Literary Vent

Gromhard - Amen! I've been told (on one of these forums) that literary means you can't find any other place for it. Excuse my French but B...S...! Or at least that's the way it was when I learned about fiction styles - literary meant that it was exemplary, the haute cuisine of the writing world. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be that way anymore - just like structured, traditional
poetry doesn't seem to exist anymore (except in the heads of those few of us who write iambic pentameter).

I don't have any good words of wisdom for you other than it's obvious that with literary fiction and traditional poetry you're going to have to look very hard at what your hoped for publisher or agent is handling. Markets do still exist, but my feeling is they're underaddressed. I know quite a few senior citizens who read very little new material anymore because there isn't much being put out that's of interest to them. It's a sad statement about the decline of values unfortunately. Nuff said - you obviously hit a responsive chord with me too. Puma

Gromhard, I feel your pain. Trust me, you're not alone.

I mostly read and write genre fiction, but I do submit to literary journals. I read the sample issues and try to figure out what they want. Sometimes it seems that "literary" does mean "nothing happens/ a lot of talking." I haven't made it in the "literary" market yet, so obviously I haven't figured it out.

I don't know...maybe I'll just stick with genre fiction. At least, for now.

I would most definitely agree that Stephen King is not literary. He is commercial, no doubt about it.

To be clear, and for the purposes of discussion, what is your definition of literary?

This question is to all, not just to Gromhard, though his posting did give rise to it.

I consider Cunningham's The Hours literary. It's more about structure, words, emotions and ideas than plot. There is a plot, mind you, but it's not the main focus. I mean "literary" doesn't necessarily mean a bunch of people sitting around talking for 350 pages and doing nothing. Literary doesn't necessarily means experimental. Old Man and the Sea had a plot. Even if The Hours sells a hundred million copies, I still consider it literary.

Let's consider The Hours. While it does have a plot, the story itself is a study of:

a) strong central theme(s): incapacitating depression; how one life can affect the another
b) structure of "3s": three women, three time periods, three different situations, three decisions, three outcomes...
c) characters and relationships: the plot is secondary
d) the writing itself: it's ornate, lyrical/poetic, flowery even, but always beautiful. It's about words. It's about communication

Gromhard - I too write literary fiction, and agree with your entire post. Additionally, I'm sick of critters telling me that "some things are ambiguous" in my work, because they are used to having everything spelled out for them.... instead of being forced to think throughout the presentation and draw conclusions themselves, which is the FUN of literary fiction. These people think ambiguity can't be an intentional device, they think symbolism in fiction can't stand alone if carefully projected, they think character development can't leave room for the reader to insert their own traits/emotions, they think the reader shouldn't be trusted to participate in the work... But that's the fun! And it's extremely difficult to pull off, to keep control of your own story but let the reader participate in its reconciliation, and to think about it beyond its conclusion. Well-placed and well-planned ambiguity opens up so many thoughts, can be layered with symbolism, can be coupled with hard reality, can be....anything!
Face it, this genre is the one with the most artistic purity in the fiction world.
Once I explained to a non-literary friend what "literary fiction" is. I took her to an art opening. It was all these huge fabulous steel installations, seemingly random, but over time and a few hunks of cheese, she began to "find the lines" that were meaningful to her, and by the end she was fully engaged in the thought processes she experienced while trying to find meaning. I told her it was OK to develop her own meaning, and she did. Great stuff, too.
Then, she became curious about the artist's meaning, trying to extract that from the installations' title cards.
I told her THAT: that process of careful consideration, "finding the lines", extracting meaning, and finally reconciling it for both herself and secondarily with the artist's intent, THAT process describes literary fiction.

Keep writing, fellow artist. We are a certain breed of bird, we prefer avante garde to mainstream, and our merits are not lost on everyone: in fact, for those who do subscribe to the genre, we are artists. I like that.

When the genre mag says literary, what they really mean is "we want lasers, but we want a Matrix kinda thing were the robots mean something other than being robots."

gromhard said:

[anger]
JD Salinger, Hemmingway, Bukowski, Joyce, Hamsun, Dostoevsky, Camus, Kafka, Plath...THOSE are literary writers. If you don't read them, or authors like them then don't say you read literary fiction.

Click to expand...

If the definition of literary is this narrow, then literary fiction is doomed. And we're all lucky it is. I've read all these writers, but just what is it that makes them "literary?" Especially Hemingway. Hemingway is one fine writer, but most of his fiction could fit nicely into the genre of Men's adventure.

gromhard said:

Stephen King, James Patterson, Raymond Chandler, Robert Heinlein...THOSE are genre writers.

