I know the topic of literary fiction and what exactly it is comes up a lot. As a writer of literary fiction myself I found this video pretty interesting and accurate. Check it out and let's discuss.
She made some great points. I think a lot of it boils down to common sense. Do what naturally fits you, be that what it may. (btw did you mean to time stamp this?) I like that she said plot is not irrelevant. Good point. I think there's a lot of snobbery involved with people who fixate on being 'literary' in fiction. I, for one, hate snobbery, of any kind aimed at any group. In fact, I like to laugh at the snobs, effectively flipping the script on them and, in a way, becoming 'snobby toward their snobbery' lol Not my thing at all, but one basic difference I've always held to is that literary is more a character-driven 'meandering' journey while genre is a more plot-driven 'defined structure' story. Also, there's the use of language; literary may be more idiosyncratic, whereas genre usually incorporates more of what you may call 'mainstream' language, words and phrasing common to the era when the work was produced. A side point is that I think these two complement each other well. Meaning, a genre novel with strong characterization will benefit from that hybridization with bigger sales, maybe, and the reverse is also true for a literary novel that has traits similar to a streamline genre work. But this is just an informal theory of mine. IMO the absolute best way to go is to just find a story that excites one, then follow it till the end. Worrying about literary vs genre or which category it fits into or if it will have sufficient academic praise or whether it will succeed commercially etc etc is all just asking for a bunch of self-inflicted madness.
@Tea@3 -- I hear what you're saying about snobbery, but as I think there may be just as much anti-literary snobbery these days as you yourself there kind of point out. As someone who both reads and writes literary fiction let me declare I am not a snob. It's just a matter of preference the way I see it. Contemporary literary fiction is very accessible, IMO. I think those writers who aim to write literary works without understanding it can often come up with missing the point of it. It's not purple prose and confusing plots. It's not about some higher form of writing. It's a different way to tell a story and a different kind of story. Although both literary and genre fiction should have well developed characters and interesting plots, you are right about character driven vs plot driven. The focus differs between the two. And when it comes to language lofty prose is not the difference I see, but rather that literary fiction is more likely to use subtext -- meaning what's not on the page can be just as important as what is on the page. I also think literary works are more open to or likely to experiment with things like form and structure.
Right around 7:03 she confirmed one of my suspicions (though I haven't read much litfic, not in a long time anyway). In my short-lived attempt at a thread about it I talked about movies by the likes of Tarkovsky, who started the trend toward long slow movies where not much really happens, where the silences and emptiness are as important if not more so than action or forward drive. It occurred to me (after the thread died a death) that this would translate into writing terms in the form of a lot more telling and a lot less action, with possibly a lot of contemplative thought by the narrator, or maybe the pov character. Then she said 'More narrative summary, internal reflection and description." Bingo!! Nice to know I wasn't completely off track exploring those slower, more contemplative movies.
Triple one thousand times this. It's absolutely my mission statement as a writer, and I've never agreed with how both audience and authors draw the lines of distinction so severely. In fact that was the topic of my first ever thread here. Due apologies, as I've already posted it too many times, but it's relevant to these discussions IMO and Pratchet is eloquent to say the least: Spoiler: Terry Pratchet Interview: Fantasy Genre O: You’re quite a writer. You’ve a gift for language, you’re a deft hand at plotting, and your books seem to have an enormous amount of attention to detail put into them. You’re so good you could write anything. Why write fantasy? Pratchett: I had a decent lunch, and I’m feeling quite amiable. That’s why you’re still alive. I think you’d have to explain to me why you’ve asked that question. O: It’s a rather ghettoized genre. P: This is true. I cannot speak for the US, where I merely sort of sell okay. But in the UK I think every book— I think I’ve done twenty in the series— since the fourth book, every one has been one the top ten national bestsellers, either as hardcover or paperback, and quite often as both. Twelve or thirteen have been number one. I’ve done six juveniles, all of those have nevertheless crossed over to the adult bestseller list. On one occasion I had the adult best seller, the paperback best-seller in a different title, and a third book on the juvenile bestseller list. Now tell me again that this is a ghettoized genre. O: It’s certainly regarded as less than serious fiction. P: (Sighs) Without a shadow of a doubt, the first fiction ever recounted was fantasy. Guys sitting around the campfire— Was it you who wrote the review? I thought I recognized it— Guys sitting around the campfire telling each other stories about the gods who made lightning, and stuff like that. They did not tell one another literary stories. They did not complain about difficulties of male menopause while being a junior lecturer on some midwestern college campus. Fantasy is without a shadow of a doubt the ur-literature, the spring from which all other literature has flown. Up to a few hundred years ago no one would have disagreed with this, because most stories were, in some sense, fantasy. Back in the middle ages, people wouldn’t have thought twice about bringing in Death as a character who would have a role to play in the story. Echoes of this can be seen in Pilgrim’s Progress, for example, which hark back to a much earlier type of storytelling. The epic of Gilgamesh is one of the earliest works of literature, and by the standard we would apply now— a big muscular guys with swords and certain godlike connections— That’s fantasy. The national literature of Finland, the Kalevala. Beowulf in England. I cannot pronounce Bahaghvad-Gita but the Indian one, you know what I mean. The national literature, the one that underpins everything else, is by the standards that we apply now, a work of fantasy. Now I don’t know what you’d consider the national literature of America, but if the words Moby Dick are inching their way towards this conversation, whatever else it was, it was also a work of fantasy. Fantasy is kind of a plasma in which other things can be carried. I don’t think this is a ghetto. This is, fantasy is, almost a sea in which other genres swim. Now it may be that there has developed in the last couple of hundred years a subset of fantasy which merely uses a different icongraphy, and that is, if you like, the serious literature, the Booker Prize contender. Fantasy can be serious literature. Fantasy has often been serious literature. You have to fairly dense to think that Gulliver’s Travels is only a story about a guy having a real fun time among big people and little people and horses and stuff like that. What the book was about was something else. Fantasy can carry quite a serious burden, and so can humor. So what you’re saying is, strip away the trolls and the dwarves and things and put everyone into modern dress, get them to agonize a bit, mention Virginia Woolf a few times, and there! Hey! I’ve got a serious novel. But you don’t actually have to do that. (Pauses) That was a bloody good answer, though I say it myself.
Pratchett is correct, of course. Another thing I’ve noticed about people who criticize genre fiction is they tend to be completely ignorant about the subject—it’s very quickly clear that they haven’t read much, if any, genre fiction and aren’t educated on the topic they’re holding forth on.
I would also add genre tends to bolster current culture/narrative where as literary questions the culture/narrative. i.e. if the subject is bullying the young adult or genre author can treat it rather patly - they know you know something about the subject and count on it so their angle is instructive - it's wrong to bully. Literary stops to ask - why (and they go beyond genre's anticipatory answer - you wouldn't want to be bullied.)
If you are referring to this: 'snobby toward their snobbery' I want to make sure you get that I am talking about condemning their snobby attitude, not me being snobbery toward literary fiction. (because I detest snobbery from either direction) (I see we still don't have a 'cheers' beer mug emoji
That is a serious oversight, isn't it? Cheers! Or tip a tea if you're a teetotaller. Whatever, works for me!
