What's wrong with genre fiction and why lit guys dismiss it?

Storybooks are a waste of time I could spend learning tangible things of relevance to the world around actually around me, not the one imagined in someone else's head as their play thing. It's the same reason I would not watch dramatizations over documentaries. One is fluff, the other actually happened.

Some novels have their merit in foreboding the potential follies of man, but we'll not act like the majority of authors and their works are trying to elevate social commentary on the ails of society.

There's no such thing as ""genre fiction"".

(Teh famous Greeks you're supposed to start with composed mass-market genre shit for plebs. So did Shakespeare.)

Is the process through which the thing comes into existence not real or not a reason?

>Teh famous Greeks you're supposed to start with composed mass-market genre shit for plebs. So did Shakespeare.
Please, elaborate.

my family was killed by genre fiction

My family IS genre fiction

He thinks literacy was widespread

shakespeare was the medieval version of mexican soap operas.

That's not quite what I expected from an elaboration.

I'm not him.

People with autism tend to have a very hard time understanding fiction. Welcome to Veeky Forums.

Then why did you reply to me, when you are neither him nor can offer an elaboration?
Kill yourself you faggot

because genre fiction, by definition, is usually restrained by the limits of the genre to which it belongs, and most of the truly excellent literature (fiction and non-fiction) was not contained to "genre fiction." personally, i believe there IS genre fiction which either transcends the boundaries of genre or while working within the clearly defined realms of "genre", still managed to create great art.

of course you should also be aware that plenty of it is just shitposting.

it's a result of marketing and reinforcement of tired tropes, sticking to the stereotypical ideas of what a sci-fi or fantasy novel is.
funny thing is a lot of acclaimed contemporary literary novels are like this also, with focus on superficially stylistic and affected prose, for example.
creativity isn't valued when you can just stick with a formula to sell shit.

There is no work of fiction that isn't genre fiction.

Retard.

Genre fiction is produced by writers that need book sales to support themselves, whereas literary fiction is written by people that have a job, for example university teaching, or patronage.
By depending so much on book sales, genre fiction is an integrated part of the Society of the Spectacle, a product of industrial design just like TV shows, pop music, cape comics and movies, etc. only in written format.
For more on the industrialization of art: youtube.com/watch?v=S9AbuFhT0W4
By belonging to a specific genre, the product and production are trapped in the expectations and language (i.e. muh tropes) of its related subculture. It's a dialectical, but uneven, relationship where the works can indeed influence the subcultures, but the subcultures influence the works more heavily.
For more on the topic of fans of genre fiction and their relationships: pastebin.com/F1rwJ2wK
I find most hilarious that genre fiction fans come up with all these conspiracies concerning universities refusing to acknowledge the existence of their beloved doorstoppers, whereas academic institutions are VERY interested in what everyone is reading, watching and listening to, their contents, their appeal, and repeatedly publish in-depth analyses of them, and not just ye olden genres' classics at that, for example:
eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-324354.html
If they knew anything they'd probably cry that their favs are getting too much attention.

A work could discuss things that aren't imprisoned in the samsara of eternally recurrent omnipresent sets of tropes, such as the contingencies of the day, for example the writer himself, or social commentary concerning events happening in the CURRENT YEAR.
Literature could be a method of analyzing reality instead of escaping it, and obsess over plot in a tale of souls and swords, eternally retold.
Now if you'd excuse me, I'll end the post here given that the dragons down in my basement aren't going to slay themselves.

What's the real distinction though? You can do all of that in genre fiction.

It's that genre fiction is generally less technically competent in its means of expression. It's still valuable. You get to see what people like. Literary fiction often suffers from a total lack of interest, which in truth makes it even worse. Henry James said that fiction must at least be interesting. I mean sure McDonald's is shit but for lots of people it least it taste good. Imagine a high end restaurant serving you expensive food that didn't taste good? Lots of writers at university are committed to "brilliant" experiments in expression. And it's really sad because it isn't even interesting.

Except popular music is a small minority in the larger musical scene. While things labeled as "genre fiction" make up 99.9% of books published.