Literary Vent

[gromhard]

[anger] You know what I'm sick of? I am sick and f'ing tired of seeing that people listing their submission desires, they almost without fail, always say "literary".
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.
My point? It's not literary. Most people don't understand what literary means. It's frustrating.
I have gotten in so many fights with friends, with editors, with people I consider intelligent why their Stephen King book, no matter how well written, is not lit fiction. Or how no matter how philosophical Frank Herbert gets, God Emperor Dune, about a giant worm man who leads a space army isn't f'ing literary.
Why is it so hard for people to understand??? Literary is f'ing genre.
"Well Gromhard why do you care? If the story is good then it should get published no matter what genre." That's such an amatuer comment.

People that don't read literary fiction aren't going to understand or want it.
People who DO read literary fiction aren't going to want some Fantasy story about some wizard and a magical elf.
"A good story" to a horror, sci-fi, romance, fantasy, reader/editor is one that has an interesting plot.
"A good story" to a lit fiction author is one that pushes the f'ing craft and expresses ideas.
Editors who don't understand the difference are probably not going to understand or appreciate literary fiction.
Which is fine, I don't always read or write literary either. I love sci fi. But it does piss me off that lit fic writers probably get twenty times the rejections as all other genres simply because editor's want to seem avante garde by saying they read literary.

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.

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

Contemporary can go back and forth sometimes I admit but generally it's just frustrating sending work out to be rejected by someone who didn't know not to ask for it.

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!
[/pissy art fag rant]

God if I spent as much time writing as I did being full of myself I'd probably have a more impressive body of work.
-G

[Puma]

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

[Lee_OC]

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.

[JenNipps]

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.

[maestrowork]

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

[cree]

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. :)

[whistlelock]

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]

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."

LOL
That is so true.

[gromhard]

As for what literary means I'd be hard pressed to offer better descriptions than Maestro and Cree.

The goal of all others genres is to write a piece. A sci fi story. A romance novel. A fantasy novella...where as literary the goal is to write a good book/novella/story.

Like Cree said it's the artistic side of the written world.

[Jamesaritchie]

[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.

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.



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

-G

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.

[maestrowork]

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.

[Puma]

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

[maestrowork]

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."

[cree]

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

[Lee_OC]

*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...

[cree]

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 :)

[maestrowork]

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.

[nevada]

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.

[pdr]

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.

[cree]

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.

[veinglory]

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 ;)

[Medievalist]

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.

[Puma]

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

[smiley10000]

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!


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?

:e2smack: 10000

[nevada]

ummm where to begin. I'm a girl. I dont drink beer, but i'll have a diet coke.:D 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.

[Medievalist]

Honestly, I don't know what you people's problem is.

If it's not at least 174 years old, then obviously it's not literary. What are you thinking? Do none of you have any taste at all?

Frankly, if we're going to talk about "great," let's just deal with the bare facts of the matter: If you're writing in a language without infixes, just forget it; you don't have a hope in . . . you know, of ever writing anything worth the "literary" label.

As for poetry . . . well, it better rely on syllabic meters and internal rhymes, or don't come whining to me about it. You don't see Sappho wasting time with end-rhymes do you?

Exactly.

Now, go on about your business; there's nothing to see here. Move along. You don't need to see my papers. Everything's fine here, how are you?





Yes, I'm not serious. I'm just getting a little tired of the "what is literary" question. Plato couldn't tell us, and neither can you, so just go write it, get it published and then come tell us what worked for you

[cree]

[QUOTE=Medievalist]
I'm just getting a little tired of the "what is literary" question.

Hey, you clicked in on the discussion, too, that was your choice! I'm just trying to drink my beer, pass Nevada a lime for her diet coke, and shoot the sh*t about an age-old topic - but since this one is beat to death for now, want to move on to the origin of mankind, or maybe the ingredients of hot dogs? (snicker).

[gromhard]

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.


What makes them literary is literary fiction shelves stock them, literary fiction editors edit them, literary fiction reviewers review them.
It's a genre name, NOT a qualitative standard.

For instance, I'll use Slaughterhouse 5, some call it sci-fi and in effect, it is but do you find it on the Sci-Fi shelf? No, because Vonnegut's readers usualy aren't reading him for his Sci-Fi.
The "average" reader of Comp/Main/Lit is ostensibly going to enjoy his books. (from a publisher's standpoint of course. )
* Not going to get into the "Is Vonnegut literary or mainstream" debate here just illustrating a point about genres. They have more to do with [prospective] audience than actual content.




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?

Every writer I mentioned is one of my favorites.
But you're right, Literary fiction ISN'T about murder mysteries or vampires.
If a book has those elements then it's going to be inaccessible to a lot of people's tastes. That's a plot choice.

If your literary fiction is inaccessible then it's a writing choice.


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.

Shakespeare was a playwright/poet. Dumas and Stevenson wrote adventure books. (I haven't read Stevenson but isn't he YA?)
Mark Twain is YA.
Ole Jack London...Read Martin Eden- That's literary fiction at it's finest.
London is an interesting one to bring up. He definently wrote literary fiction at times but at times he wrote adventure books.
Now if I'm a publisher and I own the Jack London catalogue I'm probably going to publish him under "Lit Fiction" because guys who go into a bookstore to buy "Lit Fiction" are probably going to be more interested in London than guys into Adventure Books.


So-called "literary" fiction of the type you're talking about is a very recent...

So? Sci Fi's a new genre too.


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.

So? Some of us don't want to wade through Space Operas or Hobbit Tales to find intellectually stimulating reads.


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.

Here you're wrong. Just wrong.
Dostoevsky died broke. John Fante went 40 years unknown then died. John Kennedy O'Toole didn't see his book published in his lifetime.

And those people weren't trying to sell books in the same market that glorifies Howard Stern and American Idol.

Commercialism is NOT measure for talent.


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.

Too bad for them.


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.

9 out of 10 of every type of writer will be forgotten. But NO ONE is going to put Harry Potter on the same shelf as Dostoevsky or Kafka.


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.

Bukowski has a following on par with a rock star. To explain how much people appreciate Bukowski...had you bashed him in my presense I'd have socked you in the jaw. If that's not appreciation then I don't know what is. I wouldn't walk across the street to piss on Stephen King's head if it was on fire...and I like King...but he doesn't effect me profoundly. He doesn't pull my heartstrings, he doesn't elate my soul. Bukowski can do all that and more with a single poem.

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.

I don't care who wants to read him. Or who cries if it's "assigned" I've never read an assigned book in my life. I like Joyce, I respect his work and see where he's tried to be honest and artistic.
If you can't get into Ulysses then too bad for you.(Never read Ulysses but "Portrait of an artist..." reached me.)


Hamsun? Good grief. If anyting on earth proves the Nobel has zero meaning, it's Hamsun.

