quote:

---

Finally, he smiles mysteriously, and walks into the sea.

---

More seriously: make it take place in the current time, with nothing that is not currently possible (nothing magical or anything). Not much needs to happen. Certainly there shouldn't be anything too interesting like a murder. If there is, don't bother finding the murderer. Have the main character end up alive, but unhappy. If possible, include symbolism. You don't have to know what it means, just dwell on wheels or something, a little more throughout the story than you have any reason to, so the teacher notices. She'll supply her own interpretation of it.

Seriously. I am NOT joking.

It is used in the classes to really test the writer's skills, not depending on crutches that genre stories provide.
Space aliens, budding romances, finding a murder, ghosts, elves, all are easier to write about than someone deciding whether to sleep on the couch and watch TV or sit in the lounge chair and get some sun.
It is harder to write about what shoes to wear with a special dinner dress, than fighting off wolves.
It is harder to show a person trying to decide whether to eat the candy bar right now or save it until the evening than it is to write about meeting the perfect spouse.

the idea is to show a person in an every day situation to the best of your ability. Nothing even has to be happening, not even making a decision, just a person being a person. This is LIterary work. Others on the board mentioned Jane Aire (however it is spelled) as the type writing the literary elite love to write (never read any of these books either).

From wikipedia: In broad terms, literary fiction focuses more on style, psychological depth, and character, whereas mainstream commercial fiction (the 'pageturner') focuses more on narrative and plot.

WritersDigest.com
Literary fiction is usually more concerned with style than commercial fiction. Literary fiction also usually stresses characterization more deeply and is paced more slowly than commercial fiction....
The rest of this short article is here.

But genre elements aren't a crutch. In fact, a genre writer has to do everything a non-genre writer has to do (characterization, style, ect), plus add plot, pace and genre elements. In SF&F, to write a story that embeds a credible-feeling and self-consistent speculative system adds to the difficulty. And BTW, fight scenes are among the hardest to write, whether they involve wolves or humans. All this really tests a writer's skills.

I guess I would define literary fiction as focused on the subtle minutia of life.

Like...

What I felt like while I was standing at the front of the bar and the waitress kept taking orders from guys behind me but refused to acknowledge my existence.

or

The sad sorrow in the eyes of a mother who's child is mentally retarded, and who watches another kid play her child, already seeing the differences in their capacities, and witnessing the other kid "recognize" the difference between them as well.

I don't think this type of fiction is "harder" to write. It's just... different. It's not so much that it doesn't have a plot. It's that it is rarely plot-driven. And the reliance it places on character change isn't the big, sweeping epic changes of fantasy or SF. It's the recognition and validation of those minutia that can, occasionally, hit hard and deep.

That's my take, anyway.

Think everyday life.

Think of an event that doesn't lead anywhere, but you can write about in-depth (like changing a tire or something) and pick a normal everyday shmoe to do it. Then tell it in the most creative, metaphoric-ridden way possible. Have him/her discover how his/her life to relates to that tire, or the changing of it, or those that do or don't stop and help. Then title it something like Icecream Floats, or something.

Literary isn't necessarily boring or mundane or focused on contemplating your belly button and the existence of God and the meaning of life while washing a load of dirty laundry. It is far less action-adventure oriented than genre writing, to be certain, but it can and the best of it often does contain tension, drama, personal conflict and psychological challenges.

While cars may not explode, action happens but it isn't the sole purpose of the story.

The Passion of New Eve by Angela Carter is an example. There is a plot, although it is character-driven and not exactly linear; there are many cliches and tropes from genre fiction. However, it is still literary.

Many of Ursula K. LeGuin's novels are considered literary. Sexing the Cherry by Jeanetter Winterson is; Salman Rushdie always is.

Usually, literary writers call themselves literary. They also try to avoid elements that might be considered pulpy, unless it's for ironic effect. They steer clear of traditional genre elements, unless sending them up.

Often events are less important than characters. The style can be more experimental and the structure is usually less traditional as well.

