commercial is a story.literary is a story able to be understood in more than one way.
2
These are both excellent essays. Lots of fun to read!
I've always felt that the dividing line amounts to, "What propels the work forward?" The commercial work is (more) plot-driven, while the literary work is (more) character-driven. 'Nuf said.
I've always felt that the dividing line amounts to, "What propels the work forward?" The commercial work is (more) plot-driven, while the literary work is (more) character-driven. 'Nuf said.
When I wrote my first history-based novel, which I was calling "Provenance" before the people at Simon & Schuster changed it to "In Secret Service", I told myself it was a thriller for people who read The New York Times rather than those who prefer The Daily News. A book that engages the brain along withe the viscera, I imagined.
Before I sold it, I happened to be seated alongside a literary agent at a wedding reception. She asked me whether my manuscript was literary or commercial. I replied, "I don't know. Can't it be both?"
She looked down her nose at me and answered, "Absolutely not." And then she asked me, "What's it about?"
I said I'd written an alternative history about a WWII incident that Ian Fleming would have come across in the files of British Naval Intelligence. I was about to go on about the Duke and Duchess of Windsor when, laughing to herself, she put her hand on my arm and stopped me. "It's commercial."
I said, "But, you haven't read it. Maybe I've got some great literary stuff in there."
She said, and this is a direct quote: "Two words. Ian. Fleming."
And then she added, "I only handle literary."
So, my rule of thumb is, if you don't mention Ian Fleming to an agent, yours is a literary novel.
Before I sold it, I happened to be seated alongside a literary agent at a wedding reception. She asked me whether my manuscript was literary or commercial. I replied, "I don't know. Can't it be both?"
She looked down her nose at me and answered, "Absolutely not." And then she asked me, "What's it about?"
I said I'd written an alternative history about a WWII incident that Ian Fleming would have come across in the files of British Naval Intelligence. I was about to go on about the Duke and Duchess of Windsor when, laughing to herself, she put her hand on my arm and stopped me. "It's commercial."
I said, "But, you haven't read it. Maybe I've got some great literary stuff in there."
She said, and this is a direct quote: "Two words. Ian. Fleming."
And then she added, "I only handle literary."
So, my rule of thumb is, if you don't mention Ian Fleming to an agent, yours is a literary novel.
1
With commercial fiction, you have to wait longer (or longer or forever) to reread and enjoy it. With literary fiction, you could finish it and just start rereading it immediately. Maybe it's just a matter of time. (And the time you have or take to linger on it.) It's a lot of other things too but this just occurred to me as a test for finding or labeling it. And many books probably overlap the two categories in some or many ways. And with many books it's a matter of degree.
One of the more recent definitions of "literary fiction" that I have come across and found to be accurate (to me):
Literary fiction is fiction that concerns itself with subtleties and complexities of language, theme and symbolism and tends to be character-driven rather than plot driven. Often, literary fiction makes more demands on its readers than genre fiction in that it requires a higher level of engagement with and reflection on the text and its social or political and/or historical context, as well as the text’s relation to works by other authors....... Literary fiction makes substantial demands on its readers. The epiphanies and revelations in literary fiction may be more subtle and require more work on the part of the reader to recognise. Literary fiction often presents more difficult or complex truths than genre fiction. It may offer few answers but instead simply make observations about human nature. Its purpose is never escapism but engagement, and that engagement may mean forcing readers to consider questions and possibilities that make them uncomfortable.
[Source: http://www.nownovel.com/blog/what-is-literary-fiction/]
Literary fiction is fiction that concerns itself with subtleties and complexities of language, theme and symbolism and tends to be character-driven rather than plot driven. Often, literary fiction makes more demands on its readers than genre fiction in that it requires a higher level of engagement with and reflection on the text and its social or political and/or historical context, as well as the text’s relation to works by other authors....... Literary fiction makes substantial demands on its readers. The epiphanies and revelations in literary fiction may be more subtle and require more work on the part of the reader to recognise. Literary fiction often presents more difficult or complex truths than genre fiction. It may offer few answers but instead simply make observations about human nature. Its purpose is never escapism but engagement, and that engagement may mean forcing readers to consider questions and possibilities that make them uncomfortable.
