Is lit pop dead?

[Stacy]

So I had this song on repeat one at work the last couple of days. And now my brain won't let me concentrate on 10.05 until I express my thoughts.

Eh - 10.05 will have a lot of dialogue and dialogue comes fast and doesn't need editing. I should still be able to have it out by midnight Saturday. Anyway...

Hip Hop is Dead - Nas

I like the video, but not the censoring or the audio quality. So here's the explicit version too, with better quality.

Hip Hop is Dead Explicit

The version on my CD is in between the two - no silences, but no n word and a few words and phrases are changed.

I can't help but hear "lit pop" as well as hip hop.

I tried talking to John about this, but he got all weird and defensive. He's a huge science fiction fanboy and maybe he thought I was insulting his books? And so instead we had this conversation.

"It's a hard life, being an idealist."

"Especially when your ideals change over time and it's impossible for anyone to live up to them and sometimes you yourself don't even live up to them."

Then I said "I want to go where everyone knows my name" and successfully managed to not cry, but it was hard.

Anyway...before he got weird and shut down, he did bring up the definition of "lit pop". Which I answered with "I hate categories! I vote down with definitions!"

Yeah - it really is a hard life sometimes.

I have given in on my ideal a little bit and am now investigating a way to define what I personally mean by the term. At first I kind of thought the stuff in the general fiction sections of B & N and Borders, especially the books that are out on the tables and facing outward and get the good places.

We went to a bookstore after dinner and I specifically looked for first time authors in the general fiction that didn't get the choice placement, trying to help them out. As a result I now have The End of Alice by A. M. Homes and a short story collection named Thuglit Presents: sex, thugs, and rock & roll. So...not what I was aiming for and not first time authors, but they're the only two that passed my sentence test. I open the book to a random page and see if I can stand reading the sentences.

OMG, tangents. *slaps fingers*

But well - both of those books are perhaps examples of how lit pop is alive and well. The novel and the one story I've looked at so far are wonderfully written with beautiful sentences and content that is definitely not safe and conforming and pre-chewed.

OTOH, they weren't out on the tables and displays.

Lupe Fiasco makes albums, but I've only ever heard one of his songs on the radio -Superstar - the one most palatable to commercial interests. Haha, I'd like to hear Conflict Diamonds on the radio.

In the comments on Lupe's Dumb It Down, someone said he shouldn't complain but should just do his stuff and if people like it he'll get popular and change the game. I wish it was that simple.

People can only like the music they hear. They can only read the books they can find on the shelves. It's too easy to manipulate availability and human psychology (i.e. putting a book out on a table as opposed to in a row of spine-out books) to say that what's popular and not popular is completely a result of people's independent tastes. You can only make the choices you know you have.

BTW, anyone else think Lupe is hot?

Anyway...this post has an interesting definition of pop art.

Between Pop and Literature

I like that idea - that pop is something real that then gets commercialized. I especially like the folk music bit, seeing as how my great grand uncle's fiddle is in the Smithsonian.

Tommy Jarrell

Oh wow - my mother says Benton Flippen is my great uncle.

Heh - she said I had their music in my blood and that I could probably play it if I tried. I said I do play it. On my keyboard.

Hey, why not link another video? Here's Benton Flippen playing the Surry County national anthem.

Sally Ann

I can totally see the connection, though - pop being something that comes from, well - what other people would term "everyday people", but is not devoid of meaning. It's the stories that the people I grew up with told themselves.

Looking closer at that site - it doesn't say that pop isn't intellectually stimulating and challenging. Just that it doesn't require special knowledge. Which that goes into the other idea I've been thinking about lately, culture and entertainment and social stratification.

So, okay, let's define "lit pop" as literature that is written well with pretty sentences and symbolism and metaphor and universal human themes and all that, but that doesn't require special knowledge and would be accessible to most people. I.E. the 18th and 19th century classics I grew up reading. Okay, so Poe makes references that I don't always get, but it's pretty easy to figure out from the context what he means by them.

*cough* wow, that isn't self-serving of you there at all *cough*

There has obviously been one big lit pop event in recent years.

Harry Potter.

But still - that's only one example. An example that shows there's a hunger out there for meaningful yet accessible literature and that if it's available for people to choose and they're aware of it, they will choose it.

For movies, I'd say the LOTR trilogy. I saw the first one on opening night, with a sold out audience. And a lot of that audience hadn't read the books. But they were totally entranced and at the end were like "OMG WHAT?" because they didn't know there were two more movies coming and this wonderful spell had been broken. I'll always remember the feeling in the theater that night, of a large group of people all immersed in a wonderful story.

