Anonymous wrote:I think it's partially the way most culture works - deep, serious movies win awards. Lately that's meant dark themes and unhappy endings. Dark TV shows capture the awards - see The Bear competing in the comedy category of the Emmys. Comedy or lgihtheartedness and now anything postive is seen as not realistic or not serious. THere used to be space for acknowledging the absurdities of life, and now it's mostly the grimness of life.

I mean Everything Everywhere was absurd and had comedy elements and cleaned up on awards. Do it absolutely is possible to get awards in movies for creativity and comedy.

Anonymous wrote:I remember reading books like Middlesex and White Teeth and Kavalier and Clay and feeling like the world was alive with possibility. I don’t think 20 somethings are getting that from litfic these days.

I didn’t feel the world was alive with possibility after reading Middlesex or White Teeth. Maybe I appreciated that the characters/voices were different but there was a lot of pain in those books.

[img]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you read Dickens? Victor Hugo?

They're clearly talking about modern fiction and you know it. Come on. Don't be obtuse.

Obtuse is thinking there was ever a time that literary fiction didn’t tilt to the heavy and depressive.

Anonymous wrote:I think it's partially the way most culture works - deep, serious movies win awards. Lately that's meant dark themes and unhappy endings. Dark TV shows capture the awards - see The Bear competing in the comedy category of the Emmys. Comedy or lgihtheartedness and now anything postive is seen as not realistic or not serious. THere used to be space for acknowledging the absurdities of life, and now it's mostly the grimness of life.

I think this is right, but even in modern "serious" movies there are places for elements of deep joy (not sure about absurdity). For example Terrance Malick's A Hidden Life isn't light or breezy, but it also isn't meaningless.

I think it's partially the way most culture works - deep, serious movies win awards. Lately that's meant dark themes and unhappy endings. Dark TV shows capture the awards - see The Bear competing in the comedy category of the Emmys. Comedy or lgihtheartedness and now anything postive is seen as not realistic or not serious. THere used to be space for acknowledging the absurdities of life, and now it's mostly the grimness of life.

Anonymous wrote:Have you read Dickens? Victor Hugo?

They're clearly talking about modern fiction and you know it. Come on. Don't be obtuse.

I remember reading books like Middlesex and White Teeth and Kavalier and Clay and feeling like the world was alive with possibility. I don’t think 20 somethings are getting that from litfic these days.

100% agree. Ottessa Moshfegh syndrome.

I dont think this is new. Literary fiction has always been the "you might appreciate it but you won't enjoy it" genre.

Have you read Dickens? Victor Hugo?

I think the overall quality of literary fiction has dropped dramatically over the past 20 years. I'm not entirely sure why. But I think the primary fault has to lie with the purchasing editors at the big NY publishing houses. You used to know what you were getting when you purchased a book from Farrar, Straus and certain other imprints. You'd know these were thoughtful, incredibly well written books by major authors. Now it's all just a big list of blah. A certain groupthink seems to have settled among NY literary fiction editors. And it's turning readers off and killing the careers of otherwise interesting writers who don't fit in a perfect, marketable box. And clearly those boxes are inadequate since sales of literary fiction have been falling off a cliff in recent years. The industry needs to focus on strong, interesting voices while the marketing department needs to be banished from all purchasing decisions because they clearly don't know what they're doing. It's just lazy, predictable book after lazy, predictable book lately. Judging by recent years, the NY literary establishment may as well go home and leave the space to AI.

I'm reading The Sirens by Emilia Hart right now (Australian writer, also wrote Weyward) and I can't already tell it's going to end with someone just walking into the sea and not coming back. Maybe two someones.

I'm halfway through, so I'm going to stick it out, but I also started a historical that I know will end well.

Alix Harrow is an author who writes gorgeous prose who gives everyone a nice landing.

I mean, there's always been SOME literary fiction that was "feel bad," unless you think works like William Faulkner's novels or The Scarlet Letter were fun reads. I think the difference is that there isn't much that's well written these days that also ends well, or at least in a satisfying way, or at least not much by American authors.

I don't think books need to end with a happily ever after or smooth sailing for the characters but I do feel there should be some kind of point or theme and just displaying depressing or disturbing narratives can be a kind of shortcut for depth. It isn't all literary fiction, for sure.

I saw this mentioned in a larger forum recently. Grammar issue aside, there's an increasing number of literary fiction books that seem like "feel bad fiction." The conclusions are unsatisfying or even show an "unhappily ever after." I don't think people expect a fairy tale, but I agree that the end of a story should have you feeling like the main conflicts are resolved and perhaps there will be smooth sailing for the characters.

What do you think?