Dude what DO you like? Nora Ephron books? Danielle Steele? I mean you don' t seem to appreciate anyone with any balls.


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.

You don't understand poetry in any artistic capacity at all. I know that's a personal judgement but I'm making it. :tongue "If the common man loves it, it can't be any good, can it?"
Yet you say this crap right after telling me that commercial success equates with talent and ability? That Stephen King and JK Rowling will be read in 100 years just cause they have clever marketting strategies now?
So which is it? Is the "common man" the judge of talent or not?

- Grom

P.S. Responding to this helped me to come up with more of a definition for Lit fic, I'll post it after this.

[gromhard]

The man character in a genre book is the protagonist. The main character in a literary book is the author. His prose, his thoughts, his emotions, his observations(it's different for every writer) it's a dialogue of communication he's chosen to open with his readers. It's not the story so much as the storyteller.
"Lit Fic" is the genre for people who appreciate and strive for that effort. (Yes most of them suck. There's maybe 1 good literary story/nov for every 100, whereas it's more like 1 in 10 for other genres....lit fic is a more difficult genre, not as much is forgiven and there aren't as many guidelines.
It's why older writers are more easily lobbed in with Lit Fiction, because most people read a 100 year old book for the author, not the plot of the specific book.
It's why so many literary fiction books are first person narratives, often simply thinly disguised autobiographical works.

Again books/authors CAN and DO cross genres all the time.

Genres are simply catagories editors think up for prospective fan bases...we only wish the editors would just realize what they were asking for so we wouldn't waste our time sending our artsy fartsy work somewhere that's not going to appreciate it.

[aruna]

The man character in a genre book is the protagonist. The main character in a literary book is the author. His prose, his thoughts, his emotions, his observations(it's different for every writer) it's a dialogue of communication he's chosen to open with his readers. It's not the story so much as the storyteller.
t.

I can't agree with this. For me, literary fiction is writing so good the author disappears. He/she is invisible. The characters are so alive, they exist on their own; they are real, unforgettable people who live on long after the book is closed. Sometimes the writing is deceptively simple, but always it penetrates into your soul and somehow works a subtle magic so that you leave the novel a changed person. It's bigger than the author.


I absolutley hate it when so-called literary fiction is merely a platform for the author to say: look at me, how brilliant I am, how cleverly I craft my words! It's almost masturbation: the author is USING writing to boost his own ego, and it shows. Such authors are almost proud when their books don't sell, as if that was the criteria for good writing.

But also, I don't believe the common man is the one who decides. If that were the case then the Davinci Code would be literary. So no, literary is not synonymous with commercial. But a good literary book CAN be commercial.

My agent used to speak of accessible and inaccessible literary writing. Inaccessible is writing that only intellectuals can understand. Freuqently it's a showcase fr the author's brilliance and very often (I say this carefully) it's a case of The Emperor's New Clothes. I've found th ability to manipulate language - verbal pyrotechnics - is inconsistent with good storytelling, and many of these books are quite simply - boring.
Some time ago I used the term "academic" to describe inaccessible literary fiction, and that's the term I prefer; it's always a bit pretentious, and more than a bit elitist.

Accessible literary writing works on several levels. It has a damn good story that draws you in from the first page, wonderful characters with heart and soul, themes that make you think beyond your own four walls, and writing that shines: a combination of all four of these. You don't need a PhD to enjoy it, and you don't have to force yourself to read it so as to be able to keep up with the literary chatter.

Genre does not exclude literary. For me, John LeCarre is a literary writer, even though he writes spy thrillers. He's that good a writer. He makes you think, his characters are alive, he's a real storyteller, and the writing is stellar.

[smiley10000]

The man character in a genre book is the protagonist. The main character in a literary book is the author. His prose, his thoughts, his emotions, his observations(it's different for every writer) it's a dialogue of communication he's chosen to open with his readers. It's not the story so much as the storyteller.


I hope this is false
or
that I never be called a Literary author!

I must say I have to agree with Aruna on this one. Literary writing is not about the author but what the author can do to weave a beautifully crafted story.

Eunoia by Christian Bök is an award winning novel I hope never to read. The author spoke in one of my university classes. He wrote a book of five chapters where each chapter only uses one of the vowels.
Well gee, isn't that wonderful that he could do that. Do you think the story is really worth anything? Do I think anyone will want to read it as Great Canadian Literature in a 100 years? nope. They'll all be reading Margaret Atwood and Michael Ondaatje. Good storytellers.

:e2point: 10000

[Fahim]

Shakespeare was a playwright/poet. Dumas and Stevenson wrote adventure books. (I haven't read Stevenson but isn't he YA?)
Mark Twain is YA.


I'm sorry but I really must disagree with these sweeping generalizations - especially when you haven't actually read R. L. Stevenson - not sure if you've actually read any of the others. Sure, it probably feels good to put a label on an author and say "he wrote this, this is where he belongs". But have you actually read "Kidnapped" or "Catriona" or "Treasure Island"? Do you know what Stevenson wrote about? Then what about "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde"? Does that make Stevenson a horror writer? Or perhaps he's science fiction? And what about "Black Arrow"? Does that make him a historical writer? Just learn to enjoy a writer for his work and stop worrying about irrlevancies like what label to put upon him/her :) But then again, that's just my opinion - you are free to your own :tongue

[rtilryarms]

Wow. this is really getting deep.

Why are you trying to redefine Literature?
It is a not genre. It is a contribution as judged by your peers. It must be fresh in style and / or thought provoking. It does NOT have to be interesting or captivating.
Some Literature is due to style, some to prose and some because they are just a new approach. It usuually does not become Literature until well after someone is dead and the test of time is the only definition that is worthy of any kind of definition.

ETA: I meant NOT a genre. oops

[Roger J Carlson]

What makes them literary is literary fiction shelves stock them, literary fiction editors edit them, literary fiction reviewers review them.
It's a genre name, NOT a qualitative standard.

lit·er·ar·y
adj.

Of, relating to, or dealing with literature: literary criticism.
Of or relating to writers or the profession of literature: literary circles.
Versed in or fond of literature or learning.
Appropriate to literature rather than everyday speech or writing.
Bookish; pedanticThe problem with calling "Literary" a genre is that this genre appropriates all of the definitions of the word "literary" for itself exclusively. Therefore, if you read mysteries, you cannot be "fond of literature and learning". If literary means "dealing with literature" then ONLY "Literary" fiction can be literature. Commercial fiction cannot, then, be literary (and by extension, literate).

This is exactly what a lot of Literature professors I've encountered believe. But it's not going to make many writers or publishers of genre fiction happy.

By contrast if "literary" means a qualitive standard, then ANY genre can include literary work. It is inclusive of ALL forms of writing, which is more in keeping with the actual definition of the word.

