The Place of Ideas In Literary Fiction?

IN, I haven't particularly paid attention close enough to most litfic.

The only thing I can really say is that I think it's somewhat dangerous for writers of any stripe to have preconceived ideas of a particular genre that they push. What keeps any genre viable, IMO, is the exchange of new ideas and re-examination of old ones.

The problem with pointing out examples of litfic that aren't/weren't philosophical in nature is that someone could come along and point out the philosophy behind it. In fact, I think that would also be largely possible for mainstream and genre works as well.

Plus, and this may just be me, but I think litfic that is light on plot is as difficult a read as mainstream/contemporary that is light on character.

If you write fiction, you write fiction. In a lotta cases I couldn't tell literary fiction from purple prose fiction. People slot it all in many years later. I write fiction. I do my best. Some of it turns up in lit pubs, some don't.

The medium is the message?

Think of literary fiction as an onion, lots of layers! And a good writer has lots of beliefs and thoughts which will come through in whatever s/he writes. That is not the same as pushing one ideology at your readers.

(agenda) + (second-rate writing) = polemic

That's all.

I.N., you (perhaps unintentionally) have set up a straw-man fallacy. Sure, you can have "idea-driven" stories -- but those can take place in just about any genre/niche. There have been some very good writers who've totally turned me off by trying to cram Something Important into my head through my eyes, which is at the least rude. I'll read diatribe when I damned well feel like reading diatribe, not dipped in treacly ipecac.

Done well, deep thinking deepens a character.

A character who thinks honestly as well as deeply does not commit diatribe but instead ascribes to the first principle of philosophy: to wonder.

~ end pontification

And with luck anyone can win the Powerball on their first-ever ticket.

We could proibably spin out plenty more "...and water is wet!" platitudes while we're about it.

Let's go back to the root post, wherein "timeless literary fiction tends to push certain ideas"

...which is just fine except that (or because?) none of the terms employed is defined, no examples offered.

What makes fiction literary?

What makes such "timeless"?

If I am ever captured & interrogated, all they'd have to do is find someone who drones monotone & have them read any Henry James novel aloud, & I'll probably crack by Chapter 3. Yet I've enjoyed some of his short fiction.

Is Poe "timeless"? Wells? Verne? Shakespeare?

To borrow from Barry Malzberg, the author's motivation is often no higher than "the rent was due & I didn't want to get a real job." The fact that there might be a few nuggets of Deep Meaning speaks more to the emotional needs of the reader.

When a writer sits down to sell a viewpoint, it often kills the story -- I think specifically of science fiction by J. Neil Schulman, who's far more interested in pushing his "Libertarianism will save the day!" agenda than exploring characters or ideas. Good fiction doesn't tend to be about what it's "about"; it tells an engaging story that post hoc may be seen as a morality play with a moral & everything, but this shouldn't get in the way of juyst telling a good tale.

Some years ago, I read a "literary" novel I'm reluctant to name, because it was the Hot Item of the season. I read it through, almost began enjoying it in places, then got to the end. "So what?" I said to my wife. "It covers a couple of days, people encounter each other, & at the end everyone goies their separate ways & it's made clear none of them learned a damned thing from the experience. All that happens is that nothing happens." Previously, I'd gotten only halfway through Pynchon's V -- truth to tell, Joyce's Ulysses was a light-hearted romp and deeply moving, compared to Pynchon.

After reading the posts in this thread, I'm scared.

Studying everything I can here on the AW forums (which is an incredible wealth of information), I have determined that my first book is literary fiction. I didn't plan it that way, I didn't even know what literary fiction was suppose to be.

Now that I'm into the story I'm writing, there's no turning back. I want to see the thing done.

I would say that I am telling the reader something but I think it's more subliminal than obvious. Is that a bad strategy?

I think litfic has such a broad range that it's hard to categorize them, but I certainly think ideas, opinions, and grand themes can be a big part of a lit work. Michael Cunningham's The Hours, for example, examines the intricate relationships between women of three generations (and the intricate structures of 3) and depression. I wouldn't say it's a thinly-disguised essay -- it does have a story and great characters -- but the ideas and themes are very potent and strong; you can say the story was built on that idea(s).

My own novel borders on lit (I tend to want to claim "mainstream") because it also was built on some strong themes and ideas.

Its nice when a writer actually has something to say. The idea is everything but it doesn't have to be ideology, philosophy or technology, it can be something new.

The fictive dream

Hi everyone. Excellent question. I've written an article on this very topic (as you'll see, I feel strongly that literary fiction can have strong ideas/themes but they must be subservient to the overall story) which you can read here: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977080581

Thanks! Magdalena
Author of Sleep Before Evening
http://www.compulsivereader.com/html/images/SleepBeforeEvening.htm
"The writing is exquisite, without ever calling attention to itself, which is a real feat."

Psychoanalysis states that every work is somewhat a reflection of the author, whether they intend it to be or not.

Good writing generally is an essay, Orwell's work surely is, I wouldn't put Rand as literary, but you can, not to mention feminist literature which can feel like an essay. The goal of literary literature is to probe things worth probing, rather than to tell a story for one to escape in, and thereby generate profits.

I'm kind of thinking that my writing (which I haven't done for months) is moving away from horror towards literary fiction. But basically, I'm moving away being restricted by a genre because lit fic seems to be so broad.

But also lit fic seems to talk about things, as opposed to just an entertaining story. I believe fiction can be more entertaining when it discusses ideas, carries themes and expresses opinions.

But I disagree with the idea that this is 'pushing' an ideology.

Ideas, themes and opinions are most effectively conveyed in fiction through the events of the story. Like in the real world, effective fiction is when the actions in the story and the choices the character makes forms ideas and themes in the reader, rather than ideas being lectured by the writer for the reader to just digest.

I've been wondering about this too. For two years I've been trying to decide whether I want my WIP to be idea-based or story-based. I think it's going to end up as a sort of hybrid.

I think that ideas are very important in literature (not just litfic), but an idea also has to come alive through the story and the characters; that's the only way that allows the reader to step in and interpret, enrich that idea and make it his/her own. (I think it was Cioran who said that 'If a book leaves you the same person you were before reading it, then it's a failed book.')

But an idea isn't something 'preconceived' to smack the reader over the head with; it can be a theme, or relationship between people, or even better - a question. Anything that makes the reader wonder,or think, or feel moved, and that's why it can be inherent to a lot of good stories (even so-called genre lit). I think that the purpose of litfic is indeed the idea (as opposed to entertaining), but it can be made in a lot of ways without coming up with an essay.

I find it best when a book can be read in many different ways, both as a story and as an idea (although I don't know if that's what litfic does). The thing is, imho, that even if your work is a 'thinly disguised essay' there should always be some room for the reader to wonder, to question, to think, to try to read more into it (just like Umberto Eco always leaves me with the feeling that there's more to the book than I first understood, and so makes me come back with the same curiosity). Besides, it's nice if you grow alongside your story, and that can only be done if you don't quite know all the answers to your own questions . On a writing site, there was a piece of advice that said that strong books don't come from 'safe' themes, and I think this applies quite often.

But this is just my opinion, and good lit can come from anywhere and leave you awe-stricken.

Wraith said:

I find it best when a book can be read in many different ways...

Click to expand...

I really agree with this. I think the strength in the story and therefore the idea is in the actions and events happening as raw events and through that, the reader analyses and makes their own opinions from those events.

Obviously, each person will make different connections between the events in the story and previous events in their own lives but obviously the writer will go into writing with already preconceived ideas of what those events are trying to tell the reader.

And I think the strength of the writer and their story will mean that more often than not, the readers will draw similar conclusions.