No Antagonist

I believe that Lost in Translation was an attempt at having no antagonist what so ever.

It also was the most boring film I've ever watched. Not because of the lack of antagonism, but because I don't find the protagonists' plights very sympathetic (more like "pathetic", really).

For example, isn't the beginning of Genesis a story? You know, before the humans come in.

'S more like the introduction to the creation story. I wouldn't call it a proper story before Adam and Eve show up.

Boring is subjective. I liked Lost In Translation. Also, there is a conflict; it's just not a "person versus person" conflict.

Of course it's subjective. In my case, it was the Eight Deadly Words, but that need not be universal.

George R. R. Martin and J. R. R. Tolkien are not literary fiction,*

Martin and Tolkien managed to get quite famous for A Song Of Ice And Fire and The Lord Of The Rings respectively, so if becoming famous is the criteria for literary fiction then Harry Potter is literary fiction.*

I know nothing of this Literary Fiction of which you speak, but smart-people stuff aside, you get quite a lot of slice-of-life anime and webcomics without a villain, or even a single, unified source of antagonism. I think the formula there is mostly to give every character one or more basic things they struggle with over a long period, like an unrequited crush, an addiction, a rivalry and so on. Then in each arc or episode pit the group as a whole against an unusual situation, showing how it affects the characters' relationships to each other and their personal bugbears, gradually developing those subplots to the point you can achieve some kind of resolution for each.

Though typically you'll be doing that anyway even in stories with an antagonist, the only difference being that there the challenging situations will mostly be deliberately instigated by an agent rather than just popping up in the course of things, and the story will culminate in the elimination of the agent, rather than just, you know, the credits and an overwhelming feeling of frustration and nostalgia. I suppose that's a major issue to focus on, how to wrap things up without leaving people feeling shortchanged. Perhaps at the end just focus on resolving one issue that epitomizes the core theme.

edited 13th Jun '12 3:46:20 PM by Kesteven

Closure, huh?

Why would one say those aren't literary fiction? There's more to them than "being famous", Mainstream Obscurity aside.

Literary fiction is basically a term that's applied to any given work by the so-called "literary establishment". It has nothing to do with the literary merits of any work. Nor (except inasmuch as it's intimately tied to the Sci Fi Ghetto) does it relate to genre - it's why I prefer the more neutral term "realistic fiction" for real-world non-genre fiction.

Martin and Tolkien have literary merit, but unless the term is conferred on them by the literati, their works are "literary fiction". The subject being discussed here - works with No Antagonist - is realistic fiction; whether it's considered literary or not is irrelevant.

Pretty much, yeah.

That's a bizarre notion if I've ever seen one. It's only literary if critics and scholars say it is, regardless of its literary merit? As in, how well it uses language, technique, "writecraft", and so on?

And realistic non-genre fiction can be non-literary as all hell. Plus, for "the literary establishment" to acknowledge the work, it needs to become famous (at least in those circles). "Literary" should be an attribute of the work itself, not an audience reaction.

*cough*

That's why he doesn't like the term.

Well, anyway, for the purposes of this thread, can you please humor me and call "literary fiction" = "fiction that has literary merit, regardless of any other consideration fame, genre, or subject matter, and it's graudal: the more merit it has, the more literary it is" and "realistic non-genre fiction" = "fiction that takes place in Real Life, the present day, doesn't focus on romance, military, police work, crime, politics, medicine, law, or any other thing that is exciting in and of itself or provide you with any form of escapism, but on the daily struggles of normal people".

...

Isn't "non-genre" horribly restrictive? How can you write a story and avoid it fitting into any genre at all (if not many at the same tiem)?

Perhaps what they mean by "non-genre" is "non-escapist". Fiction that doesn't let you dream your way out of the unpleasant banality of your daily joys and miseries, but plunges you straight into them and makes you look at them very hard? Perhaps even getting you to understand those struggles, and yourself, better? Is a didactic function desirable?

And this is the problem with calling fantasy "escapist" and realistic fiction "non-escapist" in the first place: It wildly misses the point of both.

Read this. Now. Do it.

edited 14th Jun '12 3:02:27 AM by JHM

... "Fantastika"? That writer is in desperate need of an editor. That article is wordy, confusing, and not sufficiently assertive. "Escapism assumes that..." probably meant "The use of the word "escapism" assumes that", but I'm not sure.

