I learned, taking a course in "modern" literature in college (a LOT of years ago) that I couldn't tell one shade of beige from another. Only I guess they now call it ecru, don't they? I finally decided they were all poseurs, anyway, and began reading what I liked, not what they liked.
I did that too, but crept back later to see if I could learn from the acknowledged Great Writers of Now.
Mostly it hasn't worked.
So I read the wikipedia page on literary fiction, and I still don't get it. My favorite stories often fall into the fantasy/sci-fi genre, but they have extreme focus on the characters. Deeds is that way. The plot is secondary in my opinion. Half the doomsday books my wife likes are probably the same way.
Despite categorizations, I have often found that I love many unpopular books. It's not a lack of love for the popular ones, but there is something really cool in reading a book where only 1% of the people will understand the protagonist.
I know...they say it's character-centered, but it doesn't feel like it to me. It feels attenuated-character-centered. Nevil Shute's one of my favorites and his work is intensely character-centered but the characters are...interesting people. People who would be interesting if you overheard them chatting in an airport.
I think the problem centers around the authors, though. Perhaps they feel that real people can't have exciting lives. They are limiting their scope in a strange belief that imagination does not belong in their work. However, real people have imaginations and adventurous people turn those imaginations into reality.
Fantasy genre in particular has always been exceptional at making me reflect on my thoughts and beliefs. There is a reason I read Deed 5+ times in a single year. I believe it's because fantasy has more freedom to consider deeper issues without offending people. The closer you are to the real world, the more you will have characters trampling on what people cherish.
I don't cherish events for the event itself. It was the feelings that I remember; conquering fear while bungee jumping, watching fondly as my best friend joked around while looking out over the breath-taking lights of New York City from the 108th floor of the WTC on New Years, 2000. Stories about every day life seem to just fall flat.
A writer's brain (at least mine) absorbs events both as personal experience (which of course includes the emotional component of the memory--the feelings) and as Material. In the latter role WriterBrain is relentless in noting, consciously, things that the writer IN the experience might prefer to just feel. It's like a photographer's brain automatically noting f-stops and apertures and which filter he/she would use if this were an occasion when he/she was shooting (and for some reason isn't.) I sang in one concert during which WriterBrain kept popping up to note how much my feet hurt and exactly how, something I was trying to ignore. (But which, of course, showed up later in a story, just this past year. WriterBrain stored the physical sensation *and* the words it prodded me to think of using to describe it at the time. All while I was standing there listening to a soloist before the choir's next entrance, and also storing up the expression on the conductor's face, a slight different buzz on one string of one period string instrument, and so on.)
Your characters are like that, too - I've told you before that I sat up far too late reading one of your Herris Serano novels because I really cared what was going to happen to Lady Cecelia, even though I knew perfectly well, having read a later novel, what did happen! But you made me care about her.
Some of these beige novels (what a good description, by the way), you find yourself thinking, "Why am I reading this drivel about people I really couldn't care less about?" Even worse, in some of them all the characters are deeply unpleasant people, and why would I want to waste my time reading about them?
I'm sure there are people in the world who feel beige, but beige has never soothed me. Beige makes me go out, buy a can of paint, cover up the beige, add bright colored accessories, find a cheap rug to throw on the beige carpet if I can't pull it up...it makes me twitchy and sad at the same time, beige does.
Every year I read at least one volume of literary fiction...
You can stop. It's all right. It won't affect your grade.
Edited at 2015-01-08 05:41 pm (UTC)
Thanks for the laugh. I'm glad my grade won't slip if I skip a year (or more. Come to think of it, in a month and some days I'll be 70, after which I may become even more resistant to the "shoulds".
Every once in awhile I've found a literary book I actually kinda liked. There were some Nadine Gordimer stories I quite enjoyed, though now I remember the enjoyment, not the stories.
I was certainly lucky in having reading/writing parents who gave me a subscription to F&SF for my 10th birthday in 1959, some great teachers and great professors, and a chance to do some teaching of literature very early on. No one whose opinion was important to me has ever said that I was reading too much "bad stuff" or not enough "good stuff," either while I inhaled mass quantities of SF&F in my teens and twenties, or since then on a more broad-based diet.
