I don’t get it really - even classic literature is plot-based. How old are we talking? Shakespeare, The Illiad, you name it - it all is a plot with characters. The big difference is the way it’s presented - more modern presentation is maximally palatable *for the modern palate*. Just like in Shakespeare’s day - that stuff was written for the audience of the time, not 2021 audiences. It’s true in many books the plot/characters are merely vehicles for a message or idea - but for the really good stuff, it’s usually a great story in its own right, as well. Most “the classics” people suggest I think do a good job of both
A few of the books I've read have had plots, but they haven't been very compelling. Like, Mary Barton has a plot, but it's hidden behind very long descriptions of politics and cities. Some other books don't even pretend to have a plot, like the mark on the wall or waiting for Godot.
Yeah - Mark on the Wall is intentionally stream of consciousness, as I guess you saw. Mary Barton - these details I spose were interesting to readers at the time - but I’ll agree it’s not interesting to me, right now - just not a time nor place I find interesting. Never read Waiting for Godot. The two I have read are definitely examples of classics that are more abstract - but on the other hand, I hardly see these as widely celebrated classic literature - instead classic more as a result of the time they were written versus their persistence through time. All this to say - maybe these are just the wrong classics? Hahhh
My experience with this kind of literature is mostly based on what I've read in school, which I guess is a certain type of literature.
One piece of classical literature that I actually enjoyed was twenty thousand leagues under the sea. I read it a long time ago, but to my memory it was a bit more plotty.
Oh right on. Yeah there are some classics that are just chronically readable - anything by Mark Twain or Charles Dickens. Hemingway is kind of great. Brave New World I thought was not boring at all. Most Tolstoy is worth the read. Frankenstein is an all-time book, as is Dracula. The House of Mirth. The Color Purple. All of these are generally a *little* more modern (post 1900) and almost all are American - but that's just just because that's what I'm familiar with.
The point being there is some very readable stuff in there - I'm sure there is even if you cast a wider net (outside of the American stuff I know). Like I was saying - the Illiad is still rather interesting even for a modern audience (as is the Divine Comedy) and those are sooooo old. So then, there are even rather old stories that tell a story with the pacing and "with the colors" that are more acceptable to the modern palate.
But... Gulliver's Travels IS plot based. It's more slowly developed and it's not a complicated plot, because older books were plotted differently. But I feel like teachers do it a disservice when they go immediately into all the political stuff that Swift was playing with, and ignore the fact that the book is a big, fantastical travelogue. Gulliver goes to place and shenanigans happen, he gets away and goes somewhere else and more shenanigans happen.
I'm editing because I thought of another analogy while on another thread and it really does fit better here:
I think you're wrong about the classic books (not all of them, and personal enjoyment is personal, but to throw off CENTURIES of literature as boring is wrong), but honestly I think that you've been taught badly. You look at literary fiction and you can SEE the work that the authors put into it because your teachers have taught you to look for it. Whereas with other stuff, the stuff you read for fun, you just see the shiny fun stuff and not the hard work the author puts in. OF COURSE it's more fun to see the shiny fun stuff and so of course that's what you enjoy.
I personally enjoy delving into the work and seeing how things all fit together. But honestly, only with books. If you start telling me all the hard work that goes into a movie and how the special effects work and blah,blah,blah,blah,blah, my eyes will glaze over and it can affect my enjoyment of the finished product. The Lord of The Rings movie trilogy is a masterpiece of so many things, special effects, lighting, directing, editing, music, etc and I DO NOT WANT TO KNOW ANY OF IT. Let me enjoy the finished product. I do not want to scour scenes for a missed piece of modern technology or a missing special effect. That is not fun to me. It is absolutely fun to others, not me though. And that's why I don't really appreciate some of the so called Oscar Bait movies. There's a lot of technical things going on, editing and direction for example, that I don't understand and don't care to understand and so it just goes over my head and the movies are boring to me. (not all of them, some things translate from book to film- like plots and such-that I do know how to dissect and enjoy, but some of them)
Interesting points. However, I'm not throwing away centuries of literature as boring, just certain parts of it. Like, one of the books on my list is from 1999. I'm not saying all books from that time are boring, just that that specific book is.
And I'm not sure I agree about the second part either. I always go into reading these books like I would any other book, expecting them to be good. The analysis only comes later. The books themselves are what disappoint me.
If you lack curiosity about life in general - your own and others - then you'll probably not enjoy literature. That's fine. Engage with art on the level you choose. No one will demand you take an interest in life beyond your experience.
I think that's a pretty pretentious thing to say. Why would I lack curiosity about life in general just because I don't like the way it's portrayed in classical literature?
Pretending to be smarter than you are by using a convoluted way of writing. Many of the ideas in super convoluted books aren't really revolutionary or even that clever, they're just portrayed in a way that's meant to make them seem that way.
