# Popular fiction vs. "Literature"



## StevenBelskie (Dec 30, 2011)

I put the term literature in "quotes" because I am cautious about the depth and reality of this distinction. Obviously, a lot of people will draw some line between books like War and Peace, For Whom the Bell Tolls, Pride and Prejudice and say Harry Potter, The Stand, or The Hunger Games, but this line is nebulous at best. I can't really say I don't see where people are coming from, but it is difficult to really define a difference and to assign a valuation to that difference. 
I wonder what other people think about popular versus high culture when it comes to books. I love the classics, but is there really a difference in quality? It is even more interesting to consider that many high culture classics were pop culture in their day. Still I find it hard to think that Steven King or J.K. Rowling will ever have the type of reverence from academia as Shakespeare or Joyce. And I'm not sure that the major reason for that has anything to do with skill.
How do you view this issue? Do you try to read a certain number of classics versus a certain number of newer books? Do you simply read what you enjoy and take that as the measurement of quality?


----------



## Rejean (Mar 31, 2011)

I remind myself that many of the books that are considered "literary" or "classics" were originally considered to be mass market when they were first published. Keep in mind that during their lifetimes both Charles Dickens and Mark Twain were thought of as hacks by some snobs.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

There are those novels which have been christened 'Literature' by the English establishment that are fascinating stories, then there are those which exemplify the writing style of the time but aren't really all that fun to read. I think Literature is an agreed upon set of novels which have withstood the test of time and have been accepted by consensus within a community of scholars. Then there are some books, think _To Kill A Mockingbird_, which are immediately accepted into this canon and get an exemption from the test of time.

There are A list books and authors and then there are B lists. The A list include the superstars: All of Shakespeare, _Moby Dick_, _War and Peace_, etc ... In most genres, many of the recognized masters would only merit B or C list credits within the overall realm of Literature; take for example, one of my favorite genres, Science Fiction. There are the Victorian Masters - Verne, Wells - who are solid B list literary figures and then there are the mid-20th Century masters who, other than perhaps Asimov, do not rank above a B list.

In general, I think that many do not count books that were written in their lifetime as Literature ...


----------



## StevenBelskie (Dec 30, 2011)

Rejean said:


> I remind myself that many of the books that are considered "literary" or "classics" were originally considered to be mass market when they were first published. Keep in mind that during their lifetimes both Charles Dickens and Mark Twain were thought of as hacks by some snobs.


Yea, I feel like the biography of every other famous classical author talks about how he/she wasn't appreciated in their own time. And so many of those who were recognized seem to have been popular writers rather than high culture. That being said I can't deny that I see a difference in the way that Stephen King writes versus say Umberto Eco. And not just in the obvious superficial differences but at the level of subtlety and craftsmanship where it often seems less about the story and more about the words used to tell it.


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

In the past year I have had 2 separate PhDs in English tell me that trying to make LITERATURE something pretentious, is just that. All stories, fiction or non fiction, are forms of literature, and can be read for literary meanings and depth.

(in my mind I quietly disagree, but hey, maybe that's why they have the PhDs in English Lit and I don't.)


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

That's actually pretty. . . . .accepting. . . .of them. . . . .

But I've read some books that were so shallow an ant wouldn't get his feet wet, so I'm not sure I _entirely_ believe it. . . . 

(and I like your new flower!)


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Some books, no matter how fun, are just brain candy - and I'm OK with that.  But I do think I agree with the opinion of your esteemed PhDs that making Literature an exclusive list is pretentious and that much of what's written may be read from a literary perspective.


----------



## StevenBelskie (Dec 30, 2011)

BTackitt said:


> In the past year I have had 2 separate PhDs in English tell me that trying to make LITERATURE something pretentious, is just that. All stories, fiction or non fiction, are forms of literature, and can be read for literary meanings and depth.
> 
> (in my mind I quietly disagree, but hey, maybe that's why they have the PhDs in English Lit and I don't.)


