6 ms·

The reason you read literary fiction is because you're curious about the outer edges of human thought or experience.

by Papazsazsa 1y ago

nottorp 1y ago
This is HN, they may be looking to put a monetary value on it.
kayodelycaon 1y ago
Interesting. That’s exactly why I read science fiction.
mcnamaratw 1y ago
But that’s new. Until ca 1970-2000, people read literary fiction because it was high quality, much more than because it was unrelateable. O’Hara, Salinger, and Franzen were not writing about the outer edges of human experience.
esafak 1y ago
But does it have to be inaccessible to be so? It's easy to write something incomprehensible that says nothing. Is the writer writing about something that is inherently complex, and that's why it is inaccessible? Not typically in a novel. The prospective reader may then ask, why should I bother? I'm also curious what Pynchon has to say, but not enough to justify the investment.
- tekla 1y ago
  It's not inaccessible. Its just that you don't have the reading skills from lack of use.
  - pfdietz 1y ago
    Yes, I'm sure it all our faults, not that of the product.
    - tekla 1y ago
      Yep, skills need to be practiced before you engage with harder material
      - pfdietz 1y ago
        Or, authors need to be subservient to the needs and desires of the customers.
        antasvara 1y ago
        Around 54% of adults read at a 6th grade level or below: https://www.apmresearchlab.org/10x-adult-literacy https://www.apmresearchlab.org/10x-adult-literacy Based on this, you could reach both of these conclusions: 1. Most literary fiction is inaccessible to the average adult. 2. It's a big problem that even moderately complex novels are inaccessible to the average adult. The first statement (which I think is where you're coming from) is absolutely true. If you want to write a very popular book, it should be easily readable at a 6th grade level. The second statement is more a statement of values. Some people (such as myself) find it problematic that the average adult can't read/understand a book that is more complex than Harry Potter. You don't have to agree with the second statement. A lot of people don't. But I think understanding why someone might find that problematic is important. Personally, I think there are a lot of things worth knowing that can't be written at a 6th grade level.
        protocolture 1y ago
        >In the US
        trinix912 1y ago
        If their goal is to write bestsellers, sure. That's where the €5 leisure novels come from. OTOH, if their goal is to push boundaries or be original, being subservient to the desires of the customers is counterproductive.
  - mcnamaratw 1y ago
    Don’t be a d**k. Lots of literary fiction is perfectly readable for normal humans. Lots of what isn’t accessible is just not that enjoyable to anybody. I’m happy to debate … but only using specific examples. Authors and titles. The example of noise music came up elsewhere in the discussion. It’s an important example. Most people won’t ever like it. You fill the pipeline with noise music, 99% of us will literally listen to anything else, or to nothing. I like a little bit of it, but in general I’m simply not going to acquire that taste.
    - antasvara 1y ago
      >Lots of literary fiction is perfectly readable for normal humans. Lots of what isn’t accessible is just not that enjoyable to anybody. The PIAAC surveys, while imperfect, indirectly address what percentage of adults can read and appreciate "literary fiction." The first part of the definition of level 3: >Adults at Level 3 are able to construct meaning across larger chunks of text or perform multi-step operations in order to identify and formulate responses. They can identify, interpret or evaluate one or more pieces of information, often employing varying levels of inferencing. The first part for Level 4: >At level 4, adults can read long and dense texts presented on multiple pages in order to complete tasks that involve access, understanding, evaluation and reflection about the text(s) contents and sources across multiple processing cycles. Adults at this level can infer what the task is asking based on complex or implicit statements. Successful task completion often requires the production of