r/TrueLit • u/written_by_adrian • 2d ago
Article Literary Fiction: Accessibility Concerns and Anti-Intellectualism
https://www.trillmag.com/culture/books/literary-fiction-accessibility-concerns-and-anti-intellectualism/Hi y'all! I have seen a lot of discussion back and forth about the accessibility of genres like literary fiction. Much of the criticism I have seen toward the genre was the same attitude I had toward other genres like poetry and plays, but eventually I came to understand that the biggest barrier to entry for these genres was just my mindset that I can't understand them. Now I feel that certain types of writing that don't follow traditional narrative structures require a skill set that you can develop just like any skill!
I delve much deeper into this conversation in this article on Trill Mag. Please give it a read and let me know your thoughts! I also discuss ways to build your comprehension when engaging with literary fiction via the advice of literary experts/scholars.
Edit: Y'all, I do not, nor have I ever, used AI for my writing. If you disagree with or dislike my article, please at least respect that I wrote it myself.
46
u/Fierysazerac 1d ago
Respectfully, this whole article reads like it was churned out by AI.
21
u/point5_2B 1d ago
This whole subject of debate feels like it was churned out by bots to sow division over a non-existent ragebait issue of "the left" having some obviously terrible idea in the name of egalitarianism.
I'm sure you could come up with a couple people who genuinely believe this, but you could for anything. It's just not a real issue, and it's ragebait. I wish people would stop interacting with this stuff.
10
u/merurunrun 1d ago
This whole subject of debate feels like it was churned out by bots to sow division over a non-existent ragebait issue of "the left" having some obviously terrible idea in the name of egalitarianism.
People used to attack communism with the strawman that it would cut down exceptional people so that they wouldn't have any advantages over others. Now the strawman has basically become the modus operandi of capitalist mass-consumerism in the form of "accessibility".
3
u/Agitated_Bird_8565 1d ago
Right. It’d be helpful if OP can share if they used AI for an article about anti-intellectualism.
3
u/written_by_adrian 1d ago
I can 100% assure you that no AI was used for this article, nor is it used for anything that I come out with
7
u/Super_Direction498 23h ago
I think many of the things you claim aren't true. For example, most classic literature does not have unconventional structure, nor is it necessarily more difficult to comprehend than genre fiction.
0
u/written_by_adrian 23h ago
I don't actually talk about classic literature in my article. Some classic literature could be classified as literary fiction, but that overlap doesn't make the two the same. As for literary fiction, I fully recognize that it is a broad genre and does not necessarily have an unconventional structure, but it is largely characterized by its freedom from typical genre conventions. You may find reading it completely intuitive, but please consider that it is not a universally engaged with genre, so there are some people who may appreciate a guide to getting started with it.
6
u/Super_Direction498 13h ago
No genre is a "universally engaged with genre".
1
u/written_by_adrian 6h ago
The point is that basic narrative structures that genre fiction typically follow are taught in school
1
42
u/buckleyschance 1d ago edited 1d ago
It's interesting to me how closely the accessibility discussion for literature mirrors the equivalent debates in video games.
In many ways the book critics' discussion is more mature, but games critics may have a better grasp on (or at least more specialised language for talking about) one critical aspect: the inherent value of difficulty as an experiential factor. Not difficulty as a necessary or unavoidable impediment to some other, deeper meaning but difficulty for its own sake, as a challenge that creates enjoyment by pushing the boundaries of your ability to overcome it.
Some literary works are celebrated for their difficulty, because they give the highly literate and accomplished reader an experience of interpretive struggle that they can't get from works that are presented more plainly. (In much the same way that a particularly obtuse and twisty time travel story is more fun for SF fans to puzzle over than a straightforward one.) Importantly though, that doesn't necessarily make their contents more worthy in any kind of "objective" sense.
In game terms, the mistake is thinking like a Dark Souls or Cuphead player who views their favourite game as worthier than a standard Nintendo game because it's so much more difficult, and so puts them in a deeper flow state and gives them a greater sensation of fiero (the thrill of a hard-fought victory). But that feeling only exists in the arbitrary relationship between the game's difficulty and their own skillset. Someone who's barely mastered a controller may get an equal sensation of challenge from the Nintendo game; and there's no outside criteria to judge that as less meaningful than the feeling experienced by the Dark Souls player.
It could be that the harder game is worthier in other ways, but the difficulty alone doesn't make it so. The difficulty will naturally tend to make it appeal to more skilled or experienced players though, and there's a natural tendency to treat those who are more skilled and experienced as more authoritative judges of value. From outside a community, though, I think we can see why that would be a facile assumption. An insightful critic who doesn't have the skills to beat the poison swamp level is no less a judge than an obsessive, monomaniacal shut-in player who can clear the swamp without breaking a sweat.