I'm not saying that that genre novels should be left out of the literary circle, but unfortunately, they are by most by the literary snobs with closed minds on genre. It's sad because it wasn't always that way.

http://www.sff.net/people/DTruesdale/wolverton1.htp

What your teacher is looking for is pretty much what rickfisher said. It must be in the present time, in a boring locality, nothing much can happen certainly nothing important, and one hopes, of course, that everyone is miserable. Metaphor is optional but encouraged.

It helps that you really don't have to have a story arc, in fact a story arc is strongly discouraged. So just make us some kind of miserable scenario and with lots of angst and chances are your teacher will be happy.

Edit: I found JeanneT's article to be interesting.

Here's the deal. A lot of writing is known for the writing itself, more than the story. OSC calls it "performance writing" and rightfully so. A lot of it deals with everyday life, but the quality of the writing is so "dazzling" (whatever...) that it makes or breaks the story.

Then there is literary writing that is all about the story. Like Kite Runner, Lovely Bones, Memoirs of a Geisha, Water for Elephants, etc. Stuff that has a wide commercial appeal.

It's not the "mundane life" stuff that defines literary writing. That's just the bad stuff, the cliche. The same way an elf & unicorn book doesn't define all fantasy.

If you read about the history of literary writing and Howell's part in its development, its being mundane is indeed part of the definition.

I don't mean to gang up on you, Jamie, since I wasn't aware that you considered yourself literary. I had my fill of pretentiousness and obtuseness in my rather wasted youth in college where it is so much loved. Now no one can force me to read it or write it--so I don't.

quote:

---

Of course, everyone's missing the point that you can have literary fantasies or literary science fiction.

---

I recommend the Wolverton article. Considering that he started in mainstream and taught creative writing in university, he knows whereof he speaks.

I did read the Wolverton article a while back. He makes some great points, but Howell's definition of literary writing is nearly 100 years old and comes across like an old prejudice.

The roots are still evident, especially in literary journals that publish short fiction--again basically writers writing for other writers, but I think that definition doesn't even come close to a book like Water for Elephants. The story is amazing and one that's never been told. The writing is great, but doesn't get in the way. It's just an amazing read, and in my opinion is a great modern example of literary fiction. Just because it becomes a ginormous bestseller doesn't mean it stops being a literary book.

I'm sorry but I think you are totally mistaken to dismiss Howell's importance. His influence on the course of American literature is almost impossible to over-estimate. Yes, it was almost a century ago. And every day of the year every literary publication in the country still uses his standards. Unfortunately, as far as I'm concerned, some of those publications are speculative.

Are there some good and even enjoyable novels written by lit'rery types? I'm sure only by accident, and not by my tastes. My dislike of the genre shows pretty plainly. As an English major and post-grad, I was force-fed way to much of it. I can't choke it down and won't try. And I have no liking for people who insist that the only worthwhile writing is angst filled literary trope.

Edit: I happen to have read Water for Elephants. It was a gift. I would never have bought it for myself. Let's just say I didn't find it all that delightful. I don't recommend it unless you really enjoy reading rather cliched prose about sadism and the brutalization of animals which of course meant it was nominated for a lot of awards. Typical.

If you found Water for Elephants filled with animal cruelty, you are in the minority, and its record #1 status for 2007 is evidence of that. Those details were historical and meant to show how cruel and inhumane their treatment actually was. The author, Sara Gruen, is a major animal-rights activist. For you to find it somehow advocating animal cruelty is beyond me.

Literary writing has come to mean a certain type of commercial fiction which, actually, isn't very literary at all. Real literary writing is writing which, rather obtusely, is considered to have lasting merit or cultural significance by the academy. That can include science fiction and fantasy, and has on many occasions.

A Clockwork Orange is science fiction and literary. So is 1984.

The problem is that many writers for literary magazines (and I could name a few spec fic titles that fall into this trap as well) see literary fiction as a very specific type of writing. They emulate literary fiction without approaching it. You cannot hope to write literary fiction that way. You just have to write something that says something important and unique about life in the 2000s (or in the 80s, if you wrote then, for example).

Literary fiction is studied by literature students as encapsulating the concerns and dialectics of a given time. Ironically, all the literary fiction of the past was spec fic (fairytales, the Arthuriad, etc).

