# What is literary fiction?



## helium (Mar 9, 2012)

I'm always reading in places and it pops out of nowhere. This one author said in an interview that she was working on her first "literary fiction" work. I've read about it in Wikipedia, but I can't grasp this term. Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I have to know!


----------



## Chaeronia (Mar 9, 2012)

In literary fiction a glass of red wine isn't a glass of red wine; it's an admission of the character's surrender of will lost in the mother's womb.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 9, 2012)

^ Lol. Funny because it's somewhat true.

helium, I like to think of it this way:

Commercial Fiction --> plot-driven --> focuses on external conflict happening to the characters. 

Literary Fiction --> character-driven --> focuses on internal conflict happening to the characters.

Of course, that's a very oversimplified defintion I'm using, and it's common for works to contain elements of both, but maybe that's what you were looking for?

Cheers!


----------



## Vertigo (Mar 9, 2012)

True literary fiction in my mind is fiction wherein the style overwhelms everything else, even character. When taken to its ultimate end, it's nearly a reduction of literature down to a dense, anarchic word jumble, which would in itself be a representation of the absurdity of the Greater System, and thus quite proper and nice were it not such a godawful pain to actually read. In the end, lit fiction is the fiction of people who see the cultural subtext in various films and TV shows and try to explain it to the rest of us, who just want to be entertained.

I've been experimenting with trying to write SF with a lit flair, to find a sweet spot between style and substance. Not quite there yet, but it's fun.


----------



## Chaeronia (Mar 9, 2012)

Vertigo said:


> I've been experimenting with trying to write SF with a lit flair, to find a sweet spot between style and substance. Not quite there yet, but it's fun.



Have you read M John Harrison's Light, Vertigo? It's the encapsulation of what you describe, imo.


----------



## alanmt (Mar 9, 2012)

literary fiction: Chris Miller
commercial fiction: yours truly


----------



## Bloggsworth (Mar 9, 2012)

Authors of, so called, _Literary Fiction_ use the term to cover their lack of sales in order not to appear merely envious of the Stephen Kings and JK Rowlings of this world. If it is written and fictitious it is literary fiction and need not be capitalised...


----------



## ppsage (Mar 9, 2012)

I can see a whole comedic genre opening up here, with contributions from both sides of the aisle. I'll get it started:

You're probably looking at literary fiction if,

…the leading lady is older then nineteen.
…you're not told the caliber of the weapon or the horsepower of the vehicle.
…the writing's not in little balloons pointing at somebody's head.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 9, 2012)

Bloggsworth said:


> Authors of, so called, _Literary Fiction_ use the term to cover their lack of sales in order not to appear merely envious of the Stephen Kings and JK Rowlings of this world. If it is written and fictitious it is literary fiction and need not be capitalised...



Is it the authors who label it? Or do they just write what they want and other people label it?


----------



## Bloggsworth (Mar 9, 2012)

JosephB said:


> Is it the authors who label it? Or do they just write what they want and other people label it?



If it doesn't sell they say "Well, of course it didn't, it was Literary Fiction..." I am being cynical.


----------



## doghouse reilly (Mar 9, 2012)

Literary fiction: what you were required to read in college; i.e. a tale that will put you to sleep after the first page.
Commercial fiction: Bang!bang!bang!bang!bang!(reload)bang! bang!bang!.........


----------



## Jon M (Mar 9, 2012)

Kyle highlighted the difference. Literary fiction seems to place much more emphasis on the character and the quality / sound of the prose than genre fiction, often using techniques like simile, metaphor, extended metaphor, etc., and if there is a plot, it is only in the sense that plot = character, or, what happens stems from who is involved.

Sometimes I think literary fiction is in danger of being terribly boring, or super serious, and in my opinion that is a failure too. The stories I enjoy most are ones that are weird and somewhat humorous, while also being smartly written with an awareness of the sound of words, and their many and varied connotations. There are a couple of authors here whose stories have those qualities in abundance -- Loulou and Chris.


----------



## philistine (Mar 9, 2012)

From Wikipedia's page, 'literary fiction':



> The term is principally used to distinguish "serious fiction" which is a work that claims to hold literary merit, in comparison from genre fiction and popular fiction (i.e., paraliterature). In broad terms, literary fiction focuses more upon style, psychological depth, and character. This is in contrast to Mainstream commercial fiction, which focuses more on narrative and plot. Literary fiction may also be characterized as lasting fiction — literature which continues to be read and in-demand many decades and perhaps centuries after the author has died.