[Source: http://www.nownovel.com/blog/what-is-literary-fiction/]
3
BEANZ MEANZ HEINZ
“Beanz means Heinz”
turned out to be the winner
of ad men's lines.
I wonder what's for dinner
tonight. If it,
Heinz-sauced and edible,
isserved with wit
that's unforgettable,
I'll sing its praise
to her by whom I'm served,
and coin a phrase:
“I've been chef d'oeuvred.”
[email protected]
“Beanz means Heinz”
turned out to be the winner
of ad men's lines.
I wonder what's for dinner
tonight. If it,
Heinz-sauced and edible,
isserved with wit
that's unforgettable,
I'll sing its praise
to her by whom I'm served,
and coin a phrase:
“I've been chef d'oeuvred.”
[email protected]
2
Parker says literary fiction is what people think they should read, as opposed to commercial fiction being what we want to read. Not this girl. I was even a little insulted by this simplification. I agree the distinction between commercial and literary fiction can difficult to articulate, but it is a no brainer when I am at the book shop. Just browse a bit. Am I going home with Pat Barker and Penelope Fitzgerald, or Jodi Picoult and James Patterson? And this is not to judge people who like a fast read, but it is also likely I won't be having a very deep conversation with them at the supper table.
6
The difference between literary and commercial fiction is equivalent to the difference between art and entertainment.
5
In judging the literary value of fiction we tend either to focus on our individual reactions to the text, or something we judge inherent in the text itself. Though my suggestion is subject to limitations, try it on for size. Imagine a reading group that meets for two hours, maybe a little longer. The make-up of the group is diverse, though all readers are at least half-way intelligent, and all, well, love to read. Hypothesis: Non-literary, let's call them, books, I would suggest, however good, enjoyable, diverting, will not hold the groups attention for two hours. There are no real questions to ask, few confusions about what is meant. Texts that reduce such a group to animal silence after an hour or so, are extra-literary, whatever else they are.
3
As others have noted, good fiction resists labels. It either works or it doesn't. What's different perhaps is the kind of readers literary and commercial fiction attract. Many people I know are concerned about being current with their reading, meaning they look first to what's just come out and/or what's being talked about and/or what's on the bestsellers lists. When I suggest a book that was written decades ago, they look at me as if I want them to take a trip down memory lane. Or they say, "I've never read anything by him/her," and that typically means they don't plan to now.
From “In the Whole Sky” (http://inthewholesky.blogspot.com/):
Neil Simon . . . had a character in his very amusing play The Sunshine Boys explain how some words are funny and others aren't:
Words with a 'k' in it are funny. Alkaseltzer is funny. Chicken is funny. Pickle is funny. All with a 'k'. 'L's are not funny. 'M's are not funny. Cupcake is funny. Tomatoes is not funny. Lettuce is not funny. Cucumber's funny. Cab is funny. Cockroach is funny -- not if you get 'em, only if you say 'em.
Poetry is a lot like that. Certain words have poetry and others don't. "Poetic" words, like "oft" or "plash" or "liminal" or "azure," etc. are definitely NOT poetry. Simple words can be poetry, but only when they fit together in exactly the right way
I wish I had a big old hog
And corn to feed him on
And Shady Grove to stay at home
And feed him when I'm gone.
Neil Simon . . . had a character in his very amusing play The Sunshine Boys explain how some words are funny and others aren't:
Words with a 'k' in it are funny. Alkaseltzer is funny. Chicken is funny. Pickle is funny. All with a 'k'. 'L's are not funny. 'M's are not funny. Cupcake is funny. Tomatoes is not funny. Lettuce is not funny. Cucumber's funny. Cab is funny. Cockroach is funny -- not if you get 'em, only if you say 'em.
Poetry is a lot like that. Certain words have poetry and others don't. "Poetic" words, like "oft" or "plash" or "liminal" or "azure," etc. are definitely NOT poetry. Simple words can be poetry, but only when they fit together in exactly the right way
I wish I had a big old hog
And corn to feed him on
And Shady Grove to stay at home
And feed him when I'm gone.
