What Is Literature?

Hello, everyone! The time has come to take a step back and look at everything we have learned so far about "Literature".

Over the past few weeks, we've been looking at works of fiction that are not "Literature". While one or two a few have literary merit, there are three elements that keep them from being literature:

• Poor writing style - on the whole, all of the books we've looked at exhibit a poor writing style filled with amateurish mistakes. All of the books (some more than others) contain grammar mistakes, confusing syntax, and mixed or nonsensical metaphors, all of which get in the way of enjoying the stories. However, telling instead of showing seems to be the most prevalent problem: instead of allowing the characters' actions and words to inform their characterization, the authors feel the need to constantly inform us about their characters, perhaps thinking the readers too dense to figure things out on their own.
• Poor characterization - many of characters in these books are bland, boring, and forgettable. When they're not so perfect it makes my teeth hurt, they are often shallow, self-centered, and disturbingly sociopathic.

*cough cough*

• Theme - it is my opinion that good literature needs to say something about humanity, life, the universe, and/or everything. These books, however, contribute nothing. They are, in essence, empty fluff stories. Good for a few hours of mindless enjoyment: yes. Literature: no.

Of course, if all these are elements of fiction that is not literature, then literature will have their opposites: a good writing style and an ability to show instead of tell; rich, complex characters that are able to interact with each-other like normal human beings; and some kind of well-thought-out, complex theme. Literature will have the ability to entertain the readers, while also making them think. The books we have read so far epitomize everything implied by the term genre fiction as used by stuffy academics: fiction that is good for entertainment purposes only; fiction that has none of the style or complexity that "Literature" is supposed to have.

Of course, there are still a few problems with the term Genre Fiction: the term implies that the works it is applied to are part of a specific genre, such as fantasy or science fiction. The usage of this term implies that any work of fiction that falls under such genres cannot truly be "Literature". However, many works of fiction that are considered "Literature"exhibit elements of these genres. Are there works of genre fiction that should be considered literature? Are there works of literature that can, under our new definitions, be considered genre fiction? How can more distinct lines be drawn between the two? What do you think?

Note: I really have enjoyed working on this blog, and discussing with all of you what makes literature "Literature". However, this blog was ultimately begun as a class project and, now that the semester is over, the project can be considered concluded. In addition, I will have to devote more of my time this coming semester to school work (senior thesis ftw!), which means less time to read and analyze. In short, at least for the time being, this blog will have to be put on hiatus.

However, I do not intend to let this blog die completely. I will still keep an eye on it, reading and responding to your comments. I may even make a new post from time-to-time; however, any posts I do make will have to be sporadic for the time being.

Thank you all very much. Until next time!

Literature in the Moonlight

Hello, everyone! Tonight we come full circle; we started out looking at a fluffy piece of empty romance and now we'll end with a fluffy piece of (somewhat less empty) romance.

Here we go.

Kim cannot forget the two weeks she spent as a child with Travis, a young, sad boy who did not seem able to have fun. By teaching him how, the two formed a bond that would last into their adulthood, even after he and his mother abruptly move away in the night. For you see, Travis has a dark secret: his father is the rich and powerful Randall Maxwell, a man who takes what he wants with no remorse. In a bid to protect his mother (from what, we never do find out), Travis agrees to work at his father's law firm, never forgetting the kindness shown to him by the young Kim.

However, that all changes when his mother calls one day. While hiding from Maxwell in the town of Edilean, Virginia, Travis' mother has found a man who she plans to marry. Knowing that Maxwell will not let his wife go without a fight, and will do everything in his power to make her and her paramour miserable, Travis travels to Edilean to help with the divorce in any way he can. Of course, Edilean just happens to be where Travis met Kim, and where she lives now as the successful owner of a jewelry shop. The two meet, and begin falling for each-other even as Travis tries to keep Kim from finding out the truth about who he is. Throw in a secret half-brother who everyone and their mom knows about, a search for long-lost relatives, and a resolution that completely sucks any conflict whatsoever out of the story, and you have Jude Deveraux's Stranger in the Moonlight.

Now, since this book is of the romance genre, it makes sense to compare it to Fifty Shades of Grey, which is also of the romance genre.

"Romance".