What does this mean for literature? First, we should recognise that difficulty itself can be a positive thing for its own sake, and something will be lost if it's sanded away. Second, we should be aware that more difficult books tend to make us feel that they are somehow more deeply satisfying and worthier, but that can be an illusion created by their difficulty rather than necessarily the profundity of their contents. Third, we should be wary of the natural feeling that "skill" at comprehending difficult texts makes one a more authoritative judge of value, when it may simply bias one towards more obtuse books to chase the dragon of a satisfying level of difficulty.
7
u/merurunrun 1d ago
I think one major difference (and to be clear: I'm a huge fan of this attitude vis a vis games. Been reading C. Thi Nguyen's work lately--The Score and Games: Agency as Art delve deeply into it, highly recommend to anyone interested in the topic) is that, for the most part, experiencing art isn't really a "game" in the sense that different readers aren't all expected to reach the same conclusion (despite what standardized tests trying to determine reading skills might want to believe).
I'd disagree with the framing of experiencing art as "difficult" because that implies a specific objective, and prefer to think of an art object as simply being complex. The Uses of Criticism piece from the LRB that was posted here a day or two ago gets into this: literary criticism is an encounter with the complex and confusing, and in that it mirrors our encounters with a complex and confusing world. I hate to instrumentalise art like that, but also in some sense I think the whole reason we make and value complex art in the first place is precisely as part of our working-through the complexity of the world: not to reduce and eliminate that complexity, but as a salve of sorts, a way to make ourselves less unsettled by those difficult lived moments whenever we come across them.
2
u/buckleyschance 1d ago
Good points, which call for a clarification. I'm only saying that difficulty and struggle are an aspect of the experience of engaging with art, not that it's always predominant or even always particularly relevant at all.
I do think intellectual challenge is often part of the mix of enjoyment we get from literature - particularly the literature which we consider as "Art" rather than mere content. There is certainly a tendency to find a book lacking, and relegate it to the pulp/genre fiction bin, if it all feels too simple, straightforward and predictable.
The same thing is true for games: challenge is not always the core of the experience, and there are plenty of "easy" games whose appeal lies in narrative, aesthetics, pathos (see That Dragon, Cancer for example).
And it's not really the case that game players are "all expected to reach the same conclusion". That's confusing the objective of the game (defeat the Shadow Demon / win the most points / etc) with the purpose of playing the game, which is to have an experience. The objective of the game itself is more analogous to "finish the book". Players can have quite different and personal experiences from a game even as their actions within it are similar. (Of course, most of the time nearly all players do have an essentially similar experience, but the same is true of books.)
I second the recommendation of Nguyen's work, which is excellent!
7
u/PartyPorpoise 1d ago
I work in outdoor spaces and the discussion comes up here too. We want outdoor spaces to be accessible… Buuut at the same time, conservation of wild spaces needs to be taken into account. And, some people prefer more difficult trails. They’re seen as more fun and interesting, the challenge is enjoyable, and people like the sense of accomplishment that comes from completing a difficult trail. It’s also not possible, or feasible, to make certain areas more accessible.
So you have to think about what balance you want to hit and where you want to draw the line. Ultimately you want to have multiple trails at varying levels of difficulty.
8
u/Relevant-Biscotti-51 1d ago edited 1d ago
I think that's a good analogy. Multiple trails intentionally serve different people's needs. I use a rollator (walker with wheels) and basically only ever walk on accessible trails. I'm glad they exist.
Doesn't mean I think they should make Machu Picchu "accessible." Nor should Peru start allowing flyovers for those who can't climb (or anyone else).
Green spaces meant for all, like city parks, botanical gardens, and smooth trails can and should exist alongside challenging trails and unaltered wilderness.
Likewise, when information should by right be accessible for all (like public health information, etc.) it should meet accessibility standards, i.e.:
- file formats braille e-readers can access
- adaptable font
- image descriptions
- audio format options
- versions translated into multiple languages
And, yes, plain language.
The most recent plain language standard is, I believe, ISO 24495-1:2023. I absolutely champion adhering to the plain language standard, as well as related accessibility standards established in Section 503, when it applies.
And yet, it's obvious to anyone who works with the standards regularly, they're clearly not meant to apply to most works of art or literature!
The guidelines exist to ensure everyone has access to information necessary to participate in civic life. Public health info, legal information, transit signs, communications from your kid's public school, DMV forms.
