Stephen King: Trash, or Literature?

[Big Al]

You are turning his point into something it is not. It does not say fantasy literature is not literary.

"And P.S., the fantasy genre in general, with the exception of a few works, is regarded by most 'literary' critics as not being literary."

What it says is that most of it does not fall under the, perhaps academic definition of literature, or Literature. And so, to say that it is ranked high among fantasy literature really, in the end means absolutely nothing in the great scheme of Literature.

Well, I would argue that majority of books in all genres do not fall under the "academic definition of literature," so it seems odd to me to single out fantasy. And I suppose your last point is valid, but there are plenty of general literary critics who consider The Lord of the Rings a masterwork, and I certainly think it's more than just your average "fantasy book."

Science-fiction doesn't hold much credibility in the literary world as a genre, but that doesn't mean that there are works that are held in esteem, Herbert's Dune, for example, only to say that Dune is one of the best Science-fiction work would tell squat about it's literary merits.

Science fiction doesn't hold much credibility in the literary world? What about 1984, Brave New World, the works of Herbert and Heinlein and Philip K. Dick? Okay, I realize these are just a few examples, and that the majority isn't usually regarded as "literature," but with that being the case, once again I'm forced to ask: why single out "fantasy?"

And what exactly is wrong with elitism, mind you?

Who constitutes "the elite" and who determines the qualifications for being a member?

[Etienne]

"And P.S., the fantasy genre in general, with the exception of a few works, is regarded by most 'literary' critics as not being literary."

Exactly what I said myself: the fantasy genre in general. Are you simply confirming what I said with this quote?

Well, I would argue that majority of books in all genres do not fall under the "academic definition of literature,"

What one considers a genre is so vague in the first place, that making such a general statement means close to nothing.

Science fiction doesn't hold much credibility in the literary world? What about 1984, Brave New World, the works of Herbert and Heinlein and Philip K. Dick? Okay, I realize these are just a few examples, and that the majority isn't usually regarded as "literature," but with that being the case,

Oh! And what did I just say? You disagree with me and then repeat almost word for word what I said, I'm sorry if I don't understand your method of argumentation, it is quite new to me.

once again I'm forced to ask: why single out "fantasy?"

Hmm... because we're discussing "fantasy"? If we were to discuss something else, we would discuss something else? If I say cats are felines, and you come up and say: Oh why single out cats, what about tigers? I'd answer: Well we were simply discussing cats and not tigers...

Who constitutes "the elite" and who determines the qualifications for being a member?

That's a good question, but who talked about elitism in the first place? Maybe he should answer? Oh that's you, so was it a rhetoric question?

[JBI]

It's the same way the mystery genre, thriller genre, and romance genres aren't highly regarded as literary works. Romance is one of the (I think it is the) best selling genre there is. Yet how many of those paperback novels are really worth reading? A lot of people are actually embarrassed to admit they read those books. That doesn't mean those books don't have the "best in the genre". They do, as does every genre. The point is though, the "literary" classification is beyond genre, and takes books based on merit as works outside of genre.

We shouldn't make exceptions for single genres. Nora Roberts, or whatever name she writes under now, is a highly best-selling author. Do you rank her amongst Joyce, Proust, Faulkner, or better yet, more contemporary greats, Atwood, Pynchon, Rushdie, Byatt, Saramago, Morrison, etc.? God no, you can't.

The same with fantasy. Fantasy fans are many, and have influence. But they aren't everything. Besides which, an internet poll on an online website is not the greatest statistic. A) there is a major sample bias, since only people with internet access, and amazon frequency will vote, and b) because many people would not vote, or have votes scattered. With a great deal of fantasy readers, Tolkien is seen as the ultimate choice, whereas the votes of others, particularly in the literary field, where there are 3000 years of volume to contemplate, the key figure is way more difficult. Some people would think Shakespeare the obvious choice, but that isn't a narrowed margin. People need to think of which play to choose, etc. There is also the language bias which narrows the overwhelming votes of English speakers against the world, who offer a tradition as old, or older, of equally as excellent works.

There is also the point to consider about how much one has read, versus another. The same archetype, if you have not come across it before could hamper your judgment. A plagiarist who to the reader seems original is held as high in esteem as the original. Tolkien is believed, by some ridiculous propagated fallacy, to have invented the modern fantasy genre. How many people have read his primary sources of inspiration? I bet many kids would think Wagner ripped off Tolkien.


I didn't say it wasn't your more than average fantasy book, but I did say it was your mediocre book. If you want to examine literature, you need to break genre biases, and look at works for literary merit above genre, in order to classify them as good "Literature".