[maestrowork]

The man character in a genre book is the protagonist. The main character in a literary book is the author. His prose, his thoughts, his emotions, his observations(it's different for every writer) it's a dialogue of communication he's chosen to open with his readers. It's not the story so much as the storyteller.

Huh?

I am sorry, it's always about the characters in the story. It might not have a plot as we know it (in genre), but it is always about the characters, and the characters do not necessarily represent the author's value. The prose is not about the author either, although we could come to appreciate how wonderful someone writes, but it's still about the story, and how the prose bring the story to life.

I think you have poetry and fiction confused.

A lot of writers also think literary means big words, complex sentences, clever rephrasing or creative use of word choices and combinations. Well, if used well, they do enhance the work and make it highly enjoyable. Otherwise, they're just pretentious, call attention to themselves, and make a PhD go "huh?". Many excellent lit works don't do any of that -- Hemingway, for example.

[cree]

The main character in a literary book is the author.


Wait a second, before you dismiss this idea. I read it differently, and maybe G's intention wasn't the way you read it. (Sorry G I hate speaking for others but here's what I saw).

G's statement was not meant to be taken literally. (no pun intended). I can best say it in an example:
Let's say I (author) have a thing for gourds. Yep, gourds, those odd-looking little pumpkins that are fairly useless, have no particular culinary value...those. I study their bulbous shape, their irregular surface, their pulpy interior. Then I take it a step further and consider the symbolism of gourds in life, and come up with how they represent harvest, even though no one who relies on their own harvest could actually SURVIVE on a pile of gourds. So, people opt to place them out as decoration, and when they rot they throw them away. Disposable decorations, dubious food source, symbol of harvest and life without a meaningful purpose.

(If you've stuck with me this long, I'm impressed!)

So I've studied gourds both literally and symbolically, and drawn my conclusions. Now, I write.
But I don't write "I think gourds are preposterous little buggers that waste space in a garden."
Now, I find some aspect of myself that would best allow me to psychologically and physically convey my impression of gourds. Everyone has many personality traits, etc., so I pinpoint one. In this instance I would maybe choose the childless one, and explore that. That could go on for hours and days, but I'm looking for a link between childlessness and gourds.
When I find it, maybe I've come up with a childless old woman whose regrets are manifested in a massive expanse of a garden in which she grows only gourds. I give her a face and a name, not my own, and convey everything I've said up to this point through a carefully woven story. It will include both the symbolic and literal aspects of my thought streams thus far.
In the end, the woman smashes all her gourds. :)

OK, so what's my point? If you were to be superficial about this, you'd say my story was about some old lady with a garden full of gourds. Gawd, tell someone else that and they will never read it, what a bore with no excitement! Go a level deeper, and you might say it's about the symbolic aspects, and that it ties a homely useless symbol of life with a woman who was never able to attain immortality through birth of her own child.

But as an author, I could tell you this story is about one aspect of me. It is my personal explorations, themes, and conclusions conveyed through some old broad in her garden.

Get it?
:)

[aruna]

But as an author, I could tell you this story is about one aspect of me. It is my personal explorations, themes, and conclusions conveyed through some old broad in her garden.

Unless you have written a riveting story about your old lady, unless she is a character with wit and life and heart, unless she can move me to tears or make me fall off my chair laughing, I don't care a donkey's hoof about you and your gourds. Sorry!

[Medievalist]

But as an author, I could tell you this story is about one aspect of me. It is my personal explorations, themes, and conclusions conveyed through some old broad in her garden.

That's kind of part of being a writer dude, it has nothing to do with genre.

[Birol]

Dostoevsky died broke.

This is both inaccurate and misleading. Dostoevsky did not die broke. By the time of his death, he was living comfortably and was a well-respected by Russian society. Shortly before his death, he was even invited to deliver a speech honoring Pushkin.

At several points during his lifetime, Dostoevsky had placed himself in a position to have a comfortable life through his literary efforts, either as an editor or a writer. He'd lose his money either through bad business decisions, when he found himself on the wrong side of Russian politics/law, or through gambling. His second wife took over his finances and managed to get him out of debt and have enough for a comfortable country home where she, Dostoevsky, and their children were living at the time of his death.

[cree]

Why do you people try so hard NOT to get it? Haven't we already established that genre is a pigeon-hole developed for marketing? That literary can cross borders into others?
As for writing a riveting story Aruna, uh, I thought we were writers and that was an implied facet of the trade.

[Roger J Carlson]

But as an author, I could tell you this story is about one aspect of me. It is my personal explorations, themes, and conclusions conveyed through some old broad in her garden.

Get it?
:)Kind of like reading someone else's journal or diary?

[aruna]

As for writing a riveting story Aruna, uh, I thought we were writers and that was an implied facet of the trade.

But some novels stink of "me, the author". Those are the bad writers, even though they may call themselves literary.

[JAlpha]

As an editor of an on-line literary magazine I'd like to weigh in on this discussion.

I have an opinion as to what is literary, and I submitted it as an article to AW sometime back http://www.absolutewrite.com/specialty_writing/artless_fiction.htm

I wasn't an editor when I wrote the article, and now that I am, my definition hasn't changed in a general sense, but in my day to day decisions regarding the stories I select vs. the stories I reject, there is an overwhelming criteria I am looking for, and that is the writer's attention to craft.

For example:

Today my managing editor forwarded three stories for my consideration for publication. I rejected two and will be accepting one after the author considers making a few small revisions.

Story number one had no control over POV, it was about a Tour de France style bike race and without a clear POV it was hard to follow. The syntax was awkward also making it hard to follow the story line. There was a sense of a story line, but without the author's ability to control the crafting of his story, it wasn't publishable. It could have been a wonderful opportunity for the writer to put the reader right on the seat of a bicycle, seeing, feeling, thinking exactly what was going through the bikers mind. That didn't happen, and what remained had no real purpose for the reader to attach to the story.

Story number two was about a World War I dog fight. Some very nice writing and story tension, but there was an awkward sequencing of the stories events and a lack of narrative control. See there's that word again 'control'. Additionally, there didn't seem to be any point to having the story take place during World War I. There were little to no specific historical details woven into the story. And the characterization was extremely flat, leaving the reader with no sense of what it felt like to be in a dog fight other than cliche references to a pounding heart and a rush of adrenaline.

Story number three was dark, moody, full of sentence fragments, almost to the point of being near poem like. Of the three stories, it had the weakest sense of a complete story almost completing lacking a beginning, middle and end. So why did I pick it? Because it's literary? Hardly. I picked it because everything about the story conveyed the author's complete sense of control over the story, i.e. the reader, and I was compelled to read the story all the way to the end. I felt I was completely connected to the POV character, feeling what she felt, seeing what see saw. That's what I mean by narrative control.