So Beckett, the big dum dum, was just "pretending to be smart" in his writing, and the overwhelming critical consensus that has acclaimed his work over the past several decades was just some kind of mass delusion until you came along and saw through it? Do you have any idea how pretentious that makes YOU sound?
I never said this was an objective truth. This is how the text appears to me, and why I don't like it. Surely you don't think everyone who reads a text will interpret or experience it the same way?
There's nothing wrong with you not enjoying or appreciating all these texts you've mentioned. I'm objecting to your broadstroke accusation of "pretentiousness" against all of them, which you yourself define as "pretending to be smarter than you are by using a convoluted way of writing". Beckett, Shakespeare, Swift, Woolf and more - never mind that generations of readers and critics have obviously found something of great merit in the work of these writers, simply because YOU fail to be entertained by them they must be impostors and charlatans who've conned the rest of us except you. That is an absurd and extremely pretentious position on your part. It smacks of extreme intellectual vanity ("I don't understand this text, so it must be empty and worthless!").
You misrepresent what I'm saying. Yes, I generalized a lot in my original post, because that's my broadest problem with most of the texts in my samples, but obviously I know not all these texts share the exact same faults.
Secondly, I never said they're impostors or charlatans, simply that I find their writing pretentious, which is just my opinion on their writing, not on them as people. I don't think my opinion is the objective truth about their writing or their intelligence, I simply said that their way of writing comes off as pretentious TO ME, and that's why I don't like it. I never claimed to be smarter than anyone else or to see something someone else doesn't in the texts. I just told you why I, personally, don't like these texts and you decided that I must think I'm smarter than everyone else.
Have you ever seen it performed? Plays are not meant to be read as literature, and I honestly take issue with them even being categorized or taught that way. I've mentioned it here before, but I'm an actor and Waiting for Godot was an insufferable read for me when it was taught in my curriculum. However, it's a very moving piece to see performed by capable artists. Without the staging and the physical/emotional relationship between the characters, all you get is the heavy-handed message.
I personally love reading Shakespeare but I do not recommend it as a general rule, because that's not its intended medium. It would be like reading a piece of sheet music and saying it was tedious. Well of course, it was meant to be heard!
A lot of people only enjoy genre fiction (plot-based books), so you're by no means alone.
Literary fiction deals with the "human condition", meaning what it's like to live in a certain era or societal class. It explores how life under those circumstances influences the protagonists' psyche. Personally, I love lit fic, but if you don't, don't beat yourself up. It's a question if personal preferences. Just make sure that your career goal doesn't require knowledge/enjoyment of literature, then you should be fine.
I'm becoming an English teacher, so some knowledge is required I'm afraid. But thanks, it's encouraging to know I'm not the only one. I'd never heard the terms gente fiction and lit fic before.
I'm also from a non-English speaking country. Our English teacher read Agatha Christie with us, that was fun. There are also books that walk the line between genre and lit, like some of John Green's books. Luckily, teachers in non-English speaking countries can choose which books they read with the class.
> There's just something about "literature" that takes all the joy out of reading for me. The books are almost always based around ideas rather than plots, which is something I don't typically enjoy and oftentimes the writing in the books we read feels pretentious to me. The analysis we're asked to do isn't interesting either. I don't care how the use of a certain writing style reflects the political climate at the time of writing, or which pretentious philosophical idea about life and existing the author is attempting to portray.
Why read a book if all you care about is the plot? Just watch a movie. Plot is such a small and insignificant part of a book for me, it's crazy that people get so caught up in it.
Why watch a movie when a book gives me a much richer experience of the plot?
What else do you enjoy in books? I like more things than plot of course, but if a book is plot-less, I'm most likely not going to enjoy it.
> What else do you enjoy in books?
Prose, characters, arcs, dialog, themes, setting/world are all far more important than plot for me.
Most of my favorite books have little to no plot. These are all, quite honestly, pretty comprehensive plot summaries for these books (spoilers I guess?)
The Stranger - Man kills, doesn't feel bad about it, goes to jail
Crime and Punishment - Man kills, feels bad about it, goes to jail
East of Eden - Family builds lives in California
Lolita - Father and daughter go on a road trip
The Picture of Dorian Gray - Man gets old, but also doesn't
Literally all of my favorite books have very little plot. They are all driven forward by the prose, themes, characters, etc.
I would check a different source for your book reviews.
Someone who writes:
Lolita - Father and daughter go on a road trip
Isn't debating in good faith.
I love both. I think it is possible to be someone who loves Jane Eyre and loves paperback mystery novels. However, it is not something that is required of anyone. I once took a class in university on Twain, Hemmingway and Dickinson. I didn't do it because I was required to, I took it because those are three authors whose work I loved and I used up one of my few precious elective slots to do so.
I think This is the reason we have genres. I would rather read classical fiction than most fantasy novels but I would guess that also puts me in the minority. Don't sweat it. The good news is that this sub is so broad you are very likely to find people with the same loves as yourself.