-G

Click to expand...

And why aren't these writers literary? Especially King and Chandler? Don't they write well enough for you? Or is it that literary fiction can't be written about a murder mystery or a vampire?

And if genre writers can't be literary writers, then where do we place Shakepeare, since he often wrote about ghosts and witches. Or Dumas, who wrote some of the best adeventure fiction the world has ever seen. Or Mark Twian, or Jack London. How about Robert Louis Stevenson. How about darned nearly any writer of a classic novel more than a hundred years old.

So-called "literary" fiction of the type you're talking about is a very recent, completely artificial genre in its own right, and only came into being because so-called genre writers were out-writing, out-selling just about all the 20th century literati.

Before this, real literary fiction meant having a story, having excitement, having all the trappings of genre, and simply writing it better than anyone else. This, of course, was in a time when nearly all writers were very well educated, so they could write genre fiction, and if they did it well, the world called it literary.

Then, in the 20th century, the common people started writing more and more and more of their own fiction, and many in the new college literati environment thought this was horrible. So they made it a goal to separate themselves from the common writer and the common reader. They succeeded well. But very few of them did it by writing anything most people wanted to read.

A few, such as Hemingway and Faulkner, were smart enough and talented enough to know there still had to be a story, still had to be excitement, and they simply should not be lumped with the likes of the other writers you name.

Even in teh last twenty to thirty years, the best of teh true literary writers, such as John Updike and Joyce Carol oates, have stayed largely true to the genre roots of all good fiction. But most, especially in short fiction, left the genre roots of fiction behind, and they won't be remembered for anything other than wasting paper.

It's also utter foolishness to think a writer can't be literary and commercial. Unless you're definition of literary is fiction so bad no one wants to buy it. Hostorically, true literary writers have always been commercial writers. Most of the classic writers were the best-selling commercial writers of their day, and the true literary writers of today are also the commercial writers.

If most of the "literary" writers and critics ever get their noses out of the air long enough to look down, they'll see no one is paying attention, and if they stop talking for a minute, they won't hear applasue, they'll hear laughter.

A hundred years from now, nine out of ten writers of the 20th century who earned the title "literary writer" will be forgotten, and the best of the genre writers will be remembered, and will be considered the best of the literary greats. It's been this way since fiction was invented, and there's no sign it's ever going to change.

Stephen King and Raymong Chandler aren't literary writers? But Bukowski, Joyce, and Hamsun are? Nonsense. Bukowski is a writer who ranks close to last in reader appreciation. Joyce does rank last. He's the writer almost no one wants to read, and for good reason. Assign a Joyce novel in high school or college, and earn teh hate of all your students. And even half the judges who voted to call Ulysses the best novel of the 20th century later admitted they had never been able to read it, and most of the otehrs later admitted to not liking it. Hamsun? Good grief. If anyting on earth proves the Nobel has zero meaning, it's Hamsun.

Fortunately, many many real literary magazines, even those published by various universities, have gone back to demanding real stories with real people, real plots, real action, real conflict, and real excitement. . .plus writing that is far above the norm.

The artificial, boring, means nothing to anyone but those who want to write it late 20th century stuff that used to be called "literary" fiction seems to be dying at last. And about time.

As for free verse, don't get me started. Free verse was invented for the express purpose of destroying the kind of poetry the general reading public loves. If the common man loves it, it can't be any good, can it? It pretty much succeeded because suddenly any illiterate twit could be a "poet," even if he had no clue what a poem really is. Write down five or six lines of garbage, break it in weird, arbitrary places, call it a poem, and there you have it. Free verse at its best.

Fortunately, again, many poetry magazines are using less and less free verse, largely because it's now possible, thanks to the internet, to look around and see not only how bad it really is, but what the majority of real people actually think about it.

I don't know, James. Somehow I think you're describing literature, rather than what modern folks consider "literary" fiction.

At least not what editors now consider "literary."

Of course what King, Chandler, Heinlein, Tolkien, Austen, Dickens, Shakespeare... wrote are literature. But I really wouldn't call them literary. Hemingway wrote many things, literary included.

100 years from now King's and Rowling's will be remembered as literature.

Literary doesn't mean "no one is going to buy it" but it does have a narrower definition than "any fiction that is well-written." Cunningham sold many books. The Hours can be described as Women's Fiction, if you want, but to me, it's literary for all the reasons I listed, especially its strong focus on themes, structure, and language. The plot itself is secondary.

