Why Literary Fiction? 

Hi Brian. Interesting video. I’ve never thought of Literary Fiction as being a snobbish term. I find it very helpful when people ask me what kinds of books I read the most .. I can say I read very broadly across genres, but the books i read the most are literary fiction. Everyone seems pretty clear on what that means. I don’t “feel” snobby when I use the term nor do I think anyone else sounds uppity when they use the term. It is just another helpful classification . But .. as ever,, I could be entirely mistaken!

A brief Google search suggests LF was perhaps coined in 1976 by Marc Jaffe, editorial director at Bantam Books as a catch all term for well written books that didn't fit general categories. Personally, I'd be ok with Books for Snobs. Heck, I might buy and wear the Snob t-shirt. 🤔 Happy Reading, whatever you choose. 📚

Excellent discussion!

As a fellow recovering book snob, I enjoyed your ramble. One thing is, I think writers are aware now more than ever what category of book they are sitting down to write. Writers who might want to write literary fiction are consciously choosing to write more upmarket/commercial/book club fiction because they are more likely to get published.

Great video! I love when you discuss these types of topics. I was actually recently thinking about what literary means, and I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s a spectrum 🤓 I want to film a video about it. In terms of fantasy, I think the problem also comes from what literary fiction readers *think* that fantasy is. They only see the plot driven, adventure, action packed type of story (which to be fair is the most popular). But the type of fantasy I like is more driven by the things you mentioned at the beginning: the subtext, the themes, the artistry. I like fantasy books that tell a story that happens to be set in a magical world, rather than books that are about a magical world where a story happens to take place. For me, story should always come first, not second. I do agree with you that in general, genre fiction writers are better at character writing. The term up market fiction is interesting, but I can’t help but feel that it’s a category created so that literary authors don’t have to lower themselves to say they write genre fiction 🫠 (I’m saying that without ever having heard the term, so in all fairness I have no context to opine 🙈). Anyway, I always appreciate you bringing up these conversations 🤓

I remember a literary scholar being asked about the difference between literary fiction and popular fiction, and he said that literary fiction has artistic ambition and stylistic individuality, while popular fiction does not. I think snobbery comes with art, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

I think I agree with all of that Brian, including the feeling of being somehow snobbish. In reality there is a complete gradation between all these books and marketers fall over themselves trying to squeeze books into one group or another and eventually have to invent new groups - think of ‘rock’ music and how many categories have stemmed from that! Upmarket fiction sounds terrible and I have never imagined myself as an upmarket person! I am a downmarket person, driving a small 13 year old car for example (out of choice), but love Percival Everett! I don’t know why the snobbery enters this - we all read books for different reasons and want different things from our reading. My mum is entertained by good a story, prefers a mystery and enjoys a grisly murder, I prefer something that challenges me and makes me think, maybe helps me understand a different perspective on life, and I admire different ways of presenting the work above story (hence liking Fosse and Ducks). We don’t usually like the same books because we want different things. That said, there are a few wonderful books that we both love that have included Sarah Waters’ Fingersmith, Jim Crace’s Harvest, Barry Unsworth’s Morality Play, Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall and Graeme Macrae Burnett’s His Bloody Project - all of which have been at least shortlisted for the Booker! I am reading James at the moment and I think she would love it too!

I tend to think of "literary fiction" as fiction that one can read in public or mention in polite company without worrying about being looked down upon. "Serious" fiction for "serious" people, so to speak, because reading "trash" or "popcorn" fiction might be interpreted as the reader being low class, less intelligent, less serious, etc. That absolutely doesn't mean it is so, but people make snap judgements about each other, and so "literary fiction" is a safe bet for appearing serious and higher class. In other words, I think that the trouble of snobbery rests with the reader or the person observing the reader less so than with the literary genre itself, because of the preconceived notions of what is and is not valuable in fiction, and what constitutes a "serious" reader. Reading "serious" fiction often becomes a kind of distinguishing mark, like the clothes we wear or the car we drive and can be adopted by those seeking to present an image to the world of being deep and serious, but if a person is only reading literary fiction because of what it says to others, and applies those standards to others, then that is snobbery. Also, even more so if the book is difficult to understand, and then a person can not only be a snob, but also present themselves as a member of an elite group, smarter and more cultured than everyone else. I see this a lot with younger readers who proclaim that they only read serious books by writers like Joyce, Foster Wallace, Murakami, etc. (and I think maybe that's what's meant by dude-bro? Dude-bro seems like a hard category to pin down to me). I've read some tremendous works of literary fiction, but I like to read trash, too, and I've gotten a lot of value out of both. I think the danger lies in reading too much of one or the other, either overeating rich food or eating nothing but candy (I think that's an analogy Steve Donoghue used).