Herbert, now on this subject, can be seen as a great of science fiction, but a bad writer (I have not read any criticism on him, so this is purely my speculation). He redefined mainstream sci-fi, but did little else for literature as whole, or for language. The only possible work that I could consider for literary merit, though I decline there is any, is Dune. However, the 5 sequels he wrote show an incompetence at writing. I am unsure if it is alright to only value one novel, since he intended it to be 7 long, and since that is compared to only reading "The Fellowship of the Ring".

That being said, to lure us back on topic, literary merit needs to be beyond genre. If only a fantasy lover CAN enjoy a book, then what sort of quality does it have for humanity?

And anyway, I would think the best book of the millennium, by the influence the works carried alone, would come down to 4 names, 1 of which being lesser than the rest in everything but influence;

Moliere's Tartuffe
Dante's Comedia
Cervantes's Don Quixote de la Mancha
Shakespeare's Hamlet

for non-fiction probably (though I am no authority at all on this, and confess to trying to broaden the scope of this list as much as possible).

Montaigne
Descartes
Thomas Aquinas
Galileo
Nietzsche
Freud
Marx
Darwin

[Big Al]

Exactly what I said myself: the fantasy genre in general. Are you simply confirming what I said with this quote?

The quote contradicted almost word-for-word your first sentence, so I thought it would be funny to put them together. And it was. To me.

What one considers a genre is so vague in the first place, that making such a general statement means close to nothing.

Wasn't I the one who, a few posts earlier, was arguing against classifying works by genre because it encouraged people to make assumptions based on pre-conceived notions? The other posts I have made regarding genre were to attempt to contradict the initial assessment which was that fantasy was somehow not literary.

Oh! And what did I just say? You disagree with me and then repeat almost word for word what I said, I'm sorry if I don't understand your method of argumentation, it is quite new to me.

It was tongue-in-cheek. I'll try to make any further attempts at humor more obvious.

Hmm... because we're discussing "fantasy"? If we were to discuss something else, we would discuss something else? If I say cats are felines, and you come up and say: Oh why single out cats, what about tigers? I'd answer: Well we were simply discussing cats and not tigers...

We were discussing The Lord of the Rings, and its place in the literary world, when the other user (whose name I can't immediately remember) pointed out that fantasy was often considered "un-literary," insinuating that because The Lord of the Rings is fantasy, it's somehow less literary in nature. To which I replied (and I'm paraphrasing myself), "What about other genres? Are others genres somehow less literary as well," because I was trying to understand what qualities are inherent in fantasy that make them less literary, and what qualities are present in other genres that make them more literary. This has never been a discussion exclusively about fantasy, and maybe you would know that if you had kept up from the beginning.

That's a good question, but who talked about elitism in the first place? Maybe he should answer? Oh that's you, so was it a rhetoric question?

Yes, I did mention elitism, because it seems elitist to me to assign arbitrary genres to literary works and then judge them according to one's perceptions of that genre. But let me see if I understand your meaning correctly...Because I mentioned the idea of elitism, I am therefore partaking in elitism?

...So by your logic, if I call somebody else a necrophiliac, do I have to have sex with corpses as well?

[Etienne]

The quote contradicted almost word-for-word your first sentence, so I thought it would be funny to put them together. And it was. To me.

Absolutely not... it says "the fantasy genre in general, with the exception of a few works"... which makes all the difference, but of course, you can choose to ignore some parts as it's always easier to take a Manichean view, unfortunately, that also makes you completely off the track.

We were discussing The Lord of the Rings, and its place in the literary world, when the other user (whose name I can't immediately remember) pointed out that fantasy was often considered "un-literary," insinuating that because The Lord of the Rings is fantasy, it's somehow less literary in nature.

And why was he saying this about fantasy? Because of something you said... concerning fantasy literature! And the first mention of it too!

"In what way are you measuring Tolkien's alleged popularity drop? The Lord of the Rings is consistently named by critics as one of the most excellent examples of fantasy writing, and it usually ranks at the top of any science fiction or fantasy fan poll." post 207, by you.

Uh-oh!

Yes, I did mention elitism, because it seems elitist to me to assign arbitrary genres to literary works and then judge them according to one's perceptions of that genre. But let me see if I understand your meaning correctly...Because I mentioned the idea of elitism, I am therefore partaking in elitism?

No, I want to answer your own question "Who constitutes "the elite" and who determines the qualifications for being a member?" You are the one talking about elitists and the one who brought that up, you must have an idea about it, no?

