I find this conversation a bit hard to follow because it's not clear to me how "literary fiction" is defined. The article mentions that genres like romance have pushed literary fiction off the...
I find this conversation a bit hard to follow because it's not clear to me how "literary fiction" is defined. The article mentions that genres like romance have pushed literary fiction off the bestseller list, but then it cites Pride and Prejudice as an example of literary fiction. How exactly are they categorizing novels? I would have placed Pride and Prejudice solidly in the romance camp.
Pride and Prejudice is satire more than it is a romance, truly. But setting that aside, typically the split between literary fiction and genre fiction comes down to its intent. If the book is...
Pride and Prejudice is satire more than it is a romance, truly. But setting that aside, typically the split between literary fiction and genre fiction comes down to its intent. If the book is character-driven (where plot is secondary) it would be considered a literary novel, where plot-driven books would be considered genre fiction. There's not a clear definition that everyone agrees on, and there can be a lot of overlap between the two anyway.
While it's true that Pride and Prejudice (like all Austen novels) does contain elements of comedy, and skewers many of the social norms of the time, I've always disagreed strongly with the idea...
While it's true that Pride and Prejudice (like all Austen novels) does contain elements of comedy, and skewers many of the social norms of the time, I've always disagreed strongly with the idea that the novel is a satire. Frankly, it might be more accurate to call it a romcom. Because although the society (and characters) surrounding them is often bizarre, silly, and senseless, Austen sketches Elizabeth and Darcy believably, and their romance earnestly. We are meant, I think, to root for their relationship: for them to change enough to be good for each other, and for them to be able to reject the societal pressures that would keep them apart. To me, the label "satire" implies more genre subversion than Pride and Prejudice actually contains.
Anyway, I think the literary-vs-genre distinction is essentially nonsense. What I've noticed is that, for a lot of critics, "literary fiction" means "old books, which deserve to be taken seriously," whereas genre fiction means "silly modern books, which are just dumb fun." Or at least that's how they get used. The plot-vs-character distinction is maybe a better definition than that but only by degree. I mean, one of the most character-driven novels I've read is Nona the Ninth, but it seems absurd to label that literary fiction, consdiering it's a pulpy scifantasy. Conversely, even though its characters are more than servicable, the plot of, say, A Prayer for Owen Meany is a perfect folding mechanism, one of the most satisfying stories I've ever read. Yet I think it would also be almost impossible to call Irving's work genre fiction, because, if so, like, what genre?
Ultimately the literary-vs-genre conversation has always been more about aesthetic to me than any of the actual substance of whatever is being discussed.
I maintain that if Tamsyn referenced more "literary" topics (idk the King James Bible? Roman myth?) the way she does memes, the Catholic Church obscure bone names and Homestuck references she does...
I maintain that if Tamsyn referenced more "literary" topics (idk the King James Bible? Roman myth?) the way she does memes, the Catholic Church obscure bone names and Homestuck references she does her work would be considered a genius of literary fiction.
Also Becky Chambers work is highly character driven and it's still tossed into the genre bucket. If it's Sci-fi, fantasy, horror or romance it's relegated to the genre shelves of disdain by critics and snobs. Some exceptions for near future dystopia, magical realism, and utterly non-sexual romances where someone is dying of cancer usually.
Oh, yeah, I loved Chambers' debut. Well, maybe it was character driven to its detriment -- felt very episodic -- but there's a place for that. Muir does allude quite heavily to the Bible and Roman...
Oh, yeah, I loved Chambers' debut. Well, maybe it was character driven to its detriment -- felt very episodic -- but there's a place for that.
Muir does allude quite heavily to the Bible and Roman myth, specifically. Lest we forget, Gideon The Ninth concludes with a quote from Ruth:
minor spoilers
Ruth 1:17 The land that shall receive thee dying, in the same will I die: and there will I be buried. The Lord do so and so to me, and add more also, if aught but death part me and thee.
