This is going to sound like a stupid question

rainyman · Mar 12, 2008

And that's because it is, but I am at my wits end. (A great cliche by the way) Can someone please define for me, in language that a uneducated blue collar simpleton like me can understand, what type, style, narrative, prose, and the method used to produce it, constitutes "literary writing?"

I see the phrases "and we are a literary journal" or "we look for literary as opposed to genre fiction" or "we accept fiction of literary value only." Please believe me, this is not a joke or subtle criticism of literary work. I am sincerely trying to understand the who, what where, when and how of literary fiction. Any help would be greatly appreciated. cf

Don Allen · Mar 12, 2008

From one blue collar guy to another, Most stuff (notice that in the literary spirit I didn't say shit here) that is sort of hoity toity, highly descriptive with flowery prose, and using words that most people can't understand, and you have an idea what literary calls for.....But that by all means isn't inclusive... Steinbeck I believe his considered literary, though great reads, anyway that's my take on it...

KTC · Mar 12, 2008

There are a few threads on this very subject. It's still cloudy in my mind too and I've been told I write it. Here's a wiki entry on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_fiction

Don Allen · Mar 12, 2008

One other thing, heavy lit is out of vogue because it dosen't sell, at least not in numbers an average writer would need to live on, and that's too bad, because the dumbing down of our society is related to the fact that no one trys to read something that might be above them...

Shweta · Mar 12, 2008

(ETA: Cross-posted with evvverybody cause I'm slow.)

It's not a stupid question. It's a rather difficult one.

I think there are several aspects to "literary" writing. This is how I see it:

The most simple aspect is... a focus on the words themselves, what the author is doing with them, over a primary focus on storytelling. Also a focus on character over plot, I think, at least lately. And maybe a fondness/tolerance for experimental styles.

More complicated is the fact that every genre (and literary is a genre IMO) is a conversation of sorts. So literary writing is writing that responds to other literary writing, the same way today's science fiction stories are in some ways responses to the sf stories of yesteryear.

And then there's "literary" as a marketing category, which is sort of... the books that editors think will win awards, and appeal to people who study this stuff, so, English professors and the like. (I am not saying this in a bad way. I seriously think diffreent books are interesting at different levels of knowledge/study).

Anyay, I think that's where it gets messy. Because, if you're thinking of "literary" as a conversation, are you responding to other people like that, or other people who the marketing folks categorize as literary? Or maybe other people writing in experimental ways, but whose fiction contains supernatural elements, so it's shelved as fantasy?

This is where my head explodes, and I sort of wish my writing were less literary

Siddow · Mar 12, 2008

captflash, probably your best bet in defining it is to pick up a few of these literary journals and read the stories and decide on a definition for yourself.

I've always thought of 'literary' to mean a certain focus on character, a character study more than a story.

Another way to look at is...a story where nothing much happens, with an ambiguous ending.

nevada · Mar 12, 2008

Don, it's "doesn't" and "tries".

Literary is not hoity-toity, not good literary writing anyway and to call it that is a misunderstanding of the genre. yes, literary is a genre too. It's focused on character, things do happen, but they might be small in actual action but fundamentally huge to a character.

It's not necessarily about the words, or about vague ideas and ambigous endings. I just finished reading a book that is definitely literary, called The Fighter by Craig Davidson. I highly recommend it. It's a brutal, violent book about illegal bare knuckle fighting and it's brilliant. Not one hoity-toity idea, no flowery language, no ambiguous ending. Just a brilliant examination of character and how one little decision one way or the other can change someone's life.

But like in every genre there is a wide degree of "literary". The best way is to do what siddow says. Pick up a few of the magazines that say they want literary works and see what they think constitutes that.

Shweta · Mar 12, 2008

I wouldn't say it had to be flowery language to be about language. Just that the language would need to be consciously chosen to fit the story.

But then, I think all good writing needs that, just that maybe the lit. folks are more conscious of it.

Smiling Ted · Mar 13, 2008

First of all, Siddow is right. Read the magazine to get a sense of what they want.

Then, in general, the best marketing rule of thumb I've encountered really is - "literary" is anything that is NOT a recognizable mass-market genre (e.g. horror, urban fantasy, suburban vampire (yes, that's a genre now), mystery, thriller, western, etc.)

Shweta · Mar 13, 2008

Except I think there's a difference between literary and mainstream that's lost then.

mikeland · Mar 13, 2008

I've never understood what "mainstream" means. In fact, I think that any time the publishing industry hits on a group of books that might be "mainstream" they end up creating a genre name for them (i.e. chick-lit).

I also agree with Ted. I think literary is a catch-all for anything that can't be plugged easily into a genre category. In broad strokes, these tend to be books that are based in the world we exist in and where the plot/story is driven more by the characters than the concept.

