on people who are addicted or do it even for recreational fun, is not my place to do that. To each its own.  But what makes sitting at home reading book after book about supernatural stuff less mind doping than smoking a joint? The fact that is socially accepted? That you can buy the book at Amazon and the weed you must get at a street corner? (or a dispensary if you live in certain states) Or that you do one but shun the other?
You can read (or write) a thousand books of that sort and at the end of the day you are not more cultured or wise than someone who just entered rehab. 
I understand these statements may sound contradicting. But they are meant to provoke thought and not to incite a book burning mob.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> My gripe is not against people who write for the passion of it and put out quality fiction of whatever subject it may be. As I said before, we all value the importance of entertainment. My problem is with the influx of people who have decided to become writers because a) it costs them near nothing and b) they may get picked by Hollywood and become the next sensation.


Why do you assume you know other people's motives? How do you know whether I'm writing because it's my passion, or because I'm a widow with four kids who really needs to earn money to get them through college? (Answer: both.) Why is one better or worse than the other? Why do my motives matter to anyone but me? Why do you assume that writing for money means that one's work is innately inferior?

And please pardon me for repeating what JR said, but the word is spelled "heroin."



> But what makes sitting at home reading book after book about supernatural stuff less mind doping than smoking a joint?


Because one is physically addicting, and the other isn't? Really, this argument is so... *coughs and looks hard for a polite word so as not to bring down the wrath of the mods* frail that I can't imagine you mean it seriously. There are plenty of smart people out there who read lots of paranormal fiction. Reading of any sort isn't "mind doping." It's something I encourage my kids to do lots of every day.



> But they are meant to provoke thought...


Seems to me _we're _thinking just fine.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

EllenFisher said:


> Could we agree that while literary fiction may fit into a genre, a lot of genre fiction can't be classified as literary?


Works for me. Here's one metric to distinguish between the two: if it's lit fic the author may take nine years between books (e.g., Franzen), and if it's genre fiction as little as three months (e.g., Konrath).


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

These hot genres come and go. I have a basement full of high fantasy trilogies from when I was in high school and woman oriented science fantasy from when I was in college. And I remember hard serious SF authors bemoaning their work was being crowded out back then. 

In the 90s and 2000s, pagecounts exploded and even mass market paperbacks got pretty damned expensive and I think it crowded out a lot of what I think of as disposable pulp genre fiction. I, for one, was just not going to pay $7.99 for something I was going to knock off in an afternoon and never think about again. One thing the kindle and indie self-publishing has revived, not created, is disposable pulp. When I first got my kindle, I wrote a blog post about the joys of once again reading crap. I don't read any less good serious lit than I ever had, but I read a lot more overall and most of is disposable light entertainment.


----------



## Vera Nazarian (Jul 1, 2011)

EllenFisher said:


> Could we agree that while literary fiction may fit into a genre, a lot of genre fiction can't be classified as literary? I don't have the slightest pretensions to being a literary writer, myself. That doesn't mean I don't work hard at my craft or that my books suck, though. Unlike the OP, I don't think that fluff or fun stuff or lightweight reading or whatever you want to call it undercuts more "serious" works. There's room in this world for both, it seems to me.


Ellen, I agree with you absolutely.

However, we are all beginning to all talk apples and oranges here (just a teeny bit) and talk past each other, possibly forgetting this one thing:

*"Literature" and "literary fiction" are not exactly the same thing.
*
And so, time for another attempt at a definition.

"Literature" is what we commonly think of when we talk about the classics and time-proven quality fiction. The solid connotation here is timeless *quality*.

"Literary fiction" is indeed a modern and rather *recent genre*, and is in fact a sub-genre of mainstream modern fiction. To define it can be a slippery slope, but many "experts" agree that it involves *well crafted prose and experimental style in favor of story or plot*.

Literary fiction *as a genre* seems to be extremely self-aware and self-referential, and it knows damn well what it is trying to be. *grin* It is often introspective, erudite, intellectual, uses sophisticated vocabulary, and frequently uses language for special effect -- impact and shock value -- as opposed to communication or clarity. It also does a lot of other generally crazy hot-shot stuff that basically makes the reader wake up and notice and think, "aha, this is devilishly smart." It can be slice-of life vignettes or madcap social satire with a nightmarish plot that goes everywhere and nowhere. It can be one long wallow in the navel. There are usually professors involved and ennui and affairs with younger women. Sometimes there are penguins or parakeets.

In short, it is a quirky specific kind of modern writing, that can be brilliant but can also be... not.

And, usually it takes work and effort on the reader's part to savor its complexity.

And the effort is what makes it "boring" for some tired people who maybe just want to put their poor brain's "feet" up on a shelf and rest with a light book after work (while it can be a glorious linguistic lobsterfest for others who don't mind cracking the semantic hammers and wearing the bibs to get to the juicy innards)...

Anyway, what I am trying to say here is that we may want to not equate these two things. I honestly forget now what the original post called it, but we have all gone off on various tangents with literary fiction, literature, serious fiction, heroin-shooting (and heroines shooting? ;-) paranormal fluff bunnies, and who knows what else.

So let's all "ground" ourselves and define our terms.

Because this is a fun discussion.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

EllenFisher said:


> Could we agree that while literary fiction may fit into a genre, a lot of genre fiction can't be classified as literary? I don't have the slightest pretensions to being a literary writer, myself. That doesn't mean I don't work hard at my craft or that my books suck, though. Unlike the OP, I don't think that fluff or fun stuff or lightweight reading or whatever you want to call it undercuts more "serious" works. There's room in this world for both, it seems to me.


Of course. I have absolutely no argument against writing and reading for pure entertainment. I happen to do both on both sides of the reader/writer divide. Lots of people read both, depending on mood and what they're looking for at the moment. Some of us write both.

There is more than enough room in the world for both but I have to respond to the assumption of inferiority or lack of literary merit in so-called "genre fiction".

It is a serious fallacy to assume that because a work falls within the definition of a genre that it lacks all literary merit.


----------



## Stu Ayris (Jan 17, 2012)

I couldn't agree more, Vera! Long words and misery do not serious literature make - that just cultivates boredom. As others have posted, people have the right to choose. Just because my personal preference is to read and write books that I hope have a lasting impact on the way people treat one another does not mean that I should disregard everything else. Literature itself is such a wonderful thing that shouldn't be splintered into various camps. Books are wonderful. Just enjoy them!


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Vera Nazarian said:


> Ellen, I agree with you absolutely.
> 
> However, we are all beginning to all talk apples and oranges here (just a teeny bit) and talk past each other, possibly forgetting this one thing:
> 
> ...


Well, I think you have your definitions wrong, Vera. Often the definition has more to do with the name on the cover than anything else.

When Margaret Atwood writes dystopian science fiction it is classed as literary.

When Hilary Mantel writes historical fiction it is classed as literary.

Ugh. I could go on but it's giving me a headache.


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

Eric C said:


> Works for me. Here's one metric to distinguish between the two: if it's lit fic the author may take nine years between books (e.g., Franzen), and if it's genre fiction as little as three months (e.g., Konrath).


Perhaps more often than not this is true. But there are exceptions. Joyce Carol Oates comes to mind. She has written 50+ novels in as many years, not to mention oodles of volumes of short stories, poetry, essays and plays.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> It's Academy Awards season today (Sunday) so here's an appropos example.
> 
> E.T., The Extra-Terrestrial was released the same year as Ghandi.
> 
> ...


