quote:

---

Now, your HS English teacher might say that all classic literature is literary fiction, but I'd argue that most of it fits into a genre that was popular in its time. The fact that our present sensibilities make classic lit difficult to digest does not mean that the work wasn't accessible to readers of its time. Remember that what some HS teachers might call lit fiction was once considered mainstream, but contemporary mainstream isn't lit fic, is it? Point: classic lit that is difficult to read is not the model for today's lit fic.

In fact, "literary fiction" is a relatively new term, isn't it? Maybe lit fic as a category is so new that it runs parallel to post modern fiction. Even though postmodern fiction can, and often should, be categorized as literary fiction, the two are not one and the same: A definition of post modern fiction is not the same as a definition of literary fiction.

Those arenas of fiction that have traditionally been considered "genre"--romance, mystery, action/adventure, western, YA, etc--are primarily focused on arrival: They take a character on a journey that has a specific destination--a satisfying ending that is as solid as a wall. The writer tends to want his/her reader to close the book with the sense that the end is justified or good or complete. Certainly, to feel that the story is o-v-e-r. Some say this means they emphasize plot, but I find that as disparaging as to say that lit fic writers don't emphasize plot. Good genre writing must have strong characterization first and foremost, and then send the character along a compelling plotline. Character first, plot second, with an "phew (or dang), its over" ending as the craft goal.

Lit fiction, likewise, emphasizes character first and plot second. But the difference comes in the attitude about the ending. Yes, lit fic concerns itself with journey, but the emphasis is not on arrival, but on the path, the exploration of life. As such, the endings tend toward ambiguity rather than solution. The lit fic writer tends to want his/her reader to close the book and wonder ... Not wonder what is next per se, but what if. What if that happened to me? What if I had to make that choice? Or even, What will that character do/think/see/feel after all this has happened? But of course, by asking the what-if about the character, the reader then becomes a part of the story making, which is what many (not all) lit fic writers strive for.

I know when I write lit fic, my primary goal is to convey a character's story, not search out obtuse words or impress anyone with some grand style. I've written lit fic that is terse, that is simple, and that has been called "rococco." That's a wide variety within the same category, and heaven knows there are truly great lit fic writers who are hardly verbose stylistically. Hemmingway comes to mind, of course. [...]'s suggestion that lit fic sets up a "barricade" for the reader seems ironic to me because lit fic tends to be much more intimate than genre writing. That, IMO, is why it is less popular.

Obviously I can't speak to what other lit fic writers do, but I know that I rack my weak mind for words and phrases which express the greatest degree of commonality, the words that will make the way I tell the story the most intimate that I can make it. My goal is certainly not to craft stories that separate the reader from the character (or me), but to demonstrate or highlight universal similarities. It is not to wow anyone with how poetic or edgy my writing can be, but to find the words with the best, deepest, most telling connotations, to select phrases and sentences with a rhythm that reflects the character's experience, or setting, or which generate tone or mood. All of these things carry meaning.

And meaning, I suppose, is what lit fic is about, those psychological and spiritual aspects of being human which define us, propel and compel us.

---

Example: The first sentence.

quote:

---

your HS English teacher might say that all classic literature is literary fiction,

---

I don't necessarily accept that's true.

quote:

---

but I'd argue that most of it fits into a genre that was popular in its time.

---

This seems to assume that literary fiction is not popular or has not been popular in the past.

[This message has been edited by Troy (edited June 08, 2009).]

She's arguing against those who say that classic literature is literary because it's old (and follows older writing conventions), and therefore may be more challenging for modern readers to understand and enjoy.

quote:

---

Troy, Lisa was saying that "classic literature" is usually something that was "genre" as opposed to "literary" fiction when it was first published and read.

---

Oh. She's wrong.

