Suspense

9 thoughts on “Suspense”

1. Literature as a category exist for the same reason that, for example, people think others should not enjoy books about sparkly vampires despite how popular they are.
   There will always be people who believe that writers are not writing properly, and that readers dont read the right kind of thing, and that any books that the commoners enjoy must be bad.
   only they the cultured few know what is best for everyone else.

2. The ‘genre ghetto’ is because it was written boringly enough to be able to earn the title of ‘literary fiction’. 😛

   In other news, the ocean has been found to be wet …

   MYMV and your works win readers rather than awards.

   • The thing is, though, I remember the definition of “literature” as “stories that stood the test of time.” Or was that supposed to be the definition of classics? Let’s combine the two categories like Voltron — classic literature is often genre fiction if you think about it. Isn’t Dante’s “Inferno” a dark fantasy (horror and fantasy combined)? Is “Pride and Prejudice” a romance? Isn’t “Robinson Crusoe” an adventure / survival tale?

     So, if one is writing modern literature, what would be the purpose of excluding a narrative technique simply because it’s commonly associated with a particular genre? Suspense, mystery, romance, etc. I don’t see the point of leaving out a useful technique/element.

     • I don’t get it either, but then, I’m not a writer of “literary” fiction. Or a reader of it, no matter how much some members of the Literary Fiction camp try to twist classics like Jane Eyre and other similar books into the mold of Literary Fiction to soothe their apparently illicit desires for entertaining reads that never had anything to do with Literary Fiction.

     • The function of ‘literary fiction’, as a publishing category, is to sell snob appeal by means of faulty logic. If I may be permitted the vanity of quoting from my own book, Style is the Rocket:

       The great literature of the past, nowadays, is not very popular; literary fiction is not popular at all; therefore literary fiction is great literature. So the syllogism appears to run; and it is eloquent testimony to the badness of modern education that so many writers and critics think the reasoning is valid. (The particular error committed here, for those who may wish to know, is called the Fallacy of Converse Accident. Unpopularity is not what makes a work of literature great.)

       We have all encountered the kind of person who thinks that anything popular is ipso facto bad, and that only a person of exquisitely cultured and refined tastes (such as himself, of course) can possibly know whether something is any good. These people are sitting ducks for the lit-fic marketing pitch. Which is fortunate for those who work in that category, because they seldom or never can hit a bird in the air.

       • Valid points.

         The way litfic has evolved in the eyes of the “literary” establishment, it has become a genre concerned primarily with wordsmithing style, rather than content. The purpose is to demonstrate the writer’s skill, rather than to entertain or communicate.

         It is a matter of intent: true modern litfic exists to impress the establishment rather than plebian readers and should not be confused with “mere” contemporary fiction or any of the classic genres, even when it is steeped in dragons or magic or, yes, crime and suspense. Intriguing or thrilling readers tends to be frowned upon by the all-important awards committees, who would see it as pandering to the reader. A good guideline for aspiring awards winners is to narrow their target audience to English Language PhD’s in their 80’s and focus almost exclusive on making the narrative as dense and “challenging” as possible. LetJames Joyce be your guiding light.

         If you can delight critics while making highly educated PhDs in other disciplines give up before the end you will have a true literary award contender. Bonus points for making them throw the book through a wall.

         It takes a special mind to craft such a masterpiece and like fine wine it requires a lot of aging, revision and rewriting–typically a decade–to get it right. Anybody who thinks it can be achieved in just five years is but a hack or a dilettante.

         (sniff!)

       • Fallacy of Converse Accident

         Oh, is that what it’s called? I’ve seen that fallacy in other scenarios, and I always wondered if the people were being sarcastic or were just extremely dim (the “Jill” example at the link). I always expect to find out I’m on Candid Camera when I encounter that fallacy in the wild.

         But, on to the larger point: We have all encountered the kind of person who thinks that anything popular is ipso facto bad … and … Intriguing or thrilling readers tends to be frowned upon by the all-important awards committees, who would see it as pandering to the reader — that mentality is just so weird.

         It reminds me, though, that people have different motivations. I like the idea that, if monks in some future “dark age” had to choose what stories to copy vs. what to use as their palimpsest, they’d want to copy mine. Obviously, the Deathless Prose of Doom Snobs have a different goal.

     • So, if one is writing modern literature, what would be the purpose of excluding a narrative technique simply because it’s commonly associated with a particular genre?

       To demonstrate one is far more sophisticated and nuanced than the common author. And often more anguished, introspective, and sensitive.

       • These “literary” authors clearly don’t suffer from mental illness, or they’d have a better understanding of what “anguished, introspective, and sensitive” is. 😛

Comments are closed.