My friends, Stranger in the Moonlight is worlds better than Fifty Shades of Grey; heck, its much better than than a couple of the other books we've looked at. Though the writing style does have a few problems here and there, it's neither bland and boring nor overwrought to the point of ridiculousness. Characters feel like actual people who (aside from a few melodramatic moments) have actual, believable conversations. And, of course, the main girl doesn't make me want to bash my head in at her stupidity and self-centeredness; that's always a plus.

However, is this book "Literature"? Short answer: no. While the story does indulge in a refreshing bit of subtlety during the prologue, that is thrown out in the first chapter in favor of the old trick of telling instead of showing. And the resolution to the conflict of the story is handled in a way that is an insult to the term deus ex machina; I won't spoil, but let's just say that much of the story's conflict is rendered completely pointless in a way that, on further reflection, doesn't make much sense in the context in which the conflict is set up.

Where's the conflict?

While this book is not as malevolent problematic as Fifty Shades of Grey, it does seem to serve the same purpose; this book is ultimately a empty bit of feel-good fluff that can be good for entertainment, but is ultimately lacking in literary merit.

Next time, I take a break to evaluate what we have learned so far. Can Genre Fiction hold similar literary value to 'Literature"? What gives a work of fiction literary value? What is "Literature"?

The Tombs (of Literature)

Hello, everyone! For those of you who love Genre Fiction, I have a special treat; tonight, we'll be looking at the Genre Fiction... iest... book so far!

Here we go.

Remi and Sam Fargo are the best treasure hunters ever. They are beautiful, smart, filthy stinking rich (rich enough to pay their way out of any situation, at least), and can make friends with anyone, especially those in any government or police force in the world (this also helps with the "get out of any situation easily" thing). They never make a cent from their finds (profiting from treasure hunting would just be wrong; this sets them apart from all other treasure hunters, who are greedy criminals), instead giving them to the proper authorities. And they often volunteer with random archaeological digs, even paying for a large percentage of the funding.

The story begins when the Fargos are called away from being perfect by Professor Albrect Fischer, an archaeologist who has made a discovery that he needs their help with. Of course, the fact that is kidnapped shortly afterwards indicates that this is no ordinary find: Albrecht has found the burial place of the thousand Huns who buried Attila the Hun, and one of the soldiers holds clues that point the way toward Attila's tomb and the riches buried therein. The Fargos must follow these clues across Europe to find Attila's hidden treasure, outwitting trained mercenaries and hardened criminal masterminds with ease, nary a hint of tension or suspense in sight.

Characterization could be improved, though.

Folks, I think I finally get it. All those books I thought were mere fluff fiction: Fifty Shades of Grey, A Discovery of Witches, Zoo? Those were nothing compared to this. This book is what all of the scholars are talking about when they say that Genre Fiction has no literary merit.

It starts off with the writing style. Folks, I know I've complained about this before, but as an aspiring writer who hopes to be published and/or copy-edit someday, I find it personally offensive that these books were allowed to go to print with such glaring mistakes. Aside from the usual "show don't tell" problems, the author sometimes forgets to begin a new paragraph when someone else speaks, leading to reader confusion when characters start asking or answering themselves about something they just did or a question they just answered. This is not helped when the author throws his characters into the featureless plain of disembodied dialogue (while this trope can sometimes be successfully used in published fiction, it does not work when there are more than two characters in a conversation, or when the characters are so bland that the reader can't differentiate their lines).

This leads me to the characterization. The Fargos are, as mentioned before, too perfect to let me care about them. I know that they can get out of any situation somehow, with their wealth, their influence, or their smarts and skills. Because they are able to get out of any situation easily, any suspense that the author tries to build falls completely flat. As for the other characters, the Fargos' allies seem to only be there to help the Fargos or to make them look good, while the villains are only there to shake their fists angrily as the Fargos foil their plans.

Finally, the theme of the book: there is none. The Fargos are awesome and foil the villains plans to get the treasures of Attila the Hun, making sure that they are given to the proper cultural authorities. Yay.
All of this combines to create a mess that just makes me say the 8 worst words a writer can hear:

No, not those words. That was 50 Shades of Grey.

"I don't care about any of these characters".

So, is this it? Is this the ultimate example of what "Literature" is not? If so, what is "Literature"? "Literature" needs a writing style above that of an amateur middleschooler, and it needs a point; it needs to say something beyond "these characters are awesome and they beat the bad guys", it needs to make its audience think about the world around them.