I certainly agree that some of it was genre -- but most of it? Usually? No. That sounds like a fairly wild thing to say. There is certainly a tradition of genre works being folded into the literary mainstream, and into the classics as we know them today; but in the scheme of things it's a very small tradition. (Edgar Allen Poe comes to mind.) Additionally, what she probably means when she says "genre" (and I think she means "genres" as publishing categories) didn't exist when many of those classics were published in the same way they do now. 1984 for example was always called literature, and so was Frankenstein. (Now I'm imagining which books she might have been thinking of when she wrote the article; guesses, I admit -- but I have to guess, because she is conveniently unspecific.) It's not as if they were serialized in Amazing Stories and then re-discovered fifty years later. They were always mainstream. They are definitely "genre" in the way that I would use the word -- which is not as a publishing category but rather as a descriptor of a type of story. But it sounds as if she and I are fairly far apart in our definitions.

In the end, the article bothers me for a few reasons. First, she seems to be saying things that are fairly extraordinary and outside the norm. But she doesn't feel the need to support those statements with examples. We're meant to just accept -- oh, most of the stories we now call classics were "genre" when they came out.

But that's not true.

Then she goes on to build an argument upon this spurious foundation in which each paragraph is more nonsensical than the last. She supports nothing, gives no examples, and repeatedly makes statements which are at least questionable.

In the end, I neither agree nor disagree with her conclusions. I support her in her purpose -- which to me seems to be to demystify "literary" fiction for readers or writers who might find it intimidating.

My intent was to offer a definition of "literary fiction" from the point of view of a person who likes and tries to write "literary fiction."

We've had a lot of definitions offered by people who either don't like "literary fiction" or feel looked down on by "literary" writers, and so have offered their own, rather negative, definitions.

However, the ad hominem reactions to Ms. Dalton-Woodbury's meaningful and discussion-facilitating topical post offends me deeply. So I've dropped back by for this parting shot. Stop attacking topics, embrace a topic, strive to understand what's not easily understood about a topic. Doing so will assure advancement regardless of denial and resistance to an overlooked meaningfulness of an unassailable point. Ask for clarification, present comparisons and contrasts for examples to gauge understanding, immerse on topic, engage meaningfully. And leave personal attacks out of the discussion. Stop shooting down shooting stars of inspiration.

I applaud most of what the e-mail excerpt conveys and didn't find it the least confounding. Here! Here! It serves well as a working definition of literary fiction, it's antecedents and legacies, and it's not too terribly different from the definable needs of fantastical fiction either. The one point that I don't wholeheartedly agree with is character being more important than plot in any genre type.

I've not read any published work that didn't proportionately balance plot and character development regardless of time and place and genre. I believe plot is harder to qualify and quantify than character, but it's equally essential. For me, character is easier to develop than plot, so I emphasize plot development in my writing and writing commentary. I imagine other writers emphasize character because they either don't think twice about plot or it comes easily to them.

Here is the challenge to this article. Off of the top of your head, name a book from 100 years ago that is considered awful by most readers and critics alike. I can't think of one, although I'm sure many exist. Name five, name ten...Those are the chaff, carried away with the wind. I would argue that what remained were the wheat - the very best of a diverse group. Upon my shelf, there stand adventures, romances, sci-fi stories, mysteries, and dramas, many written over a 100 years ago, and all very good stories. I also have modern literary fiction, such as The Road and The Historian. I would argue that Tolkien is very literary. Should we just burn them all? That book has already been written.

The existence of a plot that is in the background has been in a number of literary books I have read, especially in books that are more intent on portraying a character study in a slice of life setting.

I think that some people conflate the concept of genre fiction vs. literary fiction with mainstream cinema vs art/indie movies. Sort of art for art's sake at a higher intellectual level than SF, Fantasy, Romance, Mystery, etc. That kind of thinking will get genre authors' noses collectively bent out of shape.

I simply look at literary fiction as a different genre. Good writing is good writing, no matter what.

I didn't like the article. It bothered me the way local news reports often bother me. I tried to point out why. I tried to be specific about the problems I had with it. That is not ad hominem. I felt that was a meaningful engagement of the topic and hoped it would lead to further discussion.

If it comes to anyone getting upset about my tenor, you know -- I'll just leave. I don't have a problem with that because I know that when it comes to me and the Hatrack Writer's Forum, I am out of place. Always have been.

