Ah -- I got "Bitchy" from Shrift. I knew it came from somewhere.

Is it time to google JennyO's original rant? Quite possibly. But I quite consciously wear the BOFQ title.

I think so.

Life is better with alcohol. Thank you, Shrift. I *heart* you.

There are people who can write Draco/Riley and make it believable, and there are people who write Buffy/Spike in a way that makes me want to loofah my brain.

shrift, I wish to tag this, please.

I'd be interested to see say Vamp!Willow and Dru together.

Minor self-pimping: I thought so too.

I have written (mostly badly) both canon and non-canon, slash and het pairings. I like good writing in all pairings, but I don't even look for it in pairings that don't intrest me. I nearly completely ignore the existance of fic with no pairing, because... because... just because.

Rebecca, how can you not read f/sf at all? How can you not find Giles sexy? ::comes over all faint at the thought. Um... Giles. Nummy.::

I'm with ita (and others)- I'd like some clarification. I think I probably do read literary fiction as well as fantasy, but I'd like some titles because I suspect that British bookshops classify differently to American ones.

I don't get the category of literary fiction. It seems kinda redundant, since all fiction is literature, isn't it?

I look at the literary fiction category in two ways, only one of which is completely bitchy and cynical.

Cynical version:

"Literary" fiction is often used by booksellers and publishers as a marketing category. (BIG HONKING DISCLAIMER: This has nothing to do with the fiction itself, merely the way it is sold.) I started to suspect this when I was browsing the horror section and saw a little sign that said that the Anne Rice books were now shelved with "Literature." I think that best-selling authors (e.g. Auel) have the clout with their publishers to get a change of sales category to something that has--in their eyes--more prestige, while other writers (e.g. Stephenson, Gene Wolfe) don't. Cover design shifts from glossy to matte, and any design elements that are considered 'typical' of other marketing categories (dragons, spaceships, Fabio) are squelched mercilessly.

There's a feeling, IMO, that the Literary label has more social cachet than the Romance, Fantasy, or even Mystery labels. There is a certain sort of person who wouldn't be caught dead reading something from a "lesser" genre, even if reading the latest Star Trek novel would actually be a more pleasurable and genuinely rewarding reading experience.

Non-Cynical Version:

I tend to think of "Literary" fiction in its purest sense as fiction where the style and structure of the writing itself is the primary appeal of the piece. Just as the "Mystery" category contains multitudes--intelligent cats, small-town mysteries in which no one truly important dies, gritty tales in whicy no one gets a happy ending, humor, angst, romance--so does the "Literary." In certain cases, the sheer beauty and poetry of the writing is what appeals. In others, an elaborate, interwoven plot structure is what carries the day.

I tend to think of "Literary" fiction in its purest sense as fiction where the style and structure of the writing itself is the primary appeal of the piece.

Yes! Yesssssss!

I entirely agree that the whole pigeonholing thing is an external imposition upon prose, rather than an inherent quality, and that it's all about targeting perceived consumer groups and getting the money out of their hot little hands by ensuring that they don't feel embarassed about visiting such-and-such a shelf, or buying something with such-and-such a piece of cover art (see also the "Adult" cover designs in which the His Dark Materials trilogy and the Harry Potter books are available). IMHO Literature=writing.

Literary fiction is meaningful only in terms of publishing and market forces. It's about an Emperor's New Clothes kind of cachet and it's not connected with art. It's just connected with consumerism. In the UK, books are sold in two sizes. (Well, no, a shitload of sizes, but in terms of fiction there are two main formats.) 'Literary' fiction is generally produced in a slightly taller and wider format than 'Genre' fiction - and this didn't even consciously strike me until a couple of years ago. It's a branding thing. Being seen reading a book with a particular appearance is taken as a statement about who you are. t /StatesTheObvious!Gal

(In fact, Wendy Cope even wrote a poem which featured a fat adolescent sitting opposite her on a bus and reading "Dragons of Autumn Twilight Volume Two", in which the title is supposed to be sufficient short hand to tell us all we need to know about the boy. And, yes, I have read that book. And Volumes one and Three. And the other related trilogies. Ahem.)

BUT, if pressed, I tend to define "Literary" fiction as fiction in which the focus is style, and "Genre" fiction as fiction in which the focus is plot. What is being said versus how it's being said. And if a book can only be defined in terms of Literary or Genre fiction, then it maybe isn't all that good a book. Because style and substance are both important.

This isn't neccessarily reflected in the way that books are sold, but insomuch as one can loosely define SF as fiction in which some presently-non-standard scientific discovery is integral, or historical fiction as fiction set in the not-too-recent past (etc etc), so too one could come up with a loose general definition of Literary Fiction along the lines cited above.

And yes, yes, obviously the two are linked. The style is integral to the writing - it's part of it and it shapes it, rather than being an optional trimming. It can be the point, and make the point. (I had a long long rant debate once about this over at Books Unlimited when someone started a thread with the premise that writing in dialect was a waste of time.) But as a loose definition, I think it's fair enough.

I don't think that that which is marketed as Literary fiction is neccesarily good fiction. It can be pretentious codswallop.

FWIW, I'd also say that much of the traditional literary canon isn't 'Literary Fiction' in the sense that it's used of modern Lit Fic. Dickens and George Eliot, for example, write very good soaps, imho, and are the direct equivalents of today's Eastenders and Coronation Street. imho.

Also? Rebecca Lizard has Marrying FayJay listed as an interest on her LJ?

I'm still gobsmacked at this. It's like knowing one has RPS written about one. It's a little mind boggling. In a good way.

shrift, I wish to tag this, please.

Sure.

So you guys think charging in there screaming "WILL YOU PEOPLE PLEASE SHUT UP AND JUST GET BACK TO RECCING THE DAMN FIC?" wouldn't be real productive?

Yeah, me either.

t rolls eyes

Thanks.

I'd also say that much of the traditional literary canon isn't 'Literary Fiction' in the sense that it's used of modern Lit Fic. Dickens and George Eliot, for example, write very good soaps, imho, and are the direct equivalents of today's Eastenders and Coronation Street. imho.

imho also.

In certain cases, the sheer beauty and poetry of the writing is what appeals. In others, an elaborate, interwoven plot structure is what carries the day. [&c]

All right then. & I'm going to say this is the reason that for me style is *more* substance than substance, as it were, because litfic & the litfic aesthetic were my training wheels as I grew up. That's inextricably bound up in my personal definition of "good", I realize. & that's what I had been thinking about when I talked, earlier, about the hypothetical, brilliant fantasy novels I'm just not aware of. It's still just as eminently possible that they are *out* there, brilliant and unread, but what I meant is that they would be brilliantly written in terms of technique and style. Complicated plots don't do it for me. I mean, the *style* of the plot, the way its structure resonates on a metatextual level-- *that's* good. But just that something happens-- that's not enough.

... Fay, you might want to show me, sometime, how to do that thing. You know, the t /offensive one.

Also? Rebecca Lizard has Marrying FayJay listed as an interest on her LJ?

This was at all a surprise?