"Genre fiction" vs "literature"

It's only trash genre fiction if it has like a clearly identifiable influence from another work within the apparent genre.

sorry to spoil the meme that's been brewing for the last 6 years, but there is no difference.

>>9562779
Capital L Literature just means literature that is good. That's all there is to it. /thread

>>9563467
>/threading your own post

>>9562789
This is the only correct answer.

The distinction was artificially created, and has been mantained by publishers and people who don't know a thing about literature and genre.

Paraphrasing Oscar Wilde, there are well-written books, and badly-written books. That's it.

>>9562779
genre fiction = copy lord of the rings

literary fiction = copy hunger

oh look its this thread again

>>9562788

So like... everything written on the western hemisphere after the Bible is genre fiction?

Literature is what genre fiction would be like if it didn't have to be fiction, it didn't presuppose a familitarity with an established genre in the writer and/or the reader, it didn't necessitate the sale of printed copies as the purpose of its coming into existence, it didn't require the readership to be utter shit, and it was better.

>It deals with deep and profound ideas
No, it was written in 1968 and WABOT-1, the first android was already being built in 1967:
>WAM-1 was first developed in 1967, in which WASEDA-type artificial muscles made of rubber (cf. page 7) were used. WAM-1 featured seven degrees of freedom (DOF), four in the hand and three in the arm.

As soon as the first line of a science fiction book is conjured in the writer's mind, all the "new" contents and themes of the book are already outdated, surpassed, obsolete. Forever. Not that the readership would ever know.

>How about LOTR?
LOTR isn't even Tolkien's best work.

>Can books make the jump over time after appreciation and knowledge of the book rises?
No, it simply means the advertising and cover image are doing a good job, maybe there's a movie adaptation going on.

>>9564871
>>It deals with deep and profound ideas
>No, it was written in 1968 and WABOT-1, the first android was already being built in 1967:
>>WAM-1 was first developed in 1967, in which WASEDA-type artificial muscles made of rubber (cf. page 7) were used. WAM-1 featured seven degrees of freedom (DOF), four in the hand and three in the arm.
>As soon as the first line of a science fiction book is conjured in the writer's mind, all the "new" contents and themes of the book are already outdated, surpassed, obsolete. Forever. Not that the readership would ever know.
What in the world are you talking about?

>>9562779
My dad argued to me that literary fiction, in many cases, is just a weirdly specific genre unto itself.

Some fantasy and science fiction opts for expressing and exploring ideas through the observation of what unreal situations can show us about our reality
Some is pulp trash dedicated to having cool action scenes and blockbuster plots
The nebulous concept of "literary merit" doesn't have to factor into it