I truly wish I could have selected the other two stories, but not as they are written now, not as they were sent to me with the clear indication that the writers have not yet achieved the ability to control the stories they are telling--to craft their stories in such a way that the reader is compelled to read on, because the writers have created the illusion that the reader is actually a part of the story and not captive to a distant narrators telling of what happened, what is happening and what is about to happen in the story.

Those are complicated crafting issues I can't address with each of those writers without having to end up conducting a fiction workshop with them.

Which leads me to my specific advice about how to get your stories published, in either mainstream or literary venues. Pay attention to your craft--learn how to gain control of your story, learn how to lure readers into your story and keep them there. Once you can do that, the topic of getting your work published in literary or mainstream/genre markets will become secondary. Yes, you will still have to seek the appropriate markets for your stories based on some theme and or genre bias, but a world of publishing opportunities open up for writers who learn how to control their stories, no matter the genre.


Edited to add: I'm not accustomed to such lengthy posts so here's my Reader's Digest version. Telling a story is one thing, controlling the telling of a story is another. "Control" is the storytelling goal you want to strive for.

[maestrowork]

But as an author, I could tell you this story is about one aspect of me. It is my personal explorations, themes, and conclusions conveyed through some old broad in her garden.

Writers write about what they know, think, feel, or imagined. Whether it's an experimental piece about gourds or a fantasy about three-headed creatures and unicorns. The story always comes from the writer and bound by his or her own perceptions and emotions. However, it doesn't mean the story is about the author. Such ego-centric way to think about the world!

It's always the story and character first. If the author wants to insert himself into the story and make it semi-biographical, inspirational and whatever, that's fine but it's still about the story/character first, and by no means can you generalize and say that literary fiction is all about the author. The worst kind of literature is that which the writer is blatantly saying, "Look at me! Look how brilliant I am. Look at me!"

[cree]

MW -- Isn't it contradictory to say that writers write about what they know, think, feel or imagine...then say it's about the story and character first? What is the source of the story and character? It's the old chicken-egg thing. But if you break it down to the source...the source is the author. How else would we garner passion for our writing?
Those who write Look at Me! pieces are just not skilled in disguising the source.
Out of curiousity, where can I find published Look at Me! fiction stuff? I'd like to get a look at what you're talking about, and can't come up with some works...

[maestrowork]

The source may be the author, the outcome is not. I am surprised you don't see the difference.

We all do things out of our own perceptions and knowledge -- whether it is a piece of literary work or a garden or software application or a building. Do we look at Microsoft Word and say "That is just so Bill Gates?" Or watch Schindler's List and say, "It's all about Steven Spielberg isn't it?" No, Word is about the users. Schindler's List is about Schindler and the people he helped saved.

Yes, our passion comes from knowing what we do means something to us, personally. Whether it's the subject matters, or the characters we create. But it doesn't stop there. Because if it is, it's just a self-gratifying, masturbatory ego-trip. You may as well as write a diary and marvel at how brilliant you are. If you write about your mother, the story should be able HER, not you. It should not be "look, how brilliant the author is" -- it should be "wow, that woman is amazing! What a wonderful story."

It's about your mother (character) first. Not you, the author.

Telling stories is about letting your readers into a world you create and care about the characters that live in that world. It's not about you. The best writers should be transparent. And the best writers are the ones, when asked if the story is about them, would simply say, "No, not even close."

[cree]

Do we look at Microsoft Word and say "That is just so Bill Gates?" "

Actually, I do. LOL!

Good points, I'm enjoying this, and learning something about how people perceive things -- but I still think you are quick to divorce the "character" from the "author" entirely, rather than accepting the two are intertwined so intimately, and there's no shame in that union. There's a difference between gratuitous public masturbation via words, and breathing life into a character using your personal experiences. As someone already said, isn't that what all writers DO anyhow, regardless of genre? So why the urgent need to deny the link between author and character?

[JAlpha]

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. :)

I'm familiar with this school of thought regarding art. I have a degree from one of the most avante garde art schools in the country. And here's the problem I've always had with that school of thought, a problem that has followed me into my transition from a visual artist to a writer and editor. Art created for other artists to appreciate doesn't always translate into sales, exhibitions and or publication.

It's one thing to create fiction from this viewpoint, but quite another to fault readers who don't "get it."

When artists put their work out for public consumption i.e. exhibit at an art fair or seek publication in a venue that serves readers of literary fiction as well as writers of literary fiction--then the desired level of ambiguity varies, the level of how much interpretation a reader is willing to put into a piece varies.

As the editor of a literary magazine, I have an obligation to select fiction that readers of literary fiction will enjoy, as well as the writers of literary fiction.

Arts for arts sake is fine to a point, but once an artist decides to peddle their art, they are subject to consumer appreciation, which is not always the same as the level of appreciation another artist may have.

[maestrowork]

LOL.

(You're comparing me with Demille, King and Snicket? Thanks!)

Actually, it's true. I went to a Barnes & Noble and my books are right next to Wolfe's. Talk about in good company. Of course, I got the face-out and she didn't. So there!

[Roger J Carlson]

Of course, I got the face-out and she didn't. So there!Was that before you got there or after? <d&rfc>

[maestrowork]

but I still think you are quick to divorce the "character" from the "author" entirely, rather than accepting the two are intertwined so intimately, and there's no shame in that union. There's a difference between gratuitous public masturbation via words, and breathing life into a character using your personal experiences. As someone already said, isn't that what all writers DO anyhow, regardless of genre? So why the urgent need to deny the link between author and character?

Actually I am not divorcing the characters from the author entirely. There are all kinds of characters, including autobiographical and semi-autobiographical, as well as "Mary Sue" characters. It's of course fair to say that there's a connection somewhere between author and characters. However, it's still about characters first, not the author. A reader would really care less if the characters are a reflection of the author.

There are also characters that have nothing to do with the author herself, except that they live inside her head. Maybe they're modeled after the people the author knows, or a composite of all the people she's met. But they're not her. I myself have characters that are not at all like me, and their views don't necessarily reflect mine. After all, I have villains, and I don't think I am all that evil. :)


I think it's a perception issue. The author is egocentric in a way that every piece she creates may very well be about her and how she views the world. But when the work is published and read by others, it's not about her anymore. The readers become the center, and they only care about the characters and not the person who created these characters.

[maestrowork]

Was that before you got there or after? <d&rfc>

Touche. Actually, two before (the managers love me), and one after. :)

[cree]

I'm familiar with this school of thought regarding art. I have a degree from one of the most avante garde art schools in the country. And here's the problem I've always had with that school of thought, a problem that has followed me into my transition from a visual artist to a writer and editor. Art created for other artists to appreciate doesn't always translate into sales, exhibitions and or publication. .