In the 1930s and 1940s, Warner Bros made plenty of highbrow biopics of inspirational historical figures with the biggest stars and best production values the company could muster. And in order to pay for those biopics, they also made a lot of quick trash to entertain the masses, a steady parade of musicals, gangster films, historical swashbucklers, cartoons, etc...

The biopics did win awards. But nowadays they're rarely seen and nigh unwatchable, if you're unfortunate enough to catch one. Meanwhile, the "trash" they turned out to pay for those biopics has turned into timeless classics.


----------



## Vera Nazarian (Jul 1, 2011)

miamiajp said:


> Before I am renamed Albert the Vampire slayer here, let me re-state my position.
> My gripe is not against people who write for the passion of it and put out quality fiction of whatever subject it may be. As I said before, we all value the importance of entertainment. *My problem is with the influx of people who have decided to become writers because a) it costs them near nothing and b) they may get picked by Hollywood and become the next sensation.*


I think part of the problem here is that you are missing *the influx of people in general*. The population of our planet had passed 6 billion, If I recall, and a whole boatload of them are now online, and armed with wordprocessors, a rudimentary ability to key and spell, and hence, the means to write, and -- terror of terrors -- publish.

In the golden olden days, there were fewer writers, fewer readers, and fewer books (good or bad) because fewer people were were lucky enough to have access to education and hence the ability to scribble (not to mention the tools needed to propagate the fruits of their passionate scribbling). Yes, there were just fewer people, period.

My point here is, this is for the large part a *perception problem*.

For another part, this is indeed a problem of *supply and demand*. The market _du jour_ demands furry fallen angels who sparkle and drink blood under a full moon. Writers need money in a tough economy, so they willingly provide the demand of such, and have fun doing it.



> As for the heroine comparison, many here defended this kind of supernatural fiction saying that is has been around forever. Well, humans have been abusing substances for fun even longer than books have existed. I am not passing judgment on people who are addicted or do it even for recreational fun, is not my place to do that. To each its own. *But what makes sitting at home reading book after book about supernatural stuff less mind doping than smoking a joint?* The fact that is socially accepted? That you can buy the book at Amazon and the weed you must get at a street corner? (or a dispensary if you live in certain states) Or that you do one but shun the other?


Aha, I think we have at last come to the root of the problem.

I will skip the analysis and or judgment of drug addiction, and dive directly at the *Big Sad Fallacy*.

*What makes you think that "supernatural stuff" is mind-doping in general? Why do you assume quality fiction and supernatural stuff are mutually exclusive, as if one cannot be the other?
*
Do you even understand what fantasy is?

Why do you equate it with poor/bad/inferior fiction?

*tapping fingers*


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"My problem is with the influx of people who have decided to become writers because a) it costs them near nothing and b) they may get picked by Hollywood and become the next sensation. "_

I accept you have a problem with that. Is there a reason anyone else should accept it as a problem??


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

I can't believe someone is equating popcorn entertainment with heroin use.

Assuming you are actually serious...have you never seen what the power of laughter or wish-fulfillment or just sheer idiotic fun can do for the human soul? I would argue that fluff has done more the human spirit, healed more wounds and opened more eyes than "serious literature". That's not to say "SL" doesn't have a place and isn't terribly important. Things that make us think matter. But things that make us feel do too.

_[nice try, Monique.  edited--Betsy]_


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Dang it!


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

miamiajp said:


> As the Original Poster, my own definition of "serious literature" is whatever helps to enhance the cultural and spiritual experience of the human race, documents our story of survival against all odds and furthers our advancement. Books were created as a form to keep a record of those advancements.
> I fully understand that books have also evolved into a form of art and entertainment, but at what point our cravings to be entertained trump our need to further our advancement as a race?
> All literature, everything, is better than having none. My concern was about the overwhelming number of fluff that has invaded the market, propelled mostly by the desire to make money and acquire fame and the effects this has on the serious writers that may be drowned by this trend
> To answer tattooedwriter: many people also want to sit at home and shoot heroine. Should we allow them to OD? should we supply them with the drugs and tax them?


Your arguments become more risible with each new post.

TV was supposed to have killed literature, then comic books, then video games and now "fluff?" I don't think so. Maybe those who try to produce so-called "serious" literature are just boring and incompetent, neither of which can be said of the much cited Shakespeare and Twain. Maybe they are just "serious" but not literature, and thus simply not good enough. Maybe traditional publishers are too incompetent to "sell" them to people. Maybe the Gatekeepers are not interested at all in literature, but all the more in their profit margins. Maybe a lot of this so-called "serious" literature belongs on the dunghill of history.

Who's to say?

There is no special merit to be ascribed to this self-declared pretentiousness. There are good books and bad books. A good book, much like each dog, will have its day (well, maybe not, but I'm an optimist). Some will have a few weeks, months, years or decades. Some will have eternity (or as near as humanly possible).

Only time will tell.


----------



## ElizabethJasper (Jan 20, 2012)

Overall, I think we are coming to a consensus that there is no such thing as 'serious literature', that it is hard to define 'literary fiction', and that most people read whatever they like for entertaintment purposes, whatever sort of literature they enjoy.  Very few writers are not great readers.  If we didn't love words that other people have written we probably would not try to do it ourselves. 

That's fine by me.  I write to entertain but I try to get the words in the right order and to use grammar correctly.  No more.  No less.  I love writing and I love reading.  It's what I do.


----------



## Vera Nazarian (Jul 1, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Well, I think you have your definitions wrong, Vera. Often the definition has more to do with the name on the cover than anything else.
> 
> When Margaret Atwood writes dystopian science fiction it is classed as literary.
> 
> ...


Actually those are not so much definitions as accepted connotations.

"Literary fiction" is definitely a genre.

However, to gain respectability, many other genres tend to append the label "literary" to works that they believe should be given more critical weight. And so we get "literary fantasy" to refer to the "good (well written) kind" of fantasy, and literary science fiction, etc.

So the connotation of literary has become "good" -- which muddies the fact that it is simply a small niche, a contemporary genre of general literature that is non-traditional and simultaneously critically-acclaimed.

It's sort of like using the word chocolate to make other unrelated things appear more attractive and high-end: chocolate diamonds, chocolate phone (was it LG Chocolate?)...


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

miamiajp said:


> As the Original Poster, my own definition of "serious literature" is whatever helps to enhance the cultural and spiritual experience of the human race, documents our story of survival against all odds and furthers our advancement. Books were created as a form to keep a record of those advancements.


Who decides that? I don't even decide that for myself. I read a book, and I connect with a story or character, and I'm just along for a ride. I grow as a person, expand my understanding and awareness, and I don't know it until it happens.

You can't decide by committee what's worthy or enriching.


----------



## miamiajp (Jan 28, 2012)

Very well. Let's put it to test.
Let's say the world is coming to a crashing end while you are at the Library of Congress. An alien ship is going to beam you up and you have the chance to take, and save from destruction, five books out of everything ever written. But only five. And let's also for the purpose of facilitating debate that the ETs have given a free pass to all religious books already, so don't go reaching for the Bible or Quran. 
Make your lists and let's see where this takes us.


