What makes something literature vs "fluff."

[secretlyevil]

What characterizes a book as good literature, meaty, deep, etc. vs something that is easy, light, fluffy, etc.


Example
War and Peace - considered a classic
Something Borrowed - chick lit
Harry Potter series - while technically classified as children; well loved by all ages

[GilliC]

I guess I consider it the same way I think of art. Something with literary merit is something that's technically skilled, that pushes boundaries, that gives a new perspective, or that deals with an unexpected subject or viewpoint. There's a lot of art out there that's nice to look at (Thomas Kincaid, paintings of beaches, posters of puppies) and that you would happily hang on your wall, but that isn't going to find its way into a museum any time soon.

There's nothing wrong with either one. They just serve different purposes.

[GilliC]

FWIW, I would consider Harry Potter to be the Thomas Kincaid of the literature world. Loved by all and likely to stick around, but not really considered noteworthy on a critical level.

Feel free to flame me (I'm about to go out of range of my data connection anyway! )! I love HP as much as the next girl, but I don't consider it a highlight of contemporary literary merit.

[secretlyevil]

Nah - I'm not going to flame anyone. Don't have enough time today to give it the effort a good flaming deserves.

I will disagree with you about HP though. J. K. Rowling did something truly spectacular. In an age ruled by video games and the internet., HP got kids and many adults reading! Actually sitting down and reading, talking about books, getting excited about books, reading. I feel confident those books put many kids on the path to love reading that probably weren't on the path to begin with. For that alone, I think they'll stand the test of time - the way we all talk about Little Women, Little House on the Prairie, etc. is how the next generation will be talking about HP.

[chicacocodrilo]

May 24, 2012 11:09:29 GMT -5 GilliC said:

I guess I consider it the same way I think of art. Something with literary merit is something that's technically skilled, that pushes boundaries, that gives a new perspective, or that deals with an unexpected subject or viewpoint.

I'd say I agree with this. However, I'll add that something can have all of the above and just not have "it." And I think that comes down to sincerity in the author's work, or their loss of control over it (like Swamplandia!: technically proficient, pushes boundaries, unexpected viewpoint--still didn't work IMO).

On a more basic level, good literature seeks to tell a truth--not necessarily a truth the reader will experience, but one they can identify with or come to recognize even if they don't fully understand it. Importantly for me, good lit has characters you can identify with if not necessarily like, who struggle and frequently don't end up in places that are optimal or ideal.

And while HP isn't a critical darling (and I'm fine with that; love JK Rowling, but she isn't an artist with the language), I think it has staying power because it's exploring truths. It sparks curiosity (history, mythology, languages, etc.), has identifiable characters (they have magic powers, sure, but they're still flawed), and speaks to some timeless issues. I think it can serve as a good jumping off point for a deeper exploration of literature (sorry, Harold Bloom! ).

[PinkSquirrel]

May 24, 2012 12:31:44 GMT -5 secretlyevil said:

Nah - I'm not going to flame anyone. Don't have enough time today to give it the effort a good flaming deserves.

I will disagree with you about HP though. J. K. Rowling did something truly spectacular. In an age ruled by video games and the internet., HP got kids and many adults reading! Actually sitting down and reading, talking about books, getting excited about books, reading. I feel confident those books put many kids on the path to love reading that probably weren't on the path to begin with. For that alone, I think they'll stand the test of time - the way we all talk about Little Women, Little House on the Prairie, etc. is how the next generation will be talking about HP.

I'm not sure I agree that a book getting people to read brings it out of Thomas Kinkade status. I mean 50 Shades is getting people who probably typically don't read to read. Those people may read more books later on because of it (I mean there are three books in the series ), but that definitely doesn't mean 50 Shades is anything special. Unless, by special, you mean especially awful.

I think there's also the fact that there are a lot of series that get kids who might not gravitate towards books reading. Hunger Games and Twilight come to mind. I don't think that means they're all more than books kids enjoy reading.

[secretlyevil]

Ick - 50 shades of grey. Never read it, don't ever want to read it. What's wrong with our society?

Ok - so what would be a recent published example of literature? What about the Help?

