Polka Dot Banner

Where Authors Gather

 
What Is Literary Fiction? PDF Print E-mail
Written by A. Colin Wright   
Tuesday, 15 September 2009 16:20

wrightportraitsmall.jpgWelcome A. Colin Wright, who has agreed to guest blog for the PDB on the topic of Literary Fiction. What is Literary Fiction? Can it be defined? Do you agree with his definition? Now's you're chance to ask, comment, and participate. Colin will be blogging with us on Wednesday, September 16, 2009.

#  #  #

What is literary fiction? How does one define literature?

I started thinking about this again when inspired by a discussion group on Amazon: “Have you written literary fiction?” I certainly aspire to that, but what is it? What indeed is literature?

“Literature” is difficult to define. I once published an academic article on the question of what we mean by “art” and “literature”: taking Tolstoy’s criteria in his What is Art? of 1898. The article turned out to be long and boring, since Tolstoy’s arguments are convoluted and few of us would agree with most of his criteria: he dismisses as “art” both his own writing and Shakespeare’s.tolstoy.jpg

But despite his undoubted prejudice, exaggeration and sheer dogmatism, Tolstoy does make a few valid points. He starts by saying that we rarely try to define what art is. “Instead of giving a definition of true art, and then deciding what is and what is not good art by judging whether a work conforms or does not conform to the definition, a certain class of works that for some reason please a certain circle of people is accepted as being art, and a definition of art is then devised to cover all these productions.”

From our point of view we might say that art, including literature, is usually determined only in retrospect. “Literature” is perhaps something some of us aspire to, even model ourselves after, although only future generations will be able to decide whether or not we have actually produced it. And of course, setting out to write, a writer is rarely concerned about literature, but rather with how best to give expression to a particular idea. Sometimes he or she may be successful in this, sometimes not.

Turning to “literary fiction,” let us note that for many publishers this is a “catch-all” term for books in their “mid list” that don’t fit into the more easily determined genre writing. In some search engines you won’t even find “literary” fiction as such, but rather “contemporary” or “general” fiction. But for those that aspire to create literary fiction, the quality of the writing is the primary consideration.

Quality implies a certain intelligence in what one writes, and can of course be found in genre fiction too. To take as examples from genres with which I am most familiar, John Le Carré is a marvellous writer and so, very often, are Ken Follett and P. D. James.

But I think there is more to it than this. Returning to what is “literature,” we might note that implicit in Tolstoy’s argument is the belief that art does have something to say. In other words, content is of vital importance. In literature it is the writer's perception and understanding of the world that appeals to readers, who are thus enabled to relate emotionally to, and at least partially identify with, characters who are ultimately engaged in some kind of struggle to make sense of their lives. Such a search for me remains as the essence of great art. A writer as artist takes seriously the basic question of why we are here and tries to discover whatever answers there may be. Tolstoy would regard today's post-modernist theories, which specifically deny art as having anything to say at all, as the most depressing and nonsensical kind of artistic nihilism imaginable.

mastermargarita.jpgMikhail Bulgakov (whose masterpiece The Master and Margarita I personally regard as the greatest novel of the twentieth century) talks of Tolstoy in relationship to artistic truth: “The fact that he existed ... that there existed the phenomenon of Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy obliges every Russian writer after Tolstoy ... to be mercilessly strict towards himself and others”; it obliges him “To complete truth of thought and word. ... To utter sincerity. To knowing why and for what end you are writing! To a merciless intolerance towards every untruth in your own compositions! That's what the fact that there was a Lev Tolstoy in Russia obliges us to!”

Today Tolstoy would certainly be opposed to the “productions of amusement-art” created for television (“prepared in such terrific quantities by the armies of professional artists...”). He would reject an extreme naturalism, the description of everything without regard for underlying meaning, where “infection with a feeling ... is usually hindered by superfluous details.” He would be scornful of those works that, in an age of show rather than substance, rely largely on effects: the technical fireworks with little or trivial subject matter. Would we, or would we not, agree with him?

Above all, to my mind, art and literature should challenge conventionally held ideas. Having been brought up as a student of language and literature, I turn for examples to writers such as Dostoevsky in Russian literature or Kafka in German—who are difficult to understand precisely because they do challenge. So, in fact, does Tolstoy.

And perhaps I may give an example of the opposite, a play that I think only confirms existing prejudices. I shall not name the author (although some may recognize the play I am referring to) since the point of these articles and blogs is not to disparage other writers, and furthermore I can give praise where praise is due: it is extremely well written, works well on stage and has good parts for the actors. But what are its themes?: 1. Cottages are nice. 2. Getting old sucks. 3. A grandson or similar younger person helps, and 4. (a special point was made of this in the advertisements for a recent production) Loons are nice. So what? Audiences can sit back, nod their heads wisely, and say “Yes, yes.” What challenge is there here?