Personally, it makes me a little sad to see you react this way, extrinsic, because I have always been fond of your studious manner and rich understanding of storytelling; you've been one of the posters I've really enjoyed here.

quote:

---

...I rack my weak mind for words and phrases which express the greatest degree of commonality, the words that will make the way I tell the story the most intimate that I can make it. My goal is certainly not to craft stories that separate the reader from the character (or me), but to demonstrate or highlight universal similarities. It is not to wow anyone with how poetic or edgy my writing can be, but to find the words with the best, deepest, most telling connotations, to select phrases and sentences with a rhythm that reflects the character's experience, or setting, or which generate tone or mood. All of these things carry meaning.

---

And to you, too, Troy, if you decide to leave as well.

One of my hopes (see my post on why I think STAR TREK has such appeal in that topic) has always been that this forum would be a place where it is also OKAY TO BE DIFFERENT.

I have always believed that anyone who is him or her self enough to be different deserves to be admired, and I glory in differences because the more different we are the more we can learn from each other.

I appreciated Kathleen's post as someone's well thought-out viewpoint (its similarity to my opinion being wholly irrelevant) that could add to the discussion on the topic. Since I didn't have anything to add to the discussion kept out of it. Was I wrong? Should I have responded with support, despite not having anything to add to the discussion? I ask again: Do we really only want respondents to answer in the positive?

[edited to add ... did it really take me 15 minutes to write this?]

I was just reading one of the posts in the "Finish My Intro" Writing Challenge topic (where participants are giving feedback on the latest challenge entries), and I noticed a particularly biting critique of one of the entries.

When I went to see who had written the entry, I saw that it was the same person who was giving the "biting critique" of said entry, and I realized that it was a joke.

(I remember an embarresing (to me) event on this forum a long while back...I won't cite exactly what it was, but it makes me laugh and blush at the same time)

Sometimes my humor works, sometimes it doesn't I suppose. Either way, its fun and enlightening.

My self critique was for several reasons.

First, I didn't know what to put for my entry.

Second, I thought it would be funny and assumed most people wouldn't notice anyway (I don't usually read through everyone's crits of everyone - not with 17 stories anyway).

Third, I always have a nagging, self-hating feeling about my writing when its done. Hopefully it isn't at an unhealthy level, but it is fun to get out what I think about my own work.

Edited to add: humor is SO subjective. Those who remember Survivor will perhaps recall his comments, and how they did not go over well with many of the people on Hatrack. They made me laugh out loud, more often than not, and I miss him. Other types of humor, even while I recognize they are intended to be funny, don't do much for me at all (ex: I tried a Terry Pratchett novel once, and could point out many of the places that were supposed to be funny, but they just didn't work for me). That's the way it goes, I guess.

quote:

---

But the difference comes in the attitude about the ending. Yes, lit fic concerns itself with journey, but the emphasis is not on arrival, but on the path, the exploration of life.

---

Many of the classic examples of what is now seem as "literature" were the populist novels of their day. Dickens, the Brontes, Jane Austen; Steinbeck, Hemingway, Fitzgerald; were these peple trying to write "literary fiction" or just a very good story? I think "literary fiction" is a comparatively recent concept - probably no more than forty years old - and is almost an attempt to circumvent the traditional method of becoming a literary figure (i.e. being hugely popular) and just go straight or "look at the classic eternal power of the book wot I have wrote". Sales figures show that there is a huge disconnect between most "literary fiction" and much genre fiction - a disconnect that tended not to exist fity or a hundred years ago. There is an element in the literary world that actively frown on popularity - the "if it's good itmust be difficult, and vice versa" approach. I am not saing that a "difficult" books cannot be good - but I am saying that it a good ook NEED not be difficult, nor is a difficult book simply good BECASE it is difficult.

quote:

---

'm not sure what Troy is thinking of when he's talking about past examples of "literary fiction" not being "genre".

Many of the classic examples of what is now seem as "literature" were the populist novels of their day. Dickens, the Brontes, Jane Austen; Steinbeck, Hemingway, Fitzgerald; were these peple trying to write "literary fiction" or just a very good story?

---

Well, hopefully anyone who sets out to be a writer has it in mind to tell very good stories. None of those authors you mentioned were "genre" authors by either definition. Being popular/populist doesn't mean genre.

