I don't want to make this a personal thing but here are a few quotes displaying the attitude I mean:
Okay, two of them are from the same person. They're pretty much saying that genre fiction is inferior. Now it's perfectly fine if they don't enjoy spec. fic as much as other types of fiction, but it's the fact that they expect everyone to feel the same way about it's inferiority that I can't agree with. And granted there are people who dismiss "classics" as well, but I don't think anyone claimed that they're objectively inferior.
edited 4th Jul '11 4:13:37 PM by brc2000
Not really.
- I don't think you would disagree that pulpy ("fun") stuff is easier and faster to read than A Dead Greek's Ode To What Is Now A Pile Of Dirt #417, or that you get the same thing out of both of them.
- Contrast Star Wars and Eragon. Many similar devices, but which one has more merit? This is a statement of objective quality, but isn't limited to classics.
- "I like" is not how people start assertions of objective quality.
- This is a statement about genre divisions by demographic. It has nothing to do with quality, unless you assume that academics etc. are superior to fans etc. in the first place.
edited 4th Jul '11 4:32:23 PM by Tzetze
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.Taken in context, it's implied. They're not outright stating it, but it's pretty much the message. Yes, some of it is personal opion, but it's stated in a way that's matter-of-factly.
Also, Star Wars is a lot more "fun" than Eragon, but I think most of us agree the former is better and more "satisfying".
"People of similar disposition" pretty much means "intelligent people" here.
edited 4th Jul '11 4:51:14 PM by brc2000
You really read a lot into what people say. Have you considered a career in literary criticism?
That was unnecessarily mean, and this isn't on-topic. Sorry.
edited 4th Jul '11 4:58:35 PM by Tzetze
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.Heehee.
Reading for entertainment isn't bad. It's just that people are ignoring the other reasons to do it, such as learning something, expanding your world view, etc.
One of the best things about the written word is that it isn't meant to be passive. The best is enjoyed most with analysis and examination and thinking and applying it to yourself (which should be popular, easily, on a site about analyzing fiction). If you pick up solely entertaining stuff, doing all that to it is silly.
I just have to wonder if the people who defend the pulp and say it's on the same level as the acclaimed literature read anything but the pulp. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm confused here.
I haven't seen any one say that pulps are "on the same level as the acclaimed literature" What's been said is basically that disregarding pulps because they aren't "acclaimed literature is just as narrow-minded as discarding "acclaimed literature" because it's old.
Different genres and types of writing serve different purposes. The question to ask isn't isn't "Is this type and purpose "better" than that one?" it's "Is this a well-written book of its type? Does it fulfill its purpose?"
![]()
![]()
Nah. I am probably reading into it a bit too much, but I still think I have some basis for it.
![]()
I guess some people learn things from fiction that deeply affect their lives, and that's fine. It's not what I look for in fiction though.That's what I read historical, biographical, and philosophical works for. I can respect that some people like analyzing and finding meaning within their fiction, but not everyone has the time or desire to. I read books based on the plot, and if there's some deep message to it, that's cool and can improve the experience, but that's not what I read fiction for. I read novels in the same way I watch a film or read a comic, and I honestly couldn't care less if I'm "missing out" or whatever for it, because I'm pretty satisfied with what I get out of literature (which is my favorite medium). If it's just about "learning things", there's stuff that can be learned from genre fiction as well.
To answer your question, it's not that I'm saying that pulps are necessarily as "deep", from a technical standpoint, but I can't agree that it can't be enjoyed as much as mainstream literature. I personally gain more pleasure from reading about a warrior slashing through demons, or a vigilante hunting mobsters, than reading about a disabled woman struggling to cope with the pressures of society or whatever, and I have absolutely no qualms in claiming that the first few Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser books are a more enjoyable read than say, Emma.
edited 4th Jul '11 5:41:24 PM by brc2000
"Purposes" might have been a better term than "merits". What purposes do books of shallow entertainment serve that a great book using the same form (soldiers trying to survive a war, a medieval quest with magic, a realistic romance, etc.) doesn't serve better? The big example I could think of was potboilers: brisk, shallow and fun reading that can be picked up and put down on a moment's notice during lulls in work without missing any nuance.
edited 4th Jul '11 5:45:14 PM by Rottweiler
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard![]()
Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser books are award-winning classics of the genre. Robert E Howard was one of the fathers of genre fiction. Both have stood the test of time and are massively influential. I would be seriously surprised if those were the kind of books Rott was talking about when he started this topic. I think you're getting indignant for no reason.
edited 4th Jul '11 5:46:26 PM by MrShine
There's absolutely nothing wrong with reading for fun, just like there's nothing wrong with eating desserts and snacks. That's probably not the best example because even if your reading is mostly composed of reading for sheer entertainment, nothing's wrong.
