Literary Fiction and Nonfiction

April 21, 2009

 

Mary Rosenblum:  Good morning all!  Welcome to our Tuesday Lunchbox Forum. I wanted to talk about literary writing today, because this confuses the heck out of novice writers. For good reason.  So let's start with that ephemeral term 'literary' as applied to fiction and nonfiction both.  You have literary fiction and will sometimes see references to literary narrative, usually meaning nonfiction.  The reason it gives new writers fits is that there really IS no distinct definition for it. It's almost one of those 'you know it when you see it' definitions. And to be honest, some of my work has been published in literary mags and I wasn't particularly trying to write literary fiction. One editor's 'literary' is another editor's 'mainstream'. Just to complicate things further!
Essentially, 'literary' fiction can overlap with 'mainstream' and it can also have elements of mystery, fantasy, even science fiction in it. Look  at Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood. That was essentially speculative fiction but was marketed as literary fiction, mainly because Margaret Atwood is a literary author. So is there any real 'rule' about what constitutes 'literary' as opposed to 'mainstream' or 'genre' fiction?
Genre is generally taken to mean mystery, romance, SF, fantasy -- anything with a distinct type of content.  Everything else is ‘mainstream’ if it is not labeled as ‘literary’.  The main difference between 'literary' and certainly the genres, is that genre fiction contains pretty much the same essentials – linear plot, conflict, and resolution.  Literary fiction rarely contains a clear conflict/resolution and often the plot structure is very hazy.
Mary, does that mean literary fiction isn't considered a genre, even though, like other genres, it can constitute other genres?
Mary Rosenblum:  I personally call it a genre, Jerry.  Here you enter the twilight zone of semantics and politics.  Genre really means 'type'.  Think breeds of dog, for example.  In writing we have genres rather than breeds.  BUT....some people use 'genre' as a disparaging term to mean anything written for entertainment purposes.
Well, I rather thought that most writing has at least an element of entertainment, unless you're writing textbooks. So,  for the purposes of this Forum, let's use 'genre' to mean type. In literary fiction, the use of words and the role of language is much more dominant than it is in the other genres.  Plot, conflict, and resolution rarely play a major role in the story, and instead, the quality of language, the use of literary devices, and characterization carry the weight of the piece.  So you see a lot of 'slice of life' stories where things happen, but there's no real dramatic arc, no conflict that is resolved within the confines of the story.
Mary, would you, then, perhaps agree that a good, pithy definition of "literary fiction" would be "like poetry in prose"?
Mary Rosenblum:  I think that's a reasonable, if not entirely accurate, way to put it, Jerry.  Just as words are highly important in poetry rather than information,  so are they important in literary fiction and narrative.  It's not just what you say, it's how you say it -- but to a larger degree than is true in other genres.
To return with your dog analogy, would literary fiction be a mutt, recognized for certain qualities (personality, etc.) rather than appearance?
Mary Rosenblum:  Not at all, Tim. In all the genres, you have strong examples and weak examples. Some pieces of literary fiction do what they do well, others do not. Just as in the other genres.
Does dialogue have a place in the characterization?
Mary Rosenblum:  Sure, jrp. Literary fiction is fiction and it's written the same way any fiction is written. The structure and 'values' are simply different.
I heard someone say that if the story left you scratching your head it was probably literary. But my instructor said it has more to do with the main character's inner world.
Mary Rosenblum:  It has more to do with what the core strength of the story is, lady, although that can often leave you scratching your head  since there is no rule in lit-fic that says you have to make the story clear to the readers. Personally, I think that's a weakness in the genre, and that it suffers from a degree of 'Emperor's New Clothes’ syndrome. I've read some VERY good literary fiction and a lot that gets great critical praise where I'm going 'say what?'.  A very common division is point of view and narrative distance and this can bite writers in the butt if they come from a creative writing program at a university and then jump into one of the other genres. You  generally -- not always but more often than not -- have significant narrative distance in literary fiction. That is, the readers are not supposed to be sucked into the story and live the adventure. They stand back, at a distance, and observe. They don't generally identify closely with the characters in the story, although they can identify to some degree.
I don't think I am getting this, Mary. The plot may be hazy and the structure is different. Will you site a couple of examples of LF please.
Many of the classics of literature are literary.
Mary Rosenblum:  And many were popular fiction in their day, Jerry. We just relabeled them.  Dickens is a marvelous example of that!
He was totally a popular writer.  And, note, that he does use plot and more traditional structure, although he's using a lot of literary distance.

Maria McCann is an excellent example. She's a New Zealand author who writes literary fiction. Her 'As Meat Loves Salt' is the most recent, I think, and not only got a lot of high praise, but is a VERY good book, if quite disturbing in several ways.  James Joyce is sort of the extreme end of literary fiction.  John Kennedy Toole's 'Confederacy of Dunces' is considered to be literary.