Wikipedia says that "Literary fiction is a term that has come into common usage since around 1970, principally to distinguish 'serious' fiction (that is, work with claims to literary merit) from the many types of genre fiction and popular fiction (i.e., paraliterature). "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_fiction

In other words, literary fiction deliberately excludes genre fiction such as SF. (By this definition, "literary SF" is an oxymoron.)

Wikipedia says of "literary merit" that "the process of establishing literary merit is difficult, fraught with dangers, and often subjective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_merit

So JeanneT is perfectly entitled to her--subjective--opinions of the merits of "Water for Elephants."

quote:

---

If you found Water for Elephants filled with animal cruelty, you are in the minority, and its record #1 status for 2007 is evidence of that. Those details were historical and meant to show how cruel and inhumane their treatment actually was. The author, Sara Gruen, is a major animal-rights activist. For you to find it somehow advocating animal cruelty is beyond me.

---

Being in a minority ain't necessarily a bad thing. I think that reading fiction is a leisure activity. Why would the majority want to spend leisure time reading fiction about cruel inhumane treatment of animals? Why not spend the time with an animal charity doing something about it, instead of merely reading about it? Isn't reading such fiction some kind of sadistic voyeurism? How can it be pleasurable? Where is the aesthetic? Is the depiction of cruelty somehow aesthetically pleasing?

JeanneT did not say it advocates animal cruelty.

quote:

---

Judging from most of your posts, I suspect you're just being argumentative for the sake of arguing. In which case, I'm done.

---

I do not think this is an appropriate way to respond to JeanneT's--or anyone else's--opinions. I for one find her contributions interesting, thought provoking and informative--and amusing.

'Literary fiction includes works written as short story, novella, novel and novel sequence. In the world of comic writing, graphic novels are sometimes considered literary fiction, as represented by Jimmy Corrigan, the Smartest Kid on Earth.

'What distinguishes literary fiction from other genres is subjective, and as in other artistic media, genres may overlap. Literary fiction is generally characterized as distinctive based on its content and style.

'Literary prizes usually concern themselves with literary fiction, and their shortlists can give a working definition.

'Literary magazines, especially those affiliated with universities or ones considered for selection of anthologies by groups like the Pushcart Prize or O. Henry Awards, typically limit their fiction. A "no genre fiction" rule for submissions is common.

'It has become a commonplace that "literary fiction" is in itself just another genre. This accords with the marketing practices now general in the book trade. It may also be taken to be the latest version of the death of the novel debate that has run from 1950, and reflects the importance of the novel as it replaced poetry as the central literary form in Western Europe and North America from the 1930s. However, "literary fiction" does not fit the general definition of a "genre" as it lacks the cohesion of genres like "westerns" or "romance" and lacks any kind of genre conventions. One would be hard pressed to come up with a list of genre conventions that would also apply historically, to include everything from the surrealist prose of Beckett to the punchy prose of Hemingway to the works of Victorian England.'

I.e., literary fiction is *not* a genre. It is, as the opening of the article says, 'work with claims to literary merit' as opposed to 'genre fiction'. It then goes on to define 'genre fiction', under its own article, thus:

'Genre fiction is a term for fictional works (novels, short stories) written with the intent of fitting into a specific literary genre in order to appeal to the fans of that genre. In contemporary fiction publishing, genre is an elastic term used to group works sharing similarities of character, theme, and setting—such as mystery, romance, or horror—that have been proven to appeal to particular groups of readers. Genres continuously evolve, divide, and combine as readers' tastes change and writers search for fresh ways to tell stories. Classic romance novels, such as those written by the Brontë sisters and Jane Austen in the nineteenth century, continue to enjoy popularity today in the form of both books and movies. Despite its popularity, genre fiction is often overlooked by institutions that favor literary fiction.'

Well, if literary science fiction is an oxymoron, so are all the works of the Brontes and Austen. Here they are clearly labelled 'romance novels' and yet 'classic' (and undoubtedly literary). So whether it's oxymoronic or not is hardly the point. There is, as is said above, an overlap between genres, and an overlap between genre and literary fiction. Indeed, all fiction can be said to pertain to a genre, as a genre is simply a category.

The note about literary fiction being considered '"serious" fiction' in the first Wikipedia article suggests that what differentiates literary fiction from non-literary fiction is whether the story is designed purely to entertain and appeal to fans of a specific genre (by ticking all the generic boxes), or whether it attempts to engage more dialectically with that genre and with external frameworks.

