What is considered "Brilliant Writing"?

[Loiosh91]

I've noticed that on almost all the lists you see of greatest works of fiction, or greatest authors of fiction, almost invariably fantasy writers aren't included on these lists. Is fantasy considered the retarded cousin of literature? The majority of my favorite books and authors are fantasy, but what makes these works unworthy of praise and study? I've asked every English teacher I've had since eighth grade and never get a satisfactory answer.

So, I ask you, why do great author's like Anne McCaffrey, Steven Brust, the Hendees, or Roger Zelazny get so little praise?
And why are so few college and high school book studies over fantasy books?

 

[ward.]

Is fantasy considered the retarded cousin of literature?

Yes, yes it is.

I attribute it to professional elitism, but there's more to it then that.

 

[Erana]

And why are so few college and high school book studies over fantasy books?

Why do people consider comic books and gaming children's media?

 

[Dr Spaceman]

Right or wrong, books that are so-called "genre" titles are often relegated to the ghetto of pulp fiction. I'm referring here to sci-fi, fantasy, and mystery titles. (I'm sure there are others, as well.) Books that fit into these categories rarely attract much attention from the Harold Bloom wannabes. Some of that derision is justified, some is not. Kurt Vonnegut is a great example of an author who fought (and needed to fight) to have his work regarded as more than mere sci-fi. Today, you'd be hard pressed to find literary critics who don't regard him as one of the masters of 20th century literature.

Then again, critics are often interested in novels which reveal an important truth about the human experience. Vonnegut utilized sci-fi trappings to explore different facets of humanity. In a similar vein, Watchmen is celebrated by mainstream critics because of its realistic look at the psyche of the superhero, and the notion of power.

To be fair, I'm not really a big fan of fantasy novels. I mean, I read Lord of the Rings, but who hasn't? But one thing you have to remember about the novels you read in school is that these are the handful of stories that have survived over the past decades and centuries. There are some sci-fi, mystery, and fantasy books that do survive, and will survive in the future to be studied by future generations. In fact, a friend of mine was an English major in college, and she read Ender's Game for her class. So you never know.

 

[Beffudled Sheep]

I don't know... maybe it's because of like some sort of conspiracy. You know a conspiracy to keep the fantasy writer down.

 

[pantsoffdanceoff]

Because for something to be considered great by a critic, it has to be old. And Modern Fantasy is not old, it has "Modern" right in there. So in fifty years I wouldn't be surprised if we read Harry Potter in high school (even though personally I didn't think it was a too great a series).
And in High School, you only read books that are considered good enough to be read are ones praised by critics.

 

[axia777]

And why are so few college and high school book studies over fantasy books?

Why do people consider comic books and gaming children's media?

Because America is super ultra lame like that. That is Japan has an edge on us for adult entertainment and the culture that accepts it as such.

 

[SamuraiAndPig]

Really profound literature, to most educators, has to do two things: 1) tell the reader something about the time and the world from where it came and 2) force the student to read into it. Thats why most college courses teach stuff like Hemingway and Camus instead of Tolkien or Harry Potter.

Fantasy doesn't really tell a student about anything that goes on in the world today. Sure, it has the ideas of such, but often there is such a polarization between good and evil that it reduces the characters to cardboard cutouts instead of real people. Also, fantasy books spend most of the time developing the setting rather than the characters or the action (Tolkien devoted his entire life to it.) So again, they don't really tell the reader anything about the real world.

And ward. has a great point as well - alot of it is elitism. The above isn't me saying that fantasy books are crap or don't truly capture the human spirit, because they do. Many professors and teachers are just pricks.

Oddly, this thread got me thinking about the last fantasy book I read, and I have not picked one up in years.

 

[Asymptote Angel]

Something is clever if it outsmarts me (I don't see the ending coming). It's brilliant if it outsmarts me and then tells me something meaningful that I hadn't though of before.

Professional critics have all sorts of artsy criteria, but that's all I need. I like to think I'm reasonably intelligent, so my definition of brilliance (or even cleverness) is rarely met in books, movies, games, etc.

 

[Graham]

Right or wrong, books that are so-called "genre" titles are often relegated to the ghetto of pulp fiction. I'm referring here to sci-fi, fantasy, and mystery titles. (I'm sure there are others, as well.) Books that fit into these categories rarely attract much attention from the Harold Bloom wannabes. Some of that derision is justified, some is not. Kurt Vonnegut is a great example of an author who fought (and needed to fight) to have his work regarded as more than mere sci-fi. Today, you'd be hard pressed to find literary critics who don't regard him as one of the masters of 20th century literature.

Vonnegut is a great example, except he isn't usually remembered as a sci-fi author and he's currently shelved under 'Fiction'. Perhaps this is a result of the literary community not wanting to admit that he's a sci-fi author, or the belief that he somehow transcends genre. The latter is actually a notion I think is justified.

 

[TheBluesader]

I used to ride the "There is no Great Literature" bandwagon as fervently as the rest of the post-modern, ironic know-it-alls. But then I took a hard look at what's considered "great literature" and realized how different it is from so-called "genre fiction."