knowledge-based inferences. The full definitions can be found here: https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/measure.asp https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/measure.asp Based on the full definitions, understanding the use of metaphor in a longer text probably sits in Level 4. A simple metaphor might sit in Level 3. Based on the recent survey results, only half of US adults read at Level 3 or above. Around 15% read at Level 4 or above. I invite you to look at this PowerPoint of sample questions for each level: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjJlpLS2YWOAxUmFFkFHWMqAU8QFnoECBsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpiaac.squarespace.com%2Fs%2F7-Sample-Tasks113014AIRlogofinal12814.pptx&usg=AOvVaw3lah7y6G1lQ8P3jLKxa3vg&opi=89978449 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjJ... Based on that, what level of literacy do you think indicates someone capable of reading and enjoying literary fiction? I think the hypothetical cutoff is somewhere between Level 3 and 4. Based on all of this, let's use Sally Rooney's book "Normal People" as an example. If we're being super charitable, at most 50% of people would be able to read and comprehend that book. If we're being less charitable with our definition of "comprehension," I think we're probably looking at closer to 30% of people really understanding it.
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  Is it inaccessible? Some books are, but there is a huge amount of literary fiction that follows traditional narrative and is comprehensible to anybody with a high school education. There are more than enough such books to fill a lifetime.
  - esafak 1y ago
    I don't mean every work of literary fiction; only those commonly regarded as difficult, like Pynchon's.
- voidhorse 1y ago
  This is fundamental misunderstanding of literature. This is like saying to a musician: I like the melody but you chose all the wrong instruments. Obviously, the entire character of a song depends not only on the melody (idea) but also on the instruments chosen, the performance, etc. (material). For literary fiction, the words are the material. What distinguishes literary works is not merely the "ideas" they present but the way in which they are presented. The words are the author's instruments, his paints. This is the difference between writing/reading for information and writing/reading as an aesthetic experience. Literary fiction of course imparts information and ideas, but it is predominantly about the latter experience insofar as the point is the evocative expression of those ideas. This is why just reading the cliff notes for a literary work is missing the point.
  - mcnamaratw 1y ago
    “This is fundamental misunderstanding of literature” No it is not. It is a central and vital part of literature. Wound you like to have a friendly debate, each of us using quotations from any fiction writers we like?
    - voidhorse 1y ago
      Actually, I'd agree that "fundamental misunderstanding" is too strong. Obviously there is a certain threshold of comprehensibility one needs to achieve regardless of whether one is pursuing aesthetic ends or informative ones. That said, I would stand by the assertion that reading literature only for the information it imparts is missing much of the point. We esteem authors not solely for their plots and characters, but also for their stylistics—the difference between a great writer and a passing one is often little more than the well considered phrase. The arrangement, use, and rhythm of words are a major component in a literary work. My point is that asking a writer to "express it more simply or more accessibly" may in many cases amount to asking them to butcher the stylistics that they felt achieved the highest aesthetic quality for the kind of work they wanted to produce. If one is given a business briefing it is probably the apex of reason to ask a writer to simplify. Are there cases in which this or that phrase in a literary work would benefit from simplification? Yes, but to ask an author to simplify their entire aesthetic approach generally, really seems to me to fail to have appreciated a large part of what distinguishes literature from basic expository writing.

