# Thoughts on Literary Fiction



## Frankyette (Apr 17, 2016)

What are your thoughts on literary fiction?

Think less about modern literary fiction (which, as chronicled in_ A Reader's Manifesto_, has become muddled) and more about classics (i.e. _To Kill a Mockingbird_) in your responses. However, if you'd like to comment on current literary affairs, feel free to.


----------



## InstituteMan (Apr 17, 2016)

It's hard for me to have many precise thoughts on such a broad topic, but I'll give it a go.

To start with your example, I enjoyed _Mockingbird _when I was young, and now that I am not so young I still like it--even though I can see some of its weak spots that I didn't appreciate back then.

The change of perspective with age is something I've noticed in re-reading literature I first read in high school. The books that made the cut then and still do now are examples of what I would call truly great literature _for me_, which is a highly subjective standard.

My two favorite "literary" books in high school were _Catcher in the Rye _and _Slaugherhouse-Five. _As an adult with a few more decades on me, I keep finding more things to like about Vonnegut's work, but Salinger seems incredibly self-indulgent to me. To me, Vonnegut is the greatest writer of the second half of the Twentieth Century.

Meanwhile, I loathed _The Great Gatsby_ back then. Now that I am older I still find Fitzgerald a bit too preachy for my taste, but I can appreciate his prose even if I don't entirely agree with his points. Hemingway is someone I was only okay with in high school, but I now quite enjoy his writing. I found Twain amusing back then, but I find him brilliant now (aside: you have one of my favorite Twain quotes in your signature, Frankyette).

So, I guess my tally has Vonnegut, Lee, and Twain as great, Fitzgerald and Hemingway as very good, and Salinger as okay.

I have to add, however, that writers like Douglas Adams deserve consideration right along with the creators of "serious" literature. Adams was funny and flippant, but he crafted brilliant prose to make larger points.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Apr 18, 2016)

This sounds like a homework assignment, except I would be amazed (and delighted) to learn that a teacher assigned _A Reader's Manifesto_.

Anyway, what do you mean by literary fiction? I thought To Kill a Mockingbird was Y/A; Wikipedia describes it as Southern Gothic. In any case, it was not the type of book Myers was criticizing.


----------



## Sam (Apr 18, 2016)

_To Kill a Mockingbird _*is* literary fiction. 

It's one of the more well-known examples of it, in fact, along with _The Great Gatsby_, _The Catcher in the Rye_, and _Of Mice and Men_.


----------



## Bishop (Apr 18, 2016)

I suppose... I think literary fiction is literary fiction. I'm afraid I don't really understand what the discussion is supposed to be about. Might as well say "What are your thoughts on books?". Is there some aspect of the fiction you want discussed?


----------



## Frankyette (Apr 18, 2016)

I see my examples just caused confusion. Good going, me.

As for TKAM: I just meant to use it as an example, not compare it to the type of prose in A Reader's Manifesto.
It's not a straight-up literary work, but does meander into that territory, and so I thought it would be a good example for discussion.

I'm curious to see what the WF community thinks of literary fiction at large -- and, by literary fiction, I mean novels like To Kill a Mockingbird, Moby Dick, Catcher in the Rye, etc. I wanted to try and keep discussion away from the type of fiction A Reader's Manifesto described and more towards "classical" staples of the genre.



> This sounds like a homework assignment, except I would be amazed (and delighted) to learn that a teacher assigned _A Reader's Manifesto.
> _



I'm curious because I'm thinking about writing a bit of literary fiction, and wanted to see what others thought before diving it. I have said I'm a high schooler on here before, so the "homework assignment" bit is fair (largely, we're cretins who ask people on the internet to do those for us).

It would be _amazing _if we read A Reader's Manifesto. I believe the class would need a more solid literary foundation to make it fully worthwhile (I'm a freshman), but amazing nonetheless.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Apr 18, 2016)

Old books? I liked Hammett and Runyon. _Anne of Green Gables_ is great, but I don't know past the first book. Of course _To Kill a Mockingbird_, _Jurassic Park_ is another oldy but goody. _The Old Man and the Sea_ has an interesting feel, but you don't need to read more than about 20 pages. The _Odyssey_, but get a translation.

If I am not right about what Literary Fiction is, please clarify. I had thought a major character had to die a tragic death and the prose be impressive (unnecessarily complicated), but neither of those hold for _To Kill a Mockingbird._


----------



## Frankyette (Apr 18, 2016)

I just mean the genre in general; morever, your thoughts on the genre itself and less so the individual members of it. But thanks for your contribution 

"Old" does not nessecarily mean "literary." I've always thought of literary works as the kind that emphasize the art of writing over anything else.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Apr 18, 2016)

To me, having good characters, bringing the reader into the story, telling an interesting story with plot and resolution, creating things like humor and romance and suspense and humor -- those are the craft of writing. Using big words? Not so important. Word play and alliteration? Cute games.

