The Lord of the Rings discussion

I think you just gotta get over it. I get similar responses when I tell people my favorite book is the Harry Potter series. I suppose they think a smart 30-year-old would prefer something more mature.

But we're all snobs about something. I saw an image on Facebook that said "How can you tell if somebody read the Game of Thrones books before they saw the series? They will tell you. They will f-ing tell you." I can't deny I'm guilty of that one.

That woman really just flashed her ignorance badge. And, as obnoxious as it is, her ignorance doesn't really hurt anybody else. She's the one that missing out. Try to muster up some sympathy for what she's missing out on and you might find it less irritating.

Well, in some cases, it is a lesser form of fiction. But then, that could be said of almost any other genre. I think The Lord of the Rings should certainly be considered literature, but that doesn't mean all fantasy should. Some fantasy and science fiction is poorly written and could not even be considered a good example of English. But some romance, horror, historical, and dramatic novels are the same way. Just barely passable. But some (si-fi and fantasy included) are excellent and should be considered literature. In fact, if you look at lists of "classic literature" you will find all sorts of sub-genres represented. Because what makes it literature is the excellence and quality with which it was written, not what subject matter it covered.

Um, technically, the pamphlets you get from your doctor are considered "literature". The definition of "literature" is a little vague and has many different uses (which could be conflicting) and the only clear thing is that it is a matter of conveying ideas through writing.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literature?s=t

I don't think it's correct to take a written work and classify it as literature or not literature. It would be classified as "good literature", "bad literature" or by some other qualifier (such as "classic" or "fantasy").

Since I haven't heard her tone of voice, I don't know whether she meant it dismissively or not. But she could have been meaning: "I don't read science fiction. I read a different genre. So I was initially hoping to chat about books with you, but it seems we probably won't have any in common. What a pity."

The problem is that there is no good, neutral, non-elitist term for fiction that does not fit into any of the standard sub-genres.

I would have been more annoyed by the mixing up of fantasy and scifi, myself.

Ike wrote: "I would have been more annoyed by the mixing up of fantasy and scifi, myself."

LOL. Me too. I would have pointed out LOTR is high fantasy and not Science Fiction. I also would have pointed out that LOTR is now a classic (I think?) and that it was written by an Oxford professor etc etc.

A lot of the really good science fiction books are shelved under the classics section, like Frankenstein, Drowned Worlds (?), 2001 Space Odyssey. The SF stuff usually explores some future concept and how humanity deals with it.

I absolutely love (sarcasm) people who have something to say about a book in particular or a genre without having read it at all. Or those people who comment negatively on what you reading, but they have only ever read one book in their whole entire lives.

I absolutely think that that is a classic form of snobbery. Unfortunately, its a very common one. Somehow, people to think of sci-fi and fantasy as mere fun and make-believe and miss the significance of it. With Lord of the Rings, Tolkien not only created a rich and detailed world that approached genuine mythos, it taught people to take fantasy seriously. Martin continues that tradition today with A Song of Ice and Fire, weaving real history and myth with fiction to create something as insightful as it is entertaining.

And Frank Herbert did the same with Dune. His six book series, especially the first installment, was chock full of historical allegory, social commentary and religious commentary, and timely observations made about the human condition. I challenge anyone to show me an example of "real literature" that possess the same amount of significance.

And let's not forget the classics of The Iron Heel, The Time Machine, War of the Worlds, We, Brave New World, It Can't Happen Here, 1984, Fahrenheit 451, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Solaris, A Canticle for Leibowitz, A Clockwork Orange, Man in the High Castle, Left Hand of Darkness, Stand on Zanzibar, The Lathe of Heaven, A Scanner Darkly, The Handmaids Tale, Neuromancer, Contact, Fatherland, The Mars Trilogy, The Diamond Age, Infinite Jest, Battle Royale, Oryx and Crake... the list goes on!

Where would the world of literature be without these books? I hope you're still in contact with this person because I would like to present this list to them and see what they have to say.

Matthew wrote: "I absolutely think that that is a classic form of snobbery. "

LOL. I've been accused of being a snob because I was reading LOTR and not "socialising" with people I had nothing in common with and didn't like.

Julia wrote: "...I don't think it's correct to take a written work and classify it as literature or not literature. It would be classified as "good literature", "bad literature" or by some other qualifier (such as "classic" or "fantasy")"

I agree with you, Julia. But unfortunately, the common label nowadays for a certain genre is "literary fiction".

