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

[Ransom]

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.

The trouble here is that your definition of LF is simply not that of most other people.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by Ransom

The trouble here is that your definition of LF is simply not that of most other people.

"Most other people" don't have a definition of literary fiction, but just a vague sense like JSWolf's that it's something like a classic, or yours that it uses lots of big words, or some others' that it's anything that doesn't fit another category. Do you object to either my description of the qualities of general fiction, my description of the qualities of literary fiction, or the distinctions I've drawn between the two? If so, on what grounds?

I've read a considerable amount of literary fiction, classics, general fiction, and genre fiction, as well as having been exposed to a great deal of fiction aspiring to be literary and received instruction on the qualities of literary fiction, in the course of pursuing a Bachelor's Degree of Fine Arts in the English Language. My opinion is certainly not authoritative, but being conversant in all the sorts of literature under discussion and having intimate knowledge of literary fiction, those who read it, and those who produce it, I'm confident those last two groups of people, at least, would assent to most or all of my description.

[Ransom]

Literary fiction may discard an advancing plot..., specific characters

So may genre fiction. A great example would be any of the myriad stories that take place within dreams, and more specifically, stories that leave you wondering if what you just read was a psychological event; a spiritual event; or a material world event based on the science of many worlds, parallel universes, and hidden dimensions. You'll find most of these in the fantasy and science fiction categories.

or even spelling and syntax... operating by its own rules.

Many genre specific stories do the same, or would really not consider Lord of the Rings to be fantasy? And Tolkien was not alone when it came to making-up his own language.

It requires more effort of interpretation from the reader

This is generally only true because these authors do their very best to use the most obscure words (not "big" words as you misinterpret me) they can find. They dig up old lost and forgotten words that nobody uses today, and do so needlessly more often than not. Why would I use a word like "threadbare" today when almost no one under thirty would know what it meant? when I can be more effective by speaking in modern language and say "wearing thin" or "getting old" etc. Most authors that get pegged with the LF tag are simply poor communicators who come off sounding like a 12-year old trying to impress their English teacher and failing miserably at it. The one and only reason to use an old word is if it is the only one available to convey the meaning you need. As far as obscure words go that aren't old—ditto. I fully expect to come upon obscure words when reading something like Chris Langan's Cognitive Theoretical Model of the Universe where he had to actually invent terms where none existed to convey his thoughts. The same would have been true during the fifties when David Bohm was inventing new concepts like nonlocality and quantum potential. I also expect to see both new and obscure words and terms when reading good sci-fi. (I don't think I ever read an Author C. Clarke novel without learning some new ones.) This simply isn't the case with hardly any literary fiction I know of. Their obscurity is generally just bad writing.

but it can convey thought-structures beyond the means of conventional storytelling.

Name one that I can't find the equivalent of in a genre category.

"Most other people" don't have a definition of literary fiction, but just a vague sense

That's because it doesn't have one except that of being very focussed on words even at the expense of the story. LF is by its very nature incredibly subjective, and most people realize that.

Where most LF authors miss the boat is that they tend to concern themselves more with old and obscure words as a way of making themselves try to appear smarter than they really are when they should be concerned with learning to turn a phrase. The latter, along with having good stories, is exactly what makes a great author a great author. Few were better at it than Mark Twain and GK Chesterton. Consider Twain's describing a child's birthday party as a "pleasant turmoil." No old or obscure words there. Good authors don't need them. Take any number of quotes from Chesterton:

"The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."

"...feminism is mixed up with a muddled idea that women are free when they serve their employers but slaves when they help their husbands."

"It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything."

"Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference which is an elegant name for ignorance."

Or how about Ray Chandler:

"To say goodbye is to die a little."

Old and obscure words are almost always an excuse for a lack of talent, and this is exactly why LF doesn't sell. Not because people don't understand it, but because they do.

I've read a considerable amount of literary fiction, classics, general fiction, and genre fiction, as well as having been exposed to a great deal of fiction aspiring to be literary and received instruction on the qualities of literary fiction, in the course of pursuing a Bachelor's Degree of Fine Arts in the English Language.

