Literary Fiction.

[Michael]

Sheesh, people.

Genre - what you write about.
Literary - how you write it.

Please, please, please, stop this wanky notion that literary books are obscure, pompous and hard to read. I'd take Kazuo Ishiguro over Stephenie Fucking Meyer any day. Because I like to be obscure and show off? No. Because I don't like books to insult my intelligence.

Good science fiction (or fantasy) does not in any way insult a reader's intelligence - quite the opposite, in fact.

However, after reading some literary fiction in school, I have developed an appreciation for it. If Toni Morrison's work is literary (which I won't profess to know), I really liked Paradise (although I'm with the author when it comes to the title; I think War would have been better).

I just had to write a paper on one of Kurt Vonnegut's stories, Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow (from Welcome to the Monkey House). To be honest, while it was quite humorous, it seemed less literary than other work I've read. The language was rather plain and not very artful, I think. That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it. In fact, "mud and dandelions" has become a favorite saying for me (ha-ha).

Some of the shorts I read in my Fiction Writing class and really enjoyed include Bullet in the Brain by Tobias Wolff, Emergency and Car Crash while Hitchhiking by Denis Johnson (enough that I might actually get the book, Jesus' Son), and Reunion by Richard Ford (well, this last was okay). While some students didn't get into it, because it was kind of slow, I also liked The Hermit's Story by Rick Bass. We read more flash fiction, though, and some of that was very interesting too.

The professor indicated that at least some of these stories were literary, and I took his word for it. If so, then I'd have to agree with scarletpeaches; they were not "obscure, pompous and hard to read." They were, in fact, very enjoyable.

By the same token, however, I cannot see how stories like Orson Scott Card's Ender and Bean series, or Dan Simmons' Hyperion could possibly insult someone's intelligence. They are thoughtful, well-written, brain-stimulating works of fiction. I'm actually sure you didn't mean it exactly this way, since you specified Stephenie Meyer (whose work I've never read, and probably won't now ... ha-ha), but I thought some clarification might be okay.

*bows his head respectfully and crawls back into his hole*

 

[Ken]

... many agents say that they handle literary fiction. So it is important for writers to have a general idea of what is meant by the term, particularly if they think their own novels might classify as such. Good you posed the question in this thread as such.

 

[Michael]

Now that I've read through more of this thread, I'm starting to wonder: Genre fiction isn't challenging? It's more about plot than character? And did someone even imply that it's all about happy endings; it makes us feel like everything's okay? Really? Seems like a very broad generalization to me, one that does not actually apply to all genre fiction. Honestly, I think most of these definitions just confuse the issue more.

While my experience with literary fiction is limited, I still think I'd agree with those who said it's really a matter of style rather content; how it's written as opposed to subject. I would not say that artful use of language necessarily makes a story more challenging, however.

EDIT: Okay, maybe some of it does....

 

[Xelebes]

Genre fiction, by definition, is centred on the theme-plot on the given genre. A mystery must have something to be solved; romance must have two amicable characters unite; fantasy must have a story centred on the improbable; science fiction must have a story centred on a hypothetical. Characters are secondary. If they are primary and the plot-theme is something else like secondary or tertiary, it's not genre.

 

[Michael]

Genre fiction, by definition, is centred on the theme-plot on the given genre. A mystery must have something to be solved; romance must have two amicable characters unite; fantasy must have a story centred on the improbable; science fiction must have a story centred on a hypothetical. Characters are secondary. If they are primary and the plot-theme is something else like secondary or tertiary, it's not genre.

I agree with everything you said except that characters are secondary or it isn't genre fiction. I've read plenty of character driven SFF. Your definition would certainly apply to Asimov's work, though; at least the one book I read by him, anyway - I, Robot. [EDIT:] Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, it's the characters that make a story; it doesn't matter if it's a particular genre or not.

 

[April81]

Literary fiction is hard to define, but certainly does not necessarily exclude other genre labels - Ann Marie McDonald's Fall on Your Knees would, in my opinion, be a good example of literary mystery. Wuthering Heights (although obviously a classic) is literary romance. I would consider much of J.K. Rowlings work to be literary fiction, and obviously that means literary fantasy. Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit is a book I would consider literary memoir........I suppose I define it in my own way. But, in a nutshell, I think that some writing has literary merit and achieves the status of art.

Since everyone has likely read the Harry Potter series, I will elaborate on why that strikes me as more than YA Fantasy.
PLOT - The true plot is a very old one, seeped in literary history. It's the story of Moses in a way - here is this boy, this undervalued slave, who one day at teh cusp of adolescence realizes that he is not who he thought he was. He is not insignificant, but crucial to an entire race of people whose existence he was not even previously aware of. He is the singular hope. An epic, old plot like this one lays the groundwork for literary work, recalling its predecessors.
ELEVATED DICTION - Contrary to some previous posters, I do not think of elevated diction as snobby or wandering. I think of this as writing that uses language to tell a second story - lines that render images that stay with is forever. A random example (first one that popped up) from J.K. Rowling: The truth. It is a beautiful and terrible thing, and must therefore be treated with great caution. That is just exceedingly well-written, and the quality of writing is both striking and consistent.
THEME - The themes are intricate and there are very many. Of course, good and evil. More importantly, the gradient of evil, the role of inaction, etc. The motivations of desperate men. The nature of courage. The transition into manhood. Power of blood, fallacy of prophecy....on and on.

