Literature vs Popular Fiction

[kevxu]

One thing that appears to have been overlooked in this thread is that books need readers. And in my opinion the abilities of readers is one thing that sorts out where in the gamut of pop to literature a book falls at a point in time. (I think the idea of a "wall" is demonstrably not the case, books migrate along the gamut for many reasons.)

It is clearly the case that you cannot expect Dos Passos, Lady Murasaki or Marcel Proust to find an appreciative audience amongst most grade schoolers. They don't have the vocabulary, the life experience, etc. to deal with these writers....Dick and Jane are appropriate and eventually they can get to Nancy Drew or the Hardy Boys (no, my examples are not current.) And then what?

Not all children have equal intelligence, the same cultural and social opportunities, the same life experiences or the same temperaments. Thus, as adults we end up at different levels from each other in many ways.

Pop fiction and non-fiction books are those that can be appreciated by adults whose speaking and reading vocabularies are relatively modest for one thing, and much of pop fiction is not especially complex and usually straightforwardly linear in presentation. Its pop(ular) because it is presented in a manner that the greatest number of people can deal with at the time they are published.

I found the attached link interesting, though the narrow focus of the conclusion is thoroughly naive.

The American Literacy Tragedy | Hoover Institution

It overlooks the fact that our culture has changed remarkably in my lifetime (72 ys.), and two things which I think had an adverse effect on both print literacy in the U.S., and more generally on cultural literacy, are the ever-increasing valuation of feelings and emotions over thought and rumination, and the extreme shift to the visual over the verbal. Not that there are not other influences.

[UTHORNS96]

My opinion on this topic is that bad writing is bad writing and good writing is good writing. You don't have to hit the reader with large words, complex images, and abstract ideas to be a good writer. Those things can be good when done correctly, but that doesn't automatically make something good literature. I feel like as a writer of fiction, it's your job to get jumpstart the reader's imagination and get them thinking of their own ideas. In other words, you should make the reader want to write themselves.

I think whatever book is able to do this depends on the reader. The problem is, we live in this society that puts certain books on a pedestal, (Moby Dick, The Scarlet Letter and other books of the sort) and basically say, "These books are good, and if you don't like them that's because there is something wrong with YOU, not them, you're just not intelligent enough to understand, you're lazy, ignorant, blah blah blah."

I'm sorry, but as a 21 year old black male, Moby Dick just doesn't do anything for me. It doesn't jumpstart my imagination and it doesn't pertain to me or the history of my ancestors in any way. Not to say a white writer can't do that. Stephem King and J.K. Rowling have done a fantastic job at that, and I also enjoy many of the plays by William Shakespeare.

Sure, there is fluff out there, but just because something is more tangible to the masses doesn't mean it's bad writing at all. Just like just because something is hailed by academics, doesn't make it the be all end all.

[Thomas R.]

I don't know that liking/disliking Melville necessarily has to do with race or age. I know white Midwesterners in their 30s, who have English degrees even, who didn't get much out of Moby Dick. It's kind of one of those books that seems to cause strongly divided opinions.

I really liked Things Fall Apart, which is about Igbo in Nigeria. I don't think I've ever even known a Nigerian.

[Bunjee]

Well, certain fiction is revelatory. Of course that much depends on the quality of the authorship. But I'd say, for example, Things Fall Apart will be best appreciated for casting light on Nigeria and particular effects of colonialism using lovely, direct prose. Moby Dick was also of its time. It came with the vogue of Transcendentalism, a very romantic philosophical movement that the novel criticized. Readers of the time may have identified the critique of "a basically good universe" more acutely. We may not now relate to the metaphors and rather laden--laborious even--writing style, but the message is still relevant.

The Wizard of Oz will be considered literature rather than a pop confection. There are specific social and political indictments in the characters of the Lion, the Scarecrow and the Tin Man. Baum's intentions were more than to entertain. Maybe that's what separates pop fiction and lit: its intentions. But there's nothing wrong with pure entertainment. If the writing is strong, piercing, observant of human nature and observant of social nature and human politics, then it should be considered literature.