So, using that as our definition of "lit pop" - is it dead or dying or alive or in the process of reviving? Will there be more literature like Harry Potter in our lifetimes?

Are we writing it here? I like that idea. VSS being a little club of underground lit pop artists.

What's your definition of lit pop?

And yeah, I've been a lit popper since a toddler.

Okay, brain. Will you let me please start 10.05 tomorrow night? I'll give you pizza and Pepsi Throwback!

[raquelaroden]

I don't think it's dead. I do think that if it's out there and it's being read by a lot of people that most aren't thinking about the metaphors and the symbolism. In many of these cases, the stories and plots themselves are complex enough and the characters are interesting enough on their own that people don't look for something else. It's only later, when one of their friends have taken a literature course treating the book or when they come back from a book club that they realize that there was a new way to look at the book--as something laden with hidden messages and themes of which they had no awareness when they first picked up the story.

At least, this is how it has almost always worked for me, unless I was reading a book specifically for a course. I've never actually read Harry Potter, but I have read Lord of the Rings. I think some stories appeal to us because of the themes--they are themes we like or admire. In LOTR, for me, it was the idea that sometimes there are just things you have to do because they are the right things to do, even though they are really hard and unpleasant. It was a moral idea that appealed to me, because I'd seen a lot of people around me do just the opposite--I knew how difficult it was for people to actually live that way.

Now, when I was reading the scene in which Frodo volunteered to take the ring, or when Gandalf stood up to the horrible fire monster, I thought, "Wow, that's courageous!" but I certainly wasn't thinking, "And this is a positive portrayal of a moral attitude that there are things you must do simply because they are right, even if you will die or suffer horribly." That awareness came later. First came the good fuzzy feeling of "Hey...this story was interesting and the characters are wonderfully complex", then came "Hmm...look at all the times he writes a particular word and look at this recurring theme..." And there's no guarantee that I would have ever reached the next stage of thinking about the book--I ended up taking a class about it in college in the semester following the summer I'd read all the books.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that even if lit pop as you define it is out there, it probably isn't recognized by most of the people reading it. The themes are working upon them at some level, I believe, but it isn't the detailed, let's-pick-this-apart-line-by-line sort of enjoyment. They aren't enjoying it because it is laden with symbolism and foreshadowing and metaphor--they are enjoying it because the characters are complex and interesting, and the story is, too.

[raquelaroden]

Ok, and now I'm going to ramble on some more...sorry, but I had some thoughts while I was in the shower...

Jane Austen was more of a theme writer than any other type (from what I can tell, she didn't really put much symbolism or metaphor in, though she did do some foreshadowing...but it was a different type than say, the kind Flannery O'Connor did). Jane Austen would explore certain moral traits and attitudes by putting her characters in situations, and then writing what they did and thought. You'd end up with a good picture of who they were as a person by the end. I think there are far more types of these writers nowadays than your Tolkiens and C.S. Lewis types.

I'll probably have all sorts of hate rained down on me, but Stephanie Meyer's Twilight saga does a lot of what your definition of lit pop demands. She is certainly exploring some weighty themes in her books: the nature of romantic and familial love; and one she does a bit better--the nature of the soul and what the requirements are to have a soul. She seems to conclude that it requires the capacity to love and the desire and capacity to struggle against your nature and bad impulses.

Ok, I'll shut up now.

[laura]

I'm glad you found A.M. Homes! Isn't she amazing! I've only read her story collections so far, but I've been reading her since college. I don't necessarily shop for books by shelf placement either. In fact, most of the books I buy are by word of mouth. Because someone I know has loved it.

I read a blog post by an agency once who called this "literary accessible". So yes, it is a very real thing in the industry, and it's actually something they do seem to admire. This is the kind of literature that actually has a chance at making money, because it does have the story and character elements that can draw a bigger readership.

The thing about literary constructs though is that they work best when they don't beat you over the head with their cleverness, lol! It should be the kind of thing you go back to realize after reading - whether that's after the sentence, or chapter, or the whole book. Depending on how engrossed you are, I guess.

That's probably the main difference between something I would call literary and something that's not. You wouldn't finish a Stephanie Meyer book (sorry, I keep using her as an example - I actually don't read much of anything not literary), and then sit there thinking about its deeper meaning, or the connection of its themes to other themes in the book, lol!