Not King James -- this is some obscure 16th century translation called the Douay–Rheims Bible, which if anything feels MORE litfic than KJV, since I haven't heard of it. Really the problem is just that Muir mentions anything modern at all. She alludes to the bible, and to Poe, and to none pizza (left beef), and if the third was removed maybe some would call her a litfic writer -- also, her books would be worse. Which to me sort of exposes the meaninglessness of the distinction.
The Douay-Rheims is the typical Bible of traditional/conservative Catholics, actually! I knew that one. It is way less "lyrical" than the KJV, though personally I don't get the appeal of the KJV....
The Douay-Rheims is the typical Bible of traditional/conservative Catholics, actually! I knew that one. It is way less "lyrical" than the KJV, though personally I don't get the appeal of the KJV. And I know she does reference the topics I truly blanked on what I'd consider "more literary"
Never mind that the references are literally precisely appropriate for the context of the novel! But yeah most authors in that realm aren't making clavicle key jokes, even though it was an excellent pun. And it would be worse all around without Nona and Noodle's arboreal legs and Gideon and dad jokes.
Wayfarers is an anthology series anyway and I think that episodic vibe was quite intentional. But Monk and Robot is literally a character considering the meaning of their life in the woods while on a slightly quixotic quest. It's so character driven!
I would still describe it as a romance. The novel is primarily about two characters falling in love, even though the author wrote it in a clever, satirical way. As the story progresses, it takes a...
I would still describe it as a romance. The novel is primarily about two characters falling in love, even though the author wrote it in a clever, satirical way. As the story progresses, it takes a more serious, focused tone on the characters and their blossoming relationship; now that the reader is invested in the characters, the story no longer needs humor to hold your attention.
I would also consider it more plot-driven than character-driven. Of course, all romance novels are character-driven to a major extent, but (relative to romance novels in general) Pride and Prejudice seems to be on the more plot-driven side: Elizabeth and Darcy are pushed and pulled by plot events outside of their control (the Bennett family's financial situation, Jane's illness, Lydia's impropriety, etc.), which cause them to have encounters and share experiences with each other that they never would have of their own volition.
I'm not really a romance fan, so maybe this is just me being a tad curmudgeonly, but I read this as a story of how two otherwise poorly matched individuals can still find themselves drawn helplessly to each other due to circumstances they find themselves in — and I thought the novel was better for it. (In general, I strongly prefer stories that explore how events affect people. Stories that focus primarily on character, like generic TV dramas, or primarily on events, like generic action movies, just don't affect me deeply like stories that deeply explore the synergy of the two.)
Nor me, and as far as I can tell there isn't an authoritative definition. It's like defining art, the truth is there will never be a static definition. I'm not sure I see the reason we'd want one....
it's not clear to me how "literary fiction" is defined
Nor me, and as far as I can tell there isn't an authoritative definition. It's like defining art, the truth is there will never be a static definition. I'm not sure I see the reason we'd want one.
Regarding the original piece: I disagree that the internet (and with it streaming) aren't a big part of the explanation. How could they not be? The author admits that the fall of magazines is part of the issue. What caused that if not the internet?
This has made me consider more deeply why I avoid most modern literature. I read classics. I read genre fiction. I read nearly everything but modern literature and poetry. I guess ultimately the...
This has made me consider more deeply why I avoid most modern literature. I read classics. I read genre fiction. I read nearly everything but modern literature and poetry. I guess ultimately the reason is visceral--there's generally a distinctly deliberate energy and self-seriousness to the field that I find off-putting.
I tried in college to become a member of the literati. I'd already won poetry competitions in high school and dreamed, like Steinbeck, that I had great stories inside me to tell. Then I had my first poetry class with a grad student whose formalist approach was all list poems of disconnected concepts. She had made an entire academic career of aligning a hundred mostly random words in columns at a time. I couldn't take her seriously.
