Literary Fiction

[CindyBidar]

Is there anyone else who is frustrated by reading literary fiction? I recently picked up a Pulitzer Prize winner, intending to, uh, broaden my horizons, if you will. I can't manage to get past the first chapter. The book jumps from head to head, past to present tense, is full of authorial intrusions, and is 99% narrative.

Granted, it's one book. But there have been others which disappointed me as well. Cold Mountain comes to mind, with it's conspicuous lack of quotation marks. Then there was a short by Annie Proulx where a young girl has a series of conversations with a rusting tractor.

Honestly, give me Stephen King any day. I don't want to have to work so hard to understand the nuances and subtleties of literary fiction. I just want to be entertained.

Or am I just that dense? :head

[macalicious731]

I love literary fiction. I really do. It's ridiculous how excited I can be in lit. class. I feel like a freak! (;

But in all honesty, a lot of that "appreciation" comes from sitting in the class and taking in all of the analyzation, etc. Plus I've had some really amazing, amazing teachers in the past.

Now that high school is over, I'm more apt to pick up literary fiction in the bookstore than anything else. I think they tend to have better, more original stories. More character driven, if you will, which I really love.

Of course, when a book doesn't have quotation marks... I don't know - that's something which bothers me!

[Writing Again]

I see literary fiction as pretty much of a genre, some of it clicks, some of it does not. Some authors are preferable over others.

This is true of any genre. For instance in fantasy I enjoy David Eddings, but one David Eddings is enough.

My problem is with the elitist attitude of so many literary writers which often shows in their writings. Literary writing is not innately "Superior" to any other genre.

I personally enjoy Kafka. But I do not enjoy him any more than I enjoy Edgar Rice Burroughs or Margery Allingham. One is not better than the other. Either you enjoy one or the other or some or all or none. It is as simple as that.

[Jamesaritchie]

I love literary fiction. When done right, I think it's the best reading out there.

But literary fiction or genre fiction, you have to remember Sturgeon's Law: "Sure, 90% of science fiction is crud. That's because 90% of everything is crud."

Try the short stories of Raymond Carver or John Updike or Joyce Carol Oates.

[Clearrr]

A man after my own heart... I adore Updike and Oates

[vstrauss]

>> I see literary fiction as pretty much of a genre,<<

I totally agree. "Literary" is a genre, a type of fiction; as with any genre, it embraces a wide range of quality and style, and not everything in it is worth reading. A given reader may prefer it to other genres, but it isn't better or more worthy than other genres.

"Literary" is also a quality of writing. In that sense, you can find literary fiction in just about any genre.

- Victoria

[Dhewco]

I tend to look for the characters rather than the genre...although I do tend to hang out in the scifi/fantasy sections. I like books with kids or young teens as POV characters. I read a book called Spendthrift (phylis somebody lol can't remember the author) because their was a boy who was my age. This was some years ago mind you. I'm not sure how much I enjoyed the book, but I finished it and that's a good sign.

I just remembered the last name. I believe it was Whitney.

[Yeshanu]

For instance in fantasy I enjoy David Eddings, but one David Eddings is enough.

That's because if you've read the first set of five, you've read them all.

I love fantasy, but one of the problems with the genre is that authors who only have one book in them seem compelled to write twenty or more. :ack

As to "literary" fiction, I like some of it and I don't like some of it. I tend to like writers who have strong characters, a strong story, and a unique voice.

Toni Morrison comes to mind as a prize-winning author who does this. And she uses all the conventions, too. ;)

[SpeedRacist]

I worship at the feets of Oates, but my head is with William Gibson, Alfred Bester, Ross Macdonald, and Ed McBain.

[maestrowork]

I love Toni Morrison.

[Jamesaritchie]

I believe the fiction in any genre can rise to to the level of literature in the hands of a good writer, but I'm mixed on whether literary fiction is just another genre.

Whether it is or isn't, I think there's a major difference in either characterization or situation. Most "literary" fiction is about ordinary people in ordinary situations.
If not, then it's about ordinary people in extraordinary situations. "Grapes of Wrath" is an example of this. But even there, even when the situation is not something that occurs everyday, it's a real situation portrayed realistically.

Literary fiction is most often about everyday people leading everyday lives. It's realistic front to back.

I do think it takes better writing to pull off stories about everyday people in everyday situations than it does to pull off stories about extraordinary people in extraordinary situations.

Genre fiction almost always protrays situations that are extraordinary, and most often has characters who are extraordinary.

Stylistically, genre fiction is much more action oriented, and the language used reflects this.

[SpeedRacist]

I don't know if that's true, James. Wambaugh pulled off somethin close to poetry, when he talked about everyday cops in everyday life.

[Bartholomew]

This thread has been raised from the dead.

Thread Necromancy is a vile disease. In order to slay a ressurected thread, the the thread must be shot in the head with a silver bullet.

Yours,

Necromancer Bart, who is raising an army.

[IrishScribbler]

*stands*

My name is Nicole, and I'm addicted to literary fiction.



I just graduated this spring with a degree in English (writing concentration), and I preferred reading classics and literary fiction to anything else. I enjoy some contemporary fiction, but given the choice, I'll choose William Faulkner over even contemporary authors considered the most influential of our time (or whatever they're considered).

I read fiction for the symbolism, themes, motifs, the depth of characters, and the subtle nuances that tend to frustrate others.

Example: When I was a junior in high school, I took British Literature. We read The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde. Throughout the play, which we read out loud, the only people that laughed were the teacher and myself. To this day, it's one of my favorite plays. Everyone else hated it.

To summarize: hooray for literary fiction!

[janetbellinger]

Actually, I enjoy reading narration in literary fiction. Guess I'm a freak type of reader, although there must be some people who like it, since it wins so many awards.

[Bartholomew]

Actually, I enjoy reading narration in literary fiction. Guess I'm a freak type of reader, although there must be some people who like it, since it wins so many awards.

Amen.

I like the narrator and I like different narrator voices. I think narration needs to and will come back strong.

:)

[James D. Macdonald]

Indeed. It wins so many awards, and gets such great reviews, and sells 5,000 copies.

[ORION]

*Sound of writer falling off chair, explosive laughter, and liquid spewing out nostrils*
Good one.

[anodyne]

White Teeth

All I have to say on the matter. :beams:

[Philip64]

It is very difficult to define what literary fiction actually is. Usually it can only be described in terms of what it is not, but even then one finds endless exceptions to any rule.

That said, I think it is inaccurate to say that 'literary' is a genre. That implies that there are essential story elements that must be present (as with Crime or Science Fiction); obviously there are no such elements. Also, I think it is vaguely derogatrory to lump thousands of unique and very different works under one heading: the novels of Philip Roth, Marcel Proust and Gabriel Garcia Marquez have nothing in common - not even a language.

[Annwyn]

I totally get where you're coming from with the literary fiction, but I suppose it depends which book you pick up. Jodi Piccoult is an absolutely unputdownable read, especially her newer one, The Tenth Circle. Patricia Gregory had one good book, The Other Boylen Girl (think I spelt that wrong) although I couldn't manage to finish the other ones...I loved Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness (God, I sound like such a dweeb) and I'm chugging through The Divine Comedy in order to "broaden my horizons, expand my mind, and become more cultured" (not something you really need in my circle, but hey http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif

Annwyn

[Inkdaub]

I have to side with the posters stating that literary is a genre of sorts(and a murky one at that) and not a measure of quality. As such, there is both good and bad on the same shelf.

That said, and as the original poster mentioned Proulx, I will say that The Shipping News is one of my favorite books of all time.

[James D. Macdonald]

In sober fact the difference between "literary" fiction and any other fiction is the logo on the spine of the book.

[willietheshakes]

Cmon, James - that's ridiculously reductive.

You're saying that the only difference between Ondaatje's In the Skin of A Lion and King's The Stand is who published them? Ridiculous.

[CaroGirl]

Literary fiction, by the very nature of its not adhering to a formula or set of standard genre expectations, can be highly experimental. And, by virtue of experimentation, is often closer to writing as "art". It doesn't care as much if it sells, it just cares if it transcends. However, the experimental aspects of some literary fiction don't work for a lot of people (or simply don't work at all) because they've never been tried. Hence the often lower sales of literary novels.

The Alchemist, a small, simple book, has no lyrical language, but it moved a generation of readers and is, indeed, an international best seller. A literary novel that, remarkably, sold more than 5000 copies. And it's hardly the only example.

I think defining what's literary is far more complex than a stamp on a spine.

[ORION]

I think why I bristle at the mention of literary fiction is because of those writers who self-identify at conferences and writing workshops.
Many times it is an excuse for boring, lackluster, plotless writing that goes on and on with description after description...
It can be hell to workshop because the writer resists feedback.
BUT
The Alchemist - brilliant...The English Patient (the book NOT the movie) - amazing...Shipping News - shatteringly poignant...
It's not the genre but the writing and the story.
When I love it I don't worry about what it is.

