An Enemy of Literature

. Our thoughts, our reactions, our emotions, these all serve to conjure images that are more potent than anything the writer, no matter his mastery of prose or his insight into the human condition, could ever force onto the paper.

I also think genres don't have much to do with literary merits, if that's a consolation.

On September 02 2015 02:10 Chef wrote:
There are kinds of fiction I enjoy which I would never call literature.

On September 02 2015 04:17 CosmicSpiral wrote:


Considering literature is just written work, I fail to see the distinction.

On September 01 2015 05:40 Zealously wrote:


Literary Fiction is a buzzword. Or at least, that is what it has become.

Agreed.

Before I move beyond that opinion, let us look at the definition of the term:



Fine, but misleading. Literary fiction is, as you pointed out, a buzzword. It's deliberately nebulous, and a work of "literary fiction" may have all, some, or none of the listed characteristics. Since you lifted the definition from Wikipedia, I'd like to point you to the "Alternative Definition" on the same page-

Neal Stephenson has suggested that while any definition will be simplistic there is a general cultural difference between literary and genre fiction, created by whom the author is accountable to. Literary novelists are typically supported by patronage via employment at a university or similar institutions, with the continuation of such positions determined not by book sales but by critical acclaim by other established literary authors and critics. Genre fiction writers seek to support themselves by book sales and write to please a mass audience.

I much prefer this definition because the intent and goal and "deliberations" of a work are notoriously difficult to ascertain. "Accountability" is also difficult, but the rest of Stephenson's definition stems more from empirical observation and is far less contentious and loaded, in my opinion.

In a word, one could describe literary fiction as serious. In another, deep.

One could, but does that mean one should? One could call literary fiction a plethora of other things as well, why gravitate towards these vague terms that carry connotations of differences in quality and merit?

On a fundamental level, literary fiction is regarded as the antithesis of pulp fiction, the polar opposite written for the value of entertainment alone. Literary fiction -- in the view of its most vocal supporters -- strives to be something much greater, a manner of entertainment accessible only to those who are willing to think, feel and contemplate.

This is a false dichotomy, and points to the heart of what I want to address. I often hear of these “vocal supporters” that strive for something loftier than “pulp fiction,” but where are they in actuality? You yourself go on to point out that “literary fiction is no enemy of popular or pulp fiction, it is merely a genre to itself.”

At a glance, literary fiction is no different from any other fiction except for the target audience. As a general rule, literary fiction will never be as widely read as other brands of fiction because literary fiction is not written to be read as widely. It explores something else, whether that something is the deepest reaches of the human condition or the influence of prose on how a story can be told. Of itself, literary fiction is no enemy of popular or pulp fiction, it is merely a genre to itself.

See above. I do want to add that “literary fiction will never be as widely read as other brands of fiction” is a patently false statement, and I will elaborate on that in the next section.

Unfortunately, literary fiction garners the most zealous of readers. Frequent visitors of Reddit will recognize the snappy one-liner "r/iamverysmart", frequently posted in response to tirades aimed at the followers and fans of brands of fiction that to not subscribe to the banner of the literary. Unsurprisingly but nevertheless disappointingly, literary fiction appears to be the brand of fiction with the most enclosed and segregated readers. Presumptuous as it may be of me to say this, I have not encountered half the number of high-horsed and upstage enthusiasts of popular fiction (any genre) as I have of their contraries. I grant you that I do not peruse the literary to half the extent that I read Science Fiction or Fantasy (genres often viewed as being of lesser literary merit), but my preconceived notion of literary fiction's most vocal supporters tends to prove true.

I do think this is extremely presumptuous. You have constructed here a boogeyman of an elitist ivory tower reader passing judgment and condescension upon the plebeians when no such figure exists. Relating to my earlier point, I am curious about your declaration “literary fiction appears to be the brand of fiction with the most enclosed and segregated readers.” I believe there is a fundamental misconception of what constitutes literary fiction. I think it is pertinent to go through a brief history of the novel – for it is around the novel form that this discussion primarily revolves. “Literature,” as is commonly understood, encapsulates written material over a very long period of human history. Histories, verse, songs, and treatises dominated written media for the majority of that period. Prose fiction in the form of the novel as we know it today is a relatively recent development, only really coming into mainstream prominence in the ~18th – 19th centuries. The very etymology of the word “prose” carries meanings of directness, straightforwardness, and accessibility (this definition lives on in the word “prosaic” for example). What I’m trying to get at is that prose arose concurrently with literacy and higher demands for written material. The novel was never meant for a targeted, elite audience. The term “literary fiction” is likely to conjure up images of English class classics, many (admittedly not all) of which were part of this push towards widespread consumption of literature, and were received as such. Difficult though it may be to imagine today, these classics were not dusty tomes read and discussed by secluded intellectuals, but by the “common folk.”