...So by your logic, if I call somebody else a necrophiliac, do I have to have sex with corpses as well?

Do you?

Actually this is so non sequitur, I don't know what to say or where it came from!

[Big Al]

It's the same way the mystery genre, thriller genre, and romance genres aren't highly regarded as literary works. Romance is one of the (I think it is the) best selling genre there is. Yet how many of those paperback novels are really worth reading?

A Farewell to Arms is commonly regarded as a "romance novel," and I'd say that people usually consider Hemingway a pretty good read.

A lot of people are actually embarrassed to admit they read those books. That doesn't mean those books don't have the "best in the genre". They do, as does every genre. The point is though, the "literary" classification is beyond genre, and takes books based on merit as works outside of genre.

Isn't that what I've been saying this entire time? That every work should be judged on its own achievements rather than the genre one assigns to it? I believe that was one of my first points.

We shouldn't make exceptions for single genres. Nora Roberts, or whatever name she writes under now, is a highly best-selling author. Do you rank her amongst Joyce, Proust, Faulkner, or better yet, more contemporary greats, Atwood, Pynchon, Rushdie, Byatt, Saramago, Morrison, etc.? God no, you can't.

You certainly could, if that's what tickles your fancy. I don't, and I also don't understand what point you are trying to make.

The same with fantasy. Fantasy fans are many, and have influence. But they aren't everything. Besides which, an internet poll on an online website is not the greatest statistic. A) there is a major sample bias, since only people with internet access, and amazon frequency will vote, and b) because many people would not vote, or have votes scattered. With a great deal of fantasy readers, Tolkien is seen as the ultimate choice, whereas the votes of others, particularly in the literary field, where there are 3000 years of volume to contemplate, the key figure is way more difficult. Some people would think Shakespeare the obvious choice, but that isn't a narrowed margin. People need to think of which play to choose, etc. There is also the language bias which narrows the overwhelming votes of English speakers against the world, who offer a tradition as old, or older, of equally as excellent works.

Oh, we're back to the whole "popularity of the trilogy thing," eh? Okay, fine. Because a poll doesn't encompass the broad spectrum of human existence, its results mean absolutely nothing, and we'll just have to go with your unsupported assertion that The Lord of the Rings was only popular with fantasy fans.

There is also the point to consider about how much one has read, versus another. The same archetype, if you have not come across it before could hamper your judgment. A plagiarist who to the reader seems original is held as high in esteem as the original. Tolkien is believed, by some ridiculous propagated fallacy, to have invented the modern fantasy genre. How many people have read his primary sources of inspiration? I bet many kids would think Wagner ripped off Tolkien.

Thank you for the lesson professor, like this thought never occured to me. How does this relate to my previous questions?

I didn't say it wasn't your more than average fantasy book, but I did say it was your mediocre book. If you want to examine literature, you need to break genre biases, and look at works for literary merit above genre, in order to classify them as good "Literature".

Will you stop pretending to lecture me by reiterating things that I already said? Genres are restrictive...Every work should be judged on its own merits...I believe I wrote that three or four posts ago.

Herbert, now on this subject, can be seen as a great of science fiction, but a bad writer.

Or a great writer of science fiction and a great writer.

He redefined mainstream sci-fi, but did little else for literature as whole, or for language.

Are you now insinuating that literature must be judged in relation to its influence on other works (or at least other works outside a given genre)?

That being said, to lure us back on topic,

Finally.

literary merit needs to be beyond genre. If only a fantasy lover CAN enjoy a book, then what sort of quality does it have for humanity?

I generally greatly dislike the vast majority of books commonly defined as "fantasy," so not only a fantasy lover CAN enjoy The Lord of the Rings.

And anyway, I would think the best book of the millennium, by the influence the works carried alone, would come down to 4 names, 1 of which being lesser than the rest in everything but influence;

Moliere's Tartuffe
Dante's Comedia
Cervantes's Don Quixote de la Mancha
Shakespeare's Hamlet

for non-fiction probably (though I am no authority at all on this, and confess to trying to broaden the scope of this list as much as possible).

Montaigne
Descartes
Thomas Aquinas
Galileo
Nietzsche
Freud
Marx
Darwin

And yet, no matter what any expert or literary critic thinks, there is no such thing as an objective opinion, and even the ideas about what consitutes great literature are subjective to each individual. I think you are displaying a remarkable narrow-mindedness, as well as elitism in your insistance that the "best book of the milennium" could only come down to books which you personally regard as the best in literature.

