This is going to sound like a stupid question

[captflash]

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]

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]

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]

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]

(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 :D

[Siddow]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[mikeland]

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]

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 (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94295) on this topic right now :)

[Shweta]

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 :D

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]

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]

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o15/Damnhaggis/116481_Science-Fiction-vs-Proper-Li.jpg

[Appalachian Writer]

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]

[quote=nevada;2149713]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]

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. :D

[nevada]

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]

That is a mighty big jetpack.

[Don Allen]

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]

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]

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:

[dempsey]

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]

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. :D

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."

[Don Allen]

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

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."


Okay, YOU WIN!!!!!!! The panty thing got me.....lololol

[nevada]

:snoopy::thankyou:WOOOOHOOOO I WIN!!!!!

Competitive, me? naaahhhhhh.

[captflash]

I'm overwhelmed and thank all the contributors for attempting to clear up my advanced case of dumbass where "literary value" is concerned in the writing of fiction be it novel, short, flash, or novella.

I live in South Carolina and I had occasion to be out and about the other evening. I was bumping my way down a rutted road between pastures when a thunderstorm hit with a volley of ball bearing rain. In seconds my windshield was sloshed with waves of mud from various and sundry chuckholes. The wipers couldn't keep up with the onslaught. I was forced to stop, no longer able to see the undefined ruts that guided my progress.

That last paragraph delineates my writing career at this point in time. I can't get arrested, much less published by a paying market. Editors have returned my submissions calling the writing, "fine," "well crafted," one or two, "brilliant," but not in the literary sense as defined by their criteria. I don't know how to proceed, how to improve, how to ascertain "literary enough." Like most things inhabiting my writing life at this time, the button for my windshield wiper cleaner doesn't work either.

Thanks again to all for the definitions provided. All have merit and all make a valid point which when put together can at least provide a partial explanation for my intellectual failure. cf

[nevada]

It is MOST DEFINITELY NOT intellectual failure on your part. Literary is hard to pin down and different magazines have different ideas of what they want. For example, I have one story that came back from two magazines. One editor complained that it moved too slow and the other one said that it ended just as it was getting started. Neither was wrong, neither was right. They were just looking for different things.

Don't give up. Keep writing the way you want to write, keep submitting, it will happen. Maybe post a story in Share Your Work, see if you can get some feedback on it. If you like, i'd be willing to take a look at one of your stories. Whatever you do though, don't give up. NEVER EVER. (okay that's the only other time those words will cross my lips. lol)

[Don Allen]

It is MOST DEFINITELY NOT intellectual failure on your part. Literary is hard to pin down and different magazines have different ideas of what they want. For example, I have one story that came back from two magazines. One editor complained that it moved too slow and the other one said that it ended just as it was getting started. Neither was wrong, neither was right. They were just looking for different things.

Don't give up. Keep writing the way you want to write, keep submitting, it will happen. Maybe post a story in Share Your Work, see if you can get some feedback on it. If you like, i'd be willing to take a look at one of your stories. Whatever you do though, don't give up. NEVER EVER. (okay that's the only other time those words will cross my lips. lol)



Now I'm starting to think you're full of shit.....

[captflash]

Many thanks Nevada for the encouraging words. I've been writing with serious intent now for better than fifteen years and that's why this "literary business" has become such a thorn in my side. I write stories about people in various situations and at various times of history, recent and not so recent. So if "literary writing" is in fact character driven than I could be considered a "literary writer." Most of my stories involve a plot of some kind and sometimes even a subplot or two. But that aspect would then give my writing something of a genre flavor, if it had a mysterious, supernatural, romantic, etc., subplot or plot...yikes. Your offer to read something in an effort to help is very kind. In my seventy years on this planet I've found so very few so inclined. I have posted in The Share Your Work area, but I posted a rough draft on one occasion and asked for comments. I was admonished by, I assume a moderator, that the Share Your Work Area was not for rough drafts. Silly me, people post their work for feedback in that area. If the work needs feedback what else would you call it? I decided to remove myself from further misadventure.

In any event I would be honored if you would take a look at one of my shorts. I'll pm you and you can then make the final decision.

Oh, by the way, Don? I've found from long experience all of us on this ball of mud are full of shit. Some just seem to overflow more often than others. cf

[kuwisdelu]

Mainstream and genre fiction are sex.

Literary fiction is love.

And sometimes you can have both. And that's usually the best.

[Keyboard Hound]

I've stayed confused as to what literary fiction is since I've been writing, although I've been told I write it, so captflash, I do know what you are talking about. One thing I remember an English literature teacher saying is that in literary writing, subplot is an important factor. Does anyone have any opinions on that?

I wouldn't worry to much about the person who told you what they did about first drafts. People often post first drafts, and some people are often told the same thing you were. But some get really good advice. I read a lot in those forums and I've seen it. Please don't let one person's opinion knock you out of doing something that might help.
The share your work forum is just like the rest of the forums on here:everyone has different opinions on what belongs. You've got just as much right to post what you need to as someone else has to tell you not to post rough drafts.

The thing of it is, if anyone does not want to read or critique, all they have to do is back out of the thread. You have a right to post your work. I'd love to see some of it.