As a "semi-successful" playwright with enough productions and awards to qualify to enter this fray, I say a plague on both your houses. I see no distinction between commercial and literary,only between talented and boring. Before I begin a play I must have a topic I am passionate about, otherwise what's the point? (Leave money out of it for a moment). As a student and later I struggled to find a way to express my feelings about the Vietnam war and after several aborted attempts (they were all too "intellectual" I got lucky. CBS news did a segment on the combat nurses from Vietnam and their difficulty adjusting after the war (today we would call it PTSD, but it hadn't been named or even recognized yet, circa 1980). I immediately recognized the potential for such a story, no talking heads, all blood and guts both figuratively and literally. Serious, but not boring, the nurses even get into a tussle over the medical effects of too much oral sex. And I know it's literature because it doesn't have a happy ending. The real question here is are you literary or are you boring?
JD
JD
Let me approach the question from the perspective of a once NY editor who lacked all feel for “commercial fiction” and who not only published and edited his share of literary novels but also translated an dedited a bunch of them
http://artscritic.blogspot.com/2015/12/provisional-obituary-on-reaching-...
When I drifted into publishing in the 60s I appreciated the major writers in the Anglo-Saxon, German, Russian, French tradition to have a sense of the truths that novels could convey, but, say, for Le Carré found myself unable to read beyond a few pages of commercial fiction. I regard Le Carré’s truths those of non-fiction deriving as they do from a world that I happened to get enough of a whiff of to know I wanted no part of. Thus no surprise that I never had a “commercial” novel submitted to me, yet most surprising that my most extraordinary editing experience was with a commercial venture, Robert Kalich’s THE HANDICAPPER, the true life novelization of a millionaire handicapper’s involvement with the mob – imagine editing a manuscript and its figures materializing as though you were a schizophrenic fantast. http://artscritic.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-handicapper-or-adventures-in....
My most extraordinary fiction experience was on opening Michael Brodsky’s satchel with five manuscripts and, looking at each first page, realizing: “this is it, the real thing,” a serious writer, the raison d’etre the pay-off for being an editor.
http://artscritic.blogspot.com/2015/12/provisional-obituary-on-reaching-...
When I drifted into publishing in the 60s I appreciated the major writers in the Anglo-Saxon, German, Russian, French tradition to have a sense of the truths that novels could convey, but, say, for Le Carré found myself unable to read beyond a few pages of commercial fiction. I regard Le Carré’s truths those of non-fiction deriving as they do from a world that I happened to get enough of a whiff of to know I wanted no part of. Thus no surprise that I never had a “commercial” novel submitted to me, yet most surprising that my most extraordinary editing experience was with a commercial venture, Robert Kalich’s THE HANDICAPPER, the true life novelization of a millionaire handicapper’s involvement with the mob – imagine editing a manuscript and its figures materializing as though you were a schizophrenic fantast. http://artscritic.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-handicapper-or-adventures-in....
My most extraordinary fiction experience was on opening Michael Brodsky’s satchel with five manuscripts and, looking at each first page, realizing: “this is it, the real thing,” a serious writer, the raison d’etre the pay-off for being an editor.
I don't think accessibility has much to do with this distinction. Dickens was wildly popular. So was Shakespeare. Nor is the test of time much of a help, since many great writers are overlooked and/or forgotten. I honestly think that it's like art. You know it when you see it, or, in this case, read it. It has more to do with the author, who may have written it to make money or not; either way, you can tell that the reason wasn't just that. It was to help us, all of us, to understand who we are, and why we're here. Stories and characters that ring true, that we're grateful for having read, and which stay with us. That's where time comes in: They make us who we are.
15
Though the distinction here is between commercial and literary fiction, commercial and literary describe the motives of the writer of both fiction and nonfiction. In literary writing, the motive is non-commercial, even lofty at times, as in Franz Kafka’s statement, "A book should be an axe for the frozen sea inside us."