[Etienne]

And yet, no matter what any expert or literary critic thinks, there is no such thing as an objective opinion, and even the ideas about what consitutes great literature are subjective to each individual. I think you are displaying a remarkable narrow-mindedness, as well as elitism in your insistance that the "best book of the milennium" could only come down to books which you personally regard as the best in literature.

Elitist here, elitist there! Burn all the elitists! Actually he said based on their influence, so there's some kind of objective reasoning. But I agree with you in the end, however I don't think it's "narrow-minded and elitist!", I think it's more naive and futile...

[Big Al]

And why was he saying this about fantasy? Because of something you said... concerning fantasy literature! And the first mention of it too!

"In what way are you measuring Tolkien's alleged popularity drop? The Lord of the Rings is consistently named by critics as one of the most excellent examples of fantasy writing, and it usually ranks at the top of any science fiction or fantasy fan poll." post 207, by you.

Uh-oh!

You're ignoring the fact that I wrote that before the debate started. It was a simple description of the book that immediately came to my mind. I didn't forsee a debate coming, and I've made my stance clear, so "uh-oh," that has no relation to the posts that came afterwards.

No, I want to answer your own question "Who constitutes "the elite" and who determines the qualifications for being a member?" You are the one talking about elitists and the one who brought that up, you must have an idea about it, no?

I was asking you who you thought constituted the elite, and who you thought should determine the qualifications, because you insinuated (or at least hinted -- it's hard to say for sure when you're being so evasive) that you thought elitism wasn't necessarily a bad idea. And I've already explained, in context, why I referred to an idea as elitist, so maybe you could answer the questions instead of beating a dead horse?

[Big Al]

I just realized something, and this why I hate debating on forums like this one -- we're all essentially taking the same side of the issue. How did that happen?

[Etienne]

You're ignoring the fact that I wrote that before the debate started. It was a simple description of the book that immediately came to my mind. I didn't forsee a debate coming, and I've made my stance clear, so "uh-oh," that has no relation to the posts that came afterwards.

yes because it in fact started the debate, and it shows that you were the first to bring in this "genre" rhetoric.

I was asking you who you thought constituted the elite, and who you thought should determine the qualifications, because you insinuated (or at least hinted -- it's hard to say for sure when you're being so evasive) that you thought elitism wasn't necessarily a bad idea. And I've already explained, in context, why I referred to an idea as elitist, so maybe you could answer the questions instead of beating a dead horse?

But I have no idea! I'm not the one talking about it all the time and I can only say what I think about it once I know! It's your definition that is lacking here so we know what you mean by calling people elitists.

[JBI]

You misinterpret my words by means of your quasi-rhetoric misquoting/halfquoting. You said we need to accept books despite their genre. I said we should judge books outside of their genre. That is a completely different concept.

One would say Tolkien is a great fantasy author, therefore a great author, whereas the other would say Tolkien is a mediocre author, and is restricted to not going above the archetypes already previously used in literature before him. Completely different comparison.

But Mr. fallacy, if you wish to give argument. I am willing to listen. What do you personally think grants Tolkien the status of "literary" author? I have what I would deem proof of his failure as an author sitting on my desk. I can quote his crummy prose style, his horrible poetry, and write theses on his crummy characterization, whereas you are yet to offer a shred of proof.

I can also characterize his work, as many critics already do, as a VERY ELITIST PIECE OF WRITING. You are calling me an elitist for criticizing the work of an elitist?

Just for you to note. A Farewell to Arms is not a Romance novel, since it lacks the key ingredient, which, by genre definition is required; the happy ending.

We are dealing with structuralist critical theory here, and it is important to use terminology correctly before making pseudo arguments.

And as Etienne has so beautifully put it, when he talked about your fantasy poll as proof of critical acclaim, that doesn't justify the book as Literature. It justifies it as popular fantasy fiction.

Joyce is hardly the most accessible author, and is clearly not the most commonly read, yet he is literary.

The merits for literary status, though not (how could they be) definable as such, involve the requirement of certain criteria which we have come to accept as a general rule. There is a general consensus that for something to be literary it must possess at least one of several things that have been seen throughout the progression since Homer started Western Literature. a few are: Originality, neither King nor Tolkien have that. Unique/new use of language/prose stylistic devices. A new view/revelation on the human experience, and human psyche/what it means to be living/what it means to be human. A new philosophical development of thought. A new structure to the novel, such as Faulkner's head hopping, etc. There are a few more, but those are some big ones.