I like stories that make me think, and I like stories that run deeper than the surface level story. But interesting characters and a gripping story are still primary. Basically, I wouldn't read a story just because it was written well, if it lacked the other essential things.

So I hope lit pop isn't dead or dying, because it's what I love to read and I think it's probably what I'm writing too, lol!

I do think hard, boring, stuffy, literature is really having to struggle in the market these days. I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing. Maybe boring stories should be struggling? lol!

Another trend that's actually more similar than you might think is the tendency toward YA books in adult readers. An agency blog who wrote a blog post on it yesterday. People read YA because the stories are engrossing - but at the same time, that doesn't discount the fact that a lot of YA books are really, really well written. It's the YA craze that kind of makes me nervous. I don't write books about or for teenagers, but it seems to be what everyone wants right now. YA is huge!

I probably have more thoughts on this, but I'm out of time, lol! Good discussion!

[laura]

LOL, Rachel, okay, proven wrong. I guess people do think about the themes in Stephanie Meyer, lol! I don't know, I guess probably most stories carry themes. Do Dan Brown books have inner themes?

[thelunarfox]

I sort of hate talking about Twilight because I always feel like it's just asking for trouble, but I agree with Rachel. There's tons of meaning in Twilight, whether you could read it or not. Even the haters who did make it through are all over the hidden themes and meanings. (Powerless girl, moral messages on souls, sex, marriage, super human males.) I've heard interesting readings for both sides, people who liked it and people who hated it. So I'd guess that's why it is so popular.


Let's instead look at like Dan Brown or the Sookie Stackhouse novels. Sorry if there's anyone out there who likes True Blood, but I've read a couple of the Sookie Stackhouse novels and I seriously couldn't get through the series. I tried to figure it out why I couldn't make it past the first couple of books when I read all of Twilight just fine. As far as I'm concerned they are pretty much in the same category for me as most comic books.

I'd think it's because there are no hidden meanings or messages really, good or bad. I think a story told without those undertones is lacking a soul.

Likewise, a story told that only has meaning and imagery is also lacking a soul.


Sorry, it's too early, and I'm not even speaking IRL yet, am I making any sense or am I just repeating what's already been said?


I also have to admit that I'm not sure what "lit pop" is, but I'm horrible at categorizing. Pretty much I have levels. There's literature, something in between, and popular fiction. So is lit pop then stuff that's popular and makes a big splash?

Also, I think my tastes influence my understanding and decisions here. I love anime, comic books, and Asmiov, so when I'm thinking about this topic, I'm thinking about those things because they're all about how we tell stories. They're all rather popular (except Asimov now-a-days it seems), so my answer right away to if lit pop is dead is that no, it's always been around.

If lit pop are stories told that have more meaning than just what is being said, if it's something that can be re-looked over to divulge hidden meanings and themes, then I see stories like that around us pretty frequently. (Except Asimov, actually. I just love his stuff because he just tells a story.) These stories aren't always obvious either. Sometimes they take an extra reading or a chance.

[raquelaroden]

Laura: No problem, lol. I know a lot of people really dislike Stephenie Meyer, and that's fine! Differences in taste aren't uncommon or even undesirable. I don't know about Dan Brown's work because I haven't read any of it, but I've heard from several of my friends that his writing is terrible.....

LunarFox: lol! I love the Sookie Stackhouse series, but I'm usually embarrassed that I do (actually, I'm much more embarrassed that I read J. R. Ward). But the truth is that I love a lot of series that are pure entertainment factor--no hidden messages, no weighty moral issues pondered. I can get enjoyment out of both the deep stuff every now and then, as well as the fluff.

To be fair, I do think that Charlaine Harris treats a few weighty issues in that series in an interesting way--issues of personhood (legal and moral), justice, forgiveness, and a person's moral limits and the situations that can unhinge them. But then again, maybe I'm just really good at reading in themes when I want them there, or trying to detect them in things that really don't have them? I don't know.

But I am really enjoying this topic! I really should shut up because I'm totally spamming this thread...

[thelunarfox]

Aug 12, 2010 11:03:40 GMT -5 @raquelaroden said:

LunarFox:
To be fair, I do think that Charlaine Harris treats a few weighty issues in that series in an interesting way--issues of personhood (legal and moral), justice, forgiveness, and a person's moral limits and the situations that can unhinge them. But then again, maybe I'm just really good at reading in themes when I want them there, or trying to detect them in things that really don't have them? I don't know.