The defining question for me is: Why did you become a writer, and what makes you write and continue to write? If the answer is: "Because I can't help it, because I must, and I will continue to do so, even if I starve," you're a literary writer. Your primary reader is yourself, and your defining criterion is your integrity: art and truth trump the reader's pleasure.
Of course, "literary" also implies a great respect for and love of language, for beautiful sentences and constructions. You may not always achieve these, but you aspire to them; above all, you write what you must, regardless of whether it ends up selling a million copies or none.
One more distinction: truth-telling fiction and nonfiction. Not necessarily the literal truth, in fiction (because that is obviously not true of fiction, and George Orwell’s 1984 and Huxley’s Brave New World are great truth-telling novels), but fiction and nonfiction that tell the deep and uncomfortable truths about human beings or the human condition. Whereas commercial fiction and nonfiction must pander to the reader's tastes and prejudices.
The defining question for me is: Why did you become a writer, and what makes you write and continue to write? If the answer is: "Because I can't help it, because I must, and I will continue to do so, even if I starve," you're a literary writer. Your primary reader is yourself, and your defining criterion is your integrity: art and truth trump the reader's pleasure.
Of course, "literary" also implies a great respect for and love of language, for beautiful sentences and constructions. You may not always achieve these, but you aspire to them; above all, you write what you must, regardless of whether it ends up selling a million copies or none.
One more distinction: truth-telling fiction and nonfiction. Not necessarily the literal truth, in fiction (because that is obviously not true of fiction, and George Orwell’s 1984 and Huxley’s Brave New World are great truth-telling novels), but fiction and nonfiction that tell the deep and uncomfortable truths about human beings or the human condition. Whereas commercial fiction and nonfiction must pander to the reader's tastes and prejudices.
5
Commercial and Literary Fiction.
Commercial fiction leaves nothing for me to remember, mull over, or to inwardly digest. It merely entertains me and help me to pass time. Literary fiction, on the other hand, stays with me--shall I say forever?--and offers me new meanings every time I return to it. I can teach the classics of literary fiction for decades without ever getting bored with them. Hemingway called the printed text of a story or a novel an iceberg and that if we want its entire meaning we have to took beneath it and find the subtext. This is an exhilarating exercise involving the brain, the mind, and imagination, as I learned when I taught his classic minimalist marvel, "Hills Like White Elephants." I have taught Kafka's "The Metamorphosis" for many years, but it still hasn't revealed itself entirely to me. I would unhesitatingly assert that great works of literary fiction, from Cervantes' "Don Quixote" to David Foster Wallace's "Infinite Jest," have so much to teach the serious reader about life. Of course, this is true of great poetry and drama, too. Matthew Arnold, the Victorian poet and critic went as far as to assert that literature should replace religion. What he implied was that the complex world of literature can turn us into more refined and civilized human beings than any other external influences.
In the meantime, manufacturers of commercial fiction like Stephen King are free to entertain readers with plenty of time to kill.
Commercial fiction leaves nothing for me to remember, mull over, or to inwardly digest. It merely entertains me and help me to pass time. Literary fiction, on the other hand, stays with me--shall I say forever?--and offers me new meanings every time I return to it. I can teach the classics of literary fiction for decades without ever getting bored with them. Hemingway called the printed text of a story or a novel an iceberg and that if we want its entire meaning we have to took beneath it and find the subtext. This is an exhilarating exercise involving the brain, the mind, and imagination, as I learned when I taught his classic minimalist marvel, "Hills Like White Elephants." I have taught Kafka's "The Metamorphosis" for many years, but it still hasn't revealed itself entirely to me. I would unhesitatingly assert that great works of literary fiction, from Cervantes' "Don Quixote" to David Foster Wallace's "Infinite Jest," have so much to teach the serious reader about life. Of course, this is true of great poetry and drama, too. Matthew Arnold, the Victorian poet and critic went as far as to assert that literature should replace religion. What he implied was that the complex world of literature can turn us into more refined and civilized human beings than any other external influences.