For my final project I presented an overview of children's poems and she asked if that meant the subject was children. I said no, the authors were. And then I proceeded to present the schoolyard rhymes that spread across the land with the speed of oral tradition. For example, and I quote:
Ta-ra-ra-boom-di-yay
I take your pants away
And while you're standing there
I take your underwear.
Most of the class loved it. She and the self-serious ones were not amused. I got a D in the class and learned that my puckish approach to literature wasn't going to make it in 1987.
It's like modern jazz. What used to be the most original sound of an entire century has now become a formal or nostalgic version of itself. Don't overthink your medium or self-consciously try to find your place in history. The only authors I seek out in the current literary world are those who can really sing and are pure in their creativity and joy and talented enough to communicate it.
And as I say that I can't think of a single person right now in the world of modern literature who fulfills those criteria. Any help?
Your anecdote reminds me of Kenneth Koch’s take that “not all serious poetry is solemn.” Where is all the playfulness nowadays? Depending on what you’re looking for, Mark Yakich or Loren Goodman...
Your anecdote reminds me of Kenneth Koch’s take that “not all serious poetry is solemn.” Where is all the playfulness nowadays? Depending on what you’re looking for, Mark Yakich or Loren Goodman might scratch your itch. Or Kenneth Koch for that matter.
I thought Remains of the Day was one of the most brilliant novels I have ever read. However, I hated the Buried Giant. I was an English major in the 80s and I learned that the approach to books...
I thought Remains of the Day was one of the most brilliant novels I have ever read. However, I hated the Buried Giant.
I was an English major in the 80s and I learned that the approach to books and poems I observed from the literati I met was the antithesis of how I interacted with books or wanted to.
I had a similar reaction. Remains of the Day is one of my favorites. But I didn’t hate Buried Giant. I just didn’t think it was as successful in its concept or execution. But I’m a writer. I’m...
I had a similar reaction. Remains of the Day is one of my favorites. But I didn’t hate Buried Giant. I just didn’t think it was as successful in its concept or execution.
But I’m a writer. I’m entirely forgiving of a work like that. It’s very ambitious and Ishiguro absolutely committed to it. Yet it just didn’t come together in the same way.
The literary crowd don’t see it like that. But for the most part, they don’t create, they study and critique.
I have not read the article fully, stopping about midway...I thought the author seemed a little too...upset? It's like he has this idea of grandeur that there must be a Great American writer right...
I have not read the article fully, stopping about midway...I thought the author seemed a little too...upset? It's like he has this idea of grandeur that there must be a Great American writer right now, why isn't there one!?
The answer is absolutely multi-dimensional and he approches some answers, but honestly, when Will Blythe said it's because of the internet, the article should have stopped around there... because while there are tons of factors, the internet really is the biggest one.
There are rarely "greats" in anything anymore because entertainment is muuuch more divided than it was before the internet. It's simply a time thing. Humans have essentially about 4 hours (ballparking here) every day to do what they want. Why use a very big portion of your time to sit down and read words, when you could sit down for 30 minutes and get a crash course on any topic you desire on YouTube. Or sit down and have access to about any piece of visual media ever produced in a few clicks. It's an effort to sit down and read a book. There are apps that are designed to physically alert you when you don't use them. You think books will do that?
There have been hundreds of great literary writers in the last decades, we simply don't hear about them because no one reads. Books cannot compete for dopamine time against the internet and the apps, simple as that.
Now, I read these days. I love reading, but I cannot deny the effort it took to get there. I have to close my phone before sleep and actively take the choice to pick up the book and read before bed.
When books will include real-time images support, sounds, and will alert you when you're not reading... then maybe we'll see the Greats appear again.
That seems more like reasons for reading as a whole or even non-fiction reading to be on a decline, not a reason for literary fiction in particular to decline even when reading rates in general...
That seems more like reasons for reading as a whole or even non-fiction reading to be on a decline, not a reason for literary fiction in particular to decline even when reading rates in general have increased (going by the article's figures comparing the 50s to now). And ebooks are a thing as are ebooks with pictures (illustrated editions, graphic novels) and sound (audiobooks). I'd be shocked if there's no ebook apps that can issue reminder notifications.