Of course, this is all my opinion, what do you think? Can literary merit be found in any written work, even something as lacking in substance as The Tombs?

Next time we come full circle, as I read Jude Devereaux's Stranger in the Moonlight. Will this bit of romance fiction hold more literary value than Fifty Shades of Grey? Doubtful, but wait and see.

LITERATURE

Hello, everyone! Tonight we revisit my examination of Genre Fiction by taking a look at a novel that embodies everything the stuffy scholars say about it. I am, of course, talking about The Happening rehash James Patterson's ecological thriller, Zoo.

Here we go.

First, let me say that if you have seen M. Night Shyamalan's The Happening, you have read Zoo. Except in Zoo, it's animals who have turned against humanity... and are killing people... okay, so it's not exactly The Happening, but... well, let me explain.

Zoo is the story of Jackson Oz, evolutionary biologist. Well, he used to be, before he noticed something strange about the global animal populations: an increase in the yearly number of animal attacks on humans, as well as bizarre deviations from normal behavior patterns. Oz attributes this increase to what he calls H.A.C: Human-Animal Conflict. Basically, because humanity is stupid and evil, animals have somehow evolved a hatred of and desire to kill humans. Oz's colleagues have laughed him out of the scientific community for this theory because they are all blind and can't see the evidence in front of them, and not at all because Oz does everything he can to make his theory sound like something you'd hear about on crazy conspiracy websites or the modern History Channel.

H.A.C.

Also, this theory about animals evolving a hatred of humans doesn't keep Oz from keeping a chimpanzee in his apartment as a pet. Yes, a chimpanzee. In an apartment in New York City. A species known for its strength and the violence of their attacks. Needless to say, this ends horribly for everyone involved.

Of course, Oz's idiotic brilliant handling of his theory and the situation in general does not stop him from being vindicated by the story. He is the hero, and he needs to find proof of his theory (picking up a lovely French scientist along the way who, of course, instantly falls in love with our hero after he saves her life), drum up support for his theory (nearly impossible as humans would rather blow their problems to Kingdom Come), and find the solution H.A.C., or else humanity is doomed.

In my last post, I mentioned that, while this is not necessarily true of all Genre Fiction, many works of Genre Fiction are "fluff" stories; These are novels that are meant for entertainment only, no thinking necessary, essentially the literary equivalent of the summer blockbuster. Zoo, I believe, is one of these works. In addition to the many writing no-no's committed over the course of the novel (telling instead of showing, point-of-view changes in the middle of a scene, etc.), Zoo is the perfect example of what scholars of Literature think genre fiction is. Characterization is shallow and driven entirely by the plot, the writing style is kept simple to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and the themes are simple and heavy-handed.

Now, that's not to say that the theme of the novel is unimportant; humanity's impact on the environment and its probable repercussions do need to be discussed (Me? A tree-hugging liberal? I have no idea what you are talking about). However, the way this theme is handled in Zoo leaves much to be desired in the subtlety department.

CAUTION: WATCH YOUR HEAD

So, what does this mean for " Literature"? Should its themes be more subtle, and open to more interpretation? Should "Literature" make the reader think about what they are reading, not switch their brains off for empty entertainment? Could this be what separates "Literature" from other fiction?

Next time, I read Clive Cussler's The Tombs, and continue my exploration of the line between Genre and Literary Fiction.

Fifty Shades of Literature

Hello everyone, and welcome to the first post of the blog. Why don't we start things off? Tonight's post is going to be a doozy.

Here we go.

Fifty Shades is Grey is the story of Bella Swan Anastasia Steele. Anastasia is a normal, average girl who meets and falls in love with the irresistibly dazzling high-school hottie billionaire and business tycoon Edward Cullen Christian Grey. She experiences an instant, shallow obsessive overwhelming attraction to his dazzling good looks, but Grey tries to push her away for her own good; for you see, Grey hides a deep, dark, terrible secret. Christian Grey is a vampire into BDSM!

The rest of the book details Anastasia and Christian's relationship after this shocking revelation... and that's it. Pages upon pages and chapters upon chapters of Anastasia going back and forth on whether she is horrified by Christian's predilections or attracted to him in spite of them. And sex; lots and lots of sex.

