Fluff Fiction

[viscousmemories]

I have no idea what it means to call something fluff fiction, but I just used it in another thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=643) to describe Frank Herbert's Dune, which I read when I was incarcerated in a County jail and probably wouldn't have finished otherwise. My opinion: Good story, poor writing. But the 'fluff' claim comes from the fact that it was pure storytelling with little to no ideological substance.

Here are the other books I read during those 90 days, and my fluff assessment:

Not Fluff
The Plague - Albert Camus
Gertrude - Hermann Hesse
Animal Farm - George Orwell
The Great Gatsby - F. Scott Fitzgerald
Skinny Legs and All - Tom Robbins
God Bless you Mrs. Rosewater - Kurt Vonnegut
Sirens of Titan - Kurt Vonnegut
Galapagos - Kurt Vonnegut
One Generation After - Elie Weisel
Democracy - Joan Didion
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - Robert Pirsig
The World According to Garp - John Irving

Fluff
Role of Honor (James Bond) - John Gardner
Dune - Frank Herbert
The Bourne Supremacy - Robert Ludlum
Portnoy's Complaint - Philip Roth (I'm not sure I even finished that one)

So what is fluff to you, and why do are you looking at me like that? :glare:

[livius drusus]

Whoa. Ludlum has ideological substance and Roth doesn't? Weird... Honestly, I don't really know what makes something fluff or not. I guess I'll just keep reading this thread and see what comes of it.

[viscousmemories]

Whoa. Ludlum has ideological substance and Roth doesn't? Weird... Honestly, I don't really know what makes something fluff or not. I guess I'll just keep reading this thread and see what comes of it.
You caught me pre-edit. That was an oversight. :D

[LadyShea]

Hmm...do you mean fluff=pure entertainment? Sort of like a feel good, fun movie that you don't have to think about?

[Godless Dave]

I myself don't differentiate between art and entertainment. It's all entertainment to me.

But if you think Dune has no ideological substance you need to at least read the Cliff notes. He was talking about ecology, religion, and politics, among other things.

[viscousmemories]

Hmm...do you mean fluff=pure entertainment? Sort of like a feel good, fun movie that you don't have to think about?
Yeah that kind of thing. Just a story, nothing under the surface.

[Godless Dave]

While I really liked Dune, I see what you mean about the writing style. They have tried to take the life of my son! I loved it as a teenager, but when I reread it in my 20s I cringed a little bit at the writing. My son!. It's still a classic in my mind though.

Keep in mind in the mid 1960s "environmentalism" wasn't even a word yet.

[viscousmemories]

But if you think Dune has no ideological substance you need to at least read the Cliff notes. He was talking about ecology, religion, and politics, among other things.
Huh, was he? Okay then I'll take your word for it. I was honestly under the impression it was just a story about big worms. Again though I think the writing was mediocre in any case, but then most authors aren't in the class of Hesse, Vonnegut, Camus etc. so I guess it's not a big shocker that I was disappointed in that context.

[Dingfod]

Well, I've been greatly entertained over the years by Louis L'Amour westerns. They are definitely fluff, entertaining fluff. Sometimes I don't want to read or watch something that requires me to actually think. Feed me line after line of fluff and I'm a happier than a sodbuster with a new plow ... sometimes.

[godfry n. glad]

Well, I've been greatly entertained over the years by Louis L'Amour westerns. They are definitely fluff, entertaining fluff. Sometimes I don't want to read or watch something that requires me to actually think. Feed me line after line of fluff and I'm a happier than a sodbuster with a new plow ... sometimes.

Yeah... I'd call westerns and all those "popular reading" genres which libraries tend to sort from the mainstream of literature (science fiction, mysteries, romances) qualify as "fluff".

Kurt Vonnegut, by the way, was considered a "science fiction" writer at first. Sirens of Titan is NOT serious literature. Fun reading, but not serious literature. I love most of Vonnegut's work (Cat's Cradle is my favorite).

And, I find it curious that vm selected out Hermann Hesse. I thought he was considered trite and sophmoric by the literati these days. He certainly became rather tedious after the tenth depressing novel. Perhaps "ponderous" is more accurate. However, I do consider Magister Ludi (The Glass Bead Game) a literary masterpiece and he did win the Nobel Prize in Literature for it.

godfry

[Adora]

My "fiction" is fics. I don't have the money to really waste on buying books that are pointless or pulp fiction.

