16 KiB
Any good options in literary fiction?
-
Author: u/poliphilo *
-
URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/2j04xo/any_good_options_in_literary_fiction/
-
Score: 12
-
Created: 2014-10-12T04:30:31
Post:
By "literary fiction", I mean that it is sophisticated & distinctive in its use of language and rhetoric, has a polysemic text, considers serious historical/philosophical themes, and so on. Some argue that literary fiction is not easily defined, except for that it passes muster with a certain set of "literary fiction" gatekeepers, consisting of other other literary writers and select critics. Either characterization seems fine for the current purposes.
By asking this question I in no way mean to demean genre fiction; I do not claim that literary fiction is comprehensively "better" than other sorts. Nor do I mean to imply that there are bright-line distinctions between literary and genre work; e.g. Literary Sci-fi includes works by Atwood, Ishiguro, Delany, Vonnegut, Saramago, etc. I like many books by these authors, but I can't think of any of their books that qualify as rational fiction.
Compared to "genre" science-fiction/fantasy/crime, literary fiction (even when borrowing from genre) typically has less plot, so there's less opportunity for "rational" problem solving. Furthermore, it might be that literary fiction is fundamentally preoccupied with subconscious processes & emotions (e.g. this review of a Richard Powers book) so would coexist poorly with rationalist characters. Despite these obstacles, are there novels/characters that qualify?
Comments:
u/None [+6] (an hour later)
I've been meaning to make a similar thread for quite some time. Literary fiction is most popular among those who have read a lot of books and spent a lot of time analyzing them. While some of this popularity is surely just status signaling, it's generally not a good idea to dismiss the opinion of those who have more knowledge and understanding of a field. Most importantly, there's an objective feature that distinguishes it from other fiction: reading it improves your empathetic skills and ability to understand other people's opinions. (Though the definitions of popular and literary fiction are a bit weird in this study.) Popular fiction (I think rationalist fiction usually goes under this heading) doesn't have this effect.
The fact that it improves empathetic skills and the popularity among critics, professors, etc. probably have something in common. If I had to guess, I'd say literary fiction models the human mind and social relationships better. If this is true then it'd be good to understand a little about literary fiction when writing rational fics.
u/Bowbreaker [+6] Solitary Locust (7 hours later)
Reading the linked article I can only say that things are far less clear cut. Especially the part where they say "only literary fiction does X" but then continue on saying that they can't or won't determine the line and the difference between literary and non-literary fiction seems odd. They chose books that fall "clearly" in to one category or the other. I would say there are many many texts that most people would judge as not literary which would have similar effects while there surely are some that are considered literary fiction but do nothing for ones empathetic skills. Without further research I at least remain unconvinced.
u/None [+1] (7 hours later)
Yeah, that part of my claim is not very certain. But more interestingly, do you think there's some utility in the works usually put under the label "literary fiction" that doesn't exist in genre fiction? And what would create that utility? Or are the academics wrong when they claim that literary works are superior to other works?
u/Bowbreaker [+1] Solitary Locust (8 hours later)
I must admit that I have never read much literary fiction. But my distinction was always that it puts more weight in the art of the written language itself. Tries to be great and interesting with regards of how something is expressed instead of concentrating mostly on making sense and on what is expressed.
EDIT: It seems this is a subject where English not being my first language takes its toll. I misunderstood what literary fiction means (if the Wikipedia article is correct) because it seems to be more a question of content than I thought. If the criteria really is if they are "works that offer deliberate commentary on larger social issues, political issues, or focus on the individual to explore some part of the human condition" then I'm rather confused by how many works are judged to not be literary fiction. I may need examples of some literary fiction that has become famous internationally.
