This isn't true on two points. First, it doesn't matter if LOTR was inspired by Beowulf. Most of the imitators have not read Beowulf, but have read LOTR, so it's LOTR that they're ripping off. Second, Beowulf isn't a 14th century text. It's much earlier than that. According to the Seamus Heaney translation, which I have beside me now, it was originally composed between the middle of the seventh and the end of the tenth centuries.
Hmm, my mistake...bad phrasing. The "inspiration" which I was talking about, however, is more evident in the Hobbit, which I think I mentioned. I agree that he took inspiration from a lot of sources - LOTR is a trilogy I've admired for a long time & I am quite aware of just how carefully J.R.R.T. must have researched his subjects. But thank you for reminding me. Now that...is pure assumption. We should presume that just as we are aware of that fact, so are they. Their application is what's lacking, that's all. I stand corrected. I have read the Heaney translation & I think it was splendidly done - I've read a few other versions that were a bit all over the place. Actually, I think it was 8th to early 11th (Kiernan) but that's besides the point. But thanks for that tit-bit of information Always love literary trivia!
I would have to disagree. A book is only 'literature' if someone in a position of authority deems it so. That's either an esteemed literary critic, a panel of literary judges, or an academic. As countless discussions on this site have pointed out over and over again, there isn't a definition of literature that can be derived only from qualities of the text itself. Literature is an objective, rather than subjective, title that is only gained as a result of being canonised as such. I'd agree with your definition if you applied it to literary fiction, but literary fiction is not necessarily literature any more than fantasy is literature. I didn't mean to condescend, although reading it back I guess it does sound that way, but I stand by my post. In the course of my English degree I've had to study at least 7 texts that would be considered primarily sci-fi or fantasy, and while I've actually enjoyed it, the students who were self-professed fantasy lovers all seemed to feel that treating fantasy like that, studying it like that, was almost like selling out. For them, rigorous analysis (which isn't always flattering, even with the greats) of some of their favourite novels killed the magic that had made them fall in love with it in the first place. I'm not saying that no readers of fantasy would enjoy a serious academic study of fantasy works. But I do stand by my (implied) assertion that there is a separation of tastes among readers of literature and readers of fantasy. It may not exclusively be the case, but if it never was then this conversation wouldn't even be happening, fantasy would always have been worthy of study. In my experience with fantasy readers, both in an academic setting, a social setting and on this site, I don't get the impression that you would be in the majority when it comes to wanting to subject fantasy texts to analysis.
I have to say i am almost agreeing with Arron. Whilst I would have no concerns being in the same section as older classics the one label I would hate to have slapped on my stories is literary fiction. Not that I think there is any danger of it thank goodness. Whilst there are some exceptional Literary Fiction works even in modern times to be honest I think it is another area where I think like with fantasy, romance, historical etc you need to sift through the crud to find the gems. I'd rather give my books a better commercial chance.
Ummm, don't want to depress you even more, but a depressingly high amount of ANYTHING written isn't good enough to be considered literature. Even literature, as in the accepted canon, changes and things get bumped because they no longer hold up to the standards. Yeah, even a lot of literature over time isn't good enough to be considered literature, lol.
Individuals get to judge whether they like something, but individuals don't get to judge whether something is considered literature. Not by most definitions of the word, at least.
But you do you think determines quality of writing and thinking? And I'm not saying academics define what is quality, but more so that they research and study to find quality. For instances, I'm working with scholarly series about western writers, and without scholars to research these writers, many of them would be utterly forgotten by history (not just mostly, hah). But it's not that academics decide what is quality, and then go find examples of that (though it happens). It's more that scholars and academics research a field and study and report the creme that comes to the top. One instance is George Catlin, who is best known as a romantic painter, but without scholars researching and writing about his legacy he may have been forgotten as a writer of some of the works that became the foundation of North American Native anthropology. I guess my point is that scholars and academics do actually have a hand in shaping the canon of literature, though it's not nearly the scenario people like to think where they're sitting around conspiring to make what they find personally worthwhile consider literature to justify their own snooty and evil ways. More so, they study works and authors, and from those studies find what is still relevant and lasting and what still matters and is worthy of study, and over time by it's relevance and quality the work becomes considered literature. And I understand people are also using their own definitions of literature as they see it, but we should probably also understand how the conventional definitions work as well. In 50 years, if Harry Potter is still relevant and remembered and read and entertaining and making people think and offering insights, then it will become considered literature. The main ingredient in that is time, though, and trying to say something is literature when it hasn't stood the test of time isn't really valid. Instead, that's just a really good book you find personally moving and worthwhile, which is important too, but not literature.
