Literature and fiction
This entry was originally posted on 02 September 2003 at 1:33 p.m.
I think i've figured it out--what, in my mind, constitutes "literary" writing--as opposed to mere fiction.
It's something that's been plaguing me for months, the kind of thing that makes me scratch my head and ask, "Why is it that Italo Calvino wrote literature, but Isaac Asimov wrote fiction?" And i think i've finally determined the difference.
I don't know whether anyone will agree with this assessment, but i hope it's a less subjective criterion than simply saying, "Well, Shakespeare is literature because he wrote great, classic works."
It's this: literary authors, or literary works, are those in which the author has clearly made the use of language as great (or sometimes, greater) a priority as the story itself.
That is, you can have someone who tells great stories but doesn't care about the nuances of language (Michael Crichton), and someone who tells boring or pointless stories but understands and plays with language (George Perec). The former is fiction, the latter is literature.
The beauty of this distinction is that it doesn't assume that all literature is good and all fiction is bad. There's some excellent fiction out there--and literature that you couldn't pay me enough to read.
It's not a perfect distinction, but i think it works. And i like it.
I think i've figured it out--what, in my mind, constitutes "literary" writing--as opposed to mere fiction.
It's something that's been plaguing me for months, the kind of thing that makes me scratch my head and ask, "Why is it that Italo Calvino wrote literature, but Isaac Asimov wrote fiction?" And i think i've finally determined the difference.
I don't know whether anyone will agree with this assessment, but i hope it's a less subjective criterion than simply saying, "Well, Shakespeare is literature because he wrote great, classic works."
It's this: literary authors, or literary works, are those in which the author has clearly made the use of language as great (or sometimes, greater) a priority as the story itself.
That is, you can have someone who tells great stories but doesn't care about the nuances of language (Michael Crichton), and someone who tells boring or pointless stories but understands and plays with language (George Perec). The former is fiction, the latter is literature.
The beauty of this distinction is that it doesn't assume that all literature is good and all fiction is bad. There's some excellent fiction out there--and literature that you couldn't pay me enough to read.
It's not a perfect distinction, but i think it works. And i like it.
posted by Circus at 12:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home