As another example:

'The Tempest is a play written by William Shakespeare. It is generally accepted to be Shakespeare's last play solely written by him.[1] Although listed as a comedy in the first Folio, many modern editors have relabelled the play a romance. First published in the First Folio of 1623, but generally dated to 1610-11, it did not attract a significant amount of attention before the closing of the theatres in 1642, and after the Restoration it attained great popularity only in adapted versions.[2] Theatre productions returned conclusively to the original Shakespearean text in the mid-nineteenth century.[3] In the twentieth century the play received a sweeping re-appraisal by critics and scholars, to the point that it is now considered one of Shakespeare's greatest works.[4]'

So Shakespeare wrote romance *and* comedy? But how can that be? Surely he's literary . . .

Oh, yes, that's right. Because literary fiction is *not* a genre. It is a degree of worth (perhaps) arbitrarily determined by academics.

So literary fiction is genre fiction, by definition. Look up the definition of genre. It is a category. Categories can be placed on anything. But literary fiction is not *solely* about its category. The Tempest might share a category with Friends Season 1, or with Bridget Jones' Diary, but it jostles about in its place and wants to break free. It is more than the sum of its parts--and more, therefore, than a simple label. That is the essence of literary vs non-literary.

Adam
xxx

P.S. I'm using genre as in the sense of 'romance' or 'SF', rather than in the sense of 'poetry' or 'prose' or any of the other meanings genre can have. Just as poetry is a genre (i.e. category), literary fiction is too. But that's different to a genre as a framework of codes and conventions to provide instant recognition and familiarity with a story and its modes.

quote:

---

What differentiates literary fiction from non-literary fiction is whether the story is designed purely to entertain and appeal to fans of a specific genre (by ticking all the generic boxes), or whether it attempts to engage more dialectically with that genre and with external frameworks.

---

I think that by that definition much SF (Aldiss, Clarke, Asimov, Heinlein, LeGuinne, OSC) could be defined as "literary" because it logically addresses ideas in frameworks like current and future political and religious culture.

quote:

---

But literary fiction is not *solely* about its category. The Tempest might share a category with Friends Season 1, or with Bridget Jones' Diary, but it jostles about in its place and wants to break free.

---

That's good, and I almost bought it. But--it wants to break free of what? (SF breaks free in a big way, free of the known rules of science.)

I still don't understand what 'literary fiction' is. I think it's that which remains when you take the story out of fiction--when you break free of the need to tell a story, to entertain readers.

quote:

---

Judging from most of your posts, I suspect you're just being argumentative for the sake of arguing. In which case, I'm done.

I do not think this is an appropriate way to respond to JeanneT's--or anyone else's--opinions. I for one find her contributions interesting, thought provoking and informative--and amusing.

---

Actually, I would say this is the perfect way of responding - by not allowing yourself to be caught up in pointless debate. Debating hard facts is certainly one thing - sales figures, number of weeks on the NYT Beest Seller list, etc. Debating a point of opinion is quite another, and once both parties have stated their points of view and indicated that their opinion is essentially intractable (as JeanneT did) then removing yourself from the situation is entirely appropriate.

Jayson Merryfield

quote:

---

Actually, I would say this is the perfect way of responding - by not allowing yourself to be caught up in pointless debate.

---

This was not removing oneself from the debate. It was an uncalled for judgment of JeanneT and "most of her posts." Removal from the debate could have been accomplished by the poster simply staying silent.

In traditional SF, for example, the story arc follows the ancient format of hero called to a quest, which he takes up and, through overcoming obstacles, resolves, bringing himself back to a state of equilibrium. Genres tend to have specific ways in which this might happen. In romance, for instance, it is often that girl meets guy, girl loses guy, girl gets guy back again (or vice versa). In a literary romance, this might be subverted and altered. The progress is perhaps shuffled around a bit, and the whole journey is made to become an analogy for something else that, if you want it, can provide an additional level of fulfilment. The warm feeling inside doesn't just come from the ending, it comes from something else we've learned along the way.

