@CrazyShadowy

Got it.

I'm getting the new monitor friday, so I won't be on as much. Lel

@shylarah
I'm working on very little sleep, and will be off to rest shortly, but it's time I finish this conversation. I could end up repeating myself unconsciously in this post, so just keep that in mind since I want to get my thoughts across without any misconceptions if possible.

Also, if there ends up being some flaw in my explanation (I'll look it all over eventually, and possibly get a second opinion from my friend) due to how fatigued I'm feeling, I'll correct myself eventually.

So...literary fiction and other fiction can both make you think, but literary fiction is more deliberately encouraging discussion about it? So sort of a social commentary thing.

You're right to assume one of the differences is that 'literary fiction' is deliberately trying to discuss, but there's another difference as well -- 'literary fiction' actually gives a more compelling and mature argument, whereas 'genre fiction' tends to be very simplified and - in many cases - not even relevant or realistic. The most important way to compare them is this though, since they're ultimately about the priority of the work.

• Literary Fiction: Works under this classification will actually have their primary focus be on the 'literary' elements, which is why they're called 'literary fiction'. They are stories just like any other, and as such they can - and often do - have genre(s); however, being engaging as a part of these genres will be less important than the discussions and themes, since the greater purpose is to provoke thought. The narrative - deep down - is driven by these themes, so whatever discussions and thoughts that the work wants to invoke in others will never be compromised just to be entertaining -- they will tell a good story like any piece of 'genre fiction', but not in a way that hinders the deeper purpose and message.
• Genre Fiction: The focus of these works is to successfully create a good story based on their 'genre', hence why they're called 'genre fiction'. In other words, while these stories could potentially try to give a discussion and have intelligent themes, they will always prioritize creating entertainment through the genre(s) they focus on over these more mature goals and topics. They'll write the narrative around the story, not the philosophy, and subsequently they will weaken the messages they want to give if they need to in order to focus on the genre.

A lot of stories attempt to give a good message and end up failing to do so in a way that's insightfully satisfying, so not everything that makes people think counts as 'literary fiction', especially when the thought provoking was not intended or was just a result of convenient storytelling. For a piece of writing to be acknowledged as 'literary fiction' it usually needs to be accepted by people in philosophy or social commentary as having merit in the fields it's attempting to discuss. You need to be able to take the piece and use it in real life adult debates, or it doesn't count at all. Simply bringing up a point about (to use your example) racism and saying it's bad isn't on its own enough -- the actual thoughts or arguments presented need to be something that a philosopher could bring to a serious debate or use as a thesis, or a psychologist could accept as being an insightful look into the human condition.

Certain pieces of writing (Romeo and Juliet, Of Mice and Men, Moby-Dick, et cetera) are widely accepted as 'literary fiction' and are used at schools or universities for study due to that. In contrast, the television series Game of Thrones (using this as an example due to it being brought up by a friend yesterday when we were discussing 'literary fiction' -- I don't watch it) doesn't count as 'literary fiction' despite it trying to be -- it's 'genre fiction'. With that said, a piece of 'literary fiction' is - as you just said - always deliberately attempting to provoke thoughts and be philosophical, and this is generally always at least as important - often more so - as telling a story for the person who writes these pieces.

Scifi can be hard or soft -- and actually, shows like Star Trek are able to cover moral discussion a bit more freely than ones set in the real world, because they don't have to deal with "well you're showing discrimination against X" or all the complicated censor issues that can come into play. There's one ep of the original series where there's these guys with two-color faces, and they loath the other type, and the Enterprise folks go "but you both are the same, half one color and half the other. Then the guy goes "Yeah, but he's white on the /right/, and I'm white on the /left/." Separation from reality lets you present issues in society from a less biased perspective, independently of many preconceptions.

I'm aware there's different types of sci-fi, but it only very occasionally interests me, and far more rarely when it's the only genre in the setting. I don't actually think that these sorts of stories are inherently discussing things more effectively -- separation from reality weakens the actual weight of the message - but not always - for reasons I go into a bit later in this post. Not all 'literary fiction' is set in the real world though, but this is because the discussions are presented through metaphor instead of being literal. There's nothing actually wrong with doing this - I do it a lot in my own work - but sometimes it will make the message weaker due to people not understanding it as easily or being able to relate to it, and this can cause it not to be taken as seriously due to it being too surreal -- philosophy should, at its core, by very realistic.

