By Audrey Driscoll
This question came up at the most recent WSW chat session (which will be posted here in the near future). It looks like we will need yet another session to thrash it out further, but I thought I would muddle some ideas around before that.
Here are some irreverent descriptions of literary fiction:
- Books you have to read in English Literature classes
- Great literature (they say)
- The Classics (whatever that means)
- Long, boring books written by dead guys
- Long, boring books written by snobs
- Books that critics write about
- Books that get awards like the Pulitzer, the Booker, or the Nobel
- Books that are good for you but no fun to read
- Books with symbolism and allusions to stuff in other books
- Books that don’t really have a story, just words
- Books where you can’t tell what’s going on
- Books you put on your shelf.
I’m sure you can add to this list.
It’s a lot like the question of what is “classical” music, and where is the dividing line between (hoity-toity, highbrow, inaccessible) music and the (familiar, predictable, head-bobbing) sounds of popular music. A question with no easy answer, it turns out.
And not one I’m about to debate here.
Getting serious, here is a definition from the Wikipedia article on literary fiction: “…novels that are character-driven rather than plot-driven, examine the human condition, use language in an experimental or poetic fashion, or are simply considered serious art.”
The main characteristics of literary fiction are:
- Character-driven
- Realistic examination of the human condition
- Uses language in an artistic way.
It can be argued that literary writing refers more to style than to actual genre. After all, a romance, a mystery, a fantasy, or a thriller can possess these characteristics along with the necessary genre tropes. In fact, such a story would probably be richer and more interesting than one focussed primarily on plot.
There is also the problematic implication that literary fiction is somehow superior to genre fiction, that its readers are more intellectual and sophisticated than those who read for entertainment and just want to find out who did the murder or how the couple will achieve happiness.
I think it isn’t really necessary to classify books by genre unless you are running a bookstore. These classifications are part of the book trade. Even online ebook stores use some form of genre labelling, with “Literature” being given its own slot. I wonder how useful this is, really. Book retailers must make their products searchable, but surely that can be done through tags and keywords?
Genre labels—assuming “literary fiction” is a genre—do tell potential readers what to expect, up to a point. The trouble with this term is it covers a vast territory, everything from serious, slow moving, socially-conscious novels to plotless experimental fiction. Moreover, there’s a lot of genre bending and genre lumping going on, even by “literary” writers.
You want to know what I think? It doesn’t matter. Now that books no longer have to pass the gatekeepers of traditional publishing, there is no need to adhere to the labels of that world. Any book, no matter its genre, can be “literary,” meaning it’s character-driven, presents the human condition in a realistic way, and is written with an awareness of the artful possibilities of language.
Not every book needs to have these qualities. It’s perfectly okay to write and publish books where plot is the main driver and the characters are recognizable genre types. As for language, all writers should use it competently, if not always artfully.
Readers are quick to recognize books they like. Some will keep reading even if the style or content is unfamiliar or uncomfortable, but many will not. That’s perfectly okay too; there’s no shortage of books. Every reader can find more than enough to suit them, and those who cannot are free to write and publish whatever they like.
Fellow writers, do you read or write literary fiction? Do you think it’s a separate genre, a style of writing, or something else altogether? And do you even care?
Writers Supporting Writers 
I think there is something for everyone out there, and I read an eclectic selection of books. But every now and then, I love to sink my teeth into literary fiction. For me it makes me think and sticks with me for a long time. I just need a dose of Jane Austen, Charles Dickens or Margaret Atwood in between all the other great writers out there.
LikeLiked by 3 people
That’s true, Darlene. Substantial books are part of a well-rounded reading diet. (Food analogies are often perfect when discussing written works!)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I love food analogies. They make sense as food nourishes our body while books nourish our souls. xo
LikeLiked by 1 person
-grin- oh my, the timing of this post is exquisite! I’m literally just re-reading Anne of Green Gables after not having read it for close to 60 years. I still love the characters and the story, just as I did all those decades ago, but the descriptions… I can’t call them purple prose, but I think these days we’d call them self-indulgent prose. And guess what? There’s head hopping! Quite a lot of it.
I’m not saying Anne of Green Gables is on a par with War and Peace [which is a million times more dense], but I believe the ‘use of language’ criterion should be scrapped. In my not so humble opinion, language, like the author, should be invisible so that nothing detracts from the story itself.