True, SF deals with lofty ideas that take it outside the box. However, ideas in themselves are not what makes something literary. It's how that idea challenges us and makes us reassess who we are. Sure, it's a nice story you've just told me about aliens and string theory and gravity--but what does that mean about lived reality and the way our society functions?

It seems to me that literary texts are deemed literary because they offer historical and cultural answers to what has been occurring during certain times. For example, the Romantic poets. Their poetry turned to pastoralism and retreat during a time when political revolution took France by storm and threatened to spill over the Channel. Those poets were important (and thus literary) because studying them gives an indication of how thought developed over that period, and it gives us a greater sense of where we are now and how we got there.

I believe all texts can probably be interrogated in this way. However some merely say what has already been said elsewhere and better. For example, there's much to be said about relationships in Bridget Jones, but nothing Austen didn't tell us a century before. I'm sure Helen Fielding wasn't too bothered by this, as Bridget Jones is a conscious reworking of Austen, but it's likely to mean her work is not (at present) considered literary. But in centuries to come, it might be studied on English Literature modules across the world as emblematic of 90s pop culture (in which case, it would then become 'literary'). I'm sure The Harlot's Progress and Love For Love (and even Pride & Prejudice) were the equivalents of today's popular literature.

The problem with fiction in many so called literary magazines of the present is that people are trying to write something to be studied in the future. Something that might enter the 'canon'. Of course, that's stupid.

And I agree, Pat, that Asimov and OSC might be considered literary, and it's likely that in 100 years time they'll be read in English classes. All the kids will sit around laughing at how quaint 20th/21st Century ideas were, and how we didn't write proper stories because they were on paper and not projected into people's brains as a loose series of images and suggestions. In the future they might not even need to 'tell' stories--they might just implant knowledge of the events of a story into a person's head, like a fully formed memory, so they have beginning, middle and end in an instant. Then they'll laugh at all our wandering about on these little pieces of paper . . .

I based my first reply, not on an attitude of literary-fiction bashing (honestly!) but on my knowledge of the current crop of academics. When a teacher or professor asks for "literary fiction" and absolutely rejects any "genre elements", then they're looking for one of the worthless, no-longer-experimental attempts at angst that so many people object to. So give it to them and avoid that instructor in the future if at all possible.

But we've since taken the topic much further. What is "genre"? anyway.

And why should we care?

Here's the thing. People love to put things into categories. It's the way the human mind works. There are good survival reasons for it, but it is often less productive in non-survival situations. Is a book SF or fantasy? Or alternate history? Or literary? Why can't it be all four?

People are going to divide their categories in different ways. The only thing we can be sure of is that a large percentage of people will be vehement about those categories, no matter where they happen to have drawn the lines.

If you want my personal take on it, literary is a genre, like horror, westerns, mystery and romance, but UNLIKE science fiction, fantasy, or alternate history. Why? Let me take fantasy for an example.

For me, there's a big unnamed genre out there in which the laws of the universe in the story are (or at least were thought to be at the time of writing) the same as the real laws of the universe. I call that a genre because I've put a restriction on it, and if you think about it--think about all the possible stories that could possibly be written--the ones that restrict the laws of the universe in this way make up a small minority. Everything else--ALL of it, all those stories in which the laws of the universe don't have to conform to ours--is fantasy. Thus, fantasy is defined, not by a restriction or set of restrictions, but by lack of restrictions.

Science fiction is similar: it is mundane fiction that is restricted, by not allowing any stories to take place either in the future (there's a little cheat allowed here: the story can take place a short time in the nominal future as long as the future it takes place in is exactly like the present. This is used sometimes for the purpose of having a political thriller wherein the President of the US is not a historical character), or to contain any elements of a scientifically speculative nature (this includes ETs). Alternate history, too, is what's left after excluding the genre (again unnamed) of historically realistic fiction, where the events of the past are the same within the story as in the history books.

The other genres are marked by what they include: a love story; a murder by an unknown party (or occasionally another puzzling occurence) and the eventual discovery of the murderer; something to really terrify you or gross you out; a temporal and physical location in the developing western part of this country; excellent writing, use of metaphor and symbol, and deep structural integrity.

