What is literary fiction?

[M. Robert Gibson]

James Scott Bell, in his book Plot & Structure, defines literary fiction as

A literary plot is often more leisurely in its pace. Literary fiction is usually more about the inner life of a character than it is about the fast-paced action.

and

With a literary novel, the writer is mostly concerned with mood and texture.

And who am I to argue?

 

[Extollager]

OK, M. Robert and everyone, but remember that here, on this thread, "Literary Fiction" is a broader, almost a catch-all, description. This is where discussion of various literary works may end up that are neither fiction nor, in the sense you cite, "literary." For examples, here is where I would post comments on Peter Fleming's amusing travel book Brazilian Adventure, or Joseph Mitchell's New Yorker pieces collected in Up in the Old Hotel, or even, say, Prescott's Conquest of Mexico and Peru!

 

[Randy M.]

Except, Extollager, I thought Mitchell's book was considered literature in the way that Exley's A Fan's Notes is. (Haven't read either so no informed opinion here, just pot stirring.)

Jo: Don't forget the wonderful short story writer, Frank O'Connor. I also rather like Roddy Doyle.

Generalizing on "literary" fiction is as hard as generalizing on s.f. or fantasy. There are a lot of variations. I think the aims of some "literary" fiction tend toward,
1) Trying to capture life or some slice of it accurately while
2) examining and exploring the meaning(s) of same, though not always explicitly, in the broad sense of how these events and these characters reflect on life outside the book, while
3) doing all this in language that is often chosen painstakingly, not just for precision but for meaning, sound, rhythm.

On that point about language, in reading a couple of stories by Wallace Stegner I was struck by his sentences, how each word felt weighted and shaped, seemingly chosen like the rocks that form a mortar-less fence. It made me think about prose since I don't often react to prose that way. The writers I could identify who give me a similar feeling include Hemingway, William Kennedy and sometimes Le Guin. I recall a poet saying you shouldn't be deceived by the simplicity apparent in Robert Frost, that the best way to read him was with an OED nearby; I suspect there are literary writers (notably Joyce, of course) who would reward similar vigor.

Writers like this really aren't concerned with tying the threads up neatly since the life they know doesn't do that, thus perhaps some reader's complaints about plotlessness.

And to stir a little harder: There are also "literary" writers who revel in the artificiality of story-telling, whose attitude is you can never fully express life as we know it in flat words on a flat page, and so playfulness with story-telling conventions, often leading to puncturing or unmasking the silliness of those conventions, is their main goal along with an exploration of how language contributes or doesn't to such an enterprise.

Which leads to a notion I think we can all agree on: Literary fiction is what we're pointing at when we call something literary. (*cough*)


Randy M.

 

[Extollager]

OK, so, again, here's what I think the Literary Fiction thread or section at Chrons is for:

1.Literary fiction, in the sense anyone would agree on -- Iris Murdoch, Graham Greene, William Trevor, The Book of Ebenezer le Page, A Confederacy of Dunces, Walker Percy, Hemingway, Woolf, &c.
2.Classic fiction -- Dickens, Swift, Defoe, Hawthorne, Henry James, Jane Austen, George Eliot, &c.
3.Literary travel books -- Graham Greene's Journey Without Maps, Waugh's Ninety-Two Days, Chatwin's In Patagonia, O'Hanlon's Into the Heart of Borneo, Rebecca West's Black Lamb and Grey Falcon, &c.
4.Poetry, except work that properly gets discussed under headings for its author, such as Lovecraft's verse
5.Diaries, memoirs, collected letters, biographies, autobiographies, except by genre authors, e.g. one would discuss Tolkien's letters elsewhere
6.Other types of books with considerable literary claims, e.g. literary classics of history, such as John Buchan's biography of Montrose
7.Probably some other things that wouldn't fit readily into existing Chrons categories

I wouldn't say that crime fiction belongs here (e.g. the Inspector Morse books). Some fantasy, sf, and even "horror" may make considerable literary claims but wouldn't belong here. Where would you discuss Eddison's Worm Ouroboros -- here, or in Classic SF & Fantasy? I would figure the latter. On the other hand, I'd sooner discuss C. S. Lewis's Till We Have Faces (based on the myth of Eros and Psyche) here than under Classic SF & F. I'd discuss the Patrick O'Brian books under Historical Fiction, not here.

 

[AlexH]

I've written a few literary short stories without realising what I was doing, but that's what they were classed as. I've written lyrics and poetry in the past, and the literary stories happened when I tried to be more poetic with my prose. The plot of these particular stories wouldn't be any different if they weren't literary - there's an obvious ending and conclusion.

Since then I've started to read literary fiction short stories. There's such a wide range of stories in literary fiction that I don't think it's easy to define as one thing. Some of it is highbrow and/or very descriptive, both which I struggle to read (and would struggle to write too). Some have very distinctive voices and there seem to be less "rules".

Flash Fiction Online has a lot of very readable literary fiction: Literary Archives - Flash Fiction Online (all around 1,000 words or less).

I've read plenty of literary stories where at the end I've thought "what was the point in that?" Either I've missed something or these stories are just not for me. I think w i g l e a f : (very) short fiction is one of those, mostly well under 1,000 words. I do like some of the stories there.

Beneath Ceaseless Skies and Shimmer are two good markets for short literary fantasy that's longer than flash.

 

[ZlodeyVolk]

This is true. I lower the tone.

Of Wikipedia? That's not possible. For gods' sakes, some of the articles cite one of my former Web sites as a source. And incorrectly, at that!