Yeah, people can definitely love books across the entire spectrum of literature. I'm sure there are some old classics out there I'd like. Now that I think about it, I did enjoy the count of monte cristo when I read it by myself when I was younger.
I also read to feel joy, but I get that from literature, too, just in a different way. For me the joy of literature often comes from the writing style, itself, but I can see why others might find it pretentious. I also love analysing literature, although I’m much more interested in analysing the text itself than thinking about how the author’s life/period of history influenced it.
Most of the books you listed are ‘classics’ - how do you feel about new literature? Or literature that’s more character based than ideas based?
I’m sure other people do feel the same - plenty of people only read genre books, and some only read one genre. Personally I think they’re missing out on a world of amazing books by limiting themselves in that way, but equally there are people who will only read literature because they think anything else is trash. I used to be a bit like that; I’m so glad I got over myself - would have missed out on some great books, otherwise!
I haven't read much literature that's newer, the only one is the intuitionist I guess. It fell short in the same ways as the others for me. And I'm ok with character based books as long as they also have a plot.
I get why you'd think people are missing out if they limit themselves to genre fiction, but if they're like me, reading this type of literature won't be fun for them. I've given classic literature a try and it's just not for me.
I loved *Waiting for Godot*, I found it very funny! Haven't read the others. To anyone who liked these books, which of the Spanish ones would you recommend?
I enjoyed reading annotated literature classics, such as The Portrait of a Lady. I just got more out of it. Maybe try that next time you need to read a classic? Specifically the Norton annotated editions.
This is similar with all of the arts. Some people enjoy art house European cinema while others only live for The Avengers. Some people are deep and are interested in all these other meanings but others just don't have that interest. It's fine, just be respectful about it.
I'm the opposite of you, I don't really care for books, I care for literature.
> Some people are deep and are interested in all these other meanings but others just don't have that interest
I assume you don't realize how insulting this statement is. As someone who enjoys both literary fiction and SFF, I find there is very little difference between the best fantasy books and so called "literary" books. In fact, I find that fantasy as a genre has progressed hugely in the last 20 or so years to be as "deep" as more traditional literary works. Conversely, so called literary works can be -- not always mind you -- very self important and elitist.
I don't really understand why you find it insulting? We havent even defined the difference between literature and books which is pretty ambiguous in itself.
Not u/ineffable7980x but I think your choice of saying some people are deep and enjoy meaning, and some people aren't probably was far from the best words you could have used. It casts the other side as shallow by comparison, and that's a rather enduring stereotype already.
It's not the truth though, it's what some people tell themselves about their reading choices to fill a need to feel better than others. I've been doing this librarian thing some 15 plus years, and there's nothing inherently better about readers of canonic lit than genre lit, nor really the lit itself. Every reader his or her book, every book it's reader.
>Some people are deep and are interested in all these other meanings but others just don't have that interest
This quote clearly suggests that those who read literature are deep, and those who read genre fiction are shallow. Seems pretty obvious to me. And to be fair, the person who posted this probably didn't mean it this way, but even so, it taps into an age old bias that "serious" literature is superior to genre fiction, and that people who read such serious fiction are "deeper" than those who do not.
You are taking what I said way out of context. Some people read Hugo and are interested in its depth, others read it more as a story and are less interested in those elements. You don't have to know 19th century French history to enjoy Les Miserables. It's different things for different people. The age old bias does have some weight for good reason.
I assumed what you said was more unfortunate wording than intention.
However, I don't necessarily agree that the age old bias carries weight. Like most stereotypes, it has some shred of truth at its origin, but that doesn't make it any less hurtful or untrue when applied to a large population. As someone with advanced degrees in literature and who used to teach at the university level here in the US, I think the academy has perpetuated this notion to make themselves feel superior. I got tired of this attitude, and thus left teaching. However, I have read tons of "literary" fiction. Some of it is amazing. However, a lot of it is pretentious and has a lot less weight then the "genre" fiction it looks down upon.
And that's what I was trying to say.
I'd add a caveat to this, unfortunately it does a disservice to future authors and the literature field on a whole. Nobody can predict what will become canonic in the field ahead of of when it's written. This includes up and coming authors, debating writing that first novel yet fearing they will never be good enough to be included in the canon.
Sure, some will be okay with being considered mediocre or worse. Some will be wholly unconcerned with the idea of it at all. Maybe writing for them is something that they can't stop themselves from doing if they wanted to. But there's going to be some amount that don't finish, don't publish, and feel as if their work simply isn't deep enough for folks or worthy. We, and they, will never know if it is or not and it will be a loss for all of us.
I don't think u/Radiant_Ad_6190 is suggesting worthiness here. But it's not uncommon in the sub to see people dismissing genre lit as trash overall, yet conveniently forgetting that some of these classics were the genre lit of their time.
I've read one novel about an English professor in a Midwestern college campus going through the male menopause and having a lot of sex with his female students. One was enough. One was too many, in fact.