"Genre" didn't exist as a publishing category then the same way it does now. And authors and books mattered more. They were part of the national and international conversation. Because back then, everybody read books. A writer could achieve a degree of popularity then without being J.K. Rowling or Stephen King and existing exactly in a perfect storm of circumstances.

I look at it this way: If those authors were being published today, they would almost universally be considered to be "literary" writers. Perhaps "chick lit" would sneak in there.

By the same token, I suspect that if you transported some of the "literary" writers of today to the past, they'd become huge stars and end up being much more important than they are considered to be now.

This has to do with the relative importance our cultures place on the written word. In any case, no, they were not genre.

quote:

---

Sales figures show that there is a huge disconnect between most "literary fiction" and much genre fiction - a disconnect that tended not to exist fity or a hundred years ago. There is an element in the literary world that actively frown on popularity - the "if it's good itmust be difficult, and vice versa" approach.

---

I'm not sure what sales figures you're referring to or what you mean when you say "disconnect". Are you saying that genre outsells literary, or the other way around?

Because if it's that genre outsells literary fiction -- I suspect the figures are misleading, and I'll explain why I think that once I find out more...

Could you give an example or cite a source for the element in the literary world that actively frowns on popularity? I'm not familiar with that movement. Additionally, I am not familiar with the "if it's good it must be difficult and vice versa" approach.

It seems to me -- and obviously I might be wrong, and would be happy to be shown to be wrong -- that this is the kind of thing genre authors and readers tell each other without evidence or support, and it goes unchallenged.

I read a lot of "literary" fiction, as well as genre fiction, and I have not come across any of these impossibly difficult books that keep getting referenced. Where are they? What are they?

"Science fiction," for example, was coined in 1929 to describe what kind of stories were published in certain kinds of magazines. (The first of them started publishing in 1926.) Other works, for example those of Verne, Wells, and Burroughs, were folded into the field---after the fact.

Still other works (for example, those published into Weird Tales which started in 1923 (I think)) became kind of "allied" with science fiction.

I'd have to go digging for actual names of the "popular=bad" school of literary fiction, and I don;t have time to do that right now, but it's something I've read more than once, and not from the genre side of the fence.

I'd be interested in seeing what you consider current "literary" fiction as it is entirely possible we are talking abut completely differnt things.

There is an argument that can be made that "literature" is something that is - and can only be - judged through hindsight. There were other popular playwrights in Shakespeare's day - there may even have been playwrights as "good" as him (Marlowe and Jonson) but his popularity far exceeds theirs. Similarly, Dickens - who wrote episodic novels in a manner that Stephen King emulated with "The Green Mile" but which model was also used in the anything-but-literary pulp era - was no more nor less popular than other writers of his day who are now all but forgotten. Is it simply an accident of history that some authors become "great" and some are forgotten? Is it fashion? (It certainly is in the art world, where some painters of the past have languished in obscurity, only to be rediscovered and suddenly declared "great" - and vice versa).

Oh, and Troy - I went off and read "Carnival Pop" again to remind myself how damn much I love your writing. I miss you on Liberty Hall.

Give me a day or so to retrieve the biographies from my local library, and I'll try and figure out how they both described their similar dilemmas. I remember the comments as being in quotes from the two authors.

quote:

---

Oh, and Troy - I went off and read "Carnival Pop" again to remind myself how damn much I love your writing. I miss you on Liberty Hall.

---

Why thank you, sir.

quote:

---

I'd be interested in seeing what you consider current "literary" fiction as it is entirely possible we are talking abut completely differnt things.

---

Well, for example, I would call "Carnival Pop" a literary story. I don't find it useful to try to define genres as anything other than descriptors of types of stories; when we start to get into definitions of "literary" that speak of the meaningfulness of literary stories (and they often do), there follows the implication that literary stories mean more and matter more than other forms. Or at least the implication is that the "literary" people think they do. So I think the definition begins to take on antagonistic dimensions to the "genre" crowd and resentments begin to grow. The "genre" crowd, in turn, has to belittle or get snide with the word "literary" in order not to feel relegated to the small corners. They have to fight back, on some subconscious level. And so from there we get the perspective that literary fiction is pretentious, snobby, or unnecessarily difficult. Inevitably these definitions always tend to go there.

