# “Literary fiction”?



## luckyscars (Apr 10, 2019)

Can anybody shed some light on exactly what kind of thing is generally considered to count as literary fiction these days?

I have now encountered two separate short fiction magazines who request “literary fiction” as opposed to genre or “mainstream” fiction yet do not give much of any hint as to what they are looking for. I could buy a subscription to see (which is what they recommend, naturally) but I’d rather not waste money if it’s completely incompatible with my work.

I understand the official difference is literary fiction is considered more highbrow than genre or mainstream fiction in terms of subject matter, tone, etc but that doesnt really help me guess at what this means in a flash fiction context. What kind of stories would tend to fit this definition for the purposes of a magazine that specializes in it? What kind of stories definitely wouldn’t (beyond the obvious - zombies etc) What kind of subject matter and themes would be difficult to reconcile?

I’m really just looking make sure I’m not wasting my time. I consider my work to be fairly decent in quality (try to be anyway) but i do tend toward the speculative so not sure if it would be a dealbreaker if it included, I don’t know, a bit of violence or thrill or something weird.


----------



## moderan (Apr 10, 2019)

In litfic the action is often carried by conversation. Don't forget to kipe well-used sf tropes and call them your own. You too can be the next Atwood, or deLillo.


----------



## luckyscars (Apr 10, 2019)

moderan said:


> In litfic the action is often carried by conversation. Don't forget to kipe well-used sf tropes and call them your own. You too can be the next Atwood, or deLillo.



Hmm. So would it be fair to say a literary fiction short story probably contains little no notable action whatsoever? An argument or debate but nary a gunfight?

I almost get the sense this 'genre' is more about intellectual snobbery than anything else. Which is fine, I can do faux-intellect until the cattle doth return, but if it needs more overtly cerebral qualities I'm guessing a story about cannibalism probably isn't going to fly.

What do sci-fi tropes have to do with litfic? Is is that intellectualism aspect again? Can the paranormal or even religious not also be used if so?


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 10, 2019)

My (loose) definition of literary fiction:

— Heavier focus on internal/interpersonal conflict, rather than external/physical conflict
— Heavier emphasis on lyrical prose (style, voice), whereas genre fiction tends to aim for more conversational, simpler prose
— The plot tends to revolve around a character learning a lesson / gaining an insight / changing their worldview, rather than solving a physical problem
— More tendency to involve an unusual / experimental / unpredictable narrative structure

Some Lit. Fic. authors in my library: Anthony Doerr, Karen Russell, Jennifer Egan, Zadie Smith, Cormac McCarthy ... They all have kind of a similar feel and tone to them, which is a bit on the serious end of the spectrum, a bit poetic, a bit introspective, with stories that tend to involve more emotional stakes, rather than physical.

Maybe some of that helps? :-k


----------



## Squalid Glass (Apr 10, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Hmm. So would it be fair to say a literary fiction short story probably contains little no notable action whatsoever? An argument or debate but nary a gunfight?
> 
> I almost get the sense this 'genre' is more about intellectual snobbery than anything else. Which is fine, I can do faux-intellect until the cattle doth return, but if it needs more overtly cerebral qualities I'm guessing a story about cannibalism probably isn't going to fly.



Salinger's short stories are great examples of short form lit fic. They are absurdly cerebral. Snobby? Eh, perhaps. Faux-intellectual? Absolutely not. But those are criticisms that have been persistent against lit fic for a long time. I think it's more about exploring theme and internal conflict and metaphorical constructs. Lit fic is also heavily concerned with style, so it has some similarities to poetry in that regard.

And while it is true that lit fic is more concerned with characterization, theme, and thought than actual story, that doesn't mean story doesn't matter. "A Perfect Day for Bananafish" and "For Esme with Love and Squalor" are great examples of this. These are works with very little movement or action, but the stories are layered and fascinating.

Ian McEwan's work is a good example of long form contemporary lit fic. _Atonement _is a beautifully written novel.


----------



## luckyscars (Apr 10, 2019)

Squalid Glass said:


> Salinger's short stories are great examples of short form lit fic. They are absurdly cerebral. Snobby? Eh, perhaps. Faux-intellectual? Absolutely not. But those are criticisms that have been persistent against lit fic for a long time. I think it's more about exploring theme and internal conflict and metaphorical constructs. Lit fic is also heavily concerned with style, so it has some similarities to poetry in that regard.
> 
> And while it is true that lit fic is more concerned with characterization, theme, and thought than actual story, that doesn't mean story doesn't matter. "A Perfect Day for Bananafish" and "For Esme with Love and Squalor" are great examples of this. These are works with very little movement or action, but the stories are layered and fascinating.
> 
> Ian McEwan's work is a good example of long form contemporary lit fic. _Atonement _is a beautifully written novel.