There's no reason that any of these genres can't overlap, but people, as I already mentioned, like things pigeon-holed. So lots of arguments get generated. Even though most people will admit that the genre's can overlap, and even though they'll admit that this or that particular book can go fit in several, they still try their hardest to stick each book into only one of the categories.

I would say literary is technically a genre in the sense of a category. However, 'genre' as it pertains to fiction is actually a framework of codes and conventions that facilitate immediate recognition.

For example, if we see a robot in a story, we identify that as a convention of SF. It also suggests possible stock narratives for us:

1. Will the robot try to kill off humanity in a parody of Darwin's survival of the fittest? (The Terminator, all those SF B-movies with robot armies)

2. Will the robot turn out to be just like us, and thus symbolise women/ethnic minorities/marginalised communities? (Armitage III, Ghost in the Shell, Bladerunner)

Etc, etc.

SF also has stock characters: the mad scientist/the evil genius; the adventurous hero (borrowed from the adventure and fantasy genres); the talking computer (Hal, Holly, Eddie, Mother); the didact/tutor/good scientist (also borrowed from fantasy, where this character is usually a wizard); etc, etc, etc. Of course, many of these elements can be subverted, which provides dramatic intensity.

But there are also common themes: man against technology; man against himself; man against nature. In SF these themes tend to shape themselves around science, so man vs nature becomes a question of morality regarding evolution. Man vs technology tends to manifest in robot, postapocalyptic or genetic engineering storylines (but there are others).

The point I'm trying to make, is that genre does the work for you in many cases. That framework for your story is already there, and all you have to do is play with it. Readers also have to put in less work because they know what to expect from a series of 'rules' that have arisen over the years. When these rules are broken, this can provide a dramatic moment to the reader, whose expectations are foiled. But this foil was already inherent in the genre in its opposite.

Literary fiction does not have such classical stock characters or narratives. Instead, it has to borrow from other genres. Hence why it is not a genre in the same respect as SF or romance. What is similar about The Catcher in the Rye (which I'm not that fussed about, TBH) and The Golden Notebook? Very little (except the word 'The'). What does Dracula have in common with Ulysses? Or Animal Farm with Romeo & Juliet? And there are few literary texts that share similarities with the Marquis de Sade's kinkier stuff (but, ironically, there's plenty of erotica that does). Literary texts don't even have to be fiction (e.g. Samuel Pepys' Diary).

That's why literary texts can also belong to one or more genres. IMO.

So I'd just suggest writing trite for your tutor, and then, when you finish the course and get good grades, you can beat her round the head with a big thick copy of The Illuminatus! Trilogy and say, 'Do you like this cross-generic literary madness, you bitch!' repeatedly. That would be more fun

Adam
xxx

It has been noted here by rickfisher that people like to categorize things. This is very true, and has not been lost on the publishers and bookstores out there. When people go to a bookstore, they know their interests and can quickly locate the section where they will find several books in their area of interest. I do it, and I know most everyone else does too.

Within that area of interest, most visitors to a bookstore first check out the books by authors they know then continue to look for others of interest in the same area. Rarely do most readers go outside of this small section of the bookstore where they find their books. Because of that, marketing demands that things be categorized.

It wasn't always that way. There was a time when one went into bookstores and all authors, regardless of category of works, were put in alphabetical order. After all, before the Dewey Decimal system in 1876, it was the best way to categorize them. Then marking forces made book stores bigger, and the placement of books proved to be beneficial to the sales, thus genre and categorizing was modified from the library system to the commercial system.

The fact is that genres are born out of the writing itself. For example, the fantasy genre didn't even exist until some time after Tolkein and others started to write it, even though you could argue it existed in works long before that. The link below is a nice little repost of one of Dave Wolverton's writing tip emails from his Daily Kick In The Pants mailing list. It is very informative and explains a lot about how genres are created and spawned from different kinds of writing.

http://kevinlucia.net/blog3/2007/12/audience_analysis_part_3.html

"Genre" used to be used to refer to the kinds of writing in the sense of novel, poem, essay, and so on. There was a "genre" called "romance" which included most of the kinds of stories we find in the "popular fiction" marketing categories (adventure, thriller, mystery, romance, science fiction, fantasy, horror, and so on).

