A Fresh Journey to the Tower

[lucimay]

I would argue that Chandler is pulp. Good pulp, but pulp nonetheless.

i find it interesting also that you use the term "pulp" to indicate something less than good craft.

but maybe we should argue this elsewhere. i've hijacked menolly's thread.

[wayfriend]

They thought Tolkien was junk when it came on the scene ... fifty years later, the same work was voted Book of the Century.

You can't draw a line and say, that's literature, but that's Literature. There's only good-in-your-opinion.

The Power that Preserves affected me more deeply than anything Hemmingway or Tolstoi or Dickens ever wrote. I don't care if there's only maybe a thousand people on the planet that think it's Literature.

[Cail]

It's not a distinction between good and bad writing. Given the sheer number of books people like Grafton, Cussler, and Koontz sell, I think it's foolish to call their writing bad. Formulaic maybe, but not bad.

Literature (to me, at least) implies that there's a greater.......something to it. Hard to quantify, I know, but there's more of an....art, a beauty, a significance

Without getting in any deeper, I still think that Tolkein is junk, it just happened to (right or wrong) define a genre.

And I agree 100% Wayfriend, TPtP and TWL affected me far more than anything those other authors wrote, but that doesn't make either of those books good, nor does it make them literature (though I'd argue that the first two Chrons qualify...barely).

[A Gunslinger]

To me, literature is a novella/novel/story that transcends it genre to make a statement on the human condition, or a facet thereto.

Covennat does do that in the sense that many characters question the nature of reality, the power of love and corruption, and there was a lot of religion and philospohy invovled as well.

Many scifi authors fail to breach the barrier between nvel and literature.

[lucimay]

well...

you all can continue to say that literature, as a word, defines a difference between one piece of fiction and another, but...fellas, that don't make it so.

my advice, just don't get into an argument with anyone who knows something about literary criticism. most of them are not as SWEET about it as me!!

[A Gunslinger]

my advice, just don't get into an argument with anyone who knows something about literary criticism. most of them are not as SWEET about it as me!!

I do not dount it. I merely opine and hope not to be killed.

[wayfriend]

Literature (to me, at least) implies that there's a greater.......something to it. Hard to quantify, I know, but there's more of an....art, a beauty, a significance

I agree; but that something is objective and based on personal experience, taste, and preferences, is it not? Or do you think that there's an objective standard that's irrespective of anyones' opinion?

[Cail]

you all can continue to say that literature, as a word, defines a difference between one piece of fiction and another, but...fellas, that don't make it so.

Nor does simply being contrary to us.

I agree; but that something is objective and based on personal experience, taste, and preferences, is it not? Or do you think that there's an objective standard that's irrespective of anyones' opinion?

I'm assuming you meant subjective.

I don't think it is. Take The Davinci Code (please!). One could argue that it isn't a bad book because it sold well, a movie was made from it, and it sparked a fair amount of debate.

But I don't think anyone (other than Luci) would debate whether or not it's literature. Like Guns said, it offers no insight into the human condition or spirit, nor is it beautifully written (which I'll admit is subjective), nor is it an ageless tale. No one's ever gonna confuse it with Beowulf.

The question of subjectivity is valid up to a point. All criticism of all media and all definitions of same are 100% subjective. We could go as far as to say, "If an author writes a book and no one critiques it, does it actually exist?".

I think you're confusing how I'm defining literature. I'm not stating that literature=good and pulp=bad. Far from it. I'd rather read Cussler than Dickens any day of the week.

[lucimay]

i wasn't trying to be contrary. i was allowing that you are free to think what you want and was giving up attempting to argue with you. if i you don't agree with me at this point, no use for me to continue arguing. not a dealbreaker for me.


i will add that there are others who agree with my position on this arguement, they just aren't here to back me. *shrug* wouldn't be the first time i held the odd or unpopular opinion and won't be the last.

you and others are using the term "literature" in a different way than i am. that's a choice you're making. i was merely giving you a different way of looking at it. if you choose not to...not a problem for me. i started the discussion to rank Avatar for fun. thats the long and short of it. like i said...not a dealbreaker for me what you choose to think about it.

[Cail]

Ummmm.......

Whatever.....

?

[Avatar]

What? If we all stopped arguing when it became obvious that people wouldn't agree with us, we might as well not be here.

We should get Khaliban in here...he's a demon for literary argument.

I largely agree with Cail...

That doesn't make Luci wrong though. Technically everything written is literature. Even tech manuals and stuff.

But it's not common usage. 10 to 1 if you ask somebody to name some literature, they'll mention the classics. Dickens, Tolstoy, Kafka, stuff like that. Heavy reading. That's what I mean when I say literature. There's heavy reading in all genre's, but as we've already discovered, literature isn't a descriptive term.

If somebody asks what you're reading, do you tell them literature? Or fantasy?

--A

[Menolly]

If somebody asks what you're reading, do you tell them literature? Or fantasy?

I usually tell them the title and author...

[Avatar]

Haha, most people who ask would find the title and author meaningless.

--A

[Menolly]

Haha, most people who ask would find the title and author meaningless.

:::nodding:::

True 'nuff...

But, you have a point. If they enquire further, then I will say the genre. And I never call what I typically read literature.

[Avatar]

See, I expand with the title after clarifying the genre.

--A

[Cail]

Absolutely.

And I generally try to obfuscate the genre if it's a fantasy book.

"Well, it's a wonderfully written parable of the human condition; love, loss, sacrifice, and redemption".

[Avatar]

I've given up on that. *sigh* But yeah, people tend to turn off if you mention sci-fi or fantasy to them. Their loss.

--A

[A Gunslinger]

Well-said Av.

[lucimay]

well you've all proven, once again, what a freak i am. congratulations!

i'm of the opinion you're all genre disloyal.


just because something is common usage, does that mean it's correct usage?

[Cail]

Not necessarily, but in this case I believe it is correct.