I only meant it would be faux-intellectual if I wrote it 

I think where I'm having trouble is processing how these features would fit into a short-story never mind a flash context. Long form makes sense. 

The authors you and Kyle provided I am familiar with but I am struggling as to how to "exploring theme and internal conflict and metaphorical constructs" in a very short word count unless one leaves an awful lot unsaid, which seems to run a risk of not coming across very literary. A metaphor or hidden-meaning always runs the risk of being missed and that seems especially true if there's very little time to really unpack and extend it...

...if that makes sense?


----------



## SueC (Apr 10, 2019)

So what I have heard about literary fiction is that it's stories with a moral, that there is a point to the fiction written, it sends a message. It's not just a tale of boy meets girl, it's about those accompanying feelings and the struggles with right and wrong. It goes beyond telling who did what in the course of an event; goes deeper.

This is just what I have read, mind you. I would go out on a limb and say most entries into the LM comps are NOT literary fiction, although there have been some that have come close. A lot of what you write, luckyscars, seems to fall into that literary fiction category. Not that most of the stories couldn't be, but there just isn't always enough time or space to get into the moral aspects of our characters lives. 

For example, _To Kill a Mocking Bird_ is literary fiction. The human struggle, how to manage a degree of conscience, and so on. If it were not considered literary fiction, it might be just a story of a black man, charged with the rape of a white girl, without getting into the minutia of feelings and such.

Good question!


----------



## Squalid Glass (Apr 10, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> The authors you and Kyle provided I am familiar with but I am struggling as to how to "exploring theme and internal conflict and metaphorical constructs" in a very short word count unless one leaves an awful lot unsaid, which seems to run a risk of not coming across very literary. A metaphor or hidden-meaning always runs the risk of being missed and that seems especially true if there's very little time to really unpack and extend it...
> 
> ...if that makes sense?



A lot of it comes down to style. Short form lit fic is one of those things you know when you see. I like to think of it as stories _The New Yorker _​would publish.


----------



## luckyscars (Apr 11, 2019)

SueC said:


> So what I have heard about literary fiction is that it's stories with a moral, that there is a point to the fiction written, it sends a message. It's not just a tale of boy meets girl, it's about those accompanying feelings and the struggles with right and wrong. It goes beyond telling who did what in the course of an event; goes deeper.
> 
> This is just what I have read, mind you. I would go out on a limb and say most entries into the LM comps are NOT literary fiction, although there have been some that have come close. A lot of what you write, luckyscars, seems to fall into that literary fiction category. Not that most of the stories couldn't be, but there just isn't always enough time or space to get into the moral aspects of our characters lives.
> 
> ...



Thanks Sue.

The problem with most of these definitions as I see it is they are so easy to debunk. When I hear this "it's about those accompanying feelings and the struggles with right and wrong. It goes beyond telling who did what in the course of an event; goes deeper." I can think of a huge number, literally tons, of genre fiction that does this. From King's 'It' to Shelley's 'Frankenstein' to Jules Verne. This makes me think it really seems less about a difference in genre, style or setting and more about a difference in quality...

I realize like so many things what you are saying is a generalization and I don't lose sleep over it, except that with such a wishy-washy and subjective interpretation of what is or is not 'literary' it makes me worried by engaging with it I might not meet whatever imaginary criteria exists! It doesn't help that there seem to be so few prominent examples in anything other than a novel context I could imagining writing a literary novel but how are you supposed to go into depth of feeling and interpersonal conflict AND tell a story within 1,000 words is sort of beyond me at this moment. Or maybe it just hasn't struck me yet...

Squalid mentioned the short fiction of the New Yorker. Most of what I've read in there is just very vanilla drama spiked with occasional humor and irreverency. Not bad at all, just stories of a certain type, written for a certain type of reader...


----------



## Squalid Glass (Apr 11, 2019)

Like I said, a lot of it is about style. There’s a quality to it that some might find labored. But in the end, it comes down to focus. It’s the style and the exploration of themes deeper than the narrative itself. “Uglypuss” by Atwood is another short story that comes to mind. “Teddy” by Salinger is a lit fic story to the max. 