[WriterInChains]

CaroGirl: Love that description! :)


I think why I bristle at the mention of literary fiction is because of those writers who self-identify at conferences and writing workshops.

I think that's one of my biggest writer-related pet peeves -- writers who, when asked what they write, look down their noses and say, "I write literary fiction." As a Women's Fiction writer, the noses are sometimes so high in the air I worry about eventually witnessing a drowning. Which is why when one of my critters said my first ms was "on the literary side" I asked her not to say it again. Can't have that going to my head -- I live in the rainforest. :D


Shipping News - shatteringly poignant...
It's not the genre but the writing and the story.
When I love it I don't worry about what it is.

Me too. :)
(But the movie - worst mistake of Spacey's career, IMO.)

[YouFunnyToo]

Indeed. It wins so many awards, and gets such great reviews, and sells 5,000 copies.
"Genial," eh?

[James D. Macdonald]

You're saying that the only difference between Ondaatje's In the Skin of A Lion and King's The Stand is who published them? Ridiculous.

Think it's ridiculous if you like; that's exactly what I'm saying.

[willietheshakes]

Hmm. Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

Perhaps you could offer some insights as to why you think this, James.

[James D. Macdonald]

Reader expectations color the reading experience.

[willietheshakes]

Well of course they do.

But I don't think that has anything to do with what we're talking about.

You honestly believe that there is no qualitative difference between, say, In The Skin of A Lion and The Stand? Or Ulysses and a Harlequin romance?

(And for the record, I'm using the word "qualitative" as a description of differing qualities, not in any sort of a value judgement.)

I'm sorry - maybe I'm dense, but could you please explain your perspective further?

[RG570]

It's a bit disappointing that there is so much animosity towards literary fiction. I enjoy literary fiction,and I also like genre fiction. I don't see a reason to polarize on the matter.

It's sad that it seems to be going the way of poetry. I also don't get this perception that literary writers have this condescending attitude towards everyone else. I just don't see that. It looks like insecurity on the part of genre fiction writers, for some bizarre reason.

[ORION]

Trust me. Go to a writers conference. You'll see condescension.

[James D. Macdonald]

The Stand could easily have been published as a literary novel from a university press (under a pseudonym). In The Skin of A Lion could have been published as a fantasy by Ballantine, with a suitably lurid cover.

[willietheshakes]

The Stand could easily have been published as a literary novel from a university press (under a pseudonym). In The Skin of A Lion could have been published as a fantasy by Ballantine, with a suitably lurid cover.

I'm not going to argue the merits of The Stand, which is one of my favourite novels and a grand testament to King's abilities as a storyteller. In no way, however, could it be confused with a literary novel.

I have to ask, though -- have you actually read In the Skin of A Lion? Because your second argument here is so ludicrous as to be laughable.

My point - seeing as you refuse to actually make yours - is that there are qualititive differences in the writing between the two books. For me, it comes down to focus. The Stand is narrative focussed: it's epic storytelling devoted to getting its characters from Point A to Point Z. It's enthralling, its characterization is strong, it's well-written, but the focus is on the storytelling.

In the Skin of A Lion is focussed on its language and its underpinnings in a way that The Stand is not. It is not so much what it is about as HOW it is about what it's about. There is an inward-looking quality to its approach, almost a reflective self-awareness of its language.

To my mind, the difference between literary fiction and commercial fiction is that literary fiction has an inward-looking quality: it is, to some degree, aware of itself as a construct. Commercial fiction has an outward-looking quality: it is, to some degree, aware of its readers.

[Willowmound]

The Alchemist, a small, simple book, has no lyrical language, but it moved a generation of readers and is, indeed, an international best seller. A literary novel that, remarkably, sold more than 5000 copies. And it's hardly the only example.

It is also a piece of cr*p. It is preachy, over-simplified rubbish. Coelho's introduction in later editions reads like some New Age religious sermon. His holier-than-thou, I-am-messiah voice is absolutely disgusting.

As a writer, he's simply mediocre.

That his book did so well actually makes me a little queasy.

On topic, I don't differentiate between Literary and other forms when choosing what to read. I happily throw all genres across the room.

[James D. Macdonald]

I have to ask, though -- have you actually read In the Skin of A Lion? Because your second argument here is so ludicrous as to be laughable.

Have you read any fantasy?

In The Skin of A Lion is a re-telling of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which puts it squarely in the fantasy genre. The dialog is wooden-to-laughable, and the characters are off-the-shelf stock. Putting it in a Literary wrapper has influenced your opinion of it.

[James D. Macdonald]

My point - seeing as you refuse to actually make yours - is that there are qualititive differences in the writing between the two books.

My point, once again, is that this "qualitative difference" you claim to see does not exist.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

If a so-called "literary" novel grabs me I'll read and enjoy it. If a genre novel grabs me I'll read it and enjoy it. Most books are categorized on the basis of how the publisher thinks they'll be able to make the most money anyway.

[willietheshakes]

Have you read any fantasy?

Plenty.

In The Skin of A Lion is a re-telling of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which puts it squarely in the fantasy genre.

First off, this is an excessively reductive statement.
a) The echoes of Gilgamesh are faint, and hardly the primary stuff of the book. I think if you were to ask a typical reader of the book, the Gilgamesh material would be well, well down the list of material (after the building of Toronto, themes of immigration and labour, historical writing, falling nuns, etc).
b) Even were it more explicitly such a retelling, its source material does not, de facto, make it a fantasy novel. Joyce's Ulysses, for example, is not a fantasy novel despite being rooted much more explicitly in the Odyssey. Similarly, Cold Mountain isn't a fantasy novel, though it too is explicitly based on the Odyssey.
c) As I mentioned in my point above, it's not what the book is about, but how it is about what it is about. To quote from the Wikipedia entry on the book "The structure of the novel may be described as cubist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubist), and/or post-modern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-modern) in that Ondaatje uses many voices, images, and re-organizes time to tell the stories. Thematically, the book may be categorized as post-colonial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-colonialism) with its focus on immigrants and their native cultures and languages." That hardly sounds like fantasy to me, and seems in line with what I was saying about the novel (and literary fiction in general) having an awareness of itself and its own language and structures. Again, not what it's about, but how it is about what it's about.

The dialog is wooden-to-laughable, and the characters are off-the-shelf stock.

In your opinion.

Putting it in a Literary wrapper has influenced your opinion of it.

Really? That's interesting.

I would say that the fact that it conforms to the definitions I've offered of literary fiction has influenced my placement of it.

I would also argue that some sort of defensiveness on your part has influenced your opinion of it.

You'll note that at no point in this thread have I got into the area of value judgements. At no point have I argued for a primacy of either approach to writing. Indeed, I don't feel the need to argue so. I read both, and enjoy both in different ways and at different times.

It was you who resorted to denigrating and/or critiquing one of the texts in question, as if to reduce its value. That's fine, and you're welcome to your opinion, but it does come across as defensive, and I'm not sure why.

What if we were to look at the other side of the equation? What is it about The Stand that makes you comfortable in asserting that it "could easily have been published as a literary novel from a university press"?

My point, once again, is that this "qualitative difference" you claim to see does not exist.

(shrug)

And so far you've offered little in the way of compelling argument to support your point.

That's fine too. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

[willietheshakes]

You know what? Nevermind.

Godspeed and Happy (US) Thanksgiving.

[James D. Macdonald]

And so far you've offered little in the way of compelling argument to support your point.


It is impossible to prove a negative.

[James D. Macdonald]

I think if you were to ask a typical reader of the book, the Gilgamesh material would be well, well down the list of material (after the building of Toronto, themes of immigration and labour, historical writing, falling nuns, etc).

If you were to ask a typical fantasy reader of that same text, were it published in mass market by Ballantine, you'd hear Gilgamesh pretty high up on the list. Reader expectation trumps text.

Similarly, Cold Mountain isn't a fantasy novel, though it too is explicitly based on the Odyssey.

If Cold Mountain were packaged as fantasy it would be read as fantasy.


What is it about The Stand that makes you comfortable in asserting that it "could easily have been published as a literary novel from a university press"?


The National Book Award, Distinguished Contribution to American Letters Award, 2003.

[willietheshakes]

If you were to ask a typical fantasy reader of that same text, were it published in mass market by Ballantine, you'd hear Gilgamesh pretty high up on the list. Reader expectation trumps text.

I really don't think so. I think if you handed a fantasy reader In the Skin of A Lion, the first thing you would hear is "This isn't a fantasy novel!"


If Cold Mountain were packaged as fantasy it would be read as fantasy.

Are you just being provocative for the sake of being provocative now?

The National Book Award, Distinguished Contribution to American Letters Award, 2003.