Another interesting thing about "literary" as a label is that it exerts a gravitational pull on other genres. Writers working on the edge of genre can get pulled away into literary. For example, why isn't Kurt Vonnegut considered a science fiction writer? Should Gabriel Garcia Marquez be shelved in fantasy? Cormac McCarthy in Westerns? Where do you find John LeCarre in the bookstore?

I also don't believe you can bound literary by style or language. There is no shortage of literary fiction out there that is poorly written. (Or maybe the definition of "mainstream" should be "literary fiction written poorly.") And there is plenty of genre fiction that beautifully crafted. Some writers can put together a great sentence and others can't -- I'm not sure that affects the type of story they tell.

Shweta · Mar 13, 2008

Well sure, and there's a lot of speculative fiction out there that doesn't speculate at all. The fact that some examples fail doesn't mean the genre doesn't care.

I'm just trying to identify the "ideal" of the genre, which actual category members resemble to different degrees.

ETA There's another thread on this topic right now

Shweta · Mar 13, 2008

Other sleep-deprived thoughts...

It occurs to me that I might sound like I'm trying to defend lit-fic over so-called genre fic. I'm not. I'm just trying to get at what the people who self-identify as "literary" seem to care about.

Caring too much about the language, the form, has its own problems. It makes some people overly flowery or wordy. Or obsure. (including, overly referential). Or they try so hard to get a pretty metaphor that they're kicking their readers out of the story.

Or they're playing postmodern tricks that, to me as a reader, are seldom forgivable and almost never fun.

And... to the extent that a literary story cares more for style than action, it loses me. It can be beautifully wonderfully elegantly written, and if nobody's doing anything that I care about, I'm putting it down. I am more sympathetic to it in short-story than novel form, but... still.

And! Last one. There seems to be more leeway for author-intrusion, and not just narrator-intrusion, in literary fiction. I have very little patience for this. If you're not Tom Stoppard or Jane Austen, the author-popping-up thing is probably not gonna do it for me

So.. yeah, I have very little patience. Beyond that, I think that literary fiction, like any genre, has cool stuff and massive pitfalls and things in between that are totally a matter of taste. I'm just trying to put a finger on the cool stuff.

I really really don't like the idea that literary fiction is another name for mainstream fiction, because it implies that other genres are never literary, and authors Must Choose, and never the twain shall meet, etc. Which would mean Ursula Le Guin didn't exist, which would suck because she's a hero of mine.

mikeland · Mar 13, 2008

Maybe we'd all be better off if they'd drop the literary label in favor of mainstream. There are fewer connotations. It's an easier word to see as a catch-all IMO.

I took a look at the other thread. People are confusing literary with literature. There is plenty of literary fiction that is never going to see the syllabus of a college course.

Literary is just a word used by publishers to label a large pool of otherwise unconnected books and stories. It does not mean that those are the only books of literary value. Just like you don't have to be labeled a "mystery" in order to have some mystery in your plot.

Looking for an "ideal" in literary fiction is an interesting question. You got me thinking on that one.

Haggis · Mar 13, 2008

Appalachian Writer · Mar 13, 2008

Yes, literary fiction is difficult to describe and like KTC, I've been told I write it. From my meager understanding, it's character driven fiction, in that, you could pick up your characters and move them through time and geography, dress them differently, give them a different mode of transportation and the story would still be the same.

Don Allen · Mar 13, 2008

nevada said:
Don, it's "doesn't" and "tries".

Literary is not hoity-toity, not good literary writing anyway and to call it that is a misunderstanding of the genre. yes, literary is a genre too. It's focused on character, things do happen, but they might be small in actual action but fundamentally huge to a character.

It's not necessarily about the words, or about vague ideas and ambigous endings. I just finished reading a book that is definitely literary, called The Fighter by Craig Davidson. I highly recommend it. It's a brutal, violent book about illegal bare knuckle fighting and it's brilliant. Not one hoity-toity idea, no flowery language, no ambiguous ending. Just a brilliant examination of character and how one little decision one way or the other can change someone's life.

Wait a minute are you saying that "trys" isn't literary, NEVADA... one rule around here that most people seem to abide by, is that if we pop on AW and make a quick comment we forgo the occassional typing goof or grammatical incorrectness, I write these things so fast as well as most everyone else that I don't have time to check every dot and t...

Also, I disagree with your statement, I think you have it backwards. If you read what I posted about steinbeck you would have understood that I meant any book can be considered literary. However, in the truest sense of literary - words that evoke "existentialist thoughts" while defining, structuring, and facilitating prose into a visionary artform can be considered.

Phaeal · Mar 13, 2008

Literary fiction is like pornography -- hard to define, but you will know it when you see it. In my opinion, fiction of any type can be "literary." Below I just address what I've come to see as market expectations and prejudices.