I care passionately about punctuation and grammar, but the first goal is to make the reading as easy to understand as possible. To me, that's part of the craft of writing. A writer should be able to construct a long sentence, but they aren't useful that often. I love reading a book that teaches me something new, but I learned more from Twilight than Shalimar the Clown.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Bishop (Apr 19, 2016)

Frankyette said:


> "Old" does not nessecarily mean "literary." I've always thought of literary works as the kind that emphasize the art of writing over anything else.



The fact that this much explanation is needed just to try and describe this ineffable subset of fiction. I would really recommend not "trying" to write literary fiction--what is and what is not in that subset (at least as I see it) is decided by the work's ability to withstand the test of time and its ability to reach readers in a unique way. "Trying" to do that is what EVERY writer does, regardless of story or genre. "Trying" to write something that is focusing on the art of writing is a surefire way to create a story that alienates a wide audience and sets you up for crushed expectations if it doesn't become the next Farewell to Arms.

Just write a story you want to write. Don't worry about it being "literary" or "artistic". Trust me, the stories that you write from the heart rather than the art are the ones that people really want to read.


----------



## aj47 (Apr 19, 2016)

To me, "literary" is anything we had to read in school.  This includes _Fahrenheit 451_ which, I'm sure my parents would not have considered to be literary. Of course, things like _Of Mice and Men_ and _The Great Gatsby_ are there, but so were _Catch 22_ and _Lord of the Rings_.  This was the late 1970's.  My kids are still reading_ Gat_sbybut books that have been written since, too.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 19, 2016)

In my mind, literary fiction is work in which the writing itself transcends the story. Good literary fiction still has great story, but what is most memorable is the writing itself. Of Mice and Men is a terrific story about friendship and sacrifice written against the backdrop of the Great Depression. What makes it memorable, however, is the way Steinbeck wrote it. His voice. The story's structure. The language used.

I consider Stephen King a 'literary' writer. His style transcends the stories he writes. Some of his books have been real clunkers in terms of story (The Tommyknockers comes to mind), but the writing was still engaging. All fiction is built on a foundation of story, but it's what the author puts on that foundation that determines whether the end result is a mansion, or a pre-fab tract house. Work on structure, create realistic characters, be true to your own voice, and be honest. Do that and your work will be 'literary' too, despite any perceived genre.


----------



## Patrick (Apr 19, 2016)

Literary fiction isn't limited to a specific genre. Literary fiction is just the stuff with a significant depth of character developement, insightful prose, dialogue, etc. Terry's right that a good story should lie at the heart of all fiction, and the work of literary fiction is often to write stories in new ways. The story that takes place in one day and the story that takes place over multiple generations can both be great stories. Though it can be, the story doesn't have to be about dragons and treasure to be a great story.

What you have to realise as a writer is that writing is about communicating loneliness, not demonstrating how clever you are. That's why literary fiction often reaches out across generations and takes your hand; all the stuff you thought of as most private and unique about you was shared by another human being! That's great writing. If a writer is clever as well, then that's icing on the cake.


----------



## Aquilo (Apr 21, 2016)

I'm not too keen on how a work is considered a literary work simply because it stands the test of time. Most can stand the test of time because they are chosen by scholars and are retaught in schools, making the test of time debate a little unfair. I'm interested in how literary competitions are judged, though, what frameworks are used to help judge literary creativity, e.g., like the depth and skill of free indirect style etc.

If asked to say what I think makes a work literary, I keep going back to schema-refreshing and schema-reinforcing material and style. With the latter, a story works with ways of life that are known and keeping to that or building on it. Schema-refreshing will turn the known on it's head and get the reader to look at the world in a new way. Animal Farm... Clockwork Orange... War of the Worlds (first introduction of Aliens and a threat to the British Empire when the Empire was arrogantly considered invincible...). So for me it's bringing in elements that turn life upside down in way that drives fascination, fear, and the need to understand. Sure, you get fiction in general that does that now, but rarely in new ways like the pioneers. If you look at poetry, the likes of Owen takes a forced known (what the government portrays about war), and then brings in the realities of war. It works and stands the test of time because of how it challenges government propaganda by using poetry and poetic device: schema-reinforcing toward the elite back then, yet refreshing because of how the content challenges perception.

Genre fiction, then, seems guided by plot & character enjoyment, whereas literary fiction goes deeper into the social climate beyond the novel and looks at getting you to question and re-evaluate whats around you. IMHO, anyway.