Whatever the reason, I intended my comment part-seriously, because I thought I detected in your post
(1) a note of defensiveness -- Someone Out There Thinks I Should Read More Literary Fiction, And I say it's Spinach and I Say To Hell With It. As you note and I agree wholeheartedly, we're both more than old enough to drop that... and I would add, have been since last we encountered a syllabus.
(2) a self-fulfilling definition of literary fiction as "beige" and vice versa -- and here I disagree strongly. Alice Munro's and William Trevor's stories, for example, seem to fall under most or all of your strictures: mostly domestic life, friendships and marriages, few dramatic narrative turns -- but damn, they pack an emotional punch.
And I don't think you could find anyone who'd deny the label "literary fiction" -- or apply the deprecatory "beige" -- to (off the top of my head)
Nabokov's Ada (world-building / alternate history to put most SF&F to shame, a sizzling decades-long quasi-incestuous affair)...
Any of Pynchon (global conspiracies, V-2s and black helicopters, Chinese-Jesuit-Indian schemes beyond the colonial frontier, dynamite-crazed anarchists)...
George Saunders (let's start with "The Semplica-Girl Diaries" and its brain-wired human garden ornaments) or Jim Shepard ("Pleasure Boating in Lituya Bay," your basic beige tidal wave)..
Rachel Kushner (The Flamethrowers --Red Brigade terrorists and motorcycle speed records) or Jennifer Egan (The Keep -- low hijinks in a Transylvanian castle), or Donna Tartt (multiple murders, bomb in a museum, etc)...
Jonathan Lethem's not beige. Barbara Kingsolver's not beige. Michael Chabon's not beige. Marilynne Robinson's not beige. Elena Ferrante's not beige. A.M. Homes isn't beige. John le Carre (whose "spy thrillers" incorporate some of the most accomplished literary craft of the last half-century) isn't beige.
So... does "literary fiction" as you used it mean anything more than "fiction that I don't like, but suspect some invisible authority figure or academy somewhere might insist that I should"...?
I have had literary proponents (not you, obviously) explain to me that literary fiction is not *supposed* to have plots, because the whole concept of a plot, of a story, is not literary (I argue Aristotle, they inform me that I'm archaic and now we are all more refined.) Dramatic action of any kind is not literary. An emotionally satisfying resolution is not literary, because that is too easy.
You have a proposed a number of books, some of which I've read and some not, that clearly have a plot, a story, and quite often something dramatic happening. You consider them literary. I consider them good writing on top of the something happening. I don't consider good writing--good style--"literary" in terms of content. That's on the basis of what I've been told by people who claim the chops to make such pronouncements. When a noted literary writer includes elements that I consider important (back to Aristotle) then I read with pleasure. I mentioned liking some stories of Nadine Gordimer's. I love good wordsmithing.
Defensiveness, no. Not now. Wistfulness, maybe. I have read famed literary writers whose letters, and sometimes essays, were lively, interesting, and pulled me right in. And whose short and long fiction was dull, opaque, and beige. What happened to the personality, the liveliness? Why not put that in the books, too? Alice Munro does indeed fall into my beige category--excellent wordsmith, but they pack no emotional punch for me. (FWIW, I feel pretty much the same if forced to listen to a lot of Philip Glass's compositions: tweedle-tweedle-tweedle-tweedle...) I come out of them stale and tired, which seems to be the point of most of them. Trevor...well, I don't think I ever made it completely through, because the tone was so offputting.
So your final "gotcha" question is wide of the mark. Literary fiction as I used it fits the description I have been given repeatedly--it's fiction in which nothing much happens (or is supposed to happen) other than some subtle emotional changes in the protagonist, fiction in which emotional intensity is flattened, "so the reader has to really dig into it to understand it" as one of them said.
If you use as your definition any fiction that is excellent in its use of language as well as its other qualities...then we're into the four terms situation in logic and we need to agree on a definition or a marker for our different definitions.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I intended no "gotcha," and entirely agree about using "so the reader has to really dig into it to understand it" as a criterion of merit in itself.
That's the princess-and-the-pea stance: my superior breeding is proved by my exquisite sensitivity, while you, poor thing, respond only to broad, vulgar stimuli. But I think of that as a character flaw in some critics, reviewers, and teachers -- akin to food and wine snobbery -- rather than as diagnostic of a category of fiction. (And it points to broader questions about education used for status display rather than enlargement of experience.)