Selling books, and being read by many ignorant readers doesn't make you literary. If we were judging books based on sales, Dan Brown would be taught in schools over Faulkner, Grisham over Fitzgerald, and people would gain nothing, learn nothing, and feel nothing, but some cheap thrills at finishing a novel (look mommy, I can read, I actually can read a book! Woopie!!!).

Thanks.

[teejay17]

Stephen King: Trash, or Literature?

That all depends if we're talking about literature, or capital "L" Literature.
How is "Literature" being contextualized for this discussion?

[Trillian]

Does anyone else see that? *walks toward a can just barely visible through the smoke* It's a can! *looks closer* By golly, it's full of worms!!

Seriously, though, I appreciate this. I am actually discovering quite a bit about the true definition of Literature, and have found some definite merit in the trash vs. lit debate. I must say, since I adore King, and have read everything he has written (except for a few things so old and obscure that I can't find them), that I find myself in a position of bias that I thought I was immune to. Until the King bashing began, that is. How dare they, was my thought. He is a genius! They just don't know good writing blah blah blah... Then, it hit me. Some people don't like King, and that is it. I can't change their minds, and that is fine. And, after some serious soul-searching, I must reluctantly admit that, while King is my go-to author for some thrills, he so far has not provided me with the serious train of thought that some books have, like 1984, The Monkey Wrench Gang, Illusions, Fahrenheit 451... The type of thought that demands that you set the book in your lap and think about what you just read. That demands that you take notes, or take action, or really hash it out with anyone who will listen, just so you can sound off. The type of book that makes you feel changed when you finish it.

Despite my "born-again" moment, however, I will never see King as Popular Fiction Trash, and refuse to believe that he spends so much time fleshing out his characters, unfolding his story lines, and simply writing just to make money. I think that for him, the money is just a bonus. Unlike Dean Koontz.

[islandclimber]

"Genre writing," eh? What is "genre writing," exactly? After all, one could assign a specific, narrow-minded genre to any book.

Writing a book that could theoretically fit into a given genre is only bad if one assumes that the genre is inherently bad, or "un-literary," in which case I would ask that person what specifically is wrong with said genre.

I don't think you can assign a specific narrow-minded genre to works of great literature, for the very reason that usually they transcend genres and encompass aspects of so many different genres into them... what genre would you place "don quixote" under, or "the brothers karamazov" or "hamlet" or "the divine comedy"... I mean you could find elements of so many genres in each of them, but at the same time works of great literature, in my opinion transcend classification into specific genres... they are outside genre writing... and that is what I was trying to say...

not that this is that relevant to the argument... but look at literary journals/magazines or literary competitions... generally in their submission guidelines they say we will not accept works of genre writing.. I don't think they're saying we won't accept any works that have fantasy or science fiction or mystery elements in them, just that they won't accept mediocre works that only strictly fit into a genre... such as Tolkien, or King, or Clancy, or Danielle Steele... and maybe Tolkien is a great fantasy writer but that is it, that doesn't necessarily make him great literature too... same with King, he can great in science fiction or fantasy or horror, but he isn't a great writer, not by any stretch of the imagination... they lack the broad scope and influence that literature needs to have in my opinion...

maybe this is elitist, but I don't think it is... I respect others opinions on what they like to read, what they enjoy reading but I have my own opinions too, and telling me I'm wrong and elitist isn't going to change my opinion... I'd have to be convinced that my opinion wasn't right, which you haven't even started to do... basically this argument has been about semantics... and to say that we are elitist for having our own opinions, which we are not forcing on anyone, but just stating what we think and believe... I mean I thought that was a right of each person, freedom of opinion, free will, free thought... we're not looking down on others, we just have a different opinion, as do you, so in a sense, you could be called elitist for your own views, someone who thinks Danielle Steele is the best writer in the world, and say all the stuff we think is literature, she thinks it's crap... according to your definitions she is elitist too... This type of thinking is how the communism turned oppressive, how the ideas of utopias get mutated into saying everyone who thinks differently is elitist, and evil, and should be punished, oppressed for any originality, any freedom of thought...

So as I said, I think you can't call someone elitist for voicing their opinion... maybe if in so doing they say that anyone who thinks different is stupid, yes that is elitist, but not just for saying what they think, while respecting what others think...

back to topic, as JBI said, I think for any book to be great literature it has to be looked at for its merits outside of genre, not despite its genre as you said.. two very different things... I believe books have to transcend genres to be great literature and until someone convinces me otherwise this will not change...

cheers

[ZoeyJuly]

well i agree... srry had to say so.... i was bored