The other difference between literary fiction and genre is, speaking broadly, lit fic gets you tenure, genre gets you readers.
Literary Writing?
- Thread starter eforest
- Start date
- Status
Maybe.
But maybe Dick & Bradbury were just always better writers and that's why they didn't need to strive for transparency? A lot of Asimov's writing is best transparent because it clunks. (I say this having read all his novels, even Forward the Foundation)
Uh, I think he said this, or something like it, himself
I remember a line like it in one of his author notes (yes, I even read those).
Also... what Maestro and UJ said. All of it.
This is a great thread. I've often wondered what is considered "Literary Fiction" myself.
Thanks to the OP for starting it!
Thanks to the OP for starting it!
Yep, definitely goes both ways. What I can't tell is how much of it transcends mere fashion. Some of the classics may only classics because we're repeatedly told they are.
The comments here have been very helpful and interesting.
A good story is a good story wherever THEY place it. Just from reading the excerpt from the Virgin Suicides tells me, I don’t think literary fiction is for me. Though, I have read what others considered the Classics (or at least some, The Monk is one of my favorites though first considered drivel when published at the time. -Yes, it’s melodramatic but it definitely has a biting sense of humor.)
My biggest pet peeve, are characters that contemplates too long before engaging in the action. If they thinking about consequences for more than three pages. I'm done.
Even in suspense fiction- if the hero debates about crossing the street, and wavers about the potential dangers. It's only a matter of time, when you might hear a women scream, (unless in NY,) "Just cross the street, you idiot!"
Ah-the love of words and thier meanings...
A good story is a good story wherever THEY place it. Just from reading the excerpt from the Virgin Suicides tells me, I don’t think literary fiction is for me. Though, I have read what others considered the Classics (or at least some, The Monk is one of my favorites though first considered drivel when published at the time. -Yes, it’s melodramatic but it definitely has a biting sense of humor.)
My biggest pet peeve, are characters that contemplates too long before engaging in the action. If they thinking about consequences for more than three pages. I'm done.
Even in suspense fiction- if the hero debates about crossing the street, and wavers about the potential dangers. It's only a matter of time, when you might hear a women scream, (unless in NY,) "Just cross the street, you idiot!"
Ah-the love of words and thier meanings...
I suppose you are of the school that finds Prince Hamlet a useless annoyance, then?
(For note: I adore him.)
Thank you, Yes!
Wouldn’t you, after what he did to Ophelia? And I don't care if he was just trying to warn her though maintaining the presence of insanity. IMO- it was still a passive aggressive way to inflict or personify the means to damage his mother and stepfather. Why couldn’t he just drum up his own army and annihilate his family like every other noble prince at the time. God, did he even read the Old Testament? Absalom could have given him a few pointers. (Though I'd cut my hair first.)
Wouldn’t you, after what he did to Ophelia? And I don't care if he was just trying to warn her though maintaining the presence of insanity. IMO- it was still a passive aggressive way to inflict or personify the means to damage his mother and stepfather. Why couldn’t he just drum up his own army and annihilate his family like every other noble prince at the time. God, did he even read the Old Testament? Absalom could have given him a few pointers. (Though I'd cut my hair first.)
- Status