Me too. The degree part -- maybe we were "trained" are the same Institution? LOL. As far as the translation -- fully agreed. But it's f-ing magical when it all comes together and you get the appreciation of both your fellow artists and the general masses. I shoot for that and no less. (But often GET less) :) that's the game we play.

[cree]

MW-- have you read A Fan's Notes by Fred Exley? If not, I would really recommend. Brilliant. And it pushes at the edges of our imagined "Writers' Rules of How to Write a Story". An acclaimed work.
It's been a fun discourse, peace out for the day!

[JAlpha]

Me too. The degree part -- maybe we were "trained" are the same Institution? LOL. As far as the translation -- fully agreed. But it's f-ing magical when it all comes together and you get the appreciation of both your fellow artists and the general masses. I shoot for that and no less. (But often GET less) :) that's the game we play.

I graduated from The School of the Art Institute of Chicago, back in the day when it was still literally underground, back in the day before they awarded degrees in creative writing. I did my post grad work in creative writing at Columbia College and Georgia State University.

What "institution" did you get your degree from. LOL, institution really does say it all. When I was in art school, there weren't any piercing parlors, no fancy assortments of piercing jewelry--my fellow students all sported various arrangements of safety pins in their flesh--ya it was an institution :ROFL:

[gromhard]

I'm sorry but I really must disagree with these sweeping generalizations - especially when you haven't actually read R. L. Stevenson - not sure if you've actually read any of the others. Sure, it probably feels good to put a label on an author and say "he wrote this, this is where he belongs". But have you actually read "Kidnapped" or "Catriona" or "Treasure Island"? Do you know what Stevenson wrote about? Then what about "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde"? Does that make Stevenson a horror writer? Or perhaps he's science fiction? And what about "Black Arrow"? Does that make him a historical writer? Just learn to enjoy a writer for his work and stop worrying about irrlevancies like what label to put upon him/her :) But then again, that's just my opinion - you are free to your own :tongue

I read Kidnapped and The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde...when I was 10.

And please people...we're not talking about QUALITY here, we're talking about where to send out OUR WORK.
If Stevenson wrote Kidnapped today it'd go in young adult or historical fiction in the bookstore. So people who liked books for young adults or people who liked books dealing with historical settings could find it.

People who want to read the book with the one vowel a chapter that Smurfette mentioned will go looking in literary fiction.
You guys seem to be disgruntled with the word "literary". If it had a different name, such as "Artsy Fartsy Fiction" or "Glip Fiction" I don't think there'd be all these disagreements.

[gromhard]

But as an author, I could tell you this story is about one aspect of me. It is my personal explorations, themes, and conclusions conveyed through some old broad in her garden.

Get it?
:)
THANK YOU! Exactly what I meant!

[gromhard]

This is both inaccurate and misleading. Dostoevsky did not die broke. By the time of his death, he was living comfortably and was a well-respected by Russian society. Shortly before his death, he was even invited to deliver a speech honoring Pushkin.

At several points during his lifetime, Dostoevsky had placed himself in a position to have a comfortable life through his literary efforts, either as an editor or a writer. He'd lose his money either through bad business decisions, when he found himself on the wrong side of Russian politics/law, or through gambling. His second wife took over his finances and managed to get him out of debt and have enough for a comfortable country home where she, Dostoevsky, and their children were living at the time of his death.

That's good. I remember seeing that Dost went on the run from creditors from Russia, Germany and other countries with his gambling addiction. It's good that his last wife got him to take hold of his demons and make a decent life for himself.

[Medievalist]

You guys seem to be disgruntled with the word "literary". If it had a different name, such as "Artsy Fartsy Fiction" or "Glip Fiction" I don't think there'd be all these disagreements.

The problem is that there is no consensus regarding what "literary fiction" means, hence it's an essentially meaningless label.

Literary fiction isn't a genre; it's an amorphous collection of descriptive terms that vary with the text and the describer. There's a reason the Library of Congress cataloging system doesn't use "literary fiction" as a meta data description; it's because it has no agreed upon meaning.

If you want to know where to submit, you go to bookstores and libraries and news stands and read the books and journals and magazines. When you find a publisher who has bought works that you feel are similar to something you've written, you then investigate the submission procedure.

[cree]

What "institution" did you get your degree from. LOL, institution really does say it all. When I was in art school, there weren't any piercing parlors, no fancy assortments of piercing jewelry--my fellow students all sported various arrangements of safety pins in their flesh--ya it was an institution :ROFL:

RISD, Sculpture. Followed by a separate degree from Syracuse, Journalism.
At RISD, I was the chick with the braid-able underarm hair and hemp shoulder-sling bag...oh wait, we all looked like that. Unified non-conformity :)

[Fahim]

I read Kidnapped and The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde...when I was 10.


I read "Les Miserables" and the "The Last Days of Pompeii" when I was 8 and "Harry Potter" when I was 30+ So what's the point? :) Does the age at which you read a book define the age range that a book is actually "suitable" for? Or does reading a book when you are 10 make the author automatically YA?

"Kidnapped", I forget when I read it first, but I was very young, made a lasting impression on me. I still remember David Balfour without having to look his name up - that to me is good writing. If an author can leave a lasting impression about a character or their story, then he's done his work. It doesn't matter to me whether he's considered literary or not.


And please people...we're not talking about QUALITY here, we're talking about where to send out OUR WORK.
<snip>
You guys seem to be disgruntled with the word "literary". If it had a different name, such as "Artsy Fartsy Fiction" or "Glip Fiction" I don't think there'd be all these disagreements.

Actually, I thought we were discussing statements such as - "Well Gromhard why do you care? If the story is good then it should get published no matter what genre." That's such an amatuer comment.

People that don't read literary fiction aren't going to understand or want it.
People who DO read literary fiction aren't going to want some Fantasy story about some wizard and a magical elf.

Reading the above, it would seem that you are the one who's under the impression that good fiction will not get sold on its own merits. That it somehow needs to be pigenholed before it can actually be sold. Or am I reading you wrong? :) I think the point that some of us are making is that "literary" in the sense we are looking at it is not a genre ...

[Puma]

The way I see it, part of this whole problem/thread is happening because - when you write a query letter you are expected to specify the genre of your work and there isn't any artsy-fartsy fiction. The available categories are restrictive and some of the old categories (like the men's literature James mentioned way up the line) seem to have fallen by the wayside.

This thread reads like the problem is that literary fiction has become a catchall for all unclassifiables. So what else can you do with something that isn't any specific genre? You don't dare say it's of no genre. Maybe if we can solve that problem the issue with literary fiction will solve itself. Puma

[aruna]

but I still think you are quick to divorce the "character" from the "author" entirely, rather than accepting the two are intertwined so intimately, and there's no shame in that union. There's a difference between gratuitous public masturbation via words, and breathing life into a character using your personal experiences. As someone already said, isn't that what all writers DO anyhow, regardless of genre? So why the urgent need to deny the link between author and character?

