Newbie question: What makes something 'literary' vs. historical fiction?

Your subject sounds historical.

On literary - there's an old definition and a newer definition. In the old definition literary was writing of superior quality regardless of genre. In the new definition literary has become a genre. You'll frequently find things that are avant garde in literary, but you'll also find some purple prose. From what I've seen, there isn't any one characteristic to be a common thread throughout items presented as literary.

Can a story be historical and literary - yes. Definitely by the old defintion and I'd say also by the new definition. Puma

I agree with Puma. Historical and literary fiction are not mutually exclusive.

Once upon a time...

quite a few years ago, a novel with history as an integral part was nearly always literary, thus historical novel =ed literary novel.

Now it's different. Some writers brought in genre tricks for their historical adventure stories or naval stories or murder mysteries. So you can have both lit and genre style historical novels.

literary examples: a couple of Margaret Atwood's: 'The Penelopiad' and 'Alias Grace'

Further examples of historical "literary novels" would include Timothy Mo's An Insular Possession and Martin Davies' The Conjuror's Bird.

To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee
Master and Commander - Patrick O'Brian
Girl with a Pearl Earring - Tracy Chevalier
Memoirs of a Geisha - Arthur Golden
Cold Mountain - Charles Frazier
The Bonesetter’s Daughter - Amy Tan
Shogun - James Clavell
Tai-Pan - James Clavell

If you're writing historical fiction, even if it is literary, your main category will be historical fiction. But some agents/editors who represent/buy historical fiction will prefer either literary or commercial, so you will want to direct queries appropriately.

Q: What makes something literary vs historical fiction?

A: Snobbishness. Have you ever met a literary critic? Some of the most famous literary work set in the past is so dull that you yearn for Sven Hassel. Possibly literary fiction is supposed to be well written. However, I think Robert Harris' 'Fatherland' is well written but that class as literary.

Captain Scarf said:

Q: What makes something literary vs historical fiction?

A: Snobbishness.

Click to expand...

My snarky side has always equated literary with a love of words over a love of story (or the love of a convoluted tableau of characters in lieu of a story). Don't get me wrong, I've read some great literary novels, but I've also read (the first 50 pages of) plenty that have more purple than an imperial robe.

Suse said:

A literary author might sacrifice action (or a variety of other things) for beauty or layering

Click to expand...

You have a point there. Literary fiction does generally aim for an intricate and multi-layered style of writing. But there is a danger of condemning anything not written in this fashion. Especially as some literary authors have a tendency to neglect a plot in which anything really happens. Either that or they spend pages and pages making a well written novel which is dull and bleak.

I have recently read 'The Great Gatsby', which is generally classed as literary fiction. But it was dull, the characters were all pointless and it all got very silly. However, I am currently reading one of John Buchan's novels and enjoying the combination of good writing and intricate plot.

No, no! I LOVE the Great Gatsby.

Actually...

literary novels are usually 'deep', ideas are important.

And people argue about what is and what isn't literary!

It is when people of influence say it is. C'est la ball bounce. Gallic

pdr said:

literary novels are usually 'deep', ideas are important

Click to expand...

I'd agree with that. But there can be a fine line between "deep" and "self-important"...

I don't necessarily believe literary readers/writers are "self important", but I believe they look for more in the literature they peruse. Escapist stories (which I prefer) don't usually make the reader work for the nuances. They are usually not loaded with allegory, and the metaphors are all spelled out. Literary stories have to be read on a word-level (almost a syllabic level) to get all of the nuances, to make clear what's happening, and the metaphors are in the scene, not the sentence.

Granted, if written poorly, literary prose can be pretentious; but if well written...it's brilliant (anything that would lose a purely escapist reader would be so buried that they'd enjoy the story on a more primeval basis, and never notice what they are missing).

Any literature can be deep. I've read Fantasy and Science Fiction that forces the reader to consider what's possible, or what the true human condition is--and that's deep--without being inflated or pompous. It's the ability to bury hints that fulfill the discerning reader on multiple levels that makes a story "literary".

The only form of literary that grates on me (which is far more common than it should be) is "slice of life", where there is no plot, rhyme or reason.

Perhaps...?

Doogs, pretentious more than self important?

We suffer badly from it in New Zealand. The end result is that everyone tries to write literary work, but they have nothing to say, so end up writing arty farty pretentious crap.

Literary writers don't have to write about great events, often their insights into simple daily things are enlightening. I'm thinking of Alexander McCall Smith whose novels set in modern day Edinburgh I find give the reader plenty of thought provoking material in wonderfully written, readable English without a shred of pretentious 'look at me, aren't I a great writer' in them.

pdr said:

Doogs, pretentious more than self important?

Click to expand...

The two are pretty similar.

We suffer badly from it in New Zealand. The end result is that everyone tries to write literary work, but they have nothing to say, so end up writing arty farty pretentious crap.

Click to expand...

In my experience, even those with something to say can still end up writing "arty farty pretentious crap". I think it's more an issue of (subconsciously or not) placing language and style before story. I'd also stress that this happens on both ends of the spectrum.

...thought provoking material in wonderfully written, readable English without a shred of pretentious 'look at me, aren't I a great writer' in them.

Click to expand...

You know, I think this should be a goal for all literary writers, just as we have to take care to avoid the "look at me, look at all this research I did" trap.

Inarticulate Babbler said:

Any literature can be deep. I've read Fantasy and Science Fiction that forces the reader to consider what's possible, or what the true human condition is--and that's deep--without being inflated or pompous. It's the ability to bury hints that fulfill the discerning reader on multiple levels that makes a story "literary".

Click to expand...

I agree 100%. Any literature - any story in general, really - can have depth and nuance. Just look at the topics and themes Pixar has managed to tackle in their films.

I guess I'm just wary of a standalone genre that defines itself as deep just for the sake of depth.

I've always thought of fiction as belonging to either popular or literary. I wouldn't class either of those as genres, rather allocate novels into genres under those two broad styles.

Literary is supposed to be anti-genre, and maybe that's why the plots grow weaker--and it grates as pretentious.