But I think it's in the attitudes people have about their reading. If you want to write something greater than a mindless book, and all you read are mindless books, I'm going to tell you your book will be awful. If you're going to proclaim yourself a reader with an air of smugness and all you read are Star Wars books and Warhammer books, I'm going to call you out. And if you're going to talk about "classics" in a disparaging way, when the only ones you've read were assigned reading, I'm not going to take you seriously.
Another way to think about classics, aside from my sphere of influence definition, are books that fill you up with these great ideas. As a writer, my writing suffers when I'm only reading mindless books. If I'm reading a meatier book, though, my writing starts to impress me. I notice myself improving, because I've absorbed things subconsciously from the author's style. It doesn't have to be writing, either: maybe it's the way you think about people. You read a Victorian novel and realize that your views on femininity were simplistic and slightly sexist, maybe. Or you read Hemingway and war becomes a little bit more real and meaningful to you. Classics teach us compassion, they make us realize our immaturities and correct them, and they alter our ways of viewing the world. It doesn't have to be old or even exalted - I'm not a Tolkien fan myself, but maybe your view on loyalty becomes more complex, or you question your own susceptibility to temptation. It's all of these things that make classics worth reading, even if you are reading a bunch of books that don't do this - that give you instant pleasure and entertainment. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but there's just a world of so much more available.
![]()
![]()
That is their purpose. Quick, fun, entertainment. I don't see what's wrong with that. It's the same reason people watch silly Youtube videos or 80s cartoons, or play arcade games. No one is expecting anything more than entertainment. You can't fairly deem a book as "mindless" before you read it, anyway.
![]()
Not addressing Rott though. The fact that he mentioned that LOTR and a Lovecraft story aren't "mindless" is good enough for me.
I think one of the problems (for me personally, of course) is that I rarely ever get much "viewpoint changing" out of fiction ("classic" or otherwise) that I can't get elsewhere (and from more "real" sources). Sure it can be interesting, but it's rarely ever relevant to my life.
edited 4th Jul '11 6:15:12 PM by brc2000
That. That right there. What you just said. Not everyone wants to have dedicate largish chunks of time to reading every time they read. If I'm sitting in the doctor's office waiting to be called for my appointment, I don't want something that I have to concentrate on, and that I can't close and put away on a moment's notice. I want something that I can pick up and put down without missing any nuance.
To the criticism that people who appreciate classics disapprove of all genre literature, an illustration of the distinction I'm actually making:
The Lord Of The Rings: a classic about virtue and temptation, whose message is that humility is the only virtue that can destroy evil and even the humblest hero doesn't have enough of it to give up the ring of power at the moment of truth.
Standard Fantasy Epic: a Chosen One goes on a quest assembling a force of Badasses who try to hoard Plot Coupons necessary to overpower the Evil Overlord.
It's not genre that makes the difference; it's ideas.
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. BernardI found what looked like a good essay on "fantasy classic" vs. "fantasy bullshit", called "The Emperor of Everything", by Spinrad, but I can't find a full copy online. Sadface.
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.As I understand it, what Rott is saying is not denigrating "mindless" books entirely, but questioning why one would frequently choose it over something comparable in form. That is, he sees it as some mindless books having a good quality X, while a similar book which is disregarded has X + Y, both of which are desirable.
As Maddy says, sometimes one simply wants to read something easy to pick up and put down, without reflecting on great themes. Recently, I was on a downer after reading The Trial, so I cheered myself up by binging on Wodehouse stories. Yes, they're silly, but I wanted to have some laughs over Bertie getting into terrible situations which only Jeeves can extricate him from, and the lovely incongruities in language that Wodehouse is a master of summoning.
That doesn't answer why one would frequently choose mindless over mindful, though. One of the most irritating thing about literary elitism is that it goes both ways. There are academics who refuse to see the merit in mainstream or genre fiction, while the classics are shrouded in some kind of untouchable mist. So many people see them as dense, opaque, obscure or of interest only to people immersed in the world of literature†, a view which I find most curious - all the literary people I've met have been keen to spread their love of literature around. "I won't read this because it's a classic and people only read them to look smart" seems to me just as unhealthy an attitude as "I won't read this because it's genre and people only read them for mindless entertainment".
†I use this unironically, for we poor souls who believe that what one reads is an important part of who we are, and who require a crowbar to tear themselves from a bookshelf.