There's a difference, and I think it's in "intention". Did you intend to write a story about gourds, because the mean so much to you, and the old lady is simply a vessel (sock-puppet!) for conveying that intension? Or did you write about the old lady because she came to you as a living breathing character, and the theme (gourds or whatever) is in the background, for the reader to pick up or not accdording to her sensitivity? You'll find that in the first case your old lady will remain two dimensional because you have not "become" her; you are still with your gourds. In the second case you have become your old lady; you have breathed yourself into her and your ego with its gourds have melted into her. They are still there because she is your creation, she cannot exist without you, but you are not pushing them (yourself and your gourds) down the reader's throat.

I learned this from a Japanese friend of mine who was a gifted violist. She struggled for years with her music, trying so hard to get her technique right, and failing - she could tell that her music was dead. And then she simply let go and played with her heart, and the music came alive. She became semi-famous in her city, but unfortunately was killed in acar crash at the age of 31.

The way she put it was this: am I using music to put myself forward? Or am I giving myself to the music, losing myself in it? The second way brought forth the most magical music imaginable. The first way produced empty music. I never forgot that simile. I think it applies to all the arts, especially writing.

[Medievalist]

The way I see it, part of this whole problem/thread is happening because - when you write a query letter you are expected to specify the genre of your work and there isn't any artsy-fartsy fiction. The available categories are restrictive and some of the old categories (like the men's literature James mentioned way up the line) seem to have fallen by the wayside.

A writer ought to be able to come up with a few descriptive phrases that are specific to the story without having to label it, if, in fact, it truly is sui generis.

[Birol]

The way she put it was this: am I using music to put myself forward? Or am I giving myself to the music, losing myself in it? The second way brought forth th emost magicl music imaginable. The first way produced empty music. I never forgot that simile. I think it applies to all the arts, especially writing.

The whole "Dance like no one's watching" thing, huh, Aruna?

[aruna]

The whole "Dance like no one's watching" thing, huh, Aruna?

Yes. It's a total lack of self-consciousness, lack of self. Writers refer to it as "flow". It's when a story tells itself, and the writer isn't thinking of gourds or his great Masterplan for the Universe.

[TeddyG]

I just happened on this incredibly interesting thread and took some time to read the astute and informative comments within.

I am one of those people who are forever stymied when asked by an editor or a reader what genre is it? (referring to the ms.)

I try, when I can, to avoid the whole issue of genre and leave it totally up to the editors.

Almost every one of my short stories that were accepted for printing (on the net at thedeepening.com and for 2 fairly known print mags.) were defined by the editors as "literary fiction". I certainly would not argue with that definition, nor would I say it is wrong.

However, many people have correctly stated already, how difficult it is to "buttonhole" or "describe" lit. fiction. I have come across this problem before and therefore leave it up to the editors to decide.

As to query letters - (I totally completly avoid them as they give me hives - so that solves that problem!!!!!!!!!)

[JAlpha]

A writer ought to be able to come up with a few descriptive phrases that are specific to the story without having to label it, if, in fact, it truly is sui generis.

:Hail: Wise words, Medievalist, very wise indeed.

In my query letter for my novel, that's exactly what I tried to do--tell the agent and or publisher I think the book is literary without telling them it's literary.

Here's the excerpt from my query where I describe what I think my novel is.

Words Once Spoken is a 45,000 word contemporary domestic novel about family: love: guilt: risk: promises and failed communication. Melding word play, wry and tragic tones, Words Once Spoken asks the central dramatic question: is it better to embrace life fully by telling all or should we remain silent and vulnerable to our fears of loss and alienation?

It's currently under exclusive consideration with an agency in Los Angeles and in the several correspondences I've had to date with the agent who is handling my manuscript, she hasn't mentioned a word about the novel's length (I struggled whether or not to use the word novel or novella) or it's genre (It could easily end up getting tagged with the dreaded Hen Lit stamp or Women's Mainstream--though it's probably too wry to cleanly fit into that category)

In deciding where to market my novel, I paid a great deal of attention to place it into the hands of an agency and agent that does handle a balance of mainstream and literary clients.

To echo what Medievalist has already said, the initial responsibility for categorizing a work of fiction falls on the author's shoulders. And of course the responsibility for placing that work of fiction into the right hands ALWAYS falls on the author's shoulders.

[Birol]

That's good. I remember seeing that Dost went on the run from creditors from Russia, Germany and other countries with his gambling addiction. It's good that his last wife got him to take hold of his demons and make a decent life for himself.

Yes, but don't you think you should've made certain you had your facts straight before you made sweeping generalizations? You said Dostoevsky died broke, implying that he never made money from his writing in his lifetime, when in fact he not only did make money from his writing in his lifetime, but did not die broke at all.

[Medievalist]

Yes, but don't you think you should've made certain you had your facts straight before you made sweeping generalizations?

Including genaralizations about authors he hasn't read (Stevenson) and a patently incorrect assertion that Twain was "YA," with the underlying assumption that YA isn't "literary fiction."

[aruna]

I did not classify my novel either. I described it using words that implied it was a page turner as well exploring the phenomenon of cult behavior. It has been requested by six mayor agents - based on the query alone - up to now. You do not have to pigeon-hole a ms.

[maestrowork]

Yes. It's a total lack of self-consciousness, lack of self. Writers refer to it as "flow". It's when a story tells itself, and the writer isn't thinking of gourds or his great Masterplan for the Universe.

Absolutely. I was at a coffee shop yesterday and these music students came in and just took the stage and proceeded to play two hours' worth of wonderful classical guitar. They didn't demand an audience. They didn't demand money. They didn't do it to say, "Look at me. Look how brilliant I am." They just play. They were the music, and it was some of the most wonderful things I've heard. They were both in their 20s -- such maturity about their craft! They really just did it for the love of music and nothing else, not even ego.

Writers who put themselves first -- "See, I have something important to say and you should all look at me and be wowed by what I have to say" -- is not there yet. The writer's ego is the damnest thing, and most often than not it hinders us to let go and do truly great things, writing for writing's sake, for the love of words and stories. I admit I'm not there either, but I would like to be, some day.

[maestrowork]

I did not classify my novel either. I described it using words that implied it was a page turner as well exploring the phenomenon of cult behavior. It has been requested by six mayor agents - based on the query alone - up to now. You do not have to pigeon-hole a ms.

I don't label mine either. "Contemporary" is as far it goes. In my mind, I think The Pacific Between is mainstream, but my publisher and some reviewers and booksellers insisted on calling it "literary." I am not going to argue. As a friend of mine said to me: "Being 'literary' isn't necessarily better or worse, just different." People have a tendency to want to label things, so they can wrap their minds around something.