Agreed, also, on your last paragraph. I suspect that mass literacy and publishing have made "literary fiction" hopelessly equivocal: as a definition it's a hash of marketing convenience, "genre" vs "mainstream," and assumptions (rarely explicit) about authors' intentions and readers' expectations.
Edited at 2015-01-16 12:50 pm (UTC)
Did you ever read the volume of essays "Rehabilitations and Other Essays" by C.S. Lewis? I think I read it first in my late 20s, and then found a copy for myself in my 30s. The three essays "The Idea of an 'English School,'" "Our English Syllabus," and "High and Low Brows," made a considerable impression on me, as they fit well with my own perceptions of the education I'd been dragged through. The book was published in 1939, so the essays were written before I was born, but it explained to me, in part, why the writers assigned us from the 19th c. and before--acclaimed as great writers whose works we should read--were on the whole so much more interesting and satisfying to read than the books we were being pushed toward in the late '50s and on up.
Looking back a little farther, I could see the seeds of the contempt for ordinary readers with a) the growth of a literate population that was not the result of high birth and b) the social movements of the 19th century that were contemptuous of the "bourgeoisie" and regarded reading for pleasure as just as sinful as a 14th century monk or a 17th c. Calvinist might have. Lewis suggests that the shift to studying modern works in the university increased the pressure to reward difficult works because otherwise readers needed no help to unlock a hidden/obscured/complicated 'meaning.' If all your students are already inhaling a currently popular novel...what is there to teach? (Well, we can think of things--but they're not all necessary to every readers.)
So perhaps we need to drop the whole category of "literary" fiction, and instead let the content categories (family saga, historical, fantasy, political, thriller, supernatural, etc.) define content while "good writing" is used to recognize good writing in any category--rather than contrasting "literary" and "popular" or "literary" and "commercial"--with a sneer usually pointed at popular and commercial by academics (other than you, maybe) and then pointed back at "literary" by people who think that category lacks liveliness and interest. Readers can learn to recognize, and can come to prefer, good writing to bad writing wherever it turns up. I'm a fan of John McPhee's nonfiction books--read his essays first in The New Yorker--not just because of his way of approaching a topic like a farmer's market in NYC or geology or fishing. He's a stylist. Never a word too many. Never a wrong word. Never a blurred description or contrived clever show-offy bit. Just a command of the language put to good use.
I read a lot of nonfiction, current and past, by a variety of writers, some of whom are very good but one of McPhee's caliber is rare indeed. (Laurence Gonzales, whose _Deep Survival_ is one of my current reads as I write the new book...he's very good, he's vivid, but he's also obviously showing off in places. One or two startling metaphors a chapter is enough. Fits his personality, but slightly interferes with the reading.
Anyway. Maybe it would help to remove the term "literary" from conversations about books, because it's become both a brag and a target--and very blurred in both uses.
No academic here: 15 years of science writing (magazines, books, TV), then 25 of un-bylined business writing (CEO speeches, white papers, video scripts, web copy) for high-tech Fortune 500 corporations. I taught a few years of AP-level literature and composition courses at private schools during and just after college, then a few years of PR writing for Temple U. undergraduates a decade ago. You're surely right that a premium on "difficult" writing provides academic job security; the mandarins we have always with us. I was lucky enough not to encounter that in my own teachers (and do know some professors and critics who do valuable work in making a space for innovative writing while it finds its audience.)
Maybe the real luck was that both my parents were readers and lived by writing: WWII correspondents, then newspaper and magazine journalism, then PR and trade journalism. So I took it for granted before ever thinking about it that writing for others to read is just something people do -- and was perhaps immunized against the idea that writing, or judgements about it, are owned by publishers, critics, or teachers.
We are one in admiring McPhee's work. He's the best writer of expository English prose in my lifetime. I'd read the geology articles as they appeared in The New Yorker, then took the omnibus Annals of the Former World along on a summer trip to the Colorado Plateau and scenic parks.
