What the heck is "literary fiction"? -- Some articles to ponder.

[CarolMS]

When reflecting on some commentary about Hernan Diaz' Trust, the novel selected for discussion in the coming book club--and a book that has stirred up tons of emotional reactions and controversy--I glanced at a few articles I'd recently saved to read about "literary fiction" and I thought I'd share them here in case some others of you want to take a look at them. Disclaimer: I know nothing about Writers.com and the courses they offer, just found the article about literary vs. commercial genre fiction interesting, including a venn diagram that I've seen before and found helpful in my quest to understand the differences between "literary," "commercial genre" and "upmarket" fiction. I find it a subject with opinions all over the place, and I think perhaps useful to explore when trying to determine the genre of one's own work, as well as when considering novels like Trust.

What Is Literary Fiction? - Michael Woodson (3/17/23)
Literary Fiction vs. Genre Fiction - Sean Glatch (10/11/21)

 

[Rachel Caldecott]

I shall read these articles with interest. I always believed that one should never refer to one's own work as 'literary fiction', but wait for a reviewer to say it, otherwise it sounds a bit pompous.

 

[Hannah F]

I don't think a person's dislike of Trust is because it is literary fiction. Books that go under that heading are extremely varied in style. I found Trust so tedious I couldn't finish it, I disliked Ducks, Newburyport even more! But I enjoyed Mrs Dalloway, and The Promise by Damon Galgut (though I was so dissatisfied with the ending I re-wrote it for myself), and Swing Time by Zadie Smith. I didn't like Hot Milk by Deborah Levy (it was like reading an awful dream) but I read to the end because I really appreciated the writing itself. And I love everything Maggie O'Farrell writes, and she is very often on literary short lists.

 

[Pamela Jo]

I find the articles worrying because they direct someone writing literary fiction to write a meandering, nonexistent plot with lots of description. We had so many writers on Popups come with examples written to this specification and be unreadable. If the new definition of literary is unreadable as per the most recent Nobel prize winner, then English literature is dead.

The easiest way for me to define literary fiction is to read books from still vibrant literary cultures where poets and writers have influence. South America, the Middle East, Africa, .... Mexico. Even in translation the writing reaches out and knows you. It is commercial because anyone who hasn't been told they SHOULD read it because it is LITERARY still wants to read it.

American Dirt is the perfect Frankenstein of "literary." While anglo-Latino writers fight to get published a gringo woman who knew how to write for the genre "literary fiction" engineered a best seller with her publishers. Add "catering to cognitive dissonance of white middle-class readers" to the new definition of literary.

Pragmatically, if you are writing 'literary fiction' for the English language market you are writing for a certain reader that expects a certain return. They want to be able to indicate they are 'in' with the literary crowd. That their reading tastes are superior. That they get what the "little" people don't. See Tom Wolfe's, "The Painted Word" for the equivalent in the art world.

Or there is the view Rachel Caldecott expressed. Your book is so damn good that it's commercial across the board. It will have a lifespan longer than the 50 Shade tomes that are so dead not even Oxfam wants them.

' American Fiction' knows what I'm talking about.

 

[Hannah F]

I also disagree with dividing books into literary, commercial and upmarket. Commercial simply means big sales numbers (or predicted big sales). If you write literary that has mass appeal (e.g. Maggie O'Farrell, Zadie Smith, Edna O'Brien) then your books are also commercial. I also disagree with the divisions genre and literary. One of these articles also disagrees. Literary is not a genre, nor does it have to be multiple genres. The ones I like most definitely fit into genres be they magic realism or historical or contemporary fiction. Experimental fiction is a genre that is, I would say, entirely comprised of literary fiction. I dislike the ones I've read (personal taste apart from Ducks Newburyport which was kings-new-clothes-crap).

 

[Bloo]

American Dirt is the perfect Frankenstein of "literary." While anglo-Latino writers fight to get published a gringo woman who knew how to write for the genre "literary fiction" engineered a best seller with her publishers. Add "catering to cognitive dissonance of white middle-class readers" to the new definition of literary.

I know what cognitive dissonance is. However, I don't understand how it applies within this context.