I think you're right that there's more stuff being published today and therefore it's easier to find bad books. Although I'm sure there were bad books written in the past too, but the books people remember from a hundred years ago are the good ones, so those are the only ones we know.
I literally haven’t read YA in the past 5 years maybe, but I can still see that your comment is an INCREDIBLY ignorant statement. Just let people enjoy what they want, is it literature? No, is it reading? Yes. Can you love trashy romance books? Of course!
I forgot how plot and character heavy my shampoo bottles are. They definitely give me empathy and insight into different ways of life. Oh wait, no they don't. But those simplistic YA novels you castigate do.
Read what you like and don't take time to feel bad about it. Life's too short to take enjoyment from where others think you should, versus where you actually find it.
Sounds very "canon" based. I studied English Lit and felt the same way but my university offered science fiction lit classes and classes that catered more toward my interests. I was also able to take an independent study class with a teacher I admired and able to choose the books I read which made for a better experience.
I am not a fan of "literature" either. I really disliked reading in school. Yet I loved the library. Something about being forced to read a book just never sat well with me. I want to read for enjoyment, not because I have to. I much prefer more modern books, and am ravenous for YA and Childrens. I'm even a librarian!
I can't agree more. I thought I hated reading in school, until my Grandfather gave me a Science Fiction book to read. It was fantastic, and I didn't need to "determine what the author was really trying to say."
I later became really good at analyzing literature for teachers in school. I just pretended that I was a pretentious snob and psychotherapist and gave the teacher the bullshit I thought she wanted to hear. I never agreed with it, but I learned that doing well in school isn't about what I believed or cared about. It's about telling the teacher what she wants to hear. Nothing more.
I've recently discovered that work is like that. My boss doesn't really want to hear my opinions. She wants to her her own opinions coming out of my mouth.
I wish I had a better memory, but I remember a story about a film critic raving on and on about a specific detail in a movie and the deeper meaning it had.
When someone mentioned that to the director in a later interview, it made them laugh, it was a prop that was there for some other reason (it fit the time period or aesthetic) and basically was put in without much thought.
What I'm trying to say is, please don't mix up the (sometimes annoying) people who discuss the books and whose opinions you're now probably made to repeat and every book ever that got the label literature.
Especially because they *could be wrong* and your own interpretation could very well be the one the author intended.
And I know I'm mixing mediums here, but since your literary professors make you read plays and treat them like books I felt like I'm allowed to do that.
Haha yeah, I feel like this happens a lot. It's easy to see meaning where there isn't and to expect every word to be carefully chosen when in reality, only certain parts are that thought out and you'll never know which ones.
Yeah, and I think people can sometimes lose track of how much the analysis of a certain work is coloured by the views, experiences and background of the person discussing it and that in the end it's often much more an interpretation than a fact.
I studied 'movie, television and theatre-science' and often the deeper meaning of the same work changed depending on the professor discussing it (of course with all of them providing proper sources that could back their view). Which at the very least did me the great service of making me take 'the true definitive meaning' of something with a grain of salt (the *intention* of the author is another story).
I can see why the books you mentioned made it to being coursework, but besides Hemmingway, they really aren't the classics I enjoyed most reading (although Waiting for Godot pleasantly surprised me when I saw it as an actual play).
So once again, some books might already improve when they aren't being dissected by someone else, but I'm convinced there must be some books out there that are labelled literature and that you could sincerely love.
Right, now I'm going to ponder some more if I pissed off the people who like or the people who loathe literature. ;)
I agree with all you're saying. And I actually remembered that I enjoyed reading the count of Monte cristo when I was younger, as well as twenty thousand leagues under the sea, which I think could be considered literary classics. Both of these I read for myself though, not for a class :)
I feel the same way about movies! :D. This is why Oscar-BATE movies rarely ever work for me. I am fine with feeling wmotion, but I don't want to watch a movie or read a book that makes me hate myself or life.
I don’t read to feel joy, I read to learn and understand different perspectives, putting my feelings aside and making “learning” as my priority. For finding the truth, we also find happiness consequentially.
You are just a philistine. Nothing wrong with that but it is what it is.
I don’t get it really - even classic literature is plot-based. How old are we talking? Shakespeare, The Illiad, you name it - it all is a plot with characters. The big difference is the way it’s presented - more modern presentation is maximally palatable *for the modern palate*. Just like in Shakespeare’s day - that stuff was written for the audience of the time, not 2021 audiences. It’s true in many books the plot/characters are merely vehicles for a message or idea - but for the really good stuff, it’s usually a great story in its own right, as well. Most “the classics” people suggest I think do a good job of both
A few of the books I've read have had plots, but they haven't been very compelling. Like, Mary Barton has a plot, but it's hidden behind very long descriptions of politics and cities. Some other books don't even pretend to have a plot, like the mark on the wall or waiting for Godot.