Like I said, you can definitely tell 'literary fiction' while including supernatural elements, since I do this myself, but it has to be treated carefully. Also, a lot of decent pieces of 'literary fiction' pretty much stick their middle finger up at things like censors or opinion consensus, which is why they're often not mainstream - and sometimes not even published under conventional means - though there's exceptions. Very frequently, for something to be 'literary fiction' is needs to be controversial. You can very easily weaken a message by making it too 'television friendly'. To give a good example of this again, Naoki Urasawa's Monster is actually not an easy show to find without the internet due to its broadcasting being limited to the best of my knowledge -- the fact that it dealt with severe issues (child abuse, discussion into the inner workings of sociopaths - as opposed to most fiction, which actually gets it wrong a lot - and realistic discussions about the roots of evil, depictions of actual atrocities that happened in society during a specific era of time and how they affected people, et cetera) meant that it wasn't able to be shown just anywhere.

With this all in mind, if you don't portray sociopaths accurately then any discussion you try to provoke about sociopaths isn't realistic - and therefore isn't 'literary fiction' since those types of works are rooted in realism - so any discussion about the human condition will actually lose a lot of merit unless it's presented in a world that at the very least fundamentally is rooted in reality (whether it's set in a more fantastic genre setting or not) -- having a discussion about how aliens taking over the planet affects people in the real world today is entirely meaningless as a piece of social commentary because we don't deal with those problems in reality -- while this could be used to portray social commentary about how humans respond to being enslaved in general, the social commentary holds more weight if you don't detach it with escapism since a lot of people - though obviously not all - can just brush it off as 'make believe'. It's not that we can't do it, as I've been pushing as my primary point, but it can make it harder to give it weight. Escapism is the exact opposite of social commentary -- one of them is an escape from reality while the other one is an open and heavy discussion about reality, so getting too far away from realism complicated having serious discussions.

I do have a lot of fictional elements in my own story, but I'll make myself clear on this -- all of them serve a purpose from a philosophical perspective or at least work as a metaphor, so I'll (generally speaking) never add an element into my story if I think it'll prevent me from making a compelling point or if this fictional element will compromise the integrity of my mature real world discussions and provoking of thought. Sure, I'll put a lot of magic concepts into my work to make it cool and entertaining and build a lot of lore around it, but if something's going to get in the way of the point I'm trying to make or be invasive to the philosophy then it's out the door. This is where my story being 'literary fiction' finds its roots -- every time I consider a new fictitious element to add into my project, I'll always ask myself 'will it get in the way of my philosophy' before I ask myself 'will it be an entertaining idea for the story'. If the answer to the first question is yes then I won't even humour the second question, whereas a 'genre fiction' writer will always ask those questions with reverse priority -- that's assuming they even bother asking the first question at all.

Just for the record, I've seen the entire first series of Star Trek (movies included), and a good portion of The Next Generation. I'm honestly not interested in it, and only really gave it a try on request from my mother (a Trekkie) a long time ago. I know the episode you're referring to even though it's been a very long time since I've watched it. To the best of my knowledge, Star Trek generally isn't consider 'literary fiction', even if it does have moments where it delves into it (as almost everything does). I could be mistaken on that one, but I'd need someone who studies 'literary fiction' (like my friend -- who I'll probably discuss this with in a day or so) like I do in order to confirm or deny -- best to get an extra opinion and not rely on only one. There's a possibility an odd movie or episode is considered an exception, but not the series as a whole since it prioritizes its genre and entertainment value over the discussion and themes from my experience of it. I remember thinking the show was 'okay', but not something I'd watch again and I wouldn't have watched it on my own. I could deconstruct it from a philosophical and social perspective, citing it's realism versus escapism, but I won't bother -- it's sort of off the main topic, and so is discussion about the sci-fi genre in general, which I mostly brought up before as trivia.

I'd also say that how rooted in reality something is will be more a function of believable characters and consistent rules for the world, and less a matter of magic and future tech. Yes, you'll negate certain specific situations with different possible actions (trapped underwater? Cast a spell that lets you breath!) but with literary issues they definitely can still apply.

Believable characters, yes -- consistent rules, only to the extent that those rules don't make the work surreal enough that you can't relate it to the real world. For example, it's difficult to have an intellectual discussion about whether or not the existence of aliens is significant - as in these characters need to not know that aliens exist because they're discussing aliens as a hypothetical - in a world where aliens are already proven to exist. Essentially, certain types of genre limit the ability to discuss certain ideas in a way that's relevant to reality. In a similar sense, it's difficult - though not impossible, since my story does it - to have a debate about whether or not magic or the soul exist if you do so in a setting that's proven those things are real. Basically, it can go beyond just the problem of negating certain situations and actually get in the way of the literary contemplations -- not always obviously, but this means people need to pick their genre carefully based on what they want to discuss.