----------



## Vera Nazarian (Jul 1, 2011)

Monique said:


> I can't believe someone is equating popcorn entertainment with heroin use.
> 
> Assuming you are actually serious...*have you never seen what the power of laughter or wish-fulfillment or just sheer idiotic fun can do for the human soul? I would argue that fluff has done more the human spirit, healed more wounds and opened more eyes than "serious literature".* That's not to say "SL" doesn't have a place and isn't terribly important. Things that make us think matter. But things that make us feel do too.
> 
> _[nice try, Monique.  edited--Betsy]_


Absolutely, yes!


----------



## sherylb (Oct 27, 2008)

miamiajp said:


> Before I am renamed Albert the Vampire slayer here, let me re-state my position.
> My gripe is not against people who write for the passion of it and put out quality fiction of whatever subject it may be. As I said before, we all value the importance of entertainment. My problem is with the influx of people who have decided to become writers because a) it costs them near nothing and b) they may get picked by Hollywood and become the next sensation.
> As for the heroine comparison, many here defended this kind of supernatural fiction saying that is has been around forever. Well, humans have been abusing substances for fun even longer than books have existed. I am not passing judgment on people who are addicted or do it even for recreational fun, is not my place to do that. To each its own. *But what makes sitting at home reading book after book about supernatural stuff less mind doping than smoking a joint?* The fact that is socially accepted? That you can buy the book at Amazon and the weed you must get at a street corner? (or a dispensary if you live in certain states) Or that you do one but shun the other?
> *You can read (or write) a thousand books of that sort and at the end of the day you are not more cultured or wise than someone who just entered rehab.*
> I understand these statements may sound contradicting. But they are meant to provoke thought and not to incite a book burning mob.


In order for anyone to actually pick up a book and dedicate the time to read it, they have to be interested enough to take that first step. I don't know what sort of culture you grew up in, but when I grew up, I was just about the only one who constantly had a book with me&#8230;none of my friends read like I did. None of my friends today read like I do. A small percent of the population actually picks up a book and reads. What makes reading ANYTHING different from doing mind numbing drugs is when reading, no matter what it is, you actually have to think. You create the world you are reading about in your head, it opens up creativity, thinking outside the everyday box, introduces themes and ideas you never thought about before. Reading introduces discipline, responsibility, money management, time management, etc. It does not matter what is being read, all that matters is that SOMETHING is being read. Do you know how many people are reading now, across the world, just because Rowling wrote some silly books about magic? Do you understand how important it is for people to actually read anything at all? Reading is the single most important ability that anyone can have, and yet you disparage them if they want to read a book outside your definition of "serious literature". 
Have you actually read a good cross section of the genres you are denigrating here? I have, and while they might not be my everyday reading choice, the fact that they are available and I CAN make a choice of what I want to read can be nothing but positive in my world.


----------



## Vera Nazarian (Jul 1, 2011)

miamiajp said:


> Very well. Let's put it to test.
> Let's say the world is coming to a crashing end while you are at the Library of Congress. An alien ship is going to beam you up and you have the chance to take, and save from destruction, five books out of everything ever written. But only five. And let's also for the purpose of facilitating debate that the ETs have given a free pass to all religious books already, so don't go reaching for the Bible or Quran.
> Make your lists and let's see where this takes us.


Our lists, believe it or not, will all be very different.

Mine would contain *Consuelo* by George Sand, _*The 101 Dalmatians*_ by Dodie Smith, and probably a couple of my own books.

This is silly.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

miamiajp said:


> Very well. Let's put it to test.
> Let's say the world is coming to a crashing end while you are at the Library of Congress. An alien ship is going to beam you up and you have the chance to take, and save from destruction, five books out of everything ever written. But only five. And let's also for the purpose of facilitating debate that the ETs have given a free pass to all religious books already, so don't go reaching for the Bible or Quran.
> Make your lists and let's see where this takes us.


You first.

What's your list of "serious" literature?


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

miamiajp said:


> Very well. Let's put it to test.
> Let's say the world is coming to a crashing end while you are at the Library of Congress. An alien ship is going to beam you up and you have the chance to take, and save from destruction, five books out of everything ever written. But only five. And let's also for the purpose of facilitating debate that the ETs have given a free pass to all religious books already, so don't go reaching for the Bible or Quran.
> Make your lists and let's see where this takes us.


OK, I'll play:

The Complete Works of Jane Austen
The Complete Works of Shakespeare 
The Complete Chronicles of Narnia 
The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde
The biggest collection of fairy tales I could find.

I'm presuming that we can't have Kindle (or we'd have more than five) and that rules out the complete works of Dickens. I've checked and all the others are available in hard copy as complete works (in fact, I own a complete Shakespeare & a complete Wilde.)

They're not my five favourite books - but they are the ones I'd save for humanity, off the top of my head.


----------



## ElizabethJasper (Jan 20, 2012)

Andrew Ashling said:



> You first.
> 
> What's your list of "serious" literature?


Anything that keeps me thinking long after I've read the last page. And I don't read erotica. Well, not recently.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Reading this thread makes me wonder what the difference between "literature" and a "heck of a good story" is....


I'd answer that by saying that a "heck of a good story" is a well-written story with engaging characters and an interesting plot but those elements elevate a good story to literature when the story addresses larger issues common to a broad spectrum of humanity. _The Grapes of Wrath_ is both because it is illustrative of a period of American history and the trials people endured.

Everybody loves a good story and there is nothing wrong with that. But literature tells a bigger story -- it tells the immediate obvious story of the people involved but it also tells a larger story that endures.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

miamiajp said:


> As for the heroine comparison, many here defended this kind of supernatural fiction saying that is has been around forever. Well, humans have been abusing substances for fun even longer than books have existed. I am not passing judgment on people who are addicted or do it even for recreational fun, is not my place to do that. To each its own. But what makes sitting at home reading book after book about supernatural stuff less mind doping than smoking a joint?


Have you ever met someone who sold their ass to scrape up cash to buy the latest Harry Potter?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Kathleen Valentine said:


> I'd answer that by saying that a "heck of a good story" is a well-written story with engaging characters and an interesting plot but those elements elevate a good story to literature when the story addresses larger issues common to a broad spectrum of humanity. _The Grapes of Wrath_ is both because it is illustrative of a period of American history and the trials people endured.
> 
> Everybody loves a good story and there is nothing wrong with that. But literature tells a bigger story -- it tells the immediate obvious story of the people involved but it also tells a larger story that endures.


So....that almost reads like literature must be historical? But then there's the Lord of the Rings....which I guess does tell a larger story that endures.

Betsy


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

miamiajp said:


> Very well. Let's put it to test.
> Let's say the world is coming to a crashing end while you are at the Library of Congress. An alien ship is going to beam you up and you have the chance to take, and save from destruction, five books out of everything ever written. But only five. And let's also for the purpose of facilitating debate that the ETs have given a free pass to all religious books already, so don't go reaching for the Bible or Quran.
> Make your lists and let's see where this takes us.


This would be a catastrophic loss of culture. No 5 books would ever replace or even lessen that. It's a ridiculous premise. It's a useless and far-fetched scenario. But fine. Whatever. Here we go.

