I wanted to address the notion of "deeper meaning" in literary fiction. It's an interesting notion and one that I (surprise!) fully disagree with. I'm a big fan of archetypes in stories, symbolism, etc. These seem far more abundant in genres such as sci-fi/fantasy/horror. I see them less and less in "literary fiction."
You're right, there are genre works that do this. I mentioned a few of the authors in an earlier post. And, surprise surprise, these are the writers who are being included in the literary canon now (making them, for all intents and purposes, literary fiction writers). Dianna Wynn Jones is a good example of this, as is Phillip K Dick, and both of those (and a few others) are now beginning to appear as prescribed texts in general literature courses. But, I still stand by the distinction, at least in so far as that it divides genre works with literary merit from the conventional and, dare I say popular, genre novel, which, as I've said, is primarily focussed on the speculative aspects of the story.
Genre fiction is not inherently lesser and or inferior to "literary" fiction, in my opinion. It is, however, far more likely to be written by authors who are less sophisticated and frankly, less proficient at what they do. It is unfortunate, because many times the genre has such potential but the writers who put pen to page (or keyboard to screen ) cannot live up to this potential. Notable exceptions include George RR Martin, who writes amazing characters and plots within the fantasy genre. Robert Heinlein is another great example. I've heard Asimov mentioned as well as Banks. It is all about the writer, not the genre or label o what have you.
That's the attitude they have about anything that's harder to spell - only they get it, according to them, so they think it is more suitable for everyone. It is complete steaming cac-cu, of course, but that's how things work. If the reflect the views of your university, then you'll pass. Most people there don't really buy into it, unless there's some truth, so just accept that that's what your lecturer thinks, and that other people might be more impressionable than you. What he said isn't wrong - but he is an idiot for failing to recognise that it is a spectacularly biased general statement. And that about sums it up. She probably got a little bored of being cast as the villain in American films
This really isn't true at all. If the OP can, in an academic way, show her lecturer that a work of genre fiction can be as valuable as a literary work, she will not fail the paper. This anti-academic attitude is really starting to irritate me
(snippety snip. I am responding to the rest of your post, I just didn't want to over-quote.) I think that I may be unable to define our disagreement to the point of being able to argue it. But to make a few further comments: I feel that the fact that Atticus Finch is based on Harper Lee's father is an argument for the importance of story and characters, as opposed to an argument that the story and characters are subordinate to the meaning. She didn't sit down and map out what characteristics would make that role best suited to communicate her message - she, instead, used something that she knew. I agree that the moral message is what holds the story together. But that's because the moral message is part of the story. My argument is that they cannot be separated. The story is a good story _because_ of the meanings contained in it. And the meanings have impact because of the story. And even those two statements that I've just made ring false to me, because they suggest that you can separate the meaning and the story, and my argument is that you simply can't. They are one thing. (As a side note, when I first read _To Kill A Mockingbird_, at a very young age, the impact of the main storyline to some extent passed me by. The main emotional impact for me was about Boo Radley and his isolation.) The best stories _have_ meaning. They're not written _to_ communicate a neat moral, like a church-paper cartoon. Yes, of course they communicate the author's feelings and morals and philosophy - otherwise that author wouldn't have produced that story. But that doesn't change my argument that the meaning and story are inseparable parts of one creation. I suspect, moving on slightly, that you are using a sort of reverse definition of genre fiction, a definition that I wouldn't disagree with as strongly. You're not saying, I think, that a genre fiction novel must be of low quality. You're saying (again, I think) that _if_ a genre novel has a compelling meaning, and very fine writing, and all of the other characteristics that you associated with literary fiction, you would simply cease to classify it as a genre novel and classify it as something that transcends the genre - even if it does happen to have a mystery or science fiction logo slapped on its spine. Do I have that approximately right? We probably disagree on the rarity of that event, but I would certainly agree that many novels - like the workmanlike little thing about dogs and dog training and murders that I'm currently reading - are simply an adequate way to pass some time, and others are at a different and higher level. I also suspect