ITT: Genre books that are good enough to transcend their genre

damn i keep spelling it with two Ls

Underrated post

I think ancient epics are firmly in the literary fiction category.

Epics are a genre of fiction, "literary" is not.

Having a genre doesn't qualify a work as "genre fiction". You are very confused.

I'm going by strict definition, not Veeky Forums memes.

I see people here trying to use "genre fiction" as some derogatory term when there are numerous works that can be classified on all formal accounts as genre fiction while still being worth the read. Only idiots refuse to see past this artificial distinction of "literary means good and genre means bad".

What makes it funnier is that "literary" just means 'pertaining to words', and whats any book if not literary? These fucking people.

you literally don't know what you're talking about and still you're arrogant and condescending
get off Veeky Forums it might do you good

Whoever coined the term is a fucking idiot since "genre" just means "a kind/sort", and literally every single work of fiction can and is classified into a genre. Its a waking contradiction.

You are literally autistic, correct?

Sorry, but you can't just make up your own definitions to technical terms.

"Genre" and "genre fiction" are distinction concepts. Every literary work has a genre, but not every literary work counts as "genre fiction".

"Genre fiction" (also known as popular fiction) refers to plot-driven fictional works written with the intent of fitting into a specific literary genre, in order to appeal to readers and fans already familiar with that genre. Genre fiction is generally distinguished from literary fiction.

"Literary fiction" (also known as serious fiction) is a term principally used for fictional works that hold literary merit, that is to say, they are works that offer deliberate social commentary or political criticism, or focus on the individual to explore some part of the human condition. Literary fiction is deliberately written in dialogue with existing works, created with the above aims in mind. Literary fiction is focused more on themes than on plot, and it is common for literary fiction to be taught and discussed in schools and universities.

The Iliad is an example of literary fiction. Your standard Brandon Sanderson novel is an example of genre fiction.

I never see him discussed on Veeky Forums. Only read one book of his and found it surprisingly good -- surprisingly perhaps because I wasn't expecting much, really.

>"Literary fiction" (also known as serious fiction) is a term principally used for fictional works that hold literary merit, that is to say, they are works that offer deliberate social commentary or political criticism, or focus on the individual to explore some part of the human condition. Literary fiction is deliberately written in dialogue with existing works, created with the above aims in mind. Literary fiction is focused more on themes than on plot, and it is common for literary fiction to be taught and discussed in schools and universities.

Yea, and you'd be surprised how many things considered "genre fiction" fit that bill. Book of the New Sun being one of the easiest examples, its decidedly sci-fi and literary, so where does it go? Who cares, since the distinction is already shot to hell by its very existence.

I guess if we want to reach any sort of agreement, say the "literary/genre" distinction matters more in terms of marketing rather than judging the actual quality of a work.

Because we certainly can dig up shitty books on both sides.

Die Kaarteppichknüpfer - Andreas Eschbach
La Horde du Contrevent - Alain Damasio

For something like science fiction/fantasy.

No, that's not how vagueness works. Where do you draw the line between being bald and being non-bald. How many hairs do you need, exactly? And yet - miraculously! - baldness exists. My uncle was bald. Not all categories have sharp boundaries, son. Deal with it.

Then its a useless category, be clear in your definitions or don't bother. This genre/iterary is largely maintained so people can keep a sense of snobbery when looking at other works, when most know its bullshit.

And semi-baldness is a thing.

By that logic, men and woman don't exist since 0.018% of children are born intersex.

>Then its a useless category, be clear in your definitions or don't bother.
So yes, you are literally autistic.

Except men and women are naturally occurring things with strict definitions and immediate qualifiers, (i don't care how much trap porn made you think otherwise) when genre/literary are really just marketing terms with vague definitions that are debated to this day.

And we already covered how the premise of genre fiction is a faulty one, but lets go deeper

>"Genre fiction" (also known as popular fiction) refers to plot-driven fictional works written with the intent of fitting into a specific literary genre, in order to appeal to readers and fans already familiar with that genre. Genre fiction is generally distinguished from literary fiction.

By this definition. Whats honestly the difference between a "literary" writer and a "genre" writer, when the genre writer is still making effective use of theme in his plots? Reminder that Shakespeare did alot of that.

The Iliad is an epic poem. Literary fiction is supposed to be the high end of what bookstores call 'general fiction.' Like genre fiction, it's written and marketed to an audience that doesn't want anything too different.

>"Genre fiction" (also known as popular fiction) refers to plot-driven fictional works written with the intent of fitting into a specific literary genre, in order to appeal to readers and fans already familiar with that genre. Genre fiction is generally distinguished from literary fiction.
In which case it should be obvious that, for example, Lord of the Rings is not genre fiction.

Well it does transcend the Atheist Digimon genre, I guess.

...

Agreed. The only book to have brought tears to my eyes.

Currently reading foundation. Really great book.

However, while it's a thrilling and engaging narrative, and an interesting examination of societies and technology, so far I'm not seeing any real tackling of scientific ideas.

I guess it was written in the early 50s though, so I think it can be excused.

The problem with science fiction is that it's constantly evolving around modern real scientific advancements and principles. Your cutting edge novel one year may be a humoured short story 5 years later. It's one of the reasons most good science fiction is fairly old.

Interesting stuff.

I am Legend

yeah maybe