The reason you read literary fiction is because you're curious about the outer edges of human thought or experience.

nottorp 1y ago

This is HN, they may be looking to put a monetary value on it.

kayodelycaon 1y ago

Interesting. That’s exactly why I read science fiction.

mcnamaratw 1y ago

But that’s new. Until ca 1970-2000, people read literary fiction because it was high quality, much more than because it was unrelateable. O’Hara, Salinger, and Franzen were not writing about the outer edges of human experience.

esafak 1y ago

But does it have to be inaccessible to be so? It's easy to write something incomprehensible that says nothing. Is the writer writing about something that is inherently complex, and that's why it is inaccessible? Not typically in a novel. The prospective reader may then ask, why should I bother? I'm also curious what Pynchon has to say, but not enough to justify the investment.

tekla 1y ago
It's not inaccessible. Its just that you don't have the reading skills from lack of use.
- pfdietz 1y ago
  Yes, I'm sure it all our faults, not that of the product.
  - tekla 1y ago
    Yep, skills need to be practiced before you engage with harder material
    - pfdietz 1y ago
      Or, authors need to be subservient to the needs and desires of the customers.
      - antasvara 1y ago
        Around 54% of adults read at a 6th grade level or below: https://www.apmresearchlab.org/10x-adult-literacy https://www.apmresearchlab.org/10x-adult-literacy Based on this, you could reach both of these conclusions: 1. Most literary fiction is inaccessible to the average adult. 2. It's a big problem that even moderately complex novels are inaccessible to the average adult. The first statement (which I think is where you're coming from) is absolutely true. If you want to write a very popular book, it should be easily readable at a 6th grade level. The second statement is more a statement of values. Some people (such as myself) find it problematic that the average adult can't read/understand a book that is more complex than Harry Potter. You don't have to agree with the second statement. A lot of people don't. But I think understanding why someone might find that problematic is important. Personally, I think there are a lot of things worth knowing that can't be written at a 6th grade level.
        protocolture 1y ago
        >In the US
      - trinix912 1y ago
        If their goal is to write bestsellers, sure. That's where the €5 leisure novels come from. OTOH, if their goal is to push boundaries or be original, being subservient to the desires of the customers is counterproductive.
- mcnamaratw 1y ago
  Don’t be a d**k. Lots of literary fiction is perfectly readable for normal humans. Lots of what isn’t accessible is just not that enjoyable to anybody. I’m happy to debate … but only using specific examples. Authors and titles. The example of noise music came up elsewhere in the discussion. It’s an important example. Most people won’t ever like it. You fill the pipeline with noise music, 99% of us will literally listen to anything else, or to nothing. I like a little bit of it, but in general I’m simply not going to acquire that taste.
  - antasvara 1y ago
    >Lots of literary fiction is perfectly readable for normal humans. Lots of what isn’t accessible is just not that enjoyable to anybody. The PIAAC surveys, while imperfect, indirectly address what percentage of adults can read and appreciate "literary fiction." The first part of the definition of level 3: >Adults at Level 3 are able to construct meaning across larger chunks of text or perform multi-step operations in order to identify and formulate responses. They can identify, interpret or evaluate one or more pieces of information, often employing varying levels of inferencing. The first part for Level 4: >At level 4, adults can read long and dense texts presented on multiple pages in order to complete tasks that involve access, understanding, evaluation and reflection about the text(s) contents and sources across multiple processing cycles. Adults at this level can infer what the task is asking based on complex or implicit statements. Successful task completion often requires the production of knowledge-based inferences. The full definitions can be found here: https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/measure.asp https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/measure.asp Based on the full definitions, understanding the use of metaphor in a longer text probably sits in Level 4. A simple metaphor might sit in Level 3. Based on the recent survey results, only half of US adults read at Level 3 or above. Around 15% read at Level 4 or above. I invite you to look at this PowerPoint of sample questions for each level: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjJlpLS2YWOAxUmFFkFHWMqAU8QFnoECBsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpiaac.squarespace.com%2Fs%2F7-Sample-Tasks113014AIRlogofinal12814.pptx&usg=AOvVaw3lah7y6G1lQ8P3jLKxa3vg&opi=89978449 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjJ... Based on that, what level of literacy do you think indicates someone capable of reading and enjoying literary fiction? I think the hypothetical cutoff is somewhere between Level 3 and 4. Based on all of this, let's use Sally Rooney's book "Normal People" as an example. If we're being super charitable, at most 50% of people would be able to read and comprehend that book. If we're being less charitable with our definition of "comprehension," I think we're probably looking at closer to 30% of people really understanding it.
UncleMeat 1y ago
Is it inaccessible? Some books are, but there is a huge amount of literary fiction that follows traditional narrative and is comprehensible to anybody with a high school education. There are more than enough such books to fill a lifetime.
- esafak 1y ago
  I don't mean every work of literary fiction; only those commonly regarded as difficult, like Pynchon's.
voidhorse 1y ago
This is fundamental misunderstanding of literature. This is like saying to a musician: I like the melody but you chose all the wrong instruments. Obviously, the entire character of a song depends not only on the melody (idea) but also on the instruments chosen, the performance, etc. (material). For literary fiction, the words are the material. What distinguishes literary works is not merely the "ideas" they present but the way in which they are presented. The words are the author's instruments, his paints. This is the difference between writing/reading for information and writing/reading as an aesthetic experience. Literary fiction of course imparts information and ideas, but it is predominantly about the latter experience insofar as the point is the evocative expression of those ideas. This is why just reading the cliff notes for a literary work is missing the point.
- mcnamaratw 1y ago
  “This is fundamental misunderstanding of literature” No it is not. It is a central and vital part of literature. Wound you like to have a friendly debate, each of us using quotations from any fiction writers we like?
  - voidhorse 1y ago
    Actually, I'd agree that "fundamental misunderstanding" is too strong. Obviously there is a certain threshold of comprehensibility one needs to achieve regardless of whether one is pursuing aesthetic ends or informative ones. That said, I would stand by the assertion that reading literature only for the information it imparts is missing much of the point. We esteem authors not solely for their plots and characters, but also for their stylistics—the difference between a great writer and a passing one is often little more than the well considered phrase. The arrangement, use, and rhythm of words are a major component in a literary work. My point is that asking a writer to "express it more simply or more accessibly" may in many cases amount to asking them to butcher the stylistics that they felt achieved the highest aesthetic quality for the kind of work they wanted to produce. If one is given a business briefing it is probably the apex of reason to ask a writer to simplify. Are there cases in which this or that phrase in a literary work would benefit from simplification? Yes, but to ask an author to simplify their entire aesthetic approach generally, really seems to me to fail to have appreciated a large part of what distinguishes literature from basic expository writing.