Fashions and definitions may change, but good storytelling is always key, no matter what genre someone sticks on it.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Well, I’m going to, perhaps, disagree with your opinion that language should be invisible. I happen to like stories where the writing is far from invisible; stories like those by Raymond Chandler, P G Wodehouse, Patrick O’Brian, Jasper Fforde, to name a few, all of whom tell stories in their distinctive literary voice. But they are telling a story, rather than just exercising their way with words, and that makes a difference.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Oh no! I totally agree that an author should have a ‘voice’. I just hate the ‘exercising their way with words’ part. To me it feels as if it’s the author’s /ego/ that’s front and centre rather than the story. I very much dislike any writing that’s all ‘me, me, me’.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree, though I don’t think I’ve ever gotten that deep into literary fiction to ever encounter that in the wild:)
LikeLiked by 2 people
My reading used to be pretty eclectic, and I remember one book I tried to read was all stream of consciousness. Another had virtually no punctuation, on purpose, and some were just purple prose on steroids.
Of course, literary fiction isn’t the only ‘genre’ prey to author egos. I’ve come to hate what I call the Han Solo style in Indie writing. By that I mean how the author creates a character, usually male, who banters and quips and generally acts like a smartarse even during the most dire ‘action’ moments. That kind of thing may have worked as comic relief in the Star Wars movies, but it gets incredibly boring when it’s the modus operandi of the main character. It also dilutes any drama the scene/story may have.
I assume there must be a readership for that kind of style, but I loathe it. 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think these work if the reader identifies with that narrator’s style and personality. Otherwise it could be intensely annoying, leading to DNF.
LikeLiked by 1 person
lol – very much so!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Many readers prefer to read a story, but it’s even better if the words are used to enhance it, rather than simply to lay out the plot.
LikeLike
I agree that the language should work in support of the story and not just be there for its own sake. (One of my writing profs referred to the latter as “Look, Ma, I’m writing! Wheeeeeeee!)
LikeLiked by 3 people
LMAO!!!!! oh thank you! That gave me my first laugh of the day. You’ve summed up my feeling exactly. 😀
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m glad I was able to give you a laugh. 😀
LikeLiked by 2 people
-grin- so am I.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ha! That’s a good one, Liz!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Audrey!
LikeLiked by 1 person
For some reason, the “literary” moniker is often applied to books published a long time ago. The implication is that to be literary, a book has to use an old-fashioned writing style, which is just wrong and leads to the further implication that such a style is artistic. The book may have been considered popular fiction in its day.
Labels on creative works sometimes cause more trouble than they’re worth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suspect that the old books that we think of as ‘literary’ are only literary because something about them has stood the test of time. I believe that something has to do with the human condition, which doesn’t really change, no matter the particular style in which it’s written.
Take Shakespeare, for example. No one speaks like Hamlet, and Kings and Queens no longer have the power they used to have and yet…we can /still/ relate to the story because human nature and power are themes we can all relate to.
So I wouldn’t assign the label ‘literary’ to any work until it’s been around long enough to prove itself. If it’s still being read or translated into more modern mediums after X number of generations, then I’d say it’s a classic. And maybe literary. lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good point! Classics and Literary overlap to some extent, but not 100%
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, not 100% because what is considered ‘literary’ these days doesn’t match the style used in the classics. Of course, the style of the classics themselves evolves. I remember reading a funny little book called The Woodcarver of Lympus [bought from the second hand book shop] that probably hasn’t stood the test of time. And what of War and Peace. I slogged through it, but I doubt I’d be able to hack it these days. And while most people know the stories of the Shakespearean Tragedies, how many actually read them?
Nonetheless, there is something universal in all these books because it speaks to the human condition. And that transcends style.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it transcends genre too, or can if the writer wants it to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
agreed. 😀 A good story is a good story.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I admit to have never of having heard of the category, these were always filed in my head as ‘Classics’.
You are quite right Audrey in that it doesn’t matter. This would seem to be a subject which some folk are prone to ‘overthinking’ about.
There are styles of writing which reflect the time of the writing, there are approaches by authors based on their own life experiences or outlooks; there are…there are…there are. Similarly with the readership, although that can be prone to shifting as other social attitudes come into play.
And as for your most succinct and astute final comment: “Every reader can find more than enough to suit them, and those who cannot are free to write and publish whatever they like.”……
Yeah…that would be me 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
You’re exactly right, Roger–genre labels were created after many of the works they have been attached to. More recently they have been used to arrange books in bookstores, but I don’t think they should be regarded as rigid categories. And “literary fiction” is even more problematic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree Audrey. The subject being over-thought and a source of some dispute amongst readers. As. you pointed out we have elements of ‘elitist’ here. Thus there is a suggestion ‘these are books you should read (with a sub-text) otherwise you are not literate’
An illustration as to how complicated this is becoming. Audible Audio Books in trying to be helpful have amongst their options the following divisions of fiction as presented to the prospective listener (I have left out non-fiction)
Science Fiction & Fantasy
Mystery, Thriller & Suspense
Literature & Fiction (what does that mean)
Teen & Young Adult
Comedy
Romance
Classics
LGBTQ+
More Categories…….????? (I added that part)
If you click onto any of these you might find sub-divisions. And of course you will see books in more than on category.