Of course, writers of “literary fiction” wouldn’t claim to be always successful, even in producing something good, let alone in producing “literature.” That is the challenge for any writer. But at least we should ask ourselves to what extent our works approach an ideal.

For more on literature and literary fiction, see Amazon.com literary discussions at www.amazon.com/tag/literary fiction/forum

A. Colin Wright was born and raised in Chelmsford, England. After serving as a linguist in the British Royal Air Force, Wright attended Cambridge University, where he earned undergraduate and graduate degrees in modern languages (he speaks six reasonably fluently and can stumble along in two others). In 1964, he was appointed professor of Russian at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. He remained at Queen’s until his retirement in 1999 and still resides there today. Dr. Wright is married and has two grown sons. See also www.acolinwright.ca, and for his recent novel, Sardinian Silver, www.sardiniansilver.com. For more blogs, articles and short stories, see www.authorsden.com/acolinwright.

Comments (12)Add Comment
 1 2 > 
A. Colin Wright
...
written by A. Colin Wright, September 16, 2009
Now on line
0
...
written by Jamie L. Saloff, September 16, 2009
Questions for this blog are now closed. Thanks to A. Colin Wright for his excellent insights and for participating in our guest blog.
Sue Lange
...
written by Sue Lange, September 16, 2009
Thanks for stopping by, Mr. Wright. This is one of my favorite topics and one I think about often. Commercial success is considered by so many as the mark of art these days. It's nice to be reminded that there's a component of "substance" in art that isn't required for commercial success. And that true art is still worthy of working towards even if sensible advisors have us chasing after the other.

Regarding the play you mentioned. I have not seen the play, only the movie and can only say that movies are different than books and plays. I don't expect the same sorts of things in them to consider them artistic. A movie is not necessarily artistic for the same reasons a play is. I'll assume you know what you're talking about and the play is perhaps as vapid as the screenplay in this case. All I can say is that, hey, how many movies about old people are allowed to become hits? There was new information there if nothing else the fact that grandma and grandpa still "suck face."

Sue Lange
A. Colin Wright
...
written by A. Colin Wright, September 16, 2009
Dear Sue Lange,

Thanks for your comment. You obviously recognized the movie-and I liked your comment about "suck face." The play indeed was very similar. I don't know: I think there are movies, and indeed plays, which have an "artistic" character. (I usually judge by whether I'm having to hide my tears at the end.) A recent movie that left me in tears was "The Reader"--which is also based on a very moving book.

I elaborated on this article with another, which I'm not sure if I put on this site or not (and I don't want to check now because I'm not too good at jumping about without losing some of the comments I've put it!) At all events, It's called "Literature, Literary Fiction, Bulgakov and Me. If you can't find it here it's easily available at www.authorsden.com/acolinwright, which also has a lot of my short stories, articles and blogs.

Good luck,
Colin
0
Recommendations
written by Jade Blackwater, September 16, 2009
Greetings A. Colin Wright:

First, thank you for sharing your thoughts on literary fiction. I agree strongly with your assertions that, "art and literature should challenge conventionally held ideas." For me, it is always the artist who challenges my thoughts or beliefs, or who shines a light on a new way of thinking, who manages to inspire me. Of course, when it comes to literature, it's also the author's deft, even poetic use of language which enamours me. When I read works by authors who accomplish these feats, I feel small; I feel a greater pressure to create something big.

Recently I read several novels by Louise Erdrich, whose work I feel falls squarely in the realm of beautiful literary fiction. I think what stands out most to me, is that her work doesn't sound the same as those of other authors I've read. I admire a unique voice, and the ability of an author to create something wholly new (well, at least, as new as one can get if we subscribe to the theory that all stories are mere retellings).

I've also been reading many of the "classic" literary novels, but sometimes I feel a little overwhelmed by the dim and dark view of life that is often portrayed during a deeper literary exploration of humanity. Are there other contemporary authors who you might recommend who manage to ask the big questions, while still retaining some semblance of optimism to balance the accessible route of pessimism?

In short: what contemporary literary authors do you feel manage to balance the weight of life with a modicum of humor? If I ever manage to create something great, I want it to be something which guides the reader toward hope, even if I drag them through the mud along the way.

Thank you again for sharing your insights.

Jade Blackwater
Sue Lange
...
written by Sue Lange, September 16, 2009
The Reader. What a great movie. No question about the artistic aspect there. It really made me think. Talk about substance and a fresh way of looking at something. And I had a hard time figuring out which way it was going to go. I'm not sure I do entirely know which way it went. Yes, tragic at the end, but why? How can one cry over a Nazi war criminal? Amazing movie. I only just watched that this past weekend, and I must say you picked a good one to compare and contrast.

Thanks for the link. I went and bought a Kindle version of the Bulgakov book after your incredible statement about it being the "best novel of the twentieth century." Naturally I had to go get it. I wouldn't want to get left out of the loop on something as grand as that. Will read that post after I read the book.

