2007-09-19 15:36:32 · 8 answers · asked by DavinaOpines 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
Intellectuals like George Bush? Give me a break. He has said many times his favorite book is The Very Hungry Caterpillar. Not exactly my type of literary fiction. The man thinks metaphor is a city in Afghanistan. Or maybe metaphor comes after metathree.
The difference between popular fiction and literary fiction is that literary fiction includes works such as poetry, essay, memoir etc. It is more esoteric and has more limited appeal.
Pax - C
2007-09-19 17:26:50 · answer #1 · answered by Persiphone_Hellecat 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I had a teacher once who told me that literary fiction has a plot that is moved along by a character, and that the character lives within the bounds of realism, and that the character must go through some kind of personal growth or change. Popular fiction has a plot which throws the character around and moves itself rather than through the actions of a protagonist. I could be a little off, the second one might be genre fiction not popular, but I believe the comparison is similar?
2007-09-20 16:02:54 · answer #2 · answered by all work and no play 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Popular fiction is just an overrated and more accessible version of literary fiction.
Ex. Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone
Intellectuals, like George Bush, read literary fiction because they can understand all the complex imagery and metaphors.
Also, literary fiction usually has a purposes beyond making money and entertaining the masses. It is trying to make a point.
Ex: 1984
2007-09-19 22:44:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Popular fiction is fiction that is meant to appeal to the masses. Literary fiction is written without the paycheck in mind, and is meant to shed light on humanity. Critics state that you learn more from "literary" fiction; it is the fiction of intellectuals.
It's all relative, in my opinion. I think that both writers of popular and literary fiction have the potential to contribute to society. I enjoy works of both (though would tend to lean toward popular fiction side of things). Yes, I would be frowned upon in academe, but I think both F. Scott Fitzgerald and Stephen King were/are good at what they did/do.
2007-09-19 23:06:41 · answer #4 · answered by YAWritergirl 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In literary fiction, the characters sit around being literary, and in popular fiction, they get off their asses and do something.
2007-09-20 01:07:50 · answer #5 · answered by Roald Ellsworth 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Walk into a group of English Majors and say "I am reading so and so" and if they scoff at you, it is popular fiction.
\/ \/ It's an English Major! \/ \/
2007-09-19 22:43:46 · answer #6 · answered by Dan A 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Everybody give thumbs up to the first guy!!! I only wish I had gotten there first.
2007-09-19 23:36:44 · answer #7 · answered by herfinator 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the only difference is in your english professor and their degree of not being able to comprehend anything after 1950.
i was amazed at in college at the fabulous dark humor in william faulkner that none of my english professors got. i had an english professor try to explain how in the illiad achylles wasn't really gay and when his lover is killed he isn't really going crazy because he wasn't really gay. the education system today is the equivalent of the paris salons that denied the brilliance of the impressionists. i learned english professor equals failed want to be writer and they like to take out all their anger on you the student.
2007-09-19 22:49:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