Also, I see strong parallels between literature and cinema. There exist cinema-snobs just as there are lit-snobs. LOTR: The Return of the King, 2003, was the first speculative genre movie of any kind to win an Oscar for Best Picture. Only a handful have ever been nominated.

Movies that reach "classic" stature also appeal to this snob factor. Frankenstein, King Kong (1933), Metropolis, and The Wizard of Oz are all considered classics and are among the most highly regarded by critics.

Traditionally, more modern movies like The Godfather, Schindler's List, The English Patient, etc have needed to be strong character dramas in order to be highly regarded.

The Lord of the Rings series were arguably the first real attempts to combine the two forms. Is it fantasy or art / blockbuster or cinema?

Then you have your foreign films, which are considered the Dumases, Kafkas, Dostoyevskys, and Tolstoys of cinema.

Within all of these, genres exist. Furthermore, movies have various levels of regard (thus the star ratings). Drama does not guarantee high review, though it may help. Horror and science fiction the least likely to be considered great cinema. Any of this seem familiar?

I agree that while obviously there have always been different types of stories and people have always been aware of that, I do feel the concept of "genre" as we think of and use it now is pretty new, and certainly all of these sub genres ("Hard" sci fi, high fantasy, urban fantasy, pyschological thriller, sword and sorcery etc) and new supposed genre-thingies (Slipstream, magical realism, in my view) are definitely rather new. Wells and Verne's stuff was not called science fiction, and Lord Dunsany's stuff was not called "high fantasy."

I think perhaps from what I know there was a little more tendency to label works individually, rather than create large sweeping catagories.

It has also always been my understanding that at least in the past 30 years plus "genre" fiction (meaning speculative or fantastic fiction) has outsold "literary" (although theres the trouble of the definition of "literary" and where/if/when it seperates from "mainstream") although I think genre may also well largely outsell "mainstream" too. I mean last I checked, Stephen King was pretty much the best selling author ever, from a sales standpoint. Rowling is also way way up there, as at least for a while was K.A. Applegate who wrote the Animorphs YA books. Eragon, Robert Jordan's stuff...now of course you've got your John Grisham and Tom Clancy, but whether they'd be "mainstream", "literary" or what is up for debate...

I've also encountered the "crap sells" philosophy tchern mentions myself. There certainly are those that feel if something is extremely popular (as in well liked by a very large number of people) then it must suck or be valueless by default.

However, I have heard it from both sides of the fence. Some time ago...several years ago now I guess...I got involved in a very heated discussion on a messageboard/internet community mainly focused on RPGs...it had to do with Eragon, but wound up as a debate about whether theres such a thing as objectively "bad" creative works. Anyway, there were plenty of people there...all of them fans of fantasy, some of them probably writers as well, who asserted that being loved and enjoyed by large numbers of people certainly didn't enter into the equation of whether a work is "good" or "bad" and in fact probably tended to put more points on the "bad" side, because according to at least one "crap sells."

Also I agree that the world of cinema tends to mirror all of this. The interesting part, to me, about the movie end is this. Genre films are often looked down upon from an "artistic" perspective, and rarely win any of the awards, as philo mentions...and yet the majority of the best selling movies of all time are genre movies (Jurassic Park, Return of the King, E.T., Spiderman, etc etc and even Titanic would be "historical fiction.)

quote:

---

The Lord of the Rings series were arguably the first real attempts to combine the two forms. Is it fantasy or art / blockbuster or cinema?

---

And my big question is...whats the difference? Why is there a need to make a distinction (not saying you are, philo, just refering to the dichotomy that you speak of) To me all art, all works of creativity are art, are valuable, and are completely subjective.

Thats one reason why I dont care much for genre labels...or labels in general really. To me all the "crap sells" people, and all the ones that see "literature" (or "cinema") as somehow different and better from the rest of the works of their medium are basically just elitist. And are, quite possibly, simply looking for a way to elevate themselves above other people of "lesser" taste.