I guess it depends what you mean with "Literary meaning and depth". Obviously not every book is written by a clever author who intricately weaves hidden meanings and symbolism into the work, but I think we can always see something deeper. Even the sappiest Lifetime original movie can tell us something about the culture that created it even if it nothing more than a collection of standard predictable tropes. While a lot of people shun literary theory as an occupation for those who live in Ivory Towers I think it can really make reading a much more enjoyable hobby because it gets away from guessing what the author meant and instead focusing on what the text itself means and how we construct meaning through reading. I think that is more where these PhDs are coming from.


----------



## DH_Sayer (Dec 20, 2011)

As far as I can tell, there is a wider gap between what is considered "art" and "popular" in books than there is in other artforms. Take movies. The best of the best these days are usually pretty popular, ie. they make millions at the box office and get talked about and get a lot of press and are released nationally in theaters. Sometimes it's Avatar, but even Hurt Locker is by no means obscure. In music, you have Katy Perry albums getting nominated for the Album of the Year grammy. It's interesting that other mediums' awards shows are a unifying event for their audience, since there's something for everyone. As far as I can tell, that doesn't exist for books. You will never see a single award where both Harry Potter and Pynchon are nominated. I don't think the two "camps" really intersect at all--it's almost like they're oblivious to each other's presence, like two inhabited planets each just beyond the other's ability to percieve it.


----------



## Dakota Franklin (Dec 16, 2011)

My mother taught high school English. She defined literature very simply. 

Literature embraces those books that you can read again for pleasure after the ending is known.

That'll do me.


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

StevenBelskie said:


> I guess it depends what you mean with "Literary meaning and depth". Obviously not every book is written by a clever author who intricately weaves hidden meanings and symbolism into the work, but I think we can always see something deeper. Even the sappiest Lifetime original movie can tell us something about the culture that created it even if it nothing more than a collection of standard predictable tropes. While a lot of people shun literary theory as an occupation for those who live in Ivory Towers I think it can really make reading a much more enjoyable hobby because it gets away from guessing what the author meant and instead focusing on what the text itself means and how we construct meaning through reading. I think that is more where these PhDs are coming from.


Their point was, it doesn't matter why the author wrote the book, what matters is what a reader takes away after reading it. Lord of the Flies was written because the author wondered what might happen if a bunch of kids were stuck on an island with no supervision. The literary aspect comes from what readers interpret and think about the story.

Typing on my Fire, not my favorite form of communication.


----------



## docnoir (Jan 21, 2011)

As a college professor who teaches creative writing (and who sees a lot of the "literary community" at conferences and online), I do think there's a snobbery in academia about literary writing. They simply think it's more important than any other genre. Therefore, that's what students should aspire to write, and that creates a cycle of writers writing for writers. 

I think that good literary technique (found in books by John Gardner, Charles Baxter, Janet Burroway, and even Stephen King) can help lift the quality of any book, even if the original goal is to just entertain. But I worry when professors put their own tastes in the way of what's best for their students over the long run. Lee Goldberg paraphrased his brother, Tod, once as saying he wanted his MFA students to become "working writers, not enlightened baristas." I like that. 

Literary writers might think they are creating "literature" right from the gate, but I don't think that's our call. It's the reader's, and it might take a while for them to decide.


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

As far as scholarship from my POV is concerned, I work in academics in cultural studies, and I have seen a mass exodus away from "high culture" to the "popular" since that's where the new work is to be found, so I think the way a lot of academics used to see divisions no longer hold. Now, at least in my field, it's less about artistic merit and more about social meaning.

As to the question of the difference between literature and popular fiction, I'd have to go mainly with time. If it was meant to be popular and it stood the test of time to become classic, it's golden. Nothing, as far as I can see, ages so poorly as two types of fiction - that which was written from the start to be "high art" and that which was written purely to soak the pigeons (i.e., writing the 24-hour masterpiece to cash in on the trends from Amazon). Anything else - time will tell.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

There is a branch of philosophy devoted to this subject: Aesthetics.

There are lots of different ways to interpret, define, argue, and justify claims for this or that in such a such ways. It could fill a book if done right. However... IMHO:

Literature gives you to something to _think_ about. 
Popular Fiction gives you something to _talk_ about.

Literature: Why did _x_ create the illusory life of _y_ for the love of _z_?
Popular Fiction: Wasn't it cool when _x_ jumped out of an airplane and had to fight _y_ with magic swords on the way down for the only parachute?