But I am really enjoying this topic! I really should shut up because I'm totally spamming this thread...

Okay, you make a good point there too. It's true she does tackle those topics as well, I'm probably just not interested in them, so I don't notice them.

I think straight story is fine. I mean, I do love Asimov very much because he just tells a good straight story with no undertones, though I can read them in there too, lol.


So then it seems to me that the only thing that categorizes and limits stories are ourselves as the readers. So we're back at the subjectivity of the arts. I can read a really good comic book story and come away with meaning from it if I want to. The same way a popular song might say something to someone.

This is probably all part of why I hate genres.

[laura]

Aug 12, 2010 11:11:48 GMT -5 @thelunarfox said:

It's true she does tackle those topics as well, I'm probably just not interested in them, so I don't notice them.

Ah, here's a good point! Maybe also I wouldn't notice the theme if it's tackled badly? Maybe that's why I didn't notice the themes in Twilight, because I feel like it was a terrible example of romantic love as a theme. Hmmm...

Anyway, on what is Lit-pop, it usually goes like this for me:

Literature: anything I want to read slowly to enjoy the language, or re-read again to gain deeper meaning or understanding.

Pulp: anything you read for quick entertainment and toss away, lol! Think like guilty pleasure?

Contrary to what a lot of people assume, literature is not actually the opposite of popular. And the two can (and do!) coexist quite beautifully in really great stories.

Lit-pop then, would be anything classed as literature but appealing to a wide audience (popular).

Personally, for me, Stephanie Meyer fails on characters and story. Too contrived for my tastes. Maybe there's themes in there though - there probably are. But unfortunately her heroine makes me want to punch her in the face a little.

But I do wonder if themes are universal to all stories. I mean, a story really does have to be about *something*, right?

[raquelaroden]

I guess when I say themes, I'm thinking of things that come up in the course of the story but are more like...in the background. For example, in the Twilight saga, I'd say that the stories are about a particular girl's relationship with a vampire, with specific plot lines following the arc of the relationship and other conflicts that occur throughout. But the themes in Twilight are an examination of a kind of romantic love (an admittedly strange love--it might even be more of an obsession), and questions about what sorts of things have souls and which don't, the nature of good and evil, etc..

So maybe I'm taking "themes" to be something different from what others are taking it to mean....they tend to be those philosophical issues or questions that people ponder in deeper moments, but that aren't usually consciously pondered. So when Bella pops off with some weird thought I can't identify with, I can say "What is it about her thought process that is just wrong?" and it makes me think about my own beliefs and attitudes. That's what is so great about sci-fi shows and fantasy (for me at least)--a lot of them use strange and impossible situations to poke and prod at our intuitions. Our reactions to the decisions and actions of the characters can tell us so much about who we are, too...

[raquelaroden]

Incidentally, all this talk about Stephenie Meyer has me wondering if anyone here has read her other book that came out a while ago, titled The Host? I liked it more than the Twilight saga, actually, and it brought up themes of identity and imperialism.

[laura]

Yes, that's right - but I think it's about both things, about the story/plot, and also about the themes at the same time, but beneath the surface.

I haven't read any of her stuff besides the first Twilight novel.

Agreed about the sci-fi/fantasy, and also (I don't know what it's called) stuff that's post-apocalyptic? Maybe that's classed as sci-fi as well. Like The Road comes to mind (I cheated and saw the movie rather than reading the book, lol!). But true, it really explores human nature when pushed to its very limits.

Lunar, your story Ruin does the same thing!

[tesseracta]

I haven't read Charlaine Harris' books, but I love the television show True Blood. It's a deliciously guilty pleasure, because its soooo trashy, but there are many intentional parallels to the civil/gay rights struggle (and lots of shirtless men, yum!). Speaking of television shows, I would suggest that Battlestar Galactica, Mad Men and Lost would actually be decent examples of television lit-pop, because of themes explored.

I'm still unsure of good examples for current fiction though. Would maybe Ken Follet's books, Audrey Nifneger's The Time Traveller's Wife and Sarah Gruen's Water for Elephants be acceptable examples?

I've only read the Nifneger book personally, (the other two are in my huge pile of books to read), but I've noticed those three are a popular choice for the other commuters on my train.

[laura]

Ah-ha, lit-pop would be anything chosen by Oprah for her book club, lol!