When you query, just leave out the "literary" part and let the agent/editor figure it out.

[cree]

There's a difference, and I think it's in "intention". Did you intend to write a story about gourds, because the mean so much to you, and the old lady is simply a vessel (sock-puppet!) for conveying that intension? Or did you write about the old lady because she came to you as a living breathing character, and the theme (gourds or whatever) is in the background, for the reader to pick up or not accdording to her sensitivity? You'll find that in the first case your old lady will remain two dimensional because you have not "become" her; music was dead.....I think it applies to all the arts, especially writing.

Wow, gone for like 20 hours and I'm lost on this thread already :) But I'd love to jump back in because I think it's a good one. Sorry, Grom for hijacking the thread, but I feel we've all been contributing valuable thoughts here and it all does link somewhat back....somewhat.... :)

Ah, gourds. Firstly Aruna, I didn't intend anything, because I used the gourd story outline/analogy as an off-the-cuff illustration of what I thought Gromhard was saying and people weren't considering. The full intention ended there; there is no gourd story. But, I'll try to play along because I think you're just trying to continue using it to make further points...I'm just not sure I can defend any gourd story exploration (ha!) because I didn't explore it myself beyond typing out a post on this thread :)
The gourds are symbolic. Nothing more than an anchor to an easily-recognizable, tangible item. The story (should it ever be written), ain't really about gourds. Symbolic anchor, only.
I think we are essentially saying the same thing about characters, but I've been presenting it as author directly yields character, and (maybe?) you are presenting it as character "came" to author and author conveyed that appearance without interference. At least that's what I got out of your referenced post. If I'm correct in paraphrasing, I'd argue the unlikelihood of completely preventing your subconscious from interfering. BUT, I think maybe we aren't really talking about the order of events in development of character (if yours come to you in glimpses, great! If mine come to me as an imagined, embellished version of some aspect of myself (e.g., I can write much better from the emotional position of a procrastinator than as a manic, having never experienced mania)..Great! But what we are really thinking about maybe is CONTROL of character. As MW says, the source of character isn't relevant once you set your story free to readers. I agree with that - (and that is also at the base of my confusion over why people are so adamant about separating character from author, as if it's incestual to even suggest it! Maybe it's a privacy issue) . But control of character does matter....

[Medievalist]

Oy, let's not, even as authors, indulge in the intentional fallacy.

[cree]

Oy, let's not, even as authors, indulge in the intentional fallacy.

Why not, since I just poured myself another drink and set it down on my gourd-patterned coaster on my desk. LOL!

[gromhard]

Yes, but don't you think you should've made certain you had your facts straight before you made sweeping generalizations? You said Dostoevsky died broke, implying that he never made money from his writing in his lifetime, when in fact he not only did make money from his writing in his lifetime, but did not die broke at all.

I read his bio on Wikipedia and on the jacket of two of my books. None of those places say he married well off and lived his latter years with money. I'm not calling you a liar, I certainly have no MA in Russian Lit.

If you check wikipedia it mentions his gambling, his despair and his flight and then it mentions his last two women but it doesn't say anything about his money at the end. I assumed his troubles followed him to the grave.

I apologize if I gave incorrect information.

And Dostoevsky was well known in his lifetime, he's not a Van Gogh. He was one of Russia's greatest writers and they knew it...didn't mean writing paid very well. It didn't, not then compared to know. Writers used to have to "sing for their supper" as it were , giving readings and speeches and really pushing their image if they expected to make much money.

[TeddyG]

Just a bit on Dost. cause he happens to be one of the writers I once did research on...
One of the best bio's you can find in the Penguin edition of his works, and certainly in the beggining of Penguin's edition to "The Idiot". (In my mind his greatest work)

Towards the end of his life, he had to flee Russia actually (if I am not mistaken) due to gambling debts. He was chased from country to country and lived off of loans from friends while writing. (It seems he did his best writing while under that sort of pressure and not eating well) So I would call that destitute, though it was brought on by his twin addiction of gambling and drink.

(He and EGP have fascinating and very sad bios actually)

I could be mistaken a bit, as right now I am working from my usually very faulty memory.

[Fahim]

TeddyG, I believe you are right about him fleeing the country due to gambling debts and moving from country to country. However, if I am not mistaken, he came back to Russia and lived out his last days fairly well off and was even the director of "The Russian World" :)

[SLake]

As I understand the argument, Gromhard’s implication is that Literary Fiction is at the top of the writing tree, so he's saying that Lit Fic is the epitome of intellectual achievement in the art and craft of writing. This assertion implies to me that he is suggesting that the structure of writing is singularly hierarchical. Gromhard means there is a top and bottom, good and bad. Indeed, that’s the way he talks -- quality writing to lesser quality writing, and that there are various genres.

Others in the thread have argued the merits of literature in genres. Literature vis-a-vis AWs description of Literary Fiction vs Mainstream, for example, states that Mainstream has definable good/evil, and it follows that Lit Fic has many variables. Gromhard seems to prefer stories with many variables, allusions, symbols, and indeed, gourds were mentioned by someone. The subjectivity in art relative to Lit Fic by another person.

The above being the case, I’d agree with Gromhard that writing is hierarchical, but add that it is many hierarchies which includes the set genres, EG, quality/ rubbish, defined/variable, interesting/boring, and that many hierarchies exist, but they are subjective.

Each person has their own personal hierarchy of quality/rubbish, defined/, etc. Bookshelves and Market Demand offer us genre categories. Newspapers with critics, structure those genres from best sellers to not-so-best. My personal and subjective preference re a hierarchy would place what Gromhard calls Literary Fiction on the branch, Experimental, but that’s just me.

The accurate benchmark is literary professors. They are the established benchmark specialists. That’s their job. On the other hand, Money Making Publishers are the ones to consult on what sells. Money Making Publishers obviously don’t give a fig whether it’s Literary, but to them a better word is Lottery.

It’s surprising that Gromhard isn’t aware of harsh market facts, but would rather suggest Money Publishers are ignorant, which is far from the truth. They must sense the meanings of market variables or die. Literary professors are certainly correct, because our taxes pay them to be correct. The professors may be incorrect, but their learned opinions, like those of the Cro-Magnons of politics who rule the world, have the last word.

The confusion in this threat seems to be with market variables and established benchmarks. I’d say that Gromhard is following established benchmarks, so in that sense he’s right. And he’s pointed out that a work he defines as Lit Fic can itself vary through genres. My argument is that his definition of Lit Fic is, as I said, what I would term Experimental. In this respect, I think the benchmarks are Bol**ks, which doesn’t make me right, just opinionated.

So if you write for a university press, you'd better know the established benchmarks. If you write for mainstream, you'd better know what the market calls what, and like it.