Perhaps here is the crux of our disagreement: while I've actually been looking at the texts in question, and have pointed out differences I perceive, you have not, preferring instead to imagine how a speculative group of readers might respond to a given text. And that's fine, but that's not the point you're arguing.

You claim that there is no difference between Joyce's Ulysses and a Harlequin romance. Between In the Skin of a Lion and The Stand. I disagree. I was hoping we could have a conversation on the merits of each of our points, but it seems that's not to be.

Enjoy your turkey.

[James D. Macdonald]

Perhaps here is the crux of our disagreement: while I've actually been looking at the texts in question, and have pointed out differences I perceive, you have not, preferring instead to imagine how a speculative group of readers might respond to a given text.

Let's look at the texts in question. How about the allegorical nature and magical realist content of The Stand?

You imagine that I'm saying that there's no difference between football and pro wrestling. That isn't my argument. I'm saying that individual football players and individual wrestlers can be superb athletes, and that football and wrestling both fall in the category of "sports."

The argument that "literary" fiction looks inward and "commercial" fiction looks outward is just plain silly; not worth a reply since it's false on its face. The argument that commercial fiction is poorly written in comparison to literary fiction is likewise laughable. The argument that one is character-driven while the other is plot-driven is similarly ridiculous. For any example you care to name I can show a counter-example.

In fact, I've already done so in this thread. You asked what In the Skin of a Lion might be if not literary, and the answer is fantasy. The Stand is a wonderful example. It's obviously a literary novel packaged as horror.

Tell you what -- go read Swordspoint by Ellen Kushner. Come back and tell me why it's a fantasy novel. Read anything at all by Gene Wolfe and tell me why it isn't "literary."

Or I'll tell you, right now: It's the logo on the spine of the book.


Have a great turkey yourself.

[willietheshakes]

The argument that "literary" fiction looks inward and "commercial" fiction looks outward is just plain silly; not worth a reply since it's false on its face.

Well, considering it's my point, I'd appreciate something other than your outright, unsupported dismissal. It's been forty posts since I asked the first time...

Why is it false? Why is it silly?

Have a great turkey yourself.

Canada, unfortunately (in this instance only).

[Homer]

The argument that "literary" fiction looks inward and "commercial" fiction looks outward is just plain silly; not worth a reply since it's false on its face.

Amen. My favorite living American writer is Cormac McCarthy. The NY Times ranked Blood Meridian the third best novel in the past 25 years based on a vote of various writers and critics (I know, a ridiculous exercise, but hear me out). I assume that that distinction as well as Harold Bloom saying it's the best novel by any American alive today qualifies Blood Meridian as "literary fiction." Yet, if you read it closely you see that its characters have no inner lives as they are portrayed in the novel. None. It's the most cinematic book I ever read. Yes, the novel develops characters. But like a movie or the Iliad it does so strictly by what they say and do. It's also plot driven. And if you put "Western" or "Historical Fiction" (two often maligned genres) on its spine that is what Blood Meridian would be becuase it qualifies as either as well as literary fiction, apparently.

[willietheshakes]

Yet, if you read it closely you see that its characters have no inner lives as they are portrayed in the novel. None. It's the most cinematic book I ever read.

The question of the inner lives of a novel's characters is not at all what I meant by "inward looking".

[Homer]

The question of the inner lives of a novel's characters is not at all what I meant by "inward looking".

Well, "inward-looking" is often also used to mean narrowness of perspective, as in a condescending or ethnocentric attitude, or religous orthodoxy. That would not be a very flattering description of any literature, in my view. So I guess I don't know what you meant.

[willietheshakes]

It's late, so I'm going to crib from myself -- an earlier post.
Literary fiction is focussed on its language and its underpinnings in a way that commercial fiction is not. It is not so much what it is about as HOW it is about what it's about. There is an inward-looking quality to its approach, almost a reflective self-awareness of its language.

To my mind, the difference between literary fiction and commercial fiction is that literary fiction has an inward-looking quality: it is, to some degree, aware of itself as a construct. Commercial fiction has an outward-looking quality: it is, to some degree, aware of its readers.

To use your example, there is a difference in style and approach between Cormac McCarthy and Zane Grey, say. Both are, ostensibly, westerns, but McCarthy's approach to his prose is vastly different than Grey's (or L'Amour's, etc). There's a greater awareness of the language itself, for example (McCarthy's biblical cadences, for one) as opposed to the commercial writers in which the language seems to disappear (or not call attention to itself) in service to the narrative drive.

Again, it's not what the book is about, it's HOW the book is about what it's about. Does that make a bit more sense?

[Homer]

It's late, so I'm going to crib from myself -- an earlier post.
Literary fiction is focussed on its language and its underpinnings in a way that commercial fiction is not. It is not so much what it is about as HOW it is about what it's about. There is an inward-looking quality to its approach, almost a reflective self-awareness of its language.

To my mind, the difference between literary fiction and commercial fiction is that literary fiction has an inward-looking quality: it is, to some degree, aware of itself as a construct. Commercial fiction has an outward-looking quality: it is, to some degree, aware of its readers.

To use your example, there is a difference in style and approach between Cormac McCarthy and Zane Grey, say. Both are, ostensibly, westerns, but McCarthy's approach to his prose is vastly different than Grey's (or L'Amour's, etc). There's a greater awareness of the language itself, for example (McCarthy's biblical cadences, for one) as opposed to the commercial writers in which the language seems to disappear (or not call attention to itself) in service to the narrative drive.

Again, it's not what the book is about, it's HOW the book is about what it's about. Does that make a bit more sense?

Yes.

[Homer]

It's late, so I'm going to crib from myself -- an earlier post.
Literary fiction is focussed on its language and its underpinnings in a way that commercial fiction is not. It is not so much what it is about as HOW it is about what it's about. There is an inward-looking quality to its approach, almost a reflective self-awareness of its language.

To my mind, the difference between literary fiction and commercial fiction is that literary fiction has an inward-looking quality: it is, to some degree, aware of itself as a construct. Commercial fiction has an outward-looking quality: it is, to some degree, aware of its readers.

To use your example, there is a difference in style and approach between Cormac McCarthy and Zane Grey, say. Both are, ostensibly, westerns, but McCarthy's approach to his prose is vastly different than Grey's (or L'Amour's, etc). There's a greater awareness of the language itself, for example (McCarthy's biblical cadences, for one) as opposed to the commercial writers in which the language seems to disappear (or not call attention to itself) in service to the narrative drive.

Again, it's not what the book is about, it's HOW the book is about what it's about. Does that make a bit more sense?

In that sense Lord of the Rings and James Ellroy's crime novels would qualify as literary fiction.

[willietheshakes]

No argument here.

[nevada]

Personally, I can think of nothing worse than a novel that's aware of itself as a novel. It's called Metafiction and I hate it. I studied it in University and I still hate it.

Why are we arguing over what is and isnt literary fiction? All I care about is reading (and writing) a good book.

[willietheshakes]

Personally, I can think of nothing worse than a novel that's aware of itself as a novel. It's called Metafiction and I hate it. I studied it in University and I still hate it.

Why are we arguing over what is and isnt literary fiction? All I care about is reading (and writing) a good book.

Metafiction is an extreme; one that, in the wrong hands, can be terrible.

As to why we're arguing: to avoid writing? To avoid work? To engage in the free exchange of ideas? To help us analyze our approaches to our own work?

Nah, it's just procrastination.

[anodyne]

A lot of what we consider Literary today was considered "commercial" in its own time period.

Most notably, Shakespeare. If you read the criticism of his contemporaries, (not that many of them deemed him worth criticizing, mind you) you'll see that they found his work utter dreck. He was not as, for lack of a better word, literary as say Ben Jonson. And yet in the modern era when you think of a writer with a perfect understanding of prose, meter and pacing, you think Shakespeare. A man who threw the literary conventions (the unities) of his time to the wind, and wrote what would amuse and entertain, rather than what would stimulate cerebral discourse.

Just a thought. "All my children" will probably be what is remembered as the most compelling literature of our age.

[James D. Macdonald]

Why is it false? Why is it silly?

Because there are numerous "literary" books that do one or the other. There are numerous "commercial" books that do one or the other.

Without the logo on the spine to help you can't sort novels into "commercial" and "literaray" by examining them for inward-or-outward looking.

[willietheshakes]

Maybe you can't...

One thing I've noticed, James -- you're not looking at literary and commercial, you're looking at literary and genre. Yes, you pretty much know you're going to get fantasy or sci-fi from Tor. But a lot of the non-genre imprints publish both literary and commercial fiction with the same logo on the spine. Knopf, Random House, Vintage, Penguin, Harper Collins -- all publish both literary and commercial fiction under the same imprint.

I'm pretty comfortable, as a reader, distinguishing between the two.