So, there's my stab at defining it!

 

[gothicangel]

I would consider much of J.K. Rowlings work to be literary fiction.

I disagree. No way could you define JKR as literary, genre through and through.

 

[Michael]

I disagree. No way could you define JKR as literary, genre through and through.

Right.

My name must be Mary Contrary. Please allow me to poke holes in your definition, April. Then, in turn, please do the same to mine. Okay, all I've really been doing is disputing people's ideas about genre fiction, since I have a much clearer understanding of it than literary fiction ... but you can still poke holes in it if you want.

I can't comment on Harry Potter because, although I tried to read one of the books, I just couldn't get into it. It's something about the setting that really bugs me. Oddly, it doesn't bother me at all in a movie.

But ... I'd still question classifying it as literary simply because it is YA, which has a significantly different set of guidelines in order to cater to a younger audience. Plenty of young people can read and understand literary fiction, I'm sure, but that doesn't change the conventions publishers expect to see in YA work. A person's writing can be "striking and consistent" without using language and conventions in quite the same way a writer of literary fiction would.

However, while I think "elevated diction" (sort of, because I actually think there's more to it) does have something to do with it, there is nothing about the plot or themes you describe that make them necessarily different from plots and themes you might find in genre fiction.

In fact, some of the stories I've read that others have indicated are literary fiction did not necessarily use language any less plainly than genre fiction does, although they did do other things you might not encounter often in genre fiction, such as: playing with certain elements of storytelling; or finding artful ways to deviate deliberately from common conventions and still make them work; or even have characters do things that just seem really unusual, outside of normal experience, for a certain effect or other purpose. When it's done well, it's very interesting and enjoyable.

[MILD SPOILERS] A couple of more specific examples:

A zoo attendant, when supposedly trying to prevent a woman from exposing herself to danger, grabs her by the hair and slaps her in the face with a "slab of meat."
This is in Sunday at the Zoo by Stuart Dybek.

In Bullet in the Brain, Tobias Wolff repeats a lot, so much so that in any other work it might be jarring. In fact, in one sentence he says, "the man with the pistol raised the pistol" even though it's clear which man raises the pistol. There's quite a bit more, and all the repeated words seem to have something in common, as if he's trying to make a point - perhaps more than one point. Okay, this sounds like "artful use of language," I suppose, but otherwise the language seems rather clear and concise.

Even more significantly, Wolff plays with the element of time, allowing his main character (and the reader) to experience detailed memories in a fraction of a second, also to make a point. During this time, he describes in great detail what the main character does not remember as he's dying - which makes what he does remember stand out even more. This, to me, seems more like an artful use of a particular device as opposed to language.

For those of you who have read more literary fiction than me, am I on the right track? It occurs to me that I might be way off about YA, too. Is there such thing as literary YA (although that's one I definitely haven't heard of)?

And is Mortal Suns by Tanith Lee literary fantasy, like I think it is? I seem to recall a very similar style in that story, anyway.

 

[Kalyke]

I'm not going to comment on what literary fiction is supposed to be, but in my experience as a reader, literary ficiton is when you're reading something and you're constantly yanked out of the story by the overly fanciful language, whether it's to shake your head and how convoluted the writing is or to read a sentence or two again to enjoy how beautifuly poetic it is.

In either case, this is not my idea of good storytelling.

Again, this is my opinion as a reader. In general, I can't stand literary fiction and won't go anywhere near it. There are exceptions.

What grade level do you read at? That might be part of the problem. Lit fic is also about the depth of relationships and all sorts of philosophical things (life and death etc.,) that are sometimes way over the heads of people who are not exactly highly developed. I have rarely read literary fiction where the sentences are "convoluted," but I have seen them where the sentence pattern is a bit longer than simple subject, verb, object; you know, like having subordinate clauses and whatnot. This means the sentances themselves are written at, say, above the 6th grade level. Those sorts of tough sentances might be harder to read by people who have difficulty understanding lengthy groups of words, or concepts.

 

[Michael]

Once again, however, you have mentioned something that is not strictly a convention of literary fiction; writers of genre fiction do this too. Unless you're reading YA (I think), you can probably expect to see some complex sentence structure in any given story.

But everyone's point does seem to be that literary fiction does not necessarily "yank" you "out of the story [with] overly fanciful language," etc., and I tend to agree. The literary fiction I've read drew me into the story as much as anything else that's done well.

 

[gothicangel]

My favorite style literary fiction is the uber pared down style like Ernest Hemingway. I also love fragmented sentences like David Peace's prose.

Then there is the purple, fragmented sentences of Angela Carter. Now there is literary genius.