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Literature is anything written with words. There's good literature, and there is bad literature, but it is all literature. Some seem to think that if people actually want to buy it, then it must not be any good, but many of the most highly regarded books of the past were quite popular. Books don't have to be creamed spinach, they don't have to be something to be endured because it was supposed to be good for you.


----------



## Adele Ward (Jan 2, 2012)

I'm an author and publisher, and I still think it's very difficult to define literary fiction versus popular. To me, literary fiction can also be very popular. Dickens is one of the best novelists ever to have lived, and yet he's incredibly popular. I wish there was another word apart from 'literary' because it sounds so elitist. If somebody could come up with another name for this 'genre' I'd love to hear it. As a publisher I know I look for literary authors, but the books can also be page-turners and one of our authors is an excellent crime writer. I know what the differences are that make me consider a book literary - there will be a startling use of language, the book will be original, it won't contain cliches, it may well push at the boundaries of what's acceptable and take risks with experimentation. Characters the reader has grown to love may turn out to do horrible things and the ending can shock and even be inconclusive. There won't be a rosy glow over the nasty bits, and it may well not all end happily. The murderer might get away with it. The people who love each other may never get together. It will say things that really make the readers think, ideas they might carry with them for life. But other genres are also enjoyable for me, and cliche can be great fun. Calling it literary fiction sounds elitist and superior. It's just a different approach. We all have to write what we enjoy reading if we're going to write it in a way the reader will also enjoy.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Geemont said:


> There is a branch of philosophy devoted to this subject: Aesthetics.
> 
> There are lots of different ways to interpret, define, argue, and justify claims for this or that in such a such ways. It could fill a book if done right. However... IMHO:
> 
> ...


I'll have to disagree with that...not because it is solely yours, but because you said it so well 

I have learned lots of life lessons...and other lessons and reflections on the human spirit and culture...from fiction that might not be considered 'literature.' I dont necessarily say 'popular fiction' cuz I'm not necessarily a reader of that either unless it is in one of my favored genres (but I do read it sometimes.)

Most (*not all, by any means*) 'literature' (classic & current) I've read just expressed it's messages in a boring, pedantic, overly pretentious, heavy-handed, overly verbose, inelegant, drawn-out manner etc etc etc.....one or a mixture of any of those. But the signature of that 'literature' is....it beat me over the head with that 'lesson' (or it led me down a garden path and then sprang it on me). Obviously I didnt enjoy the journey.

I've read many books where I have learned difficult, even unpleasant lessons or views into the human condition that were pleasant to read. Or entertaining. Or stimulating. Or scary. Or.....but in many of those cases...reading the book was a positive experience. I enjoyed the journey.

So, just IMO, "literature" does not necessarily mean 'well-written.' Not that anyone has stated that. To me, good writing is done by good storytellers.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

anne_holly said:


> As far as scholarship from my POV is concerned, I work in academics in cultural studies, and I have seen a mass exodus away from "high culture" to the "popular" since that's where the new work is to be found, so I think the way a lot of academics used to see divisions no longer hold. Now, at least in my field, it's less about artistic merit and more about social meaning.
> 
> As to the question of the difference between literature and popular fiction, I'd have to go mainly with time. If it was meant to be popular and it stood the test of time to become classic, it's golden. Nothing, as far as I can see, ages so poorly as two types of fiction - that which was written from the start to be "high art" and that which was written purely to soak the pigeons (i.e., writing the 24-hour masterpiece to cash in on the trends from Amazon). Anything else - time will tell.


I like this.


----------



## Adele Ward (Jan 2, 2012)

I publish literary fiction and I wouldn't publish anything verbose, pedantic, or banging the reader on the head with a message. Those are just signs of bad writing. What people find boring varies and we can all find books that bore us in all genres. It's a question of finding the right author for us. I suppose people might have been put off the term 'literary fiction' because they might think mainly about authors from the past, and those literary styles can seem verbose nowadays. But some of our bestsellers now could be called literary fiction and also popular. If they aren't called literary fiction writers then maybe they aren't so offputting. The best literary fiction writers can also be a great read. _Affinity_ by Sarah Waters is a book I couldn't put down and I had to stay up all night reading it, even though I had house guests at the time! When my novel was sent out for review, none of the reviewers called it literary fiction. Some called it crime, some called it a thriller, some called it a book like Brave New World and 1984, and some thought it was a kind of romcom. One called it 'intelligent general fiction'. I'm sure there must be a better way to describe literary fiction that doesn't immediately make people think of long winded pedantic sentences and educational messages.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Reminder, please:  We're here in the Book Corner so the discussion should be from the point of view of you as READER. . .not you as publisher or author. 