An(other) attempt to figure out why contemporary literary fiction doesn't sell well. The author doesn't settle at "modern lit is woke", because that doesn't explain the >50 years trend. Instead,...
An(other) attempt to figure out why contemporary literary fiction doesn't sell well. The author doesn't settle at "modern lit is woke", because that doesn't explain the >50 years trend. Instead, the author looks for other factors that could explain why we see the beginning of the literary downfall long before identity politics came to the fore.
This piece primarily looks at American literature; the rest of the world is left as an open question.
Choice quotes (without giving away the author's conclusions):
Yet no one seems willing to contend with the fact that this is not just an issue for literary men, it’s an issue for everyone. What non-identity quality do The Greats have in common that virtually all young contemporary literary fiction writers (Rooney aside), don’t?
Something about literary fiction has changed in recent years that has put it off to mass audiences. Han locates the change in “wokeness,” but the timing doesn’t work — this shift was already in full swing before the 2010s when “woke” became a salient issue.
... people still read plenty of literary fiction, what they don’t read is contemporary literary fiction. Books like Pride and Prejudice, War and Peace, The Brothers Karamazov, etc still sell many thousands of copies every year, more than even big hits in contemporary literary fiction. And look at any survey of contemporary audiences' favorite books. Plenty of literary fiction there. So I think there’s a strong enough warrant here that the ‘taste-change’ hypothesis can’t be right either — unless the internet made people’s tastes magically shift away from contemporary literary fiction but not classics.
I find this conversation a bit hard to follow because it's not clear to me how "literary fiction" is defined. The article mentions that genres like romance have pushed literary fiction off the bestseller list, but then it cites Pride and Prejudice as an example of literary fiction. How exactly are they categorizing novels? I would have placed Pride and Prejudice solidly in the romance camp.
Pride and Prejudice is satire more than it is a romance, truly. But setting that aside, typically the split between literary fiction and genre fiction comes down to its intent. If the book is character-driven (where plot is secondary) it would be considered a literary novel, where plot-driven books would be considered genre fiction. There's not a clear definition that everyone agrees on, and there can be a lot of overlap between the two anyway.
While it's true that Pride and Prejudice (like all Austen novels) does contain elements of comedy, and skewers many of the social norms of the time, I've always disagreed strongly with the idea that the novel is a satire. Frankly, it might be more accurate to call it a romcom. Because although the society (and characters) surrounding them is often bizarre, silly, and senseless, Austen sketches Elizabeth and Darcy believably, and their romance earnestly. We are meant, I think, to root for their relationship: for them to change enough to be good for each other, and for them to be able to reject the societal pressures that would keep them apart. To me, the label "satire" implies more genre subversion than Pride and Prejudice actually contains.
Anyway, I think the literary-vs-genre distinction is essentially nonsense. What I've noticed is that, for a lot of critics, "literary fiction" means "old books, which deserve to be taken seriously," whereas genre fiction means "silly modern books, which are just dumb fun." Or at least that's how they get used. The plot-vs-character distinction is maybe a better definition than that but only by degree. I mean, one of the most character-driven novels I've read is Nona the Ninth, but it seems absurd to label that literary fiction, consdiering it's a pulpy scifantasy. Conversely, even though its characters are more than servicable, the plot of, say, A Prayer for Owen Meany is a perfect folding mechanism, one of the most satisfying stories I've ever read. Yet I think it would also be almost impossible to call Irving's work genre fiction, because, if so, like, what genre?
Ultimately the literary-vs-genre conversation has always been more about aesthetic to me than any of the actual substance of whatever is being discussed.
I maintain that if Tamsyn referenced more "literary" topics (idk the King James Bible? Roman myth?) the way she does memes, the Catholic Church obscure bone names and Homestuck references she does her work would be considered a genius of literary fiction.