[imoan]

I guarantee you that people who don't normally read, who decide to pick up 50 Shades of Gray, will not continue reading once it's done. They MIGHT read all 3 books. And then they'll be done reading for the next 15 years.

[PinkSquirrel]

May 24, 2012 13:22:20 GMT -5 imoan said:

I guarantee you that people who don't normally read, who decide to pick up 50 Shades of Gray, will not continue reading once it's done. They MIGHT read all 3 books. And then they'll be done reading for the next 15 years.

Ha probably very true.

[PinkSquirrel]

May 24, 2012 13:10:45 GMT -5 secretlyevil said:

Ok - so what would be a recent published example of literature? What about the Help?

I think We Need To Talk About Kevin would qualify as recent literature. As much as I wasn't always a fan of the writing style, I think ultimately it hits the marks. I think a Handmaid's Tale would also qualify. It's a bit older, but still within my lifetime so I'm calling it current.

I can't make up my mind with The Help, but personally, I think I'm leaning towards no. It's been awhile since I read it, but I feel like it was written to be chick lit/fluff. I guess I'm not sure why it would qualify, unless any book about black/white relations would qualify. Did it really push boundaries or give a new perspective? I would argue that in the end it's another book about a white person (Skeeter) helping out people portrayed as "poor black people that can't/won't help themselves." I feel like if anything it's a theme repeated quite frequently and isn't really anything new.

[writingwithheld]

May 24, 2012 13:10:45 GMT -5 secretlyevil said:

Ok - so what would be a recent published example of literature? What about the Help?

I'm not sure I would say that it is possible for something that is recently published to be considered literature. For me, it is all of the above plus proof that it has stood the test of time and remains valuable/relevant for multiple generations or centuries.

The language is also really important for me. It is some magical combination of what is written and how it is written. For me, fluff is more just what is written with no spectacular "how." Basically, just entertainment that doesn't necessarily make you think on a deeper level.

I feel the same about a difference between movies and films. Movies entertain you for two hours and then you forget about them. Films have deeper meaning that stays with you after the credits roll. Yes, still a very subjective "know-it-when-you-see-it" definition.

[aurora]

Although I do think that it's possible to write modern literature, I think one of the things that distinguishes literature is its ability to stand the test of time and speak to people from different eras. So, in that sense it's a lot harder for us to pick out "literature" from the past decade.

[SallyJ]

I always define literature by whether I have to think about what message the author is telling and how that message is told. If I don't have to interpret the author's message or think much about how the message is given, then I don't consider it literature.

[PinkSquirrel]

I'm not sure how I feel about the "standing the test of time" requirement. It seems so limiting and I think ultimately there are books lost along the way that are as good or better than the books that have survived as classics. It just feels very music industry to me in ie it's not always the most talented that "make it."

I was just reading this and I think it brings up some interesting points surrounding the institutionalization of literature and how books become part of the classic canon. I'm not sure I'm totally on board with everything he's staying, but it's interesting to think about the fact that ultimately it's a relatively small group of people determining what makes the cut. Are those always the best authors, writing or stories or are they the ones that fit a very specific mold?

[msmerymac]

May 24, 2012 13:10:45 GMT -5 secretlyevil said:

Ick - 50 shades of grey. Never read it, don't ever want to read it. What's wrong with our society?

Ok - so what would be a recent published example of literature? What about the Help?

My personal opinion is that the Help is "popular fiction." It might be enduring. Who knows? There also might be a smudgy line between popular literature and a classic. I think it's hard to tell within the first decade or two if a book is destined to become part of the canon of "literature."

I think a lot of best-selling books are "popular fiction." Most are not literature. Some critically acclaimed books are literature, but not all. Some are just good popular fiction.

What about these types of books?
www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/100-best-novels/

Or these are the "1001 books to read before you die" list posted by The Guardian, I believe, all from the first decade of the 21st Century. Are any of these literature? Are any enduring?