Thank you.  


On Topic:  well, really, I've not got anything to add. 

I read what I read and don't much worry about what it's called.  I have read a lot of what are termed the "classics". . . .like modern fiction, some are better than others.  In most cases I could still see why they were deemed "classic" even if not to my taste.  Honestly, though, since I took my last literature class in college, (Studies in 18th Century Lit) it's not something I really think about.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

"Literature" is books you like. The stuff you don't like is sneered at as "Popular Fiction", or even worse, derided as "genre fiction". "Genre" is apparently a four-letter word.


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

StevenBelskie said:


> I put the term literature in "quotes" because I am cautious about the depth and reality of this distinction. Obviously, a lot of people will draw some line between books like War and Peace, For Whom the Bell Tolls, Pride and Prejudice and say Harry Potter, The Stand, or The Hunger Games, but this line is nebulous at best. I can't really say I don't see where people are coming from, but it is difficult to really define a difference and to assign a valuation to that difference.
> I wonder what other people think about popular versus high culture when it comes to books. I love the classics, but is there really a difference in quality? It is even more interesting to consider that many high culture classics were pop culture in their day. Still I find it hard to think that Steven King or J.K. Rowling will ever have the type of reverence from academia as Shakespeare or Joyce. And I'm not sure that the major reason for that has anything to do with skill.
> How do you view this issue? Do you try to read a certain number of classics versus a certain number of newer books? Do you simply read what you enjoy and take that as the measurement of quality?


There's a huge difference between mass market books and literature. Truman Capote was literature. Jackeline Susanne wasn't. That more or less says it all.


----------



## Ann Herrick (Sep 24, 2010)

Literature can be popular. Books such as _The Joy Luck Club_ by Amy Tan show that it can be done.


----------



## docnoir (Jan 21, 2011)

QuantumIguana said:


> "Literature" is books you like. The stuff you don't like is sneered at as "Popular Fiction", or even worse, derided as "genre fiction". "Genre" is apparently a four-letter word.


I thought "literature" is stuff I'm *supposed* to like, kind of like vegetables (cuz it's good for me). ;-)


----------



## docnoir (Jan 21, 2011)

Beatriz said:


> There's a huge difference between mass market books and literature. Truman Capote was literature. Jackeline Susanne wasn't. That more or less says it all.


I don't think so, because while it may look like that to us now, who knows what people a hundred years from now will think? Wasn't MOBY DICK considered a failure at first? And have you ever looked at a list of National Book Award winners from a long time back? You'll find quite a few books that have been completely forgotten, even though the judges thought they would stand the test of time.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

docnoir said:


> I don't think so, because while it may look like that to us now, who knows what people a hundred years from now will think? Wasn't MOBY DICK considered a failure at first? And have you ever looked at a list of National Book Award winners from a long time back? You'll find quite a few books that have been completely forgotten, even though the judges thought they would stand the test of time.


There does seem to be a view that if people actually like to read a book, it's not "literature". It seems it's not a real book if you ENJOY it! Dickens is a great counter-example to this. His works were the were popular fiction, and yet are considered great literature. A particular popular book might not be a good book, but there being popular doesn't indicate that a book is not good.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

Lursa (was 9MMare) said:


> Most (*not all, by any means*) 'literature' (classic & current) I've read just expressed it's messages in a boring, pedantic, overly pretentious, heavy-handed, overly verbose, inelegant, drawn-out manner etc etc etc.....one or a mixture of any of those. But the signature of that 'literature' is....it beat me over the head with that 'lesson' (or it led me down a garden path and then sprang it on me).


Maybe "literature" just isn't your thing. (For me it's particularly "young adult" and "series" that aren't my thing.)

