Are Stieg Larsson and Dan Brown a match for literary fiction?

Kai

Good article by the Guardian on genre versus literary fiction.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/dec/12/genre-versus-literary-fiction-edward-docx/print

The Sparrow

Shocker as literary fiction writer argues that literary fiction is better than genre fiction

It is a ridiculous article imo. He doesn't seem to realise that the story and characterisation are what makes the millenium trilogy so popular. Not the prose.

The majority of people on a train do not want to be spending their time admiring pretty prose and well constructed sentences, they want a rip roaring tale thata will grab hold of them and immerse them completely so that the train journey flies by.

And I don't see anything wrong with that. The people speak with book sales and that is why Stieg Larson sells much more than Jonathan Franzen.

Eliot Rosewater

The Sparrow wrote: »

The majority of people on a train do not want to be spending their time admiring pretty prose and well constructed sentences...

Literary fiction is about more than just "pretty prose". John Grisham is fine and all, but there's nothing deep in his books. Literary fiction at least has the potential to enrich its readers through commentary on life and living. What does personal identity mean, for instance, and how do we come to terms with what we are ourselves? If you were looking for an answer to that you might read The English Patient (which, incidentally, is beautifully written). You just ain't going to find it in Stieg Larson.

That, for me, is the difference. Stuff going on beneath the surface.

28064212

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Literary fiction is about more than just "pretty prose". John Grisham is fine and all, but there's nothing deep in his books. Literary fiction at least has the potential to enrich its readers through commentary on life and living. What does personal identity mean, for instance, and how do we come to terms with what we are ourselves? If you were looking for an answer to that you might read The English Patient (which, incidentally, is beautifully written). You just ain't going to find it in Stieg Larson.

That, for me, is the difference. Stuff going on beneath the surface.

I don't agree with that. Sure, if you read the Millenium novels as purely thrillers, that's what you get. But if you look for it, there is plenty going on beneath the surface. Larsson's opinions on the press, Swedish society, women, politics, his disdain for men that verges on misandry, facism, corruption are all there for interpretation.

Similarly, you could read Yann Martel's Life of Pi as a mildly interesting tale about a boy who gets lost at sea. That's not what makes it a great book though.

I like how Docx criticises Lee Child for an argument full of stereotypes, condescension and complete inventions in the middle of an article which is exactly the same. It shows a level of irony, self-awareness and wit that you just wouldn't find in a tabloid. Oh sure, they might write the same thing, but it wouldn't mean the same

SVG

Docx cherry picks some pretty easy targets. Of course brilliant literary fiction is better than bad genre fiction. Who's going to say that Dan Brown is better than E. Annie Proulx (whose name he misspells in the article:p)?

I don't think it's fair to say (as he does below) that a good literary novel is inherently better than a good genre novel. Good writing is good writing regardless of the topic.

Mainly this: that even good genre (not Larsson or Brown) is by definition a constrained form of writing. There are conventions and these limit the material. That's the way writing works and lots of people who don't write novels don't seem to get this: if you need a detective, if you need your hero to shoot the badass CIA chief, if you need faux-feminist shopping jokes, then great; but the correlative of these decisions is a curtailment in other areas. If you are following conventions, then a significant percentage of the thinking and imagining has been taken out of the exercise. Lots of decisions are already made... None of this is to say that writing good thrillers is easy. It is still incredibly difficult. But it is easier.

Literary conventions do not exist solely in genre fiction. I have read many formulaic books which have been classified as literary fiction. Novels that happen to be about crime (or science fiction or women's issues) are usually placed into a genre box whether or not they follow the conventions Docx has mentioned. Not every book is Ulysses- the majority of novelists in any genre (including literary fiction) are not reinventing the wheel.

Docx really seems to be arguing against poor formulaic writing (which I think we can all agree is bad) but he has wrongly placed all genre fiction under that umbrella.

Denerick

These debates really should make people cringe. In one corner we have a group of people with a large chip on their shoulder, terrified of being blasted as 'elitists' so do their very best to make their reading habits appear 'popular' and therefore mainstream (ie, genre fiction readers)

In the other corner we have a group of people obsessed with stamping out some perceived cultural imperfection, as if Dan Brown isn't just a bad writer but indeed a threat to civilisation as we know it.

At the end of the day, reading means different things to different people. Popular fiction and literary fiction both have their virtues, there is no need to create such a divisive atmosphere.

Grievous

High(er) sales don't equal quality.
That's a huge misconception with Music, Art, Lit and lots of other media.

People will always jump on the Dan Brown Or Larsson bandwagon as it's the popular thing to do, to read or listen to anything that everyone else is doing or reading.

There are plenty of good books for the train ride with plenty of depth. Lord knows I have read plenty of amazing, deep books in the past few years that were not the usual thriller's that everyone else is reading.

Denerick

Grievous wrote: »

High(er) sales don't equal quality.
That's a huge misconception with Music, Art, Lit and lots of other media.

No its not a misconception. I don't think anyone is arguing that popularity means quality. I enjoy Robert Harris' novels. Imperium and Lustrum are best selling historical novels about Marcus Cicero. I don't, for a second, think they really add much to the sum total achievement of mankind, except that it tells a story in an entertaining way.

Grievous

Denerick wrote: »

No its not a misconception. I don't think anyone is arguing that popularity means quality. I enjoy Robert Harris' novels. Imperium and Lustrum are best selling historical novels about Marcus Cicero. I don't, for a second, think they really add much to the sum total achievement of mankind, except that it tells a story in an entertaining way.

Doh!:o I meant it in a broader context. People do use that argument more frequently than you think, though.