The poor computer programme has been quite overwhelmed.
For instance in the sub-genre ‘Romantic Comedy’ you will find Dashiell Hammett’s ‘The Maltese Falcon’…. (Well yes I know in the film these was a classic humorous bit with Bogart camping it up while undercover…but the book?)
Evidence that trying to categorise fiction into tight compartments is a hopeless task and far too subjective.
LikeLike
I read books that interest me. Usually the plot more than the characters, but interest is a fickle thing. Boring books need not apply.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Some people actually do read only specific genres, apparently. That was the argument in the public library I worked in as a cataloguer. If it had been up to me, we wouldn’t have had separate sections for Mysteries, Westerns, Science Fiction and Fantasy (which some see as different genres), and Romance. A-Z by author and lots of keywords and genre headings in the catalogue is the way to go, I think. But it wasn’t up to me, so I had to grumble and acquiesce. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it’s interesting when genre authors get big enough to move from genre to fiction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m trying to think of this from a reader’s point of view. If I go into a bookstore, I might want to search for suspense or fantasy, but why do the literary books have to be separate from all of that? Why not shelf a literary fantasy book with the rest of the fantasy books? Maybe I want an artfully written, character-driven fantasy.
I do understand shelving classics by themselves whether they are boring or enthralling. They are part of our history (though including classics from dead women of color might round out the category some more).
LikeLiked by 4 people
Good points, Vera! I don’t agree with physically separating books by genres, either in a bookstore or a library. Why only certain genres?
And yes, contemporary literary fiction does often include elements from other genres.
The classics can be in a separate section, because the style and language is quite different, but it wouldn’t hurt to scatter a few classics among the other genres, as appropriate.
And yes, there are forgotten or unrecognized classics out there.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment!
LikeLiked by 2 people
The library here shelves all fiction together, with tags on the spine to indicate genre. Where I lived before they shelved genres into their own dedicated sections, a system I think I prefer, being too lazy to browse all the rows…. I seem to recall that classic lit had its own Dewey system number, so that it was shelved with the non-fiction, is that the case?
Any way, back on topic, literary fiction and classics are two different things, though literary fiction has a greater chance of becoming classics if they become the darlings of the critics, academics and literary elites – who serve the useful function of preserving deserving works, generation to generation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In public libraries, books about fiction and authors are assigned Dewey numbers; the books themselves (if fiction) are shelved with other fiction.
Ordinary readers contribute to keeping books in print as well, by buying them.
LikeLike
“Character-driven. Realistic examination of the human condition. Uses language in an artistic way.”
I’m a science fiction and fantasy writer, but the above quotation exactly characterizes what I do. That’s why I always describe my books as literary SF. I don’t know that my use of language is so artistic, but linguistics plays a big part in my material, because I write conlangs for my extraterrestrials to speak. Personally, I get bored with stories with uninteresting, underdeveloped, cliched characters, no matter how the plot gallops along. And my forays into future history can’t help but examine the human condition, and that even applies to my termite characters and development.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Your books are perfect examples of genre fiction with literary qualities, Lorinda.
The more I think about Literary vs. Genre, the more I think it originated as a divide between Books for Intellectuals vs. Books for the Unwashed Masses (often mass market paperbacks back in the day). That’s no longer a helpful distinction, especially when many people acquire books electronically.
Good writing should be what we all aim for, never mind any genre label.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with you that it ultimately shouldn’t matter. Write what you want. But, unfortunately, the world needs to classify things. The world needs shorthand ways to describe things and literary fiction has grown into a category. But it remains somewhat vague. (I loved your first definition — books we have to read in English Literature classes.)
When asked what I write, I typically say something like … “Well, literary fiction mostly, but all sorts of things.” As I’ve said many times, the idea of writing in just one genre bores me to death. So … I really just write fiction and if others want to categorize it as something, go for it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I think this label has outlived its usefulness. It might be better to say your books are about being human. Beyond that, it’s a matter of time and place, and whether there are any monsters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I always think of it as a broad catch-all term that covers anything that’s not considered genre fiction. I tend not to read genre – detective, horror, romance or whatever, so I suppose my tastes are more literary. But I don’t think that necessarily means highbrow. And what’s considered highbrow varies with the times anyway. Dickens and Hardy serialised their novels for what I guess was a general reading public, but nowadays, we’re more likely to encounter them on lit courses. I suppose also what I write is “literary”, meaning it doesn’t fit in anywhere else, and I feel it’s the kind of material I’d like to read, but struggle to find – so I write it.
I agree, it doesn’t matter now what we call it, if we’re self-publishing. It used to be a terrible taboo, writing across genres, and a rejection slip already in the post. I guess readers will still look for the genres because that’s what they’re used to, but I think we indies can – and indeed should – blur the boundaries without getting uptight about it, and it’s all to the good.