 

[Amadan]

Harry Potter is not literary fiction. I think some of you are confusing "literature" with "literary." Harry Potter may well take its place among the classics (that remains to be seen), but it's not literary fiction.

I see some broad brushes being used to define genre fiction: "not highly developed," "characters are secondary," and a bunch of other words to politely express the condescending notion that literary fiction is for Serious Readers and genre fiction is for the masses who just want to be entertained. Notice that the examples of genre fiction are always the go-to list of potpoiler authors: Dan Brown, Tom Clancy, John Grisham, etc. Nobody ever mentions Heinlein or LeGuin or Gaiman or Hillerman or King when they're making this contrast, because those authors write popular genre fiction that is just as complex and descriptive and character-driven (I suppose with Heinlein, the character driven part is arguable) as those of any literary author.

 

[Michael]

Harry Potter is not literary fiction. I think some of you are confusing "literature" with "literary." Harry Potter may well take its place among the classics (that remains to be seen), but it's not literary fiction.

I see some broad brushes being used to define genre fiction: "not highly developed," "characters are secondary," and a bunch of other words to politely express the condescending notion that literary fiction is for Serious Readers and genre fiction is for the masses who just want to be entertained.

Exactly! Same point I tried to make in an earlier post. You'll notice I did point out some examples (Orson Scott Card and Dan Simmons) that I think are very good. King is all right, although not one of my favorites. Still, one of his strengths is character development.

It's just that there have also been a few posters on the genre fiction side who were equally as condescending of literary fiction. They said things like, "It's obscure, convoluted, and pompous." So we have people with little experience of one or the other spouting generalized preconceptions (or, at least, misconceptions based on works that are not good examples of either).

But ... keep in mind that only one poster classified Harry Potter as literary. A couple of us chimed in to dispute that idea, not confirm it.

 

[Camilla Delvalle]

Literary fiction is fiction guided by modernist ideology.

 

[Libbie]

Literary fiction is fiction guided by modernist ideology.

What's that supposed to mean?

 

[gothicangel]

Literary fiction is fiction guided by modernist ideology.

That's an outdated assumption, don't you think? Considering we've moved through a post-modern era and ten years in a post-postmodern world.

If literary fiction were guided by modernist ideologies then we would be bogged down by ideas of a literary canon. However, the idea of the canon has been rubbished for years and books like The Handmaid's Tale (Sci-fi); The Red Riding Trilogy (Crime); and LOTR (Fantasy) have been proclaimed modern classics.

So I agree with Libby.

 

[Maxinquaye]

Why does every bloody discussion on literary fiction devolve into a sneering contest between snobby literary writers and equally snobby genre writers?

Can't we have this room to discuss literary fiction without snubbing genre, and without snubbing literary?

 

[Libbie]

SIR!! Are you suggesting I am a snobby, sneering literary writer?

I will have you know, my good man, that I am also a snobby genre writer!

I swing both ways, and am equally snobby about each swish of my personal pendulum! (Alert SP: an entendre has been entered.)

How 'bout this: Everybody write what you like, everybody read what you like, and stop trying to pee in my cornflakes and the cornflakes of others.

Now, everybody on the count of three: one, two three:

HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGS.

 

[Libbie]

Clarification: I do not accuse Mr. Maxinquaye of urinating in my actual, personal breakfast cereal. That remark was directed at the universe at large.

 

[Maxinquaye]

I'll try to yank SP away from Devon... I'm not sure I'll have any luck

 

[Camilla Delvalle]

That's an outdated assumption, don't you think? Considering we've moved through a post-modern era and ten years in a post-postmodern world.

I consider post-modernism to be a genre within modernism. That's debatable of course and you may not agree. In that case I can reformulate it:
Literary fiction is fiction guided by modernist or post-modernist ideology.

 

[scarletpeaches]

I'll try to yank SP away from Devon... I'm not sure I'll have any luck

I saw that!

The only dick-swinging contest I'm interested in is the one happening in my WIP.

Threads like this always turn ugly and I'm sick of the inverse snobbery against literary fiction, which I love to read.

And I say that as a genre writer - erotica, yes, smut, ha ha, let's all laugh up our sleeves, because erotica could never be literary as well, could it?

We'll see.

Over and out. Devon's more interesting than threads where opposing sides piss all over each other. I might write smut, but I'm not into watersports.

 

[Priene]

snobby

Congratulations, you mentioned the "S" word. Your prize is a sachet of James Joyce's beard clippings.

 

[Mr Flibble]

Literary fiction is , in fact, just another genre with its own conventions etc.

For instance , Literary is generally about the inner life of a character. You can have that in fantasy, erotica, thriller...(I've been accused of being 'almost literary' more than once. It's a style of writing, sure. And one like I say has its own conventions and can also be applied to certain writers in any genre. Just like any other piece of writing.

Literary does not eqaul OMG GOOD! It equals a style of writing that can be applied to any kind of story.

 

[Ken]

... a clear definition is difficult. Better to read a bunch of literary works. Gives one a sense of what it is so that you know it when you see it and can invoke it in your own if you want, in view of what IRUs said.