In German we only have the term "Trivialliteratur" which is regarded as being lightweight, easy to understand and, as the name says, trivial. But instead of taking a small subset of literature and declaring it to be "literary" more so than other its more the other way around where just some literature is considered Trivialliteratur. Pretty much the inverse.
u/None [+3] (14 hours later)
Mm, good question. I don't know about preexisting works, but I, for one, would kill a man on a beach to get my hands on a rational/ist version of Camus' The Stranger.
u/None [+9] (3 days later)
While walking on the beach, Mersault is threatened with a knife by the Arab. Mersault draws Raymond's revolver, and begins to back away toward Masson's beach house. The Arab lunges forward, but Mersault shoots him in the leg, incapacitating him. Mersault runs into town and summons medical attention.
Later that day, once his condition had stabilised after significant blood loss, the Arab is arrested on charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Mersault is exonerated on grounds of self-defense in a trial held later that week.
Mersault muses on his indifference to the pain of the man he had shot, and discusses this with Raymond and Maria. He discovers that his apathy is not common, and consults a therapist.
He goes on to teach philosophy at a the Academy of Créteil, in Paris, where he lectured on the subject of moral nihilism. He publishes a paper in the summer of 1951 introducing the "Moral Procrastination Theorem", contesting the idea that divine authority resolves any of the basic assertions made by moral nihilists.
Significant political backlash results in Mersault losing his position at the Academy. That winter, having difficulty making ends meet, Mersault contracts pneumonia. Receiving treatment at Cochin Hospital, misdiagnosed with Consumption, he meets the pulmonologist Jean-François Buisson. Prescribed isoniazids, Mersault notes an improvement in his mood, and brings this to the attention of Buisson.
Mersault applies for a staffing position at the hospital, where he helps Buisson conduct preliminary trials for the first antidepressants.
u/None [+3] (3 days later)
Ahaha, this is great. Definitely deserves far more attention than it will receive in this comments section. Thanks for brightening up my day, /u/OneDegree!
u/None [+2] (3 days later)
Glad to hear it :)
u/EliezerYudkowsky [+3] Godric Gryffindor (3 days later)
Let me start by asking a simpler question: Where is the literary fiction that is unabashed about its ideals? Which, instead of being about broken people becoming more broken, is about good people becoming better people? Which pits good vs. good instead of evil vs. evil and manages to show both sides in the best light, instead of needing to show them as being tainted? This is what I would expect from a literary writer who was not merely pretending to be wise, who wanted to probe deep enough to find questions that would genuinely confuse and divide their own audience rather than lead them by the hand to a foregone conclusion. But then perhaps that literature would not pass the gatekeepers who were pretending to be wise and who deeply feared that someone else might think them not cynical and sophisticated enough.
But if you can't find literary fiction with untainted ideals and good people becoming better, how will you ever find any rational literary fiction? Mastering the art of probability theory is just one kind of ideal, and if all you can do with ideals is show them to be tainted, you're not going to teach anyone much about how to reckon falsifiability. And if you want to say anything more about sanity than yelling at the reader about God not existing, then you had better start from a reasonably okay rationalist to start with and show them getting better, and be able to show two ideals of rationality in opposition (without pretending them to be tainted or hypocritical, without making yourself out to be superior to either one).
The qualities of serious literature are a prerequisite to serious rational literature. But I do fear that the qualities of serious literature are also very much opposed to the conceits of those who imagine themselves the gatekeepers of their tiny, dying audience.
u/None [+1] (3 days later)
It seems to me that science fiction is the place that you would find it. Rationality is as much a technology as compact deuterium fusors (though with a more modest R&D budget). And science fiction has sort of always been stories about humanity as it is, convoluted by some supposed technology.
One of the major themes of Red Mars was "If you could build a culture from scratch, how would you go about it?"
u/None [+1] (17 days later)
u/seeking_dull_peace [+1] (a month later)
Alright, I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of literature. It's incredibly arrogant to think that wisdom in literature is all idealism and world-building and cannot be found in immersive stories that allow the reader to be in dialogue with the text. Because allegory has a purpose. Because most writers aren't so foolish to think that their own wisdom cannot be made better from the reader's creativity, attention, and love. They know that the work as it exists in the reader's mind is greater than any sum of its ideological parts.