While I do read some popular fiction, I often find it irritating and lacking: it's all story, just story, and nothing but story. If I'm flying on travel, this might be the type of book I choose, but sometimes I need more. Story isn't always enough. However, you'll find many readers who fuss and fume whenever an author strays from pure story.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

A book just isn't a good book unless it is chock full of pretense.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

I'd say the same thing here that I said in the awards thing.

Everyone just has their own tastes, and their are books I like and hate in most every category.  There are plenty of popular fiction books I love, and plenty I think are garbage, and the same are true for books that are labeled as literature.

It all just comes down to knowing what you like to read and becoming adept at quickly vetting books and choosing things you'll enjoy so as to not waste time on books you end up hating.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

The point is that "Popular Fiction" isn't a _type_ of fiction. Nothing about being popular precludes being good fiction.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Adele Ward said:


> I publish literary fiction and I wouldn't publish anything verbose, pedantic, or banging the reader on the head with a message. Those are just signs of bad writing. What people find boring varies and we can all find books that bore us in all genres. It's a question of finding the right author for us. I suppose people might have been put off the term 'literary fiction' because they might think mainly about authors from the past, and those literary styles can seem verbose nowadays. But some of our bestsellers now could be called literary fiction and also popular. If they aren't called literary fiction writers then maybe they aren't so offputting. The best literary fiction writers can also be a great read. _Affinity_ by Sarah Waters is a book I couldn't put down and I had to stay up all night reading it, even though I had house guests at the time! When my novel was sent out for review, none of the reviewers called it literary fiction. Some called it crime, some called it a thriller, some called it a book like Brave New World and 1984, and some thought it was a kind of romcom. One called it 'intelligent general fiction'. I'm sure there must be a better way to describe literary fiction that doesn't immediately make people think of long winded pedantic sentences and educational messages.


While of course I was expressing my own opinion....the books I was referring to were/are often considered either classic or contemporary literature.

I find good writing...and bad...in any of the genres I read. But that's not what I was referring to.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

QuantumIguana said:


> The point is that "Popular Fiction" isn't a _type_ of fiction. Nothing about being popular precludes being good fiction.


For sure. And nothing about being labeled "literature" precludes being good (or bad) either, which was my point.

These labels are all just silly ways of labeling books based on sales, critical praise etc. They are in no way useful in determining whether an individual will like a book or not as everyone has their own taste and preferences.

The only useful label, IMO, is genre as most people have certain genres they just have no interest in, so they can at least ignore books that fall in those genres. Within the genres they like it's not very helpful though as their are of course a range of great to awful books in every genre.

So I mostly ignore labels/classifications beyond avoiding genres I loathe, and just use reviews, blogs, word of mouth, samples etc. to find things I like and don't worry about whether its selling well (and thus popular fiction) or getting praised as being great literature. All that matters is whether it's something I'll enjoy or not.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Geemont said:


> Maybe "literature" just isn't your thing. (For me it's particularly "young adult" and "series" that aren't my thing.)
> 
> While I do read some popular fiction, I often find it irritating and lacking: it's all story, just story, and nothing but story. If I'm flying on travel, this might be the type of book I choose, but sometimes I need more. Story isn't always enough. However, you'll find many readers who fuss and fume whenever an author strays from pure story.


You may be correct, esp with some definitions of 'literature,' however I also wrote that I found very substantial (not lightwt) fare (messages?) in the books I do enjoy.

So I am not convinced that substance is confined to 'literature.'


----------



## StevenBelskie (Dec 30, 2011)

Geemont said:


> While I do read some popular fiction, I often find it irritating and lacking: it's all story, just story, and nothing but story.


I feel exactly the same way. A book from Paterson, Crichton, or Brown is all story. It's like watching an overly pedantic description of a movie that someone saw. Obviously not all popular fiction is like this, but so much of it is. So much that strikes me about "literature" that I like (mostly 20th) is the complete lack of a standard plot. In most cases I find this very enjoyable and in some way more impactful because the focus is on words and ideas rather than trying to string the reader along. Of course literature can also be popular. After all isn't Pride and Prejudice routinely the number one free kindle download?


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Yeah, it's just all a matter of what you're looking for in a book.

