Why is fantasy frowned upon here?
/lit/ only reads to impress and you can't impress people with fantasy
It is?
>>8260737
What about reading for fun?
>>8260736
genre fiction is not literature
>>8260736
Because trolls keep shitposting about the topic.
>>8260741
if you want a feelgood participation award circlejerk for having fun reading harry potter goes to kings landing then it sounds like reddit is where you belong.
>>8260737
/thread
>>8260737
I've tried to read fantasy, I just can't get into it. That doesn't mean I think it's bad, it's not for me. There is just as much shit fiction as there is shit fantasy. Sci-fi on the other hand, I can enjoy.
Fantasy was made for 20 year old elitists who seem to have never read before and who have never grown up and don't intend to do so. It's uninspired and every story is essentially the same trivial bullshit. You find a wider span of interesting, different kinds of stories in H.G. Wells works than in all of fantasy lumped together.
Rothfuss, Sanderson, ... it doesn't matter, it's trivial, petty, absolutely boring bullshit.
>>8260736
it's for
retarded people
>>8260736
Because /lit/ is filled with pretentious faggots. You can enjoy the classics for being the superb works of art that they are while still enjoying schlocky fantasy once in a while.
/lit/ is primarily focused on philosophy and literary classics, and genre fiction is usually relegated to isolated threads.
That being said, there really isn't very much literary fantasy fiction. I read nothing but fantaay until I was about 14, but since then the only worthwhile fantasy I've come across has been a little bit from Wolfe and Moorcock, and the former is probably one of the few fantasy writers you'll see get any recognition at all outside of the specialty threads here.
>>8260736
The Books of the Dying Sun are a good example, meta-fictional with some roots in the sci-fi genre. Books like Towing Jehovah type satire can also be reflected upon in the real world. These faggots are just pretentious, read on friend.
>>8260741
the fun part is feeling superior to other people
>>8260736
Because a lot of fantasy is poorly written.
/lit/ only likes candid descriptions of drug addicts and avant-garde sexuality.
My personal criticism of fantasy is that the authors seem to rarely understand human nature. Random thugs don't fight to the death over trivial reasons. That's retarded. Everyone isn't always an asshole (but if you're a nerd it can seem that way). Making women extremely violent doesn't bring equality, it just continues to justify might makes right. Heavy reliance on fate as plot device when Mozi disproved fate over two millenia ago, tsk tsk.
And don't even get me started on most dime SF. Every single plot is about how science goes too far. Oh no moral implications, we should never have turned on the microwave. Twinkies have a longer shelf life than these gems, technology that scared people back in the day is commonplace now.
Also why does every SF writer have a hard on for mediocre noir tropes?
>>8261285
>human nature
lmfao
>tsk tsk
Is this bait?
>>8261282
Hit the nail on the fucking head, Anon.
I'm reading ASOIAF right now, and it's not too bad. /lit/ tries to convince people it's bad, but it's alright. I'll admit I'm not really growing as a person by reading it, but it's still a good story.
Although I'll admit, I've cried reading books before (Jean Valjean and Edmund Dantes, I'm looking at you), I haven't shred a single tear for anything GRRM has fed me so far.I did cry reading Return of the King though
>>8260741
You must be new here.
CondescendingWonka.jpg
>>8261271
>>8261271
I have a red valour robe that I wear as I enter my library every night. I then rest my feet upon a leather ottoman that is perched on an authentic African Lion rug. I have my then wave my right hand in a beckoning motion signaling my overpaid butler to place more cherry wood into my hearth. I then read proceed to read for a profound amount of time as my butler stands silently behind me with his hands held on his back. I AM FAR FROM A PSEUDO LIT-TELLECTUAL AND CALL ME ONE AGAIN AND I WILL SEE YOU IN SMALL-CLAIMS COURT GOOD SIR!
While there's nothing wrong with fantasy, the truth is that the vast majority of it (including a lot of what people hold up as "good" fantasy) is pretty trite. But that doesn't mean there is anything inherently wrong with it
Wish fulfillment with little to say.