I have the impression that you would have preferred her to say that she read "classic fiction" - but that makes the assumption that she is specifying old books. What if she reads modern writers? For me, the term "classic fiction" also covers science fiction classics, such as those Matthew listed (e.g. H.G. Wells as much as George Bernard Shaw).

If she had said "I don't read science fiction, I read thrillers/historical romance/political satire" then we might not share her taste, but she probably would not be accused of snobbery.

So my question is: if she prefers writers like A.S. Byatt, Salman Rushdie or Orhan Pamuk, rather than Neil Gaiman, George R.R. Martin or Dmitry Glukhovsky, how should she express this, without giving offence?

ThenSingsMySoul wrote: "Well, in some cases, it is a lesser form of fiction..."

And so is "Literature" when it's badly done. :)


Alexandra wrote: "Since I haven't heard her tone of voice, I don't know whether she meant it dismissively or not. But she could have been meaning: "I don't read science fiction. I read a different genre. So I was in..."

Now, where's that "like" button again. <3

To paraphrase Theodore Sturgeon (SF & F author), "90% of science fiction is crud, but then 90% of anything is crud."

Tom wrote: "To paraphrase Theodore Sturgeon (SF & F author), "90% of science fiction is crud, but then 90% of anything is crud.""

Precisely!

Only The Lord of the Rings is not science fiction...

Getting hung up on genre misses the point I think.
Don't think it matters outside of marketing shorthand.
Now I'm not a LOTR fan myself (I did read it before making my mind up), but to dismiss a whole chunk of books because it doesn't fall into a limited and pre-defined category is a bit foolish in some ways...but in some ways it makes things easier for folk.
By this I mean that we all have things we enjoy more than others and the lumping of books into genres does help folk to find things they are more likely (but not guaranteed) to like...but it does also potentially close areas of a bookshop as offlimits.
As to the "I read literature" thing...I think that's basic snobbery. Maybe following their statement by asking them: What does that mean? Pin them down and watch them wriggle...force them to define their terms.
I think all genres have texts that can be classed as "literature"...whatever that actually means. Just as all genres have the Sturgeon ratio within them...but the genres themself I think are artificial and at best lazy shorthand for booksellers or bookbuyers that like to play safe.

Oh I don't know, there's some validity to categorizing in genres, after all there is a difference between Conan wielding a broadsword and Luke Skywalker wielding a... no, darn, wrong analogy.

There's a difference between Technology so ludicrously advanced that it must seem as magic to us, and Harry Potter being taught actual... ah, that one doesn't work either, does it.

I have had the same dismissive attitude directed to myself when reading comix..."oh, you only read kids things..." type of thing.
That is dismissive of an entire medium no matter what the genre is within the medium...but I digress.
Now LOTR probably has more in common with War & Peace than it does with Conan the Barbarian: Tales of Magic and Mayhem yet by using genres to bracket LOTR with the latter folk assume more similarity than is actually there.
Some folk can't see this, other people are merely rude.
"Oooh, why would you read that?"

Steven wrote: "Not too long ago a woman asked me what book I was reading. When I told her I was reading The Lord of the Rings her reply was, "Oh, I do not read science fiction, I read literature." I don't know ab..."

I'm with you. I can't stand when people refuse to accept good stories just because of their genre. In my opinion, The Lord Of The Rings is better than most "real literarure."

Still, take pride in the fact that while you were reading a great book, she was probably reading a watered down, simplified Caesar.

Science Fiction IS literature.

Have a look at the "Classics". Nearly half of them are SF or Fantasy. HG Wells, Jules Verne, Tolkien, Kafka, Borges, PK Dick - ah, I see several posts above someone did just this! It's a telling faux pas to say that SF isn't literature.

I think Alexandria makes a good point. She could have been just using the word "literature" incorrectly, trying to refer to a genre that she doesn't know the name of.

I also dislike elitism. But I have met as many people who are elitist about science fiction as I have those who are elitist about literary fiction.

I read & enjoy both (well, actually I read more fantasy, SF not so much). I consider them equally valid forms of literature. There are masterpieces in both forms - and much crap in both.

I'm with Old-Barbarossa in disliking the whole business of genre labelling. But I particularly dislike the label "literary fiction"; I find it very difficult to specify that this is the genre I happen to be most often reading these days, without being accused of elitism - when it is simply a preference (& certainly not the only genre that I read!)

What, exactly, is "Literary Fiction"?

Julia wrote: "What, exactly, is "Literary Fiction"?"