----------



## Patrick (Apr 21, 2016)

Aquilo said:


> I'm not too keen on how a work is considered a literary work simply because it stands the test of time. Most can stand the test of time because they are chosen by scholars and are retaught in schools, making the test of time debate a little unfair. I'm interested in how literary competitions are judged, though, what frameworks are used to help judge literary creativity, e.g., like the depth and skill of free indirect style etc.
> 
> If asked to say what I think makes a work literary, I keep going back to schema-refreshing and schema-reinforcing material and style. With the latter, a story works with ways of life that are known and keeping to that or building on it. Schema-refreshing will turn the known on it's head and get the reader to look at the world in a new way. Animal Farm... Clockwork Orange... War of the Worlds (first introduction of Aliens and a threat to the British Empire when the Empire was arrogantly considered invincible...). So for me it's bringing in elements that turn life upside down in way that drives fascination, fear, and the need to understand. Sure, you get fiction in general that does that now, but rarely in new ways like the pioneers. If you look at poetry, the likes of Owen takes a forced known (what the government portrays about war), and then brings in the realities of war. It works and stands the test of time because of how it challenges government propaganda by using poetry and poetic device: schema-reinforcing toward the elite back then, yet refreshing because of how the content challenges perception.
> 
> Genre fiction, then, seems guided by plot & character enjoyment, whereas literary fiction goes deeper into the social climate beyond the novel and looks at getting you to question and re-evaluate whats around you. IMHO, anyway.



It is also philosophic.


----------



## ppsage (Apr 21, 2016)

Somewhere in the _Beckett_ collection, there's a preface where Updike is quoting a/n (probably actual person I think) elderly Jewish author of renown about the purpose of literature. "TO ENTERTAIN," he proclaims, "and to instruct." There follows a very entertaining anecdote where he maintains absolutely the necessity not only of both particulars but also the necessity of the ranking. An authentic enthusiasm for his idea comes for me as close as anything else to defining the point of departure for entering the literary fiction sector in the zone of overlapping generic categorization.


----------



## Aquilo (Apr 21, 2016)

Patrick said:


> It is also philosophic.



Very much so. And it brings in why taste differs so much with literary work: the whole expanse it covers. I like the darker looks at humanity, which is why _Clockwork Orange_, _Macbeth_ etc work for me, yet the likes of _Gone with the Wind_, doesn't. I run into wall with the cultural differences themes between the UK and the US, and it loses impact. Saying that, I went through secondary school hating Shakespeare, mostly because I met him via Romeo and Juliet, at a time when I'd just been introduced to James Herbert and had no interest in tragedies, love, etc. The teacher could tell me it was a great literary work, but there was nothing in there for me to connect to. (Which say a lot about Herbert and connecting to London streets, rats, and fog, lol).


----------



## EmmaSohan (Apr 21, 2016)

I love this idea, but what if the book gives us a new way to see the world, then we all have that view so reading the book accomplishes nothing? Or it gets outdated? Gulliver's Travels had to be serious literature at the time, but now it's just a children's story. The idea of a dystopia is mind-changing, but the modern teen reader has probably read Hunger Games and a variety of dystopias.

Was Jurassic Park mind-changing? DNA, Chaos theory, and more.

Then, what about books that change how we see ourselves, or our friends?

You can see what I want -- to acknowledge the greatness of books of the past while acknowledging they might not always be useful to today's typical readers, and expand the definition of what's useful and important in today's writing.

Emma


----------



## Patrick (Apr 22, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> I love this idea, but what if the book gives us a new way to see the world, then we all have that view so reading the book accomplishes nothing? Or it gets outdated? Gulliver's Travels had to be serious literature at the time, but now it's just a children's story. The idea of a dystopia is mind-changing, but the modern teen reader has probably read Hunger Games and a variety of dystopias.
> 
> Was Jurassic Park mind-changing? DNA, Chaos theory, and more.
> 
> ...



Fiction doesn't set out to change world views, but rather flashes a viewpoint abroad for the rest of us to see when we wouldn't otherwise (which can change world views and is more effective, often, than argument). Older fiction can inform us about man in just the same way contemporary fiction does; fantasy, science fiction, and historical fiction wouldn't be possible if settings and cultures very different to our own couldn't possess the same exploratory power.


----------



## InstituteMan (Apr 22, 2016)

I don't know, there's some fiction out there, particularly great works of literary fiction, that strike me as having been written as a pretty overt attempt to change world views. I understand the point that the vehicle fiction uses to change world views isn't the argument of an essay or polemic, but rather through presenting a story that reveals something negative about the world as it is or shows something beautiful about the world as it could be, and that is really  a distinction between fiction and nonfiction. 