@Shoryu Magami you bring up a bunch of interesting points and have given me a great deal to think about. I'm going to make only two comments in reply:

First, romeo and Juliet. I enjoyed it as a kid. Still do. But it's spoken of as a great and tragilove story and...in the end, it's really not. Love at first sight, rushing onto a permanent relationship...being an idiot. It's solid storytelling, but I think it's very definitely genre by your definitions.

Secondly, star trek. I have read a bunch of stuff about it, and while yes it was pitched as a space western, Roddenberry intended from the beginning to use it for social commentary. Not every ep, and I couldn't speak to how well, but a number of his decisions were made with an eye towards is purpose.

@shylarah
No problem. I don't have a lot of formal education at all - so there's a possibility my opinion and analysis of all this isn't 'by the book' (not like I care about 'the book') - but I'm glad it's been a useful discussion, since giving people food for thought is one of the things I usually strive towards. Contrary to what a lot of people think, I'm not actively looking for arguments with people -- my primary purpose is to bring more insight to the table so people are constantly assessing their ideas and growing, including myself.

Romeo and Juliet is actually an example brought to the table by my friend, rather than one of the examples I brought up myself (such as Of Mice and Men). To be fair, there isn't actually anything wrong with love at first sight or with wanting to move a relationship forward quickly if the two people have a real connection (me and @Ailyn Evensen's relationship blossomed very quickly, but that doesn't negate its power or merit), but obviously whether the connection is real or not is different with each situation and few couples truly get into a relationship without thinking -- divorce rates tend to be high in this era, after all. I remember enjoying the story, but it's been a long time since I saw any version of it. I'm not sure exactly why my friend used it as an example, but it could be that the movie was trying to make a point outside of just the romance story -- something involving the families perhaps.

With this said, it's very important to remember that 'literary fiction' very frequently becomes 'genre fiction' when it gets adapted into another media besides the one that the original writer created it with. In order to get whatever message the writer of Romeo and Juliet had in mind - for example - the original story has to be observed. This is very common in stories which get turned into movies or television series, where the message is lost due to the detailed narrative being taken out, leaving behind only the genre elements and the 'flashiness'.

As for Star Trek, I can believe that since I did tell you I just wasn't personally interested in it but wasn't certain enough about my opinion on it as 'literary fiction' to say one way or another without hearing my friend's thoughts as well. I remember personally not thinking a lot of the messages had much weight, but I'm sure there could be exceptions in an episode or so that I don't recall and to the best of my memory one of the movies (they go back into the modern era) makes a much better point than the others, but I don't remember the point it was making (I just remember the basic premise of what they were doing). If Roddenberry has gone on interview stating he intended his work to be social commentary though then that does make the series 'literary fiction' in intention -- at this point it becomes more of a question of how good its merit as one are in practice, which likely differs between episodes considerably. Another thing about 'literary fiction' is the themes are usually recurrent, even if they're not always present.

In Star Trek, Data is a good example of how there's a detachment from realism that can prevent the series from having literary merit. I don't know if the writers had the intension of using Data as an argument that 'robots have a soul', but if they did then the argument ends up coming across very weakly due to the escapist nature of the character -- there is no such thing in reality as a robot that's this advanced, nor can we actually prove creating one is even possible, so having a discussion about whether or not artificial beings like this are alive or not is basically a debate rooted in 'make believe'. To the best of my recollection, The Next Generation devotes a good number of its episodes to attempting this sort of discussion, and while my mother seemingly bought into it I never did personally.

I keep waking up late and I'm not even going to bed late. It feels like the worst thing ever.

Can someone give me a solid argument why FF15/Kingdom Hearts battle system doesnt suck ass?

Can someone give me a solid argument why FF15/Kingdom Hearts battle system doesnt suck ass?

Because liking something like a battle system is suggestive. I 100%ed FF Type-0 on my PS4 because it had a fun battle system that I enjoyed more than a typical RPG style. Whilst my uncle and other friends detest the game for not sticking to the Retro mold. Similar to how some people like mainstream music and others don't.

I also just drew my Waifu on my Jp Mobage. *will upload pics soon*

Hallo

@NekoMizuYoo Mizu, seeing you reminds me to eat something.

Edit: Threw in some Localized translations

@Pudding
Cheese is always a great food choice.

