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?

I think Anne W. hit the nail on the head, with both the bitchy/cynical rant and the more reasoned one. it's definitely not a clear bright line, though. As a quick rule of thumb, I'd say that literary fiction usually-but-not-always is more likely to concern plausible events taking place in the present or recent past than genre fiction. And yes, I can think of 500 exceptions.

Rebecca, how can you not read f/sf at all? How can you not find Giles sexy?

Speaking for me, not for RL, I don't read much fantasy/sf because it rarely interests me anymore (there are some exceptions, but in general it's a meh for me, because I like my fiction to take place in this world and feature realistic human characters. I can suspend one rule, like for Buffy, but very rarely both.) Not that my interests are pure -- I read trashy mysteries whenever I get on a plane.

Also, while I can see that Giles is attractive, he's past the age where I would have the "oooh, sexxxy" reaction -- I think of him more as a professor/mentor figure than a possible partner. But I'm the philistine who doesn't grok why anyone thinks Sean Connery is other than a)old and b)old and c)bald, so I'm probably not a representative data point.

See-- the professor figure is WHY I think Giles is hot. Although, now that I am getting older, I feel less so.

I like my fiction to take place in a plausible world and feature plausible human characters. I can suspend one rule, like for Buffy, but very rarely both.

There is lots of fantasy out there which only requires suspension of the 'real world' rule. Many fantasy (and quite a lot of sci-fi) authors write characters that are as believeable as any other.

I should add that for me (mainly because I basically find this 'real' world to be boring) that's an advantage rather than a disadvantage in fantasy. I don't like unreal characters, though- there's a reason I gave up on Issac Asimov.

IJS. t /book talk

There is lots of fantasy out there which only requires suspension of the 'real world' rule. Many fantasy (and quite a lot of sci-fi) authors write characters that are as believeable as any other.

Oh, I know that. It still doesn't usually jazz me (like, I sat thru both LotR movies bored out of my skull, and I've never gotten thru more than four pages of Ursula LeGuin).

But I only read sf or fantasy if someone specifically recommends it to me and it doesn't sound too unreal, so I don't think my opinion is especially intelligent or informed.