What is the difference between literary fiction and genre/popular fiction?

[BWFoster78]

I'm not a literary guy. I count being forced to slog through Grapes of Wrath in high school as one of the worst reading experiences of my life.

Lately, however, I've been pondering the differences between literary fiction and genre/popular fiction. I'm finding that my efforts are at least somewhat stymied by the fact that I don't feel I know a lot about literary fiction.

I'm hoping that the wise and knowledgeable denizens of this forum can provide me with enlightenment.

To get the ball rolling, here are my perceptions of the differences. Please let me know if I'm completely off base and add anything I've missed.

1. While I think that, perhaps, genre/popular fiction is moving more toward character based stories, I think that literary fiction places even more emphasis on character over plot.
2. I think that literary fiction places a high value on creating emotion through subtle scene details and actions while "telling" is more acceptable in genre/popular fiction.
3. I think that literary fiction is much more tightly focused on the inner life of a character rather than external events and that the resolution of the literary story is more about the change that occurs in that character rather than on what happened to him or defeating an outside force.

Thanks in advance!

Brian

 

[Anders Ämting]

Wikipedia's entry on Literary Fiction.

There doesn't seem to be one coherent definition, rather there are multiple ways of looking at it.

 

[kayd_mon]

Literary fiction is like the art house film compared to the blockbuster movie. You know that the art flick is better made in every way, has a deep philosophical message or exploration in some way, and is completely original. Still you prefer to watch the blockbuster movie, simply because it's more fun.

Another way to look at it is literary fiction teaches, and popular fiction entertains. The best fiction does both.

 

[Devora]

Another way to look at it is literary fiction teaches, and popular fiction entertains. The best fiction does both.

I agree. and to add to that: Popular/Genre fiction stories tend to come and go, while literary fiction lasts for a long time.

 

[Steerpike]

Some literary fiction is popular/genre-style fiction that is old enough to be considered a classic

 

[Mindfire]

War of the Worlds, 20,000 Leagues, The Time Machine, Frankenstein, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, The Picture of Dorian Grey, Dracula, The Count of Monte Cristo, Kidnapped, Les Miserables, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Gulliver's Travels, Sherlock Holmes, etc.

These were and ARE "genre/popular" fiction. And they're considered classics. They have staying power. Given enough time, Tolkien, Lewis, and LeGuin will join that list, along with others. The dichotomy of "pop fiction is fleeting while literary stands the test of time" is rubbish. What happens is that once a pop/genre story accrues a certain level of respectability, the literary-ists steal it and shelve it with their "superior" fiction. Then they claim popgenre is garbage, because all the "respectable" popgenre is ACTUALLY literary, you see.

I have the utmost disdain for lit-snobbery.

Actually I think the literary/genre dichotomy is probably a fairly recent idea. At one time, fiction was just fiction.

I'd posit that GOOD fiction lasts a long time, regardless of genre or type. After all, there's a ton of literary stuff that's quickly forgotten. Not every literary writer is Joyce.

 

[Steerpike]

I have the utmost disdain for lit-snobbery.

It runs both ways, though. Some people have a sort of counter-snobbery, where they sneer at literary fiction because it doesn't always follow the formula of modern, generic popular fiction. That attitude is no better, in my view.

 

[Mindfire]

It runs both ways, though. Some people have a sort of counter-snobbery, where they sneer at literary fiction because it doesn't always follow the formula of modern, generic popular fiction. That attitude is no better, in my view.

I agree that's equally bad. Eye for an eye and all that. But at the same time, I kind of get it. I should be able to read what I like without being unjustly condemned as unintelligent or illiterate (WHAT?) for doing so.

 

[Steerpike]

Yeah, I agree.

Heck, I'll read anything from Dostoevsky (The Brothers Karamazov is one of my all-time favorite books), the YA/Teen Paranormal (I recently read Beautiful Creatures and the most recent House of Night book). I'll read anything in-between, as well, and I don't care about what genre it falls in. People should read what they like, that's my view.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Heck, I'll read anything from Dostoevsky (The Brothers Karamazov is one of my all-time favorite books)...

I'm starting to think you have a thing for Russian authors.

Literary fiction, is unusually considered a serious work, capturing and exposing the human condition. Characters tend be be introspective and complex. The writing is often considered elegant & lyrical in nature, more so than run-of-the-mill works. These are a few of the distinguishing characteristics but, in my mind, it's all a load of malarkey.

Sure, some books are more artistic than others. That's obvious. However, to claim that literary fiction and genre fiction cannot be one and the same is just hogwash. Genre fiction can meet all the above criteria. In some aspects, it can perform those functions better than accepted genre fiction because they may entertain at a higher level, reaching more contemporary readers. Many people would rather not work through a book. They'd prefer reading for enjoyment.

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

War of the Worlds, 20,000 Leagues, The Time Machine, Frankenstein, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, The Picture of Dorian Grey, Dracula, The Count of Monte Cristo, Kidnapped, Les Miserables, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Gulliver's Travels, Sherlock Holmes, etc.

These were and ARE "genre/popular" fiction. And they're considered classics. They have staying power. Given enough time, Tolkien, Lewis, and LeGuin will join that list, along with others.