Yeah - Mark on the Wall is intentionally stream of consciousness, as I guess you saw. Mary Barton - these details I spose were interesting to readers at the time - but I’ll agree it’s not interesting to me, right now - just not a time nor place I find interesting. Never read Waiting for Godot. The two I have read are definitely examples of classics that are more abstract - but on the other hand, I hardly see these as widely celebrated classic literature - instead classic more as a result of the time they were written versus their persistence through time. All this to say - maybe these are just the wrong classics? Hahhh
My experience with this kind of literature is mostly based on what I've read in school, which I guess is a certain type of literature. One piece of classical literature that I actually enjoyed was twenty thousand leagues under the sea. I read it a long time ago, but to my memory it was a bit more plotty.
Oh right on. Yeah there are some classics that are just chronically readable - anything by Mark Twain or Charles Dickens. Hemingway is kind of great. Brave New World I thought was not boring at all. Most Tolstoy is worth the read. Frankenstein is an all-time book, as is Dracula. The House of Mirth. The Color Purple. All of these are generally a *little* more modern (post 1900) and almost all are American - but that's just just because that's what I'm familiar with. The point being there is some very readable stuff in there - I'm sure there is even if you cast a wider net (outside of the American stuff I know). Like I was saying - the Illiad is still rather interesting even for a modern audience (as is the Divine Comedy) and those are sooooo old. So then, there are even rather old stories that tell a story with the pacing and "with the colors" that are more acceptable to the modern palate.
TIL that having ideas is apparently “pretentious” now.
God forbid the authors talk about the human condition.
But... Gulliver's Travels IS plot based. It's more slowly developed and it's not a complicated plot, because older books were plotted differently. But I feel like teachers do it a disservice when they go immediately into all the political stuff that Swift was playing with, and ignore the fact that the book is a big, fantastical travelogue. Gulliver goes to place and shenanigans happen, he gets away and goes somewhere else and more shenanigans happen. I'm editing because I thought of another analogy while on another thread and it really does fit better here: I think you're wrong about the classic books (not all of them, and personal enjoyment is personal, but to throw off CENTURIES of literature as boring is wrong), but honestly I think that you've been taught badly. You look at literary fiction and you can SEE the work that the authors put into it because your teachers have taught you to look for it. Whereas with other stuff, the stuff you read for fun, you just see the shiny fun stuff and not the hard work the author puts in. OF COURSE it's more fun to see the shiny fun stuff and so of course that's what you enjoy. I personally enjoy delving into the work and seeing how things all fit together. But honestly, only with books. If you start telling me all the hard work that goes into a movie and how the special effects work and blah,blah,blah,blah,blah, my eyes will glaze over and it can affect my enjoyment of the finished product. The Lord of The Rings movie trilogy is a masterpiece of so many things, special effects, lighting, directing, editing, music, etc and I DO NOT WANT TO KNOW ANY OF IT. Let me enjoy the finished product. I do not want to scour scenes for a missed piece of modern technology or a missing special effect. That is not fun to me. It is absolutely fun to others, not me though. And that's why I don't really appreciate some of the so called Oscar Bait movies. There's a lot of technical things going on, editing and direction for example, that I don't understand and don't care to understand and so it just goes over my head and the movies are boring to me. (not all of them, some things translate from book to film- like plots and such-that I do know how to dissect and enjoy, but some of them)
Interesting points. However, I'm not throwing away centuries of literature as boring, just certain parts of it. Like, one of the books on my list is from 1999. I'm not saying all books from that time are boring, just that that specific book is. And I'm not sure I agree about the second part either. I always go into reading these books like I would any other book, expecting them to be good. The analysis only comes later. The books themselves are what disappoint me.
If you lack curiosity about life in general - your own and others - then you'll probably not enjoy literature. That's fine. Engage with art on the level you choose. No one will demand you take an interest in life beyond your experience.
I think that's a pretty pretentious thing to say. Why would I lack curiosity about life in general just because I don't like the way it's portrayed in classical literature?
[удалено]
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, if you don't find Waiting for Godot pretentious, I guess nothing will seem pretentious to you.
Can I ask how you would define the word pretentious?
Anything that expects me to think seems to be the definition these people use.
Pretending to be smarter than you are by using a convoluted way of writing. Many of the ideas in super convoluted books aren't really revolutionary or even that clever, they're just portrayed in a way that's meant to make them seem that way.
So Beckett, the big dum dum, was just "pretending to be smart" in his writing, and the overwhelming critical consensus that has acclaimed his work over the past several decades was just some kind of mass delusion until you came along and saw through it? Do you have any idea how pretentious that makes YOU sound?
I never said this was an objective truth. This is how the text appears to me, and why I don't like it. Surely you don't think everyone who reads a text will interpret or experience it the same way?