"Doctor Who means never having to say you're kidding." - BocajThen I'm allowed to ask how much "pulp" you're actually familiar with, right? Complaining About Shows You Don't Watch goes both ways.
To answer your question, it's not that I'm saying that pulps are necessarily as "deep", from a technical standpoint, but I can't agree that it can't be enjoyed as much as mainstream literature. I personally gain more pleasure from reading about a warrior slashing through demons, or a vigilante hunting mobsters, than reading about a disabled woman struggling to cope with the pressures of society or whatever, and I have absolutely no qualms in claiming that the first few Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser books are a more enjoyable read than say, Emma.
Very much this. And even if I want something that messes with my emotions or my head, I have plenty of good "genre" books that can satisfy me just as well. Like The Last Dragon Chronicles, which my reading buddies and I have analyzed to hell and back regarding its metaphysical madness, its viewpoints on humanity and their attitudes towards change and their environment, and even the relationship-related qualms it puts forth (like what, exactly, is qualified as adultery, double standards related to it, and the possibilty of being romantically in love with two people at the same time). Or Brave Story, which is one of the most messed-up stories I've ever read that didn't try to beat me over the head with its messed-up-ness. Yes, how about that mentally imbalanced mother who tries to assassinate her young son out of spite for her husband running off with his original college sweetheart, the corruption of innoncence, or the internalized racism of young children!
And I think we're committing some fallacies here by assuming that books are the only medium that can be "learned from." But I've been "forced to consider" things from movies, TV, and even music as well. Why should books have a monopoly on knowledge, and why should the onus be on them and only them to be "intelligent?"
"Proto-Indo-European makes the damnedest words related. It's great. It's the Kevin Bacon of etymology." ~Madrugada[quoteblock]And I think we're committing some fallacies here by assuming that books are the only medium that can be "learned from." But I've been "forced to consider" things from movies, TV, and even music as well. Why should books have a monopoly on knowledge, and why should the onus be on them and only them to be "intelligent?"[/quoteblock]
This is what I've been wondering since this thread started.
I don't think anyone said that TV, movies, music (and I'm going to include comic books, video games and radio shows) can't be learned from, or thoughtful. Any medium can give its readers/viewers/listeners/players a new perspective, or something to consider when they are finished. It doesn't have to always be this way, and if people don't look towards fiction of any variety to teach them anything or affect their lives, then that is fine, too.
It's subjective, or I guess, it depends on the person.
edited 5th Jul '11 2:32:41 AM by BetsyandtheFiveAvengers
I already said why literature/the written word is best learned from, because it isn't the passive entertainment that TV and music is. At least, a good lot of TV and music is. Doesn't mean that it all is. You can make the learning more accessible with those mediums, sometimes. But you have to dig into the really good books, with the pulpy stuff you can be sit back and read about the same sort of schlock and be just entertained by it.
edited 5th Jul '11 6:06:09 AM by blamspam
I think the latter attitude is worse, because even though there are people who can't get into the classics (and even though I don't agree with it, people shouldn't have to like classic literature any more than they have to like classic films or music), you'll rarely see them refer to them as poorly written or inferior, at least not from anyone who's done with high school. At worst you'll get "boring".
Not all "pulpy stuff" is "schlock". At the Mountains of Madness isn't schlock.
edited 5th Jul '11 6:46:47 AM by brc2000
I don't think we're using "pulp" in the usual sense of "pulp magazine". We've already covered that many classics were popular lit published in popular magazines.
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.You know, I think talking about this in terms of genre ("Literary Fiction vs. Genre Fiction") or time (Classic vs. Modern) is the wrong way to go about it. They have different conventions and different ways of getting their story across...it's seem unfair to compare them, as if we're denouncing one to favor the other.
edited 5th Jul '11 7:21:37 AM by BetsyandtheFiveAvengers
Rott - Your definition (in post 183) is interesting, but saying that the book has to say something "significant" about all those ideas is pretty subjective. It leaves a lot of room for dismissing books that say something about a major idea that the person arbitrating on their mindlessness just doesn't like - they can say "Well, that isn't significant."
Also, that list of ideas seems a bit arbitrary. I like the idea of a set of Great World Books that you could just buy, for instant culture, but suspect that a king's ransom, a lot of bookshelves and a lot of reading time would be required.
"Well, it's a lifestyle"

Who said that?
I can see Warhammer 40k doing that stuff interestingly. Spanish Inquisition from the inquisitors' perspective, for example. But I don't know if it has.
edited 4th Jul '11 3:48:36 PM by Tzetze
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.