Circle Of Literary Thinkers Forum Shooting my mouth off.

OK Literary Thinkers.  I'm known for shooting my mouth off wherever I travel on the WC.  Why am I here?  Because a few people I respect signed up.

Why are you here?  Let's think literary, show us your mettle.  This is a place for discussion.  Let's discuss!

Fair enough, why not start us off?

Personally i thought a discussion of the difference between literary and popular in terms of fiction might be a good starting point. Is the difference solely that one sells well whereas the other wins prizes?

Literary vs popular.  That's seems a little like apples and oranges to me, but I'll bite.

Literary to me is more like serious fiction.  It is writing that provokes thought, that challenges its readers.  It can theoretically fit into most genres, but isn't necessarily of that genre.  Brave New World is science fiction, but it's a biting satire on political systems and morality.  You can read The Name of the Rose as a whoddunit or as historical fiction.  Literary fiction, as you call it, can be read on more than one level, usually as a "story" and as a commentary on society.

Popular fiction might also be known as genre fiction.  It's written to fit a particular template, like a romance, thriller, or mystery.  Often intended for escapism, it's designed primarily to make money.

Why apples and oranges?  I would rather wait until after reading a novel to label it, and many defy traditional labels.  Why was Dune so popular?  Yes, was groundbreaking in scope for science fiction/fantasy, but that isn't why it is, to me, so enduring.  It masterfully wound in political intrigue, power (temporal and religious), and mystery as well.  Some aspects of it are predictable and the further the series goes, the more predictable it becomes (or perhaps predictably unpredictable).  Characters change and go in and out of favour with the reader.  They make decisions that affect lives, and one doesn't always agree with them.  Is it literary or popular?  It sold millions, but it inhabited the gray area between popular fiction and literature.  (The movie missed all that, btw.)

The Davinci Code is another case, but I think it comes from the other direction.  It tries to put forward various arguments and intrigues within the Catholic church over the past 2000 years.  That "history," whether real or manufactured, is told in a popular fiction context.  In fact, I found the passages where Brown goes off explaining that "history" in detail were the most annoying sections of the book.  It's a page-turner disguised in fact.  I wanted to read the mystery and fantasy while Brown kept pounding in the factual elements.  It didn't help that I was aware of most of those "facts" already.  Whether they are truths are immaterial.  Dan Brown wrote that book to make money.  It played on the fears of Christians and the dark elements in the church.

Umberto Eco used the same types of issues to better effect in Foucault's Pendulum.  Again, he explores the dark elements within the periphery of the church.  He weaves in facts where relevant to the story, but doesn't harp on them like Brown.  Also, he makes no deductions or even conjectures about their implication.  Yes, there were and are secret societies surrounding the church, and Eco uses them as the milieu for his story rather than it's fundimental message.  It's written has historical fiction and is more difficult to read, but for me it's more satisfying, as I feel like Eco isn't preaching at me, thinly veiled within a story.  For Eco, the story is more important.  Again, I knew some of the history first, and that helped with my reading.

Literature wins prizes.  Yes, it should, but isn't being a NY Times bestseller a prize of sorts?  Even popular fiction makes it onto that list.  It depends on what prizes you are talking about.  Booker Prize?  Literature.  For me, literature is more carefully written and edited.  It is meant to last, not necessarily win prizes.  (Has anyone noticed the obscene number of typos in the Da Vinci Code?)  Popular fiction is made to aid digestion.  Read it - dump it.  That doesn't make it less important.  It gets people reading and eventually they will crave more.  That can only be good.

Have you ever read Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead ?   

It's a wonderful story that showed a lot of her beliefs of Objectivism and stuff like, a little crazy, if youi ask me, but a very thought provoking read nonetheless.

Im wondering what people here think of significance;
Do we really mean anything at all? What good will anything we do do to anything? Can anything so small possibly be classified as significance?

Sometimes when im writing, i wonder why im writing, why do i love to write, whats the point? I suppose its silly to ask myself these questions i already know, i just wish i could word them out.

It is all subjective and a matter of opinion.

Tolkien counts as popular but his works have such depth to them. The Literary snobs just wish to raise their difficult little pieces above the popular sellers. Those who read the popular sellers do not really care about literary books; seeing them as aloof and inaccessible.

Some may see it being based on thematics; but fantasy books often take a more challenging look at big themes than so called 'normal fiction'.

To be honest, getting on the best sellers list is a big achievement and one that should carry more weight than say the Man Booker Prize.

Overally my opinion in this short and probably incoherent reply is that the definitions and prejudices are based on ignorance.

Those who read literary books refuse to see the value of popular stories and the populists refuse to believe so called literary books are accessible without a Phd in English literature.

 

I'm not sure what you are saying Wulfstan, i.e. whether you are agreeing or disagreeing.

I think, in a way, we are agreeing, as literary can also be popular.  I don't think you need a PhD in literature to read "literature."  I certainly don't have one, and I would prefer to read a Man-Booker finalist than a Times bestseller any day.  I find a lot of genre fiction (i.e. popular fiction) vacuous, and I've never been one to read Harlequins or even crime/mysteries.  I'd rather sit down with a good Allende, Kundera, or Ishiguro.  But that's just my taste..

I, too, lack a PhD in Literature, but I must say that 9 out of 10 Booker finalists are excellent reads, and I wouldn't go that far with any best-seller list.  My reading is split roughly 40/60 between Fantasy/Sci-Fi and "literature."  Truthfully, I'd take a good piece of literature on most days, but then I've read Paradise Lost and the Divine Comedy for fun.  Like Anne, I prefer to be challenged by what I read, to have thoughts provoked, and to read slowly and carefully.  That rarely happens for me outside of "literature."  I read the DaVinci Code in 3 nights, and I won't need to re-read it.  Salman Rushdie's Fury took me two months and it is less than a quarter the length, but finishing it was much more satisfying, especially when the plot started unravelling.