A lot of the times I'm just looking for an easy to consume story.  I'm a professor and spend 40+ hours a week taxing my brain with reading and writing for both research and teaching, so I don't necessarily have the energy for consuming literature and appreciating the language and art of the book.  More often I just want to escape into a great, easy to consume story.  And popular fiction is great for that.  As are movies and TV shows and even video games.

Maybe when I retire in 30 years or so I'll have more energy for literature!


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

StevenBelskie said:


> Of course literature can also be popular. After all isn't Pride and Prejudice routinely the number one free kindle download?


Romance novels are very popular.


----------



## acellis (Oct 10, 2011)

A book becomes literature long after the writer is dead.

To be considered literature in the high-brow sense of the word, it must withstand the test of time.

Even Shakespeare (or Bacon, or whoever wrote them) was a popular writer of his day.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

StevenBelskie said:


> A book from Paterson, Crichton, or Brown is all story. It's like watching an overly pedantic description of a movie that someone saw.


There is a certain style of writing I call for lack of word or other term: the novelization of the movie in the author's head. I would like to say it's limited to "popular fiction" but Cormac McCarthy had a bad case of it in his last two novels. Most people would rank him as "literature."


----------



## Adele Ward (Jan 2, 2012)

Writers usually only withstand the test of time if they manage to get popular in their own times, like Dickens. If they aren't very popular in their own lifetime they're likely to disappear. He was incredibly popular. He's also one of the few non-contemporary writers I still enjoy reading. He captured what life was like and I think we like to see that, about the past or about our own times. I'm not sure they say which books are literary now, so I don't know if we're aware when we're reading what could be the literature that will keep being published long after the writer is dead. Sarah Waters is a literary fiction writer, in my opinion, but a book like _Affinity_ is just a really good read too. Sorry if I mentioned that I read as a publisher and author as well as a reader but it's so much part of my life and how I read. I'll stick to commenting as a reader without mentioning my work. It just seemed relevant because I work with literary fiction, and even so I find it hard to define. Part of it is that the writing is original, doesn't use cliche or expected plotlines with a necessarily positive ending, and there are parts of the writing that are thrilling because the actual language is just so good. This is very different to being pedantic or boring. It should give the reader a real thrill that will stay with them.


----------



## Adele Ward (Jan 2, 2012)

I suppose all genres can be classed as literary fiction. It just comes down to the standard of the writing and also how original it is. Kazuo Ishiguro has written sci-fi (Never Let Me Go), George Orwell has written dystopia/utopia (1984), and allegory/fantasy (Animal Farm). Quite a few examples of literary fiction are romance, and there's certainly comedy too. Martin Amis has written crime. And a while ago all the literary fiction writers seemed to be writing historical fiction.


----------



## bjscript (Oct 26, 2011)

How do you view this issue? Do you try to read a certain number of classics versus a certain number of newer books? Do you simply read what you enjoy and take that as the measurement of quality?>>>>

I define genre fiction as a roller coaster ride, while literature asks the question, why do people like roller coaster rides?

Bill


----------



## bjscript (Oct 26, 2011)

Still I find it hard to think that Steven King or J.K. Rowling will ever have the type of reverence from academia as Shakespeare or Joyce.>>>>

I found The Hunt for Red October to be an inch deep and a mile wide, and Joyce's The Dead to be an inch wide and a mile deep.

I don't think there's much subtext in genre novels, so there's not much to discuss or revere.

A friend audited a class on Joyce. One side of the book was Joyce, the other side was commentary.

I come across people who want to create the appearance of being an artist by writing sentences with no verbs or no nouns. One fellow showed me a story and I couldn't tell if the main character was a man or a dog (it was set in a dog park). Apparently in his brief stay in a critique group, they couldn't tell either, so he moved on.

I tell folks if they want to be an artist, they need to have something to say and to pay the price for being an artist.