That, I would say, is the problem! It seems to be the appropriate catch-all term for books that do not fall into other genre categories. So it is roughly contemporary to the author (so not historical), set in the real world (not fantasy or SF), and is not centred primarily on a romance or a crime - although either can happen.

I listed a few authors earlier: other examples would be Andrey Kurkov,Andrey Gelasimov, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Varlam Shalamov, Andrey Rubanov, Martin Amis, Gary Shteyngart, James Meek, Cormac McCarthy...

I think the definition IS primarily negative. In terms of plot elements and style, you can find similar within the SF/fantasy genres. But a real world, contemporary novel cannot be classed as SF/fantasy!

Or you could say: the genre where the best compete for the Man Booker Prize, rather than for a Hugo.

What I find odd is when an author not known for genre fiction dips their toe into it and is lauded for something that those familiar with the genre may not be too impressed by.
Examples that spring to mind are Sisters Brothers and Cloud Atlas. Which if you've never read Elmore Leonard's western tales or Michael Moorcock (respectively) and have stuck mainly to "literary fiction" then you may think are the bees knees...but if you have read other examples of these genres may move you to a kind of "well...it was all right" type of reaction.

Ah, now we come to the whole problem with the "magic realism" genre! As far as I can tell, it is simply Fantasy for mainstream authors who don't want to be seen to be writing "fantasy".

I know it is galling when an average work is unfairly lauded by readers who are unfamiliar with the genre (Cormac McCarthy for apocalyptic fiction springs to mind...), but hopefully some of the readers, who initially only dipped their toes into the genre because their favourite author did, will lose any inhibitions, hang arund a bit, and get to know what the genre REALLY has to offer!

There is the theory that there are only so many stories and all the other stuff is window dressing.
So a quest for redemption with dragons is fantasy, one set in rural Wales is contemporary fiction. They are both quests for redemption. So I think the journey of the characters is in many ways more important than the dangers they face or the clothes they wear.

Alexandra wrote: "Julia wrote: "What, exactly, is "Literary Fiction"?"

That, I would say, is the problem! It seems to be the appropriate catch-all term for books that do not fall into other genre categories. So it ..."
It seems to me that Contemporary Fiction would be a much more fitting name. As far as I can see the only difference between /literary fiction/ and historical fiction is the time frame.

Some read to Enjoy, others to impress. I read to enjoy and am willing to try anything and don’t concern myself with what others think of my choice of reading . Way out Sci-Fi leaves me cold whereas I can enjoy some fantasy, (fiction is a form of fantasy?). But I avoid imposing my literary views on others or insinuating that there choice of reading is any less appealing.

Christian wrote: "...It seems to me that Contemporary Fiction would be a much more fitting name. As far as I can see the only difference between /literary fiction/ and historical fiction is the time frame."

Good one, Christian! I think your definition is correct - and your term more appropriate than the one currently in use.

But we are stuck with the labels that publishers use...

I'd be happier skipping the whole issue of genre altogether. A good book is a good book, whatever the category.

But it strikes me that, however much we might castigate this person's ignorant attitude towards science fiction and fantasy, at least she reads SOMETHING! The attitude that really appals me are the people who roll their eyes and say: "A book? Oh, I haven't read one of those since I left school. I have better things to do."...

Edit: I've now thought of a problem with the "Contemporary Fiction" tag. "Contemporary" is often taken to mean "contemporary to the reader". So what about someone like Solzhenitsyn, who tends to set his stories in the previous decade? Is a book set in the GULag of the 1940s "contemporary fiction"? What about later stories? Surely a writer, who is setting his stories in circumstances he lived through, should not end up divided between different categories, simply because he was writing for over 50 years?

But then there are writers like Ismail Kadare. His stories usually involve members of the same extended family, but some are set a thousand years ago, some in a world that has never existed, and some in an unnamed modern totalitarian state. The themes are consistent, and if you enjoy one you will probably enjoy another, but if he wrote in English, they would probably be filed in different sections of a bookshop. As it is, they get lumped under "literature in translation". I am beginning to wonder whether the authors who insist their book is "magic realism", not fantasy, are not always acting out of snobbery, so much as a (perfectly understandable) desire to have all their work shelved in the same place in a shop (so their fans find it).

I hate genre labels! They provoke hostility, and obscure good writing.

Alexandra wrote: "The attitude that really appals me are the people who roll their eyes and say: "A book? Oh, I haven't read one of those since I left school. I have better things to do."... "

Oh HORROR!!! Even my dog devours books. Not sure she gets any literary stuff out of it, but it does provide her with some amusement. ;)

Alexandra wrote: "The attitude that really appals me are the people who roll their eyes and say: "A book? Oh, I haven't read one of those since I left school. I have better things to do."..."