A few years ago, an old friend of mine finished her first novel, which she saw as literary fiction . An agent picked her book up and said he would pitch it to publishers as upmarket or bookclub fiction (after she did some required rewriting to simplify plot and language) in order to increase expected sales. That way, the press would be more likely to publish it, and it would be more lucrative for them all. (The press marketed it as the next Crawdad.) What a choice: snobby highbrow or condescending capitalist…

Is it like pornography? "I know it when I see it" 😀 This topic makes me think of a lot of things, including Erasure, the difficulty of finding an in person book club that fits me, and a recurring sense that when I say "literary fiction" we are not all thinking of the same thing. I pretty much agree with your definition. I did walk into to Barnes and Noble the other day and the big table of paperbacks right in the front was labeled "Literary Fiction." It was a pretty decent display. Interesting discussion!

To me when I hear anyone describe a book as literary fiction I am just clued in to looking for writing that intentionally had more going on under the surface and I know I need to pay attention for that (as I know I am smart but can often take things too at face value and miss them). I do consider them a bit more work to read and prefer to vary my reading to have more light hearted fiction breaking up literary fiction. To me it’s helpful to have the separate labels however I am totally fine with it all being listed as fiction as I do actually my best books with them all mixed in. In the end each book gets judged by me on the story and emotions it tells. Thanks for your thoughts. Enjoy the fantasy reads!

I'm at the same time not a fan of labels and understand why we have them for books. A huge part is marketing, yes. But it also helps you find similar books to what you are looking for. I think it can be helpful to know if a book is a mystery, thriller, romance, fantasy or Science fiction. I honestly don#t understand most of these new fancy subgenres and labels that get slapped on books by goodreads/storygraph and probably publishers and reviewers as well. For me literary fiction is outside of those genres or specific genre fiction as it focuses more on the writing and human condition. NOw there can be great genre books dealing with the human condition, and great literary fiction that deals with science fiction (or the ideas explored there) but those would not be classified as Science fiction by the majority. Thinking of The Circle by Dave Eggers that in my memory was well received in litereary circles for doing something exciting and new, while SF readers were confused as the ideas were often explored. For me it was the way he told it that made it more of a literary book than a genre book. On the other side I never liked Never Let Me Go by Ishiguro as it IMO told the same idea as the movie the Island (both came out around the same time) only much more boring. I got sidetracked, sorry. Basically I think genres help books find their readers, and the judging is just what people like to do, especially with prestigious prizes that gets bookish people talking ;)

Neil Gaiman's American Gods and Walter M Miller's A Canticle for Liebowitz are both examples of artistic and philosophical intent. There's a quote from A Canticle for Liebowitz that sort of says his attitude toward writing, I think. "But he tells it sweet-and-simple, rather stupidly, in fact, and lets the others read in the meanings." -Abbot Arkos, speaking about Brother Francis' manner of telling about his meeting the traveler and the discovery of the Liebowitz relics.

My off-the-cuff reaction to 'what is it, besides what it's not?' is to say: 'well, gee, that sounds a lot like the way we define 'white' America, as in 'default' humanity, and that has a lot that should worry us. I like your point about subtext, can definitely see an argument for that.

💯

Oh I forgot to say in my previous comment. There is one thing that confuses me about the literary fiction category and I’ve always wondered about it. Because there seem to be two types of literary fiction: 1. The more “high brow”, artistic, experimental, in translation type of novel. 2. The book club type book. (Oprah, Reese Witherspoon, etc). The first one tends to be plotless, the second is more plot and character driven. It’s an interesting thing to consider. In Spanish we don’t have the literary fiction category, it’s just called novela. (Novel). It’s still funny because fantasy books are also novels 😅 In bookstores it’s usually organized by geographical origin. Hispanoamerican fiction, international fiction. And then fantasy, and separate categories for nonfiction: history, art, psychology, etc.

I feel your conflict about the term “literary fiction!” Like you said, I can find so many of those elements in SFF, depending on the author’s intent and skill. Great video!