One day on a trail near Bryce, a rain shower began. It beaded on the dust and bare rocks at first -- but within minutes there were rivulets, joining into streams, headed for gullies, ambitious to become new canyons. Suddenly (and very much thanks to McPhee) I realized that I'd been seeing the terrain as *old* because of associations with Egypt, Holy Lands, Ozymandias and all that... when in fact it was so rugged and dramatic, the billion-year-old Vishnu schist exposed in the Grand Canyon, precisely because it's geologically *new* -- rapidly uplifted, rapidly eroding, becoming faraway silt much faster than are the green-mantled, root-protected Appalachians near here in Pennsylvania. OK, the Appalachians were once Himalaya-high, rugged and fast-eroding, too. But now I can see them as old, the canyonlands as new. Nothing could have done more than McPhee to help me see the deep time *and* the transience in both.
Edited at 2015-01-16 06:46 pm (UTC)
Hello! Your entry got to top-25 of the most popular entries in LiveJournal!
Learn more about LiveJournal Ratings in FAQ
I wonder why. But thanks for letting me know.
I stopped years ago, it just wasnt fair to my brain... I also try to avoid the Top 10 bestseller lists too...
2015-01-08 09:43 pm (UTC)
I agree. Over here every acclaimed novel has the same theme of a group of people, each representing a simple stereotype of a political/national/class group, put together in some family drama and seeing how they clash. With overly detailed analysis of small talk and the foibles of social interaction. Each to their own I suppose.
"Beige" is a good description of far too much literary fiction. The characters are beige and the plot (if there is one) is beige. I don't like beige and that's why I don't read much of it either. I do occasionally make exceptions. I recently read Alice Greenway's The Bird Skinner. It wasn't beige, the characters were interesting, and I enjoyed it. Then again, thinking about it, I wonder if the literary fiction purists would kick it out of that category for having too much color.
Yes - what a perfect description. I usually just call literary fiction depressing - unpleasant things happening to unpleasant people, who end the book in the same place or a little worse off than they began it. Ugh. But beige is definitely part of the matter.
I read a book recently that, I discovered after the fact, was being marketed as literary fiction. I'm very glad I didn't know that in advance, because I greatly enjoyed The Braided Path by Donna Glee Williams. It's a great culture clash story, with a fascinating culture established in the first few chapters and then characters from there going out into very different places. Not at all depressing or beige - and unfortunately, marketed as literary fiction, it's likely to sink without a trace. A great pity.
This reminds me of the banal "writing" by beige people in the SF movie Her.
a cow that needs to be milked is not going to stay moderately upset for long...
I liked this post a lot. I think you hit things nicely in terms of modern literary fiction about the mundane. Love the analogies and the wildebeests. But genre fiction, for me, is about just that. Seeing the cat by the pond and then pushing that out into genre metaphors, the mundane into the unusual, the provocative might-be or can't-be worlds. Still. That imagery of birds skidding on the frozen pond and a cat that can't get its usual morning drink? Lovely.
2015-02-01 09:54 pm (UTC)
I just finished yet another attempt to read the Classic Books (aka out of copyright and free) that came with my reader. Four first chapters later, I'm back to genre reading.
Much of the difference is the protagonist being altruistic rather than selfish; making things happen rather than letting them happen; and being interesting because they're interested. Those are broad categorizations, and there are many counter-examples, but I think they hold true often enough to be worth exploring.
In genre fiction, protagonists don't lightly drop their existing responsibilities. They do it so they can help other people, often strangers, whether that's saving a galaxy, or tracking down a killer in a small town. They do it at a cost to themselves and their friends and family. They have taken the opportunity to learn strange and useful (and useless) things. And, as you said earlier, their emotions are strong enough to make them take action, or to regret the actions they took, or to make it difficult to decide what to do.
In literary fiction, the protagonists think more about themselves. (Leaving an abusive husband isn't selfish, but the primary beneficiary is still the leaver and/or her own kids.) They let things happen to them rather than do things. They learned what they were forced to learn. Emotion? Not emotional enough to actually do anything. That might be because there isn't anything in their lives that is worthy of strong emotions or action, but the protagonists I like get off their duffs and find something.
When I spend time in another person's shoes, I want that person to be the things I want to be. Altruistic, interesting, and emotional enough to take action.
Edited at 2015-02-01 09:54 pm (UTC)
2015-02-01 09:59 pm (UTC)
Re: More differences
My high school thought that Canadian Literature was depressing. Turned me right off it. Same with Shakespeare's greatest works being his tragedies and histories. Fortunately, my parents hid books by Canadian authors that didn't have a big maple leaf in the weekly pile from the library.