As for lit fic under 1000 words, I’m not sure how that would be done. I’m sure it’s out there. Maybe some narrative essays?


----------



## luckyscars (Apr 11, 2019)

Squalid Glass said:


> As for lit fic under 1000 words, I’m not sure how that would be done. I’m sure it’s out there. Maybe some narrative essays?



I don't think its essays, though I have no idea...

 As an example, one of the sites I was looking at was https://ffo.submittable.com/submit

This place breaks down their submissions process by genre. You have to choose which one fits your work.

This is what they say as far as the 'guidelines' for literary fiction - "[FONT=&Verdana]A genre in which the sophisticated technique of the writing itself prevails over all other elements. We love excellent writing! "

[/FONT]That's it. That's literally it. Note that they list 'literary' as a genre, alongside horror, science fiction, fantasy, mainstream, humor, seasonal (christmas stories etc) and 'other' - which is supposed to be 'stuff that doesn't fit anywhere else!'. Note that they pay $60 for a story so presumably they have a fairly high threshold of quality anyway ($60 for flash fiction is pretty damn good, for what I see) so the idea of having an entire genre to 'excellent writing' seems sort of like the old 'turn this amp up to eleven' thing. 

What I'm trying to work out is if the magazine is already dedicated to quality why does it have a different category for _additional _quality? It can't be there just as a catch-all for 'stuff that isn't genre fiction' because that's presumably what 'mainstream' and indeed 'other' would be for. _​

_Pretty weird.

Maybe it is a 'style' thing, though, in which case I am none the wiser as to whether my work would qualify. I use some 'sophisticated technique' sometimes... then again, so do many Gothic horror and fantasy and science-fiction and mystery writers.


----------



## Bayview (Apr 11, 2019)

I think it's useful to consider "genre" in general as "marketing category" rather than a term that gives us a definition of anything essential about the work. So think of what the core selling asset is of the story you're trying to sell. If the most important element of the story, _from a marketing perspective_, is the love story ending in a happily-ever-after, then your story will probably be well-marketed as a romance. If the most marketable element of your story is its intriguing outer-space setting, call it SciFi. If the most marketable element of your story is its prose and/or message, think literary fiction.

Stories can fit into multiple genres/marketing categories, so we generally just label them according to what seems dominant.


----------



## SueC (Apr 11, 2019)

> I realize like so many things what you are saying is a generalization and I don't lose sleep over it, except that with such a wishy-washy and subjective interpretation of what is or is not 'literary' it makes me worried by engaging with it I might not meet whatever imaginary criteria exists!



You are right. Like a lot of things in writing, it's all very subjective, and we writers are often at the mercy of that subjectivity. But think about it, Luckyscars. Your entry into the last LM about the cancer cell was, in my humble opinion, very much on the "literary" track. Consider all the cudos you received. It was not a superficial observation of someone dealing with this diagnosis. I think you have a natural talent in that regard, in being able to go deep, so I wouldn't worry too much about whether you meet anyone's criteria.


----------



## moderan (Apr 11, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Hmm. So would it be fair to say a literary fiction short story probably contains little no notable action whatsoever? An argument or debate but nary a gunfight?
> 
> I almost get the sense this 'genre' is more about intellectual snobbery than anything else. Which is fine, I can do faux-intellect until the cattle doth return, but if it needs more overtly cerebral qualities I'm guessing a story about cannibalism probably isn't going to fly.
> 
> What do sci-fi tropes have to do with litfic? Is is that intellectualism aspect again? Can the paranormal or even religious not also be used if so?



The best known litfic epics steal sf tropes (especially dystopian ones) and then the authors deny that they stole said tropes and call their work original. See McCarthy, Cormac; Atwood. Margaret; DeLillo, Don; Lessing, Doris. Pynchon and Barthelme and Brautigan avow their sci-fi roots, likewise Europeans like Calvino and Asians like Murakami.
Litfic is generally seen as pretentious ivory-tower swill with upper-class white characters by those who dislike it. It's seen as 'adult' by those who enjoy it. Nothing to do with moralizing. Instead it's technique over substance that's celebrated -- ruminations and speculations and lots and lots of internal monologues.
And yes, it's a marketing category, like any other subgenre.