[engmajor2005]

I have to say that I agree with those that present the idea that "literary" is a label assigned to books that are supposedly superior to other books on the shelf because the authors/publishers need something to make themselves feel good about themselves. After all, the books are not going to sell and the authors are not going to have blockbuster signing tours. Hence, said authors convince themselves that it's because the populace are too dense to pick up the nuances and subtleties of their work; therefore, their books are only accessible to college literature professors and big-time library directors. All of this leads to the snobbish attitude of the writers and, sometimes, the readers of said writers.

While I'm not going to disagree with the assertion that the education of (at least) Americans is severely lacking, I'm not going to agree that people who read don't know a good book when they see it. A book does not have to examine the complexities of everyday life to be good. A book can move you emotionally, it can grapple a broader theme such as growing up or confronting your inner demons, or it can just simply kick your *** with one white-knuckle sword fight after another.

I write genre fiction. I'm not ashamed of this. I have written literary fiction, but even it had touches of the supernatural. I'm not going to pull a Terry Goodkind and say "I'm not a fantasy writer; I'm a novelist." I write stories about ghosts and dragons and elves. There are ordinary people in these stories, even if they do have green skin and pointy ears.

I don't need my writing to called "literary" for me to feel like it's important or it has merit.

[willietheshakes]

Interesting thoughts, engmajor005.

Couple of things:
First, I've never claimed that literary writing was superior to commercial writing, merely that there are differences between the two.

Second: Cormac McCarthy, Michael Ondaatje, Thomas Pynchon, Rick Moody, Jonathan Franzen, Julian Barnes, Salman Rushdie, and many, many others sell all right (though, yes, not so much in the way of tours for McCarthy and Pynchon, though that's by their choice).

Third, you start off by saying that "literary" is a label assigned to books that are supposedly superior -- ie, that there's nothing inherently different about these books. You then go on to say that you have written literary fiction, though you now write genre fiction, implying that there are inherent differences between the two.

To your mind, what are those differences?

[evangoer]

A lot of the confusion stems from the word "literary" having two definitions. The definition most people think of is 1) a work that is complex, sophisticated, worthy of trenchant analysis, "good", etc. The less-obvious definition is 2) a work decribed as "literary" by its author or publisher.

If an author runs around saying, "I write literary fiction," and by that they mean, "I write 'the good stuff'"... does *anyone* take that seriously? For even five seconds? We are sophisticated 21st century people who live our lives swimming in a sea of marketing messages. We know better to swallow that one.

The truth is, you the author don't get to declare your book as "the good stuff", and neither does your publisher. That's the job of your readers, and ultimately history itself.

[evangoer]

As a clarification, it does make a lot of sense to tag your own book as 'literary' if this will help your potential audience find it. So 'literary' authors and publishers aren't being evil or misleading, they're just helping out their customers -- the sort of people who, by definition, like to buy books that come pre-tagged as 'literary'.

[YouFunnyToo]

On another forum, I once heard a modestly successful author of police procedurals claiim that he could write literary fiction whenever he felt like it, provided he took a little time to learn "the rules."

I thought that his position was insane, for a variety of reasons—not the least of which was its assumption that the methods and aims of literary fiction can be codified and simplified into a set of parameters that define it the way that certain conventions and tropes divide the police procedural from the cozy mystery. Only a person who has not read or appreciated good literary fiction in all of its vast variety could be so deluded.

But speaking of delusion: That guy will no doubt be thrilled to hear that, at least according to our James D. Macdonald, he not only does not need to learn anything or modify his style or approach in order to write literary fiction, but has indeed been writing literary fiction all along.

Absolutely bizarre.

This Wizard of Oz approach—"What do they have that you don't have? A Knopf logo."—suggests to me that Macdonald may be an unwitting victim of literary envy. No matter how many books he sells, he will never be called a literary writer. So he suggests that there is no such thing. Or that it's all in our heads, planted there by marketers.

Which is just plain silly.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the finest genre fiction and the finest literary fiction actually long to converge into one thing. It's their truest aim. The best literary fiction aspires to the gut-level reader engagement and living characterizations that seem to occur naturally in the genres. The best genre writing aspires to the breadth of meaning and the beauty of language that mark genuine literary work.

Casting aspersions upon one another's chosen methods gets us nowhere. Respecting them can get us somewhere important.

[YouFunnyToo]

One more thing:

Let's look at the logic.

First JDM scoffs that literary fiction doesn't sell.
Indeed. It wins so many awards, and gets such great reviews, and sells 5,000 copies.
Then he tells us that publishers choose to label one book or another "literary" as a marketing tactic.
In sober fact the difference between "literary" fiction and any other fiction is the logo on the spine of the book.
In other words, houses willfully publish literary disasters that they could have made into commercial or genre successes, merely by changing imprints.

This is a fascinating insight into the world of publishing.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

On another forum, I once heard a modestly successful author of police procedurals claiim that he could write literary fiction whenever he felt like it, provided he took a little time to learn "the rules."

I thought that his position was insane, for a variety of reasons—not the least of which was its assumption that the methods and aims of literary fiction can be codified and simplified into a set of parameters that define it the way that certain conventions and tropes divide the police procedural from the cozy mystery. Only a person who has not read or appreciated good literary fiction in all of its vast variety could be so deluded.

But speaking of delusion: That guy will no doubt be thrilled to hear that, at least according to our James D. Macdonald, he not only does not need to learn anything or modify his style or approach in order to write literary fiction, but has indeed been writing literary fiction all along.

Absolutely bizarre.

This Wizard of Oz approach—"What do they have that you don't have? A Knopf logo."—suggests to me that Macdonald may be an unwitting victim of literary envy. No matter how many millions of books he sells, he will never be called a literary writer. So he suggests that there is no such thing. Or that it's all in our heads, planted there by marketers.

Which is just plain silly.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the finest genre fiction and the finest literary fiction actually long to converge into one thing. It's their truest aim. The best literary fiction aspires to the gut-level reader engagement and living characterizations that seem to come naturally in the genres. The best genre writing aspires to the breadth of meaning and the beauty of language that mark genuine literary work.

Casting aspersions upon one another's chosen methods gets us nowhere. Respecting them can get us somewhere important.

Let's take your author of police procedurals as an example. It's quite likely that he may be able to write books that would be bought and marketed as literary novels. It's not guaranteed, some writers are unable to write outside a given genre, but it's likely.

That doesn't make his police procedurals literary fiction. It leaves them as they are. However I don't think Uncle Jim ever said that all genre fiction is literary fiction. The point I got from his argument was that there are some novels that are marketed as genre fiction that have just as much right to be marketed as literary fiction and that there are some literary novels that could just as easily and appropriately be considered genre fiction. Literary fiction, and all genre classifications, is an artificial distinction that exists primarily for marketing purposes.

A very good book is a very good book. A pulpy adventure is a pulpy adventure.

[willietheshakes]

However I don't think Uncle Jim ever said that all genre fiction is literary fiction. The point I got from his argument was that there are some novels that are marketed as genre fiction that have just as much right to be marketed as literary fiction and that there are some literary novels that could just as easily and appropriately be considered genre fiction.

This would be, and is, a compelling and convincing argument. And one I would agree with wholeheartedly. It is not, however, the argument that James was making.

In fact, he said "the difference between "literary" fiction and any other fiction is the logo on the spine of the book" and that "this "qualitative difference" [between literary and commercial fiction] you claim to see does not exist".


Literary fiction, and all genre classifications, is an artificial distinction that exists primarily for marketing purposes.


Yup, that's what he's saying. And I fundamentally disagree, especially when the argument is extended to all genres, as you've done here. I don't think, for example, agree that the distinction between a contemporary romance and a western is an artificial one...

[YouFunnyToo]

Let's take your author of police procedurals as an example. It's quite likely that he may be able to write books that would be bought and marketed as literary novels. It's not guaranteed, some writers are unable to write outside a given genre, but it's likely.
Not him. No way. He's an absolute hack with a tin ear.

That doesn't make his police procedurals literary fiction.
Only, according to JDM, if they were relabeled. Then we'd all be fooled. This is clearly his point and he's made it repeatedly. And it's wrong, by the way.

[willietheshakes]

A lot of what we consider Literary today was considered "commercial" in its own time period.


Absolutely. Which is why I would draw a distinction between literature (the canon; news that stays news, as they once said about jazz) and literary writing, which is an approach to the creation of new work.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

Genre is artificial. It's designed to make books easier to sell. I've managed a bookstore so I've seen how artificial it is. Certainly there are real differences between a contemporary romance and a western. However, there are a number of books that could be shelved in either historical romance or western. Or books that could be considered either mainstream or romance. What about SF mystery crossovers. There are a lot of books that get placed in one category that could just as easily be placed in another but aren't because that's where that author's works are found.