Power fantasies for the impotent and usually everything is resolved by a fistfight, or lightsabre battle, making the whole narrative affair just a series of excuses to get to the next bit if violence. If that's your bag, man, groovy. But you probably won't dig the stuff most people call lit very much, either .
>>8260736
Because it is uninteresting (to most users of the board).
Because /lit/ is generally a higher standard for its interest than other boards. If /ck/ were like /lit/, for instance, discussing fast food and microwave dinners would haram, they'd only discuss culinary food
>>8261402
Q: why frowned on?
A: because, no like.
"The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club"
>>8261412
For someone so declaratively devoted to the finest that the craft of writing can offer, thats a pretty weak and hack analogy.
>>8261285
When was the last time you read science fiction, the 50's? Most SF stories are NOT about science going too far, they're about exploring the impacts of certain technologies on society.
Honestly, /tg/ is the best place to discuss SF and Fantasy stuff. /lit/ is really only for elitist try-hards that think a literature degree is worth the paper its printed on.
>>8261285
Everytime I hear someone mention how a sci-fi/fantasy work considers the human condition, i immediately adopt a negative view on the look. Its the non-frankness and the justification that everything needs to be "relatable" to be good that bothers me. The term human condition is such a misrepresentation at this point. I liked your comment on how the science-has-gone-too-far trope is pretty characteristic of most sci-fi books. A story ive been working on does sort of delve into that direction, and its good to know some critique of that.
>>8260736
Some of it is pretty good. The Faerie Queen, The Tempest, Beowulf, Christabel, etc... R.R. Martin is just functional.
Are the Malazan books considered good here? I'm really enjoying Gardens of the Moon.
>>8261570
in the sci-fi/fantasy generals they are
do me a favor and read the black company, i rarely have a chance to talk about it
>>8260744
says who?
It's for children's books.
>>8261822
This guy I know.
>>8261861
You should tell him to stop spouting memes.
>>8261861
That guy might as well be my former prof in English literature. A friend of mine wanted to write his bachelor inside of literature and on Tolkien and wanted this prof as his counsellor, to which he replied, 'Dear Anon's friend, if you would like to write your thesis within the field of literature, you would do better to find a subject within this field'.
Personally, I obviously read a lot of genre fiction growing up, but now it all bores me and makes me wish that I was reading something else.
>>8261303
>I've cried
I envy you, my man
![d0c[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/JiJKRAp.jpg "d0c[1].jpg")
>>8261285
> we should never have turned on the microwave
>>8260736
because when it becomes good it stops being called fantasy
what gets called fantasy are works that feed you shit you already know you want, that you're ready for
therefore boring, for plebs
>>8260736
Because the genre is flooded with complete utter garbage to the point where actual good fantasy like A book of Flying by Kieth Miller gets overlooked and passed by the masses.
Tis a shame
Did people read ASOIAF as a fantasy? The fantasy was just barely there is complicate the story. It's more of a war/political albeit simplified story imho. ASOIAF seems just a more 'serious' and 'adult' manga if manga was written.
>>8260736
Fantasy and scifi are not themselves inherently bad or frowned upon.
People just like to try separating literary fiction from genre fiction.
Genre fiction is your ASOIAF and your Harry Potter and your LOTR, where the main goal of the piece is story telling, world building and fantastical escapism. These books are great for readers who read for entertainment and escapism, who read to explore and strange new world and spur their imagination. This often affords these books mass appeal (and ofc /lit/ spurns anything popular), but prevents them from offering anything warranting deeper examination. People sometimes argue that they are not well written or that they are poorly constructed or in some way of inferior style. This may or may not be true, as they are almost never written with great prose being the goal, but the writers are often competent, and so they can be pleasant to read. They simply lack substance, and the lacking of substance makes them shallow, forcing people to discuss/argue over characters, character motivations, story points and world elements, all subjects that get played out very fast, and require little examination or whose discussion grants little to the discussors.