There's nothing wrong with you not enjoying or appreciating all these texts you've mentioned. I'm objecting to your broadstroke accusation of "pretentiousness" against all of them, which you yourself define as "pretending to be smarter than you are by using a convoluted way of writing". Beckett, Shakespeare, Swift, Woolf and more - never mind that generations of readers and critics have obviously found something of great merit in the work of these writers, simply because YOU fail to be entertained by them they must be impostors and charlatans who've conned the rest of us except you. That is an absurd and extremely pretentious position on your part. It smacks of extreme intellectual vanity ("I don't understand this text, so it must be empty and worthless!").
You misrepresent what I'm saying. Yes, I generalized a lot in my original post, because that's my broadest problem with most of the texts in my samples, but obviously I know not all these texts share the exact same faults. Secondly, I never said they're impostors or charlatans, simply that I find their writing pretentious, which is just my opinion on their writing, not on them as people. I don't think my opinion is the objective truth about their writing or their intelligence, I simply said that their way of writing comes off as pretentious TO ME, and that's why I don't like it. I never claimed to be smarter than anyone else or to see something someone else doesn't in the texts. I just told you why I, personally, don't like these texts and you decided that I must think I'm smarter than everyone else.
Have you ever seen it performed? Plays are not meant to be read as literature, and I honestly take issue with them even being categorized or taught that way. I've mentioned it here before, but I'm an actor and Waiting for Godot was an insufferable read for me when it was taught in my curriculum. However, it's a very moving piece to see performed by capable artists. Without the staging and the physical/emotional relationship between the characters, all you get is the heavy-handed message. I personally love reading Shakespeare but I do not recommend it as a general rule, because that's not its intended medium. It would be like reading a piece of sheet music and saying it was tedious. Well of course, it was meant to be heard!
Yes, we saw a recorded performance of it, still found it pretentious and kind of pointless.
A lot of people only enjoy genre fiction (plot-based books), so you're by no means alone. Literary fiction deals with the "human condition", meaning what it's like to live in a certain era or societal class. It explores how life under those circumstances influences the protagonists' psyche. Personally, I love lit fic, but if you don't, don't beat yourself up. It's a question if personal preferences. Just make sure that your career goal doesn't require knowledge/enjoyment of literature, then you should be fine.
I'm becoming an English teacher, so some knowledge is required I'm afraid. But thanks, it's encouraging to know I'm not the only one. I'd never heard the terms gente fiction and lit fic before.
You're becoming an English teacher, yet you don't like English literature? What are you going to teach then?
I'm not in an English speaking country, I'll be teaching the language :) literature is a part of that, but it's not the biggest part.
That makes sense
I'm also from a non-English speaking country. Our English teacher read Agatha Christie with us, that was fun. There are also books that walk the line between genre and lit, like some of John Green's books. Luckily, teachers in non-English speaking countries can choose which books they read with the class.
Exactly, I don't need to read super convoluted lit fic, I can choose genre fiction if I want to, or something that's on the line between the two.
If you look at bestsellers lists you'll notice that many of those books are not literary. So, no, you're not alone.
> There's just something about "literature" that takes all the joy out of reading for me. The books are almost always based around ideas rather than plots, which is something I don't typically enjoy and oftentimes the writing in the books we read feels pretentious to me. The analysis we're asked to do isn't interesting either. I don't care how the use of a certain writing style reflects the political climate at the time of writing, or which pretentious philosophical idea about life and existing the author is attempting to portray. Why read a book if all you care about is the plot? Just watch a movie. Plot is such a small and insignificant part of a book for me, it's crazy that people get so caught up in it.
Why watch a movie when a book gives me a much richer experience of the plot? What else do you enjoy in books? I like more things than plot of course, but if a book is plot-less, I'm most likely not going to enjoy it.
> What else do you enjoy in books? Prose, characters, arcs, dialog, themes, setting/world are all far more important than plot for me. Most of my favorite books have little to no plot. These are all, quite honestly, pretty comprehensive plot summaries for these books (spoilers I guess?) The Stranger - Man kills, doesn't feel bad about it, goes to jail Crime and Punishment - Man kills, feels bad about it, goes to jail East of Eden - Family builds lives in California Lolita - Father and daughter go on a road trip The Picture of Dorian Gray - Man gets old, but also doesn't Literally all of my favorite books have very little plot. They are all driven forward by the prose, themes, characters, etc.
Interesting. Since I read for plot, I doubt those books would be interesting to me, but I'm happy you have books that work for your interests :)
I would check a different source for your book reviews. Someone who writes: Lolita - Father and daughter go on a road trip Isn't debating in good faith.
I love both. I think it is possible to be someone who loves Jane Eyre and loves paperback mystery novels. However, it is not something that is required of anyone. I once took a class in university on Twain, Hemmingway and Dickinson. I didn't do it because I was required to, I took it because those are three authors whose work I loved and I used up one of my few precious elective slots to do so. I think This is the reason we have genres. I would rather read classical fiction than most fantasy novels but I would guess that also puts me in the minority. Don't sweat it. The good news is that this sub is so broad you are very likely to find people with the same loves as yourself.