Warning there will be swearing, Bill Hicks on the very subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUA748...

Alexandra wrote: "Christian wrote: "...It seems to me that Contemporary Fiction would be a much more fitting name. As far as I can see the only difference between /literary fiction/ and historical fiction is the tim..."

A further problem is that a lot of so called "literature" just as well could be labelled Fantasy.

Works of Kafka and Márquez would come instantly to mind. Both using clear cut elements of the fantastic that would put their work usually, for any other author, into Fantasy writing.


Alexandra wrote: "I hate genre labels! They provoke hostility, and obscure good writing."

I like genre tags, I like the fact that when I feel up for some Heroic Fantasy I don't need to pore over author after author who more likely than not has never written in that field in his life (or even more likely just never published), I just think their usage leaves a lot to be desired at times. But, yes, genre tags also can prevent one from accidentally stumbling over some genuine great writing, just because it lies in a field which one finds usually less enjoyment in.

Alexandra wrote: Edit: I've now thought of a problem with the "Contemporary Fiction" tag. "Contemporary" is often taken to mean "contemporary to the reader". So what about someone like Solzhenitsyn, who tends to set his stories in the previous decade? Is a book set in the GULag of the 1940s "contemporary fiction"? What about later stories? Surely a writer, who is setting his stories in circumstances he lived through, should not end up divided between different categories, simply because he was writing for over 50 years?

My Danish teacher differentiated between samtidig (Contemporary) and nutidig (Current) literature, the former being in relation to the author and the latter the reader, so to speak.

Alexandra wrote:I hate genre labels! They provoke hostility, and obscure good writing.
I agree to an extend, though I find that the main reason they limit us is because they're applied so inconsistently and because we've gotten the rather odd notions into our heads that certain genres are only suitable to certain groups, largely due to the aforementioned inconsistent use, and that a work can only fit into one category which is patently absurd. The idea that say Tamora Pierce's Terrier isn't a crime novel because it's set in a classical fantasy setting complete with magic and knights in armour is clearly wrong, but readers of both genres will burn you at the stake if you were to put it in the crime section at the library.
And that's really sad since genre "tags" are genuinely useful tools when used correctly. If you're into westerns and sci-fi you'll know that Firefly is probably worth seeing, but if you like crime novels but aren't into the fantastical you'll know to steer clear of the Dresden Files.

Gerd wrote: A further problem is that a lot of so called "literature" just as well could be labelled Fantasy.

Works of Kafka and Márquez would come instantly to mind. Both using clear cut elements of the fantastic that would put their work usually, for any other author, into Fantasy writing. ..."
Since literature is by definition anything that's written down I don't really see the problem there, And if they use fantastical elements then they belong in Fantasy. After all, that's what fantasy is, fiction with fantastical elements.

Gerd wrote: ...Works of Kafka and Márquez would come instantly to mind. Both using clear cut elements of the fantastic that would put their work usually, for any other author, into Fantasy writing. ..."

I agree. But they have an "out", in the English-speaking world, in that they are usually filed under "foreign authors", regardless of other considerations. Those writing in English don't have the same freedom to cross genre boundaries.

Science fiction is often a subcategory of literature!

Will wrote: "Science fiction is often a subcategory of literature!"

No, that's what it always is, like every other genre.

But it does raise a good point. My friend once said that science fiction is not so much a genre as a vehicle, delivering allegories, comparisons, messages and parallels with the real world, real history, and the continuation of current trends in order to make a point about today's world.

He didn't say all of that, I'm paraphrasing and adding my own thoughts. But he was right. Sci-fi is the heir in so many respects to classic satire and philosophical treatises, which is why it can be so hard to pin down. It uses elements of fantasy, alternate history, satire, commentary, prediction, speculation, and imagination to draw readers in, entertain them, and make them think.

Matthew wrote: "Will wrote: "Science fiction is often a subcategory of literature!"

No, that's what it always is, like every other genre.

But it does raise a good point. My friend once said that science fiction ..."

Sort of... I don't consider all science fiction as literature. Not being sure what I defined the word "literature" as meaning, (besides books, writings, poems, etc.) I looked it up in the dictionary. The New Oxford American Dictionary defines "literature" as: Written works, esp. those of lasting or artistic merit.

In which case, it's genre-independent, in which case, SF and others automatically are included in consideration.