that we'd disagree on how small a thing would cause something to reach that higher level. For example, _Hotel Paradise_ by Martha Grimes is almost certainly not officially literary fiction. (Googling, I see one or two remarks that it "flirts" with that classification.) But there's a moment in it, when Emma is quietly snubbed by the Sheriff, that briefly takes the breath out of me. That's what I thought of when I was mentally saying "feh" to the idea that genre fiction doesn't elicit an emotional response. For that matter, children's fiction can elicit an emotional response. Birdie, in _The Doll's House_ by Rumer Godden, is one of the most significant heroes in my reading experience. Yes, she _is_ a celluloid doll. And, yes, anyone who's read the book is welcome to mock me. If you haven't read it, though, preferably read it before the age of ten, I'm not accepting mockery. Another confusion: Some of the arguments in this thread suggest that _all_ fiction that has artistic value is lumped into the "literary fiction" category. That's not working, for me. ChickenFreak
The one thing I've noticed with genre fiction (and this is especially true with fantasy) is that there are lots of cliches. It seems like most fantasy novels have the same type of magic, similar creatures, plot elements (prophecies, for example), etc. Such things really hurt the fantasy genre IMO. That being said, I do think there is a lot of well written and well thought out genre fiction. One more thing is that there is a higher percentage of bad genre fiction than there is bad literary fiction (at least, this is what I gather from my own experience). Another thing to remember is that most genre fiction is there to entertain, so style is not the most important thing. Genre fiction tends to be more plot driven, whereas literary fiction is more character driven. But either way it all boils down to personal taste.
Well, I think all fiction is there to entertain. No one reads fiction that bores them. Your other points have a great deal of merit though, in my eyes.
@ChickenFreak, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the meaning/story argument. I have a bunch more novels I could use to argue that story is secondary, and I'm sure you have plenty to argue the opposite, so I don't think we should hijack this thread for what is quite possibly an unresolvable difference. Although it would certainly be (and has been) an interesting discussion to have... Genre works transcending their genre is what I was getting at, but the more I think about it, the more problematic it becomes. I mean, taking my old example of Do Androids Dream...?, it's easy to see that despite the speculative elements Dick is really writing about our/his world, about human nature, and this is what is most important to him and to the novel. But that doesn't mean that the speculative elements stop existing, which is where things get difficult--when considering whether a genre work is literary, where do its speculative elements enter into the equation? Putting his genre aside, Dick is a great Postmodern author with a talent for exposing the realities of the human condition, which I think are what make him 'literary', but where does that leave his speculative elements? Do we just label them metaphors and throw them in under a general discussion of style, or are they equally important in his 'literary-ness'. The same is true for children's fiction. I'm sure most people would agree that The Tale of Peter Rabbit is a classic piece of English literature, but are the aspects that make it a children's book separate from the aspects that make it literary? Same goes for graphic novels--Tintin is literary, but are its literary aspects separate from the graphic elements? I dunno, I think I'm rambling now...someone else's turn... EDIT: @Sabreur, I disagree whole-heartedly. While one function of some fiction is to entertain, it certainly isn't fiction's only function, nor a particularly important one, often.
I think we may be operating on different wavelengths here. I do realize fiction is not meant solely to entertain, yet quality fiction always does entertain. Now, I don't mean entertain as in "haha, that was good" or "Golly gee, that fight scene was sooooo epic!" Sure, it can mean that but entertainment can be a variety of things. Cathartic release through the characters and their actions can certainly entertain, as can the joy of reading an engaging book. If a book does not entertain me, if it doesn't engage me, I won't read it (unless required to by classes )
(Snipping again) I agree - it would be interesting, but endless and unresolvable. And in the end, it probably doesn't matter all that much. It's not as if I have a fundamental problem with separating aspects of the work for academic analysis. It's a necessary compromise to handle the fact that it's all but impossible to discuss the entire work at once. I just consider it to be a compromise, an entirely artificial separation, and you, I believe, don't see it as being as artificial. I'm suppressing further rambling of my own that would just continue the unresolvable argument.
uh, in case you flunked kindergarten counting, may i point out that the word actually has 5 letters? ;-)