Source: Literary fiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I find that hard to disagree with.




doghouse reilly said:


> Literary fiction: what you were required to read in college; i.e. a tale that will put you to sleep after the first page.





doghouse reilly said:


> Commercial fiction: Bang!bang!bang!bang!bang!(reload)bang! bang!bang!.........




Yes, forbid the sky falls onto those distracted from their Bukowski, Brown and Koontz novels.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 9, 2012)

doghouse reilly said:


> Literary fiction: what you were required to read in college; i.e. a tale that will put you to sleep after the first page.
> Commercial fiction: Bang!bang!bang!bang!bang!(reload)bang! bang!bang!.........



I don't think that definition does justice to either form.

Good fiction is engaging and compelling, regardless of its classification.


----------



## Terry D (Mar 9, 2012)

_



			The term is principally used to distinguish "serious fiction" which is a work that claims to hold literary merit, in comparison from genre fiction and popular fiction (i.e., paraliterature). In broad terms, literary fiction focuses more upon style, psychological depth, and character. This is in contrast to Mainstream commercial fiction, which focuses more on narrative and plot. Literary fiction may also be characterized as lasting fiction — literature which continues to be read and in-demand many decades and perhaps centuries after the author has died.
		
Click to expand...


I have an issue with the use of the word 'serious'.  Simply because an author writes in a particular genre which doesn't fit the arbitrary designation of 'serious' doesn't mean he, or she, is not completely serious about their work.  Koontz, Brown, Rowling, and King may not fit someone's preconception of what 'literary' is, but there is no doubt they make 'serious' money._


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 9, 2012)

I like to think of Commercial Fiction as the Hollywood Blockbusters.

And Literary Fiction as the Sundance Film Festival.


----------



## philistine (Mar 9, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> I like to think of Commercial Fiction as the Hollywood Blockbusters.
> 
> And Literary Fiction as the Sundance Film Festival.



How dare you tarnish the name of Hollywood!

:ChainGunSmiley:


----------



## helium (Mar 9, 2012)

What is different between a plot driven by a plot, and a plot driven by a character. Aren't all plots driven by characters and plots together?


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 9, 2012)

philistine said:


> How dare you tarnish the name of Hollywood!
> 
> :ChainGunSmiley:



I say how dare he tarnish the name of Commercial Fiction.
:ChainGunSmiley:
:ChainGunSmiley:
:ChainGunSmiley:


----------



## philistine (Mar 9, 2012)

helium said:


> What is different between a plot driven by a plot, and a plot driven by a character. Aren't all plots driven by characters and plots together?



Read a Henry James novel, and you will wonder no more.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 9, 2012)

helium said:


> What is different between a plot driven by a plot, and a plot driven by a character. Aren't all plots driven by characters and plots together?



Plot is comprised of external events that happen to your character. Meteors crash. Dinosaurs roam free. The stock market collapses. The focus is often on the character as a static figure as he or she moves through these changes in the story world.

Dr. Grant and the kids trying to escape and fight the dinosaurs.. Jason Bourne getting in fist fights and car chases with other agents. In the end the characters are generally the same.. they may have learned a thing or two but ultimately they are the same people who just say "Whew! We got through that alright!"

In Character-driven, the story focuses more on the affects of the character's emotions and state of mind.. _Million Dollar Baby_, _CastAway... _In the end the characters are generally totally different at the end.. and you watched them change throughout the story. The story wasn't about the boxing or the island, it was about the character arc.

Anyway, that's how I look at it. The slope can get slippery because stories can contain elements of both.. but when things lean more in one direction or the other, it becomes clearer.


----------



## Vertigo (Mar 10, 2012)

ppsage said:


> …the writing's not in little balloons pointing at somebody's head.



You forgot about either _Watchmen_ or Neil Gaiman's _Sandman_ series.


----------



## Dramatism (Mar 10, 2012)

doghouse reilly said:


> Literary fiction: what you were required to read in college; i.e. a tale that will put you to sleep after the first page.