Hmm—well, like Chris Langan, I ain't had me much educatin. Hadda settle for being what they calls an autodidact. I tries to makes up fir it by being extra special good looking.

"Without education, we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously." ~ Chesterton

That's all I've got to say on the subject.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by Taosaur

but it can convey thought-structures beyond the means of conventional storytelling.

Originally Posted by Ransom

Name one that I can't find the equivalent of in a genre category.

Can you not see how ridiculous that demand is? Do you think "thought structures beyond the means of conventional storytelling" are within the means of pithy forum posting?

You don't know what you don't know about literature. Reading fiction is like any other skill or discipline: by practicing, challenging oneself, and being a "student of the game," one gains deeper insight, what was once difficult becomes reflex, and one can attempt greater challenges that one may not even have been capable of recognizing to exist at the outset.

It's like meditation, higher mathematics, or even football: if one has not pursued knowledge of the subject habitually over a significant period of time, one cannot even talk sensibly about it. For that matter, if you have no intent of becoming genuinely familiar with the subject, why do you want to talk about it?

Originally Posted by Ransom

This is generally only true because these authors do their very best to use the most obscure words (not "big" words as you misinterpret me) they can find.

I took your first post to this effect as a joke and responded jokingly, but it appears you actually consider this position supportable and descriptive of reality. Listen, I'm not making the case that all literary fiction is superior to all general or genre fiction. Plenty of terrible literary fiction gets published and even more written. Not all of the terrible literary fiction conforms to your absurd stereotype--there are whole minimalist movements that strive toward the exact opposite, and get badly imitated just as often as the florid New Yorker stuff--but some does, sort of. Honestly, I doubt a single author's process looks much like what you describe, except perhaps a satirist (A Confederacy of Dunces comes to mind).

You're welcome to live and die without knowledge of the more esoteric depths of literature, but you don't have to tell yourself these just-so stories about thesauruses in order to do so.

Just be honest with yourself. You don't know anything about literary fiction and don't care to:

THE END

[JDK1962]

You go, taosaur. I'd give you still more karma if the system would let me.

[OtterBooks]

There's books I like and books I don't. Them's the only categories I bother noting.

[DiapDealer]

"I don't know what you don't know and I can't take the time to explain it" sounds strangely like a cop out. Why don't you at least try? You can think of it as practice... since we obviously won't be the only idiots you encounter in life.

Well regarding an attempt to define “Literary Fiction” the best I can offer is to quote U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart: “I know it when I see it.” Of course Justice Stewart was speaking of any attempt to define pornography, but the same limitation can, in my opinion, apply to trying to find a definition of “Literary Fiction.” To me it is some combination of quality of writing, development of a plot and narrative beyond the typical boilerplate (whatever the genre), and saying something new and important. I know it when I read it, but my literary fiction may leave others unimpressed.

Now “Classics” I believe can be defined as a book that holds up over a significant length of time, I would say at least a generation or two, while retaining broad interest and readership. So, despite what some here claim, to earn the title “Classic” does require the passage of some time to turn the book from one that is currently popular and highly regarded into a “Classic.” To tell if it is a classic simply requires that time. Well the Harry Potter books become classics? Probably, at least for children's literature. How about the Twilight series? I suspect these will not outlive the current 'young vampires in love' craze, but I could be wrong. Only time will tell.

A big reason I like this being one part of the definition of “Classic” and having classics as a category for book of the month selections is that it forces selection from a book at least a few decades for such months.

Just tossing this into this post, the Philadelphia Public Library has just added a large number of classic books (in epub) to its selection. Including The Tale of Genji (in English translation).

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

"I don't know what you don't know and I can't take the time to explain it" sounds strangely like a cop out. Why don't you at least try? You can think of it as practice... since we obviously won't be the only idiots you encounter in life.