In the meantime, manufacturers of commercial fiction like Stephen King are free to entertain readers with plenty of time to kill.
3
Agreed. In the moment entertainment or food for reflection?
All of this is so subjective; a book that stays with one person won't mean a thing to the next. But before you write off Stephen King, you might want to read "The Stand"; or, if you have, and it didn't resonate for you, please recognize that for some, this is literature. As well as "entertainment." One doesn't negate the other.
6
"Commercial" is used by writers to denigrate authors who have more readers (and thus make more money) than they do or by people to explain to their pompous friends that they do not really admire the author of the thriller they were caught reading (synonyms for this usage are "beach reading" or "airplane reading", which also achieve the goal of showing you travel to presumably exotic locales and have a house in the Hamptons).
Regarding the proposed "Updiker app", given that in addition to his more celebrated works he wrote the best baseball essay of all time ("Hub fans bid Kid adieu") and among the best descriptions of the joy of playing basketball (in "Rabbit Run"), such an app would make whatever was submitted to it both easy to read and a pleasure to read. Or it could be used to identify writers who are jealous that any author could produce so many fine books, essays and book and art reviews and feel compelled to downgrade him because their output is so much less in both quality and quantity.
Regarding the proposed "Updiker app", given that in addition to his more celebrated works he wrote the best baseball essay of all time ("Hub fans bid Kid adieu") and among the best descriptions of the joy of playing basketball (in "Rabbit Run"), such an app would make whatever was submitted to it both easy to read and a pleasure to read. Or it could be used to identify writers who are jealous that any author could produce so many fine books, essays and book and art reviews and feel compelled to downgrade him because their output is so much less in both quality and quantity.
6
I just want to know when Updiker for IOS is being released.
1
As someone who has come around to completely embracing genre novels (Lee Child is right up there in my personal pantheon), I loved this piece. I was reminded of a snippet I copied out from an essay by Kingsley Amis (who was both a literary writer and genre writer) about the topic:
“I lament what I take to be a trend against the genres. It might well be agreed that the best of serious fiction, so to call it, is better than anything any genre can offer. But this best is horribly rare, and a clumsy dissection of the heart is so much worse than boring as to be painful, and most contemporary novels are like spy novels with no spies or crime novels with no crimes, and John D. MacDonald is by any standards a better writer than Saul Bellow, only MacDonald writes thrillers and Bellow is a human-heart chap, so guess who wears the top-grade laurels?”
—from an essay on “A New James Bond” (from his 1971 collection, "What Became of Jane Austen?"
I am an even bigger fan of John D. MacDonald than I am of Lee Child.
“I lament what I take to be a trend against the genres. It might well be agreed that the best of serious fiction, so to call it, is better than anything any genre can offer. But this best is horribly rare, and a clumsy dissection of the heart is so much worse than boring as to be painful, and most contemporary novels are like spy novels with no spies or crime novels with no crimes, and John D. MacDonald is by any standards a better writer than Saul Bellow, only MacDonald writes thrillers and Bellow is a human-heart chap, so guess who wears the top-grade laurels?”
—from an essay on “A New James Bond” (from his 1971 collection, "What Became of Jane Austen?"
I am an even bigger fan of John D. MacDonald than I am of Lee Child.
6
Another possible distinction: Commercial fiction generally tends to reflect back to the reader the biases, assumptions, and schemas of the contemporary culture, so that when zombies and vampires are popular, commercial authors write novels about vampires and zombies (sometimes well, sometimes not); as popular tastes and prejudices change, such novels tend to be forgotten (public libraries withdraw a title. Literary fiction generally tends to examine the zeitgeist and question its assumptions, unraveling them to get at their roots; such novels take a while to gain attention. Literary novels don't have to be heavy tomes--they can be short and even easy to read. Often times its the pretenders to literariness who think they have to write 700 pages.
6
I guess Nicholson Baker did wake up one morning and say, “Right, I’ve enjoyed being a genius and a critical darling, but it’s time for me to make myself some serious cake” because his novel "Vox" was a New York Times bestseller. Indeed, some accused him of doing that very thing in writing "Vox"--making an unabashed (and ultimately successful) attempt at writing something commercial.