 

[Guillermo Stitch]

I wouldn't say that crime fiction belongs here (e.g. the Inspector Morse books). Some fantasy, sf, and even ...


Wouldn't there be an argument for including crime classics that over time have earned the kind of respect normally reserved for the 'literary'? The Big Sleep would be one exampe that comes to mind.

 

[Randy M.]

I wouldn't say that crime fiction belongs here (e.g. the Inspector Morse books).

Wouldn't there be an argument for including crime classics that over time have earned the kind of respect normally reserved for the 'literary'? The Big Sleep would be one exampe that comes to mind.

Wilkie Collins: The Moonstone
Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu: Uncle Silas
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: the Sherlock Holmes stories, especially the short stories and The Hound of the Baskervilles
Dashiell Hammett; Red Harvest & The Maltese Falcon & The Glass Key
James M. Cain: Double Indemnity & The Postman Always Rings Twice
Raymond Chandler: The Big Sleep & Farewell My Lovely & The Long Goodbye

These are just off the top of my head and I'm certain representative works by Georges Simenon, Ross Macdonald, James Crumley, P. D. James, Ruth Rendall, Per Wahloo & Maj Sjowall, Elmore Leonard, ... could be argued as literary.

Like s.f., fantasy and horror, the mystery/detective/crime novel hasn't stopped evolving.


Randy M.

 

[Onyx]

This discussion reminds me of the ever changing nature of literary criticism, as evinced in Star Trek IV:

Kirk: You mean the profanity? That's simply the way they talk here. Nobody pays attention to you unless you swear every other word. You'll find it in all the literature of the period.

Spock: For example?

Kirk: Oh the collected works of Jacqueline Susann. The novels of Harold Robbins...

Spock: Ah, the "Giants".

 

[Extollager]

I wouldn't say that crime fiction belongs here (e.g. the Inspector Morse books). Some fantasy, sf, and even ...


Wouldn't there be an argument for including crime classics that over time have earned the kind of respect normally reserved for the 'literary'? The Big Sleep would be one exampe that comes to mind.

I suppose so -- I should have made my intended meaning clearer. I meant, I think, that though Chrons has many thread-headings, there isn't one for current crime fiction. Nor do I mean to suggest that there ought to be. I'm thinking, for example, of those Nordic noir books that have been pouring into English print in the past 20 years or so; or the Inspector Morse books, or Perry Mason, or Nero Wolfe, or Lew Archer -- and so on. I think it would be stretching "Literary Fiction" too far to include those, but on the other hand they don't fit under other categories here, so I guess people would just bring them up in general book discussion topics.

I'd agree that something like The Woman in White or the Sherlock Holmes books by Doyle would be acceptable under the Literary Fiction heading, getting in, if not always because they fit the conventional idea of "literary fiction," then because they are "classics" in some sense. But please -- let's be pretty conservative about what "classic" means. There's a lot of loose thinking -- well, hardly thinking -- around that word. Surely it should mean something more than a book more than 15 or 20 years old and that one likes, which almost seems to be how some people -- no doubt to the pleasure of book marketers! -- think.

 

[Onyx]

Is there any 19th century work that we both still read and wouldn't consider "classic"?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Is there any 19th century work that we both still read and wouldn't consider "classic"?

But is classic the same as literary?

 

[Randy M.]

I suppose so -- I should have made my intended meaning clearer. I meant, I think, that though Chrons has many thread-headings, there isn't one for current crime fiction. Nor do I mean to suggest that there ought to be. I'm thinking, for example, of those Nordic noir books that have been pouring into English print in the past 20 years or so; or the Inspector Morse books, or Perry Mason, or Nero Wolfe, or Lew Archer -- and so on.

Oh! So close! If you hadn't included Lew Archer, I'd have agreed. Ross Macdonald was the literary heir of Hammett and Chandler, and if his later work didn't equal theirs it was only because it exceeded theirs.

But that is probably an argument for another thread in another forum.


Randy M.

 

[Onyx]

But is classic the same as literary?

That seems to be the argument.

The problem is that we don't read everything that was once popular, so it is easy to argue that anything that survives for long periods must have ineffable qualities that one might construe as "literary", keeping it going.

 

[Onyx]

I would not be shocked if 100 years from now people were still reading Alfred Bester but not Asimov.

 

[ZlodeyVolk]

And you've sort of thrown crime fiction under the bus, there.

The funny thing is: you continue to discuss the chance that crime fiction might be literary; but I meant that it had been left off the list of genre fiction, and so was left without a home of any sort.

 

[ZlodeyVolk]

… just let your work speak and aim for agents who like lit stuff (if they take magical realism, that’s often a strong hint)

Tried it, recently. Got a generic "thanks, but no thanks" with a lengthy list of all the partners at whom they thought I should throw money, even in the absence of an invitation to 'fix it' and then resubmit. That's not going to happen. I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid.

 

[ZlodeyVolk]

btw, I found and read this online article, Transcending Genre: Why 1984 is Literature and Starship Troopers Is Not. You might find it interesting, you might not; I think it raises some interesting points.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Tried it, recently. Got a generic "thanks, but no thanks" with a lengthy list of all the partners at whom they thought I should throw money, even in the absence of an invitation to 'fix it' and then resubmit. That's not going to happen. I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid.

Maybe you need to look at your query or manuscript. Have you posted either in critiques?

 

[ZlodeyVolk]

Nope. And, to be honest, I'm yet a little too gunshy to do so.