 

[CarolMS]

I don't think a person's dislike of Trust is because it is literary fiction. Books that go under that heading are extremely varied in style. I found Trust so tedious I couldn't finish it, I disliked Ducks, Newburyport even more! But I enjoyed Mrs Dalloway, and The Promise by Damon Galgut (though I was so dissatisfied with the ending I re-wrote it for myself), and Swing Time by Zadie Smith. I didn't like Hot Milk by Deborah Levy (it was like reading an awful dream) but I read to the end because I really appreciated the writing itself. And I love everything Maggie O'Farrell writes, and she is very often on literary short lists.

I agree that people aren't disliking Trust because it's literary fiction. But I do think it can be helpful for some people, perhaps especially those steeped in commercial genre fiction's conventions, to know a little something about literary fiction as a genre when analyzing such a book. From the reader reviews of it that I've read, aspects of it, such as its structure, can be baffling to many readers (if they read far enough to start seeing how the structure plays out). I get the impression those in the supposedly lofty realm of literati are particularly impressed by how such things as unusual structural gymnastics are used, but it seems to me that most readers just want to read a good story. I guess an author can do both, and maybe that's the challenge. But it also can make reading hard work. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

 

[CarolMS]

I also disagree with dividing books into literary, commercial and upmarket. Commercial simply means big sales numbers (or predicted big sales). If you write literary that has mass appeal (e.g. Maggie O'Farrell, Zadie Smith, Edna O'Brien) then your books are also commercial. I also disagree with the divisions genre and literary. One of these articles also disagrees. Literary is not a genre, nor does it have to be multiple genres. The ones I like most definitely fit into genres be they magic realism or historical or contemporary fiction. Experimental fiction is a genre that is, I would say, entirely comprised of literary fiction. I dislike the ones I've read (personal taste apart from Ducks Newburyport which was kings-new-clothes-crap).

I think the terms used are misleading. I absolutely agree with you about "commercial" having to do with sales and that a great deal of novels labeled "literary fiction" are huge sellers. One look at the NYT bestsellers' list tells us that, doesn't it. But there are other differences to consider. When "commercial genre fiction" is the term used, it seems to apply to novels that conform to particular "conventions" and include common "tropes" that readers of those specific genres expect to find in them. Even though "literary fiction" as a genre may include elements of romance, fantasy, sci-fi, thrillers, etc., such novels do not conform to those conventions or necessarily include such tropes. So there are differences between books classified as such and those classified as literary, but the terms "commercial," "genre" and "literary" don't clearly describe them at all. They're not helpful, and I think just cause confusion and disagreement where there should be none. For example, it's true the term "literary" does not in itself signify a genre, and shouldn't, but what would one call a novel that includes what seems to be a budding romance, maybe even includes a "meet cute," but does not at all have the happy-ever-after ending expected by romance novel readers?

 

[CarolMS]

I shall read these articles with interest. I always believed that one should never refer to one's own work as 'literary fiction', but wait for a reviewer to say it, otherwise it sounds a bit pompous.

The term "literary fiction" is a dumb one, if you ask me. But there does need to be a term to distinguish fiction that doesn't fit the expected conventions and tropes of the specific types of "commercial genre fiction" (another dumb label), particularly when what differentiates it isn't necessarily the prose quality. Since I became aware of all this genre labeling business, I've been surprised that no one has yet come up with better words to use. Maybe another reason to say, dumb. These labels end up more misleading and even controversial than helpful.

 

[Bloo]

The term "literary fiction" is a dumb one, if you ask me. But there does need to be a term to distinguish fiction that doesn't fit the expected conventions and tropes of the specific types of "commercial genre fiction" (another dumb label), particularly when what differentiates it isn't necessarily the prose quality. Since I became aware of all this genre labeling business, I've been surprised that no one has yet come up with better words to use. Maybe another reason to say, dumb. These labels end up more misleading and even controversial than helpful.

What's literary fiction. That's a tough one. Novels such as Kindred and Slaughterhouse Five have been called science-fiction. Yet they're also Lit-Fic. Kindred because the understated writing packs an outsized punch; Butler doesnt need to show off. And SH5? Well...Vonnegut's just nuts. Yet there's a damn serious message in his manic prose.

Maybe these opposite approaches give us a clue. What if it boils down to telling an unconventional story using a conventional structure or telling a conventional story using an unconventional structure?

I really don't know.