I won't even go there with regard to your tirade about free verse. I think that's an insult to every poet who writes free verses, past or present. Not every poem has to be a sonnet or a haiku.

I'm not so sure on that, Maestro. I think James did describe literary fiction much the way I did up the line - exemplary, highest quality - but I agree he also seemed to bat around the bush a bit. In my definition, literary does not have to be a specific genre but is characterized by its superior quality. It isn't just any old rambling about someone's personal drama. From my perspective, I don't feel a writer can classify his or her own work as literary - that's for someone else to decide.

And by the way, thank you James for lambasting free verse. My opinion, modern poetry reflects society's "quick and dirty" and "in a hurry" attitudes. No one is willing to take the time to create a structured poem that actually has meaning. Call me a fuddy-duddy. Puma

But what/who defines "superior quality"?

We hear them a lot now, as if calling it "literary" makes it somehow better than just the genre itself. Mystic River is not just a mystery, but a "literary mystery." Cold Mountain is not just historical, but "literary historical." Fine, if we want to apply the "literary" label this way, as a modifier. However, that seems to call into question: Does that mean all the other non-"literary" genres are crap? Of sub-par quality, if we define "literary" as "of superior quality"?

Or should we just call these works "literary" and forget about the genres? Since every writer thinks their works are of superior quality.

Or should we call these works by their respective genres and forget "literary" altogether? Let the public decide if your mystery or epic fantasy or space opera is "literary."

Hmmmm...drinking coffee, scratching head, and wondering how the definition of literary became "superior quality", rather than artistic and interpretative....

*scratching head*

I have no idea how to define "literary" so I'm still at square one.

sidenote: James is right about Joyce. He is the writer that no one wants to read. I hated him in college, and I still do.

Great discusssion. Carry on...

Define art. Not the medium used to portray it, but just "art".
Now apply the written word as the medium.
I'll bet we all have different definitions at this point, already.
That's what makes this discussion fun

It's great fun to be academic about it, but when it comes to submission to publisher (as the OP was ranting about), it does become a problem. What is the definition of "literary fiction"? When editors say they want "lit fic" as opposed to mainstream/popular, what do they mean? One way to find out is read the stuff they publish. If you want to know what the New Yorker considers lit fic, read their fiction.

so let me get this straight. Nobody wants to publish your stuff, nobody understands it, it's ambiguous. What that means, then, is that they dont understand literary fiction. They dont understand that you are a f'ing genius and so far above their abilities they should be cowing down and kissing your feet. Is that about what you are saying? That you are the equal if not the superior of Kafka and Sartre. Because that sure is how I read your post.

I have to totally agree with James on this subject. And before you accuse me of not "understanding" I would like to point out that I have a degree in Literature. If anyone has been forcefed "literature" it's me. Literary fiction is not an excuse to write nonsense. And no, I'm not saying that you write nonsense. For all I know, you are the equal of Kafka. But I've run into enough "writers" and "artists" who were simply awful at what they did but instead of looking at their work they blamed everyone else with that "They dont understand" line.

True literary fiction, while it may look like nonsense, and it may seem ambiguous, is always clear and simple. Since modern art was brought into it, let me give this analogy. Everyone looks at modern art and says, my five year old could do better. Sure, that's what it looks like. But if someone doesnt have a true feeling of modern art, his work will seem off when compared to a true master such as Mondrian or Pollock. Sure, looking at a Mondrian, you say what's so hard about that. Just a couple of blocks of colour. I can do that. And hell, I can use better colours than him too. Primary shmimary. I'm using secondary, no better, i'm using tertiary colours.

So you do your version of Mondrian with tertiary colours and what you end up with is a mess. A complete, vague, vacuous mess. Why? Because you didnt understand what made Mondrian so great. Instead of learning from his principles, you just copied with some, to your eyes, improvements.

Literary fiction is just like that. I am in no way accusing you of not understanding it, or of not being able to write it. I have never read anything of yours, so therefore I can't judge it. However, nine times out of ten, when someone complains to me that people don't "understand" them, it's because they are being unclear, not brilliant.

And dont even get me started about "artistic purity."

For the sake of complete disclosure, I will tell you that I write genre novels, but literary shorts. Just so you'll know which stones to throw.

My sympathies...

gromhard. We had this 'What the BH is literary?' some time ago.

No one could agree and it got a little acrimonious. But I'll come back to what I said and still think. Literary short sotries are those where theme is very important.

I'm with James R in that plot and character are needed to make great literary stories, but literary stories have a basic honesty about them which comes through the writer's involvment in that theme. Having something to say and telling it well in story form seems to be what a lot of literary editors are looking for.