The idea that literary fiction is the least read and most secluded compared to the other genres also cannot stand, since what is understood as literary fiction was in fact the only fiction for much of its life and was embraced by the populace as such. It is in fact much easier to argue that something classified as science fiction or fantasy are the segregated genres since they arose as a subset of fiction.

I take separate issue with your usage of Reddit as an example, since the Reddit demographic is actually notoriously non-, or even anti-, “literary.” A glance at r/books will show neverending “discussions” on high school readings lists and “pulp fiction” – in fact, it is more common to read an attack on literary elitism on Reddit than a defense!

It makes sense that Nobel Prize winners will attract the kind of people that are both more willing to delve deep into the most deeply hidden meanings of the word and to publicize their thoughts far and wide - this is the result of literary fiction's prominence within academia. Many of you will remember the standard college fare of reading aged novels for their literary merit, recall teachers ascribing thoughts and values to stories that did not intend them and were not written to conjure such imagery, parroting critics fifty years their seniors because it is comfortable, secure and, more than anything, easy. I am firmly of the opinion that the works of Harper Lee and other similarly widely read authors -- brilliant though they may be -- are part of a secluded and exclusive tier of novels that live well past their time. They may carry teachings and anecdotes that are of value even today, but this obsession with a shrinking number of authors that remain prominent due to the unwillingness of academic institutions to move beyond them needs to end.

Again, a curious example, considering Harper Lee is not considered particularly “literary.” The attack/comment on the Nobel is similarly misleading since the Nobel does not create or bestow literary merit, but rather seeks to recognize it. Your glib comment on “ascribing thoughts and values to stories that did not intend them and were not written to conjure such imagery” is an incredibly outdated criticism since it denies any connection that a reader may have with a work, independent of the author, among a whole host of other issues. I think these observations were levied out of ignorance to what literature and academia actually entails.

I am not trying to tell you, or anyone else, that they may not read and enjoy the brand of fiction they feel resonates most strongly with them, or that they may not raise high the standard of their favorite authors, be it for their literary merit or their uncanny ability to make anyone laugh about anything. My issue lies with the people that subscribe to the newsletters of so few, place these rare and (far too often) hard-to-read authors on a pedestal, as if being hard to read or difficult to discern by itself is a boon or an achievement. Anyone can be contrived and long-winded, that feat in itself requires no great deal of literary skill - but only a select few can touch people in few words. Thus, my problem lies with the people -- Jonathan Jones presently chief among these -- that follow an almost preconceived schedule. They will read Austen, Marquez, Bukowski and swear that these produce works that are inherently better. It is a brand of pseudo-intellectualism that I find repugnant.

This section exemplifies another all too common, and sadly misguided, attack on “literary fiction,” and it stems from insecurity and anti-intellectualism.

To start, the quality of being “hard to read” is not inherently good or bad, but it is often portrayed as such. And second, there is absolutely no bar of abstruseness that a book must pass before it is considered literary fiction. No reasonable observer would deny the existence of contrived and long-winded works of little merit, but nor would he deny the existence of the inverse, converse, and contrapositive. In addition, that observation is often stretched to claim that difficulty is bad. The fear that we have mistaken inaccessibility for brilliance has rubber banded to the point where people label difficulty as a drivel. On top of the phenomenon's roots in anti-intellectualism, pseudo-intellectualism, and empty polemic, none of this discussion has any correlation with the “literariness” of a book whatsoever!

I will once again take issue with your choice of examples. Austen is part of the aforementioned rise of the novel, and enjoyed moderate (but anonymous) success and readership throughout her lifetime and beyond, with an absolute explosion in popularity in the 20th century, both within academia and within the general populace. Bukowski is as anti-establishment as they come, writing on, and for, “the American lowlife.” I would argue that Bukowski enjoys greater renown amongst the laymen than among the literary academia. Garcia Marquez (it’s a double surname good sir) is both critically and commercially renowned. All three of these authors are in fact “pulp” writers by your earlier definition of “read by a broad audience.”

