Do you believe in the distinction between literary and non-literary fiction?

I do believe that there is a distinction; however, I don't know that it lies exactly where you've placed it.

A big problem with some fiction that I would consider "non-literary" is that it "understands itself as art." There is nothing worse sometimes than an author who thinks he's written a masterpiece, when all he's produced is a master piece of crap.

Moreover, I think there are works that have come about with no more noble intent behind them than amusement and/or money-making, but have risen to the status of "classic."

I think this distinction cannot always be made contemporaneously. While some non-literary fiction may be discernible immediately, it may take the test of time to tell whether other works have literary merit.

EDIT: I guess I would say that this distinction lies in the contribution to culture and/or society. In order to make such a cultural impact, it would probably contain some form of moral content. It might also offer some sort of innovation.

One of the best examples I can think of to illustrate such a distinction is A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius by Dave Eggers. I don't know if you are familiar with this book or if you've read it, but it received fairly good critical praise. However, I think it is almost entirely meritless, and I think Eggers wrote it out of self-indulgence and financial need. This book almost certainly understands itself primarily as art, though there can be no doubt that Eggers also intended for us to get some entertainment out of it--I think most artists do. While I don't see how it could be considered either art or entertainment, I think it lies much more strongly on the side of entertainment.

it is this form of stable question. I stored coming returned to it, thinking if I ought to upload my 2 cents' worth (that can basically be worth 0.5 the value). i visit assert that i do no longer think that's constantly black and white. there are maximum of strategies wherein a stable guy from historic past or modern-day cases could be made to look a villain and vice versa, that i'm getting somewhat leery of analyzing some biographies. i'm constantly asking myself, "Does the author have an awl to grind or an ideology that happens to be diverse than this actual individual's ideology?" concept, then, performs an significant area interior the mixture. replace some data, bypass over some others, and you have an extremely diverse individual or journey. I quite dislike so-called "unauthorized biographies." To me that screams some thing on the order of: "i don't comprehend something approximately you, you will never confer with me, no person who incredibly is familiar with you will confer with me, i do in contrast to you, i visit interview others who've a nodding acquaintance with you yet experience as I do, and that i visit capitalize on your repute!" i'm uncertain a pair of diverse thank you to divide between genres, nonetheless. might desire to you place "unauthorized biography" decrease than "data may well be distorted biography" or "take with a grain of salt biography" form? finally i do no longer think of that could desire to capture on too at as quickly as! :) Fiction, on the different hand, can come across real circumstances with out resorting to twisting reality to slot their tale. The fiction author would not ought to describe that he's created an imaginary character encountering an imaginary situation. the author in simple terms has to come returned up with a compelling premise. there is so lots extra that is pronounced - a number of which has already been pronounced via others - yet i think of this must be my "end of rant." i think of Mark Twain positioned it lots extra powerful than i can: "be careful of analyzing wellbeing books, you're able to die of a misprint."

I don't know. Pick one. It's incredibly subjective. Read some actual critical writing on this topic, because as it stands right now your questions and thoughts are amateurish.