Talk:Misery lit

[Untitled]

The article is important to show gullible consumers that not all that is printed is fit for purpose. Forgery in literature should be exposed just as much as it is in the graphic and visual arts.Peterlewis (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you may need to take a read through WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX. Ford MF (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Add James Frey to the examples list. 67.160.174.24 (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Would any autobiographies written by supposedly autistic people belong in this genre, or have been a precursor to this genre? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.201.103 (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, "misery lit" requires there to be an experience of misery, usually but not always imposed from without, followed by some kind of redemption. A book written by a person with a disability - any disability - is not automatically misery lit just because the writer is disabled and is writing about his or her disability. I personally would find your suggestion uncomfortable, as some could take from that idea that disabled persons' right to participate in society (including writing books) is less important than non-disabled persons' "right" not to be potentially confronted with the reality of disability, and therefore it's A-OK to mock and dismiss the book snidely and sarcastically. (Edit: which is my biggest problem about this article - it seems to be be nothing but an opportunity to be snide and sarcastic about a form of literature which the editors do not personally approve of.)

(Also edited to add: There has also to be a sense of moral outrage at what has befallen the protagonist. If the only thing that has befallen him is a disability existing from birth there's usually nothing to be outraged about. It's hard to be angry at a gene.)

Basically, if the book's not meant to make you feel a) sorry for (edit: and outraged over the plight of) the writer/victim and b) smug and self-satisfied because it wasn't you, it's not misery lit. --NellieBly (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Strange confusion here

I think this confuses two types of literature. Inspirational lit is not the same thing as misery lit, at least in the vast world outside the UK. The word "inspirational" is used by publishers to mean "books written for the conservative Protestant Christian market". My local library has an entire section labelled "inspirational" containing fiction and non-fiction, and although the non-fiction contains some misery lit (since misery lit spreads through every category of the library), most of what's there are things like biographies of Martin Luther, histories of the Puritans, and Christian self-help manuals. Publishers themselves also use the term according to the definition above. Some have inspirational fiction divisions that produce nothing but Christian-oriented works. To see this definition confused with "misery lit" is a bit strange. --NellieBly (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, but now we have the curious situation of the introductory paragraph of an article on Topic A being dominated by a definition of Topic B. Does the whole "inspirational literature" thing even have to be in this paragraph? I'm thinking not. Matt Thorn (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hoaxes

I think the sections on Maria Monk and the holocaust should be removed. The former because it's historically inaccurate - it's probably not factual, but it's antique anti-catholic propaganda, not a misery memoir. The latter category comes closer to being relevant in the more recent publications, but as the article nowhere suggests an influence on misery memoir of the many writings by holocaust survivors (and there's no obvious overlap in style, technique, publishers, or readership) I think that the inclusion of several examples of fake holocaust memoirs here is irrelevant and dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.124.96 (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Misery lit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080804101600/http://www.thebookseller.com/in-depth/feature/34722-tugging-at-heart-strings.html to http://www.thebookseller.com/in-depth/feature/34722-tugging-at-heart-strings.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080804101600/http://www.thebookseller.com/in-depth/feature/34722-tugging-at-heart-strings.html to http://www.thebookseller.com/in-depth/feature/34722-tugging-at-heart-strings.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

m

Requested move 20 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Misery porn → Misery lit – I am not sure why this article was moved from Misery lit to Misery porn with no discussion. I think "Misery porn" is an umbrella term, not limited to literature but including films and TV shows. Even if the word "Misery porn" predates "Misery lit", this is an article about a literary genre, and "Misery lit" is a proper article title. --saebou (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• Leaning toward support since "misery lit" is a dedicated term for the specifically literary genre, and it saves us the need of disambiguating the title when an article on "misery porn" in film and TV is inevitably written.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support The current title could be said to be WP:ASTONISHing. It should specify this is a form of literature. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
• Move to Misery literature. We don't generally abbreviate article titles in the manner being proposed. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  I am not against moving this article to Misery literature, but we have Chick lit, an article with the abbreviate title. Perhaps the point is which is more widely used.--saebou (talk) 10:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.