I personally do not have a problem with the classifications. These genres serve to guide me to what I enjoy reading. I listen to a lot of audiobooks, and due to the limited number of these available at my local libraries, they do not have them categorized by genre. I find this enormously frustrating when I'm looking for some science fiction. I don't always know what's available; I can't just get a list of science fiction audiobooks and I never know what they may have but is simply checked out. Instead, I have to either browse the entire audiobook section or go to the computer and look for each book individually, both of which I find grueling!

THE CATEGORIES HELP!!!

Imagine going to you local library or bookstore and having to find books based on author name or story name. People would stop going there or go crazy.

If something is labeled as "literary", it doesn't deter me from reading it. Just as anything else, I consider whether it would be something I might enjoy reading. A few years ago I decided to make a career change and go into teaching. I had more English credits than social science credits and was more "qualified" to teach English. I hadn't read literary fiction for twenty years (much of which I was greatly assisted in high school and college by Cliffnotes and classnotes).

quote:

---

A literary story is pretty much just any story which is set in the real world with characters who behave realistically--and which does not belong foremost to one of the other genres.

---

As I understand it, "genre" means "type," and originally was used to refer to a different set of categories: novel, romance (as in adventure story), poem, essay, play script, and so on.

In its current use, it has come to mean almost the same thing as "marketing category," and it has been asserted, in that sense, that "literary fiction" is also a "genre" or "marketing category" with its own conventions and so forth.

quote:

---

Troy, I do not know if you have read these, but would you consider The Road or The Historian literary or genre fiction?

---

I haven't read The Historian but The Road is clearly a science fiction novel, no matter who wrote it, no matter where they put it on the shelf. And it's a very good science fiction novel. It behaves like a science fiction novel; it does a lot of things which are familiar to genre readers. It happens to be beautifully written -- but then, there's plenty of science fiction that is.

#

Merlion:

quote:

---

I've also encountered the "crap sells" philosophy tchern mentions myself. There certainly are those that feel if something is extremely popular (as in well liked by a very large number of people) then it must suck or be valueless by default.

---

Yeah, I guess you guys are right about that. But danger comes from painting an entire group of readers or writers with that philosophy. I'm comfortable saying some people feel that way. I'm not comfortable saying the literary crowd feels that way.

quote:

---

And my big question is...whats the difference? Why is there a need to make a distinction (not saying you are, philo, just refering to the dichotomy that you speak of) To me all art, all works of creativity are art, are valuable, and are completely subjective.

---

Right.

quote:

---

Thats one reason why I dont care much for genre labels...or labels in general really. To me all the "crap sells" people, and all the ones that see "literature" (or "cinema") as somehow different and better from the rest of the works of their medium are basically just elitist. And are, quite possibly, simply looking for a way to elevate themselves above other people of "lesser" taste.

---

Right. I agree.

#

Robert:

quote:

---

The "lit'ry" types tend to assume their stuff is the ten percent that isn't crap, but the Sturgeon's-Law truth is that ninety percent of their stuff is crap as well. Their assumption comes not from merit but from snobbery.

---

See -- I don't think that's productive. You're assigning an attitude to all (or most) "lit'ry" types that is, in my anecdotal experience, untrue. Even if I'd had no experiences to counter it, it's a strawman.

#

tchern:

quote:

---

Ah, and here, then, I think we may have a (if not the) root of the misunderstanding. A lot of peple would refer to that as "mainstream" fiction (as per the categories at duotrope, for example), whereas "literary" fictoin is seen - sometimes by its proponents, sometimes by its detractors - as having "higher aims" than mainstream.

---

Huh. Well, as I've already said, I don't find definitions dealing with "aims" to be helpful, so perhaps I've stubbornly refused to let my mind make the distinction. But let me give you some examples of what I would consider to be literary -- and you tell me if you would call them mainstream. Maybe we can get closer to an agreement....

A few magazines:
Zoetrope All Story
Granta
Atlantic Monthly
Night Train
A Public Space
Tin House
etc.

A few authors:
J.D. Salinger
Flannery O'Conner
Richard Brautigan
Salman Rushdie
Annie Proulx
Michael Chabon (*with obvious exceptions)
etc.