Yes, though, The Time Traveller's Wife would qualify. Haven't read the other two, but I think Water for Elephants is also classed as literary. I believe Jodi Picoult would qualify for lit-pop as well. I've read My Sister's Keeper by her. That was quite well written. And Stephen King actually! As mainstream as he is, his stories are also very well written, and always thematic. Chuck Palaniuk! Something like Fight Club, or Survivor. Lots of depth to his stories, and themes like commercialism and anarchy.

John Irving? Is he very popular? I know he's definitely literary, but I'm not sure if he's popular as well, or just my favorite? Most of my other favorites are pretty obscure, so they probably wouldn't qualify as lit-pop, but just straight up literary (and not the boring kind).

[tesseracta]

I think John Irving would qualify. He's longstanding, has had bestsellers, and even though he's literary has had movies adapted from his books.

[thelunarfox]

Aug 12, 2010 16:47:20 GMT -5 @laura said:

Agreed about the sci-fi/fantasy, and also (I don't know what it's called) stuff that's post-apocalyptic? Maybe that's classed as sci-fi as well. Like The Road comes to mind (I cheated and saw the movie rather than reading the book, lol!). But true, it really explores human nature when pushed to its very limits.

Lunar, your story Ruin does the same thing!

Loved reading the Road though it was very dark. But can you tell I'm a comic book/sci-fi fan just from my writing? ;D

I actually just finished reading a short story today by Philip Dick called Second Variety which would be along these lines. (Free on Project Gutenberg people!) ((I also come with a "ask me how I can read these books on my DS" button pinned to my shirt.))


But I hate genres and labels. It's an objection I'm probably going to raise when it comes up again. I think that by labeling things as "pulp" or "literature" ultimately is the same thing as saying "good" or "bad." It doesn't have to be, but that's ultimately what happens. I think I do it, and that's why I get surprised when I'm reading something like X-Men or Batman and some awesome writer has managed to come along and add some extra meaning to it.

[Stacy]

It's bed time so I don't have a lot of time, but I wanted to contribute this.

On Literature and Mystery

I had no idea that the division between literary/popular was a recent thing. Hmmmm.

[Stacy]

I love The Rejectionist, and when I checked her blog today I found this guest post.

A Kind of Blindness to the Truth

It touches on a lot of the concepts in my original post - like how the gatekeepers choose what to publish and not to publish, and how that can be motivated by things other than pure quality. And also, it echoes this line in Hip Hop is Dead - "word to the wise, we're building states of mind".

Which is why it bothered me that Lilith could be interpreted as weak and passive on occasion. But really - I think it's just that her strength is subtle. Maybe that's it - she doesn't fit the male-informed ideal of the kickass shero who's basically a guy with ovaries. But she is strong.

The whole connection vs individualism - in my work that's water vs fire. Lilith is connected. Seth tries to draw her into his fire, his isolation. But then at the end, the water comes and Lilith goes through a sort of ego death (I was trying to get that across in Firewater with the images of Shannon and Bella and Jason superimposed on her) and becomes a sort of collective force, a raging torrent of water that puts out Seth's isolated fire.

And she cleanses Sunset Valley of his darkness, though she has to sacrifice herself to do it.

Ah, Lilith. I miss you, and I'm sorry that I misinterpreted your strength and sacrifice for weakness and failure. We will meet again, in December. And on the second time around, with more experience and a deeper knowledge of life, we will create something glorious.

I love the last quote from the author in this interview.

"Stories are powerful juju."

[pinkfiend1]

So lit-pop is music that is inspired by literature or particualr artistic, so in a way some of the most powerful things are musicals. With most of them packaged in a child/teen friendly form better than a lot of movies, and in many instances based however loosely on books.But then in a way they are true lit-pop because their songs are designed to tell a story and in the majority of instances tell them well.
-
Wicked deals with friendships, the draws and drawbacks of popularity and fame, good and evil and how they are percieved, moraltiy, death, and a bit of love between friends, family and requited and more unrequited love, and all it's complications, all packaged in a funny entertaining very child friendly setting which rewrites everything you've seen Wizard of Oz. Dorothy is EVIL, stealing the shoes then being suprised when she wants her late sisters shoes back.
Phantom of the Opera of course is very heavy on love and all it's dangers, and how good people can do very horrible things.
Blood brothers is very big on morals, secrets and superstition and class, how people can be influenced and manipulated, and how getting what you want, isn't necessarily good, how innocence is quickly lost, and most importantly jealousy even among friends and motherly love-you can't say that "tell me it's not true" doesn't break your heart.