I really am curious as to what people are thinking/saying about literature and popular fiction. Can they be the same, or, as Mo suggests, is it "literature" if it can stand the test of time? My question back might be, "Is it 'popular' if it's only read by a few people?" But Mo... stands the test of time for whom? How many people are really interested in reading James Joyce? Bookstores stock and sell 'em, but is it because people want to read him or because they have to for schools? Then, is it the academic world that decides what is literature by what they choose to study?
I've really enjoyed the works I've read by Paul Watkins (as you might notice to the left, I'm reading one of his works now). He's hardly a name many people know (except that he's got the kind of name where people from my neck of the woods might say, "Wasn't he in the class right after ours?"). He's hardly popular, his work probably won't be around in a hundred years (too bad), but I would consider his work "literature." Why? I'm not sure I can put my finger on it, and that's what's got me bugged. Is it because his characters are on a physical, spiritual, and thematic journey that is often metaphor for our own lives whereas the popular authors tend to write about here, now stories that leave little, if any, long-lasting emotional ties?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I don't know if this is relevant, but I've noticed that in the graduate literature classes I've been taking at MSUM the last few years, we've been reading a whole lot of relatively new books, say ones published within the last twenty years, mostly by still-living writers. Of course, it may reflect the classes I've taken thus far, but I haven't "had" to read many of the classics thus far (not counting my Shakespeare class, of course -- he hasn't published anything new for awhile).
K, I didn't think you were being an ass. I am somewhat of a neophiliac, however.
K, I don't think you're being an ass, either. And I hope no one thinks Im bringing this topic up to cause a stir. I really am interested in finding out if there is a line that separates the field, and if so, what defines the line.
Having read some of your past works, I would agree that your work is/will be labelled "literary." This is cool, except that it means you probably won't be retiring on your royalties.
Yup, I agree with the fact that there are those writers who manage to connect both literary and popular, though their numbers are few.
I certainly don't expect this discussion to end after a few blog postings and several replies. Hopefully we'll be able to take it up over a poker game at Kootch's or New Year's at my place.
I personally feel that the separation is a result of thematic issues and the handling of themes. I like the "tries to evolve it's own form" comment. I'll ruminate on that a bit.
Post a Comment