Indeed. Literary fiction, depending on definitions is either a genre, style or even a method. And contemporary at that. So no matter how the nut is cracked, the contemporary part alone rules out most things from being literature. I guess I agree in some ways, but only because anyone limiting themselves to one sort of genre as a reader, especially those that take pride in declaring themselves a fantasy reader, or sci-fi fan, or literary type all probably aren't the kind of people to really enjoy literature, much less the study of it, because literature and scholarly study doesn't often give a damn what genre the piece is. That's why we have plenty of speculative fiction in literature, and it's not called speculative fiction, it's called literature. Rinse/repeat with all genres. If someone is in a class saying "I'm a fantasy reader" I'm pretty sure it's not the fantasy part that means they won't enjoy academic study of fiction, but more so the fact they're already so limited in their thinking and definitions of self. For instance, I love sci-fi, but I don't call myself a sci-fi fan, or a sci-fi reader. I read sci-fi, but I self identify simply as someone that likes reading good fiction. And as a writer, I wouldn't dare limit myself by such labels and definitions either. I want to write good fiction, whether it's about alcoholism and cancer, or robots. So, I think I get what you're saying and am sure we've observed the same scenarios, but maybe point to different causes. It reminds me of the [thankfully very few] writers I've had in workshops who scoff at feedback explaining they're "just" a -insert genre- writer, so it doesn't have to be good. These people usually don't do well, don't improve much, and don't end up good writers, but it's not the fault of the genre they identify with, it's the fault of the fact they're usually just terrible students, writers and sometimes as people. I guess my academic perspective on this is to hate the player, not the game.
_Can_ works of fantasy be literature? I'd say, certainly. (BTW, you mention Frankenstein as literature - isn't Frankenstein fantasy? I'd call it either fantasy or science fiction.) When you say that "people in fantasy have it easy" are you saying that the characters have an easy time of it, or that the writers do? I'd tend to disagree either way. While the ability to create any aspect of one's world might make things easier in some ways, the _obligation_ to create all aspects of that world would, IMO, make things harder. And in any case, I don't think that the definition of literature is based on whether the work is easy or hard to create - writers aren't assigned handicaps based on their genre, and they aren't given quality scores that are adjusted accordingly. Sorry, I sound snarky. It's not aimed at you; I just seem to be in a snarky mindset today, and I can't find a way to edit it out. (Doesn't bode well for my talent as a writer, huh?) ChickenFreak
Firstly, "literature" sucks if it makes you fall alseep no matter what anyone says about it, but that's not really why I decided to post. You mentioned Frankenstein and that got me going. Frankenstein is filled with fantasy and science fiction, but its subtext is very humanistic. The story is about the plight of an ugly person who is fully intelligent, if not perfectly so, and how society's reaction to him caused evil and vindictive behavior. So, it's not a horror story but one about how most people treat others. That makes it deep and literature is supposed to be deep. Frankenstein is different from a lot of literature because it's not obtuse and entertaining. So, if fantasy novels you like are "about something" then maybe they qualify as literature. I don't really care about what race the books I enjoy are in though.
