What makes books worth reading? Who decides what is literature and what is just plain old fiction? Is there even a line that divides the two?
As an avid reader, these questions sort of leave a bad taste in my mouth. I will hungrily read just about anything: classic literature, young adult fiction, nonfiction, you name it. I don't like trying to discern which books serve some sort of "higher calling" as literature and which are just lowly entertainment. But discern this I had to do, as this was the main focus of the class this week: the difference between commercial fiction and literature.
One of the first things we did this week was read a entitled "Reading the Story", which discussed the difference between literature and other sorts of fiction. *Sigh* I wouldn't have a problem with its explanation if its author wasn't so pretentious about it. He/she (I don't know the gender; why doesn't the English language have a both gender, singular, third person pronoun?) just comes off as so certain that literature is so much better, intrinsically different from other kinds of fiction. To this person, literature is something that requires thought to be written and thought to be read; reading a piece of literature once won't do it justice. And this is where my main conflict resides.
Who is this author, to decide that commercial fiction takes no deep thinking to write? That commercial fiction is only to entertain the masses and not to prove a point? (I know this isn't exactly what the piece said, but this is the impression that I got from it.) Of course there are some authors (*coughs* James Patterson *coughs*) that write solely to make money, but that doesn't mean that all "commercial fiction" authors do. Writing of any kind, whether it's a young adult novel or the next Shakespeare play, requires a baring of the soul to the world. When you write (as we discussed during the first week of class), you are placing your thoughts and beliefs down. No matter if it's J.K. Rowling or Margaret Atwood, authors incorporate some of their ideas about the world in their writing.
And this is the ultimate problem. Who is to say that the contemporary fiction of today won't become the literature of tomorrow? Certainly some of the "great works of literature" we hold in such high regard today were considered to be "commercial fiction" in their own time.
As far as my own beliefs go, I think that the main difference between literature and commercial fiction is that literature stands the test of time. And yes, I am aware that there are issues with this definition. However, the line between literature and commercial fiction isn't a line; it is a crooked and dotted squiggle that is different for every reader. For if literature is considered to be writings that ask the big questions about the human experience, it makes sense that every person views literature differently. After all, doesn't each human experience something different in their short lives? No two lives are exactly the same.
All of this discussion is culminating into a project that we are doing in groups. I really do like the project idea, looking at different elements of storytelling and seeing how they apply to different short stories, although I am not quite certain what exactly we are doing with it. In any case, reading, no matter what "category" of reading it is, makes you enter a conversation about the human experience.
Quote of the Week: “That is part of the beauty of all literature. You discover that your longings are universal longings, that you're not lonely and isolated from anyone. You belong.” - F. Scott Fitzgerald (Related Quote)
As an avid reader, these questions sort of leave a bad taste in my mouth. I will hungrily read just about anything: classic literature, young adult fiction, nonfiction, you name it. I don't like trying to discern which books serve some sort of "higher calling" as literature and which are just lowly entertainment. But discern this I had to do, as this was the main focus of the class this week: the difference between commercial fiction and literature.
One of the first things we did this week was read a entitled "Reading the Story", which discussed the difference between literature and other sorts of fiction. *Sigh* I wouldn't have a problem with its explanation if its author wasn't so pretentious about it. He/she (I don't know the gender; why doesn't the English language have a both gender, singular, third person pronoun?) just comes off as so certain that literature is so much better, intrinsically different from other kinds of fiction. To this person, literature is something that requires thought to be written and thought to be read; reading a piece of literature once won't do it justice. And this is where my main conflict resides.
Who is this author, to decide that commercial fiction takes no deep thinking to write? That commercial fiction is only to entertain the masses and not to prove a point? (I know this isn't exactly what the piece said, but this is the impression that I got from it.) Of course there are some authors (*coughs* James Patterson *coughs*) that write solely to make money, but that doesn't mean that all "commercial fiction" authors do. Writing of any kind, whether it's a young adult novel or the next Shakespeare play, requires a baring of the soul to the world. When you write (as we discussed during the first week of class), you are placing your thoughts and beliefs down. No matter if it's J.K. Rowling or Margaret Atwood, authors incorporate some of their ideas about the world in their writing.
And this is the ultimate problem. Who is to say that the contemporary fiction of today won't become the literature of tomorrow? Certainly some of the "great works of literature" we hold in such high regard today were considered to be "commercial fiction" in their own time.
As far as my own beliefs go, I think that the main difference between literature and commercial fiction is that literature stands the test of time. And yes, I am aware that there are issues with this definition. However, the line between literature and commercial fiction isn't a line; it is a crooked and dotted squiggle that is different for every reader. For if literature is considered to be writings that ask the big questions about the human experience, it makes sense that every person views literature differently. After all, doesn't each human experience something different in their short lives? No two lives are exactly the same.
All of this discussion is culminating into a project that we are doing in groups. I really do like the project idea, looking at different elements of storytelling and seeing how they apply to different short stories, although I am not quite certain what exactly we are doing with it. In any case, reading, no matter what "category" of reading it is, makes you enter a conversation about the human experience.
Quote of the Week: “That is part of the beauty of all literature. You discover that your longings are universal longings, that you're not lonely and isolated from anyone. You belong.” - F. Scott Fitzgerald (Related Quote)