That's the problem I have with you. That's why you are unable to create art: all you want to create is propaganda.
I would recommend Martha Nussbaum's Poetic Justice, but since it draws on virtue ethics and critiques utilitarianism, you might write it off. Here's a review of it and similar works, anyway: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/07/books/moral-fiction.html
u/superliminaldude [+2] (20 hours later)
The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco comes to mind. I would ague it as literary fiction (or at least, it appears in the fiction/literature section of the bookstore as opposed to mystery, despite being, itself, a mystery.) The central character, William of Baskerville, is definitely a rationalist character, his name alluding to Sherlock Holmes and William of Ockham. Add to that, he's a student of Roger Bacon as well.
u/poliphilo [+3] (a day later)
A very good idea, maybe as good as I can hope for. But not perfectly satisfying, because ... Also, there's a subtle but important "postmodern" theme that ...
u/superliminaldude [+1] (a day later)
u/Charlie___ [+2] (4 days later)
How about Catch-22? It passes the gatekeepers test better than the philosophy-and-semiotics test, but Yossarian is a pretty rational actor in an irrational space.
u/summerstay [+2] (9 days later)
I know this isn't exactly what you're looking for, but I feel like the Baroque Cycle by Neal Stephenson fits a lot of these criteria. Its use of language is sophisticated: varied, witty, and self-aware. It certainly considers serious philosophical and historical themes. It can be read on multiple levels. It ultimately concludes with the victory of the rational, scientific worldview. What keeps it from being literary fiction? It's no less serious in tone than, say, Infinite Jest. I guess the main differences from literary fiction are that it has a strong plot and its characters are all more concerned with getting things done than paying attention to their own state of mind, most of the time.
u/Bowbreaker [+1] Solitary Locust (7 hours later)
serious historical/philosophical themes
What are the characteristics of such themes? Especially with regards to serious philosophical themes I can think of huge disagreements to what applies and what doesn't.
EDIT: I don't ask to criticize your post but because it may become easier for people to point you in to the right direction if you elaborate what you mean. Also, are you looking specifically for rationalist fiction or would rational fiction be enough?
u/poliphilo [+3] (12 hours later)
What are the characteristics of such themes? Especially with regards to serious philosophical themes I can think of huge disagreements to what applies and what doesn't.
Well, I think "questions that would be asked by historians or philosophers" might be a sufficient characterization. When there's controversy there, we can probably be reasonably inclusive. For example, Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End covers questions of ultimate purpose, animal ethics, and historical teleology. Philosophers study at least the latter two of those. But the book is generally not considered literary due to other factors.
On the other hand, books by Ellis, Palahniuk, and Hornby are frequently not considered literary, even though they (a) have distinctive & considered writing styles, and (b) their work isn't "genre." It seems their salient themes relate to specifics of culture and subculture, not about enduring philosophical questions. Again, I absolutely don't mention this so as to demean their books. But I hesitate to suggest them to someone who specifically is looking for literary fiction.
Since you asked elsewhere for examples: nearly any book by: David Foster Wallace, Thomas Pynchon, Zadie Smith, Donna Tartt, Haruki Murakami, Toni Morrison, Salman Rushdie, Günter Grass. As before, I offer this list without implied endorsement of the books themselves (I love some; others no).
One of the peculiarities of how this works in English (which I didn't clearly state earlier) is that "literary fiction" is to a degree understood as "serious & writerly, but not genre". All these lines are fuzzy, but if you have too many sci-fi trappings, it falls out of the literary category: e.g. clones and human-looking androids can be "literary", but aliens, space travel, AIs are probably not (with maybe some minor exceptions).
Also, are you looking specifically for rationalist fiction or would rational fiction be enough?
Rational fiction would be enough.