Agreed, though I'll note that a number of these stories were "genre-less" when they were written and more or less ended up founding their genre. Wells and Verne did a lot to create the sci-fi genre; Poe, Stoker and Shelley did the same for horror; Arthur Conan Doyle and Poe established mystery/detective fiction, etc. Obviously this is not an exhaustive list but you get the idea.

In my mind, literary fiction tends to be about an idea or message that the author wants to communicate and so can take numerous forms. Genre fiction tends to be more about setting, plot and delivering what the reader expects from the genre; an underlying idea or message may be entirely absent.

Genre fiction can be literary though it often isn't. Some of the best genre writers (e.g. Leguin, Heinlein, Herbert, Huxley) wrote genre in part because that was the only way their ideas could be fully explored.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Genre fiction tends to be more about setting, plot and delivering what the reader expects from the genre; an underlying idea or message may be entirely absent.

All stories have messages, even in a sub genre like sword & sorcery. Those messages may not be as lofty as those found in other categories but I've never read a story absent of any message.

Perhaps I'm wrong. I'd love to hear an example entirely devoid of any underlying message.

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I suppose it's possible to find a message in just about any story, even if it's as simple as "Good will triumph over evil (this time)" or "Don't underestimate the little guy" or "Stay out of the corn field at night, there's some pretty weird kids out there." Perhaps rather than saying an underlying message is entirely absent, I should say it may be entirely incidental. The message is not why the author wrote the story or why the reader is reading it.

 

[kayd_mon]

The thing that is often missed is that both types of writing have definite merits. I had a friend, an avid reader of popular fiction, that insisted to me that Harry Potter was literature, and it would one day be included in state-determined English curriculums. I heartily disagreed, despite my own love for the stories. Harry Potter is a highly engaging and entertaining series. Rowling deserves acclaim for her imagination, wit, pacing, and her ability to make a simple idea into something grand that millions can relate to and enjoy for years. Still, she did not produce literature, that which is, as has been mentioned in this thread, written with the primary goal to make a point rather than to fully entertain the reader. She wrote good popular fiction, and it should not be considered a lesser form of art than literary fiction. Such is the same for all other good authors of popular fiction. Maybe some can be studied as literature, but many can just be remembered as people who wrote good books, whether they were read for study or enjoyment.

 

[Alexandra]

The following kind of works for me, “Good writing is good writing. In many ways, it’s the audience and their expectations that define a genre. A reader of literary fiction expects the writing to illuminate the human condition, some aspect of our world and our role in it. A reader of genre fiction likes that, too, as long as it doesn’t get in the way of the story.” – Rosemary Clement-Moore

 

[Jamber]

For what it's worth, I think literary fiction foregrounds literary devices (poetics; artifice; narratorial feints) whereas genre fiction tends to background those things so readers don't feel distanced from plot or characterisation. Hence a work heavy in character and feeling/mood might be literary even when it's also generic.

Both kinds of work--literary and genre--can be done incredibly badly or incredibly well, but it's probably true that badly done literary fiction irritates readers (and me) more.

A few more distinctions spring to my mind, for what they're worth. I think genre fiction is by its nature rule-oriented, whereas it could be said that literary fiction takes less interest in rules, or consciously breaks them.

As as to past genre fiction being taken up as 'literary', I wonder if part of that is because their language (and floridity) has started to seem strange, so they no longer seem a 'transparent' (plot oriented) read?

I agree with most of what others have said, but these are just some other ideas that occur to me.

cheers
Jennie

 

[Devor]

Agreed, though I'll note that a number of these stories were "genre-less" when they were written and more or less ended up founding their genre.

To me, that's the difference.

There's something about some books which end up contributing a piece to their genre. I don't mean that they started a fad; I mean that they did something truly different, so that other authors went "Wow, I would never have thought you could pull off something like that."

For instance, before reading GRRM, I would never have thought you could "pull off" the petty political dealings and details of every household to that kind of scale, with every Lord having lesser lords, and each of them having a family story that's somehow playing its part. After seeing how it works in GRRM, I find the loose political sketch of my world to be far more involving than it would have been beforehand. Don't get me wrong, I'm not "copying" GRRM, all the details are unique, but I'm trying to emulate to some extent that piece of his writing.

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

For instance, before reading GRRM, I would never have thought you could "pull off" the petty political dealings and details of every household to that kind of scale, with every Lord having lesser lords, and each of them having a family story that's somehow playing its part.

This. In part I think he pulled this off because of another innovation he's bringing to the genre: an absence of heroes & villains with everyone a shade of gray. Once the story isn't about white and black hats and everyone's interest is valid, things are blown wide open.

It's rare that a single author does so much to move the genre. In the modern era, besides GRRM I can think of Tolkien, Moorcock and Donaldson. Maybe Glen Cook and China Mieville also?

 

[Steerpike]

Glen Cook, definitely. And Donaldson did a certain amount of it with Thomas Covenant. There may be a hint of it in Leiber's Fafhrd and Gray Mouse (Mouser particularly).

 

[The Dark One]

Just because a book survives doesn't make it literary - classics don't have to be literary.

IMHO literary fiction is capable of deconstruction to discover texture, layers of meaning, artistic splashes and well-told stories that affect you in ways you may not appreciate for years.

It is entirely possible to tell strong stories with great characters, in a literary style, that people may enjoy so much they never realise it was literary.

Everything I write is a little bit literary. I can't do it any other way.