3
Pretty funny Parker -- in a popular/literary kind of way --
Dickens was pulp.
6
The most interesting answers to this question come from authors who separately and self-consciously write both literary and commercial fiction - Graham Greene, for instance, with his novels and entertainments.
4
I'm not sure whether this is THE distinction between literary fiction and commercial fiction, but I'm convinced that it is A distinction, and an important one: Commercial fiction tends to favor plot over character, while literary fiction is likely to present more fully fleshed-out characters, displaying a mind or minds for our consideration above and beyond the events of the book. Some of my favorite authors -- I think immediately of Stephen King and John Le Carre -- honed their skills at depicting character over the course of their careers, such that, in my opinion, these essentially commercial novelists developed literary qualities.
15
I agree, in part. "Commercial" fiction is plot-driven. "Literary" fiction is character-driven. But isn't that distinction snob-driven. Lots of great books are plot-driven and character-driven. A recent example is Richard Price. Hemingway won the Nobel prize for literature. Yet Hemingway's writing was highly commercial in the truest sense. It sold. My God, it sold. At least some of Fitzgerald's work sold very well indeed. Jack London. He sold too. And as another commentator noted or intimated Raymond Chandler and Daschiel Hammet were "pulp" fiction writers who are now considered literary. So I think, in conclusion, the distinction is indeed snob-driven.
7
Ken, I hope nothing in my comment led you to believe that I have any disdain for commercial fiction. As a professional writer myself -- although not a novelist -- I am in complete sympathy with anybody who wants his or her books to sell! And yet there are so many examples of great fiction that did not sell well initially, or even during the lifetime of the author. Commercial success may be an indicator of quality, but it certainly isn't the only one.
Both Rivka's & Parker’s responses to the question posed are pleasurable to read, insightful, and articulate. These three attributes should be common to anything of quality, be it either literary or commercial. Whether the primary aim is to entertain and earn or not is a relevant test, as is the type of language used, but I think the most central difference between the artistic and commercial (whether in literature, music, film, or anything else) is how deeply the work falls into ambiguity. Ambiguity is the challenge and the lack of it the affirmation. Things that sell generally have well-defined heroes & villains (as with the superhero movie phenomena), endings that resolve, and plots conforming to familiar and pleasing structures, whereas “artistic” works delight (somewhat cruelly or, as Rivka wrote, misanthropically?) in inflicting some variety of fog upon the…consumer?
3
The distinction is often in the mind of the beholder. Raymond Chandler wrote for the pulp mystery magazines of his day, yet his writing is as good or better than many of the 'great writers', same for Daschiel Hammet. Hemingway wrote what are considered literary fiction, but his writing style was the simple, straightforward style we might associate more with 'commercial fiction'. On the other hand, few would claim that Mickey Spillane is great fiction, either.
The most iconic statement on this comes from someone generally classified as literary fiction: "The great books are books that people think they should read, but don't want to" (Mark Twain). The obverse of this is commercial fiction, which are books that they like to read, but think they should be reading the great books instead,
The most iconic statement on this comes from someone generally classified as literary fiction: "The great books are books that people think they should read, but don't want to" (Mark Twain). The obverse of this is commercial fiction, which are books that they like to read, but think they should be reading the great books instead,
2
The distinction between literary and popular fiction is probably real and not just an arbitrary construct. A couple of years ago the Times reported scientific research suggesting that reading literary ficiton, but not popular fiction or serious non-fiction, improves theory of mind skills and also increases empathy:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/i-know-how-youre-feeling-i-read...
An article currently in the online paper argues that poorer people often give up on getting their children to like eating vegetables because the required process, which can involve the children rejecting, and consequently wasting, the vegetables up to 8 or 9 times before they accept them and begin to acquire a taste for them is too costly:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/opinion/why-poor-children-cant-be-pick...