[viscousmemories]

Well, I've been greatly entertained over the years by Louis L'Amour westerns. They are definitely fluff, entertaining fluff. Sometimes I don't want to read or watch something that requires me to actually think. Feed me line after line of fluff and I'm a happier than a sodbuster with a new plow ... sometimes.
I'm that way with movies, but reading books requires so much mental energy from me (being ADD or whatever I am) that I'm really picky about what I read.

Kurt Vonnegut, by the way, was considered a "science fiction" writer at first. Sirens of Titan is NOT serious literature. Fun reading, but not serious literature. I love most of Vonnegut's work.
I didn't know that, and of course I don't remember a thing about the book. That trip to the little house was exactly 11 years ago today. Well okay not exactly today, but it was fall of 1993.

And, I find it curious that vm selected out Hermann Hesse. I thought he was considered trite and sophmoric by the literati these days. He certainly became rather tedious after the tenth depressing novel. However, I do consider Magister Ludi (The Glass Bead Game) a literary masterpiece and he did win the Nobel Prize in Literature for it.
That just goes to show you I'm not one of the literati. I've loved every Hesse book I've read, including Siddhartha, Steppenwolf, Gertrude, and a couple others I can't think of at the moment. I don't think I've ever read Magister Ludi, though. I'll have to find that. What little I know about Eastern Philosophy I've learned from those books. But beyond that I just find his style inimitably beautiful and compelling. Here's what I had to say about it at the time (cut me some slack... I wasn't exactly surrounded by opportunities to engage in any substantial dialogue in jail, so my written expression suffered):

10-5-93

Another sad moment. I’ve just finished reading “Gertrude”. Again I am reminded of a respect for Hesse that I can best define as a belief that he is the author who has moved me the most. Perhaps others have touched me more deeply or in a different way, but surely none has done so as often and as powerfully as this man. It is written works of this substance that simultaneously encourage and terrify me. I am unsure whether I could match the strength of my favorite authors, or if I should ever try.

<snip>

I often forget how much I love to read novels by Herman Hesse. The feeling his books give me, of being enveloped in a dense, warm pool of scented flowers is not a feeling many authors provide. Surely many achieve all that I have just described, but unlike Hesse the result is suffocating, not invigorating. Only Joan Didion, since I’ve been in jail, has done that which Hesse does for me. And now, again, Hesse.

[beyelzu]

fluff is when the book is predictable

so Piers Anthony is fluff


George RR Martin isnt.

and by this standard neither is Herbert.

[seebs]

I always call it "tripe". Most genre fiction is tripe. It's cheap and meaningless. I read it because my eyes hurt if I don't read some. I have a really hard time eating unless I'm either talking or reading, so I go through books pretty fast.

I consider a book tripe if I can read it in one or two paragraph sections and not miss anything important. :)

[The Lone Ranger]

I wouldn't call Dune "fluff" either. One of the themes Herbert was exploring was how a charismatic individual can use religious belief to inspire fanatical loyalty in his followers, and how he can then use the "Us/Them" dichotomous thinking that such religious ferver encourages to inspire his followers to go on a "jihad" (which is exactly the term Herbert has his characters use, if I recall correctly) to "cleanse the Universe of unbelievers."


Not that there's anything wrong with "fluff" -- sometimes it can be relaxing to read something that was written purely for entertainment purposes, and has no "deeper" meaning whatsoever.

I used to read some of Louis L'Amour's books. The best critique I ever heard of 'em was years ago on some television show:
Character 1 is reading a Louis L'Amour novel out loud: "He was six feet, two inches of lean rawhide, with steel-grey eyes . . . "
Character 2: "Which one is that from?"
Character 1: "All of them."


Cheers,

Michael

[Farren]

I myself don't differentiate between art and entertainment. It's all entertainment to me.

But if you think Dune has no ideological substance you need to at least read the Cliff notes. He was talking about ecology, religion, and politics, among other things.

Yeah I'm quite surprised seeing Dune labelled as fluff. I've always enjoyed the way Herbert comments on so many issues in a way that naturally emerges from the story,

If fluff is formulaic and predictable, I have a hard time reading anything fluffy. For me a large component of the joy of reading is in the unexpected and unique flourishes authors inject into their stories, be they thematic, stylistic, plot-related or character-related.