Never Let Me Go – Kazuo Ishiguro
Saturday – Ian McEwan
On Beauty – Zadie Smith
Slow Man – J.M. Coetzee
Adjunct: An Undigest – Peter Manson
The Sea – John Banville
The Red Queen – Margaret Drabble
The Plot Against America – Philip Roth
The Master – Colm Tóibín
Vanishing Point – David Markson
The Lambs of London – Peter Ackroyd
Dining on Stones – Iain Sinclair
Cloud Atlas – David Mitchell
Drop City – T. Coraghessan Boyle
The Colour – Rose Tremain
Thursbitch – Alan Garner
The Light of Day – Graham Swift
What I Loved – Siri Hustvedt
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time – Mark Haddon
Islands – Dan Sleigh
Elizabeth Costello – J.M. Coetzee
London Orbital – Iain Sinclair
Family Matters – Rohinton Mistry
Fingersmith – Sarah Waters
The Double – José Saramago
Everything is Illuminated – Jonathan Safran Foer
Unless – Carol Shields
Kafka on the Shore – Haruki Murakami
The Story of Lucy Gault – William Trevor
That They May Face the Rising Sun – John McGahern
In the Forest – Edna O’Brien
Shroud – John Banville
Middlesex – Jeffrey Eugenides
Youth – J.M. Coetzee
Dead Air – Iain Banks
Nowhere Man – Aleksandar Hemon
The Book of Illusions – Paul Auster
Gabriel’s Gift – Hanif Kureishi
Austerlitz – W.G. Sebald
Platform – Michael Houellebecq
Schooling – Heather McGowan
Atonement – Ian McEwan
The Corrections – Jonathan Franzen
Don’t Move – Margaret Mazzantini
The Body Artist – Don DeLillo
Fury – Salman Rushdie
At Swim, Two Boys – Jamie O’Neill
Choke – Chuck Palahniuk
Life of Pi – Yann Martel
The Feast of the Goat – Mario Vargos Llosa
An Obedient Father – Akhil Sharma
The Devil and Miss Prym – Paulo Coelho
Spring Flowers, Spring Frost – Ismail Kadare
White Teeth – Zadie Smith
The Heart of Redness – Zakes Mda
Under the Skin – Michel Faber
Ignorance – Milan Kundera
Nineteen Seventy Seven – David Peace
Celestial Harmonies – Péter Esterházy
City of God – E.L. Doctorow
How the Dead Live – Will Self
The Human Stain – Philip Roth
The Blind Assassin – Margaret Atwood
After the Quake – Haruki Murakami
Small Remedies – Shashi Deshpande
Super-Cannes – J.G. Ballard
House of Leaves – Mark Z. Danielewski
Blonde – Joyce Carol Oates
Pastoralia – George Saunders

[writingwithheld]

I don't really think we can ever hammer down a real definition that everyone will agree on. This is the humanities, this is art. We can't really create something that will follow the scientific method to prove (or, really, disprove) what is what.

Maybe that is why I like it all so much.

[sporklemotion]

I think part of it is whether the book stands up to a reread-- are you reading just for the plot, or do you get something new out of the book each time? There are some books I've read that I can reread even if I know the ending because the experience of reliving it makes me happy, or because I can pick up on the nuances of character and description more than I did the first time. With other books, once I start rereading them I find myself getting bored quickly because I know where it's all headed (this was my experience with Harry Potter, to be honest-- I thought I'd enjoy rereading them but I found that I wasn't that interested the second time around).

I think if different people can have differing interpretations of the "meaning of the work," that nudges it into literature. People may like or dislike fluff, but they probably agree what it was. Whereas with literature, people may differ about whether something was ultimately comic or tragic, who the protagonist was, etc.

Modern authors that I would place in the "literature" category-- Toni Morrison, Junot Diaz, Jhumpa Lahiri, some TC Boyle, Russell Banks, Margaret Atwood, Jose Saramago (thanks for the list, Mery-- that reminded me of some great authors!)

I don't think The Help quite works for me as literature, though I can't really explain why. I really liked it, though. It's not really fluff, either, though.

