Sometime last year, I thought about what the definition of "literary fiction" is, and how it differs from "genre" fiction, including science-fiction and fantasy. And why, even in 2021, a large amount of the literary criticism world won't take books and authors in that genre seriously.
Tolkien is obviously an important fantasy writer, and more importantly, he obviously has the credibility to be included in the literary establishment: being a Professor at Oxford is, on the face of it, about as much literary credibility as someone can get. One of Tolkien's students, V.S. Naipaul, won the Nobel Prize for literature. But there are still people who are skeptical of Tolkien as "serious literature"
People here are probably familiar with Maslow's hierarchy of needs: that people seek out physical needs and personal security, and after those things are secured, they seek out affection/affiliation, then recognition/success, and finally "self-actualization". And if you look at most books of "literary fiction", they are concerned with the top two steps on that pyramid. Most books of literary fiction are about people struggling to find a sense of belonging, or about people struggling to find insight. Every story has conflicts and risks, but in literary fiction, the conflict is not a conflict for physical needs or security, and the risks are to a person's self-esteem or self-concept, not to their life. And these concepts are usually personal conflict played out against a static social background.
(This isn't to say there isn't any physical risks in literary fiction, just that they aren't the focus. To take a really accessible example, in "To Kill a Mockingbird", the children are attacked at the end, but the physical conflict isn't the point of the story: the conflict of the story is between the Finch family either belonging to their community, or being true to themselves by rejecting the communities false values)
So to me, the reason that Tolkien isn't accepted widely by the "literary fiction" club is that the risks in his story run across all five steps. Even though the core of the story is about that top step, about whether people their integrity above temporary gain, it is played out in a world where there are immediate physical risks, and the story constantly reminds us of that, and where the world will change based on what the characters do. If John Smith is on his way to a job interview in Manhattan at a gigantic, soul-sucking financial firm an
... keep reading on reddit ➡I enjoy reading Edgar Allan Poe's literary criticism. He inspired me to even start a blog for book reviews where I refuse to pull my punches. However, a question I find myself asking is: how did he analyze the texts he was asked to review?
I always imagined he would, as he read a book for the first time, make a list as he goes of every grammatical mistake, every instance that would confuse readers, every plot point, every character & his-slash-her traits, etc. Basically how a college student—forced to read a work of fiction from the past or present—would take notes while reading, but perhaps more meticulously. Yet in my eyes it's unwise to do this without at least skimming the text first.
I'm sure there's a book out there which explores the nitty gritty of how he reviewed books out there somewhere, but what knowledge do the gentlemen of this fine community have?
He mentioned it on Dax Shepard's podcast (approximately 1:18:35) in relation to The Last Duel.
I'm pretty new to literature and am much more familiar with film. In film it is generally Sight and Sound's list of 100 greatest films as voted on by a large number of critics that is generally taken to be most representative of the cinematic canon.
I'm wondering, is there such a list in literature that is compiled by polling a large number of critics and/or academics?
EDIT: Just to clarify what I meant, I'm not so much looking for what would be an authoritative or valid list, but rather specifically a list that was voted on by polling a large number (as opposed to just one or two at a magazine) of critics and/or academics (if such a thing exists). I'm interested in what specifically the view of critics and academics would be on the question of what comprises the canon.
I know it is early and small sample size etc etc but it is definitely notable how two of the worst FT shooters last season (Whiteside with 51.9% and Adams genuinely had the worst FT% by someone who got actual minutes with 44.4%) have seemingly figured out a shot.
I can't speak for Whiteside because I haven't watched him play much but Steven has really changed his form on his shot and it is working wonders.
)