I hate the term “literary fiction” too. StoryGraph says it’s my most read genre, which bugs me, so I call my non-genre fiction contemporary fiction or historical fiction in my own spreadsheet based on the time period it’s set in and when it was written. I also subgenre anything written before a certain date (that makes sense to me) a “classic”. I know these definitions are subjective, but it feels good to have a set definition for myself.

Barnes and noble is one of my fave places in the world and in fact I was just in there yesterday to pick up a book I'd requested. I don't mind the term "literary fiction" though I know many people besides you find it annoying. I read a lot more of the classics and mainstream works when I was young than I do now and for whatever reason I no longer have the patience it takes to carefully read and absorb a great work. But I will say in my reading in those years I had some of the most profound emotional experiences and insights into what's called the "human condition" I've ever had and so for me It was time well spent though some others may have thought I should have used that time to do things considered more"productive". For any of those people who are still around I have one message: FU. Pardon my french haha.⚛😀❤

I can appreciate the conception of taking a reading for what it is instead of separating them based on material/physical plot patterns. I'm mostly into what you called "literary" fiction but I think a love of artistic writing should take precedent over those categories, and examples are not hard to find of books strictly outside that stereotypical literary category which do capture or are moving displays of beauty in some way. Some examples are things like The Hobbit, Martian Chronicles, The Gods of Pegana, A Wizard of Earthsea...Sherlock Holmes stuff is generally decent too and, not to equivocate, but children's literature is equally capable of crucial beauty, like The Little Prince, or the Moomin books, or the vast collections of fairy tales and fables we have. I suppose the primary distinction of the literary, then, is that expressing that is the guiding principle. At least I perceive it that way up to this point in my life. I don't know if you'll empathize with my concerns though, because they are a little contrary to the position in your video and you are clearly trying to move beyond an insular view of the written arts you once possessed, but I feel as someone who loves what the literary aims for, that there is a hypocritical snobbery in those who don't like the literary. For my love of what I've read in genre and children's fiction, the mere existence of literary fiction in one's favored bodies of readings seems to automatically warrant assertions of pretentiousness and snobbishness and arrogance, when you've made no charges at those who read different types of writing, as if loving prosody and metaphor etc have these traits baked into them. It just comes across as this hypocritical form of looking down on other people that is like, tacitly accepted. One concern, for example, is that you cited linguistic efforts as a cornerstone of the purported literary, with plot also retreating into an auxiliary position. The first of these characteristics, however, is not merely important to poetry but is arguably its essence. I consider poetry part of literary fiction so maybe you don't and these are not relevant, but do these regularities in poetry mean the medium or the love of it must be some synonym of condescending, or that its lovers have warranted those insults? Feel free to correct any misconceptions or misunderstandings I had regarding your points, I watched the video yesterday, and thanks for your time.

My two cents is that I get why people feel literary fiction sounds exclusionary but I find calling it just fiction feels almost more like this is the 'proper form' as it's using the generic term for what isn't generic because romance and SFF will always be subgenred, whether in sections or in speech. They have different intentions, so by subgenring everything, there is no right way to read fiction. I don't really like the term upmarket fiction because the word 'up' feels like it connotates better quality and I don't like the term commercial fiction because it implies that some books are written for money and some are not which might feel the most snobbish. I don't think literary fiction is the best term but I think it clearly communicates that this is self referential fiction, fiction that is purposely playing with literary themes, technique and form. All books are literary but some are less concermed with the apparatus around literature than others.

I’m also growing ambivalent towards the term literary fiction. It’s a word filled with promise and baggage that doesn’t always describe the book or deliver. There is a lot of crappy “literary“ fiction out there they can’t hold a candle to good “genre“ fiction. Perhaps there should be a term like mainstream fiction that covers everything that cannot be pigeonholed into a specific genre.

A bit off topic but you mentioned the books… I just finished reading Septology a couple of days ago. Took me two weeks to read and what a baffling experience it was! 😅 I kinda hated the first 2 sections, and if I did not have the bind up edition I would have been done. But I talked myself into continuing. “Maybe you just need to get into the style and rhythm of the writing, etc.” Well, by the end I kinda loved it, I think…But for some reason the Stockholm syndrome keeps coming to mind. 🤣 Very curious to see how it holds up for me over time.

I've noticed a lot of books being called "literary" fiction that are more what I'd consider "contemporary" fiction. IMO, literary fiction pushes boundaries of the form and is more exploratory--or at least has an emphasis on the prose. At the same time, so many wonderful books get stuck in-between and miss their readership because of where they get shelved. Because that approach to writing can easily be done in combination with any genre.

