True Literature

[bloodyrosemccoy]

For some reason this week’s Discussion Topic seems to be the nature of Literature. From one of my friends’ frustration with someone trying to write a Great Book where nothing happens to the world’s most boring character* to the Publisher’s Weekly decision to make their “10 most important books of 2009” be a bunch of navelgazer books By Middle-Aged White Guys, For Middle-Aged White Guys, And Frequently Starring Middle-Aged White Guys, with stops in between for stories on creative writing classes that do not feel genre fiction “counts.”

I’m not sure why it’s all coming at me at once, but believe me, I get that frustration. I’ve been frustrated with Great Literature since high school, when pointing out that it was actually quite stupid was not met with the same revelation the citizens had when the small child pointed out the emperor was naked.** I simply got told I wasn’t seeing the whole picture.

The whole picture was a parade of books by what appeared to be some extremely self-important people. And this week it hit me—that’s the trouble with so much Great Literature. It was written to be that way, by people who thought they were the deepest fucking bastards ever to pick up a pen.

I hate books like that, books whose primary motive is to blow your mind with how amazingly brilliant the author is. The books I like, which I have been known to describe as “good despite being Great Literature,” are the ones that got there themselves, without the author pushing it along as a testament to their own genius. They’re the books where the author seems to be really having fun, to be telling the story because it’s a story and not because it’s got some deep meaningful meaning. It’s why I like Dickens’ Our Mutual Friend but not Great Expectations. It’s why I think Faulkner, Hemingway, Arthur Miller, Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, and especially Thoreau were such pompous blowhards. It’s why I love me some genre fiction, fiction where even self-important authors like Ursula K. LeGuin*** don’t forget that they’re writing a story and not just some extended metaphor.

It’s why I want to be an intelligent hack. I’ve worked hard to learn how to write a real story, not just a monument to myself. That seems to be the way to enjoy life, and to have your characters do the same—something that seems lacking in the drabness of self-important writing. And hell, I’d be more willing to read it—and despite the perpetuation of snobbery, I’m betting I’m not the only one.


*Okay, let me just say it: there is no such thing as an Everyman. It’s impossible. Quit trying, because your attempts just lead to a completely uninteresting person.

**There was a terrific version of the story where at the end, instead of everyone having a good laugh at themselves, the mother quickly shushes the boy and apologizes to the emperor, and the kid goes through life believing that he really was some moron who just couldn’t see the clothes. I can’t remember who wrote it, but I found it hilarious.

***She can wax pompous, but she also does much less navel-gazing than your average non-genre writer.

Comments

[igntethestars.livejournal.com]

Writing for your own self-importance is half of why I don't read many books that are published now. The author seems to go into half of these books knowing their spectacular, and that they're going to be wonderful someday. I adore me some Harry Potter, but I enjoy her first three books the best out of the entire series. It was before she became INSANELY FAMOUS, and she was just writing to get a story idea out of her head. Then it became her job, and after that, her writing didn't seem to be as interesting anymore.

It's another reason why I honestly don't think I'll ever be published. Publishing my novel means that I have done this to get paid, and therefore takes the fun out of it.

The most fun novels are the ones that aren't out to blow your mind, but DO. The entire Harry Dresden novel - Jim Butcher still admits he has a BLAST writing those, and it shows in every page. It's the same with his Codex Alera series. I'd choose him over J.K Rowling or Stephenie Meyer any day of the week.

And so ends my version of your rant xDD

[padparadscha.livejournal.com]

*grin* My brother refers to it as the I'm So Fucking Deep Phase--and yes, we applied it to JK Rowling. Fortunately, he's noted that often it does seem to just be a phase.

I want to publish stuff I've really enjoyed writing, but we'll see how that goes, eh?

And I shall have to check out Jim Butcher--I haven't read his stuff yet, but that is a good recommendation. Usually the author's enjoyment shines through.