When mags say they're looking for the literary, I assume they want fiction set in the present or the recent past, emphasizing character rather than plot, more static than kinetic, and displaying an attention to language and style that can verge on the poetic. Sometimes the mags call such fiction "contemporary." If it deviates at all from the depiction of "real life," they may call it "magical realism" or "surreal." If the structure or language are noticeably funky, it's "experimental." In addition, there are a lot of other descriptors that I associate with a desire for literary submissions: ethnic, feminist, regional, multicultural, erotica, gay, historical, prose poem, and so forth. (NB: This doesn't mean that no genre fiction can be ethnic, regional, gay, etc. These are just catchwords I constantly find in the lists of acceptable material put out by lit mags.)

As for mainstream, the best definition I can come up with is: Literary, but not so much so, maybe something actually happens, could even toy with subject matter associated with the milder genres, like mystery and romance and suspense and thriller.

When the mag doesn't want genre fiction, it doesn't want: Mystery, romance, suspense, thriller, adventure, or western. These are what I call the mild genres. Some mags would also throw religious and historical into the mild genre category. Some throw in children's and YA as "genre," but I'd rather call them "intended audiences."

And now we come to the Three Deadly Genres, which are so evil they are often mentioned by name in the lists of what-we-don't-want: Fantasy, Horror, Science Fiction. Oooh, my favorites. I must be going to Literary Hell on a particularly fast handcart.

What I don't get are markets that say they accept psychic/occult/supernatural fiction, but for the love of literature, don't send them horror.

nevada · Mar 13, 2008

Don Allen said:
Wait a minute are you saying that "trys" isn't literary, NEVADA... one rule around here that most people seem to abide by, is that if we pop on AW and make a quick comment we forgo the occassional typing goof or grammatical incorrectness, I write these things so fast as well as most everyone else that I don't have time to check every dot and t...

We all make typos but to make two spelling mistakes in a post that laments the dumbing down of society?

And plenty of literary books are not existential in nature so you might want to drop that word from your definition.

Besides, Haggis has the definitive answer on the argument. I think I'm going to have that printed on a t-shirt.

mikeland · Mar 13, 2008

That is a mighty big jetpack.

Don Allen · Mar 13, 2008

nevada said:
We all make typos but to make two spelling mistakes in a post that laments the dumbing down of society?

And plenty of literary books are not existential in nature so you might want to drop that word from your definition.

Besides, Haggis has the definitive answer on the argument. I think I'm going to have that printed on a t-shirt.

Okay, i got it... one typo allowed when tking 'vut dumb americca.

Never argue with Haggis...

...and never associate existentialism with literary writing. Okay....and the song says "2 out of 3 ain't bad......"

Don Allen · Mar 13, 2008

Existentialism.......... A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts.

This would NEVER be found in LITERARY WRITING.... EVER!!!!!!!! What was I thinking????

Polenth · Mar 13, 2008

Phaeal said:
And now we come to the Three Deadly Genres, which are so evil they are often mentioned by name in the lists of what-we-don't-want: Fantasy, Horror, Science Fiction. Oooh, my favorites. I must be going to Literary Hell on a particularly fast handcart.

You could always write literary genre stories to balance it out. They seem to be in fashion at the moment. That would probably dump you in literary limbo, rather than hell.

And yay! There is a smiley to illustrate that point...

:e2seesaw:

geardrops · Mar 13, 2008

I think she said that having it as part of the definition was wrong, as it edges out things that are literary but aren't existential.

Especially considering existentialism first began to show its budding little face with Kierkegaard (or Hegel, if you really want to split hairs). That gives us very few centuries worth of books that could possibly fall under "literary."

nevada · Mar 13, 2008

Don Allen said:
Existentialism.......... A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts.

This would NEVER be found in LITERARY WRITING.... EVER!!!!!!!! What was I thinking????

The words NEVER EVER rarely leave my lips, unless it's about using the word panties. NEVER EVER.

I love existentialism. In University a friend of mine decided that I was depressed because of that and I should "stop reading Jean Paul Sartre, he's messing with your head."

This is going to sound like a stupid question

Seeking a Sanctuary of Intelligence

Stand in the Place Where You Live

Seeking a Sanctuary of Intelligence

gone

I'm super! Thanks for asking

gone

Ah-HA!

gone

Call me Pookie

gone

gone

Call me Pookie

Evil, undead Chihuahua

Somewhere in the hills....

Seeking a Sanctuary of Intelligence

Whatever I did, I didn't do it.

Call me Pookie

Seeking a Sanctuary of Intelligence

Seeking a Sanctuary of Intelligence

Mushroom

Good thing I like my day job