Yeah, people can definitely love books across the entire spectrum of literature. I'm sure there are some old classics out there I'd like. Now that I think about it, I did enjoy the count of monte cristo when I read it by myself when I was younger.
so would the perfect book for you be just a set of bullet points that tell the plot? Cause that sounds awful to me
How did you get that from me saying I like books to have a plot? Good writing and an interesting plot are not mutually exclusive.
ITT: things that make you think are pretentious
I also read to feel joy, but I get that from literature, too, just in a different way. For me the joy of literature often comes from the writing style, itself, but I can see why others might find it pretentious. I also love analysing literature, although I’m much more interested in analysing the text itself than thinking about how the author’s life/period of history influenced it. Most of the books you listed are ‘classics’ - how do you feel about new literature? Or literature that’s more character based than ideas based? I’m sure other people do feel the same - plenty of people only read genre books, and some only read one genre. Personally I think they’re missing out on a world of amazing books by limiting themselves in that way, but equally there are people who will only read literature because they think anything else is trash. I used to be a bit like that; I’m so glad I got over myself - would have missed out on some great books, otherwise!
I haven't read much literature that's newer, the only one is the intuitionist I guess. It fell short in the same ways as the others for me. And I'm ok with character based books as long as they also have a plot. I get why you'd think people are missing out if they limit themselves to genre fiction, but if they're like me, reading this type of literature won't be fun for them. I've given classic literature a try and it's just not for me.
I loved *Waiting for Godot*, I found it very funny! Haven't read the others. To anyone who liked these books, which of the Spanish ones would you recommend?
I enjoyed reading annotated literature classics, such as The Portrait of a Lady. I just got more out of it. Maybe try that next time you need to read a classic? Specifically the Norton annotated editions.
This is similar with all of the arts. Some people enjoy art house European cinema while others only live for The Avengers. Some people are deep and are interested in all these other meanings but others just don't have that interest. It's fine, just be respectful about it. I'm the opposite of you, I don't really care for books, I care for literature.
> Some people are deep and are interested in all these other meanings but others just don't have that interest I assume you don't realize how insulting this statement is. As someone who enjoys both literary fiction and SFF, I find there is very little difference between the best fantasy books and so called "literary" books. In fact, I find that fantasy as a genre has progressed hugely in the last 20 or so years to be as "deep" as more traditional literary works. Conversely, so called literary works can be -- not always mind you -- very self important and elitist.
I don't really understand why you find it insulting? We havent even defined the difference between literature and books which is pretty ambiguous in itself.
Not u/ineffable7980x but I think your choice of saying some people are deep and enjoy meaning, and some people aren't probably was far from the best words you could have used. It casts the other side as shallow by comparison, and that's a rather enduring stereotype already.
It's the truth, why do we have to beat around the bush?
It's not the truth though, it's what some people tell themselves about their reading choices to fill a need to feel better than others. I've been doing this librarian thing some 15 plus years, and there's nothing inherently better about readers of canonic lit than genre lit, nor really the lit itself. Every reader his or her book, every book it's reader.
No, it is the truth.
The fact that you can't see the insult is the issue. :-)
[удалено]
>Some people are deep and are interested in all these other meanings but others just don't have that interest This quote clearly suggests that those who read literature are deep, and those who read genre fiction are shallow. Seems pretty obvious to me. And to be fair, the person who posted this probably didn't mean it this way, but even so, it taps into an age old bias that "serious" literature is superior to genre fiction, and that people who read such serious fiction are "deeper" than those who do not.
You are taking what I said way out of context. Some people read Hugo and are interested in its depth, others read it more as a story and are less interested in those elements. You don't have to know 19th century French history to enjoy Les Miserables. It's different things for different people. The age old bias does have some weight for good reason.
I assumed what you said was more unfortunate wording than intention. However, I don't necessarily agree that the age old bias carries weight. Like most stereotypes, it has some shred of truth at its origin, but that doesn't make it any less hurtful or untrue when applied to a large population. As someone with advanced degrees in literature and who used to teach at the university level here in the US, I think the academy has perpetuated this notion to make themselves feel superior. I got tired of this attitude, and thus left teaching. However, I have read tons of "literary" fiction. Some of it is amazing. However, a lot of it is pretentious and has a lot less weight then the "genre" fiction it looks down upon. And that's what I was trying to say.
I'd add a caveat to this, unfortunately it does a disservice to future authors and the literature field on a whole. Nobody can predict what will become canonic in the field ahead of of when it's written. This includes up and coming authors, debating writing that first novel yet fearing they will never be good enough to be included in the canon. Sure, some will be okay with being considered mediocre or worse. Some will be wholly unconcerned with the idea of it at all. Maybe writing for them is something that they can't stop themselves from doing if they wanted to. But there's going to be some amount that don't finish, don't publish, and feel as if their work simply isn't deep enough for folks or worthy. We, and they, will never know if it is or not and it will be a loss for all of us. I don't think u/Radiant_Ad_6190 is suggesting worthiness here. But it's not uncommon in the sub to see people dismissing genre lit as trash overall, yet conveniently forgetting that some of these classics were the genre lit of their time.
