Literature - a vague stab at understanding

[andrewducker]

One of the eternal free-floating arguments that can be guaranteed to pop up from time to time, along with "What does it all mean?" and "Freedom - how much is too much?" is the question "But is it Literature?" - a question that I've mostly managed to ignore except when it's pejoratively directed towards SF (with the implicit assumption that it is impossible to be both science fiction and literature at the same time).

My main reason for ignoring it has been that I haven't had any internal guide as to what 'Literature' was - as to whether there even _was_ a difference between high and low art, or whether the two terms were merely handy ways for critics to declare that their lofty tastes were implicitly superior to the tastes of the hoi polloi.

And then, in a throw away line at today's panel "Is the Centre of Science Fiction at its Margins?" (How have women's, queer and black voices reshaped our ideas of what science fiction is) Geoff Ryman summed it up perfectly when he said "Entertainment leaves the reader innocent."

And that, to me, was suddenly 'it'.  One can read any number of entertaining books (or watch any number of entertaining movies/TV shows) and still be left innocent - you've done nothing more than go "Wheeeee!" for an hour or two, frightened and exhilarated as if you'd just ridden the roller-coaster at Disney-World.  But literature goes further than that - it educates and enlightens.  It strips away our preconceptions, it illuminates our fantasies, it holds up a mirror and shows us what really look like.

Which isn't to say that there's anything wrong with excitement and adventure and really wild things; sometimes I just want to be entertained.  But I get something more from literature - I get a definite something from a book like (for instance) We Need to Talk About Kevin or Air that I don't get (for instance) from any number of other books - a feeling of resonance and of uncovering something about the human condition in general and myself in particular.

Comments

[cybik.livejournal.com]

So one man's literature is another man's entertainment?

In the book trade people talk of "literary fiction" (including Umberto Eco, Salman Rushdie et al.), but, like most genres, that seems to be an artificial categorisation that merely aids in the search for books.


I suppose that art could be defined in a similar way - art, to me, is something that makes one feel something (with no particular bias towards the positive or negative), which generally means that something may be "art" to me and not to another person.

[wychwood]

That's... a really interesting definition. And fits with a classification that I had in my head, though I'd never given the categories actual titles. I shall have to remember that. Thank you!

[blackmanxy.livejournal.com]

One of the things we discussed in my writing classes was the "rules" for various kinds of fiction. In order for something to be "literature" (or "quality fiction" as Borders calls it), it needs to fulfill a few conditions. Now, aside from the fact that those conditions kind of change with the whims of academia and the artistic community, it generally does boil down to what you've posted here.

Genre fiction is derided because it has different rules. Fantasy, for example, doesn't need to "say" anything or change the reader in any way. Start with Campbell's Hero's Journey, add in some familiar elements (generally at least one or two things you can find in Tolkien's work - or a thinly-veiled version thereof), and there you have it: you've fulfilled all the requirements to be fantasy. And sometimes, the rules for a genre actively work against the rules for being quality fiction (since some of the rules for quality fiction exist purely to oppose genres).

The trouble really starts when you have "genre" fiction that doesn't entirely fit the genre. Now, romance is romance. If it's got enough criteria to qualify as "literature," it's not just a romance anymore. By definition. So there's no conflict. Some genres might have a few earmarks of a genre without causing a problem. A "quality fiction" book or story that takes place in the Old West isn't necessarily a "Western." So again, there isn't a problem.

Unfortunately, while people can generally see past things like historical settings, some just can't see past the tropes of science fiction and fantasy. So they assume because it has some elements of science fiction and fantasy, that it's nothing more than "genre fiction," and therefore not "quality. Now, fantasy is pretty guilty of having a defined genre that doesn't really offer much in the way of quality. There's a lot of fluff in fantasy. Well-written, high-quality fluff, but fluff nonetheless. And finding fantasy that *isn't* just fluff is actually pretty difficult (I say this speaking as someone who enjoys a good deal of fantasy).

What gets me, though, is the perception of science fiction as a genre like romance and fantasy. To illustrate my point, I'll describe the first day of one of my writing classes. We did an exercise as a class where we wrote several genres of fiction on the board. Then we brainstormed and threw out suggestions for elements of those genres. Once we had a complete list, the exercise itself began. The instructor discussed how one can sometimes create quality fiction by turning the elements of a genre upside-down. Not just in satire, but in doing the unexpected.

I wanted so, so bad to say "but that's what science fiction is. It's not laser guns and spaceships and little green men; it's taking elements of, not just literature, but culture and religion and science, and turning them on their heads." It isn't always, no, but it falls into a hackneyed pattern less often than most other genres. But some people just don't want to see that.

However, I think I know part of why that is. Science fiction literature and especially television and cinema have a long, long track record of doing that whole exploratory, turning-things-upside-down shtick - and doing it badly. Because meeting that one criterion won't save a story or book or movie from its bad writing, cardboard characters, etc.

I don't know how this turned into such a long rant, particularly since it might only be tangentially related to what you were saying. I'll just attribute it to being tired and not having eaten yet.

[the-mendicant.livejournal.com]

Well said sir! Having just flown back from an action packed weekend in Amsterdam, my brain is too tired to write something erudite in reply, but I totally agree with what you say. A good book challenges you and changes your perception of the world.

[ninox.livejournal.com]

The term that we would use is added value. But this is very much down to an individuals perception of a books contents. It is one of the greatest debates in cataloguing with no easy resolution. No matter how you define something there will always be cross overs with other genres. One person's experience and knowledge can add a twist to the interpretation and learning experiences from a book. Take a trashy Mills and Boon novel - no way would I give it any literary credit. But as an aid to information literacy it has it's place and many teenagers have formed their perceptions of romance from such books. In such an example the same Mills and Boon will educate, illuminate fantasies. Cringe!

I enjoy Paul Doherty as an author as he is generally well research and will include historical time lines and references to give reality to his work. I still wouldn't consider it anything more than interesting entertainment even though I may off gain knowledge of a particular era.

I would say your definition of literature is still too simplistic. I would still say the definition is one of the holy grails of the information industry. Let me know when you have discovered something more all encompassing.