 

[CarolMS]

Maybe these opposite approaches give us a clue. What if it boils down to telling an unconventional story using a conventional structure or telling a conventional story using an unconventional structure?

Now that's an interesting thing to consider!

 

[Hannah F]

I think the terms used are misleading. I absolutely agree with you about "commercial" having to do with sales and that a great deal of novels labeled "literary fiction" are huge sellers. One look at the NYT bestsellers' list tells us that, doesn't it. But there are other differences to consider. When "commercial genre fiction" is the term used, it seems to apply to novels that conform to particular "conventions" and include common "tropes" that readers of those specific genres expect to find in them. Even though "literary fiction" as a genre may include elements of romance, fantasy, sci-fi, thrillers, etc., such novels do not conform to those conventions or necessarily include such tropes. So there are differences between books classified as such and those classified as literary, but the terms "commercial," "genre" and "literary" don't clearly describe them at all. They're not helpful, and I think just cause confusion and disagreement where there should be none. For example, it's true the term "literary" does not in itself signify a genre, and shouldn't, but what would one call a novel that includes what seems to be a budding romance, maybe even includes a "meet cute," but does not at all have the happy-ever-after ending expected by romance novel readers?

Maybe that's why I keep re-writing the endings - because I always want hope. Not necessarily HEA, but I yearn for hope.

 

[CarolMS]

Maybe that's why I keep re-writing the endings - because I always want hope. Not necessarily HEA, but I yearn for hope.

I know what you mean, and fortunately there can be hope at the end of romance scenarios that don't follow the standard trope, too. It just may not be the ending romance readers expect, but rather something different, perhaps even more meaningful and rewarding.

 

[Pamela Jo]

I know what cognitive dissonance is. However, I don't understand how it applies within this context.

Stereotypes. American Dirt gave all the preconceived ideas of Mexicans which made the book into a bestseller. Whereas authentic Mexican/American writers of greater beauty, wit and truth cant get published because they confront the cognitive dissonance of readers. Just as in American Fiction readers don't want to know about middle-class. black professors.

 

[Claire G]

Stereotypes. American Dirt gave all the preconceived ideas of Mexicans which made the book into a bestseller. Whereas authentic Mexican/American writers of greater beauty, wit and truth cant get published because they confront the cognitive dissonance of readers. Just as in American Fiction readers don't want to know about middle-class. black professors.

I feel this relates to so many areas of literature. White, middle class, neurotypical, heterosexual individuals are generally making the decisions about what gets published. I like to think things are slowly improving.

But...here's my example of what I think you're referring to as a wider issue. A year-and-a-half ago, I booked an Agent 1-2-1 to discuss my submission package. The novel is about ten women whose lives intersect over the space of a week on a psychiatric ward. It's based on personal experience from before I got my diagnosis and correct medication. The agent wanted me to add a murder in. I couldn't believe it. It seems that it's okay to talk about mental illness if it's in this vein, or, like Sorrow and Bliss, it's 'mental-illness-lite'. The only place I see really gritty, realistic depictions is in YA interestingly.

Many people seem to want to maintain their comfortable perceptions of groups who don't fit the white, middle-class, neurotypical, heterosexual mould. Or is this just want individuals in the publishing world THINK people want? @AgentPete I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

 

[Claire G]

I feel this relates to so many areas of literature. White, middle class, neurotypical, heterosexual individuals are generally making the decisions about what gets published. I like to think things are slowly improving.

But...here's my example of what I think you're referring to as a wider issue. A year-and-a-half ago, I booked an Agent 1-2-1 to discuss my submission package. The novel is about ten women whose lives intersect over the space of a week on a psychiatric ward. It's based on personal experience from before I got my diagnosis and correct medication. The agent wanted me to add a murder in. I couldn't believe it. It seems that it's okay to talk about mental illness if it's in this vein, or, like Sorrow and Bliss, it's 'mental-illness-lite'. The only place I see really gritty, realistic depictions is in YA interestingly.