If that was aimed at me, I'm not calling anyone an idiot, certainly not on the basis of being unfamiliar with literary fiction. I didn't say I don't know what Ransom doesn't know, I said s/he doesn't know what s/he doesn't know. With regard to literary fiction, Ransom has proven to be an unconscious incompetent:


The only way I can "explain it" is to say go to your nearest community college and take a course or two in modern or contemporary literature, or at least grab the syllabus from such a course and do the reading and write up some critical responses.

At the very least, start with a book of short stories. This one is great, and definitely skews toward minimalism: http://www.amazon.com/Vintage-Contem.../dp/0679745130

The first literary novel that caught my attention in my teens was Charles Baxter's Shadow Play, though I'd recommend his more recent The Feast of Love more highly. Hemingway or Chekhov's short stories are amazing. Almost everyone's read some Vonnegut, though I'd recommend Cat's Cradle or Deadeye Dick over Slaughterhouse Five.

All of the above are quite approachable. A couple of my favorite books, Italo Calvino's If on a Winter's Night a Traveller... and Jeannette Winterson's Gut Symmetries, probably require a primer in the author's way of looking at things: Invisible Cities or The Baron in the Trees for Calvino, and Sexing the Cherry or The Passion for Winterson.

Again, if you have no interest, don't do any of that. Just don't go off half-cocked with stereotypes because you:

1. Don't know how to find the literary stuff you'd like
2. Don't know how to read the literary stuff you find

[DiapDealer]

The only way I can "explain it" is to say go to your nearest community college and take a course or two in modern or contemporary literature, or at least grab the syllabus from such a course and do the reading and write up some critical responses.

What if I've already done that (but not a community college) over 25 years ago and I while I enjoyed the courses immensely, they didn't get me any closer to being able to differentiate between good writing and good literature? Am I unteachable?

The first literary novel that caught my attention in my teens was Charles Baxter's Shadow Play, though I'd recommend his more recent The Feast of Love more highly. Hemingway or Chekhov's short stories are amazing. Almost everyone's read some Vonnegut, though I'd recommend Cat's Cradle or Deadeye Dick over Slaughterhouse Five.

All of the above are quite approachable. A couple of my favorite books, Italo Calvino's If on a Winter's Night a Traveller... and Jeannette Winterson's Gut Symmetries, probably require a primer in the author's way of looking at things: Invisible Cities or The Baron in the Trees for Calvino, and Sexing the Cherry or The Passion for Winterson.

Again, if you have no interest, don't do any of that. Just don't go off half-cocked with stereotypes because you:
1. Don't know how to find the literary stuff you'd like
2. Don't know how to read the literary stuff you find

Yeah. Because you have me pegged, and I fit in the stereotype you just plopped down, right?

I've actually read quite a few of the works you mention. And even enjoyed several (although when it comes to Vonnegut, I consider his musings, essays, and speeches to be vastly superior to his fiction—which I would consider fun, but not even remotely "literary." Oops! Did I say that out loud?). Hemmingway wasn't trying to be "literary" when he wrote, so why should I approach reading his work any differently? And Chekov is just boring. Sorry (I say that at the risk of you simply pointing to your second bulleted item and exclaiming; "aha!").

Look, I read everything I can. I try not to limit myself in any way—and I'll admit that part of my response has been to jerk your (and other's) chain a bit. Sue me. There's a whole big bunch of fiction that certain eggheads would probably consider "literary" that I like. That I like a lot. The problem is that in "literary" circles, people want to focus on why good writing should be raised up on a pedestal and revered above all other writing, while everybody else just wants to know if there's more like it somewhere. And if so, then bring it on.

So until you can come up with something a little better than; "my BA tells me what's 'literary'," I'm going to continue to assume that it's an imaginary term used to justify tuitions. And start arguments.

By the way, where do McCarthy and Foster Wallace fall on your literary scale?
You know what?
Never mind.
I'd rather be satisfied with the knowledge that I like them... on my terms... sans labels.

Can you honestly swear that you've read no genre fiction whatsoever that you would consider "literary?" If so, I find that most stuffy; and I would prescribe Dan Simmons' The Terror, Guy Gavriel Kay's The Lions of Al-Rassan, and Neal Stephenson's Anathem for your edification.