1. A book on World History so we could teach our children where we came from
2. A compilation of this thread to show our children that this scenario came from a thread on Kindleboards, to warn them about the dangers of broadcasting the internet into space.
3. Roger Zelazny's "The Great Book of Amber"
4. Rex Jameson's "Complete Omnibus of Shit I Wrote"
5. Stephanie Meyer's "Twilight" in Hard cover, so the moment I saw you on the ship, I could hit you with it.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Of Mice And Men to remind me of Humanity. 
A LIFE magazine photobook for my sanity. 
A copy of World History of Art for inspiration. 
A dictionary because I spell bad. 
And a journal to get started. 

The world's religious tomes already tell every story worth telling. How to tell those stories is a matter of taste.

B.


----------



## Doug Lance (Sep 20, 2010)

Literature isn't dying. It is adapting.


----------



## KevinMcLaughlin (Nov 11, 2010)

Probably a book on world history (so we could remember where we came from), a big book full of glossy photos of world art (to retain a memory of our disparate cultures), the complete works of Shakespeare ('cause I love theatre), the biggest dictionary I could find (because retaining a cohesive language is vital), and whatever fiction book I was in the middle of reading ('cause I hate having my reading interrupted!).

Would absolutely NOT bring any of my own work. I can write more. 

BTW, I really like Vera's definitions. Literature or literary simply means writing of high quality. Harry Potter is literature AND fantasy. Hunger Games is literature AND science fiction. The Tempest is literature AND fantasy. The genre of a work has no effect on the quality of the work. Likewise, folks writing in the "literary genre" as it exists today are simply writing in their own genre. Some modern literary genre works are literature. Some are not.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Doug Lance said:


> Literature isn't dying. It is adapting.


Drat! Better re-modulate the phasers. 

B.


----------



## Vera Nazarian (Jul 1, 2011)

KevinMcLaughlin said:


> Probably a book on world history (so we could remember where we came from), a big book full of glossy photos of world art (to retain a memory of our disparate cultures), the complete works of Shakespeare ('cause I love theatre), the biggest dictionary I could find (because retaining a cohesive language is vital), and whatever fiction book I was in the middle of reading ('cause I hate having my reading interrupted!).
> 
> Would absolutely NOT bring any of my own work. I can write more.
> 
> BTW, I really like Vera's definitions. Literature or literary simply means writing of high quality. Harry Potter is literature AND fantasy. Hunger Games is literature AND science fiction. The Tempest is literature AND fantasy. *The genre of a work has no effect on the quality of the work.* Likewise, folks writing in the "literary genre" as it exists today are simply writing in their own genre. Some modern literary genre works are literature. Some are not.


Thank you, and yaaay, you indeed understand my point!


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> Drat! Better re-modulate the phasers.


Don't bother. You will be assimilated.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

miamiajp said:


> Very well. Let's put it to test.
> Let's say the world is coming to a crashing end while you are at the Library of Congress. An alien ship is going to beam you up and you have the chance to take, and save from destruction, five books out of everything ever written. But only five. And let's also for the purpose of facilitating debate that the ETs have given a free pass to all religious books already, so don't go reaching for the Bible or Quran.
> Make your lists and let's see where this takes us.


When did you first realize that you were reading to impress other people, and found it reasonable to expect other readers to justify their choices?


----------



## miamiajp (Jan 28, 2012)

More far fetched than an Indian boy who changes into a werewolf and is in love with a depressed egomaniac girl who is in love with a vampire?  
Since we are doing Complete Works, here is my list:

My number one would actually be Oscar Wilde, but since Zelah already saved him I'm cheating on this one.

Complete works of Tolstoy, Faulkner, Twain, Garcia Marquez and Hemingway
and please people, lighten up... you know the world is not really ending until december, right?


----------



## HemiMG (Feb 23, 2012)

miamiajp said:


> To answer tattooedwriter: many people also want to sit at home and shoot heroine. Should we allow them to OD? should we supply them with the drugs and tax them?


I kind of feel like I'm taking bait here, and opening up a whole other can of worms, but every country that has decriminalized, or legalized and regulated drugs has found that usage and resulting deaths have gone down, not up. So if you had your way and fiction which is considered inappropriate by the folks who like to use the word 'literary' was met with some attempt to curtail its consumption, it makes sense to me that such an act would only force people to want it more, and push them away from "rehab", which I guess in your analogy is more serious writing.

As far as your other point about the influx of people who think they can be writers just because it is free to do so and requires no training, I have felt the brunt of that far more than any fiction writer will. Any work I have been paid to write so far has been content for websites, or pamphlets, or whatever. Try convincing someone hiring a writer for the first time that you are worth $25-120 an article when there are people out there willing to do it for $1. Of course, those people who think of writing as something that anyone can do probably don't get many repeat clients. I've had no problem selling my services to people who have been burned once by the low-ballers. I've also seen the work that cheap writers did for a client of mine. Some of it was literally incomprehensible. I don't read a great many self-published works (I just got my Kindle), but I'm betting the problem isn't near as widespread on the world of book writing. Those types of writers don't want to write something and take a chances someone will buy it. They want to sell their below average services to the unsuspecting buyer who is also foolish enough to think that, when it comes to writing, anyone can do it. People who write books may do it for the money, but they also do it because they want to tell a story. I see no reason why we shouldn't let them and the market decide what that story is.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> So....that almost reads like literature must be historical?


Not at all. _The Grapes of Wrath_ was written contemporaneously to The Depression. _To Kill A Mockingbird_ was written during the time in which it occurred. That's why literature is sometimes hard to identify at the time it is published. It is the capacity to tell a bigger story that transcends its era that makes it literary.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

CoraBuhlert said:


> In the 1930s and 1940s, Warner Bros made plenty of highbrow biopics of inspirational historical figures with the biggest stars and best production values the company could muster. And in order to pay for those biopics, they also made a lot of quick trash to entertain the masses, a steady parade of musicals, gangster films, historical swashbucklers, cartoons, etc...
> 
> The biopics did win awards. But nowadays they're rarely seen and nigh unwatchable, if you're unfortunate enough to catch one. Meanwhile, the "trash" they turned out to pay for those biopics has turned into timeless classics.


Among the "trash" WB and other like-minded film companies produced in that era "to pay the bills" include:

Laurel and Hardy
The "Our Gang"/Little Rascals comedies
Abbot and Costello
The Bowery Boys comedies featuring Leo Gorcey
The classic Universal monster movies

In other words, some of the best stuff ever made.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

I reject the scenario or any perceived value that Miamia's little "challenge" has. She's simply trying to manipulate us into her way of thinking: that we'd only save the "important" stuff.

Forget that.

I'd save my top five favorite reads of all time, and yet would they be the books I admire most?

Well, assuming the aliens are taking me with them and all Earth culture is left behind, save for what I take with, I might let a lot of stuff perish so that I could arrive on the alien homeworld, reproduce some of my favorite stuff that perished, claim a universal copyright on it, and be hailed as the author of everything from Spiderman to Stephen King!  And if my own versions of those stories varied and didn't quite capture the work of the original authors? Who cares? It's all been completely decimated, so as far as anyone on the alien homeworld knows, mine IS the definitive version!

(Evil evil laughter...)

And the first such work I'd "let perish" to re-do and have my name emblazoned upon?

NOT WHAT SHE SEEMS by... Craig Hansen, because Victorine and her works got "blowed up real good." Ooops! 

(Love ya like a sister, Vicki, but it was the aliens, not me, that let ya perish, I swear!)


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

LOL! Um...thanks. I think.