Simply stated, "great literature" is far more descriptive, patient, and directed toward making some kind of comment about the human condition than "genre literature." So-called "literary" works may rely on popular culture for subtext, but they're unique in that they create an entire world in and of themselves, one in which a diligent reader can get lost in. Lots of "genre" works move quickly and presuppose a lot of knowledge because their goal is largely just to entertain for profit, and not make some kind of final statement about humankind.

Don't get me wrong. I prefer comic books and the Lord of the Rings to award-winning literature nearly all the time. But keep in mind that, like classical music, "great literature" serves a valuable function as its own self-contained art form, i.e., it can stand to inspire future artists and show them what can be done with skill and hard work. It may not always be fun, but it shows how effective the written word can be.

I know that sounds really stuffy, but I hope I've made some kind of coherent point.

 

[SamuraiAndPig]

Why do people consider comic books and gaming children's media?

Because comics are seen as juvinile and games are seen as toys, not serious writing. It's changing though - I took a Video Game Narrative Studies course in college, so at least some people are taking it seriously. But for the comics, check out the book "Understanding Comics" by Scott McCloud. There is serious study into this stuff.

 

[MorganL4]

I've noticed that on almost all the lists you see of greatest works of fiction, or greatest authors of fiction, almost invariably fantasy writers aren't included on these lists. Is fantasy considered the retarded cousin of literature? The majority of my favorite books and authors are fantasy, but what makes these works unworthy of praise and study? I've asked every English teacher I've had since eighth grade and never get a satisfactory answer.

So, I ask you, why do great author's like Anne McCaffrey, Steven Brust, the Hendees, or Roger Zelazny get so little praise?
And why are so few college and high school book studies over fantasy books?

We just studied Gilgamesh in my class and its concidered the original fantasy epic.

" it came about 1000 years before the bible.


but personally I prefer historical fiction, not exaclty fantasy but still alot of fun

if you like historical fiction check out bernard cornwell.

 

[Hopkins]

What is considered "Brilliant Writing"?

Anything that comes out of Kurt Vonnegut's mouth.

 

[wewontdie11]

The Da Vinci Code.

I kid. I like anybody that can be creative with language and really paint a picture well, using interesting linguistic devices and a wide vocabulary. But then again I don't read a great deal so I wouldn't be able to give you too many examples except maybe Stephen King (for the most part).

 

[whitelye]

Really, great literature is just great because the author has made a name for himself or herself and critics have acknowledged his work as great. Critics are really the ones that make great literature great, but there's also a bit more to it than that.

Now, there's something to be said for quality of writing as well. Fantasy literature is considered retarded because most of it is. Actually that's true of anything and everything. Only a handful of books are considered great literature but for every "Lord of the Rings," there are hundreds of "Star Wars" spin-offs and other magical medieval wizard stories.

Personally, I think a good read is a good read, regardless of what others might tell you. I like "Nineteen Eighty-Four" and "Hellboy: Bones of Giants." I don't put them in the same category, but they're still both good reads in my opinion.

I would say it boils down to whether or not a text makes you feel something, genuinely, or makes you think and reads differently every time you read it. It's subjective... mostly.

 

[Jack_the_Knife]

Well, this idea has been reiterated in one form or another already. But I figure it could be expanded on. And I'll just assume we're restricted to literature.

Fantasy writers, for example. They're just telling a story. It could be 1 month old or it could be 1000 years old, doesn't matter, you try to pass off most novels(if anything, just "really detailed screenplays" these days) as "brilliant writing and literature" to an English professor or Literature professor or whatever and you'd get nothing but urbane laughs, the verbal equivalent of a condescending pat on the head and the recommendation of a book by a dead white guy, dead white woman(18-19th century only), etc.

Then you have some, I'll just shoot off some obvious ones anybody in the American education system should find familiar. The Great Gatsby, Jane Eyre, much by Shakespeare, Catch-22(duh). Sure they all cover massively different topics and the scope of their narrative may be far more limited than...oh say...the Halo series that makes you buy a crapload of stuff to get the whole story, most of which ends up supplementary and irrelevant to the games anyway.

But why they're considered brilliant pieces of writing is because they offer commentary on a particular topic, and insight into the society of the author's time period. Gatsby and the Jazz Age. Eyre and the...19th century roles of women? Who knows? Yes, they can be as boring and uninteresting as watching paint dry or grass grow but they've still got some impressive subtext. The kind that whoever writes Sparknotes or whatever can only scrape at.

Feel free to throw in Ayn Rand wherever you like.

Of course, you have those that straddle the line, or clearly exist on either side of the spectrum. Frankenstein, for example. Or Cat's Cradle, by Vonnegut, who clearly enjoys much popularity. Heinlein, Asimov, Bradbury. Basically you look at any given list of "celebrated works of literature" or whatever other name they decide to give it, and you can pretty much guarantee most of the science fiction up there is cautionary sci-fi.

But at the end of all of it, beauty in the eye of the beholder, right?

 

[fedpayne]

Old to be considered good? Bullshit, what about Roth, Pynchon and DeLillo? And yeah, generally the canon is made up of the genre called 'literary fiction'. There are of course exceptions, such as Tolkein, Vonnegut and Chandler.