[crich70]

I think 'literary fiction' is an artificial term used to describe books that are taught about in college's. Some are well known classics I imagine while others are newer books that have some perceived merit in the eyes of educators. Genre fiction is more specific. A book might be a Romance or a Western etc. based on the setting and other story elements. If a book is set in the modern day and doesn't stress a setting like a Western or a Historical Romance might then it might also find itself being considered Literary. Such books do have a setting, but the setting isn't as important to the story as it is in a genre book.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Yeah. Because you have me pegged, and I fit in the stereotype you just plopped down, right?

I didn't mean to include you in those "going off half-cocked." It was my error not making it clearer, given that I was responding to your post. I was referring to the specific individuals who have in fact gone off half-cocked and stereotyped literary fiction in this thread. In general I was attempting to clarify my prior posts (as you seemed to be asking me to do), not to characterize you or your reading preferences in any way shape or form. Sorry for any confusion.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I've actually read quite a few of the works you mention. And even enjoyed several (although when it comes to Vonnegut, I consider his musings, essays, and speeches to be vastly superior to his fiction—which I would consider fun, but not even remotely "literary." Oops! Did I say that out loud?). Hemmingway wasn't trying to be "literary" when he wrote, so why should I approach reading his work any differently? And Chekov is just boring. Sorry (I say that at the risk of you simply pointing to your second bulleted item and exclaiming; "aha!").

Not to get bogged down in the details, but whatever Hemingway's protestations, his work, influences and personal acquaintances were decidedly literary--he was at the center of a whole cadre of the most prominent literary figures of his time. Whether Vonnegut's work is literary is already the subject of roughly 2.76% of the internet, so hopefully we can set it aside.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The problem is that in "literary" circles, people want to focus on why good writing should be raised up on a pedestal and revered above all other writing,

As I put to the author of the article: really? Is that what goes on in literary circles? Because I only seem to encounter these characterizations from people who have set themselves quite apart from--if not in open opposition to--literary circles, whereas from in here, in these circles, it just seems like we talk about the books themselves. Actually, we mostly talk about people we know, and where we ate out last, and what great beer/wine/liquor we just tried... but when the conversation comes around to books, we don't don sacred robes and light candles and bow to a statue of Joyce Carol Oates.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

So until you can come up with something a little better than; "my BA tells me what's 'literary,'" I'm going to continue to assume that it's an imaginary term used to justify tuitions. And start arguments.

Hey, I provided a more specific set of criteria by which to identify literary fiction than anyone in the thread. Go ahead and swing at some "egghead" strawman if you like, but I only put my background out there to say that I'm not pulling those criteria completely out of my a$$, or even if I am, I've at least digested some relevant material beforehand. Also, I wasn't emphasizing my literary background any more than my readings in general and genre fiction (ETA: in fact, I also took classes on popular and genre fiction, and genre theory). An equal part of any qualification I'd claim to speak on the matter is that I don't confine myself to only one sort of literature, or consider one of inherently greater quality than another (as I said explicitly in my first post).

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

By the way, where do McCarthy and Foster Wallace fall on your literary scale?

Both are obviously literary. Again, it doesn't aggrandize their work or denigrate any others to say so. Personally, I'll take DFW and leave McCarthy.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Can you honestly swear that you've read no genre fiction whatsoever that you would consider "literary?"

I can't and I haven't. Genre fiction and general fiction are not one and the same. Much general fiction is not genre, and much literary fiction (especially lately) is genre, which is precisely why I'd consider the distinctions I put forth in my first post more relevant to recognizing literary fiction than just saying 'It's not genre.'