----------



## miamiajp (Jan 28, 2012)

Uhm, nope. No manipulation. You can put your guilty conscience aside and vote you little heart out. And MIAMIAJP is a HE not a SHE, not that there is anything wrong with been a she. Anyway, they say is cold in space, so bring all the vampire books you want, we may need them for a toasty fire.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Courtney Milan said:


> So true!
> 
> Only fools and children are dumb enough to read for pleasure. It takes a real genius to read for the mind-numbing pain.


 Great answer. If all books should be great literature, then all music should be classical, all food French cuisine and all art painted by masters. No more crappy rock, hamburgers or edgy photographs.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"Uhm, nope. No manipulation. You can put your guilty conscience aside and vote you little heart out. And MIAMIAJP is a HE not a SHE, not that there is anything wrong with been a she. Anyway, they say is cold in space, so bring all the vampire books you want, we may need them for a toasty fire."_

Is there a second ship we can take?


----------



## AnitaBartholomew (Jun 27, 2011)

miamiajp said:


> Is serious literature slowly dying, drowned by a tsunami of vampires, werewolves and mutants? Every other book on Kindle (or here for that matter) seems to have fangs or tails in it.
> First I must disclose I am not a fan of supernatural books. I love science fiction and some fictional stories that involve a scientific or plausible explanation. But monsters and fangs, let's face it they are for books with pictures in them. Even as a child, I loved Jules Verne, but disliked the Grimm Brothers. I never really got into Poe, but didn't dislike him either.
> That said, I think the Salingers, Tolstoys, Hemingways, Garcia Marqueses, Swifts, Steins, Faulkners, even the Poes of our generation are been pushed into oblivion by a sea of supernatural fantasy that for the most part belongs in comic books.
> The worst thing that ever happened to serious literature is J.K Rowling. Worse yet, the likes of her, Anne Rice and Stephenie Meyer have launched a crusade of people who think of writing as a sure road to billionaireship. They have a following of millions who ignore thousands of years of rich literary legacy to consume these "feel good" stories like drug addicts.
> ...


Ah, so this is the writer-bashing post that fostered another writer-bashing post. It would be nice if everyone had more respect for each other.Writing is hard work. Whether the product is superb or so-so, writers put their hearts into what they do.

And for all you know, you're trashing tomorrow's literary icon.

Poe was a commercial writer who focused on the supernatural, or didn't you know that? He often dashed off stories just to pay the bills, or didn't you know that either? Dickens, one you didn't name, was serialized in the precursors to today's popular magazines.

I have a suggestion for you. Don't read what you don't enjoy.

Anita


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Five books I would save? _The Hobbit_ along with the rest of _TLOTR_ by J.R. R. Tolkien, _The Stand_, _The Complete Works of Shakespeare_, something by Dr. Suess (got to grab something for the kids), and Shel Siliverstein's _The Giving Tree_.

You guys are grabbing enough of the serious stuff. Anyone think to grab anything other than English literature or translations?


----------



## John A. A. Logan (Jan 25, 2012)

I'd grab THE MASTER AND MARGARITA by Mikhail Bulgakov; A CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES by John Kennedy Toole; THE LEOPARD by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa; THE IDIOT by Dostoyevsky; HUNGER by Knut Hamsun.
2 Russians,a Norwegian, an American, and an Italian for the trip...so no-one can say I'm playing favourites, me being a Scot.
I'd stamp my foot too, and insist on being allowed 5 films: SOLARIS by Tarkofsky; EQUUS by Sidney Lumet; THE GREEN RAY by Eric Rohmer; BARRY LYNDON by Kubrick; MY DINNER WITH ANDRE by Malle. 
I can't remember....is this a spaceship made by us to escape a dying earth....or a spaceship piloted by aliens to help us escape a dying earth...I'll plump for this being a spaceship piloted by aliens...well, by the time we reach the utmost bounds of this galaxy, I will have made sure the aliens have watched SOLARIS enough times to blow their little green cells to space-dust...they won't know a black hole from a hole in the ground by viewing 6...
And GANDHI vs ET??
GANDHI of course, it's a superb film, great characterisation, cracking dramatic story...always think of the film of A PASSAGE TO INDIA when I think of GANDHI...it's rare that good films were made after 1980, but there's a couple.
And no, that doesn't mean I'm taking sides in this debacle. I've watched and loved JAWS and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS many times...but the crinkly thing in the shopping basket on the bike never did it for me...which proves the response to art or entertainment is always PERSONAL!


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

miamiajp said:


> To answer tattooedwriter: many people also want to sit at home and shoot *heroine*.


They do? 

Many people want to sit at home shooting brave women?


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2012)

AnitaBartholomew said:


> Poe was a commercial writer who focused on the supernatural, or didn't you know that?


Shakespeare wrote for the masses, not the "literate." His plays were full of sex, violence, and the supernatural. His plays were written to put butts in chairs, not to impress university professors. Really, if Shakespeare were alive today, the man would be writing paranormal romances and war stories. He would be the love child of Oliver Stone and Stephanie Meyer.


Spoiler



I'll let that image burn into your brain.


----------



## jonathanmoeller (Apr 19, 2011)

Serious literature is boring. I want explosions, swordfights, ray guns, alien invasions, daring master thieves, intrepid starship captains, mighty wizards trying to blow each other up, and more swordfights.

And if I cannot find a book with these elements, then by God I will WRITE MY OWN!


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

jonathanmoeller said:


> Serious literature is boring. I want explosions, swordfights, ray guns, alien invasions, daring master thieves, intrepid starship captains, mighty wizards trying to blow each other up, and more swordfights.
> 
> And if I cannot find a book with these elements, then by God I will WRITE MY OWN!


That is exactly why I started writing! I wanted to read certain stories that played out like the ones in my head, but darn it, nobody was writing them.   So, I started writing my own. However, I have found out that I have to wait a long time between writing them and being able to enjoy reading them--and even then, I read them thinking about how I should have written it this way instead of that way, so it didn't pan out quite like I wanted.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Shakespeare wrote for the masses, not the "literate." His plays were full of sex, violence, and the supernatural. His plays were written to put butts in chairs, not to impress university professors. Really, if Shakespeare were alive today, the man would be writing paranormal romances and war stories. He would be the love child of Oliver Stone and Stephanie Meyer.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Exactly. Times change. What is respected changes. _Moby Dick _ by Melville was a failure during his lifetime. (His first book was a hit.) How many authors came to fame and respect only after they died? I'm sure _Everybody Poops_ by Taro Gomi will be recognized as the true classic it is, someday.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Shakespeare wrote for the masses, not the "literate." * His plays were full of sex, violence, and the supernatural. His plays **were written to put butts in chairs*, not to impress university professors. Really, if Shakespeare were alive today, the man would be writing paranormal romances and war stories. He would be the love child of Oliver Stone and Stephanie Meyer.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


All true. I'd add humor to the mix of sex, violence and supernatural. Bill knew good saucy humor would keep them coming back for more and he was able to satisfy the less literate and more literate at the same time. Everybody needed a good laugh. He was also an actor at the globe and knew what lines would work with the crowd and what wouldn't. What would draw them into the play and what would make them jeer. It was the TV of yesterday, but 500 years later people still relate to his plays and we call it literature.