#

Kathleen:

quote:

---

As I understand it, "genre" means "type," and originally was used to refer to a different set of categories: novel, romance (as in adventure story), poem, essay, play script, and so on.

In its current use, it has come to mean almost the same thing as "marketing category," and it has been asserted, in that sense, that "literary fiction" is also a "genre" or "marketing category" with its own conventions and so forth.

---

Exactly right. However, to me it seems that there are two clear definitions of genre in use today -- and although the meanings are so similar that they're almost the same, their differences can occasionally put the two meanings in direct opposition.

Definition 1: Descriptors of types of stories. (Under this definition, stories are assigned to their genre based upon commonalities with other stories and accepted pre-defined critera -- different for each genre.)

Definition 2: Marketing categories. (Books are placed into their marketing categories based largely upon where they fall under definition one -- but with certain X factors such as the prestige of the author or the wishes of the publishing house.)

I know Definition 2 is what I will encounter when I go to the library or the bookstore, but Definition 1 is the truer and (to me) more useful definition. Definition 2 leads to problems. It creates opportunities for conflict to exist where it should not.

For example, when a publishing house puts out a science fiction novel like VURT, or Random Acts of Senseless Violence, or Slaughterhouse Five, or The Road -- as "fiction" instead of as "science fiction" -- the reason they do it because they don't want their book associated with that low-brow stuff, or they don't want the public to think their author has become a sci-fi hack, or because they think the work is of higher merit than science fiction. Those are the reasons to do it. Now, you and I would read these books and recognize the commonalities with other science fiction stories, would notice that these books share every requirement of science fiction, and we would know we were reading a science fiction novel.

Certain people of a different mindset would read these novels and assume that they are not representative of science fiction, and happily go along their way believing that they're too high-brow for that sci-fi stuff -- even though they're reading it.

It reinforces the stereotype on the literary side of the fence that sci-fi is meritless, and feeds into the resentments that a lot of science fiction people have for the literary world.

If I accepted Definition 2, then I would believe that The Road and Slaughterhouse Five are literary, and that they therefore are of higher value than other science fiction stories.

Which is why-- although I certainly acknowledge the existence of Definition 2 and its presence in my library and in my local bookstore -- I reject it. It's something to see through. It's something to be smarter than.

A good book is a good book. I'm not going to like everything another person likes, and if I read The Road and think that it's a great sci-fi story and some presumido reads it and thinks it's a great allegory for the breakdown of societal morality then that's fine. What's the big deal? One person's slug is another's escargo. It is what it is no matter what you call it. Enjoy it, or don't, for what it is.

I have no problem calling The Road literary science fiction. And if someone denies it is science fiction, then that's fine with me. Call it what you will. That is no different than denying that it is literary fiction. McCarthy has a certain style and lack of punctuation that lends itself to be considered "literary". Why deny it?

Chabon's The Yiddish Policeman's Union is an excellent example of the point I'm trying to make. It is an alternative history story, thus speculative and on the fringe of sci-fi. It is a mystery involving a detective and a crime that needs to solved. It is pulp in that it is written in a hard-boiled style of crime novels from the 40's and 50's. And it is literary, mainly because it is from Michael Chabon - and he writes really good!

quote:

---

Why can't stories be both or even several "genres", however you define them? Let the librarians and booksellers decide where to put them and not worry about it.

---

Stories of course can be several genres. Idealistically, I agree with you. I'm not saying things should be categorized and identified by genre, I'm saying that's the way it is. I'm not making a point of philosophy, but rather a recognition of current circumstances.

quote:

---

A good book is a good book.

---

Of course. I agree. I, like you, am in favor of accepting all kinds of fiction, rather than dwelling on distinctions.

quote:

---

I'm not going to like everything another person likes, and if I read The Road and think that it's a great sci-fi story and some presumido reads it and thinks it's a great allegory for the breakdown of societal morality then that's fine. What's the big deal?

---

There is no big deal. All fiction is subjective. Every story takes place not on the page, but in the passage from the page into the mind of the reader; reading fiction is a participative event.