Hi, I think all writing can be considered literature, its just a question of whether its good or not. Fantasy, and to a lesser extent science fiction suffer a little I think from not being perceived as 'high brow', which I think for most people means that its not old and dusty and written by some dead author who happened to have a large impact on his society such as old Bill Shakespear. Some science fiction has managed to escape being seen as generic and derivative by taking the speculative to new levels. So Isaac Asimov's stuff which is a good read but not dry and dusty becomes literature I think because he brings in brand new ideas like the three laws of robotics and then starts subtly asking questions like what is the difference between a man and machine. Philip K Dick and Kurt Vonnegot also take this approach. Fantasy suffers more then science fiction because instead of speculative it is seen as imaginative, but having said that there is some that stands out and will I think endure. Tolkein's brilliance is not in originality so much, as in taking some strands of old myths and weaving them into a powerful yet simple story of the triumph of good over evil and temptation, and in creating a complete fantasy world. Before him I'm not sure anyone had even considered making up entire languages and complete back stories for such work. His fellow professor on the other hand CS Lewis, also created something which would have to be considered literature but for different reasons, the story becomes a morality play that shines an excellent mirror on humanity. In more modern fantasy I'd have to say that Stephen Donaldsons Thomas Covenant also would make the grade as damned good literature, simply because of the detail and the completness of the world he created. Its sad that his obvious depression shows through so clearly in his later work. There are no doubt many other fantasy works that would make the grade of being great literature, but there are also an awful lot that are very derivative, and don't show the extraordinary level of detail and attention and even love that the great ones do. It doesn't mean they aren't worth reading, (and to be honest I do have probably all of the Gor books by John Norman and have enjoyed them all even if they are derivative of Conan and others), but it does mean that they probably won't be remembered long by many, and they won't make readers think, and they probably won't be chosen by academics to talk about in class. Cheers. Cheers.
Thing is what usually endures as literature and is the most eternal is the one the general reading or watching public took to their hearts not the stories the critics necessarily liked. To say fantasy is easy and a cop out is silly. There is a reason most of the best fantasy writers were well educated for their time. To get fantasy working well requires a reasonable level of varied education - I know how many times I have had to fall back on mine to come up with solutions to make the story work. On top of that it is the ultimate freedom of imagination - for me it is about bringing humanity to races of people we shouldn't identify with. William Topaz McGonnagall is my favourite example of general public vs critics lol - his poems are great I love them. Most Scots of my age can at very least misquote him, or use his poetry to make their own lines. I think i have heard him a lot more often than I have Burns or Byron lol I have him on my shelves with them. I would love my work to be thought of with the level of affection his is. Although not sure I could go through the level of humiliation he did or walk that particularly gruelling sixty miles just to be rejected. His poems are still being printed and quoted when many more critically acclaimed poets of the time have been forgotten. Why is Shakespeare better thought of than Marlowe, why does Dickens get more costume dramas made than Hardy. Why Jane Austen or Charlotte Bronte instead of Catharine Maria Sedgewick or Olive Schievner (pardon spelling).
I think this is along the same line as the awards shows. The high brow people decide which stuffy movie deserves the awards not on entertainment but on a work of art. Most notably, the movies that get the academy awards are shows that I don't particularly like. I write to entertain(right now just me) not to impress someone. So the definition is in question. What is literature? Childrens picture books are literature, so basically anything with words fits. Fantasy is a tough genre to impress the critics. Fantasy is the stories of childhood, thus they are the oldest of stories. Classic nursery rhymes. It is hard to make a new story in a genre that has been telling stories for centuries. Most stories are remakes of or combonaitons of previous works. The worst genre for this is horror. Campfire stories told over and over, so that it takes a really special author to write something new in that genre. People need to estalish the rules of the world, but not overwhelm the reader with needless world trivia. World history is interesting to a point, it shows the world has existed before and after the story. But the world should not be the story. I think another problem in this genre, everything falls into world domination or the fate of the world depends on the heros. In other genres, how often does this happen?
It can be, but it probably won't be. Genre fiction exists because readers know what they want, and they want the author of their genre of preference to fill that demand. No one plays Dungeons & Dragons for deep, penetrating insights into the human condition.
Yeah, for sure they can play an important role. But if all the critics rave about a book that no one remembers in ten years...
'Lord of the rings' was my absolute, favorite trilogy when I was a kid. All writing is art. If you expressed yourself the way you wanted and you're happy with it. It doesn't matter if others see it as negative.
Purists would argue "not literature." But they would be followers of a traditional perspective of the literary cannon: the cannon which earlier marginalized women writers, minority writers, gay writers, ect. New thoughtful readers and theorists would include these once marginalized writers as contributors to a broader notion of literature, one which is more inclusive, and the cannon. And, yes, this would include fantasy texts as well.
I have to say I don't enjoy stories that deal with wizards and elves and epic battles and whatnot (aside from LotR). I enjoy writing fantasy or science fiction, but it's closer to Star Wars than Lord of the Rings. I'd rather have the reader feel a sense of companionship or camaraderie with my characters than feel the constant struggle of the characters, but maybe that's because I'm just too damn optimistic for that kind of writing.
