Is literary fiction a genre?

That's a relief. Still pretty usable.
Yes... I can see the problem there, calling to question the education system.
>Still could go spergmode about forewords, small errors, changing rules (in language teaching book) and of course: full Neo/gnostic/maya mode
Though that may scare the pussy away.

Veeky Forums will hate this article but it isn't terrible

(not saying he's not a bit of a dilitante)

robertchristgau.com/xg/bkrev/coover-86.php

Its ironic that such a hack as him thinks he can talk down to anyone.

I don't understand how people can stomach writing like this.

He's conflating fantasy meaning "imagined impossible or improbable things" with "a genre of imaginative fiction involving magic and adventure, especially in a setting other than the real world," and of course those things aren't the same at all. If you were to go to the type of conventions where Rothfuss is invited (or sffg for that matter) and respond to people asking for fantasy recommendations with The Odyssey, or Popol Vuh, or Pedro Paramo, or The Divine Comedy, you wouldn't be giving those people what they were looking for. Today's fantasy literary genre is about specific things, maybe that doesn't need to be the case, but that's how it is.

The books that he's referring to as "literary fiction" are indeed a genre, though I don't agree with his description of that genre. For instance, though Swann's Way is literally a guy drinking tea and contemplating his life, I don't think Proust is in the category he's trying to describe. But it's not 100% clear, because Rothfuss isn't very good at describing things. In any event, it's certainly true that a lot of stuff that gets sorted into the book store new fiction section is crap.

I get what he's saying – there's an entire genre of literary fiction about disaffected or isolated younger men having slightly absurd experiences in an overly reflexive voice. Roughly 'this is like Hamsun's Hunger' – and boom, you've described a huge portion of literary fiction. What is that if not being a 'genre' defined by certain cliches?

It's ironic because the "fantasy" genre is incredibly formulaic and unimaginative.

Yeah, I get what he's saying too (and largely agree with that part). He just doesn't describe it well.

This is an interesting distinction. And when I think about it it correlates pretty well with my experience with fantasy. Thanks for this insight