Also Becky Chambers work is highly character driven and it's still tossed into the genre bucket. If it's Sci-fi, fantasy, horror or romance it's relegated to the genre shelves of disdain by critics and snobs. Some exceptions for near future dystopia, magical realism, and utterly non-sexual romances where someone is dying of cancer usually.
Oh, yeah, I loved Chambers' debut. Well, maybe it was character driven to its detriment -- felt very episodic -- but there's a place for that.
Muir does allude quite heavily to the Bible and Roman myth, specifically. Lest we forget, Gideon The Ninth concludes with a quote from Ruth:
minor spoilers
Ruth 1:17 The land that shall receive thee dying, in the same will I die: and there will I be buried. The Lord do so and so to me, and add more also, if aught but death part me and thee.Not King James -- this is some obscure 16th century translation called the Douay–Rheims Bible, which if anything feels MORE litfic than KJV, since I haven't heard of it. Really the problem is just that Muir mentions anything modern at all. She alludes to the bible, and to Poe, and to none pizza (left beef), and if the third was removed maybe some would call her a litfic writer -- also, her books would be worse. Which to me sort of exposes the meaninglessness of the distinction.
The Douay-Rheims is the typical Bible of traditional/conservative Catholics, actually! I knew that one. It is way less "lyrical" than the KJV, though personally I don't get the appeal of the KJV. And I know she does reference the topics I truly blanked on what I'd consider "more literary"
Never mind that the references are literally precisely appropriate for the context of the novel! But yeah most authors in that realm aren't making clavicle key jokes, even though it was an excellent pun. And it would be worse all around without Nona and Noodle's arboreal legs and Gideon and dad jokes.
Wayfarers is an anthology series anyway and I think that episodic vibe was quite intentional. But Monk and Robot is literally a character considering the meaning of their life in the woods while on a slightly quixotic quest. It's so character driven!
(I know I'm preaching at the choir)
I would still describe it as a romance. The novel is primarily about two characters falling in love, even though the author wrote it in a clever, satirical way. As the story progresses, it takes a more serious, focused tone on the characters and their blossoming relationship; now that the reader is invested in the characters, the story no longer needs humor to hold your attention.
I would also consider it more plot-driven than character-driven. Of course, all romance novels are character-driven to a major extent, but (relative to romance novels in general) Pride and Prejudice seems to be on the more plot-driven side: Elizabeth and Darcy are pushed and pulled by plot events outside of their control (the Bennett family's financial situation, Jane's illness, Lydia's impropriety, etc.), which cause them to have encounters and share experiences with each other that they never would have of their own volition.
I'm not really a romance fan, so maybe this is just me being a tad curmudgeonly, but I read this as a story of how two otherwise poorly matched individuals can still find themselves drawn helplessly to each other due to circumstances they find themselves in — and I thought the novel was better for it. (In general, I strongly prefer stories that explore how events affect people. Stories that focus primarily on character, like generic TV dramas, or primarily on events, like generic action movies, just don't affect me deeply like stories that deeply explore the synergy of the two.)
Nor me, and as far as I can tell there isn't an authoritative definition. It's like defining art, the truth is there will never be a static definition. I'm not sure I see the reason we'd want one.
Regarding the original piece: I disagree that the internet (and with it streaming) aren't a big part of the explanation. How could they not be? The author admits that the fall of magazines is part of the issue. What caused that if not the internet?
This has made me consider more deeply why I avoid most modern literature. I read classics. I read genre fiction. I read nearly everything but modern literature and poetry. I guess ultimately the reason is visceral--there's generally a distinctly deliberate energy and self-seriousness to the field that I find off-putting.
I tried in college to become a member of the literati. I'd already won poetry competitions in high school and dreamed, like Steinbeck, that I had great stories inside me to tell. Then I had my first poetry class with a grad student whose formalist approach was all list poems of disconnected concepts. She had made an entire academic career of aligning a hundred mostly random words in columns at a time. I couldn't take her seriously.
