Jennifer Pelland ([info]jenwrites) wrote,

"Literary"

I emailed a literary review journal based at my alma mater to see if they'd make an exception to the "we don't review genre fiction" rule for an alum, and was told that no, they only reviewed "literary" fiction.

Well what is any piece of fiction if not "literary"? Is genre fiction "illiterary"? Do we not use words to convey fictive meaning? I have to say, I'm not a fan of the term "literary" being applied solely to work that is quiet and personal and non-fantastic and, frankly, dull.
Tags: the business of writing

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 36 comments

[info]hhw

February 12 2008, 16:48:40 UTC 4 years ago

Have you emailed the alumni magazine? in my experience as alum & employee in higher ed, they're happy to share any and all book news. It's not usually a real review, but it is a bit of press. The library might also buy books published by alums.

[info]jenwrites

February 12 2008, 17:17:51 UTC 4 years ago

I haven't emailed them, but they do have a policy of asking for two copies of everything published by alumnae, so they'll be getting their two copies as soon as they're available. They may not actually review it, but they will archive it at the college library. I've also emailed my "Class Notes" person with the news of the collection and the Nebula ballot thingie. So at the very least, I'll be in the next issue of the magazine, all the way in the back.

[info]ffoeg

February 12 2008, 16:55:03 UTC 4 years ago

You already know the answer to this, I'm sure. "Literary" is a genre. The word isn't particularly meaningful in itself, it's just a tag for a particular school of slice-of-life, what Eric Van would call "mimetic" fiction. Why that particular genre is elevated above all others as culturally important, I can't really say.

[info]apintrix

February 12 2008, 17:18:02 UTC 4 years ago

Yes and no...

If you are curious, try reading one of Pierre Bourdieu's sociologies of literature-- "The Field of Cultural Production", or "The Rules of Art". I find it fascinating, if a little... French. ;-)

Bourdieu's theory, in a nutshell, is that part of what has defined the discourse of "literature" or the literary since C19, as well as "high art" more generally, is a resistance to commercial or market pressures-- the genius aesthetic, basically. The more your art is separated from the market, the more "pure" and "literary" it is. There's something to that idea, I think, beyond it being "just another genre"; particularly because one of the central oppositions in the "literary field" is precisely between literary and genre fictions, which Bourdieu might say are "genre" because they cater to particular markets, and are explicitly heteronomous between the field of actual capital and cultural capital.

Postmodernism has challenged the "purity" of high art in interesting ways, of course, but I think Bourdieu is essentially correct about modernism, and we're still operating within modernism, generally. I can't do his theories justice; if you're interested, you should check it out; for an application of his ideas to genre fiction, Ken Gelder's "Popular Fiction: The Logics and Practices of a Literary Field" is good and pretty even-handed. It's particularly interesting the way that "genre" fiction appropriates the language of the market and of industry-- authors "working hard", being "productive", all this stuff-- while in literary fiction you're more liable to see language like "inspiration" or "transcendence". Fascinating. (/Spock)

[info]jenwrites

4 years ago

[info]jenwrites

4 years ago

[info]krylyr

February 12 2008, 16:55:17 UTC 4 years ago

It is the highest form of snobbery. I prefer the term mainstream, because although that's inaccurate as well, it does kind of take down the snobbish-ness a few notches.

[info]jenwrites

February 12 2008, 17:18:57 UTC 4 years ago

Yeah, no shit. Ah well. Their loss if they're not interested in literature of the fantastic, and I don't mean simply because they're not reviewing my work.

[info]dsrtao

February 12 2008, 17:02:57 UTC 4 years ago

'literary' fiction is just emo turned down to 2, maybe 3. It should be depressing. Nothing significant should happen to any of the characters. It can be a tragedy, if no more action than a single person dying non-violently happens on-camera. At all costs the author must avoid telling a compelling story.

Like a haiku, literary fiction should use nature as a metaphor (or substitute) for character change. For this reason literary fiction is often set in autumn, as the blowing leaves can be highly symbolic. Especially daring litfic uses the aftermath of a storm, actual thunderstorms being considered too daring.

Most literary fiction is about a graduate student in an MFA program ending an affair. Advanced litfic has a professor of literature ending an affair. Sex may be depicted as long as it is boring and unsatisfying. Characters may imagine having sex which is better than what they get, but not much.

Literary fiction is granted deep respect because it is meaningless and unpopular, and therefore better than anything with meaning or popularity.

[info]jenwrites

February 12 2008, 17:21:51 UTC 4 years ago

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head.

[info]miraba

4 years ago

[info]cakmpls

February 12 2008, 17:07:58 UTC 4 years ago

I agree with you entirely. Pretentious twits.

[info]jenwrites

February 12 2008, 17:21:06 UTC 4 years ago

The irony is, they're missing out on so much by segregating themselves this way. I'm not talking about my own work, I'm talking about folks like Kelly Link and Octavia Butler who write work that meets the highest literary standards, and yet is in the genre ghetto.

[info]cakmpls

4 years ago

[info]fatbaldguy60

February 12 2008, 17:17:00 UTC 4 years ago

Frankly, if a work was described as "literary", that would be all the reason I needed to turn it down.