As a reader, I do find various genre labels useful. They help me to better find (or avoid) books I'll probably like (or not like). When it comes to the term "literary fiction", I find it especially useful. Funnily enough, for me it works as a contraindication. You mention yourself that literary fiction often doesn't focus on story - and for me, the story is the most important thing about a, well, a story. That's why I read fiction. I want to be told a good story! Most of the things that literary fiction is concerned with do not interest me. So I find the snobbishness that sometimes comes with readers of literary fiction amusing as I consider these books among the least interesting ones for me. I'm happy to read books that those enamored with lit fic will look down upon as trash. If I enjoy them, I really couldn't care less about these opinions. Anyway, that's why I'm happy that literary fiction when not lumped in with general fiction. I mainly read genre fiction so the books in the general fiction aisle by and large hold little interest to me but if they are mixed with lit fic I would have to be extra careful to avoid the latter! 😅

Call me pretentious, but I really enjoy literary fiction. I was just at Barnes and Nobles this week, and they had separate sections for thrillers, mysteries, and horror. Seems like a lot of crossover there, but also all these genres could be literary. To me it’s just a descriptor. No need to be snobby about it. I mean, I generally don’t want literary when I’m in the mood for romance, but it’s ok when Jane Austen does it. Then again, I was just telling my kid this week that Jane Austen is more social commentary than romance.

Applying your conclusion from about 8:00 it may be that bookseller Barnes and Noble didn’t “figure something out” but simply left it untouched. As you say, and we older folks remember, fiction used to be labeled as fiction. “Classics” is another spurious category - though easier to justify?

The quantity of fiction published every year now is so overwhelming, I can understand why publishers look for ways to classify it for marketing purposes. I want to know if a book is primarily plot driven or if it offers more layers to interest me. But literary fiction is a term that sounds judgemental and rather confined so I don't really like it.

Should booktubers consider changing their discourse to deemphasize marketing ("a dark romance", "lit fic", etc.) and scholarly labels ("modernist" etc.) for the works they discuss? A booktuber reviewing "When Gravity Fails" by George Alec Effinger could begin by summarily describing it as a "crime drama that takes place in the Arab world of the near-future", rather than a "scify" or a "science fiction thriller". "Triton" by Samuel Delany could be described as a "story of fitting into a different culture against an interplanetary political backdrop" rather than as a "scify" or "space opera" --- although Delany's emphasis on his particular prose style fits part of your definition of "literary fiction". Would it be a disservice to consumers of booktube videos to not hear marketing or scholarly labels during a book review? It seems the discourse of booktube has come to necessarily include such labels, but what happens if some reviewers desist?

I've been told The Soul Gene reaches "the lower rungs of literary fiction." I took it as a compliment. :)

When my children were children I read quite a lot of genre romance and the quality of the writing varies a lot. I like genre fiction's pace: a lot of dialogue etc but the problem with reviews is there are a lot of positive ones, regardless and it's harder to sort through, trying to avoid really badly written/badly edited books and stuff that's just porn with little attempt at characterisation and plot. So I suppose literary fiction is defined as better quality, it can have the converse effect of 'What is this? is there any plot, is it any good really - Emperor's New clothes - I am the only person who thinks it's rubbish?'

Snobs love to be snobs and hate when their personal favorites and hidden gems get discovered by the masses. I think Barbara Kingsolver is a great example of this because she is so accessible, she's had too much success. I think we lose sight of how revolutionary Kerouac and Henry Miller were when they were contemporary. Miller seems to still command his share of outrage (thankfully) but even his unique style has been coopted by the culture.

Literary Fiction is a sub-genre - I am more than okay with that. Dystopian is my preferred sub-genre of SciFi and Literary Fiction is my preferred sub-genre of Fiction I feel more snobby for not wanting to read "romance" novels way more than I feel snobby for preferring Literary Fiction. Tomato - tomato

Barnes & Noble doesn’t have a literary fiction section because there isn’t enough market for it to justify a section. The general fiction section is there for books that don’t otherwise fall into a marketable genre. For me, if someone praises something as modern literary fiction, I will give it a miss, expecting something that is pretentious, a bit dull, and that will not have an ending. I’m probably missing out on some good books, but life is too short to waste time on peoples’ very unreliable judgment about contemporary works (with very few exceptions).