Literary fiction includes works such as Atlas Shrugged, Farenheit 451 and Infinite Jest. These books are all scifi/speculative fiction. But the important point of issue is that they are not focused on that, their setting is a backdrop for something more. This 'something' is a discourse on ideology, philosophy or human nature. This is what separates Atlas Shrugged from Hunger Games; they are both dystopian scifi, but in the latter, the world and the characters themselves and their actions are the focus, while in the former, Ayn Rand's ideology, however much you might disagree with it, is the focus of the piece. This gives people something with a bit more depth to discuss, and is why /lit/ is full of philosophy threads when /his/ is supposed to be the humanities board. Because literary fiction is about more than just the basic elements of the story, and it as such gives a more rewarding experience to the reader, and far more for people to debate.
While literary fiction might not always be on the same tier as Shakespeare and Joyce, as it is often written with the same level of prose as genre fiction, it is generally considered to be literature, as it gives people something to think and argue about. However, this is, of course, not always the case, as there is plenty of literary fiction that is beautifully written, and could be considered high literature on its own merit.
Ultimately there is a yuge grey area between genre fiction and literary fiction, and people will regularly argue over what is and what isn't literary fiction (books like Nineteen Eighty-Four tend to fall in here, where there are elements of literary fiction, but nothing overtly discernible). So if you feel something is worthy of literary appreciation, make a thread about it.
>>8262292
This sort of understanding doesn't belong here.
go away
>>8262292
>. But the important point of issue is that they are not focused on that, their setting is a backdrop for something more. This 'something' is a discourse on ideology, philosophy or human nature
>fiction at all
Just put it in a fucking essay goddamn
>>8262292
I think its a mistake to put LOTR in the same category as The Hunger Games
>>8262292
>Genre fiction
>They simply lack substance, and the lacking of substance makes them shallow, forcing people to discuss/argue over characters, character motivations, story points and world elements, all subjects that get played out very fast, and require little examination or whose discussion grants little to the discussors.
>literary fiction
>But the important point of issue is that they are not focused on that, their setting is a backdrop for something more. This 'something' is a discourse on ideology, philosophy or human nature.
These qualities need not be mutually exclusive, Gene Wolfe's work is a big example. People often talk about his world and characters, but you very much know that they all have something to do with his greater themes if you care to explore that angle. Its more on fault of the readers rather than the writer, if you're not even thinking in that mode then you wont speak it.
>>8261285
I mean these are mostly valid points but
>not liking fate
Nigger fate is the best plot device there is.
>>8262329
>Nigger fate is the best plot device there is.
It depends on how you do it. If you use fate as a cheap excuse to not give your characters proper motivation then its not going to work. The better way is have your characters align with fate either consciously or unconsciously.
See Oedipus
>>8262338
I had Oedipus specifically in mind actually. I read it a few days ago. Baller af. Though in defence of fantasy, Tolkien does this pretty well with the children of hurin. I don't really think it's fair to lump Tolkien in with the rest of fantasy though.
>>8262314
>Just put it in a fucking essay goddamn
Allegory is often the best way to illustrate a point.
Plus, for example, if you publish a 1200-page academic essay on objectivism, almost no-one will read it, certainly not the millions that have read Altlas Shrugged.
>>8262342
>certainly not the millions that have read Altlas Shrugged
>more accessible for pseuds
You say that like it's a good thing.
>>8262357
We're all pseuds here anon.
>>8262327
>But the important point of issue is that they are not focused on that, their setting is a backdrop for something more. This 'something' is a discourse on ideology, philosophy or human nature.
I was with you until this. The purpose of literature is not to discourse on ideology (ideological novels are usually awful) or even philosophy ("philosophical" fiction is often tedious and didactic), though, of course, human nature is obviously an appropriate subject for any of the arts.
The purpose of literature, as with all of the arts, is simply the expression of beauty or sublimity. To assert that literature is only good if it serves some "higher purpose" is a utilitarian view and a denial that literature is *its own purpose*.