Yes, an excessive reliance on categories can obscure the qualities of existing works and even obstruct the emergence of the best qualities in new works. The utter abandonment of categories, however, will prevent us from ever finding any work, or ever discussing similar or related works should we manage to discover them. You want to wish away the classification, but you're still relying upon it to have this conversation. The category is not the problem. It's the insecurity of both genre and literary partisans, leading each to feel they must devalue the others' tastes to validate their own, that muddies the water.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

If so, I find that most stuffy; and I would prescribe Dan Simmons' The Terror, Guy Gavriel Kay's The Lions of Al-Rassan, and Neal Stephenson's Anathem for your edification.

Anathem is probably the best book I've read in the past three years, and definitely draws on both literary and genre influences. It's obviously going to get shelved in the sci-fi section of a bookstore, but I don't hesitate to recommend it to friends with more literary tastes (if they also like math and physics).

[DiapDealer]

The category is not the problem. It's the insecurity of both genre and literary partisans, leading each to feel they must devalue the others' tastes to validate their own, that muddies the water.

But you see, I have no desire to devalue anyone's tastes, only their classification systems. In my eyes, literary fiction (the term) is based on exclusion, since genre fiction—a term I find just as distasteful as literary fiction, by the way—such as westerns, mysteries, fantasy, scifi, and romance are generally deemed not literary. Yet you've already admitted that certain scifi (Stephenson's Anathem) can have literary merits... which implies inclusion. And besides its ex-clusive nature, literary fiction just doesn't really bring anything helpful to the table when looking for something interesting to read. Wherein lies my primary beef.

"I'm looking for something literary."
Really? How vague is that, and what is your next question to me going to be?

Now if I tell you I'm looking for something scifi-ish—not space ships and ray guns scifi, but rather something speculative yet more esoteric and introspective—don't you think you might have a better idea of what I'm looking for? And I if have to say; "Speculative, but Literary please." Well then what's the point? Use terms that describe what kind of book it is not what kind of book it isn't (it isn't scifi, fantasy, western, romance, or mystery). Does that make any sense? I'm not turning up my nose at eggheads and their books... I'm turning up my nose at what some eggheads call their books—and what they call mine.

You seem like a pretty good egg, though. And I'm not trying to inflame... just discuss strenuously.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

And besides its ex-clusive nature, literary fiction just doesn't really bring anything helpful to the table when looking for something interesting to read.. Wherein lies my primary beef.

But, but, but this:

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Now if I tell you I'm looking for something scifi-ish—not space ships and ray guns scifi, but rather something speculative yet more esoteric and introspective—don't you think you might have a better idea of what I'm looking for? And I if have to say; "Speculative, but Literary please."

demonstrates just the opposite! If you say to a librarian or clerk, "I'm looking for something scifi-ish—not space ships and ray guns scifi, but rather something speculative yet more esoteric and introspective," the dreaded L-word is going to be the second or third one out of their mouth.

"More literary?"

And then you will pop them in the nose.

You could save everyone some pain and suffering and yourself some legal bills by acknowledging the existence of the adjective that shall not be named.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Use terms that describe what kind of book it is not what kind of book it isn't (it isn't scifi, fantasy, western, romance, or mystery). Does that make any sense?

"Literary" does describe what kind of book it is, at about the same level of precision as "popular" or "genre." There are more exact subdivisions of literary fiction, but you'd need a stronger background in literary criticism than mine to really get into them. There are the "eras"--Romantic, Victorian, Modern, Post-Modern, Contemporary (it will be interesting to see if that one becomes antiquated the way "Modern" did)--and a few almost-genre-like classifications like Magical Realism and Minimalism, and of course any discussion of literature will come down to comparing specific authors. Still, particularly when discussing genre books with literary qualities or vice versa, "literary" is a very useful term.

If it also has baggage to be unloaded, well let's air that dirty laundry and sit in the catbird seat.

I'll stop now.

[DiapDealer]

You could save everyone some pain and suffering and yourself some legal bills by acknowledging the existence of the adjective that shall not be named.

First off, I'm not in the habit of punching anyone in the nose. Are you stereotyping again?

And of course I acknowledge the adjective's existence. I just see no valid reason for it to be used as the primary classification of any work, since it's almost always relegated to secondary descriptor at best.

I'll stop now too.