----------



## miamiajp (Jan 28, 2012)

Hahaha, serious literature may or may not be dying, this thread on the other hand, has a life of its own. 
To qualm all the critics: I know the difference between HEROINE and HEROIN, but apparently the automatic correction feature in my iPad does not. Sorry for the oversight, I should edit my comments more carefully especially since I have become the Voldemort of this thread.  I never meant to become a slayer of fine heroic ladies though.    

PS: At no given time have I suggested "serious literature" should be boring nor exclude action and thrills. After all, I am taking Twain and Hemingway on the alien ship with me.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> To qualm all the critics: I know the difference between HEROINE and HEROIN, but apparently the automatic correction feature in my iPad does not.


Apple's autocorrect sucks. I took a note on my iPhone for what my son wanted for his birthday: "Darth Vader transformer." It turned into "Dearth Badger transformer."



> Serious literature is boring. I want explosions, swordfights, ray guns, alien invasions, daring master thieves, intrepid starship captains, mighty wizards trying to blow each other up, and more swordfights.


I sometimes like "serious literature," but I like all the rest of that stuff, too. Like I said, there's plenty of room for all sorts of books in this world.


----------



## Bilinda Ní Siodacaín (Jun 16, 2011)

Hmmm, 1. I'd take a Laurell K. Hamilton book something from her Anita Blake series.
2. Tender Mercies by Kitty Thomas
3. Twilight saga: New Moon by Stephanie Meyer
4. Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
5. The Soul Collectors by Chris Mooney

If I'm being taken by aliens I want books I'll enjoy.


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2012)

And shortly after the illicit love child of Oliver Stone and Stephanie Meyer was born, Dan Brown imprinted on him and will await his adulthood, so the two of them can register for a lovely pattern by Royal Dalton at Neiman Marcus.

*sigh*  Loooooove is a maaaany sleeeeendooored thiiiiing!!


----------



## J Dean (Feb 9, 2009)

"Serious" literature is an oxymoron to me.

I don't think Homer wrote the Odyssey thinking "This will be discussed in the halls of learning one day."

Same with Milton, Dante, Chaucer, etc.  They were writing good fiction for the sake of good fiction, and were good at it.

BTW, for the record, I believe Alice in Wonderland is a drug trip.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

jackz4000 said:


> All true. I'd add humor to the mix of sex, violence and supernatural. Bill knew good saucy humor would keep them coming back for more and he was able to satisfy the less literate and more literate at the same time. Everybody needed a good laugh. He was also an actor at the globe and knew what lines would work with the crowd and what wouldn't. What would draw them into the play and what would make them jeer. It was the TV of yesterday, but 500 years later people still relate to his plays and we call it literature.


Which is why I'm taking his complete works on the alien ship.


----------



## Vera Nazarian (Jul 1, 2011)

oliewankanobe said:


> And shortly after the illicit love child of Oliver Stone and Stephanie Meyer was born, *Dan Brown imprinted on him* and will await his adulthood, so the two of them can register for a lovely pattern by Royal Dalton at Neiman Marcus.
> 
> *sigh* Loooooove is a maaaany sleeeeendooored thiiiiing!!


LOL!!!


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

J Dean said:


> BTW, for the record, I believe Alice in Wonderland is a drug trip.


Written by a shy, stuttering mathematician?* 

*With a penchant for photographing underdressed and undressed pre-teen girls.


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

miamiajp said:


> Is serious literature slowly dying, drowned by a tsunami of vampires, werewolves and mutants? Every other book on Kindle (or here for that matter) seems to have fangs or tails in it.
> First I must disclose I am not a fan of supernatural books. I love science fiction and some fictional stories that involve a scientific or plausible explanation. But monsters and fangs, let's face it they are for books with pictures in them. Even as a child, I loved Jules Verne, but disliked the Grimm Brothers. I never really got into Poe, but didn't dislike him either.
> That said, I think the Salingers, Tolstoys, Hemingways, Garcia Marqueses, Swifts, Steins, Faulkners, even the Poes of our generation are been pushed into oblivion by a sea of supernatural fantasy that for the most part belongs in comic books.
> The worst thing that ever happened to serious literature is J.K Rowling. Worse yet, the likes of her, Anne Rice and Stephenie Meyer have launched a crusade of people who think of writing as a sure road to billionaireship. They have a following of millions who ignore thousands of years of rich literary legacy to consume these "feel good" stories like drug addicts.
> ...


Serious literature will never die, period, end of conversation.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

As long as new generations of Kindles are born and new readers converted to ebooks, serious literature will not die. Look at how many of the classics dominated the lists right after Christmas. Look at Oprah's Club.

Could it rather be that most of the folk who still make the adamant distinction between serious literature and, well, everything else are perhaps the thing that's dying?

Disclaimer: I do have an MA in English with many hours of literary criticism and study of that serious stuff under my belt. In my defense, it WAS a state college.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Shakespeare wrote for the masses, not the "literate." His plays were full of sex, violence, and the supernatural. His plays were written to put butts in chairs, not to impress university professors. Really, if Shakespeare were alive today, the man would be writing paranormal romances and war stories. He would be the love child of Oliver Stone and Stephanie Meyer.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


I agree with your premise, but as for your specifics... Oliver Stone? Seriously? You can't to better than that??

Try Spielberg. Stone was an abject failure singing to the elite, compared to Shakespeare.

And Spielberg's range (From ET to Raiders of the Lost Ark, all the way to Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan) is nearly as impressive as ol' Bill's...


----------



## forensa (Apr 16, 2011)

I love to watch writers develop online, their work improving over time - work which would never have been published because it wasn't perfectly executed. Who cares whether it is literary, popular or whatever. Genre is no longer so easy to define or identify. A good story, well told is ever evolving. There's plenty of room for us all.


----------



## Albathin (Sep 19, 2011)

" People apparently only read mystery stories of any length. With mysteries, the longer the better and people will read any damn thing. But the indulgent, 800-page books that were written a hundred years ago are just not going to be written anymore and people need to get used to that. If you think you're going to write something like The Brothers Karamazov or Moby Dick, go ahead. Nobody will read it. I don't care how good it is, or how smart the readers are. Their intentions, their brains are different." - Cormac Mccarthy

I've written a couple of self indulgent short stories and promptly shelved them as I didn't and still don't think I wrote them for a 'reader'. The Gunsmith's Apprentice was the only book I figured would spark some interest. Writing is a subconscious art as much as it is a conscious one. At some point consistent writers will become aware of a target audience and plot the story to fit their needs. It just means that in this age you have to work harder to master the basics of plot, character development and hook. The story in your head probably deserves to come out but you still need the skills to say it proper.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Beatriz said:


> Serious literature will never die, period, end of conversation.


Exactly.

I cannot handle most of the mind-pablum that seems popular now but I love the Harry Potter books just as much as I love Thomas Hardy and Nathaniel Hawthorne.

To each his own...