Tom Clancey, for instance, annoys the living fuck out of me. His books are so formulaic they give me a whole-body rash. Maddox has it dead right here: Five shitty movies that everyone loves. (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=five_shitty_movies) (scroll down to The Sum of All Fears and the "Tom Clancy plot generator").

In contrast Le Carre is enjoyable because despite operating within an overworked genre, he often manages to be fresh and unexpected.

In A Small Town in Germany he charts the recruitment, too-hasty training, deployment and eventual capture of a British agent in East Germany. Conditioned by the predictable way of these things, I expected everything to come right for the central character right up to the last page. But it didn't. He was poorly trained resulting in his eventual capture. End of story. That's just sooo damn sweet. After reading that I never took it for granted that everything will work out for Le Carre's protagonists, significantly increasing the tension felt while reading his novels.

That's the kind of quality that seperates fluff from substantial fiction for me. The substance doesn't have to be ideological subtexts. It can also be stylistic or thematic originality.

[wade-w]

But the 'fluff' claim comes from the fact that it was pure storytelling with little to no ideological substance.


If this is the definition of "fluff" then J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is nothing but fluff. In the words of the author, it has no meaning whatsoever; it was an exercise in pure storytelling.

Dune, on the other hand, does not meet this definition. The parallels between Middle Eastern Oil and Spice alone are rather obvious.

[Dingfod]

I have a really hard time eating unless I'm either talking or reading, so I go through books pretty fast.I've been known to read the newspaper upside-down across the breakfast table. I've substituted television for books though, much to my regret. Fast? I can read a L'Amour western in about an hour. It takes me longer than that to read the newspaper classifieds (yeah, sometimes I read all of them). Now, that's fluff.

[seebs]

Character 2: "Which one is that from?"
Character 1: "All of them."

Curiously, there's a pair of Sherlock Holmes stories with the same intro. I mean, word for word for two pages.

Actually, and I know I risk spreading a flame war, a lot of manga is EXCELLENT fluff fiction. I can read Ranma 1/2 over. Entertaining, devoid of real meaning or content, sometimes sorta pretty. Very formulaic.

BTW, a personal quirk: If I can't find fluff fiction, I can substitute technical books and game rulebooks.

[viscousmemories]

But the 'fluff' claim comes from the fact that it was pure storytelling with little to no ideological substance.

If this is the definition of "fluff" then J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is nothing but fluff. In the words of the author, it has no meaning whatsoever; it was an exercise in pure storytelling.
I agree. I think LOTR is fluff.

Dune, on the other hand, does not meet this definition. The parallels between Middle Eastern Oil and Spice alone are rather obvious.
Well as I said I read it 11 years ago and I didn't know anything about Middle Eastern Oil and Spice then (or now, for that matter) so the parallels weren't so obvious to me. But anyway I've already conceded that I could be wrong about Dune.

[wei yau]

Most of my favorite authors are probably considered as "fluff", specifically sci-fi/fantasy

Harry Turtledove
Terry Pratchett
Stephen King
David Sedaris
Larry Niven*
Jerry Pournelle*
Piers Anthony*

*I've not read these authors in years, but have fond memories of them. I'm afraid to re-read them, as I doubt they've held up well as I've matured

I'm trying to read more substantive stuff, but have not developed an appreciation for specific authors.

[Dingfod]

Is Douglas Adams fluff?

[wade-w]

But the 'fluff' claim comes from the fact that it was pure storytelling with little to no ideological substance.

If this is the definition of "fluff" then J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is nothing but fluff. In the words of the author, it has no meaning whatsoever; it was an exercise in pure storytelling.
I agree. I think LOTR is fluff.


And yet there have been reams and reams of papers and scholarly dissertations written about meaning and allegory etc in LOTR.

As far as books with an ideological basis, I have to agree with Tolkien's opinion:


Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all of its manifestatoins, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, real or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.


This was written in reponse to the rather large number of people who claimed LOTR means this or that, or is about WW II, etc.

[xorbie]

Is Douglas Adams fluff?

Good IPU I hope not! :no2:

[viscousmemories]

As far as books with an ideological basis, I have to agree with Tolkien's opinion:
Interesting perspective. I agree with that too.

[viscousmemories]

Just to clarify my OP I didn't mean 'fluff' to imply any assessment of worth or quality. For example yeah, I'd absolutely label Stephen King fluff but he's also one of my favorite authors. I don't think there's anything wrong with 'fluff' books, I just meant to differentiate between books that are purely intended as entertainment and books that have a more serious underpinnings. I guess.