>>8262361
>The purpose of literature is not to discourse on ideology (ideological novels are usually awful) or even philosophy ("philosophical" fiction is often tedious and didactic), though, of course, human nature is obviously an appropriate subject for any of the arts.
You quoted another anon's quote from my post, so I'll clarify.
I was talking about the distinction between literary fiction and genre fiction. Whether or not literary fiction is "true" literature is another debate entirely. As I pointed out in the post above, literary fiction is not always beautiful or artful, but it achieves merit through substance and content, as opposed to "true" literature in which substance is secondary to style, and genre fiction which has neither substance nor style.
>>8262376
>as opposed to "true" literature in which substance is secondary to style
other way around imo
Literary fiction always seems focused on style/form, you see this often with 'muh prose' guys. While "true" literature the discussion is always centered around the content itself.
>>8262395
>While "true" literature the discussion is always centered around the content itself
What? I know we're disregarding the fact that you can never really separate content and form and that the only people who try to do this are the humanist equivalent of STEMfags, but unless you by 'content' mean something else than what I think you are, this is simply not true.
If we can agree that Austen and Joyce are both 'true' literature, to name a few examples, the focus is most definitely on style. Although the critical discussion of someone like Austen might include or even focus on the content and what is essentially ideology and politics, this is not what made her great, which was her keen intuition of novelistic discourse, i.e. what separates the novel in prose from the poem in verse, which is also the case with Joyce who probably both had some intuition and the literary theory to accompany it.
>>8262473
what I think you mean*
>>8262473
When I thought of "true" literature I thought of Shakespeare, Melville, Blake etc.
>>8262498
My point 100% remains. If you focus on content, literature ultimately boils down 'love is hard, death is sad', whereas artistic merit is most definitely a matter of craftsmanship
>>8261271
hey buddy did you make it past page 3 of ulysses yet?
>>8262521
>literature ultimately boils down 'love is hard, death is sad'
That is extremely disingenuous.
>>8260736
From what I gather it's that the plot devices offered by fantasy and scifi give terrible writers a chance to be published for doing essentially nothing. These guys don't read for fun. They read to see what the english language is capable of encapsulating.
>>8262555
Is that supposed to make it bad? I'm technically of the opinion that there's only /one/ type of plot, but that dosent mean that stories don't each have their own unique approach and something to say.
Whats being said is far more important than how its said, if anything Form/Style gets in the way if its not used to aid in that conveyance. It devolves into hollow performance.
I've seen more than enough fiction that wanks around with form but at the end of the day is saying very little. Literature like that isnt worth anyone's time. It barely keeps itself alive.
It isn't, really.
It's specific works within it and the fandom really.
Even the general became a plebian ghetto.
Video Games are much better for escapism/fun.
>>8261570
Do you enjoy pointlessly obscure bullshit propped up by pseudointellectual backstory because the author studied anthropology? Then Malazan is for you.
>>8262591
A lot of quality sff isn't made for either.
It isn't even very rare, 30 or so notable authors wrote literary fantasy/science fiction.
>>8262595
I've read the Malazan series twice and I can recall no instances of obscure bullshit or pseudointellectual backstories.
There are two prologues that go into unnecessary amounts of detail in setting the scene for the respective races of two important characters, but you can skip those without losing much if you find them boring.
The worst Erikson can be accused of is starting the series without any writing experience and using the word "potsherd" too often.
Good characters and relationships are my fetish, and the Malazan series is the most pure enjoyment I've ever received from any book or series of books.
>>8262523
I'm almost finished with the book, but thanks for asking, pleb.
>>8260736
because knowing that there's an entire, real world that is infinitely more complex and interesting and strange than any fantasy novel with some made-up world and society makes it hard to get into most of those types of books. although no-one on /lit/ seems to read any non-fiction, let alone history
>>8262568
Oh god are you a Joseph Campbell person?
>>8262789
No, actually.
>>8260744
Correct! But not all fantasy is genre fiction.
