Why are some of you so reluctant to call this genre fiction...

Good writing ignores conventions, whether or not it follows them in certain areas.

For example, if a princess needs to be rescued from a dragon, this is for some thought-out reason. As opposed to a princess needing rescue because -- well, isn't that what all the fairytales do?

All fiction falls into a genre.

But not all fiction is written to be a certain genre from the outset, which I think is what the difference is. It's saying, "I'm going to write a [genre] book" versus "I'm going to write a book" and it turns out to have such a degree of constituent elements it just falls into a that category. And this is not to say that taking the second approach guarantees a quality piece of literature, just that following the first approach implicitly lays constraints on an author to appeal to a certain narrative framework rather than being unconstrained and uninhibiting its potentiality

Because literature snobs like to use genre fiction as a term to deride things, and they would need actual valid criticisms if it became a neutral term. I don't think I've ever seen anyone dismiss Le Morte d'Arthur or The Faerie Queene as genre fiction even though they are..

If you are trying to convince people to give genre fiction a chance, why would you use the worst possible genre?

God look at how comfy those scenes are. I need a proper LOTR vidya where I can just chill in Hobbiton with my bois.

Three of the best books ever written. The depth is really revealed in the appendix of the last book and the histories compiled and published by his son. He was a brilliant linguist and writer.

>be Tolkien
>be one of the most important authors of the early 20th century
>colleges refuse to teach your books to future generations because a bunch of hack authors tried to imitate your work and now the only people who read your books are illiterate mouthbreathers

I skipped the appendix and just bought the Silmarillion. Was that wise? I figured the Silmarillion would just elaborate on any information in the appendix. It just arrived today and I have a week off from work starting Sunday so I'm planning to dig into then.

I'm literally reading Two Towers right now, my fellow patrician.

The Lord of the Rings isn't genre fiction because when it was written it wasn't a formulaic entry into an established marking niche in the commercial publishing industry with a dedicated readership who don't care about the quality of the story so long as it contains shopworn tropes that they're already familiar with. It's just plain old literature.

This is superior in every way.

>puts a cat in his tunic
>never takes it out
Sure kid

>Silmarillion
happy reading user
it gives a whole new context to the LotR

Silmarillion is mostly fucking great, but because he died before finishing it some parts are stronger than others. Treat each chapter as its own short story because you can tell a couple of them are still in the early draft stage.

Underrated post.

>Why are some of you so reluctant to call this genre fiction?

The appendix has information not in the Silmarillion (pretty much all of it is comprised of that), but the Silmarillion helps put it in context - so read them all after.

>Why are some of you so reluctant to call this genre fiction?

>Why are some of you so reluctant to call this genre fiction?

Is 'genre fiction' a genre in itself?

>Why are some of you so reluctant to call this genre fiction?

All these insecure Americans, desperate to get their pat on the head for being "serious readers", reading "literary fiction".

Meanwhile Brits are writing great entertainments like the Flashman series or James Bond, good Scifi like Wells' novels, Verne, Arthur C Clarke, Brian Aldiss, John Brunner.

Americans desperate need to be "serious" is just an outgrowth of their gloomy protestant utilitarianism.

>Why are some of you so reluctant to call this genre fiction?

>Why are some of you so reluctant to call this genre fiction?

You might as well call Don Quixote genre fiction while your at it.

But it was a send up of genre fiction.

It is still genre fiction. Doesn't really matter that it is poking fun at it.

We don't call it genre fiction because the actual genre fiction is just a poor imitation of the external aspects of Tolkien. Tolkien was not writing within the modern fantasy genre, as it did not exist yet.

There's good writing and bad writing, get out of academia's asshole.
The fantasy genre was well-underway when Tolkien wrote his works, and this makes him no less of a great writer.

Pynchon. He literally writes detective fiction.

>Tolkien invented the fantasy novel
Wew lad

If Veeky Forums existed in the 16th century they would.

pls stop this ''tolkien invented fantasy'' meme. Fantasy had been an established genre for decades when LOTR was published.

Fucking retard Tolkien invented a whole branch of fantasy so popular it may as well be called "modern fantasy".

"genre fiction" doesn't mean "fiction which can be conceivably placed within a genre", you utter niggers. Tragedy is a genre, but no one's calling Hamlet genre fiction.

What kind of idiocy does it take to think that "genre fiction" MUST be so wide a term as to describe literally every work in existence? Butthurt SFFags...they make me sick...

>Verne
>British

This is what Americans actually belive

>spawns the genre
>retroactively included in the genre
not how that works

>BUT SWORDS AND MAGIC EXISTED BEFORE THAT
not the same genre
not what LotR is about

LotR is mythological in scale and depth. It projects the world onto a microcosm taking into account almost every aspect of actual life in proportion.

you as wrong as he is.

the 'modern fantasy' succeeding LotR is nothing like LotR at all

>the 'modern fantasy' succeeding LotR is nothing like LotR at all
Are you retarded? It may scoop everything GOOD about LotR out and use only the superficial skeleton, but the popularity of epic tones and constructed worlds is owed to Tolkien.

Probably the only instance in history where the movie is better than the book.

the movie is great but this makes no sense

it's fiction (allegedly) that falls under the genre of fantasy
even though it's an allegory

Well isn't a dragon being scary and evil enough of a reason?

because your book is pointless shit

I respect your opinion, thinking that the books are better but you're wrong and I hate you

they are doing 2 completely different things, so not sure if it makes any sense to compare the books with the movie

>The movie is great

A lot of snobs like T.S Eliot really liked good detective stories

it is :

The movies definitely are great, but the flaws with the characterization of most of the figures alone are enough that the books are better.

the movies are mostly plot with worldbuilding going on in the background, the books are almost purely worldbuilding and they are fantastic at it as long as you retain any sort of innocence in your heart

i wouldn't compare them as the movies only manage to capture a very thin slice of all the worldbuilding Tolkien did, and they are very good at it, but you are just loosing too much if you limit yourself just to the films

>implying that the black and white characterization of Tolkien is good

>archetypal characters are bad
ok

No it isn't. Please watch some real cinema, you're missing out.

i don't care for films

Don't mind me, just enjoying some genre fiction

Why are some of you so reluctant to call this genre fiction?

Why are some of you so reluctant to call this genre fiction? Just because it's well written and ''comfy'' doesn't mean it's not genre fiction.

The Bible is well written, but not very comfy.

fanfiction too, no less

by definition anything that is not general fiction is genre fiction. People are reluctant to call great works of literature genre fiction because autist snobs have been memeing their chosen style into supremacy since greek times, you know, when faggotry started to taint the west.

Jaws, The Godfather, Touch of Evil were all better as movies.

>it's good because the lore is so deep
t. genre fiction reader.

>Fucking retard Tolkien invented a whole branch of fantasy
No he didn't. He was influential, but influential genre fiction is still genre fiction.

What's the difference between an archrtypal and a stock character?

Tolkien didn't write especially deep characters to begin with. Books are comfier though.

It's not at all stylistically similar to genre fiction (i.e. fantasy) books, those are naturalistic or realistic in style set in an invented world, Tolkien in general is stylistically most similar to ancient and medieval literature and entirely forgoes realism.

Genre fiction has a narrower scope and different ambitions, but a talented author can still work really well within those constraints.

Why are some of you so reluctant to call this Literature? Just because it's well written and ''comfy'' doesn't mean it's genre fiction.

Thomas Pynchon and Raymond Chandler would like a word, user.

>The Godfather