[Medievalist]

The accurate benchmark is literary professors. They are the established benchmark specialists. That’s their job.

No, actually, that's totally not their gig. They teach students to read and interpret and communicate ideas about novels and plays and poems and stuff. Or that's the theory.

Professors don't create the canon. They influence it in explosive ways, sure, but producing canon fodder is way more complex than it seems.

On the other hand, Money Making Publishers are the ones to consult on what sells. Money Making Publishers obviously don’t give a fig whether it’s Literary, but to them a better word is Lottery.

No dude, really, they buy the stuff they like and think will sell. Editors tend to be total fans.

Literary professors are certainly correct, because our taxes pay them to be correct. The professors may be incorrect, but their learned opinions, like those of the Cro-Magnons of politics who rule the world, have the last word.

You can't be serious. Do you know any literature professors? You get five lit geeks in a room and ask them which is the best American novel, and get seven opinions.

So if you write for a university press, you'd better know the established benchmarks.

Yo, if you write for a university press, better be tenure track.

[SLake]

No, actually, that's totally not their gig. They teach students to read and interpret and communicate ideas about novels and plays and poems and stuff. Or that's the theory.

Professors teach? Wow, I learn new stuff here every day. Thanks Medievolutist. I hope I spleled that right...

Professors don't create the canon. They influence it in explosive ways, sure, but producing canon fodder is way more complex than it seems.

Yes, I agree, the process is certanly more complex. I should have indexed, appendix'd, referenced and cross-linked. Maybe next time.

No dude, really, they buy the stuff they like and think will sell. Editors tend to be total fans.

As you say commercial editors publish "what they like and what will sell." It's so weird, isn't it... The two just seem to go together in commercial enterprise. Must be a mystical thang.

You can't be serious. Do you know any literature professors? You get five lit geeks in a room and ask them which is the best American novel, and get seven opinions.

Yeah and "Debby Does Dallas" always misses out, poor girl alwaysfinds herselfatthe bottom of the hierarchic heap. Probably some literary mix up but without the usual complications of metaphors and similies.
Yo, if you write for a university press, better be tenure track.

If maybe the thesis that excites a prof is Why Debbie Does, well, yes TT would be the only way to go. :)

[Anthony Ravenscroft]

When people aren't simply defending some largely imaginary category, it looks there's widespread agreement on a point:

Labels are often used in order to justify utter crap.

That's true of "literature" & "literary." (Note that I don't consider these labels interexchangeable. I also note that, on AW & elsewhere, this discussion gets quickly sidetracked because of the inability to separate these two terms or differentiate them from "literate.") When I look at a piece, & it's in full bloom of New Thesaurus Syndrome (plus two or three modifiers for every concrete noun & verb), or the characters are so shallow that "two-dimensional" would be a substantial upgrade, or the grammar would make my stepmom (second-grade teacher) cringe, the cover letter usually has the word "literary" somewhere in self-description.

But the same's true for any category or genre of fiction that I've seen. Supposedly, calling it "science fiction" or "mystery" makes up for the fact that it's uninteresting tree-death.

And nonfiction is hardly exempt! Heavens know there's plenty of memoir loose in the world about people who've been utterly useless in the world. And there's "how to" books by people who know their field perfectly & can in a thousand words convince you to never attempt it yourself if you've got a more relaxing alternative like swallowing broken glass.

Publishing is a fractal process: it all breaks down to nice neat categories until you look a little closer, whereupon you notice that there's all sorts of exceptions.

For the sake of discussion, let's pretend that there's a category of "literary writing" that everyone might agree upon. Say then that I write such a piece. Sure, I'm gonna cull my markets list for every magazine with "Review" on the masthead... but maybe The New Yorker or All-Story would like it, & as they pay better I'd be foolish not to try them first.

The genres go through periods of encouraging experimentation, but for the most part they have some formulaic expectations. In sf/f, one name I hear all the time as a genre-buster is William Gibson. Well, let's not forget that WG was heavily mentored by Terry Carr, who knew Gibson from the fanzine world & saw glimmers of his skills, & worked hard to get Gibson published, & also that Gibson was able to break in a cutting-edge venue, OMNI, that no longer exists. Even WG has said that "I figured a few hundred disaffected intellectuals in Paris bistros would ever read any of my writing." He wrote for the sake of (a) telling a story &/or (b) capturing a feeling -- not to get rich or famous.

[Another]

Not sure if this is helpful, but over in the Water Cooler erotica genre forum, some discussion is going on about the union of literary and erotica. Part of the discussion is on the issue of defining "literary," market for same stand alone or wed to erotica (could be any other genre) and the changing definition of "Literary." For instance, I said there, in part:

"The definition of "literary" narrows when linked to erotica. For those of us raised on Joyce, Dostoyevsky, Fowles, Kafka, Mann, Durrell, Lawerence (DH&TE), Malraux, Gide and more recently McCarthy, Proulx, Ondaatje and Morrison, the definition seemed clear enough: character, theme (preferably "human condition"), style ("lyrical") dominate, plot is secondary and sex scenes serve broader purposes.

However, as a review of GE’s referenced site (GE is poster) for Henry Miller Award nominees of "best and worst literary sex scenes" makes evident, "literary" erotica may well be short on many of the above points but retain the term merely because of writing style. Witness a sample below from Alchemy of Desire where reviewers rate it above average on the "literary" scale:

I took the hard little ball of her ankle in my mouth and sucked it so fully that it acquired a deeply erotic dimension. I then journeyed to the promise of her fleshy calves and sucked them so fully that they became sexual organs. And then I slowly curved around the shin and ascended the dome of her knees, resting at the peak, mouth open and lips moving. Descending on the other side I banked to the back, and drove my tongue flatly down the smooth highway of her inner thighs, eyes firmly set on the dark line of the final ranges. And so I journeyed slowly, seeking the source of the musk; and as I came closer and closer and the flesh grew and grew and the musk grew and grew, my control began to waver. From my mouth I became my nose. From handing out pleasure I began to hunger for it. Window by window, my thinking mind shut down. Reason, intellect, analysis, perception, speech — everything went, one by one.

I suspect readers class this as "literary" for such phrasing as "ball of her ankle," "ascended the dome," "smooth highway of her inner thighs," and perhaps the passing, shallow probe into mind set with, "Window by window, my thinking mind shut down."

How we all could slice-edit this junk is another issue, but the point remains (here the discussion veers off on use of agents): If one is shooting for old term "literary" even if highly erotic, seek an agent for literary fiction houses. If one is merely writing erotic scenes with some style flourish, go directly to "erotic" publishers. Of course, there is another option, a very old and extinct one: write only from the heart and only for yourself, then let the chips fall where they may."

Seems these thoughts parallel some of the discussion posts here, which may or may not reflect the truth of the matter as publishers and agents see it.