Which brings me to the author that sparked this entire rant: Terry Pratchett. Among all the authors I've read in my life (and I like to think that I've read many more than the average), Pratchett remains one of the most influential. His musings on what it means to be human, on the nature of friendship and the weights of responsibility may be hidden underneath three layers of dry British wit (but then again, is the hidden nature of social and psychological commentary not often tauted as one of the strengths of the literary?), but they are there nevertheless, and they are potent.

Pratchett's passing hit me very hard, harder than the death of any other author to take a walk with Death in my life, and any criticism leveled at Sir Terry invokes a response from me that is twice as I should be, yet not half as angry as I deserve to be. I quote:

This utterly absurd notion that the prose of a page is indicative of the quality of an entire lifetime's worth of works whitens my knuckles. I have no qualms or enemies made with literary fiction of itself, but this high-nosed approach to all that isn't literary puzzles me to no end. If these are the kinds of people that consider themselves (and, perhaps, are considered) authorities on what is literary fiction and what is not, is it strange that those who would otherwise find some cursory interest in the works of authors such as Bukowski be scared off? Writers such as Jonathan Jones who fancy themselves the honor guard of the "better" writers are the very ones that drive this wedge in between literary readers and "ordinary" readers.

When Jonathan Jones, esteemed literary critic at the Guardian, deems the collected works of Terry Pratchett insufficient and unworthy of his attention despite their ability to captivate the minds and imaginations of millions, to invoke the dreams of generations' worth of children and adults alike, he perpeatuates the stereotype of literary fiction as something out of reach for most common readers, something by nature worth more than the likes of Pratchett and Jordan and Erikson. It's a stereotype I actively despise, and the stereotype -- or so I like to think, from my own high school and college experience -- that prevents greater breadth in literature. I promptly refuse to believe that Deadhouse Gates does not possess literary merit of its own, a slew of insights into the human condition and the nature of war, just as I refuse to believe that Marquez was an objectively better writer than Pratchett.

I’m not here to defend Jonathan Jones, since I agree with you that he’s a clickbaiting troll. But I would reiterate that this is not at all reflective of reality or some establishment, either shadowy or prominent, seeking to oppress all works deemed unworthy.


The magic of literature -- all kinds -- is in what we make for ourselves. This is one of my strongest convictions. Our thoughts, our reactions, our emotions, these all serve to conjure images that are more potent than anything the writer, no matter his mastery of prose or his insight into the human condition, could ever force onto the paper. The act of devaluing one author because there exists someone else whom you believe to be better, objectively, is a declaration of conflict, of literary war. I do not have to choose between Cook and Erikson any more than I have to choose between Marquez and Pratchett. They all have their individual merits, their unique quirks and masteries that create worlds and brands of enjoyment for me and every other reader. Limiting yourself and voicing your limits extends these boundaries beyond yourself and act to limit everyone else.

This is exactly the point I’m getting at – we do not have to choose, and we don’t. The entire separation of literary fiction with pulp/genre/popular fiction is based on false premises. For some odd reason, the readers of popular fiction, by definition a majority, feel threatened by an artificially constructed elitist minority, when in fact the opposite is true. Pratchett and Rowling outsell Joyce and Nabokov by magnitudes, let alone any living “literary” author, and yet readers of popular fiction seem to carry a persecution complex. This persecution complex has led to the creation of this false dichotomy between what is literary and what is pulp, as well as the narrative that one is oppressing the other, when no such reality exists. What is considered literary fiction has never eschewed the elements of genre fiction: from Shelley’s Frankenstein to Ishiguro’s Buried Giant, literary authors are more than happy to incorporate elements of genre fiction without any consideration of even the notion of genre. Shelley wrote Frankenstein, sometimes considered the first modern science fiction novel, long before any of this silly genre/literature/pulp/elitism/etc. debate even existed. There is neither wall nor edict nor anything of substance delineating literary fiction from pulp fiction beyond what you imagine there to be. Works can and should be judged on their contents and not on their labels. In an utopia, that would be the norm. I understand that there are people, such as Jones here, who feel and/or act otherwise, but there are people like this on both “sides” of the “debate,” and they are a minority whom we have allowed to dictate the narrative, to everyone’s detriment.

So when you say "Get real. Terry Pratchett is not a literary genius." and masquerade that opinion vaguely as fact, perhaps it would be better to evaluate your insight into the human condition. This belief that tastes are universal, that this limited shelf of books should be read and worshipped forever at the cost of all others, that enjoyment and insight and depth of imagination cannot be found in the works of a greater breadth of writers, it is entirely out of sync with reality.