John Ringo's novel Ghost which is basically a military thriller with some heavy BDSM has been shelved in SF because that's what he normally writes, in with the thrillers because that's what it would normally be considered, and in romance because it won a Preditors and Editors Reader's Poll for best romance novel of the year.

On the other hand certain books do fit those categories very well. They may have been written just to fit into a category. However that doesn't escape the fact that the categories are fundamentally artificial things created entirely for marketing purposes. Remember, artificial does not mean false. It simply means it's not something that naturally grows out of a book, but is something that was created separately. Genre is not an intrinsic feature of every book. It doesn't grow out of each and every novel as it is written. There are novels that just don't fit any genre, or that fit in multiple genres equally well. That's because genre is artificial and is something that's imposed on a book from outside. Sometimes it fits better than other times. But it's still an externally imposed marketing category.

[willietheshakes]

Genre is artificial. It's designed to make books easier to sell. I've managed a bookstore so I've seen how artificial it is.

Well, I'm currently sitting in my office in the bookstore I work at, and I disagree...

Certainly there are real differences between a contemporary romance and a western.

Of course. So how are the genres artificial?

However, there are a number of books that could be shelved in either historical romance or western. Or books that could be considered either mainstream or romance. What about SF mystery crossovers. There are a lot of books that get placed in one category that could just as easily be placed in another but aren't because that's where that author's works are found.

Sure. And that's strictly a matter of convenience or marketing, I agree. But where you shelve a book does nothing to change what's within the text. And, textually, there are differences between genres.

John Ringo's novel Ghost which is basically a military thriller with some heavy BDSM has been shelved in SF because that's what he normally writes, in with the thrillers because that's what it would normally be considered, and in romance because it won a Preditors and Editors Reader's Poll for best romance novel of the year.

On the other hand certain books do fit those categories very well. They may have been written just to fit into a category. However that doesn't escape the fact that the categories are fundamentally artificial things created entirely for marketing purposes. Remember, artificial does not mean false. It simply means it's not something that naturally grows out of a book, but is something that was created separately. Genre is not an intrinsic feature of every book. It doesn't grow out of each and every novel as it is written. There are novels that just don't fit any genre, or that fit in multiple genres equally well. That's because genre is artificial and is something that's imposed on a book from outside. Sometimes it fits better than other times. But it's still an externally imposed marketing category.

I think the word you're looking for is arbitrary, not artificial.

Yes, separating things into, and shelving things by, genres is a marketing technique, is lazy, is arbitrary, is convenient for the consumer, is handy for the advertising. All of that is true. And yes, there are novels -- many of them -- that could fit comfortably into any number of genres. No question about it.


But there are conventions, etc, which are unique to individual genres, and which grow naturally out of the books, the writing, themselves and are not imposed by the marketing departments. You said it yourself - there are differences between westerns and contemporary romances. Those differences constitute different genres, for good or ill.

[Dru]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave.C.Robinson
However I don't think Uncle Jim ever said that all genre fiction is literary fiction. The point I got from his argument was that there are some novels that are marketed as genre fiction that have just as much right to be marketed as literary fiction and that there are some literary novels that could just as easily and appropriately be considered genre fiction.

This would be, and is, a compelling and convincing argument. And one I would agree with wholeheartedly. It is not, however, the argument that James was making.

In fact, he said "the difference between "literary" fiction and any other fiction is the logo on the spine of the book" and that "this "qualitative difference" [between literary and commercial fiction] you claim to see does not exist".


No actually, what David said is exact the point the JDM has been trying to make to you, you just tagged into one segment of his argument, the label part.

There is no qualitative difference between shoddy literary fiction and say shoddy fantasy, and likewise the difference between great literary fiction
and great fantasy. If you flipped the imprints for both on the high end of the scale, someone coming into the fields fresh wouldn't care/know what you'd done that. [this is my paraphrase of the sports analogy that JDM made]

For middle of the road written representations of both genres, then yes, there are mechanical tropes/conventions that stand out. In your example that the way the words are drawn together to present the mundane, and in fantasty perhaps the way the words are drawn together to present the fantastic. For authors that do straddle those conventions or surpass them, then yes, it is very possible that you can easy interchange a imprint and no-one would notice.

Here is my axiom here:
Literary fiction =! Literature or even more well written than any other genre, on the whole. Sturgeon's Law applies, and for most people the 90/10 breakdown will occur in different genre space. The overlapping Venn diagram of taste will generally aggree on the outliers, those novels that transcend and eventually become known as Literature.

Anyhoo, I think we've managed to flog about three years of different thread horses to death here. So perhaps we can all just agree to disagree? I don't believe we're going to change eachother's minds on the matter.

[Diviner]

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the finest genre fiction and the finest literary fiction actually long to converge into one thing. It's their truest aim. The best literary fiction aspires to the gut-level reader engagement and living characterizations that seem to come naturally in the genres. The best genre writing aspires to the breadth of meaning and the beauty of language that mark genuine literary work.



At the risk of being mundane, I would like to say that this is exactly my own perspective. I am, for the first time, attempting to write literary fiction, that is, concentrating on the writing and attempting to create depth in my characters so that their problems not only interest readers but move them in a memorable way. My aspirations here are governed by my love of good story telling coupled with my admiration for fresh writing.

Calling my feeble attempts "literary" subjected me to scorn on this very site, so I am a little sensitive about my aims, but I am absolutely certain that only such aspirations will improve my writing. There are likely a hundred other ways I could improve it (I am slow), but the "literary" label seems the most appropriate. I find it painful the way folks here make snide remarks about literary fiction, as if it threatens their own aspirations. At the same time, I wonder if some of you are missing the intent of those who care deeply about language. Some things are not so readily accessible. That makes them less commercial, but does no lessen their value.

Of course, many of us are preoccupied by making a living as writers--and no one can reasonably oppose that--but such a need should not make us defensive about our chosen ways of doing this. If I could write like Steven King, I would be proud, but his reputation is not based on just one book. In his case, because he is so prolific, few of us can think of him by isolating one great work, and it is the multiplicity of his works as much as the label that makes him a genre writer. Perhaps he has written books other than Misery, which do not rely on sci fi or the supernatural (some are borderline) but most of the ones I have read are genre. Not even Misery qualifies as literary fiction, because its theme is not so much a universal dilemma or a working out of a great and uplifting conflict but a conflict between an obsessed stranger and a flawed writer, simplistic, essentially. It relies on coincidence, rather than character for its plot. In addition, the writing, though certainly good story telling, is slightly mundane. Delores Claiborne comes far closer to being literary, but King's simplistic approach makes it strangely unmoving.

Could King write a literary novel? Possibly. Will he? There is no evidence that he has any interest in it. Will I? I aspire, but as yet I am farther from it than most of you, whatever you write.

[James D. Macdonald]

The point I got from his argument was that there are some novels that are marketed as genre fiction that have just as much right to be marketed as literary fiction and that there are some literary novels that could just as easily and appropriately be considered genre fiction. Literary fiction, and all genre classifications, is an artificial distinction that exists primarily for marketing purposes.

Finally! Someone understood what I've been saying!

[James D. Macdonald]

At the same time, I wonder if some of you are missing the intent of those who care deeply about language.

I am a bit offended by the implication that I do not care deeply about language.

Aside to Willie: The word Dave was looking for was the one he used; artificial, not arbitrary.

[blacbird]

Finally! Someone understood what I've been saying!

So, when Agent X specifies that, among other things, she accepts "literary fiction", she only means she markets certain things as such, regardless of their content and style?

caw

[engmajor2005]

Third, you start off by saying that "literary" is a label assigned to books that are supposedly superior -- ie, that there's nothing inherently different about these books. You then go on to say that you have written literary fiction, though you now write genre fiction, implying that there are inherent differences between the two.

To your mind, what are those differences?

I should have said that I've written what is generally considered literary fiction, meaning everyday peopple in ordinary situations.

By the way, this is like of one of those games where you guess which cup is hiding the bean.

It is because that people don't want to read about the lives they're living that they don't buy what ends up being labeled literary fiction. Those writers feel they need some compensatoin for not having the success that genre fiction writers have, so they act like their stuff is superior. So superior that the common reader doesn't get the intricacies of their writing.

So they call their fiction "literary" to give it an air of superiority. After all, the root word for "literary" is "literature," so by calling a work "literary" the implication is that it is real literature and everything else isn't.

And by the way, I don't now write genre fiction, I've always wrote genre fiction. I might have written maybe two lit. fic. pieces (given the definition I supply). One was humorous and sentimental (but I'm proud of it because my Papa inspired it) and one had just the slightest hint of the supernatural.

[James D. Macdonald]

So, when Agent X specifies that, among other things, she accepts "literary fiction", she only means she markets certain things as such, regardless of their content and style?

It means she's more interested in the furniture than the house.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

I am a bit offended by the implication that I do not care deeply about language.