@NekoMizu
That's very true. I enjoy Mac'N'Cheese as my top pick.
After I make some food I'll probably hit up some more Deception for awhile and lurk in the forum.

I went to a hibatchi place for the first time tonight, man was that good food! Best part, I was tossed two shrimp, caught them both, my mother whom I was with. Had upwards of eight given she couldn't catch the first four or six. After everyone else went, the guy had two left, tossed them to her one at a time as usual. Missed all that were tossed to her, her comment afterwards was that she can't see. My responce was with how funky my eyes can be upclose, I still managed to catch both tossed to me with no problems what so ever.

@CrazyShadowy
What's a Hibatchi place? I've never heard of one before, sounds like fun tho. Although a little difficult for somebody really un-co like me.

Last year for a school field trip in my Japanese class we went to a Japanese restaurant that had a karaoke part. I had curry for the first time, pretty good stuff lel. After that we went to a Japanese supermarket and I got a powdery chocolate cube things.

@Pudding
They cook all the food in front of you and do tricks and stuff, food-tertainment as I call it.

Can someone give me a solid argument why FF15/Kingdom Hearts battle system doesnt suck ass?

Pretty much what @Pudding just said -- whether a system 'sucks' or not is entirely subjective. I think games like Tekken and Dead or Alive are brainless and lacking tactics compared to Soul Calibur V or a lot of 2D fighting games - and I think some 2D fighting games are better than others - but other people won't agree with my reasons no matter how true the points I make are, since my belief that Tekken is one-dimensional and 'sucks' due to it doesn't mean that everyone is going to agree that it 'sucks' even if they did agree with the reasoning.

@Shoryu Magami Data provides an argument for equality of all people, particularly in the ep where it comes up whether he's property or a person. Do that with an actual human and you'll have people up in arms, not to mention everyone will have a preconceived notion, but talk about an android and suddenly people actually /think/ about the question, and what it means for the person being discussed (Data). It's less about robots, and actually about /people/. Robots having souls is a question other works handle.

My quibble with Romeo and Juliet (and I've seen productions of the play, as well as read the written script) is that its presented as this great and powerful love story, when really Juliet was barely more than a child, Romeo was like thirty and had just been dumped, they knew each other for a few weeks at best, and most of the people involved were idiots. *shrug* My opinion, and I see where it's viewed as a classic and so on, but there's loads of better stories.

@shylarah
Gonna save any comments about Romeo and Juliet until after I've spoken to my friend again, since they brought it up.

As for Data, you've sort of just emphasized my whole point I made previously about why something like this wouldn't be considered 'literary fiction'. First off, people who are interested in giving a compelling argument about equality don't give a shit about censors or about being controversial, so making it more 'television friendly' doesn't do anything but weaken the message. I didn't even think about the discussion of equality as relevant because he's an android, so using an android doesn't inherently make people think about it. If it was about people, then they should've done it with people. It isn't that the discussion isn't there, but the subject matter hindered it being taken seriously if the details are considered, and 'literary fiction' is gauged almost entirely by deconstructing the details.

The argument they presented with Data is borderline justification to say that my PC deserves to have equal rights to me -- my PC is an appliance, and only in the fictional universe of Star Trek is the android known as Data perceivable enough as a person to have equal rights, meaning the argument has very little weight if you actually deconstruct it and say 'yeah, but he's a robot and in reality robots haven't been proven to have souls - or even have real feelings, if you don't believe in souls, but this is semantics - so they shouldn't be thought of as people, so this discussion is meaningless and it's basically just a fantasy story'. It's 'genre fiction' in the same way that the Tin Man in The Wizard of Oz is just meant to be endearing rather than provoke thought.

This is a perfect example of someone letting the genre weaken the weight of the argument. This discussion shouldn't have been done with Data at all, and if the writers were serious about being 'literary fiction' then they should've done this theme using an alien planet with equality problems instead of using an android, assuming they were too afraid to use humans. Then again, Star Trek exists in an escapist utopia where racism and prejudice - and arguably freedom - don't even exist in the human race anymore, so they couldn't use humans -- doesn't change the fact that having them go to an alien planet that's dealing with equality problems would've make a lot more sense.

I don't mean to barge in mid conversation, I just wanted to say I finally got my CS done for my character of my roleplay, I hope I didn't set the stakes to high if any. I didn't intend to set anything high more so I wrote the character I've had invisioned for awhile. I don't expect 10.6k characters at all, I know some use the first CS to finish and get in as a guideline to a degree. I made a note in the OOC side of things expressing this to a degree and I hope it doesn't startle anyone or make them feel they need something like I gave out.