The "novel" genre was reserved for what we tend to think of now as "literary fiction," but is also now part of the marketing category known as "mainstream."

As has been pointed out, these categories are often very subjective, and arguments inevitable with regard to them.

I personally favor Damon Knight's definition of science fiction, applied generally to any category:

quote:

---

Science fiction is what I point to and say, "That's science fiction."

---

If that were the case, there wouldn't have been decades when the editors of the New York Times arbitrarily refused to put ANY piece of genre on the best seller lists. You had books that sold 10 times as many copies as best sellers and were simply ignored, and that did include Lord of the Rings.

As the original poster found out, there are academics out there who still insist that any piece of genre is trash, no matter how well written. But then it's genre so it CAN'T be well written--by definition according to the modernists and post-modernists.

Dismissing Howell as having lived years ago simply ignores that his modernist standards are still ENFORCED both at publications and at schools and universities. So please justify ignoring him to me.

Now, let's go back to some of those literary classics that somehow prove that I'm wrong. Austen, Shakespeare and Swift were pre-modernists who wrote before anyone even thought of "literary" standards and before it even occured to anyone that you should arbitrarily say that certain types of stories should be excluded. If you put in a ghost or a murder it can't be intellectual. Of course, Shakespeare was all about making a living so he wouldn't have cared anyway I strongly suspect.

Am I fair to "lit'rery types?" Probably not. But then I just turn their own arbitrariness around on them. They decided a hundred years ago to try to exclude any non-intellectual from their little club. After I got my masters, I decided that I didn't LIKE their little club and resigned membership.

If someone wants to debate the nature of Finnegan's Wake with me, I'll pass. Been there. Done that. Got the degree. Ain't goin' back. I'll take my low-brow genre writing that teachers such as gobi13x's who caused the start of this thread so dispises.

Jamie, correct me if I'm wrong, but you thought of yourself as a historic fiction author before your agent changed that, right? (By the way, no offense is intended and I'm patiently awaiting your novel's release...) How much emphasis did you put on prose?

quote:

---

Luapc described my teacher perfectly. She has even said, "There will be no genre fiction in my class, because literary fiction is better." I have started my story and I think it is a boring set of words, but I think it will pass my teachers approval. I am waiting to see if it did and will update if I did. Basically my WIP is a bunch of unhappy coworkers, with some vague metaphors thrown in.

---

*nods* (bold added for emphasis)

quote:

---

Update: My teacher accepted the story described in my previous post. Thanks for the help deciding on something.

---

Edit: I deleted a short response to Jamie. I'll gladly accept my inferior low-brow status.

On the question of am I sometimes deliberately argumentative--of course, I am.

I honestly didn't think of myself as a specific type of writer. I just wrote a story that was interesting to me as a reader.

But when I queried it I had to give it some kind of definition, so I called it historical fiction because I was uncomfortable with the literary tag. By uncomfortable--I mean I groaned and rolled my eyes at the thought--for many of the reasons people have put forth. Pretentious. Too much of the writer is on stage obfuscating the story. Depressing spin on everyday life. Just plain boring. You name it.

Then I queried a bunch of agents and had five offers in ten days. All of the agents saw it as Commercial Literary--sort of a sweet spot between the two. It's set in the 40s, but seems to have a wider appeal. (Memoir of a Geisha was historical, but marketed as Commercial Literary, that kind of thing).

As far as how much emphasis do I put on prose? I don't even think about it. Story always comes first. I don't like to watch a movie and see the director's fingerprints all over the place and I guess I feel the same way when it comes to writing. I'm a total comics geek, but I couldn't get through The Adventures of Kavalier & Clay because I felt like the author was standing on his head on every page saying, "Look at me! Look at me!"

But on the flipside, I love Harlan Ellison, and he tends to put a lot of himself on the page in a very "performance writing" kind of way. His prose definitely jumps off the page. (In my opinion, anyway).

There is discrimination against 'genre' pieces (i.e., pieces written within certain parameters, relying on certain tropes and written for entertainment, which they consider 'lazy'), but there's also discrimination against fanfic, self-publishing and celebrity biographies. It's one of those things, I guess. As long as we compartmentalise, there will be people who exalt one thing over another. Compartmentalising is discrimination, by definition.