Ah, HA!  Though I'm not in college until next year, you might as well say I am in college when it comes to English since I'm in AP. This definition helped me see the light.  The light of the boredom tunnel for English reading.  I have never liked a single story in English, because most of them are like this where little happens... I can see that some people like them, but I never do.  There's no cliffhangers like with books I like... Plus, the ones I have to read for English tend to be my least favorite genre...


----------



## Anahata (Mar 11, 2012)

So,can it be a mix between the two?


----------



## helium (Mar 13, 2012)

I don't see why it can't be. Writing is limitless


----------



## felix (Mar 13, 2012)

It's a tad artificial and arbitrary to draw the lines of division with genres, but as it's been stated above, literary is generally intended as a soberly considered piece which focuses on not what happens or is said, but what isn't said, and what never happens. 

Although it's a slippery slope. It's all too easy to fall into snobbery by thinking of mainstream King and Crichton as 'fluff' or 'popcorn', which I fell afoul of for a while, but which now I loathe. 

Having said that, it can be something of a sliding scale. I've read a few which had elements of literary and commercial fiction, like 'The Beach' or 'Alas Babylon'.


----------



## Cefor (Mar 14, 2012)

I'd like to disagree with some of you who say that any literary novel will put you to sleep... if you study English, then saying that reading a book puts you to sleep is like an electronic engineer saying he doesn't like soldering irons. Sure, you can dislike a book - I'd probably try and force a decent reason for your doing so - but you can't just blanket all literary fiction as boring, that's ridiculous.

Wuthering Heights, considered as literary fiction -- it was published in a time when there wasn't really anything but literary fiction and travel writing. It's a good novel, well written, some interesting characters and some utterly dull characters (*ahem*Lockwood*ahem*). 

Brave New World -- also considered as worthy of the name 'literary'. Yet, it can also fall under the category of science fiction, or speculative fiction if one prefers. It's a great book, and I urge you to read it.

The Handmaid's Tale -- an... okay book. For me, too much Feminism was thrown in there and the novel reeked of it. It's considered literary, and if you try to suggest to Margaret Atwood that it's science fiction, she'll bite your head off - but hey, I'll do it anyway. I read it, and didn't fall asleep, regardless of whether I liked it or not.

Oh, also, Ian McEwan's 'Enduring Love' (and his other novels, anyway) is also literary fiction. Enduring Love is not a book I enjoyed, I hated the characters, the plot was horribly convoluted (due to it's character-driven nature), and the way he was throwing evolutionary biology in our faces was so very much repugnant. But, there you go... it's up there with the others.

Oh, The Great Gatsby, too... though it's another book I could have done without reading... many people consider it as in the top 10 of greatest books ever written, God only knows why. It's literary.

So, there's a theme running through here, can you see it? These books were written to discuss something that the author felt was extremely important, and as such they stand the test of time, and like someone mentioned earlier - they come back to it again and again. These themes and motifs are what you study in English: Wuthering Heights, the nature vs nurture debate, class division, love and hate; Brave New World, the dangers of science, the dangers of strict adherence to rules, the dangers of free thought, sex, conception; Handmaid's Tale, feminism, patriarchal society, sex and conception again, love, dystopian rule; Enduring Love, love, disease, altruism, homosexuality, psychosis; Great Gatsby, the American Dream, old money vs new money, love, worth, illusion, dreams... And these are but a few of the themes and motifs running throughout those novels. These are topics which readers can respond to no matter what the date. They are supposed to be timeless and speak to all peoples.

On the other hand, something like Harry Potter - which although made its author the first billionaire from selling literature - is not considered as worthy as these books. Why? Because it's dealing with children's fiction, for one... but also because it has an event-driven story. It's action, interesting adventures for our boy wizard, fight the evil dark lord to save the world! Although it's stupid to say there are no themes and motifs running throughout this novel, it's hard to compare them to the novels I've already mentioned in terms of literary worth; even the way it is written would deny it access to the literary world.

I've read those Harry Potter books more times than all of the 'literary' novels I've ever read put together, and I'm studying English. As a kid I would devour them, but I can also appreciate these literary novels for what they are, too.

Also, there are some writers who transcend the boundaries of commercial and literary fiction, who I believe to bring them both under one banner and call it a novel. I'll cite Tolkien, Robin Hobb and Robert Heinlein (His 'Stranger in a Strange Land', at least) as my opening bet. 