LikeLiked by 3 people
When I went to college and grad school in the ’80s, the writing programs I was in made a clear distinction between literary fiction and genre fiction. I was recently told by a writing colleague of a certain vintage that what he and I write is “old school lit fic.” That came as a shock! I think it’s a good thing to know where my fiction fits in the current fiction landscape, but it won’t change whose story I choose to tell and how I choose to tell it. I have been trying to broaden my reading horizons by reading more genre books.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I remember thinking in my college days that literary fiction (Canadian specifically) was inherently grim and boring. Maybe too much “human condition” there.
Broad reading is a good idea for all writers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And I thought literary fiction was the pathway to transcendence. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it’s funny that some books originally intended for the broad reading public (Dickens, for example) are now labelled “literary” because they’re “classics.”
I agree that your books are literary, which is not to apply any negative implications! 🙂 They definitely deal with the human condition and are written with artful language, but approachable and interesting.
Artistic boundaries need to be blurred at times.
LikeLike
And interesting essay and subject. Literary fiction is something that I probably can’t define, but I know it when I read it. And as a matter of fact, I have read a work of literary fiction in the last week or two; Joseph Conrad’s The Heart of Darkness, along with a work of popular fiction, Further Adventures of Captain Kettle by a forgotten author, C J Cutcliffe Hyne, both of which tell the essentially the same story of Europeans in the Belgium Congo and the setting up of a kingdom among the native tribes in the interior with the intention of acquiring ivory by stealing it. The Hyne story actually proceeded the Conrad story and Conrad may have borrowed from it. All I can say is that you can tell the difference.
I think that the intent of the auth0r has a lot to do as to whether it is literary fiction or not. For example, Conrad would not publish his stories in Pearson’s Literary Magazine where the Hyne’s stories ( and H. G. Well’s War of the World) were published, as he considered it too low-brow. And I know that authors get mad when their literary novels are adopted by the science fiction community as one of theirs, just because it contains some elements common in the science fiction genre.
As author/publishers we can pick our genre for any book. Use it as a marketing tool to reliably reach old customers or find new ones.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Highbrow and lowbrow just about sums up the distinction between literary and genre fiction. And they are ultimately marketing labels, so I can see using them that way.
LikeLike
Excellent post, Audrey, covering a lot of bases as you discuss the literary fiction/genre fiction “divide”! I like to read a mix of both, and don’t care how a novel is categorized. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Dave! I think those labels originated in the marketing department. Readers shouldn’t allow them to limit their book choices. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great post Audrey. A.nd discussion. I’m going to sit this one out because I’m too brain dead at the moment but I think you did hit on some real truth here. And I love the list at the beginning
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, JM! I know that brain dead feeling. Glad you liked the post.
LikeLike
Hi Audrey, based on your definition I read a lot of literary fiction most of which are also classic books. I don’t read these books because I think I am more intellectual than other people. I read them because I really like them. I’ve always read character driven books, even as a very young girl I read books like I am David and The Diary of a Young Girl. I must admit I get upset when people call me a literary snob just because I prefer classic literature.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think its bad form to make assumptions about people based on their reading choices. And many books not labelled “literary fiction” have elements in that definition.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Audrey. I really enjoyed this post ❤️
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re welcome, Robbie. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Audrey
for me the style is important. I think that the form is the message. I am not that interested in the plot, at least not as a reader. Like Joseph Campbell I think that most plots are quite similar.
As a writer I have problems not to mix genres, as a professor for linguistics for many years I taught that genres are a function of style, and as an editor I noticed that most writers have quite a problem with the form of their texts. Nearly 80% of an editor’s work on texts of new writers is deleting all the cliches.
All the best
Klausbernd
The Fab Four of Cley
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree that the style of writing determines what might be called the genre, plot notwithstanding. As you say, there are only so many plots.
Writing style is instantly perceived by readers as either congenial or not, determining whether they keep reading.
It’s interesting that writers must pass through a cliche-ridden phase.
Thanks for your bringing your experience and thoughts to this discussion!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, that triggered a bevy of activity.
Pretty sure in a year, AI will be up to the task of fabricating (wouldn’t call it writing, actually) any type of literary product you can possibly dream up.
And once faux authors start peddling such products, society will have no idea the source.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very likely. I’ve seen suggestions that human-created writing should be labelled as such, sort of like organic, non-GMO produce, but books aren’t food (except for the mind).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your initial list cracked me up. Lol. I like literary fiction but I’ll qualify that (correctly or not). It must have compelling characters, an engaging pace, a profound message (to me), and beautiful language. Otherwise, meh. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haha! Glad you liked the list; it was only semi-serious. Beautiful language is sort of like icing on a cake; it’s a nice extra, but you really need the cake. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes. Lol. The cake needs to be there too. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person