----------



## luckyscars (Apr 11, 2019)

Bayview said:


> I think it's useful to consider "genre" in general as "marketing category" rather than a term that gives us a definition of anything essential about the work. So think of what the core selling asset is of the story you're trying to sell. If the most important element of the story, from a marketing perspective, is the love story ending in a happily-ever-after, then your story will probably be well-marketed as a romance. If the most marketable element of your story is its intriguing outer-space setting, call it SciFi. If the most marketable element of your story is its prose and/or message, think literary fiction.
> 
> 
> Stories can fit into multiple genres/marketing categories, so we generally just label them according to what seems dominant.




I agree with everything you said and for the record I detest 'what does this genre mean' threads. However in this case it doesn't seem like it matters what I think because I am not doing the marketing. I am submitting it to places that ask for the categorization as part of the process and I would just like to have a clear idea what they have in mind when they ask for 'literary fiction' as something distinct from 'mainstream fiction' and 'other fiction'.




moderan said:


> Litfic is generally seen as pretentious ivory-tower swill with upper-class white characters by those who dislike it. It's seen as 'adult' by those who enjoy it. Nothing to do with moralizing. Instead it's technique over substance that's celebrated -- ruminations and speculations and lots and lots of internal monologues.
> And yes, it's a marketing category, like any other subgenre.




So, like, a 1000 word, technically challenging monologue from the POV of a character discovering a dead possum's corpse stuck in a drain and somehow connecting this image to, i don't know, Watergate would likely be an example of 'literary fiction'...however a 1000 word narrative that is simply of a character finding a dead possum would be 'mainstream' or something else?


----------



## moderan (Apr 11, 2019)

Only if written by the dead possum while you're swinging it by the tail. And told in the style of Horace Walpole if he had lived in Thoreau's cabin. Sidelong references to John Sirica and/or Dean Rusk might put you into 'political fiction' category and then you'll have to make like Allen Drury.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 12, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> So, like, a 1000 word, technically challenging monologue from the POV of a character discovering a dead possum's corpse stuck in a drain and somehow connecting this image to, i don't know, Watergate would likely be an example of 'literary fiction'...



A dual narrative, alternating in the present and in the past. In the present: the character trying to unclog the possum from the drain. In the past: his marriage as it follows an arc from newlywed bliss to a bitter divorce settlement. In the end, he yanks the possum's body from the drain and stares at it blankly, but instead of seeing it as a metaphor for his life, he merely tosses it into the trash.

Maybe he'll buy a sports car. One with shiny leather seats. Maybe he'll start working out again, too.

EDIT: For extra brownie on-the-nose points, have a final scene where he's standing at a scenic point, his belongings in boxes in his car, as he peers down at some rocky canyon. His daughter leans out the passenger window, looks up from her phone, and yells out, "Dad? You've been standing there, like, forever. Are you ready to move on yet, or what?"

After a long pause, our protagonist smiles and says, "Yes. Yes, I am." THE END

Our reader removes their glasses, nods, and mutters importantly, "Hmm. Yes, indeed. That was quite literary."


----------



## Terry D (Apr 12, 2019)

There is no good definition of literary fiction. It's a classification which is often applied after the fact. It usually breaks 'rules', uses alternative perspectives, experimental techniques, and deals with contemporary topics. It's themes and execution are often controversial and frequently obscure. As moderan said, it uses tropes from all genres, but usually turns them on their ear.

Think Hunter S. Thompson, Kurt Vonnegut, James Joyce (bleh!), Franz Kafka, Toni Morrison, Hemingway, Steinbeck, even Harlan Ellison, and Ray Bradbury are considered litfic. It's writing in which theme and technique transcend genre. Just like any other class of writing, however, there is litfic which is a steaming pile of pretentious dung.


----------



## moderan (Apr 12, 2019)

Subject to Sturgeon's Law, of course. There are many writers whose capacity for litfic includes both extremes (did I fail to mention Pynchon or Kerouac?) and some who are transcendent consistently (Shirley Jackson).
Lots of litfic writers are what we who do the thing consider 'writer's writers', who accomplish stylistic experiments that most of us working joes cannot or will not attempt, which leaves some folks apoplectic, others verklemmpt. YMMV.
I kinda like the _idea_ of litfic but the Ivory Tower critics' dah-_links _make my teeth grind together. And tv/radio interviews have shown them to be just as full of themselves as your average minor poet or Jenny McCarthy, and just as misguided by voices. It occurs to me that some of this may be sour grapes or niche ghetto stones-throwing but that doesn't make any of these rantlets wrong.