[msmerymac]

May 24, 2012 17:31:11 GMT -5 sporklemotion said:

I think part of it is whether the book stands up to a reread-- are you reading just for the plot, or do you get something new out of the book each time? There are some books I've read that I can reread even if I know the ending because the experience of reliving it makes me happy, or because I can pick up on the nuances of character and description more than I did the first time. With other books, once I start rereading them I find myself getting bored quickly because I know where it's all headed (this was my experience with Harry Potter, to be honest-- I thought I'd enjoy rereading them but I found that I wasn't that interested the second time around).

I get what you're saying about a book being more than plot. I think that goes back to whether or not the author uses various literary devices, such a motif or symbolism, foreshadowing or dramatic irony. I think you can tell (even if you can't define it, a reader can "tell") when an author is good at his or her craft, and knows about various literary devices and can employ them, vs just having a rad idea for a story and being able to write a decent sentence.

On the other hand, I've read books that are great, and very literary, and very important, but really hard to get through, and I wouldn't read them again. I'd put all of Cormac McCarthy's work in that category, as well as Elie Weisel. I love Faulkner, but I think some people would put him in that box, too. (And it just occurred to me that all of those books are hard to get through because they deal with some ugly parts of life.) There are also classic works of literature I don't like, and don't find to be particularly subtle or well-written, but nonetheless acknowledge as important, such as Dickens.

And of COURSE there's fluff I will reread. :-)

[msmerymac]

Oh! And the list I posted above made me think of something else (as well as the link to that article about popular fiction vs. books of the literary canon). How much of what we consider "literature" has to do with critics and the fame/notoriety of the author? Is Fury Salman Rushdie's best book, or is it just on there because he's Salman Rushdie? Stephen King has written some great books and some terrible books, IMO. Was every book Mark Twain ever wrote that great? Even the most consistently good authors have their "best" book, or someone will have their "favorite" of their canon.

[sparrowsong]

May 24, 2012 17:40:17 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

I get what you're saying about a book being more than plot. I think that goes back to whether or not the author uses various literary devices, such a motif or symbolism, foreshadowing or dramatic irony. I think you can tell (even if you can't define it, a reader can "tell") when an author is good at his or her craft, and knows about various literary devices and can employ them, vs just having a rad idea for a story and being able to write a decent sentence.

This is what I was thinking too. I listen to audio books during my commute and recently I finished Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood and then switched to One for the Money (Stephanie Plum #1)

It was jarring; the change was abrupt. My mind had to switch from thoughtful, rich language, layers of themes, thinking about what the author meant when she described something in a certain way to just a straight, crude story told very succinctly and literally with no meaning beyond "she went here and did this in this funny way." It was like changing channels after watching Masterpiece Theater and then watching Jersey Shore.

[sporklemotion]

May 24, 2012 17:40:17 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

On the other hand, I've read books that are great, and very literary, and very important, but really hard to get through, and I wouldn't read them again. I'd put all of Cormac McCarthy's work in that category, as well as Elie Weisel. I love Faulkner, but I think some people would put him in that box, too. (And it just occurred to me that all of those books are hard to get through because they deal with some ugly parts of life.) There are also classic works of literature I don't like, and don't find to be particularly subtle or well-written, but nonetheless acknowledge as important, such as Dickens.

And of COURSE there's fluff I will reread. :-)

Oh, I totally agree with this. I think that you can appreciate layers of meaning without actually liking the book or wanting to read it again (Joseph Conrad and James Fennimore Cooper have this effect on me).

And I, too, will reread fluff. But when I reread fluff I have pretty much the same feeling every time-- it's comfortable, it's fun, but I don't get much more out of it than I did the first time. It's like watching a rerun of a fun TV show-- I'll laugh again and have fun with it, but that's about it.

I also do think that certain authors are included in or excluded from the canon for arbitrary reasons or because of their reputations. The Kite Runner was a novel that was hailed as great literature but is less beloved now, and, if I remember correctly, Zora Neale Hurston's work was ignored for a long time (I forget when she became better known again).

[secretlyevil]

May 24, 2012 17:11:00 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

]


What about these types of books?
www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/100-best-novels/

Or these are the "1001 books to read before you die" list posted by The Guardian, I believe, all from the first decade of the 21st Century. Are any of these literature? Are any enduring?

Wow's It's pretty eye-opening that I have read very few on either of these lists.