Now, I know I'm a bit late in jumping on the Fifty Shades bandwagon; there have already been numerous posts and discussions about the book, from debates about its anti-feminist themes to examinations of its apparently inaccurate (and dangerous) portrayal of the BDSM community. But then, that is the reason why I am here tonight. Obviously this book has provoked a reaction from its readers; people are reading and discussing it, and it has sold enough copies to become a New York Times bestseller. Does this reaction that people have to the book, this popularity that it has gained, qualify it as a work of Literature?

Now, now, put away the torches and pitchforks and allow me to explain myself. In this examination of what "Literature" is, it will be helpful to have an idea of "Literature" is not. I agree, Fifty Shades of Grey is not Literature; it does not deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as Literature. But what is it that makes this piece of fiction so non-Literary?

Of course, the most obvious answer is the writing style. Literature should have an elevated writing style, a weaving of words and imagery to create art upon the page. It is no secret that Fifty Shades of Grey started life as Twilight fanfiction, and one can see the evidence of this in the way it is written. This book has it all: a conversational writing style, an abundance of cliches, poor grammar, and confusing or misused descriptions and metaphors; Anastasia apparently has a bed made entirely of white iron - that must be uncomfortable to sleep in - and a door that can somehow be closed and yet not shut. She is apparently able to survive terminal velocity, while Christian is apparently the Quantum Man, able to not be in the room and in the room at the same time. And don't get me started on the way the author abuses the thesaurus to make her characters and her prose seem more intelligent than they are.

And what about the characters? In Literature, the characters are complex and multifaceted; they are people whose development  and characterization can drive the story as well as any kind of plot. While Fifty Shades of Grey has little in the way plot beyond the development of the main characters' romance,

"Romance"

the characterization leaves much to be desired. Christian Grey is little more than a charismatic sociopath who uses his charm and/or money to get his way in all things, but of course he is just messed-up because of his dark and troubled past; he just needs someone to love him and bring him into the light! Anastasia is no better than her stalker rapist lover; she is a petty, shallow, selfish, and whiny sociopath. She treats her "best friend"/roommate Kate like garbage through most of the novel, and can barely stand her when she shows a normal amount of interest in and/or concern for Anastasia's well-being. Anastasia has pretensions of intellectualism, but is too dense to recognize the significance of a quotation from Tess of the d'Urbervilles, which is supposedly her favorite novel. Finally, Anastasia apparently suffers from some form of psychosis; she treats what she calls her "subconscious" like it's a different person than herself, describing its comments and actions toward her as if she were talking about another character; she also has an "Inner Goddess" which is treated in the same way, as a character separate from herself in thought and action. We get no respite from her, since she is the viewpoint character, and every other character in the story is completely overshadowed by her and Christian's true love (see above).

So what about the themes of the book; all of this focus and "characterization" of the main characters' love must add up to something, right? The short answer is no. Throughout the book, the author tries to give her story literary merit by bringing in light and dark metaphors, but these metaphors never move beyond the obvious and cliche. And, of course, we have the rather disturbing undercurrent of anti-feminism running throughout the story. Even outside of the Dom/Sub relationship of Christian and Anastasia, women are viewed as only possessing value in their relationships with men. Anastasia's mother is silly for pursuing business ventures, and needs her husband to clean up after her "harebrained schemes". Anastasia getting a boyfriend is treated by everyone else in the book as her greatest accomplishment, much more important than her graduating college. Also, "normal" women apparently possess a "need-a-boyfriend gene".

...

I have absolutely nothing to say to that, so here is a picture of a silly puppy.

Deep breaths. Deep, calming breaths. Focus on the silly puppy.

So we can see that this book has no literary value whatsoever. The writing style leaves much to be desired, the characterization is shallow and annoying, and the themes are insubstantial and hold nothing of value to the readers. In fact, the book itself offers nothing of value to its readers beyond the gratification they may get from the numerous sex scenes. It is fluff; it is as literary "as cotton candy is nutritious", to borrow one of its surprisingly apt phrases. The only value it has is that it provides a benchmark for what "Literature" is by embodying everything that is not "Literature".

Of course this is all my opinion; what do you think? Is there any literary merit at all to be found in Fifty Shades of Grey? Am I too harsh overcritical in my assessment of what is, in essence, published Porn Without Plot? Should we stop analyzing Fifty Shades of Grey, and just let it fade away into obscurity?

Next time, I read Deborah Harkness' A Discovery of Witches and analyze the line between Literature and Genre Fiction.