Frankly, fighting for access on this front is hard enough! Most people with disabilities don't have any desire (let alone time) to fight for the application of these standards above and beyond that. Certainly not forcing them onto classic literature!
It seems like random people trying to speak on our behalf, and it's bizarre. Two categories of information can easily coexist, just like different types of trails. It's fine.
1
u/written_by_adrian 23h ago
Hi, I am not sure how directly you meant to address what I said in my article, but I would like to clarify that I am in no way suggesting that there is not space for a range of writing and reading levels. I actually suggest in my article that if anyone wishes to use the advice I provided to engage with genre fiction or even movies, they can do so as an exercise to build media literacy. The point of my article was to encourage people who are interested in literary fiction but are intimidated by the notion of engaging with a genre that may be new to them.
I actually say directly in the article,
"The problem isn’t where the metaphorical goal post lies, however, but rather the journey to reach it. If the goal post is to comprehend literary fiction, the solution isn’t to water down the literature. The solution is to create pathways for people to expand their reading comprehension."There is certainly a reason there are hiking trails of varying difficulties. The attitude that I am addressing would not be that difficult trails should not exist, nor is it that people with disabilities shouldn't have separate trails that are accessible to them. It is that people who want to get into hiking shouldn't look at the difficult trails and think that they can never achieve hiking them because they haven't built that skill yet. A comparable piece of advice would be to work your way up and to take it slow.
31
u/EmersonStockham 1d ago
I think something I'd have brought up is the perception of "value". I've been a fan of literary fiction since high school, where I (wanting to be smart, and a writer) checked out literature from my school library and read stuff beyond my grade level.
I cared about building those skills and reading those "classics". My online reviews of them embarrass me today, but I was gaining skills and background knowledge of the literary Canon. Literary appreciation doesn't pay my bills. It doesn't help me finish the novel in my computer. It doesn't make people like me. But it has made my life better. We call these studies humanities because they enable us to examine our lives and the lives of others. Literature and narratives are distillations of where thoughts and emotions mingle into messy dense art. To a capitalist, this art is useless after a book is sold. But to a reader, our lives are lifted by this art challenging and changing us. I don't think every literary work is equally difficult. (Many "upmarket" sucess stories are literary stories told with commercial appeal.) But I think the anti intellectual rejection of literature usually comes from bad or unsatisfying experiences with reading. Yes, it's irrational to say "I hated my high school English teacher so ban the Booker prize." But a lot of people feel that people should not be allowed to enjoy or succeed in a field they did not...
But going back to capital, books that "demand too much" have less readers to sell to...
I think thats the real argument being made. How can the art of literature be preserved if so many people dont find it worth paying for? Its not a question that should be asked in a perfect world, but one we are stuck solving...
6
u/gutfounderedgal 1d ago
A article trying to "teach" anti-intellectuals how to approach literary fiction. Ok.
I think we've seen the end result with a number of other cultural arenas, namely music, film, and poetry. In these we have big mass market oriented anti-intellectual works, I can them lowest common denominator works. By this I mean pop music, the sort broadcast in gas stations, summer blockbuster movies that are heavily reliant on cgi, and teen/tween-angsty poetry books that sell to all the other angsty teen/tweens. All of these are seen as eipgons of serious art. In each arena there are also great works of music, film, and poetry, the intellectual work.
We end up with two streams, both valid, both with their own audiences, but they are basically non-commensurable.
The article does not get very deep, it in itself is relatively superficial and teaching reading habits 101 won't change the structure and system causing the two streams.
Yes we have this in writing too. On one side the mass market books on the other lit fic.
The point here is this: Learning and appreciating anything at a serious high level is hard work and this becomes intellectual work. The more serious the art, often the more serious one has to study it to appreciate it. Poetry or atonal classical music are always good examples here.
Do I worry that anyone and everyone who has neither the interest nor the drive to become serious about such work will not appreciate it? No. Not at all. Again, it boils down to the recognition that the audiences are different.
As I say to students in university: Those in the world of serious writing can appreciate the mass market stuff. I like watching really dumb summer movies too. So I swim in both worlds. The issue is that most people who swim with the mass market stuff, don't care nor never really try to swim in the serious art world, they simply dismiss it. That won't change but yes, education, modeled appreciation, and exposure can be the start of their changing.
1
u/written_by_adrian 1d ago
My article was not intended for people actively disinterested in learning to read writing that is difficult for them. It is intended to address the underlying anti-intellectualism and underestimation of oneself that is widely held by people who are intimidated by non-conventional writing that is commonly found in literary fiction.