Many people seem to want to maintain their comfortable perceptions of groups who don't fit the white, middle-class, neurotypical, heterosexual mould. Or is this just want individuals in the publishing world THINK people want? @AgentPete I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

Recent, big commercial books like The Silent Patient (which I regrettably forced myself to finish) and Rabbit Hole (which I gave up on quite early) are examples of where mental illness is used as a narrative tool poorly. I'm listening to The Housemaid at the moment. An unlikeable, 'unhinged' character who takes anti-psychotics is regularly referred to as a danger. She's been in 'the looney bin'. Words like 'mad' and 'cuckoo' are used. These stereotypes are getting boring.

 

[Hannah F]

I feel this relates to so many areas of literature. White, middle class, neurotypical, heterosexual individuals are generally making the decisions about what gets published. I like to think things are slowly improving.

But...here's my example of what I think you're referring to as a wider issue. A year-and-a-half ago, I booked an Agent 1-2-1 to discuss my submission package. The novel is about ten women whose lives intersect over the space of a week on a psychiatric ward. It's based on personal experience from before I got my diagnosis and correct medication. The agent wanted me to add a murder in. I couldn't believe it. It seems that it's okay to talk about mental illness if it's in this vein, or, like Sorrow and Bliss, it's 'mental-illness-lite'. The only place I see really gritty, realistic depictions is in YA interestingly.

Many people seem to want to maintain their comfortable perceptions of groups who don't fit the white, middle-class, neurotypical, heterosexual mould. Or is this just want individuals in the publishing world THINK people want? @AgentPete I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

I remember the beginning of that story. Did you publish it?

 

[Claire G]

I remember the beginning of that story. Did you publish it?

I have a literary agent and it's on submission to publishers. I'm not expecting it to sell.

 

[Claire G]

@Hannah F What are your thoughts on YA being the place for grittier, more realistic depictions of mental illness, e.g. Kathleen Glasgow(?). Do you think teens are more open to issues-led fiction?

 

[Hannah F]

@Hannah F What are your thoughts on YA being the place for grittier, more realistic depictions of mental illness, e.g. Kathleen Glasgow(?). Do you think teens are more open to issues-led fiction?

Teens are very into issues-led fiction. Especially these days, teens are increasingly aware of mental illness (perhaps especially after Lockdown). Many have an increased tolerance and understanding of depression, bi-polar, ADHD, social anxiety, and are actually more likely to talk to each other about it than to adults - which is perhaps why they turn to books for that mirror into their own thoughts or for greater understanding. Areas where there is still a lot of peer pressure and taboo, unfortunately, are body image anxieties and eating disorders. Photoshopped instagram pictures might have a lot to do with it.

 

[Hannah F]

O

I have a literary agent and it's on submission to publishers. I'm not expecting it to sell.

Ooh, fingers crossed for you!

 

[E G Logan]

I always believed that one should never refer to one's own work as 'literary fiction', but wait for a reviewer to say it,

That's what I was told, too. "That's for the agent to decide, not you."

 

[AgentPete]

Many people seem to want to maintain their comfortable perceptions of groups who don't fit the white, middle-class, neurotypical, heterosexual mould. Or is this just want individuals in the publishing world THINK people want? @AgentPete I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

Big Publishing is changing, but I’m a bit cynical. It’s changing not because it wants to lead the way / pioneer new areas but mostly because someone else has demonstrated that there’s a new market /demographic emerging. We play catch-up too often.

 

[AgentPete]

That's what I was told, too. "That's for the agent to decide, not you."

I think it’s for the reader to decide, really.

As covered quite often on Pop-Ups, I don’t like many self -described “lit fic” subs because really, they're usually not very good

It also often says to an agent that you’re planning to sell… maybe 100 copies

 

[Jonny]

I know there are so many different genre classifications in our world but I usually find them fairly pointless. Other than perhaps to broadly identify the likely subject matter of a book.

I find my hackles rise when I hear the term Literary Fiction, as often it comes with a side serving of implied earnestness, worthiness, weightiness, extreme depth, and multifaceted importance. Something rather grander than mere everyday fiction, if you will.

I therefore ignore any pre-stated 'genres' authors tend to hang on their work and let the writing decide.

I have a pretty binary approach here. Do I like the book/writing or don't I?

Obviously, this is a very simplistic stance to take but having read everything from Wodehouse to Women's Fiction (Marian Keyes for example) I can't get remotely worked up about genre. Rarely would give it a second thought.

I will only label my own work by genre (as a last resort) when asked to by, say, part of a querying process or when occasion arises.