 But what makes one writer, such as Barbara Kingsolver, a 'mainstream' writer and another a 'literary' writer?  Mostly it's how the critics label that author. So much of a book's 'genre' is applied by either the critics or the market.
Mary, is literature and literary fiction supposed to be true or not?
Mary Rosenblum:  Fiction is never considered to be true, lottie.  The definition of fiction is a made up story.  While it can be derived from real life (...based on, on the book cover), it is not real. And you do have literary narrative. Andre Condrescue writes literary narrative -- nonfiction.
Rather than "true," how about "plausible," as opposed to the fantastic?

Mary Rosenblum:  You have literary fiction that isn’t any more or less plausible than fiction currently published in the fantasy/sf genres – Atwood’s recent novels are great examples of that. 
Mary, for those of us writing non fiction, how can we fit into literary magazines?
Mary Rosenblum:  You really need to read those magazines you want to fit into. It’s a matter of 'voice' of understanding what that editor is looking for.  Each literary editor has his or her own sense of what makes a good story or narrative. Calyx, a highly regarded small press magazine on the west coast is a literary magazine. Before you submit anything to them it's a good idea to read a couple of issues.
So literary non fiction can only be narrative?
Mary Rosenblum:  Milly, nonfiction is usually narrative. Narrative simply means that the author is telling the story, or in the case of nonfiction, is telling us about events. Since you have no fictional characters to do the telling, the story or narrative is told by the author.
[] 10:32 am: Mary, what about the literary essay?

Mary Rosenblum:  Same thing as literary narrative Jerry. It's just a slightly different term for the same thing. Although you're probably going to want to use essay form.
Right, but let's say I am interested to write about a historical fact or incident, I need to put it into a narrative rather than an article if I wish to submit it to lit. mag.?
Mary Rosenblum:  Depends on what that particular literary magazine publishes, Milly.  Every market out there is unique. There's no one size fits all.  Their submission guidelines should at least give you a clue about what they want, and often magazines have a website with sample pieces posted on it. Remember, stuff that I write has published in literary anthologies. And I don't write any differently for those anthologies than I do when I write for SF or mystery magazines.
Well, not quite true. I don't generally use a strongly linear plot, but I do employ conflict and at least an implied resolution. By linear plot, I mean a plot where your main character faces an external problem that he/she must resolve by the end of the story. Generally, you'll see more internal conflicts and resolution in literary stories and often that conflict and resolution is so subtle that it can be hard to pick out.  One of the few literary writers who uses linear plots is Maria McCann, at least she did so in As Meat Loves Salt.
A lot of the contests are literary, is it worth trying to submit if we can't read the previous winning pieces? they usually come with a fee.
Mary Rosenblum:  Why not? I would focus on using an internal conflict rather than a problem to resolve.  If the story would suit a romance or mystery or fantasy contest or anthology it probably will not work for a literary market.
The words are more important. Where spare language suits most of the other genres, rich imagery, metaphor, and the like, play a much larger role in literary fiction. You're not limiting yourself to a character's perspective on the world the way you might in a limited third or first person POV for say, a mystery or romance novel. But pretty words alone are not enough.  You do need some substance to the story, to make most editors happy. That might be a character conflict that implies resolution or perhaps more trouble beyond the scope of the story.  It might be a revelation about that character's past that change reader perspective.
My future daughter in law, who's getting her PhD in English Lit, suggested that 'The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Society' by Mary Ann Shaffer is literary fiction for non-literary readers.
The biggest difference is really, as I've said, plot structure.
Mary, what of the theme? Literary fiction, from what I've read, usually has their characters, settings, and words emphasize a specific theme. That is why, I thought, the classics are studied in schools, besides exercising comprehension skills.
Mary Rosenblum:  Much fiction has a theme, too, Jerry. Most fiction that goes beyond a superficial plot does.  That simply depends on the depth of the story.
Well, I also meant that the theme points to a message.
Mary Rosenblum:  And most fiction with depth has a message, whether it's mystery, fantasy, or SF.  Not all. You have action adventure stuff that doesn't have any real depth beyond the immediate conflict/resolution of the external plot. Remember that this is a very large sea with a lot of variation in it.  Even in SF you have writers that routinely walked a literary edge: Ray Bradbury with his Martian Chronicles and Samuel Delany  are two good examples. And of course Ursula LeGuin.
Frank Herbert?
Mary Rosenblum:  No, he's very much straight SF, Jerry. He has a lot of depth in his books, but he's not really considered to be literary. So, as with all of the genres, there's a lot of overlap in what is considered 'literary' and what is, say, considered to be mainstream. It’s  a matter of write the piece the way you want to write it. If it suits a literary market good, and if it doesn't send it somewhere else.  In general, a strongly linear external plot is going to keep you out of the literary markets. But now always. McCann is a good example of the exception that proves the rule, I guess.  Words matter in literary writing -- your word choices, your use of metaphor and other literary devices. 'Form' carries a lot more weight than it does in the non-literary genres.
Mary what about the author Danielle Steele, what would you say she writes?
Mary Rosenblum:  She's very much an excellent example of a 'popular fiction' writer, Lottie.  She was writing romance for awhile, I don't know what she's doing now.
Well, this brings our Forum to a close.  I'll see you on Sunday for our casual chat! Happy spring!