It does help to read the magazines before submitting. And I have to say that if I find an editor of a literary journal who likes my short story then s/he will be sent another one in three months time. At least I know roughly what sort of literary s/he's after!
P.S.
Someone in that earlier thread also told us very firmly there was no such catagory and to stop worry about it.

Try that!

P.P.S. Lee OC
Try reading James Joyce aloud. Better yet get a good reader to do so for you. His work today would be considered prose poety I think. He's very like Dylan Thomas in that respect. 'Under Milkwood' is a hard read but a brilliant 'listen to'.

P.P.P.S nevada
I'm not being combatative here but would simply like to say that there is some awfully pretentious, arty farty, airy fairy, 'literahry' rubbish out there which is meaningless nonsense. I'm not discussing here the experimental writing which some literary journals and zines publish. Writers in these cases are experimenting and one expects that much of it will be difficult, meaningless or just plain baffling. I'm talking the sort of flat dull boring stuff where nothing happens yet it is written in a traditional way.

Wow, Nevada, maybe we didn't read the same Grom post, or maybe you need to lighten up and engage in a meaningful discussion without being a....
I am a published author of literary fiction, a believer in artistic purity in all media, both as the artist sees it and as the audience experiences it. I would never blackball or verbally insult an artist, with or without proof of my definition of "merit", but then again I am not foolish enough to suggest I am a know-it-all. Be open to people, man, you might either learn something or find some great character fodder. Isn't that what we're doing, exploring an idea, engaging in "dialogue", and trying to draw conclusions? We all have individual tastes, and I for one am incredibly curious what makes people intrigued by certain genres that I have no interest in. For example, I despise haikus. Just do. Would I rip a haiku writer a new one? Nope, would be more likely to try and glean what it is they see that I don't.
Have a beer and chat awhile.

IMHO what the editor considers 'literary' is the key factor rather than the real semantics of the word (fuzzy at best). No point arguing with them, if what they are printing isn't what you are writing it's not the market to pick

Don't stress over what "genre" you write; find someone who publishes similar stuff, and submit. Don't submit if you don't already know, having read them, some of the publisher's recent works.

Call your own work whatever you want; once you're published, it's up the the marketing department and the bookstores, anyway.

Good point, Medievalist.

As a classic example of what to me is the difference between literary fiction and fiction there's this sentence: "It was the best of times; it was the worst of times." Who in his right mind would ever come up with that for the opening line of a novel? It's brilliant. It's literary fiction - and it shows the difference.

When I was a kid, literary fiction was the Harvard Classics shelf of fiction and not much more. The twentieth century American writers were considered good, but not on the same par; the Russian writers were hardly known. A lot of words have moved across the table in my lifetime and I know I'm reluctant to accept modern definitions as better than the ones of my childhood. But I really wonder if, as Maestro suggested, some of the more popular late twentieth century writers will endure the test of time. Somehow, I doubt it. Puma

gromhard said:

So I submit literary. So I get rejected. I get told things like "nothing HAPPENS in your story, people are just talking." And then their mag comes out....and it's like all f'ing Sci-Fi crap...or Horror, or mystery. Or even sometimes just contemp mainstream.

Imagine if you will, a poetry magazine saying "We accept free verse, rhyming, iambic pentameter and haikus." And you submit a bunch of free verse, all to be rejected, then you go and buy the magazine and it's ALL HAIKU!

Click to expand...

From what I have seen people say here on AW, your problem may lie in these two paragraphs.
Why are you buying the magazine AFTER the rejection and not BEFORE the submission?

10000

ummm where to begin. I'm a girl. I dont drink beer, but i'll have a diet coke. So yes, it was a bit of a bitchy post, I admit. However, I NEVER judged Grom's writing. In fact, I think I made it clear several times that I did not. How can I? I've never read any of it. And I wasnt talking about experimental writing. I dont understand experimental writing. I only brought up modern art because someone else did. I write literary shorts. Did nobody see that? I love literary writing. Love it to death.

Looking back, the whole post is a little rambling. Can I blame it on a sugar rush? However, I stand by what I said. Some people use the "they don't understand" excuse to not look as closely at their work as they should. Their work is obscure, vague, has references that nobody understands and they call it literary. Like that explains everything. Again, not referring to anyone in particular, especially not Grom whose work I have not read and therefore I can't comment on it. But I have personal experience with writers like that. Maybe they've tainted me.

oh and pdr, i agree with what you said so you're hardly being combative. In fact, I think it was I who was combative.