Literary Fiction.
- Thread starter Nostra
- Start date
- Status
a food reference
genre-twinkies, chocolate, fast food, mass produced stuff that is oh so good to eat
literary -collard greens, stuff that is supposedly good for you but hard to swallow.
genre-twinkies, chocolate, fast food, mass produced stuff that is oh so good to eat
literary -collard greens, stuff that is supposedly good for you but hard to swallow.
Um, what does QTF stand for?
This has been an informative (and amusing post).
Could someone post books that they feel are good examples of literary fiction?
This has been an informative (and amusing post).
Could someone post books that they feel are good examples of literary fiction?
I'd change your literary assimilation to Beauf Bourginon or capon served with a delicate white wine sauce.
ETA: QFT=quoted for truth
Lit fic=The Hours (author's name escapes me)
For short lit.fic, go here, then to page 8 "The Inciter." I'm a male narrator in the story.
.
Last edited:
I've heard Toni Morrison is, and people find her harder to read. I don't know that I do. I'm not usually up on which genre I'm reading half the time. I just read the blurb
Read Beloved, btw. It's awesome.
ETA: I love the food analogy. I'm the same with food as reading, actually. Yes, I can tell if the cheese cost a week's paycheck and I like that kind, and yes, I love me some BBQ, too
Read Beloved, btw. It's awesome.
ETA: I love the food analogy. I'm the same with food as reading, actually. Yes, I can tell if the cheese cost a week's paycheck and I like that kind, and yes, I love me some BBQ, too
QFT quoted for truth
I'd say
genre - books read outside classroom (Harry Potter, Twilight, John Grisham, etc)
literary - books read inside classroom (James Joyce, Will Faulkner, Margaret Atwood, etc)
I would say literary fiction is like in-season strawberries: refreshing, sweet and the ultimate luxury.
Sheesh, people.
Genre - what you write about.
Literary - how you write it.
Please, please, please, stop this wanky notion that literary books are obscure, pompous and hard to read. I'd take Kazuo Ishiguro over Stephenie Fucking Meyer any day. Because I like to be obscure and show off? No. Because I don't like books to insult my intelligence.
Genre - what you write about.
Literary - how you write it.
Please, please, please, stop this wanky notion that literary books are obscure, pompous and hard to read. I'd take Kazuo Ishiguro over Stephenie Fucking Meyer any day. Because I like to be obscure and show off? No. Because I don't like books to insult my intelligence.
QFT quoted for truth
I'd say
genre - books read outside classroom (Harry Potter, Twilight, John Grisham, etc)
literary - books read inside classroom (James Joyce, Will Faulkner, Margaret Atwood, etc)
That's one hell of a generalisation.
Some of us like reading literary fiction inside and outside of the classroom!
Michael Cunningham. Loved The Hours.
To take the food analogy further:
Genre = Rolos
Literary = Fran's smoked salt caramels
Each has its place, and both are enjoyable, but you can be more in the mood for one or the other.
ETA: and the smoked salt caramels are less likely to please everyone.
Last edited:
Well, I really did have to read some sentences a few times to get them. If you aren't used to ever having to do that, it might throw you. I never thought it was bad to have to do that, so I don't mind it a bit.
I hope I wouldn't have to do that with Twilight!
I WANT to have to read something a few times to get it (not on every page, I grant you, but once or twice a book? Cool) - then I know I'm being challenged.
With the dreaded sparkly book o' doom? I had to read it twice to convince myself it really had been published.
With the dreaded sparkly book o' doom? I had to read it twice to convince myself it really had been published.
I get to this stage of the semester, if I don't read a good crime novel soon, all this tragic theatre/African literature is going to cause something to blow.
jk lol, why do posters here take every post so seriously? chillax. of course literary books can be appealing/fun to read (i think brontes/austen is a good example of literary crossover) just as some genre fiction can be more laborious to read than anthony burgess.
This happens anytime, any place a bunch of artists and creators are crammed in a space together. Ask one innocent little question about their particular craft and there'll be blood drawn before long.
Last edited:
Well, literary is considered a genre from a publishing/marketing POV.
For myself, literary tends to be more about the use of language than tight plot. There is bad literary fiction and there is bad genre fiction. But both can be wonderful and enlightening (and entertaining) as well.
For myself, literary tends to be more about the use of language than tight plot. There is bad literary fiction and there is bad genre fiction. But both can be wonderful and enlightening (and entertaining) as well.
I've always shied from the idea of genrizing my work in such a tight-knit little marketing device. Does everything have to fit in a fucking box? And if it does, let the box-makers figure it out (if possible).
I continue to REFUSE to divorce language from story. They're both components of the same thing. What you're saying is on par with how you say it; they work together. To me, all the reader has is your words, so yeah, all that sentence-level stuff has an effect, as does the use of plot archs and all that. Otherwise you'd just inject an image into their brains with a needle, and there'd be no use for language.
And also, I get the strongest sense of deja vu....or is it John Malkovichism?
I continue to REFUSE to divorce language from story. They're both components of the same thing. What you're saying is on par with how you say it; they work together. To me, all the reader has is your words, so yeah, all that sentence-level stuff has an effect, as does the use of plot archs and all that. Otherwise you'd just inject an image into their brains with a needle, and there'd be no use for language.
And also, I get the strongest sense of deja vu....or is it John Malkovichism?
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 124
- Reaction score
- 9
Indeed. Literary is an genre.
The Handmaiden's Tale is science fiction, but it's not in the sci-fi/fantasy section of the bookstore because it's considered literary fiction. The Time Traveler's Wife and Slaughterhouse 5 are also examples of this phenomenon.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,652
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
I read Toni Morrison when I was in high school and English is my second language. No problem at all.
There are tons of literary writer that not only write great prose, but also great stories: Michael Chabon, for example. They win awards as well as selling tons of books.
Literary fiction does put the focus on other than the plot itself. It explores themes, ideas, structure, language, etc. and usually are very character-driven. But that doesn't mean there's no plot or the plot is weak. Just that getting from point A to point B is not the main focus.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,652
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
Not sure if I agree. When was The Handmaiden's Tale or Time Traveler's Wife categorized as literary fiction? I think if anything, they are mainstream, if not science fiction (or romance, in terms of TTTW). Just because they're shelved in the "Literature" section doesn't make them literary fiction. "Literature" and "literary fiction" are two different things.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 1,728
- Reaction score
- 275
- Location
- CLE / Wonderland
- Website
- www.lydiasharp.blogspot.com
- Status