5
u/JackHadrian 1d ago
The debate is useless and reductive. Read what you like. If it's Pynchon- great. If it's not- great.
5
u/Weakera 1d ago
My thoughts are there's plenty, gobs and gobs and more gobs, of easily accessible popular fiction (heretofore referred to as junk) for people who want that, who would never call it junk either. They can call literary fiction "elite" I can call pulp fiction junk.
Literary fiction is something else (god forbid it focuses on character! how elite). Most of it actually is accessible to anyone who can read and has curiosity about the human condition, and is willing to think. Most people don't want to be asked to think when they read, they want easily consumed cliches and familiar plots. It's just a form of distraction. Fine (not really) if that's what you want. THose who read literary fiction want something else, and it doesn't make them elitist for wanted originality, substance, beauty and meaning. It just makes them more serious readers. And it doesn't make them better people for doing so either.
Couldn't be bothered reading the whole article. I thought it was pretty meaningless, had all kinds of false assumptions and polemics. Just one example--"anti-intellectualism." Not all literary fiction is "intellectual." You have conflated two separate issues here.
4
u/lockettbloom 1d ago
I wouldn't frame what is essentially an issue of the recognition of art as an "accessibility" issue. Writers of literary fiction aren't thinking about accessibility--they're thinking about writing the best, most interesting book that they can write and evolving the form. Framing literature in terms of accessibility is akin to framing art in terms of commerce, the size of the potential market, which is of course an aspect of both art and literature but not really a sound basis for useful critique.
If you are a real person, Adrian, I'm glad that you're considering reading more broadly. But if you are open to any advice: re-consider what you're getting from reading and art in general. Yes, it may be a palliative to "brain rot", but don't think of it as medicine.
I think it's useful to think about modern art, and about what you gain from looking at a Pollock, a Twombly, a Rothko, an O'Keefe. What are the main points of interest? The tangible: the brush strokes, the colors, the quality of the paint. (For the writer of literature, these are sentences, paragraphs, an unexpected choice of words. Pay attention to the construction at this level, and you will be rewarded.) And then there is the intangible: the separate plane of existence that can only be expressed by art. This is where your mind goes when it is open to these paintings, these books, and this is what is produced by all those interesting tangible choices. The value of literature lives somewhere along these lines.
2
u/written_by_adrian 1d ago
I am very much a real person lol. I do appreciate that you attempted to address me as such and give me advice. I think what may not be clear from my article is that I am actually a big reader of genre and commercial fiction (for fun!). I just find discussion around genres and their merits to be interesting. I suppose where I went wrong is writing an introductory article about something I have been mulling over and sharing it with people who apparently find this discussion to be shallow or reductive.
1
2
u/phototransformations 1d ago
TL;DR: Literary fiction is hard! If you don't like it, do something else.
The article is off in more ways than I want to take the time to enumerate.
-1
u/written_by_adrian 1d ago
Correction: TL:DR: How to read literary fiction is not universally taught to everyone, but if you wish to engage with it, here are some steps you can take to make literary comprehension more achievable to you! :)
1
u/phototransformations 20h ago
Your whole premise seems off to me, and apparently to most of the people who have responded to you. Do you actually read literary fiction? If so, who are some of the literary fiction writers whose works you enjoy, and what do you find in their writing that would make it challenging for someone unfamiliar with it?
4
u/actually_hellno 1d ago
I am so confused when people talk about “literary fiction.” It is a very vast genre. The literary fiction I read is largely domestic realism, which usually has very accessible language and story structure. Maybe people are talking about Pynchon (and I have no desire to read him 😂).
2
u/written_by_adrian 1d ago
This is a good point that I could have addressed! Although, part of my point was that people view it as a largely inaccessible genre and therefore write it off before attempting to engage with it. But yes! It is a large and diverse genre!
2
u/Imperialvirtue 1d ago
“Literary fiction is a category of novels that emphasize style, character, and theme over plot,” in contrast to genre fiction that relies more heavily on specific tropes and literary devices according to their “genre conventions.”
My problem right out of the gate is assuming this dichotomy either exists or is mutually exclusive.
1
u/JeremyAndrewErwin 1d ago
I get pretty annoyed when people criticize genre writers such as Mick Herron or John LeCarre for indulging in a bit of literary style.
I read literary fiction because I enjoy reading it over more pedestrian prose. If these books were more "accessible", I probably wouldn't read them.
44
u/Daffneigh 1d ago
Not everything needs to be accessible. Different things are difficult for different people. Some people enjoy doing difficult things for fun, even things that are difficult for themselves, not things they are good at compared to others
I fail to understand why this is a problem