Aside to Willie: The word Dave was looking for was the one he used; artificial, not arbitrary.

Thank you.

I did mean artificial.

[YouFunnyToo]

Finally! Someone understood what I've been saying!
Well, uhh, no. It's not what you were saying. As anyone who cares to reread this thread can see.

This leaves us with two possibilities:

A) It's what you now wish you'd said. Which I suspect is the case. Or...

B) It's what you'd intended to say, but failed. Which is just sad.

[James D. Macdonald]

Try reading the thread, YouFunnyToo. You might learn something.

To help you out, these are my posts:

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=938948&postcount=17
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=939564&postcount=23
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=940077&postcount=29
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=940112&postcount=31
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=940269&postcount=35
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=940729&postcount=39
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=940962&postcount=43
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=940986&postcount=44
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=941043&postcount=46
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=941406&postcount=58
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=942105&postcount=74
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=942112&postcount=75
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=942179&postcount=78

[YouFunnyToo]

Gee, if I hadn't read the thread, I wouldn't be troubled by it.

But thanks.

[Cressida]

In cases like this, in the attempt to define literary fiction, I take the easy road by paraphrasing Justice Stewart:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.

I particularly like genre literary fiction -- mysteries, crime thrillers. How do I know they are "literary"? Soho Press publishes a lot of them. The best ones are usually translated from another language, like Icelandic or Chinese.

James Lee Burke writes literary fiction, so does Sharyn McCrumb, but Southern writers often can't help themselves, growing up in Faulkner country as they do.

Michael Dibdin writes literary genre fiction. How do I know? A number of his books are set in Italy and feature an inspector named Aurelio Zen... sounds literary to me.

The way think of literary fiction: it make not make the huge sales figures that commerical fiction might, but in 50 years (if people are still reading), it probably will still be read. Literary may age but it doesn't date.

My 2 cents.

[aruna]

The way think of literary fiction: it make not make the huge sales figures that commerical fiction might, but in 50 years (if people are still reading), it probably will still be read. Literary may age but it doesn't date.

My 2 cents.

That's the way I see it. The numbers really don't matter with great literary fiction; they are long sellers rather than best sellers. They may only be enjoyed by a handful of people, but their effect is so profound they can change a person's life. I read one book like that many years ago, The Book of Mirdad. I can still quote from it. It went out of print, but was recently reprinted. It's just one of those books that will live forever. I would love to write a book like that one day.

Sombody above compared Ulysses with a Harlequin novel. That's an oranges and apples comparison; better would be any Jane Austin against any Harlequin. I am sure the Harlequin novelist doesn't realy think she's as good as Austin, or that people will stil be reading her a century from now. It's that quality of durability that identifies literary fiction.

It's a real pity that literary has become synonymous with boring for many, as it's simply not so. I was as riveted to Life of Pi as I was to A Time to Die; but the former stayed with me longer. And though I find some literary fiction boring from page one, I'm always willing to try something that has that unique combination of strong story, extraordinary characters, interesting theme and stellar writing. Unfortunatey, for me at least they are getting hared and harder to find.

[Novelist in Paradise]

Not him. No way. He's an absolute hack with a tin ear.

So is Coehlo, who has been mentioned in this thread. What he writes is what I call "guru fiction." Awful stuff. But that's just personal opinion, because he's certainly reaching and having an effect on people.

[aruna]

So is Coehlo, who has been mentioned in this thread. What he writes is what I call "guru fiction." Awful stuff. But that's just personal opinion, because he's certainly reaching and having an effect on people.

I agree. Compared with books of genuine spirtuality, The Alchemist is a farce. It is shallow and worst of all, misleading.

[Willowmound]

It warms my heart to see I'm not the only one.

[anodyne]

Well, uhh, no. It's not what you were saying. As anyone who cares to reread this thread can see.

This leaves us with two possibilities:

A) It's what you now wish you'd said. Which I suspect is the case. Or...

B) It's what you'd intended to say, but failed. Which is just sad.

Obviously not anyone who reads the thread. Dave was restating what James has been saying all along. I.e. you can't claim that there is an inherent qualitative difference between literary fiction and genre fiction if, as his examples were intended to indicate, genre fiction could be easily marketed as literary and vis versa. People are still reading Lord of the Rings, The Maltese Falcon and Stranger in a Strange Land. All of these were originally genre fiction. Les Miserables and the Hunchback of Notre Dame were historical, i.e. genre fiction and are still being read decades... centuries later.

What determines the canon, and what determines literariness is the academy. And that transcends genre.

[janetbellinger]

I always thought literary fiction was more about quality, so obviously quality genre writing would fall into that category.

[YouFunnyToo]

Anodyne, this was JDM's second post on this thread:

In sober fact the difference between "literary" fiction and any other fiction is the logo on the spine of the book.

Reductive, inflammatory, and wrong. Case closed.

[Zonk]

I've said before that my own definition of Literary Fiction is Fiction that Takes Itself Much Too Seriously to be Enjoyed.

And Mainstream Fiction, unfortunately, because of my profession, immediately brings to mind incongruous mental images of test strips that have to be held mid-stream to be read...

:D:D:D

[kojled]

stephen king's novels are often described as big macs -- not so good for you but people love them.

i don't think sk gives a damn about how well-crafted a string of sentences can be. he just wants to tell you about the monster in the sewer or the ghost at the top of the stairs.

i have to agree. some literary fiction is so overly crafted it seems self-serving. as in: look at how beautifully i can describe how this living room looks, or how this character feels when someone says hello. however, you can't blame people for experimenting with the possibilities -- seeing how far craft and style can be taken. without the highest level of expression we wouldn't have anything to compare average writing with.

i bought a well-known prize winning book (booker prize i think). read the first few pages before deciding to put it away for a rainy day. stunning writing but boring. it was overly-pretty virtuosity and wasn't telling a story that i was interested in -- but, those sentences...wow

i agree about just wanting to be entertained - but, i can't stand cheap writing. some literary fiction manages to entertain without overly-stylized writing -- some genre stuff manages to be well-crafted

usually though, the latest bestseller is good for a 'read' while the latest award winner is good for an 'experience'

[SarahinOhio]

i bought a well-known prize winning book (booker prize i think). read the first few pages before deciding to put it away for a rainy day. stunning writing but boring. it was overly-pretty virtuosity and wasn't telling a story that i was interested in -- but, those sentences...wow

hmmm....wonder if this was John Danville's The Sea. I read almost exclusively literary fiction, but there are some works which are so crafted and polished that I skate right off the page. This was one of them. You're right: I marveled at those sentences, but felt closed off from their perfection somehow.

My favorite modern "literary" writer is probably Jhumpa Lahiri. Stunning imagery, but the writing always serves the story's end.

[anodyne]

Anodyne, this was JDM's second post on this thread:



Reductive, inflammatory, and wrong. Case closed.

I think you're misunderstanding his point. How that statement reads to me is that literary fiction is a genre, just like science fiction, historical fiction and romance. Taken in context with his other posts on the subject (both within this thread and without) I took the statement to read, "there is no qualitative difference between literary and genre fiction, the only difference is the label on the spine."

Given his previous statements on the subject, this didn't come as much of a surprise.

The difference I see is that the literary author is hoping someone will think their work is the next Great American (replace with your country of publication) Novel, while the "genre" author is just hoping people like her book.

[YouFunnyToo]

I think you're misunderstanding his point.
No, I'm restating his point. Which was very clear. Your interpretation provides shades of meaning that were in no way present—in that post or in any of JDM's other posts on this thread.

Given his previous statements on the subject, this didn't come as much of a surprise.
If I'm supposed to read JDM's entire collection of seven thousand and some posts—Good God, seven thousand and some!—in order to interpret a handful of plain statements, I've got to confess that I'm just not up to it. I haven't seen anything that I can learn about writing novels from "Uncle Jim" yet, and separating the chaff from whatever wheat I might locate doesn't seem like a sensible way to spend my time.

[anodyne]

No, I'm restating his point. Which was very clear. Your interpretation provides shades of meaning that were in no way present—in that post or in any of JDM's other posts on this thread.


If I'm supposed to read JDM's entire collection of seven thousand and some posts—Good God, seven thousand and some!—in order to interpret a handful of plain statements, I've got to confess that I'm just not up to it. I haven't seen anything that I can learn about writing novels from "Uncle Jim" yet, and separating the chaff from whatever wheat I might locate doesn't seem like a sensible way to spend my time.

It's called nuance.

And you know what they say about people who have nothing left to learn...

[Dave.C.Robinson]

I'm going to try to look at it objectively and eliminate things which cannot be used to determine whether a work is literary fiction or not.

The first thing I'm going to eliminate is the author's intent. There is no way the reader can know objectively what the author intended with a book unless that author comes out and tells the reader that they meant to write literary fiction. That gets into the matter of genre labeling and some seem uncomfortable with that.