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Albathin said:


> " People apparently only read mystery stories of any length. With mysteries, the longer the better and people will read any d*mn thing. But the indulgent, 800-page books that were written a hundred years ago are just not going to be written anymore and people need to get used to that. If you think you're going to write something like The Brothers Karamazov or Moby Dick, go ahead. Nobody will read it. I don't care how good it is, or how smart the readers are. Their intentions, their brains are different." - Cormac Mccarthy


Moby Dick: 214k.
Brothers Karamazov: 345k

A Game of Thrones: 298k
A Clash of kings: 326k
A Storm of Swords: 424k
A Feast for Crows: 300k
A Dance with Dragons: 422k

Wizard and Glass: 264k
The Dark Tower: 288k

Funny, I'd swear GRR Martin's kind of popular right now....and did anyone read Stephen King's last Dark Tower Book? How about Wizard and Glass? But surely this can't be right. Dance of Dragons is like...two Moby Dicks stacked on top of each other! Surely if nobody is reading anything as lengthy as Moby Dick then Dance of Dragons must be the great unread novel our time!


----------



## 39179 (Mar 16, 2011)

David 'Half-Orc' Dalglish said:


> Moby Dick: 214k.
> Brothers Karamazov: 345k
> 
> A Game of Thrones: 298k
> ...


Well said!


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

> Very well. Let's put it to test.
> Let's say the world is coming to a crashing end while you are at the Library of Congress. An alien ship is going to beam you up and you have the chance to take, and save from destruction, five books out of everything ever written. But only five. And let's also for the purpose of facilitating debate that the ETs have given a free pass to all religious books already, so don't go reaching for the Bible or Quran.
> Make your lists and let's see where this takes us.


Your test fails. Your premise is that popular literature is not just bad, but the equivalent of mind-numbing drugs. Your proposed tests can't possibly demonstrate this. All it can do is do is compile people's lists of what they think the 5 books most essential to preserve. This says nothing at all about the quality of the books not preserved.

The so-called "serious literature" was never all that widely read in the first place. There has always been popular literature, doesn't the term "penny dreadful" ring any bells? Some books get remembered, other books are forgotten. The mistake is to think that the books that are remembered were the only ones there were.

J.K. Rowling may have done more to get people reading books than anyone alive today. In order to read the "serious literature" people have to read first. If you look at people's bookcases, you will find the much-derided genre books sitting right next to the so-called "serious literature".



> Anyway, they say is cold in space, so bring all the vampire books you want, we may need them for a toasty fire.


Nothing demonstrates a love of literature like book burning. And an open flame on a spaceship isn't a good idea, but I only learned that from these awful genre books.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

I think the purpose of the test was to show, when it really comes down to it, for the good of mankind, we'll save the classics, and prove that we know all the rest is disposable. It's silly. We all have the books we know have stood the test of time, and enriched culture, but all readers also have a list of books that they've been personally enriched by, and who knows what in that moment any one of us would refuse to see removed from existence.


----------



## Kent Kelly (Feb 12, 2011)

"Is serious literature dying?"

If it is, we can all be 100% certain that it's going to whine about it and have an existential crisis for about 700 pages before the damn thing keels over and frees up a Manhattan apartment.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

I tend not to break down "serious" literature or "pop" lit.  I like stories that are well told and most "serious" literature bores me.  I like monsters and sci-fi and fantasy, for the most part.  I also think JK did more to promote reading than anyone else in recent memory.  Pure story, and a damn good one.  I often think too many writers aspire to be "serious" which means hardly anyone reads it, but try to discredit what is popular and what people want to read.  Being popular does not make you less of an artist.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Kent Kelly said:


> "Is serious literature dying?"
> 
> If it is, we can all be 100% certain that it's going to whine about it and have an existential crisis for about 700 pages before the d*mn thing keels over and frees up a Manhattan apartment.


*snicker*


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Kent Kelly said:


> "Is serious literature dying?"
> 
> If it is, we can all be 100% certain that it's going to whine about it and have an existential crisis for about 700 pages before the d*mn thing keels over and frees up a Manhattan apartment.


Okay, well you _win_ this thread. That's done.


----------



## CHobbes (Feb 12, 2012)

A letter from genre to literature: apologies if it's been posted:  

http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2011/12/guest_post_daniel_abrahams_private_letter_from_genre_to_literature/


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Kent Kelly said:


> "Is serious literature dying?"
> 
> If it is, we can all be 100% certain that it's going to whine about it and have an existential crisis for about 700 pages before the d*mn thing keels over and frees up a Manhattan apartment.


And it's going to blame us.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

If you read enough serious literature, eventually you will be able to see the Emperor's clothes.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Kent Kelly said:


> "Is serious literature dying?"
> 
> If it is, we can all be 100% certain that it's going to whine about it and have an existential crisis for about 700 pages before the d*mn thing keels over and frees up a Manhattan apartment.


FTW.


----------



## Rachel Forde (Nov 4, 2011)

> "Is serious literature dying?"
> 
> If it is, we can all be 100% certain that it's going to whine about it and have an existential crisis for about 700 pages before the d*mn thing keels over and frees up a Manhattan apartment.


You just made me laugh out loud in class. Shame on you.


----------



## Albathin (Sep 19, 2011)

David 'Half-Orc' Dalglish said:


> Moby Dick: 214k.
> Brothers Karamazov: 345k
> 
> A Game of Thrones: 298k
> ...


I think he meant mystery in a broad sense. SoIF and The Dark Tower are mysteries too.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"If it is, we can all be 100% certain that it's going to whine about it and have an existential crisis for about 700 pages before the d*mn thing keels over and frees up a Manhattan apartment."_

I heard they served lifeless chablis with brie at the wake.


----------



## Kent Kelly (Feb 12, 2011)




----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"If it is, we can all be 100% certain that it's going to whine about it and have an existential crisis for about 700 pages before the d*mn thing keels over and frees up a Manhattan apartment."_
> 
> I heard they served lifeless chablis with brie at the wake.


That's so passé.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

David 'Half-Orc' Dalglish said:


> Moby Dick: 214k.
> Brothers Karamazov: 345k
> 
> A Game of Thrones: 298k
> ...


Under the Dome: 322K
11/22/63: 259K


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Albathin said:


> I think he meant mystery in a broad sense. SoIF and The Dark Tower are mysteries too.


Really stretching the definition of mystery there. I mean, if a bloody R-rated medieval fantasy and a post-apocalyptic genre-hopping novel are both 'mysteries' then I might as well just re-categorize my own work now.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

David 'Half-Orc' Dalglish said:


> Really stretching the definition of mystery there. I mean, if a bloody R-rated medieval fantasy and a post-apocalyptic genre-hopping novel are both 'mysteries' then I might as well just re-categorize my own work now.


You write. I ... did ... not ... know ... that. (Just trying to keep you humble.)


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

David 'Half-Orc' Dalglish said:


> Really stretching the definition of mystery there. I mean, if a bloody R-rated medieval fantasy and a post-apocalyptic genre-hopping novel are both 'mysteries' then I might as well just re-categorize my own work now.


David Dalglish Books

Romance>Contemporary Romance>Chick Lit>with blood


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> You write. I ... did ... not ... know ... that. (Just trying to keep you humble.)


Good luck with that. My head's gotten big enough I can make skittles orbit it for about three minutes after every fanmail.


----------



## miamiajp (Jan 28, 2012)

This thread officially just became the most successful thing I have ever started in my whole life. No... really


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

miamiajp said:


> This thread officially just became the most successful thing I have ever started in my whole life. No... really


You shouldve started writing commercial a long time ago.


----------



## miamiajp (Jan 28, 2012)

I started thirty years ago, I just never published.