 

[E G Logan]

I find my hackles rise when I hear the term Literary Fiction, as often it comes with a side serving of implied earnestness, worthiness, weightiness, extreme depth, and multifaceted importance. Something rather grander than mere everyday fiction, if you will.

I therefore ignore any pre-stated 'genres' authors tend to hang on their work and let the writing decide.

I absolutely agree about aspiring writers describing their work as 'literary'. For me it means most often guaranteed unreadability (tediously experimental, pretentious.....)
BUT often submissions require us to plump for one genre or another.

At least those with their own forms, either Query Manager or something similar, offer some suggestions. A list of tick boxes. Otherwise we're pushed to fall back on vague and very broad categories like Women's Commercial Fiction, or even – Heaven Forfend – Women's Fiction.
I know some publishers (name on application) froth at the mouth at terms like that, but they wouldn't exist if someone, somewhere didn't find them useful.
And every, absolutely every, article, blog, whatever, I've read on how to craft a submission has warned that it HAS TO INCLUDE a genre.
Otherwise... the sky will fall in. Or it will be rejected even quicker than it otherwise might be. Can we afford to take that risk?

 

[Jonny]

Can we afford to take that risk?

Yes, I think we can... or at least could ...

BUT: here comes my caveat and bail out.

When faced with this dilemma I usually, but not always, succumb to the pressure (albeit under considerable duress) and I do plump for some genre or other. I'm great at talking the talk... perhaps not so much at walking the walk..

I would never dream of including anything beyond the work itself and a covering letter, not unless a blurb, or even worse, a blurb and synopsis are explicitly requested. I think the majority of the business has become lazy in asking for these as a matter of course, but concede it's now part of the game. However, I honestly don't believe a great sub will fail on a bad blurb.

But here's what gets my goat. In all honesty, I imagine if some intern or assistant agent has the company query file open in general and no genre is given on 'the next' package, they will at least take a peek at (gawd 'elp us) the actual material itself. I would, if for no other reason, than fearing I'd passed on the next Harry Potter, and consequently my days as an aspiring hotshot agent were finished.

My view (probably foolishly arrogant and likely extremely deluded ) is that what will sell a piece is the piece itself and not the peripheral items. Items which at one point would have been invariably written in-house by the publisher's publicity department in the run up to publication; handled by people skilled in this particular discipline. That is to say - copywriters and PR types - not authors.

This newfangled "we want a blurb, too" at query stage makes no sense to me. If I need a wisdom tooth extracted I don't go to see a chiropodist.

 

[Roz Morris]

It doesn't help that authors themselves mean wildly different things by the term. When I'm talking to a prospective editing client who tells me their novel is literary, I ask them to explain why.
It might be that the writer feels their prose is carefully crafted (but I think there's more to literary than the prose style, because many genre authors are terrific wordsmiths). It might be that the structure is unusual and takes some work from the reader, or the characters are more important than the plot, or the writer isn't good at plot and hopes the book has other virtues instead. It might be because the themes are weighty or the book defies some genre conventions or has mixed genres together. I wouldn't class many of those as literary, but others might.
My ideal literary novel would be a story that seemed to also have a much bigger dimension, a poetic richness in the situation as well as an enthralling tale and three-dimensional characters, and a real sense of craftsmanship. Then again, maybe that's contemporary fiction. Or upmarket fiction.
I describe my own work as literary, BTW, but I was given that label by agents and my first reviewers. I wouldn't have presumed to claim it myself. And I think the agents were using it as a warning rather than a compliment; I might not sell very much and I'd be hard to market. When I queried my last novel, I called it contemporary fiction or book club fiction unless I knew the agent specifically liked literary.

 

[Hannah F]

I was lucky enough to get a free place on a 6 week on-line writing course last year. On day one introductions, everyone described their writing as literary except me who described mine as YA Fantasy (which raised the ends of a few noses). As the course went on and we offered up pieces of our work, others commented on how literary my prose was and how amazing that literary was also suitable for YA. I just praised their writing and critiqued/commented on their pieces. I didn't dare mention that none of their offerings seemed any more literary than simply stories well told. Their prose was indeed excellent, but literary? Then again, "literary" is such a nebulous term. (I wouldn't call my writing literary. I just tell stories as well as I can.)