Let me see if I can summarize his point: "whether you use a work of fiction to escape the reality of your own condition is not a property of the work, but your own choice"? I think he's confusing "escapist" with "immersive". You immerse yourself in a work out of choice, but one work can be more conductive to immersion than another, as the examples of Fiction Identity Postulate prove: a work that is more immersive feels more "true", in a sense, by not drawing attention to the fact that it's all a bunch of lies dreamed up by some bloke. "Realism" is one of the paths towards making a work more conductive to immersion, but it isn't nearly as important as "good writing".

"Escapism", on the other hand, has some definite characteristics that make you want to immerse yourself. Such as the comfort of simple Black-and-White Morality, the existence of unbreakable loyalties, the certainty that Justice Will Prevail and that Right Makes Might, or the simple pleasure of experiencing immense individual might of your fictional surrogates. And don't get me started on romance stories and the conflicts the couples therein suffer, as opposed to the conflicts actual real-life couples go through... A reaffirming of your received cultural values when you have trouble maintaining them in the face of existential constraints... In that sense, even the Bible can be "escapist", even (romanced) historical accounts of other eras can be like that: the righteous, who are like you (wish you were), are glorified, and those who oppose them are vilified.

Look at me complaining about another's "confusing and wordy" work, an then going on to commit the same sins in the same breath!

Eh... no.

I'm very sorry, but I think that you have both completely missed the point of the article and missed the point of what I was trying to say by posting it.

To put it as concisely as possible: What the author is trying to say is that the fundamental notion of calling something "escapist" relies on faulty assumptions about literature and its intentions. A work is not "escapist" because it focuses on the fantastical, but rather it simply stretches the willing suspension of disbelief in inherent in good fiction just a certain degree further than realistic fiction in its immersion of the reader into its world... or, if it breaks that suspension, does so on a different level. We are willing to enter a different world not simply because we wish to leave this one—though that can be a motivator—but because we want to feel and experience different things.

The last line of your statement, at least, covers part of it, in that a great writer is essential to doing this properly, but otherwise, I think that I failed here, and that makes me sad.

Please rephrase that. I don't understand.

No, because that's not how the term is used.

And I think you may have misunderstood me to a certain degree - "genre fiction" does not mean "fiction with a genre". It's an older term for speculative fiction, along with several other specific genres like mystery novels. Realistic fiction does have genres, but it isn't genre fiction in the traditional sense.

THAT IS VERY CONFUSING

What does Wikipedia have to say on Genre Fiction?

Oh Lordy, the article on "Genre", this is getting more and more confusing.

As for the article on Literary Fiction

It's not helpful at all...

WHERE DOES THE CONSENSUS LIE?

I mean, Wikipedia is a shoddy source for stuff that ain't technical, but do you have any actual authority to back your claims?

Both fantasy and realistic fiction require a certain willing suspension of disbelief on the part of the real, in that they require you to extend very real emotions and logical considerations to the unreal. The difference is simply one of degree. Neither is about "escape" from this world, but about bringing another world into yours and so changing your state of mind.

It's not that we consider "genre fiction" not to be "literary," but that other people do. Hence, why we distinguish by subject rather than status.

Some fiction is beyond genre, but that does not make it realistic. Take any Harlan Ellison story.

edited 14th Jun '12 10:10:45 AM by JHM

Genre/commercial fiction and literary fiction, if I recall correctly, are both terms known in the industry. At the very least, authors know the implications. Not necessarily in the bookstores, but the two are considered distinct enough.

Genre fiction is usually stories that are mystery, romance, western, speculative, etc. Usually, they use the same conventions of their genre. For example, most mysteries have a sleuth, a criminal, a victim, etc. They rang from books sold next to the magazines to a lot of the books you often hear about.

Literary fiction is a little harder to define, but usually they don't follow the conventions of any one genre, therefore being more unusual than their "genre" counterparts. You don't need a professor to classify a book as one, but it's the kind of book you would expect would be examined and picked apart.

Oh, and there's mainstream (although this is often lumped into genre fiction and there's little functional difference besides the fact that it's unlikely that beach reads will be at this level). They don't exactly fit into the mold, but they're marketed more widely than literary. Basically, many of the books that are best-sellers. *

To use YA examples, since I'm familiar with the genre, The Book Thief (or a lot of Newbery books) would be literary, while dystopian/paranormal romances would be mainstream/genre/commerical. It runs a spectrum though.

edited 14th Jun '12 10:13:17 AM by chihuahua0

That's another problem I have with this terminology, or unnecessary pigeonholes in general: "Genre fiction" can be very uncommercial, and at times very literary. Compare Thomas Ligotti to (later) Dean Koontz, or Dhalgren to Star Wars.

edited 14th Jun '12 10:13:35 AM by JHM

What does that have to do with anything?