>I am far too intellectual to enjoy genre fiction

I know how you feel. Cool costume man.

the most literary form of genre fiction is detective/crime/mystery fiction

Nigga I bet you use your finger to follow along the words of a menu at McDonald's.

>>7756520
How is that an insult? There's shit all over the place. Like anyone else, I get out of the car and go up to the board so I can actually see the choices. Most people, in my town at least, do this.

>>7756498
underrated post

I'm too stupid to read "The Hunger Games" so I read Plato's Dialogues. It's true.

>>7756496
you should try gene wolfe.

I just don't understand how you can have the time to read it. There's so much to read. Why waste time on shit?

>>7756496
It's not an issue of being too "intellectual" for it. It's an issue of it all being the same once you've read a few books of it. Most "literary" fiction is shit too. I mainly read avant-garde/experimental fiction because you have a better chance of getting something that's different from every other fucking book/tv show/movie/etc. out there with it.

>>7756628
this

File: i wonder what ill be when i grow up....jpg (35KB, 392x366px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 392x366px

>>7756496
those that are more intelligent are able to more easily suspend their disbelief to more deeply enjoy works of fiction.

my friend, you just dont have an imagination because you arent intelligent enough to create a whole new world. You are the opposite of intelligent.

>>7756647
not reading genre fiction means you have no imagination? bullshit.

>>7756662
well if you're not reading it, you better be writing it.. so if you havent, its not bullshit.

>>7756667
nonsense. absolute nonsense. someone refusing to read genre fiction because it's not intellectually stimulating does not mean that they lack imagination, and the idea that if you're writing and it's not genre fiction as well, that you don't have imagination is one of the most retarded things i've ever heard.

>>7756679
I think its a bigger mistake to think "genre fiction" cant be intellectually stimulating. Some of the most rigorous thinkers among authors in the past decades have been sci-fi writers.

Lets not forget all those poets who essentially wrote Biblical fanfiction or otherwise employed fantastical elements as symbols for greater concepts

File: he's the trash man.png (154KB, 559x556px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 559x556px

>>7756695
Some of the most rigorous thinkers among authors in the past decades have been sci-fi writers

>>7756699
this kneejerk reaction says it all, you dont know shit about literature

>>7756701
how quaint.

>>7756695
>Some of the most rigorous thinkers among authors in the past decades have been sci-fi writers.
such as?

>>7756712
Wow, you don't even know?
Outting yourself as a pleb, kek.

>>7756717
Not the same anon.

>>7756695
y'know the funny thing is that vonnegut wrote more interesting sci-fi pieces in his little tangents explaining plots of Kilgore Trout books than in most sci-fi books. and look at how vonnegut is treated here. think about it.

>>7756647
>those that are more intelligent are able to more easily suspend their intelligence

source?

>>7758167
>It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

:^)

ITT: Plebs get absolutely outraged that patricians dare insult their genreshit

>>7756695
>rigorous thinkers
Ayy lmao

>>7756647

This is wat genre fiction readers actually believe

anyone who doesn't like what i like or likes what i don't like needs to leave this board right now

>>7756513
"But today's mystery story is the very negation of style, being, at the best, conventional literature. Frankly, I am not one of those college professors who coyly boasts of enjoying detective stories - they are too badly written for my taste and bore me to death."

>>7758181
Look m8, either tell us who these genius genre writers are or fuck off.

>>7760057
it very well depends on the book ( i think detective/mystery/crime has its own internal canon) and how it can be analyzed through modes of literary criticism

for instance, consider Dashiell Hammett's Red Harvest and its forms of labor, and how we can use this to tactically read the novel. There is physical labor at hand (untold story of the miners), sexual labor (Dinah Brand), and linguistic labor (the continental op). It is in that last one that it can be read tactically. The op uses language and speech as his tools, and therefore every line in the novel, every piece of dialogue becomes tactical piece of information in reading it critically.

Or consider Agatha Christie's "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd". Poirot takes the aggregate details of a scene, adding up all the clues and analyzing them. This is a reflection of statistical modes of reading. Literary criticism is an art of analyzation in itself, where we take aggregates of "clues" from books (i.e. quotes) and put them all together in order to make a profound statement on the novel.

File: 1456237837190.png (74KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 625x626px

>>7758212
ITT: bait

>>7756647
see, the problem is, most genre fiction resides in all the same world (respective of genre) that's so utterly boring and trite at this point.

barthelme or borges do absolutely wonderful creative world-building in their stories, but those are regarded as entirely literary fiction, no?