Anyway, there's a huge amount of personal opinion which goes into the debate surrounding this, for some novels at least. The 'Classics' are all considered literary, anyway, and they can be your guideline.

Sorry for the rant, guys.


----------



## Newman (Mar 17, 2012)

helium said:


> I'm always reading in places and it pops out of nowhere. This one author said in an interview that she was working on her first "literary fiction" work. I've read about it in Wikipedia, but I can't grasp this term. Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I have to know!



It's a made up, meaningless term designed to make some people feel superior.


----------



## Cefor (Mar 18, 2012)

Newman said:


> It's a made up, meaningless term designed to make some people feel superior.



Not quite. It certainly does have meaning. More so to the people who use it to make themselves feel superior. The only reason they use the term is because the meaning behind the word. It's loaded.


----------



## philistine (Mar 18, 2012)

The term was used briefly (and very informally) in the Victorian era, chiefly to distinguish between the flood of 'yellow backs', and quality, serious literature.


----------



## Newman (Mar 19, 2012)

Cefor said:


> Not quite. It certainly does have meaning. More so to the people who use it to make themselves feel superior. The only reason they use the term is because the meaning behind the word. It's loaded.



Not quite.

That wikipedia definition is awful.

Another reason for the distinction is pure marketing. All the smart people are reading literary fiction don't you know (don't mention the price premium that comes with that).


----------



## Cefor (Mar 19, 2012)

Newman said:


> Not quite.
> 
> That wikipedia definition is awful.
> 
> Another reason for the distinction is pure marketing. All the smart people are reading literary fiction don't you know (don't mention the price premium that comes with that).



And, not arguing for argument's sake... but, it clearly has meaning - if only to the people who _think_ it does. I'm saying that to people who think it matters whether their novel is 'literary' or not, it obviously has a lot of meaning. They believe it's the top of the literature ladder, so it has some meaning to them. For the rest of us, it may not matter whether our novels are literary, so we don't think it's significant/has meaning.

I'm sorry to say that whether you believe it to or not, the word _has_ meaning - it's impossible for it not to.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 20, 2012)

I don't know why some people are so touchy about this. People who use the term literary fiction don't necessarily use it to disparage other kinds of writing. From what I can see, it's mostly a catch-all description for a lot of non-genre writing -- based on some of the attributes mentioned in the thread that have to do with stories being more character driven etc. Maybe there's some projection going on.


----------



## Newman (Mar 20, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> Per the discussion thread earlier, I'm lured  and entranced to write Literary Fiction, but if I want to be  successful, or have any sort of career out of writing, I feel that I  must tread into the Commercial Fiction waters.



Also not arguing for the sake of arguing (it's kinda fun to talk nonsense, though)...

Kyle's quote above (from another thread) shows why the topic gets traction. The instinct is to separate the two whereas, if you look under the surface, no real distinction exists.


----------



## Jon M (Mar 21, 2012)

Newman said:


> Kyle's quote above (from another thread) shows why the topic gets traction. The instinct is to separate the two whereas, if you look under the surface, no real distinction exists.


There kind of is a distinction. One is a sea of crap titles with a few classics, and the other is generally of a higher standard. It is obvious to any perceptive reader.


----------



## Newman (Mar 21, 2012)

Jon M said:


> There kind of is a distinction. One is a sea of crap titles with a few classics, and the other is generally of a higher standard. It is obvious to any perceptive reader.



Not to this perceptive reader.


----------



## Jon M (Mar 21, 2012)

Newman said:


> Not to this perceptive reader.


You care about this way too much.


----------



## Cefor (Mar 21, 2012)

Newman said:


> Not to this perceptive reader.



Perhaps you'd like to tell us why, instead of just saying "not to me"?

Argue your points, instead of introducing them and then leaving. Tell me why, exactly, you say there's no difference between the two.


----------



## Anahata (Mar 22, 2012)

I don't know why some people despise literary fiction so much.Yeah,some writers are terribly pretentious but that's no excuse to hate the whole thing.I like reading something that has deaper meaning,that's not all right there,in my face but I also like a lot of novels that fall into the "genre" category.The bottom line is...you have to be more tolerant and flexible and less cynical[a lot of writers are so cynical..why?]


----------