[info]jenwrites

February 12 2008, 17:19:42 UTC 4 years ago

There are precious few "literary" novels that I'd be interested in reading. Every so often, one of my aunts will buy me one for Christmas, and I'm usually yawning by chapter two.

[info]apintrix

February 12 2008, 17:21:51 UTC 4 years ago

These folks sound like a) twats, and b) quite frankly behind the times.

[info]jenwrites

February 12 2008, 17:23:28 UTC 4 years ago

It's amazing the fiction that they're denying themselves by not opening themselves up to the fantastic. And I don't mean mine--I mean the incredible stuff being written by people far more accomplished than me in our field nowadays.

[info]avocadovpx

February 12 2008, 17:36:08 UTC 4 years ago

You might enjoy Evan Goer's post"Literary vs. Genre, Explained Using Pie."

And not all work published as "literary fiction" in "literary journals" is non-fantastic. I've tried to promote the work of Kevin Brockmeier (Iowa Workshop grad, published in the New Yorker) to my genre-reading friends, because he writes about things like a thrift-shop overcoat that can hear prayers, or a city where dead people go until every living person who remembered them has died. I've also tried to promote the work of people like Kelly Link to my lit-fic-reading friends, because I think the barriers to entry are pretty low for them. Both of them contain fantasy (or magical realist) elements, but people seem resistant for reasons other than the text itself.

[info]jenwrites

February 12 2008, 17:55:00 UTC 4 years ago

It's a weird dividing line, that's for sure. *shrugging* Ah well. I can find an audience elsewhere that's more receptive to what I do.

[info]bogwitch64

February 12 2008, 17:37:30 UTC 4 years ago

Basic formula for lit-fic:
1. Something bad happens to protag early in life.
2. Protag spends several hundred pages whining about it.
3. Protag either overcomes, slides totally into despair or learns that living with the past is part of life.
4. End.

Ugh. Will this love-affair with lit-fic one day be studied as a phenomenon of psuedo-intellectuals elevating the mundane beyond all possible levels? Seriously.

There is some good literary fiction out there. Amsterdam, by Ian McEwan comes to mind. Anything Jonathan Safran Foer writes--though his stuff is as surreal as Dali. Who decided these things anyway??

[info]jenwrites

February 12 2008, 17:55:38 UTC 4 years ago

Who decided these things anyway??

People who aren't smart enough to appreciate science fiction.

[info]eljaydaly

February 12 2008, 17:41:10 UTC 4 years ago

You wouldn't believe the bandwidth I've heard spent on this issue in some circles.

"My work is character driven. Yours is plot driven."
"Literary writers who 'borrow' genre tropes are said to transcend genre -- even when they don't do it nearly as well as people who have been doing it professionally for years."

Personally, I just chalk it all up to either good fiction or bad fiction, and people who don't understand that genre fiction doesn't necessarily equate to bad fiction just need educating. And the best way to educate them is to write really fine stuff.

[info]jenwrites

February 12 2008, 17:56:35 UTC 4 years ago

I don't think I've ever managed to write a plot-driven piece in my life. Does that mean I'm not writing science fiction either? *flailing* I'm writing nothing! It's vaporfic!

[info]eljaydaly

4 years ago

[info]jenwrites

4 years ago

[info]eljaydaly

4 years ago

[info]jenwrites

4 years ago

[info]malkingrey

February 12 2008, 20:38:52 UTC 4 years ago

You've probably heard my various rants on the art/entertainment dichotomy (which is pretty much the literary/genre dichotomy writ large) more than once by now.

From the viewpoint of a renegade medievalist, the modernist genius aesthetic is a bunch of pretentious tosh, anyway.

Maybe you should just have told your alma mater that your stories were "transgressive fictions dealing with issues of body image and gender identity in a fragmented world" and left it at that.

[info]jenwrites

February 12 2008, 21:03:26 UTC 4 years ago

Thankfully, this isn't the actual alumnae magazine, which will hopefully run a mention of it, genre cooties or no. But yes, I'll keep this in mind going forward. If nothing else, my cover doesn't scream "genre" in the least, so I might be able to sneak it past the genre police. And the first story could lull them into a sense of complacency. But the second story is "Big Sister/Little Sister," which will kill all that.

[info]lefthand_path

February 12 2008, 22:03:47 UTC 4 years ago

i hate that. there are plenty of "literary" writers who have dabbled in or have written things that can be considered "genre."


[info]jenwrites

February 13 2008, 01:23:55 UTC 4 years ago

Oh, but they have the decency to use a pseudonym when they do so.

[info]leatherzebra

February 13 2008, 03:32:56 UTC 4 years ago

My husband isn't even up on the publishing world and he get agitated any time I say "literary". "It's all literary! It's book! It has to be literary because words are literary!"

The other day I was told no one cares about genre fiction. They called them "obscure books that no one but people who dress up in plastic armor and go to Tolkein (sp) conventions care about". though personally people who can completely dismiss any genre lose a little credibility with me.

[info]jenwrites

February 13 2008, 04:26:25 UTC 4 years ago

*sigh*

Yet more proof that people need to look down on other people to feel good about themselves.

[info]bmlg

4 years ago

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…