Emma makes a good point about the way a story can lose its relevance to readers as circumstances change. _Gulliver's Travels _seems like a good historical example, but several more recent novels that are part of at least the American literary canon fall into the category of being written to change world views and getting a bit dated now. 
_
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn_ was a pretty clear attempt at changing world views. It was a hard read for me when I first cracked it about a hundred years after it was written, but I had enough cultural familiarity with the types of characters and social institutions Twain addressed (and lampooned) to "get" the story. I even understood the dialects. My children, on the other hand, struggled to make heads or tails of _Huckleberry_--not because they are less intelligent than me, but because they don't know much about the cultural institutions being addressed. Twain's opus has gone from being an incredibly relevant and enduring piece of social commentary to a relic, even if it is a relic that most enjoy once they work at it. 

Several decades after Twain's work, _To Kill a Mockingbird _was an attempt by Harper Lee to change at least part of the world view Twain was attacking. Most people still love _Mockingbird_, but as we (hopefully) continue to become a more just and equitable society the themes Lee took on have become less recognizable--at least in my non-scientific sampling of school children I know, many of whom don't understand how the plot events could even happen.

Near and dear to my own heart, Vonnegut's fiction was weird and wild, but it was also all about changing world views. Again, in my unscientific experience, the not insubstantial portions of Vonnegut's work dealing with nuclear weapons and the Cold War goes over the heads of a generation that doesn't recall those issues and never experienced them directly.

Perhaps the key that makes Twain, Lee, and Vonnegut "great literature" (at least in my opinion) is that even without contemporary cultural connections, the stories they tell and how those stories are told--as well as what they say about the enduring traits of humanity, for both good and ill--are worth reading.


----------



## Aquilo (Apr 22, 2016)

No matter how world-view changing, genre fiction will work within set frameworks: Crime will always look to solve mystery, Romance, the pitfalls of x meeting x, horror... steampunk etc. They're mostly schema-reinforcing because readers will go into different genres with preset ideas on how the likes of novel should/shouldn't be resolved. Yet when most look at literary value, opinion's differ and shift, and there's that grey mass surrounding just what makes a work literary. There's no set framework like genre fiction, so the term 'literary' itself looks schema-refreshing because it's upsetting the known and you can't easily pin down what you like about it. When you think you do, someone else will see it differently. You're always left with: what makes a work literary in your eyes.


----------



## Patrick (Apr 22, 2016)

InstituteMan said:


> I don't know, there's some fiction out there, particularly great works of literary fiction, that strike me as having been written as a pretty overt attempt to change world views. I understand the point that the vehicle fiction uses to change world views isn't the argument of an essay or polemic, but rather through presenting a story that reveals something negative about the world as it is or shows something beautiful about the world as it could be, and that is really  a distinction between fiction and nonfiction.



There's the important point. A writer can only present a view, as I said, and then seek to engage and challenge, but its art not science or apologetic. I think my post is fairly clear and doesn't require lengthy riposte on the way various authors have sought to present their particular world views in their work (all of them since time immemorial).

The very best, however, do not try to ram the view home because the greats are nuanced, demonstrating they think about the world in a complex and rich way.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Apr 23, 2016)

Aquilo said:


> No matter how world-view changing, genre fiction will work within set frameworks: Crime will always look to solve mystery, Romance, the pitfalls of x meeting x, horror... steampunk etc. They're mostly schema-reinforcing because readers will go into different genres with preset ideas on how the likes of novel should/shouldn't be resolved. Yet when most look at literary value, opinion's differ and shift, and there's that grey mass surrounding just what makes a work literary. There's no set framework like genre fiction, so the term 'literary' itself looks schema-refreshing because it's upsetting the known and you can't easily pin down what you like about it. When you think you do, someone else will see it differently. You're always left with: what makes a work literary in your eyes.




I like the idea here. I am not sure how you work out the details.

In the genre of fictional satire: Gulliver's Travels and Animal Farm.

In the genre of Southern Gothic: Faulkner, To Kill a Mockingbird, perhaps Twain. 

In the detective genre: Doyle, Hammet.

no genre: Jurassic Park, The Da Vinci Code.

And some genres are so vague that they have no schema, such as young adult.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Apr 26, 2016)

_Sometimes a Great Notion_ has a first person past narrator, intermixed with a third person present narration (in italics) and first person by another character (in parentheses). It's hard to follow, but it lets the book do interesting things. It was a trade-off.

So, if an author knows readers are willing to work, the author can do more to offer the reader a different and richer experience. Of course, a book is not good just because it's hard to understand, and a book can be serious and still easy to understand.

It's the same for a main character dying. No one really likes that, but if the reader will tolerate it, the author can do more. (Like _Of Mice and Men_). A book shouldn't be considered just because it kills off a main character, and a book can be serious even if it has a happy ending (e.g., _Speak_).


----------