Unless you think Blood Meridian isn't literature, either, in which case Bloom's going to have a stern word with you.
>>8260736
>medieval romances
"Brilliant! Literature!"
>modern SFF
"Shit! Genre fiction!"
>>8261542
>meme defense
>>8262904
I bet you completely missed my point.
>>8262907
I didn't, you're the idiot who can't tell why romances are praised.
>>8262959
My point was that the setting and general dressing of a work is not what determines whether or not it's literature, not that all modern SFF is the same as medieval literature (which is so retarded that you yourself are retarded for thinking someone else would think it).
>>8260736
Because Sci fi is better.
>Glory to the Golden Throne.
>>8262968
>My point was that the setting and general dressing of a work is not what determines whether or not it's literature
Way to prove my point.
>>8262989
Explain.
>>8262992
How about you look up a lecture from an esteemed scholar on how romances were the embodiment of society and had beautiful poetry?
If you're too stupid to do that then you shouldn't even be on /lit/
>>8261274
Haha, the best
>>8263052
>setting
It wasn't just a setting, it was the way of life.
>dressings
Poetry is more than just a "dressing", it's what defines the romances.
1. Philosophically backward romantic view of the world, providing no real insight into the human condition and dooming each character to be a cartoon.
2. Trope-heavy copying of concepts from earlier, superior works, but divorced from their original (yet still romantic and therefore worthless) intent.
3. "... and then the main character solves everybody's problems by swinging his sword or using powerful magic, which he can do because he's special."
>>8263070
Jesus Fuck you must be wilfully misunderstanding me now.
>>8263072
Wrong
If you idiots haven't realized by now that a genre is only as good as the writer then you have nothing to say about literature.
>>8263167
Literature doesn't have genres in the genre-fiction sense, retard.
Just look at Blood Meridian, it isn't a western because it doesn't use western clichés.
>>8263190
One could argue that it does ,but that's besides the point, I used genre as a general term for choice of setting/theme, which any book you can name has.
A shit writer is going to write shit no matter if he does a Romance or a Western, it really dosent matter.
>>8263198
>One could argue that it does
Then prove it
>I used genre as a general term for choice of setting/theme
Retard
>>8263233
Like I said its beside the point, not in the mood to argue about Corncob as interesting as he is.
How is my use of the term retarded? Besides that, its not like you can even deny my assertion that its all in the writers hands at the end of the day. I can bring up a billion examples of shit on either side of the "literary/genre" divide.
If you dont have what it takes, it dosent matter what you call yourself writing. Shits not going to work.
>>8260736
lit would rather circlejerk about how infinite jest defines the generation than immerse themselves in a story.
>>8263136
I don't believe you. I have some faith in /lit/.
>>8263303
>Almost every setting is unique in some way.
Autism.
>>8263303
>Almost every setting is unique in some way.
Thats not contradicting anything I said.
>>826330
Dumbfuck
>>8263310
Then very book would have its own genre
>>8263343
>Then very book would have its own genre
why the fuck not. IMO genre/literary are just marketing memes at the end of the day, what actually matters is the quality of the work. Superficial labels like that are not signifiers of quality.
>>8263343
Only if you take what he said in the most autistically literal ways.
>>8261434
>When was the last time you read science fiction, the 50's?
Well, yes. I fell for the golden age of SF meme. I also read a lot of 19th century SF although now I question why.
Besides, it's the major theme in most mass media SF in robotics even to this day.
>>8261439
It's OK as long as it's not the most important theme in the work, otherwise it places one at the same level as apocalyptic anti vaccers.
>>8262341
Tolkien writes in epic Anglo-Saxon tradition. He gets a pass.
My concern is with the moral implications of fate, where it most often manifests as a denial of personal responsibility. It induces a state of paralysis among the good and impunity among the wicked. For example in the Expansethey leave the little girl on tycho station, when they could easily have pointed a gun at that other woman and told her to go fuck herself
Further reading:
http://ctext.org/mozi/book-9
