The Emptiness of 'Literary Fiction' and the Stereotyping of Genre Literature

[JDK1962]

A strict definition would be pretty hard. Personally, I consider literary fiction to be fiction written by people who give the craft of writing their top priority. Genre writers (SF, romance, thriller, mystery, etc.) can get away with simply telling a story, or creating compelling characters and putting them through their paces (so-called "franchise novels"). Some genre writers are really good writers, some...not so much. Expectations for the writing itself seem to be lower in genre work; if you stick with the conventions of your genre and your prose is serviceable, you can have some success.

But literary fiction is not just old, boring stuff that's "good for you." There are plenty of great writers working in the genre now. If you want purity and gravitas, it's out there (yeah, Jonathan Franzen, I'm talking to YOU), but there are also plenty who can write their asses off and tell an engaging story at the same time. I'm partial to (off the top of my head) Michael Chabon, Jhumpa Lahiri, Kazuo Ishiguro, Michael Ondaatje, and Richard Russo, but what each of us like is a matter of taste. The problem here (and in most other realms of life) is when we start confusing our personal tastes with objective fact.

I disagree completely with the article cited by the OP. I thought that concluding paragraph was complete and utter BS, like the author had been forced to read some Thomas Pynchon, was really, really angry about it, and decided to make some idiotic generalizations about a genre of which he knows (to be generous) next to nothing.

[TGS]

I know nothing about SF, romance and westerns, however I think most SF, romance and westerns are poorly written trash. However, I know my opinion is a result of prejudice and laziness on my part, and thus tend to keep it to myself, and certainly don't go starting threads to make the point that such fiction is a waste of time.

[JDK1962]

Originally Posted by TGS

I know nothing about SF, romance and westerns, however I think most SF, romance and westerns are poorly written trash. However, I know my opinion is a result of prejudice and laziness on my part, and thus tend to keep it to myself, and certainly don't go starting threads to make the point that such fiction is a waste of time.

Exactly. The original article (and this thread) is like going out of your way to tell someone that their kid is ugly. It never ends well.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by JDK1962

Exactly. The original article (and this thread) is like going out of your way to tell someone that their kid is ugly. It never ends well.

I didn't start this thread to bash 'Literary Fiction'. I'm not sure *anyone* actually read the article.

Part of the first paragraph:

I'm really tired of literary fiction. No, not some of the works themselves, those great books given a lame label to somehow appropriate vestiges of their qualities and impart them onto a range of other works. There are plenty of books burdened with that designation that I love, and it is not the fault of the texts that they have been so unfairly labeled. I'm really tired of the idea of literary fiction, of the pretentious and patronizing aspects of it.

The author (and I agree) believes that the label Literary Fiction is being used to separate the Good Stuff™ from the great unwashed.

Just because it's labeled Literary Fiction doesn't make it good. Just because it's labeled as Genre Fiction doesn't necessarily make it bad.

See: Sturgeon's Law

[JDK1962]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

See: Sturgeon's Law

Yes, and everyone has a different opinion on what makes up the 90%.

My original response was reacting more to the responses than the original article, so: my apologies for perpetuating the off-course drift in your thread.

That being said, I'd have to add that I didn't care for the original article, either, simply because arguing over how imprecise genre labels are used, and what "good" and "bad" mean in the context of writing (as if there were a single objective definition) leaves me cold.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

The author (and I agree) believes that the label Literary Fiction is being used to separate the Good Stuff™ from the great unwashed.

Just because it's labeled Literary Fiction doesn't make it good. Just because it's labeled as Genre Fiction doesn't necessarily make it bad.

Isn't the term being used to distinguish the "literary" from the "non-literary", (albeit sometimes mistakenly) - before one can say whether that equates to the good stuff and the not so good doesn't one have to answer the question, good for what? It is not a sign of anything to suggest that a painting by Mark Rothko has more artistic merit than a painting by Thomas Kinkade - neither is it a sign of anything to suggest that a novel by Iris Murdoch has more literary merit that a novel by Maeve Binchy. The literary philistines cannot have it both ways - to claim that literary fiction is rubbish and boring, whilst complaining that the term is used to separate the good stuff from the rubbish.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by TGS

The literary philistines cannot have it both ways - to claim that literary fiction is rubbish and boring, whilst complaining that the term is used to separate the good stuff from the rubbish.

Ok... This is my last post on this thread. You seem to not be wiling to actually *read* what is posted.

No where have *I* or the author of the originally linked article claimed that literary fiction as a whole is rubbish or boring. I've just finished "The Master and Margarita" by Mikhail Bulgakov and found it to be an amazing book. The author has many Literary Fiction books he loves. Is some Literary Fiction boring and rubbish? Yes, by *my* definition, some is. I read for pleasure. My pleasure. If the book is boring, genre or literary, it's still boring.

Having a label doesn't make a great book. Get over it. Done.

[Frida Fantastic]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Having a label doesn't make a great book. Get over it. Done.

