Literary vs. Mainstream, in genre and out

[sartorias]

david_de_beer linked to this fascinating riff about so-called literary fiction vs. science fiction, which includes some definitions of what many mean by "literary" and examples of what might be considered "literary science fiction." If you read the article, do take in the comments, though there are over a hundred. Most are short, and you won't want to miss

Comments

[asakiyume]

A novel full of murky motivation, directionless conversation, meaningless actions, and a dangling ending seems a tour de force to some and a depressing, boring waste of trees to others.

This made me laugh on a day when mainly I've felt like tearing out my hair and crying :D

Nice discussion--when I'm done with hair tearing, etc., I'll come back and read everyone's interesting comments....

[sartorias]

I loved the 'five points for falutin' quip, myself! *g*

[newsboyhat]

Thanks for posting this, you've given me quite a bit to think about, especially with my recent musings on the act of reading. I also think that somehow, and this is purely a generalization, "mainstream" fiction focuses more on the what: the story being told, what happens, how it ends, whereas "literary" - as you pointed out - may not have a resolution at all. Instead it delves into the motivations of the characters and layers of complexity within what could be a very straightforward plot. But it's how it unravels, how it's told to us, and the relationship between storyteller and reader that gets tinkered with.

[sartorias]

Fun stuff, eh?

[frumiousb]

It occurred to me lately, on a tangentially related note, that the difference between speculative fiction of different varieties and literature (so-called) may be at least in part a generational difference. Readers today who grew up on fantastic fiction are (I suspect) much more tolerant of genre elements in their serious books. Accordingly we get writers like Chabon and Ishiguro who seem quite comfortable in either category.

Sort of how you couldn't have Nirvana until you had a generation who had cut their musical teeth on both Rick Springfield and the Sex Pistols. Or something.

[sartorias]

I wonder if that has to do with development of reading protocols. Not just individually but culturally. For example, Greek audiences knew exactly how to 'place' the chorus within the context of the play. Many modern readers of Greek drama are as much perplexed about the chorus's function on stage as they are about the political asides.

[gategrrl]

Heh. If a teacher just calls them "the voiceover" (which is pretty much analogous, right?) the problem of how to interpret the Chorus would clear right up. Of course, this is MY interpretation of the Greek Chorus. The very first talking heads!

[sartorias]

...except when they become part of the action. But yeah!

[jtglover]

Some books that are considered literary I find mainstream because everyone is predictably dysfunctional in ways I see over and over

Guh-ROAN! This drives me up the wall. Literary = upper class Manhattan midlife crisis, now with extramarital affairs and rediscovery of ethnic roots. Though this is but one example, I think what you describe is sort of a hallmark of trendy literary works that tend to be inseparable from one another and are appreciated decades later only for being part of X group. e.g. the Bloomsbury circle, Splatterpunk, the bulk of Arthurian romance, etc.

[sartorias]

Yeah...following what's in and out in various timeframes can say a lot more about those who perceived themselves as literary arbiters than about the actual stories themselves.

But I find it interesting when writers engage with one another through ideas. Diana Pavlac Glyer talked so fascinatingly about that in her book on the Inklings.

[scbutler]

Tom Shippey's book, Tolkien: Author of the Century, has a very interesting analysis of Bloomsbury and their effect on 20th century literature. He points out that, because they thought nothing else was as remotely interesting as themselves, they shifted a lot of English writing towards self-absorption with predictable consequences, good and bad. Eighty or ninety years later, we seem to be left with the extremes.

[sartorias]

Leading Virginia Woolf to "reinvent the human" meaning character, meaning no longer (necessarily) morally admirable. Oh yes.

[sartorias]

Yep--but it's fun to turn over various definitions, and see them through others' eyes.