on literary fiction ussusimiel wrote:
Unlike luci, I wouldn't see it as completely lacking in conventions. Very often 'literary fiction' is based in the 'real' world, it often focuses on the psychological dramas of a small number of individuals, it is often 'contemporary'. Sometimes it is in response to recent historical events, 9/11 gave rise to quite a few 'literary fiction' novels. It can follow trends. For example, there seems to have been a rise in the number of 'literary' novels being written from the perspective of children in recent times.
well to be perfectly honest, that statement you're referring to was total sarcasm, i think i said something like "what are it's conventions? that it HAS no conventions?" my point was that "literary fiction" is a redundancy.
fiction is literature and therefore literary, in the strictest sense of the word.
there absolutely are trends in fiction writing. some one writes a book about a school bus crash in north american town somewhere (russell banks, the sweet hereafter) which becomes a critical and popular success and suddenly there are a spate of such novels. they pop right outa the woodword for a variety of reasons, a writer reads russell's book and thinks to himself, oh i can write about small town tragedy! or pft. russell can't write that well, i think i can tell that story better, lemme change a few things around and rewrite that! or whatever.
you get the idea. trends in literature happen. things that people write about (or make any kind of art about, for that matter) happen. they evolve and change, and come in and out of fashion.
but that's what they are, trends.
this decade we're calling a certain type of novel "literary fiction" because we need labels to market them (which i conceded to in one of my rants), but really they are just trends which correlate to the tenor of the times.
and speaking of which, if you want to read a REAL rant, check out
mark helprin's short essay on The Literary Tenor of the Times!!
the guy's a much more eloquent writer than myself but BOY can the dude rant! heh. (i came across this little piece when googling the phrase "the tenor of the times" to make sure i was using it in the right context)
ussusimiel wrote:
The idea of the 'literary fiction' genre is useful because it allows me to avoid a lot of pointless fiction about middle-class anxieties (I'm middle-class just not anxious about it
)
wait...there's still a middle class???
where do you live??
(
just kidding)
see, really you're using this redundant moniker to avoid a certain section of the bookstore. labels. like i said, we sort of need em, much to my chagrin.
i'm not fond of labeling mostly because it's been my experience that labels are highly susceptible to abuse. (such as the marginalization of certain kinds of stories or art, or even PEOPLE, discriminations which narrow peoples choices and sometimes dictate what is acceptable or unacceptable in society)
that being said, i DO
love organization, grouping, categorizing, classification, taxonomy, etc. i like an organized world because i constantly feel disorganized. i like tidy because i am easily lost in clutter and i hate being lost. psychologically speaking, it's a dilemma for me because tho i recognize the need for organization or labels i fear the abuse of them and feel compelled to point out those abuses loudly so as not to fall victim to them myself.
so i do concede that labels are, as you said, useful.
just be careful which labels you buy into. (which was really my whole point in railing on about "literary fiction"! lol)
i know i'm over-explaining but welcome to luci world!
ussusimiel wrote: (As an aside, I personally think that all novels (and maybe all stories) are essentially detective stories. For tension to exist there must be a mystery, the purpose of a story is to reveal the answer to that mystery
)
now THIS is a whole 'nuther topic! a detective with a gun is pretty much just a gunslinger in a western! think about it. and what is a gunslinger? why he's a hero. westerns = hero journeys (see joseph campbell for more interesting thoughts on this subject!
)
and yeah i seriously love vladimir propp (speaking of organizing) and northrup frye!
i'm a walking contradicion, aren't i?
ussusimiel wrote:
Addressing a related issue, I have never fully bought into the post-modern idea of there being no distinction between 'high' and 'low' art forms.
i did. and do. heh.
ussusimiel wrote: Maybe it's just my personality but I am always inclined to attempt to categorise and judge art and literature, dividing it into 'high' and 'low', 'good' and 'bad' and so on.
because of the wide variety of fiction that i read i simply cannot do this. i can't think this way. yes i do consider that there are things that don't appeal to me or that i think aren't done in the ways i would like to see them done but i don't feel qualified and don't think really
anyone is qualified to say any kind of art is "good" or "bad" (tho i have been known to rant extensively on what i consider to be REALLY bad music!! again, luci the walking contradiction! i
do try to be aware that i am, essentially, full of sh*t!
)
ussusimiel wrote:
Over the years I have come to accept that, for me, there is a division between what is 'high quality' literature and what isn't. The example that I use is Stephen King. IMO, King does not produce 'high quality' literature (and I've read 30+ of his books) and there is a very simple reason for this: he is not in control of the form. Writing controls him, not vice versa. He says as much in, I think, 'On Writing' and 'Misery' is a fictional rendering of this.
i'm just not gonna go there on King. i understand your position (as i said last night) but i definitely do not agree. this is a gut thing for me. don't ask me for intellectual substantiation of my gut. i can't do it. i hope you don't think that's a cop out but i'm just not interested in, nor do i have the academic background to try and sway your opinion to mine, which is that stephen king writes very high quality hero journey stories. (not that he hasn't written some duds, he definitely has, and i've been pretty vocal about those too. all writers write duds, it's just that king's get published! lol!!)
king is not alway in control of HIS form and that's for sure. the published duds prove it. but what do you mean by "control of the form"? do you mean he makes blunders in his plot structures or something of that nature?
before i make any statements about that, i'd need to know what you mean.
examples if you can, please.
ussusimiel wrote: There is artistry in storytelling but it is not overly concerned with the form. And in the end, IMO, art is ultimately concerned with form. When form and content are in harmony then you get great art.
tell that to jackson pollack please!
the reason i bolded your IMO is because that is what it is, your opinion.
i just don't agree with you yet. i'm not categorically DISagreeing either.
i just don't know. am not sure that IS "knowable".
your opinion helps you to navigate through your preferences but your preferences are not necessarily mine nor can i allow your opinions to
dictate what i read or enjoy.
i can take them into consideration, maybe try to see things from your
perspective, and possibly come round to your way of thinking but i still
don't believe that you
absolutely know what is "good art" or "bad art".
(using "you" as the general other, not you personally) it's just too subjective.
your criteria is not necessarily my criteria and mine is not yours.
(even if in my rants i make you FEEL like you should be thinking like me!
)
i have always had trouble with absolutes. i realize some people need them.
as an example of that, i once worked with a fella who was a devout christian, and had been in the navy for a number of years prior to his "born again" experience. it slowly dawned on me, after working with him for many years and hearing some of his life history, that he was the kind of person who
needed absolutes, needed rule books and manuals to dictate parameters to him. it's the only way he could sanely negotiate the world.
(i never really saw him have any genuine joy in his faith, just a strict adherence to the rules of it, like in the military)
i've never done very well with rules myself, especially around creativity.
like i said, i like organization but i don't mind if things get a little messy.
messy doesn't mean bad to me.
labels are helpful but not absolute.
and in closing i'll support the idea of labels to some degree by quoting frank zappa...
“The most important thing in art is the frame. For painting: literally; for other arts: figuratively - because, without this humble appliance, you can't know where The Art stops and The Real World begins. You have to put a "box" around it because otherwise, what is that shit on the wall?”
so go ahead and use the labels (as a frame) but i may not use the same ones you do and i may have ranting hissy fits when you don't use MINE!!
ussusimiel wrote:
have my asbestos umbrella at the ready
u.
i hope you didn't need it!
)
)