For my final project I presented an overview of children's poems and she asked if that meant the subject was children. I said no, the authors were. And then I proceeded to present the schoolyard rhymes that spread across the land with the speed of oral tradition. For example, and I quote:
Ta-ra-ra-boom-di-yay
I take your pants away
And while you're standing there
I take your underwear.
Most of the class loved it. She and the self-serious ones were not amused. I got a D in the class and learned that my puckish approach to literature wasn't going to make it in 1987.
It's like modern jazz. What used to be the most original sound of an entire century has now become a formal or nostalgic version of itself. Don't overthink your medium or self-consciously try to find your place in history. The only authors I seek out in the current literary world are those who can really sing and are pure in their creativity and joy and talented enough to communicate it.
And as I say that I can't think of a single person right now in the world of modern literature who fulfills those criteria. Any help?
Your anecdote reminds me of Kenneth Koch’s take that “not all serious poetry is solemn.” Where is all the playfulness nowadays? Depending on what you’re looking for, Mark Yakich or Loren Goodman might scratch your itch. Or Kenneth Koch for that matter.
I thought Remains of the Day was one of the most brilliant novels I have ever read. However, I hated the Buried Giant.
I was an English major in the 80s and I learned that the approach to books and poems I observed from the literati I met was the antithesis of how I interacted with books or wanted to.
I had a similar reaction. Remains of the Day is one of my favorites. But I didn’t hate Buried Giant. I just didn’t think it was as successful in its concept or execution.
But I’m a writer. I’m entirely forgiving of a work like that. It’s very ambitious and Ishiguro absolutely committed to it. Yet it just didn’t come together in the same way.
The literary crowd don’t see it like that. But for the most part, they don’t create, they study and critique.
Stoner is another one that touched my heart through artful craft and clear perception of human beings.
Thanks for the recommendation. I haven’t read it. And being a lifelong stoner, perhaps I should.
I have not read the article fully, stopping about midway...I thought the author seemed a little too...upset? It's like he has this idea of grandeur that there must be a Great American writer right now, why isn't there one!?
The answer is absolutely multi-dimensional and he approches some answers, but honestly, when Will Blythe said it's because of the internet, the article should have stopped around there... because while there are tons of factors, the internet really is the biggest one.
There are rarely "greats" in anything anymore because entertainment is muuuch more divided than it was before the internet. It's simply a time thing. Humans have essentially about 4 hours (ballparking here) every day to do what they want. Why use a very big portion of your time to sit down and read words, when you could sit down for 30 minutes and get a crash course on any topic you desire on YouTube. Or sit down and have access to about any piece of visual media ever produced in a few clicks. It's an effort to sit down and read a book. There are apps that are designed to physically alert you when you don't use them. You think books will do that?
There have been hundreds of great literary writers in the last decades, we simply don't hear about them because no one reads. Books cannot compete for dopamine time against the internet and the apps, simple as that.
Now, I read these days. I love reading, but I cannot deny the effort it took to get there. I have to close my phone before sleep and actively take the choice to pick up the book and read before bed.
When books will include real-time images support, sounds, and will alert you when you're not reading... then maybe we'll see the Greats appear again.
That seems more like reasons for reading as a whole or even non-fiction reading to be on a decline, not a reason for literary fiction in particular to decline even when reading rates in general have increased (going by the article's figures comparing the 50s to now). And ebooks are a thing as are ebooks with pictures (illustrated editions, graphic novels) and sound (audiobooks). I'd be shocked if there's no ebook apps that can issue reminder notifications.
An(other) attempt to figure out why contemporary literary fiction doesn't sell well. The author doesn't settle at "modern lit is woke", because that doesn't explain the >50 years trend. Instead, the author looks for other factors that could explain why we see the beginning of the literary downfall long before identity politics came to the fore.
This piece primarily looks at American literature; the rest of the world is left as an open question.
Choice quotes (without giving away the author's conclusions):