[igntethestars.livejournal.com]

http://www.jim-butcher.com/books/dresden/1/ That's the first Harry Dresden novel :) You can read the first . .two chatpers, I think? It's a good way to tell if you're going to like his writing style or not.

[westrider.livejournal.com]

I've just blown through everything Butcher has written so far in the last three months. The only bit I didn't enjoy was when I realized that the Codex Alera is actually 6 books, not 5, and the last one isn't out yet :(

Butcher is a solid practitioner of the "Let's come up with a cool character and then find some ways to screw him over and see how he reacts" School of Writing, which I find I generally enjoy if I like the Character.

[agenttrojie.livejournal.com]

AMEN TO EVERYTHING.

[neintales.livejournal.com]

Agreeed.

[stormteller.livejournal.com]

I recall a version of the Emperor's Clothes story where the emperor had the offending child and his family executed and everyone continued to play along until they all died of exposure. A little bit more realistic, if bleaker.

Anyway, if I ever hear someone going on about Great Literature et al versus the small-minded Genre Fiction, I will simply point out to them that I'm over here in the mainstream- that is to say, the catalog of books that people actually read.
And also that there's no such thing as genre fiction.

[padparadscha.livejournal.com]

Genre Fiction is a convenient label for me to differentiate between the two kinds, but I feel that either every book is genre, or none of them are. None of this Some Books Are Genre nonsense.

That might be the same version I was thinking of. I kinda feel it's more realistic, too.

[renshai.livejournal.com]

The version I heard as a child was that the mother shushed him, everyone took their clothes off, and shortly died of pneumonia.

The moral of the story being there's a reason we wear clothes in Canada not to shush dissenting voices....because otherwise you could all end up naked and dead.

Also, augh. Steinbeck. The bane of my high school literature career.

[padparadscha.livejournal.com]

The original Hans Christian Andersen version has everyone figuring it out and shouting that he's naked. The Emperor suspects that they're right but keeps walking anyway because what else you gonna do?

I rather like your moral, though.

Steinbeck was not as awful for me as ... guh ... FAULKNER. God, I hated that dude.

[narnian-dreamer.livejournal.com]

I actually love Miller and Fitzgerald, but I know what you mean. That was a huge barrier to my enjoyment of Proust when I was forced to read Swann's Way.

Have I ever told you my theory that the disavowal of "genre" fiction by academia is the reason why terrible books like The DaVinci Code and Twilight become majorly popular?

It's a theory I developed when told by multiple people that The DaVinci Code was worth reading if I wasn't going to look for themes and characters and could just concentrate on the awesome plot.

And then I read it and found that while the themes and characters were indeed lacking, the plot was THE most poorly paced, boring, senseless little thing I had ever seen in my entire life. And I theorized that because "plot" is the most looked-down-upon aspect of writing in school, schools have created whole generations of people who both cannot tell a good plot from a bad plot because they've been actively discouraged from paying attention to them, and who've been explicitly told that books written "for plot" are by nature of little worth and so the minute they're told a particular book is supposed to be "suspenseful," they stop expecting it to have good characters or writing style or to have themes at all and are undisappointed by their lack because they've been told they're not supposed to be there in the first place.

Which may not actually explain Twilight, which most people have told me is good because of the characters (not true), but I think the same principle applies: its fans read it uncritically because it's "genre" fiction and they've been told that "genre" fiction is unworthy of criticism.

[viizou.livejournal.com]

It's funny, even though your post is about creative literature, I'm tempted to apply your words to scholarly work, too. The best work is done by people who are truly passionate and interested in what they do, and just want to make their field more appealing to other people by showing how awesome it is - not by those who want to show how knowledgeable and awesome they are.

In other words: I need to have fun again when I'm working. Thanks for the reminder.

[gwalla.livejournal.com]

I actually liked Steinbeck's Cannery Row a lot. Sweet Thursday, the sequel, wasn't bad either.

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Well, well said. Eric Burns-White has said similar.

[queenlyzard.livejournal.com]

hi-five!