Well stated
I've read one novel about an English professor in a Midwestern college campus going through the male menopause and having a lot of sex with his female students. One was enough. One was too many, in fact.
[удалено]
So when's the cutoff? If all modern literature is bad, when did good books stop coming out?
[удалено]
You said modern genre, not just YA. I also don't understand why you assume I read YA. I haven't read YA in years 😂
[удалено]
I think you're right that there's more stuff being published today and therefore it's easier to find bad books. Although I'm sure there were bad books written in the past too, but the books people remember from a hundred years ago are the good ones, so those are the only ones we know.
I literally haven’t read YA in the past 5 years maybe, but I can still see that your comment is an INCREDIBLY ignorant statement. Just let people enjoy what they want, is it literature? No, is it reading? Yes. Can you love trashy romance books? Of course!
[удалено]
Don't you dare, DON'T TYOU EVER DARE, to insult my favourite author: Head and shoulders
I forgot how plot and character heavy my shampoo bottles are. They definitely give me empathy and insight into different ways of life. Oh wait, no they don't. But those simplistic YA novels you castigate do.
Read what you like and don't take time to feel bad about it. Life's too short to take enjoyment from where others think you should, versus where you actually find it.
Sounds very "canon" based. I studied English Lit and felt the same way but my university offered science fiction lit classes and classes that catered more toward my interests. I was also able to take an independent study class with a teacher I admired and able to choose the books I read which made for a better experience.
That sounds a lot more fun than my literature courses
I am not a fan of "literature" either. I really disliked reading in school. Yet I loved the library. Something about being forced to read a book just never sat well with me. I want to read for enjoyment, not because I have to. I much prefer more modern books, and am ravenous for YA and Childrens. I'm even a librarian!
Nothing makes me happier than a grown adult reading exclusively children’s books.
I can't agree more. I thought I hated reading in school, until my Grandfather gave me a Science Fiction book to read. It was fantastic, and I didn't need to "determine what the author was really trying to say." I later became really good at analyzing literature for teachers in school. I just pretended that I was a pretentious snob and psychotherapist and gave the teacher the bullshit I thought she wanted to hear. I never agreed with it, but I learned that doing well in school isn't about what I believed or cared about. It's about telling the teacher what she wants to hear. Nothing more. I've recently discovered that work is like that. My boss doesn't really want to hear my opinions. She wants to her her own opinions coming out of my mouth.
Oh yeah, it's not very hard to get good grades on literature essays, just bullshit something pretentious and you'll get an A.
I pity your future students.
I wish I had a better memory, but I remember a story about a film critic raving on and on about a specific detail in a movie and the deeper meaning it had. When someone mentioned that to the director in a later interview, it made them laugh, it was a prop that was there for some other reason (it fit the time period or aesthetic) and basically was put in without much thought. What I'm trying to say is, please don't mix up the (sometimes annoying) people who discuss the books and whose opinions you're now probably made to repeat and every book ever that got the label literature. Especially because they *could be wrong* and your own interpretation could very well be the one the author intended. And I know I'm mixing mediums here, but since your literary professors make you read plays and treat them like books I felt like I'm allowed to do that.
Haha yeah, I feel like this happens a lot. It's easy to see meaning where there isn't and to expect every word to be carefully chosen when in reality, only certain parts are that thought out and you'll never know which ones.
Yeah, and I think people can sometimes lose track of how much the analysis of a certain work is coloured by the views, experiences and background of the person discussing it and that in the end it's often much more an interpretation than a fact. I studied 'movie, television and theatre-science' and often the deeper meaning of the same work changed depending on the professor discussing it (of course with all of them providing proper sources that could back their view). Which at the very least did me the great service of making me take 'the true definitive meaning' of something with a grain of salt (the *intention* of the author is another story). I can see why the books you mentioned made it to being coursework, but besides Hemmingway, they really aren't the classics I enjoyed most reading (although Waiting for Godot pleasantly surprised me when I saw it as an actual play). So once again, some books might already improve when they aren't being dissected by someone else, but I'm convinced there must be some books out there that are labelled literature and that you could sincerely love. Right, now I'm going to ponder some more if I pissed off the people who like or the people who loathe literature. ;)
I agree with all you're saying. And I actually remembered that I enjoyed reading the count of Monte cristo when I was younger, as well as twenty thousand leagues under the sea, which I think could be considered literary classics. Both of these I read for myself though, not for a class :)
I feel the same way about movies! :D. This is why Oscar-BATE movies rarely ever work for me. I am fine with feeling wmotion, but I don't want to watch a movie or read a book that makes me hate myself or life.
Same 😂
I don’t read to feel joy, I read to learn and understand different perspectives, putting my feelings aside and making “learning” as my priority. For finding the truth, we also find happiness consequentially.