----------



## John Blackport (Jul 18, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"If it is, we can all be 100% certain that it's going to whine about it and have an existential crisis for about 700 pages before the d*mn thing keels over and frees up a Manhattan apartment."_
> 
> I heard they served lifeless chablis with brie at the wake.


Take that, ya Zinfandel-drinkin', knockoff-wearin' posers.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

> Is serious literature dying?


*whispers*

Why you asking? You want something should... happen to it?

Cuz I know a guy...

I mean... accidents happen. Every day. Such a shame when it does. That's all I'm sayin'.


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

miamiajp said:


> I started thirty years ago, I just never published.


What's your excuse now? Put in Amazon. There's a market out there for you. It might be small but it's there.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Beatriz said:


> What's your excuse now? Put in Amazon. There's a market out there for you. It might be small but it's there.


Always nice to hear from Aunt Bea...


----------



## Cassandra Blizzard (Jul 2, 2011)

I have less of a problem with what is written than how it is written. I realize that there are readers at different levels of skill, but I am afraid books will soon be written in texting lingo. (OMG etc.) I have seen things like "I is" in books. And not as someones quote.

I agree that kids need something that interests them, but lets not contribute to the dumbing down of America with the way it is written.


----------



## Vincent (Jun 25, 2012)

I will take a stab. I consider my book/memoir "literature" and even some of my blog posts could fit that bill. Other things I write are just pulp and fluff (this post?). Some might grimace at the thought about having to "work" while reading, but why not? The best things in life are much better with effort... education, family, education, um... work... and faith. So why not reading?

Sometimes I want Mac and Cheese... sometimes I want Thanksgiving dinner. You can't make turkey everyday... but true post-prandial bliss only appears with significant effort.


----------



## rubyscribe (Jun 2, 2011)

I've only read the first few responses but am I glad that someone brought up this topic.  I so hear you!!

Personally, I write serious fiction.  I have four adult and one YA short story up.  The adult short stories deal with Pakistani immigrants to the US, they deal with topics such as assimilation and cultural differences.  I sell a few copies a month because my stories lack racy stuff or air-headed stuff that could make readers giddy.

My novel is expected to release within a week and that too is an attempt at literary fiction.  With stuff like "50 shades of gray" titillating people with mindless entertainment, I despair of serious writing.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2012)

Times have changed, people's values have changed.


You'll make more money and get more respect catering to the lowest common denominator than trying to pen the next Gone with the Wind or To Kill A Mockingbird.


We live in a culture that worships tits and chrome, not wisdom and enlightenment.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Wow, sicklove, pretty cynical for a fellow who's not even near 500 posts yet.

Personally, I assassinated serious literature at 12:01 A.M., last Tuesday, because Serious Literature was a stuck-up, pretentious jerk.

I was part of a writing class once where a fellow tore into the "shlock" another writer had submitted that focused on a character who was part of a rock band.

The next week, when his turn came up, he submitted part of a novel... about a jazz saxophonist.

So, rock = shlock, jazz = serious literature, for that guy. As if.

What makes literature have value is whether it goes beyond the surface action to explore a bit of the human condition.

You don't need to eschew rock music and embrace jazz saxophonists to accomplish that.

Heck, to use a pop-culture example.... Several episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer explored things both deep and meaningful about the human condition while working within the framework of a pop-culture, comic-booky type vampire show. Joss Whedon at his best. And, as he said, "It's really important to me that people understand one thing: I meant every word. This isn't just some bit of fluff for me. This is serious."

In prose, I think it's easy to see that Stephen King has used the horror genre in much the same way. He writes about deep things, even if and when the convention of the novel is a demon-possessed car.

I mean, Pet Sematary was not a great movie... but the book? What parent who has any bit of love for their children can read Pet Sematary and not find themselves caught up in Louis Creed's insane grief, his irrational desire to do anything - no matter how crazy - to bring his child back after losing him so tragically? Even despite the foreshadowing of how well that worked with the family cat? Pet Sematary explored parental grief at a level no author writing "serious literature" could possibly explore... because "well, burying a kid in an Indian burial mound that brings the dead back to life is shlock-fiction."

Whatever.

Serious Literature deserved to be assassinated by me last Tuesday, because its nose was sticking up way too high in the air.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Some might grimace at the thought about having to "work" while reading, but why not? The best things in life are much better with effort... education, family, education, um... work... and faith. So why not reading?


The best things in life may be the result of hard work. But if the same things can be achieved with less work, then the added work is a waste of time and effort.

Anyone trying to make writing more difficult by using a manual typewriter rather than a computer? Reading without your glasses?


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> The best things in life may be the result of hard work. But if the same things can be achieved with less work, then the added work is a waste of time and effort.
> 
> Anyone trying to make writing more difficult by using a manual typewriter rather than a computer? Reading without your glasses?


The course of human history has been to make things easier. Forget the typewriter, if more difficult is better, why not jettison the printing press? Using a quill is harder than moveable type. And why not grind our own flour? I don't mean using a flour mill, but grinding using two rocks? And just think how much more we would enjoy clothing if we had to grow our own cotton! Or we could ride horses instead of driving cars. Sure, cars had a pollution problem, but cities were seriously polluted in the era of horses. Or why not read in Old English? That's even harder than Middle or Early Modern English, so it must be even better.

People do bake their own bread, but not because it is more difficult, but because they enjoy baking the bread, because it tastes better than store bought, or to save money. If being difficult to read makes it better, that goes against most of human history. Plus, a book can be difficult to read without actually being good.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Serious Literature deserved to be assassinated by me last Tuesday, because its nose was sticking up way too high in the air.


Please don't assassinate Serious Literature because of one twit.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

QuantumIguana said:


> If being difficult to read makes it better, that goes against most of human history.


Why do you equate serious literature with difficult to read? Personally, I find a well-written book much easier to read than carelessly written schlock. A lot depends on the amount of intellectual muscle people have built up over their reading life, it's no different than being physically fit. Reading "serious literature" (what the actual definition of that is I have no idea) is the intellectual equivalent of running a few miles. Some brains are marathon level, some are couch potato level. I'm not saying one is better than the other but I continue to be flabbergasted by the assumption that excellence in writing is synonymous hard-to-read.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Serious literature ain't for all folks. Some like it and others find it boring. Plenty of room for all types of literature high and low.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Kathleen Valentine said:


> Why do you equate serious literature with difficult to read?


I don't. I said the opposite. I was referencing a post that said:



> Some might grimace at the thought about having to "work" while reading, but why not? The best things in life are much better with effort... education, family, education, um... work... and faith. So why not reading?


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

sicklove said:


> Times have changed, people's values have changed.
> 
> You'll make more money and get more respect catering to the lowest common denominator than trying to pen the next Gone with the Wind or To Kill A Mockingbird.
> 
> We live in a culture that worships tits and chrome, not wisdom and enlightenment.


Nothing's changed, we've always worshipped tits and chrome, so to speak. People imagine a past where everybody read, and not only that, they all read great classic literature. But that past is myth.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2012)

QuantumIguana said:


> Nothing's changed, we've always worshipped tits and chrome, so to speak. People imagine a past where everybody read, and not only that, they all read great classic literature. But that past is myth.


What will the future hold?


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

I agree, Iguana.  I dont think serious literature was all that alive to begin with.  Depending, of course, on how narrowly youre defining it.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> What will the future hold?


Future poseurs will considered us very wise since they won't know squat about us.


----------