Nice meeting you! Looking forward to reading your work.
A. Colin Wright
...
written by A. Colin Wright, September 16, 2009
Hi, Jade,

Well we obviously mostly agree on what is good literary writing. I'm not sure I'm entirely happy about "it's also the author's deft, even poetic use of language which enamours me." This because I've recently been reading some writers who are marvellous in that respect, but fall down on "story," which I think is also essential. But James Wood, in his "How fiction works," which I've also just read, would agree with you. I am, as I've said before, a somewhat impatient reader, who can admire the poetry but gets tired of too much of it. (You might like to look at my article I've just mentioned in my reply to Sue Lange.)

The "big questions" with also a sense of humour? That's a big one. And also something that guides the reader towards hope. Not many novels, certainly. Looking over my list of "ideal" books, I come up with Solzhenitsyn: "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich." A GOOD day in a prison camp. And to take a genre writer, one of my favourites, what about Ken Follett, "World without End" (although he cheats a bit in his having a strong woman character in the Middle Ages)?

I don't know Louise Erdrich. I must try her.

And hope, once again. In general I'm pretty pessimistic about the way things are going on Earth in general, but on the other hand I consider myself a "metaphysical" optimist. Which is why I like Bulgakov. I'll be writing more on all of these things when I get back from holiday, at the site mentioned above.

All the best,
Colin
0
...
written by Jade Blackwater, September 16, 2009
Colin,

Thank you for your kind suggestions for further reading and exploration. In fact, I believe we may be much on the same page with the ratio of great-writing-to-great-storytelling. More than once I've set down a piece of fiction because, while the subject may compel me and the language impress me, I seem to get... bored. I suppose it's a rather demanding expectation, but I really do look to authors to enlighten me, or challenge me (and not just with their extensive command of vocabulary).

And you're right - it's a tall order to want equal helpings of optimism and pessimism. I think for me, the "misery factor" has to be mitigated by a desire for something better on behalf of the main character(s)/narrator(s). To borrow from a contemporary speaker:

"When asked if I am pessimistic or optimistic about the future, my answer is always the same: If you look at the science about what is happening on earth and aren't pessimistic, you don't understand the data. But if you meet the people who are working to restore this earth and the lives of the poor, and you aren't optimistic, you haven't got a pulse."

Source: The Commencement Address by Paul Hawken to the Class of 2009, University of Portland, May 3, 2009
http://www.up.edu/commencement/default.aspx?cid=9456

I think that's the kind of discussion to which I aspire as a writer.

Thank you again for your insights - I'm glad to have the chance to exchange today, and I look forward to reading your latest.

Kind regards,

Jade
Jane White
The Taming of Corky
written by Jane White, September 16, 2009
Dr. Wright,
Thanks you for sharing your insights on literary fiction. I kind of get the feeling from what you say that there is little hope for new literary fiction to come on the scene, that most of it is in the distant past. Don't you think that the "definition" could be allowed to evolve to fit new people, new times, without watering it down?

As an example, Pat Conroy has just released a new novel, South of Broad, set in Charleston, South Carolina. I found his use of language, character development, and story to be unique and challenging. Have you read it?

I just don't think that the tomes of old should be the eternal standard of excellence. What say you?
Jane Nixon White, Ed. D.
A. Colin Wright
...
written by A. Colin Wright, September 16, 2009
Dear Jane,

Well yes, I do think there are good literary novels of today, and certainly we shouldn't look only at the classics. In my previous comment I was thinking more of works that were "optimistic."

Of those I have read recently, I would name "Nineteen Minutes" by Jodi Picoult, "The Thirteenth Tale," by Diane Setterfield, "The Shadow of the WInd" by Carlo Ruiz Zafón and a number of others that are reasonably well known. Some of these, of course, are genre novels, and I have to mention again John Le Carré.

Going back only a little, I still greatly admire Daphne du Maurier, and Maurice West writes on subjects I find very interesting. "Interesting" is another quality for me: I like a lot of P. T. Deutermann, particularly his navy novels, because he shows things I know little about and I find them fascinating, and I quite liked David Baldacci, except that at times he seems too formulaic, with an obligatory shoot-out at the end.

I haven't read Pat Conroy. But let me mention one more book that I think deserves to be better known. By Philip Lorraine (the pseudonym, I believe, of Robin Etheridge) with various t*tles: "Day of the Arrow," "Eye of the Devil," or "Thirteen." A movie was made of it with David Niven, Deborah Kerr, and other well-known actors. Alas, I never saw and it's now unavailable, but in any case the reviews were terrible. It's set in France, based on ancient fertility rites, and I thought of trying to adapt it for the stage, but I couldn't get hold of the author for permission, and I assume he's now dead.

Best wishes,
Colin
 1 2 > 

Write comment
You can add your comment here

busy
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 22 December 2009 21:41 )