Bill


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

bjscript said:


> I define genre fiction as a roller coaster ride, while literature asks the question, why do people like roller coaster rides?
> 
> Bill


LOL

Well this definition would make it easy for me! I'd much rather have the experience than have someone discuss their perspective on the experience.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

I am an unapologetic pop fiction fan.  Nothing about what is considered classic literature is appealing to me and I find most of it colossally boring.  That includes Jane Austen and Charles Dickens.  I like Shakespeare, but I often wonder why so many other writers are dismissive of pop fiction, like JK Rowling. I run into writers who seem to think you only do good work when you write something about 5 people read and maybe gets read in a high school English class about 300 years after the writer is dead.


----------



## Adele Ward (Jan 2, 2012)

Literary fiction doesn't mean the classics (although they are also literary fiction). I like literary fiction but I much prefer to read books by living authors. I like to read about what is happening now. The ones considered literary fiction witers are often popular and write page turners. Ian McEwan is one of the most popular living authors and yet he's literary too. Zadie Smith too, and others. I would actually argue that J K Rowling is literary fiction for children, and it's enjoyed by adults too, which means she will be one of the classics. She's one we can see will go down in history alongside the great children's writers of the past. I would also class Philip Pullman as literary fiction for children, also enjoyed by adults, although I don't personally enjoy his style. Really good comedy could also fit into that tradition of literary fiction, and some chick lit writers would fit that category. Just because a novel is popular doesn't mean it isn't literary. I think it's very hard to go down in history and be remembered unless you get popular in your lifetime. There may be some failures in an author's lifetime, but they do have to reach that level of popularity while alive.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

balaspa said:


> I am an unapologetic pop fiction fan. Nothing about what is considered classic literature is appealing to me and I find most of it colossally boring. That includes Jane Austen and Charles Dickens. I like Shakespeare, but I often wonder why so many other writers are dismissive of pop fiction, like JK Rowling. I run into writers who seem to think you only do good work when you write something about 5 people read and maybe gets read in a high school English class about 300 years after the writer is dead.


Nothing wrong with that. It all comes down to what you read for. Some people read purely to be entertained. Others read to appreciate the art of the language etc. Others read only non-fiction as they read to learn factual information. Others do a mix of these.

All that matters is doing what you enjoy!


----------



## AnitaBartholomew (Jun 27, 2011)

This reminds me of the old joke about the meaning of the word "expert." And the answer is, an expert is a guy from out of town, carrying slides. 

Literature is in the eye of the beholder. There are genre novels I'd label literary fiction (the novels of Scott Turow, Ursual Leguin, and Elmore Leonard come to mind), and there are novels that are marketed as literary fiction that strike me as shallow and pretentious (too many to list). 

From my perspective, I'd label a novel literature if well-rounded characters behave true to themselves and their personal motivations, rather than as actors responding to a plot point. 

A novel that's entertaining but forgettable, with characters whose personalities, decisions, and action offer little in the way of surprise, I'd call popular fiction. 

I enjoy both, by the way. 

Anita


----------



## Guest (Jan 5, 2012)

For me personally, the distinction is more a matter of how the book impacts me.  I read a lot of books that I enjoy, but would only read once because I've gotten all I can out of it.  Then there are books that I read over and over again throughout the years because each time I read it I discover something else or see something I didn't see before.  That, to me, is the real difference between popular fiction and literature.


----------



## Adele Ward (Jan 2, 2012)

That's true. The more times you read a novel that's literary fiction, the more you get out of it. I've re-read some books I read years ago and they seem like different books. This is partly because literary fiction lets the readers think for themselves, so the book can give extra meanings each time. I love a book that makes me stop now and again so I can drift off and think about the ideas.


----------



## Tom Schreck (Dec 12, 2010)

I think Count Basie once said something like: If it sounds good it is good." referring to music. I believe it is the same thing with writing. if you enjoy it then it is good.


----------



## SylviaLucas (Sep 14, 2011)

I've always been taught that literary fiction is just a genre. The word "literary" seems to polarize writers (and readers), as if that kind of writing is somehow "better" because it's "literary" and smokes a cob pipe, but it's just a different writing style.

As for the word "literature," or what's considered (by the people who decide what goes in the canon) literature, I think it's usually something that says something about a period, a people, a particular struggle, or the human condition. Something that's usually read through the decades and that readers, in one way or another, learn from. (This isn't to say people don't learn from popular fiction, but the things learned in popular fiction are different from the things learned in "litrah-chure.")


----------