Analagous personal experience: I had to buy the full set of Proust and attempt getting into it at maybe a dozen places in the work, over a period of two or three years, before it eventually took off for me. After that I went back to the beginning and read the whole thing through from there. I was fortunate to have the time and the leisure, as well as the belief that the investment would be worthwhile.
Both the examples of vegetables and literary ficiton point to a pernicous consequence of extreme wealth inequality in society: too many people, and especially children from poorer families, get excluded from beneficial food and reading experiences.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/i-know-how-youre-feeling-i-read...
An article currently in the online paper argues that poorer people often give up on getting their children to like eating vegetables because the required process, which can involve the children rejecting, and consequently wasting, the vegetables up to 8 or 9 times before they accept them and begin to acquire a taste for them is too costly:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/opinion/why-poor-children-cant-be-pick...
Analagous personal experience: I had to buy the full set of Proust and attempt getting into it at maybe a dozen places in the work, over a period of two or three years, before it eventually took off for me. After that I went back to the beginning and read the whole thing through from there. I was fortunate to have the time and the leisure, as well as the belief that the investment would be worthwhile.
Both the examples of vegetables and literary ficiton point to a pernicous consequence of extreme wealth inequality in society: too many people, and especially children from poorer families, get excluded from beneficial food and reading experiences.
12
I've been listening to long, challenging books on CDs during the 14-hour drive between my two houses. After I listen to them, I often ending up reading the print editions which I had difficulty getting into. I haven't tried Proust yet, but I should. He isn't any more intimidating than Joyce and Tolstoy.
2
@ Ed Hemlock
Contrary to the beliefs of everyone around you, there are no health benefits to eating vegetables. Yet, epidemiological data strongly associate vegetables with better health outcomes; what causes this association?
Obviously, socioeconomically, vegetable eaters tend to be more health conscious. But let’s set this aside and delve into the meat of actual diet. The mechanism of association is displacement, that is veggies are less worse than the foods which would otherwise occupy their position on the dinner plate. Such malefactors as potatoes, rice or bread are discouraged, thwarting their dense carb content from quickly and massively entering the bloodstream. This must, after all, cause the poor little pancreatic beta cells to supply insulin quickly and massively, until they strain so much, so often that they invoke apoptosis and die - that’s type 2 diabetes.
Well then, what about studies showing health benefits via direct physiological mechanisms. Unfortunately, there are none.
Carbs (carbohydrates) are little more than glucose molecules strung together. In your small intestine, rice, bread, spinach, potatoes, all get their glucose molecules unstrung and the individual molecules pass through the small intestine wall and enter your bloodstream. In the blood, glucose molecules from Oreo cookies are exactly the same as glucose molecules from spinach.
Contrary to the beliefs of everyone around you, there are no health benefits to eating vegetables. Yet, epidemiological data strongly associate vegetables with better health outcomes; what causes this association?
Obviously, socioeconomically, vegetable eaters tend to be more health conscious. But let’s set this aside and delve into the meat of actual diet. The mechanism of association is displacement, that is veggies are less worse than the foods which would otherwise occupy their position on the dinner plate. Such malefactors as potatoes, rice or bread are discouraged, thwarting their dense carb content from quickly and massively entering the bloodstream. This must, after all, cause the poor little pancreatic beta cells to supply insulin quickly and massively, until they strain so much, so often that they invoke apoptosis and die - that’s type 2 diabetes.
Well then, what about studies showing health benefits via direct physiological mechanisms. Unfortunately, there are none.
Carbs (carbohydrates) are little more than glucose molecules strung together. In your small intestine, rice, bread, spinach, potatoes, all get their glucose molecules unstrung and the individual molecules pass through the small intestine wall and enter your bloodstream. In the blood, glucose molecules from Oreo cookies are exactly the same as glucose molecules from spinach.
If you use the word "conflate" your ambitions are literary and you write for review, not reaction.
1
It depends how you model these things in your mind. I consider literary fiction to be a genre somewhat like Westerns or Romances or SciFi. And genres can be spanned. So, a detective novel that is well written and popular -- say Chandler's THE BIG SLEEP -- can simultaneously be literary, crime and commercial. Why not?
16