----------



## luckyscars (Apr 12, 2019)

What I am gleaning from this (and my own meanderings) is that litfic is less about any particular subject matter and more about either very high-end, technically complex register of vocabulary AND/OR (and this seems almost more common) simply some other stylistic innovation that is proprietary to the author. Essentially a writer who one could study for their style as opposed to merely their themes.

I would not exactly call Vonnegut or Hunter S Thompson's work complex or even 'high-end'. It's not Faulkner, let alone Shakespeare. But certainly both writers have their own distinctive styles worthy of academic discussion. You could likely identify a Thompson piece simply by reading a few paragraphs. On the other hand a writer like Stephen King typically has a far more conventional, more prosaic even, style and relies on the content of story itself to provide the 'Stephen King Signature'. The exact opposite would be true for Hemingway. 

Not sure if that's wildly off base, but it's how I am interpreting what has been said.


----------



## moderan (Apr 12, 2019)

> I would not exactly call Vonnegut or Hunter S Thompson's work complex or even 'high-end'.


 I would disagree. Context and subtext are established in both writers' ouevres that gainsay this. Cursory readings lead to such a mass-market conclusion. But I only consider "... Vegas" and other gonzo pieces litfic, as they're about technique, and most of his articles and fiction don't partake of this. Vonnegut made small contributions to litfic -- his stuff is about 'voice', not technique.


----------



## luckyscars (Apr 12, 2019)

moderan said:


> I would disagree. Context and subtext are established in both writers' ouevres that gainsay this. Cursory readings lead to such a mass-market conclusion. But I only consider "... Vegas" and other gonzo pieces litfic, as they're about technique, and most of his articles and fiction don't partake of this. Vonnegut made small contributions to litfic -- his stuff is about 'voice', not technique.



But I'm referring only to technique. I know thirteen year olds who enjoy Vonnegut and Thompson. Whether they 'get it' on a context/subtext level is another thing entirely (they don't, probably) but they can certainly understand the diction, which seems to suggest an assessment that renders these authors work 'literary fiction' to be based on something very different than, say, what makes Edgar Allan Poe or Billy Faulkner or James Joyce or even Salman Rushdie 'literary fiction'.


----------



## Chris Stevenson (Apr 12, 2019)

Agreed that they are heavily into theme and message. The words are oft times flowery or poetic, grand visuals, use of similes and metaphor. Some might consider it stiff or highbrow. There is a certain style and tone to the text. I have noticed that listerary fiction is apt to get more nominations and awards, I would suppose because it it meant to be taken more "seriously." Mostly character-driven.


----------



## luckyscars (Apr 12, 2019)

Chris Stevenson said:


> Agreed that they are heavily into theme and message. The words are oft times flowery or poetic, grand visuals, use of similes and metaphor. Some might consider it stiff or highbrow. There is a certain style and tone to the text. I have noticed that listerary fiction is apt to get more nominations and awards, I would suppose because it it meant to be taken more "seriously." Mostly character-driven.



I almost wonder if it's analogous to the Oscars. There's only one kind of movie that consistently wins 'Best Picture' and it's almost always some variety of drama with 'hidden depth' and some manner of social commentary. Maybe to assess if something is literary fiction it would be best to consider it in terms of whether a faithful and competent screen adaption of it would be 'Oscar-worthy'.


----------



## Chris Stevenson (Apr 12, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I almost wonder if it's analogous to the Oscars. There's only one kind of movie that consistently wins 'Best Picture' and it's almost always some variety of drama with 'hidden depth' and some manner of social commentary. Maybe to assess if something is literary fiction it would be best to consider it in terms of whether a faithful and competent screen adaption of it would be 'Oscar-worthy'.



Oh, yeah. I get what you're saying. yes, we're talking REAL serious issues here, traumatic, tragedy, loss, humiliation. The backdrop of war in a historic sense is always ripe for a literary mark up. Lots of books that are breakaway bestsellers just happen to have the most tragic deaths and sacrifices within. I often see the death of a main character the focal point. The Fault in Our Stars had heaps of accolades. Not saying it's all like that, but whoaaa....there seems to be an exploration of a lot of serious issues. I think Mr. Oscar likes intense, gut-wrenching drama.


----------