Completely agree. I'm primarily a science fiction and fantasy genre reader, but I've enjoyed Joseph Conrad, Virginia Woolf, and Gabriel Garcia Marquez. I love experimental narratives, but I've immensely disliked anything I've read by Michael Ondatjee. I do read outside of genre fiction sometimes, but I can't help but look at the label "literary fiction" as suspect. It's just not a useful definition for me, especially when a book is *new* and the publisher is selling it as literary fiction. I rather think about books as "classics" and have their worth be vetted by readers over time. I know "literary" fiction is supposed to be a sort of "artier" high-brow kind of book, but that's so subjective that I can't deal with it as a label that's informative or one I could take seriously.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Ok... This is my last post on this thread. You seem to not be wiling to actually *read* what is posted.

No where have *I* or the author of the originally linked article claimed that literary fiction as a whole is rubbish or boring. I've just finished "The Master and Margarita" by Mikhail Bulgakov and found it to be an amazing book. The author has many Literary Fiction books he loves. Is some Literary Fiction boring and rubbish? Yes, by *my* definition, some is. I read for pleasure. My pleasure. If the book is boring, genre or literary, it's still boring.

Having a label doesn't make a great book. Get over it. Done.

It is the case that the article cited in your OP seems to be exercised by the use of the term "literary fiction", and makes the rather obvious point that simply calling something literary fiction does not thereby make it any good. However, most of the subsequent contributions to the thread are quite clearly of the the "literary fiction is by definition boring" variety.

[wyndslash]

let's all be friends and just read stuff that we enjoy? xP

personally, sometimes i feel guilty for reading and liking stuff that many people might consider "trash", but then it's my free time and i don't want to spend it trudging through something that may have "merit", but feels like work.

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by JDK1962

A strict definition would be pretty hard. Personally, I consider literary fiction to be fiction written by people who give the craft of writing their top priority. Genre writers (SF, romance, thriller, mystery, etc.) can get away with simply telling a story, or creating compelling characters and putting them through their paces (so-called "franchise novels"). Some genre writers are really good writers, some...not so much. Expectations for the writing itself seem to be lower in genre work; if you stick with the conventions of your genre and your prose is serviceable, you can have some success.

I agree with this. Too often, I found that literary fiction is too hung up on fancy writing styles, allegory, and other fancy stylistic choices. I'm with JRR Tolkien on allegory: "I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence."

I read a lot of literary fiction in HS and college and I'm not generally a huge fan. I think it's a mistake to make high school students read the stuff they do, but that's another discussion.

Once in a while there's an exception, a literary classic I actually like (like Alas, Babylon....)then again that's really sci-fi of a sort and a genre I'm comfortable in.

[Ransom]

Literary Fiction = Books written with a thesaurus constantly open.

[Donnageddon]

Originally Posted by Ransom

Literary Fiction = Books written with a thesaurus constantly open.

Literary Fiction = Tomes steadfastly scribed with unencumbered entrée to a thesaurus's bounteous wordsmithery efficaciousness.

[Ransom]

Or that!

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The idea of "classic" or "literary fiction" just makes little to no sense. A classic does not have to be from dead authors only. A book can be a classic that is not that old. I would class Harry Potter as a classic. Given a lot of definitions of classic, it fits. The only things it doesn't fit is old or dead author.

I'll repeat myself from an earlier thread:

Originally Posted by taosaur

"Great Literature" and literary fiction are not necessarily the same thing. Shakespeare's work, while certainly great literature, was genre material produced for general consumption. Both general and literary fiction can find its way into canon; what distinguishes literary fiction is not so much quality or endurance, but idiosyncrasy.

General fiction relies on convention: structured plot, near-journalistic (or alternately, florid) prose, easily recognized character relationships, and typically a third-person omniscient or roving third-person limited perspective. Literary fiction may discard an advancing plot (The Sound and the Fury), specific characters (If on a Winter's Night a Traveler) or even spelling and syntax (Finnegan's Wake), operating by its own rules. It requires more effort of interpretation from the reader, but it can convey thought-structures beyond the means of conventional storytelling.

I did read the article, and it says very little. The whinging about the emptiness of categories could be applied quite generally, and has little to say about the specific category of literary fiction. All the author expresses is his own insecurity as a reader (and producer?) of genre works:

What makes this idea <of literary fiction> so enervating is that it is a term in the discourse on literature that purports to describe the best, most resonant type of fiction, but that generally ends up being used to denigrate "genre fiction" and any work that the user does not like.

Really? That's how it generally ends up being used? I'm reminded of my vegan days when the least mention of my dietary choices would throw certain non-vegans into a combative defense of their own, when I hadn't said more than, "No, I won't be having the bacon burger." No matter how much you nod and smile politely at such people, they still walk away with their narrative about how those "arrogant, judgmental" vegans (or literary fiction readers) look down their noses at everyone else quite intact.