The second is setting. Literary fiction can take any setting, real or imagined. Literary fiction doesn't depend on plot either. It can include anything from adventure, to mystery, to a day in the life of an average person. Character can't define it either, fiction is always about characters.

The only thing that remains is quality of writing. A piece of literary fiction is better written than genre or commercial fiction. This being the case, couldn't a piece of literary fiction with a fantasy or science fictional setting be appropriately shelved in the fantasy or science fiction section? If not, why not? Or would the setting be enough to say that it cannot be considered literary fiction and has to be considered genre fiction?

It sounds to me like the only way to say something is literary fiction is to label it that way. Otherwise it might be literary science fiction, or literary fantasy, or a literary mystery.

The only other thing to fall back on, that I can see, is to consider it fiction where the writing is more important than the story. I don't want to go there because I've already fought that battle.

[YouFunnyToo]

Nuance? I didn't see it.

And I can't seem to find any in JDM's response here, either.

You're saying that the only difference between Ondaatje's In the Skin of A Lion and King's The Stand is who published them? Ridiculous.
Think it's ridiculous if you like; that's exactly what I'm saying.
You must be a better reader—or a bigger fan of JDM—than I am.

[kojled]

sarahinohio

it's 'the line of beauty' by alan hollinghurst

booker prize 2004

very nice but a bit 'look at me' writing. you know what i mean. if mr. hollinghurst reads this - just consider this post very 'look at me' (i'm sure your book is a wonderful read).

'the sea' - i've heard that's good. in fact, believe it or not, that's the one i wanted when i went to the bookstore. but (get this) i read the first sentence or two and thought it was just way too pretty -- i mean, over the top crafted. super-fine writing. ugh. so, i got line of beauty instead.

funny. really funny

[anodyne]

Nuance? I didn't see it.

And I can't seem to find any in JDM's response here, either.



You must be a better reader—or a bigger fan of JDM—than I am.

You said, "Anyone who rereads this thread can clearly see that's not what you meant," to which I replied, "Actually no, that's what I thought he meant." I then went on to say that if you read his posts as a cohesive whole it was pretty obvious that Dave's paraphrase was exactly what he meant. Your response to this was that you didn't read into things people said, but rather took them at complete and literal value.

I said, the art of reading what a person is saying, rather than how they're saying it, is called nuance* The ability to convey an idea without explicitly stating that idea is the job of the writer, (in my opinion,) literary or otherwise.

You then came back with a specific example where you felt James was being, whatever you thought it was he was being. If you take any response out of context, you can make it say anything. One of my favorite ways to torment my father when I was younger was misquoting his religious text to make it seem like his god supported rape, murder and slavery.

And frankly, your snide attitude and apparent vendetta reflect poorly on you as an individual. You have your own way of writing novels that's fine. You have aspirations of being more than a midlist author, fantastic! But I fail to see how negating your claim is showing favoritism to someone else.


* 1. a subtle difference or distinction in expression, meaning, response, etc."nuance." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. 25 Nov. 2006. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nuance>

[YouFunnyToo]

I truly did not mean to be snide, and I have no vendetta against anyone.

See, I had just begun to poke around on this forum when, clicking on a thread whose title suggested that it might be close to my heart, I happened on a poster spouting what seemed to me the most utter nonsense as if it were Holy Writ. And only one voice protested—one voice that the nonsense-purveyor repeatedly dismissed with pointed little posts that sounded to me not only ill-informed but dismissive and nasty. So I thought I'd get involved.

Back to lurking.

Carry on.

[emeraldcite]

Let's play nice. Remember to discuss the ideas, not the posters. The one rule we have here is "Respect your fellow writer."

I don't want to port yet another thread on literary fiction to the Take It Outside board.

It always seems that people really get at each others' throats over this topic.

I have no idea why...

[JeanneTGC]

Perhaps I'm just dim, but I fail to see how anyone can say that "literary novels" are more about language than genre novels and then in the same post turn around and insult Stephen King's writing. All books, other than picture, are based on language. That's why we read them and process the words. Stephen King has an extremely firm and clear grasp of language and how to use it. That he uses it to write on the subjects that interest him, and that those subjects have been classified as horror, I suspect may have had more to do with where he and his agent first felt he could be sold than anything else. (This is, of course, my conjecture. Sadly, I have never met Mr. King in person and have not spoken to him about this.) I found "The Shining" to be far more literary than genre when I read it, as an example.

Why does Louis L'Amour write Westerns but Larry McMurtry writes literary novels set in the Old West? As near as I can tell, because McMurtry's books are longer and his agent/s put him under the "literary" umbrella (and good for McMurtry that was, I'm sure).

I've had people in the business describe genre as books where "something happens" and literary as books where "navels are gazed at". I think that sells literary short, but for me, I'd rather read a book where something happens.

John Irving, who categorizes as literary fiction, could very easily fit into James' "flip the imprint" argument. There are strong fantasy elements in all of his works, and somewhat fantastical characters, albeit his stories are set in contemporary (or close to) times. "The Witches of Eastwick" is, after all, about a coven and the Devil. Where I come from, we call that "urban paranormal/fantasy". If I'd read it as a fantasy story, it wouldn't have altered my enjoyment of the book; but it would have altered when in my life I picked it up.

Terry Pratchett, who categorizes firmly as fantasy, writes satiric novels that reflect the real world back at the reader. His novels highlight social injustice, racism, tolerance, etc. I consider Pratchett's work to be just as relevant as anyone writing "literary" fiction. He also has a strong grasp of language and characters, and a reader can come away with as strong a lesson, if you will, from a Pratchett novel as from a "literary" one.

Personal preference note -- I am not one who thrills to a beautiful sentence if it means I cannot comprehend the book. My husband, on the other hand, while reading mainly genre fiction, falls on the side of preferring the genre writers who are far more "literary" than others (like Gene Wolfe). But he won't pick up a "literary novel" because he fears the navel gazing and being bored by the book.

So, supporting James' and Dave's points, I think literary can be as much of a trap as genre, and I very much agree that there are many books on "both sides" that, if you switched the jacket covers from literary to genre, would be read without confusion, and still with enjoyment and/or enlightenment.

[anodyne]

Yeah, I didn't want to make the call to authority, but I've read more than my share of modern literary work. Degree in literature at a pretentious university will do that to you.

I had one professor who would go out of their way to find the ten books that were doing the worst in sales and buy them because that of course meant they were probably the best.

You can see where I'm going with this right? What determines whether something will be read fifty years from now, and in effect, whether or not it's literary, is if some tenured or emeritus professor thinks it's brilliant, teaches it to her class and write a book, essay or book chapter about it. I don't mean to shock people, but there happens to be a sci-fi canon, and a romance canon and a western canon, and so on and so forth into infinity for each genre.

Why? Because certain books stand out, for whatever reason, as being superior* to others. This is invariably not because of plot. It is, however, because of social impact, acclaim, polished writing and subject matter.

Perfect example? The Intuitionist by Colson Whitehead. The plot? A black woman elevator inspector discovers the secret behind her particular inspection philosophy. Buah? Racial element. A black, female elevator inspector discovers that during segregation, the man who developed her particular philosophy of elevator inspecting was a black man who was passing in order to go to a school legislatively white. (Because she was the first black, female student admitted.) Aha! Now it's literary.

Now toss in the other element. Our black, female, socio-economically disadvantaged protagonist diagnoses the problems with elevators by intuiting what's wrong with them. She closes her eyes, imagines sounds and colors and shapes for each click, bob and whirl, and tells you what's wrong with a 99.9% accuracy rating.

I can spin it to any genre you want. Because they all would fit if the book was sold by DAW, or a mystery label, or a western label, or a romance label, etc.


==============
*Subjective qualification.

[Writer'sBlockBuster]

I'd be curious to take a poll and find out how many of those who support literary fiction as a distinct genre would identify themselves as literary writers and how many who don't support it would self-identify as genre writers. I'm surprised and dismayed at the vehemence surrounding this topic and at the lack of mutual respect. I wonder if this may have arisen out of a backlash against literary writers because of the condescension that some people have experienced on that front.

There are definitely gray areas in the classification of genre. There are books that are crossovers and some that resist categorization of any sort. Likewise, there are literary novels that fail miserably and genre novels that are as powerful, provocative, and beautifully written as anything in the literary canon. But let's dispense with the anomalies for a minute and consider the majority of representative works, which, more often than not, fit squarely into their respective categories. Mysteries primarily focus on a crime and how it is solved. Romances primarily focus on how a couple meets and falls in love. Horrors primarily focus on terrifying assaults perpetuated by someone or something predatory. Any of these stories can actually be realist without any problem, and often they are. But just because they're realist doesn't mean they'd be classified as literary.