While it is nice to get the perspective of Lit fic (or Lie-Fi as I call it . . . just kidding) from someone who writes it, it was sad to see the attitude that there are two kinds of fiction literary and 'genre.' There are hundreds of kinds of fiction, and literary is one of them, they often overlap with one another. Romance-Western, Western-Sci-Fi, Sci-Fi-Literary, Literary-Fantasy, Fantasy-Romance. (Sorry I wanted to go full circle) My trouble with the post is that it says things like "Lit fic tends to be much more intimate" because I don't believe that that can be said of any genre. I've read fantasy that was far more intimate than any literary I've read (and yes I do read it) and quite a bit of literary (stories considered literary by those who decide such things) to be terribly shallow.

I also don't find her "Lit is the journey, Genre is destination" to be true. That is a philosophical argument that fills all sorts of art. (I think of the European prince who would take a jet engine and throw paint into it's wind, there was not art in his canvases, they were just random splotches of paint, the art was in watching him make them.) Frodo lives. Some books are about the journey, some about the destination, I don't think any genre (a word in which I contain Lit as well) has the market cornered on one or the other. (Or even that have a predomination of one or the other.) Of my four favorite Lit authors, two are journey type people and two are destination type people. Marilynne Robinson and Annie Dillard are journey writers, Willa Cather and Flannery O'Conner are destination writers. (By the way Dillard's Holy The Firm is a fine piece of Science Fiction.)

Everything she said, I thought, could be applied to any fiction. Her finale: "And meaning, I suppose, is what lit fic is about, those psychological and spiritual aspects of being human which define us, propel and compel us." That's what Sci-fi and Fantasy are about too. Perhaps she doesn't see that because she doesn't have the tools to understand what the ring means, or why the dragon is so important. Just as many raised on Sci-Fi don't have the tools to read a book like Gilead by Marilynne Robinson.

I think of 'literature' as works that stand the test of time, regardless of the nature of their original audience. I would put Dickens, Austen, Twain and their like in this category. You might disagree, but I think there are works by more modern authors like Kurt Vonnegut, Joseph Heller, Ursula K. Leguin and many others make the cut. It seems to me that these works endure not purely because of their 'literary' character but because they present ideas that either resonate with our own experiences or present a compelling argument that forces us to consider our own beliefs in light of contrary beliefs, past and present.

For example, it is difficult to read an Austen novel without reflecting on the status of women in society, or to read 'Huck Finn' without thinking about the nature of slavery, or 'Slaughterhouse Five' and 'Catch 22' without considering war and its effects. The fact that they are also good stories has made them enduring, influential, and worthy of study. We don't treat women as property, own slaves, or glory in war as a rule in most cultures anymore, and these works are important because they show us what the author's view on life was like when we did in a clear, involved, and moving way.

Literary fiction seems quite different to me. I consider works in this category to be written for a self-contained audience of 'clued in' readers. For example, Flann O'Brien's 'At Swim Two Birds' is literary fiction to me. Much of my appreciation comes from studying his body of work, his times and culture, and the works he refers to. Works like this lend themselves to deconstruction that is lost on a wider audience. Works like this find their way into curricula because they naturally lead a discussion to other writers in a literary circle, to influential works in the author's view, to the local popular culture of the time, and may incorporate experimental forms and techniques, for example.

To me 'literary fiction' is just another genre that I enjoy when I know enough to appreciate it, or are motivated to study it. Literature is quite another thing, and exists in every genre. The best SF and fantasy has all the attributes of literature as far as I'm concerned. Some literary fiction rises to the level of literature as well, and I hope my post doesn't seem disrespectful to those that write literary fiction.

It could be that my classifications are my own construction and bear no relation to common usage, but they work for me.

I think he was a pretty clumsy writer for the first several years. In the end the quality of his stuff had become unbelievably high. I love Philip K. Dick. And I think it's cool that a much larger audience has taken note of him now.

The journey is important, as it is what takes the story to the climax/resolution, and is nearly synonymous with the plot in my way of thinking about things. So to go through all of that as a reader and then have it just fizzle out without the dramatic forces coming to a head, or sometimes with no obvious dramatic forces ever emerging, just isn't what I want to do when I pick up a fictional book.