What differentiates most genre novels from literary novels is that their primary purpose is to entertain, a fact which several people have referenced when stating that they prefer books that entertain them over literary novels, which bore them. With literary novels, the primary purpose may be to imitate life, to make a social, political, or cultural statement, to be innovative with language, structure, or other elements of writing, to delve deeply into the psychology of characters and the sociology of their interactions, or some combination of any of the above, but entertainment usually takes a back seat. Of course, many genre novels don't entertain, and many literary novels fail to imitate life, make a statement, innovate, or what have you. In other words, they fail. But the primary objective of genre is usually to entertain, and the primary objective of literary is usually not.

What I don't understand is why this distinction bothers so many people and why the two camps feel the need to denigrate each other. I love reading genre work. It's fun, it's escapist, it's emotionally charged. Sometimes, as with a good mystery, the plot has numerous twists and turns. Sometimes, as with a good romance, the dialogue is fast-paced and clever. It takes a special skill to invent the alien characters and customs of a sci-fi novel and another skill entirely to generate the tension and fear of a thriller. Those skills are to be appreciated.

On the other hand, I love literary novels because the good ones succeed in increasing my awareness of myself and others around me. They impel me to consider what it means to be a human being in situations and locations that are beyond my realm of experience. They force me to question assumptions I've made and shed light on uncomfortable truths. Often, they evoke a strong emotional response with subtlety and control. Furthermore, I enjoy the experiments with form and language, the metaphors, the symbolism, the allusions. To me, they add richness and depth to the text. This style of fiction also requires a unique skill, and it also should be appreciated.

This debate gets played out across the arts--Mozart vs. The Beatles, Monet vs. Thomas Kincaid, Charlie Kaufman vs. James Cameron--"serious" art vs. "popular" art. And the arguments remain the same. Those who are exploring art for art's sake are accused of pretension and dullness, and those who are persuing art for entertainment's sake are accused of lacking substance. Can't we admit the strengths and failures of each without denying both the right to coexist?

[aruna]

Can't we admit the strengths and failures of each without denying both the right to coexist?

Thank you. Amen to that.

[YouFunnyToo]

Agreed big-time, WritersBlockBuster.

To quote myself, from earlier in this thread:

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the finest genre fiction and the finest literary fiction actually long to converge into one thing. It's their truest aim. The best literary fiction aspires to the gut-level reader engagement and living characterizations that seem to occur naturally in the genres. The best genre writing aspires to the breadth of meaning and the beauty of language that mark genuine literary work.

Casting aspersions upon one another's chosen methods gets us nowhere. Respecting them can get us somewhere important.

[anodyne]

<blinks> I think literary writing is its own genre. Specifically, I feel it's the genre of those who set out to write the Great American (replace with area of publication) Novel™, instead of just setting out to write salable fiction.

I think the conflict came when some people, (myself among them) stated that literary novels are not always sold to literary houses. The idea that it's only the label on the spine that distinguishes the genres is that, there's really not a big difference between the two. There's overlap, just like there is between mystery, sci-fi, romance, thriller, historical etc. ad nauseam. A novel can be a literary supernatural romantic literary historical thriller, and marketed in any one of those genres, where ever their agent thinks they'll sell the best.

p.s. I think the entertain v. delve deeper argument some people are engaging in is moderately fallacious. All novels deal with deeper themes. The measure of how well and transparently they deal with them is often the measure of how good the writer is.

Many "genre writers" set out to write about the trifecta of race, sex, and poverty, and they do so brilliantly. Many "genre writers" set out to play with the form of the English language.

All things considered (on NPR), the biggest difference I see is between the writers, not the finished product.

[Dru]

Erk, WBB you were doing great until you called genre fiction escapist and only for entertainment.


With literary novels, the primary purpose may be to imitate life, to make a social, political, or cultural statement, to be innovative with language, structure, or other elements of writing, to delve deeply into the psychology of characters and the sociology of their interactions, or some combination of any of the above, but entertainment usually takes a back seat. Of course, many genre novels don't entertain, and many literary novels fail to imitate life, make a statement, innovate, or what have you. In other words, they fail. But the primary objective of genre is usually to entertain, and the primary objective of literary is usually not.


On the other hand, I love literary novels because the good ones succeed in increasing my awareness of myself and others around me. They impel me to consider what it means to be a human being in situations and locations that are beyond my realm of experience. They force me to question assumptions I've made and shed light on uncomfortable truths. Often, they evoke a strong emotional response with subtlety and control. Furthermore, I enjoy the experiments with form and language, the metaphors, the symbolism, the allusions. To me, they add richness and depth to the text. This style of fiction also requires a unique skill, and it also should be appreciated.

And I think this is the rub of this disagreement among us. I see EVERY statement you made about lit-fic as standing equally strong for each and every other genre. [ literally, search and replace literary with another genre and I believe there many, many authors writing for those exact reasons ]

You might read other genres for entertainment only, but to make the sweeping generalization that other genres are solely for entertainment is demeaning to the authors of many wonderful stories. Different people read for different things. It sounds more like you expect other genres to primarily entertain and lit-fic to be more stylish and "profound".

I've read effective, profound other genre fiction and I've read entertaining, but shallow lit-fic and vice versa. I DO read specific authors for different characteristics.

Orwell, Huxley, for instance, who weren't writing lit-fic, yet peg each of those metrics you place for something being literary. Or how about Iain (M) Banks, C.J. Cherryh, or Elizabeth Moon's Speed of Dark

Now perhaps you don't think authors in these other genres do not experiment, and do not work on a deep level of "language, structure, or other elements of writing, to delve deeply into the psychology of characters and the sociology of their interactions". I do not believe that is the case. I certainly love "the experiments with form and language, the metaphors, the symbolism, the allusions." in other genres.

All:

Perhaps this is where the cognitive dissonance is stemming from. I see each of those aspects as the primary drivers for ALL writers who care about their craft and want to tell truthful stories.

YFT's quote above is a perfect summation of my feelings. I believe that there is no qualitative difference between the genres, merely the authors within them. And that those author's works are placed in locations where the publishers feel that they will sell most effectively.

Your mileage may vary. I can see very clearly that many people honestly do feel that lit-fic is qualitatively "better" than all other writing. I just don't agree, but I'm willing to disagree on this front. Much like the music example above, I believe it's all ART. Different artists for different folks.

[pdr]

if it's written for the people then it can't possibly be art."

Sad isn't it?

[Inkdaub]

Erk, WBB you were doing great until you called genre fiction escapist and only for entertainment.





And I think this is the rub of this disagreement among us. I see EVERY statement you made about lit-fic as standing equally strong for each and every other genre. [ literally, search and replace literary with another genre and I believe there many, many authors writing for those exact reasons ]

You might read other genres for entertainment only, but to make the sweeping generalization that other genres are solely for entertainment is demeaning to the authors of many wonderful stories. Different people read for different things. It sounds more like you expect other genres to primarily entertain and lit-fic to be more stylish and "profound".

I've read effective, profound other genre fiction and I've read entertaining, but shallow lit-fic and vice versa. I DO read specific authors for different characteristics.

Orwell, Huxley, for instance, who weren't writing lit-fic, yet peg each of those metrics you place for something being literary. Or how about Iain (M) Banks, C.J. Cherryh, or Elizabeth Moon's Speed of Dark

Now perhaps you don't think authors in these other genres do not experiment, and do not work on a deep level of "language, structure, or other elements of writing, to delve deeply into the psychology of characters and the sociology of their interactions". I do not believe that is the case. I certainly love "the experiments with form and language, the metaphors, the symbolism, the allusions." in other genres.

All:

Perhaps this is where the cognitive dissonance is stemming from. I see each of those aspects as the primary drivers for ALL writers who care about their craft and want to tell truthful stories.

YFT's quote above is a perfect summation of my feelings. I believe that there is no qualitative difference between the genres, merely the authors within them. And that those author's works are placed in locations where the publishers feel that they will sell most effectively.

Your mileage may vary. I can see very clearly that many people honestly do feel that lit-fic is qualitatively "better" than all other writing. I just don't agree, but I'm willing to disagree on this front. Much like the music example above, I believe it's all ART. Different artists for different folks.

I agree totally and completely.

[James George]

I tend to think of literature as storytelling with depth and insight. So, by that definition, any story in any supposed genre can be considered literature, if it has depth and insight. And if I enjoy the experience of reading then I'm happy to call that 'entertainment.' These labels seem easily transferable and often specific to the reader and what they're looking for in a book, what part(s) of themselves they're looking to connect through - emotionally, intellectually, physically. In general, the books (and films, paintings, music) I connect with the most tend to be those that appeal to me on many levels. Where I enjoy the sense of tension and mystery, also a depth of thought, and an emotional connection. Such books leave behind genre labels for me, and I just go back to a basic term such as storytelling.