Being predominantly a reader of speculative fiction, and therefore being predominantly a consumer of speculative fiction media, I have for years read the opinions and views of other such readers as to what “literary fiction” is. Why isn't genre award winning book X acknowledged by the mainstream? Those guys don't know what real science fiction is. Once again, they use our tropes to tell a crap story... And so on. There is clearly an us vs. them mentality in play, and it's f#$%^& tiresome. So, this is it—the be-all, end-all. The final word on literary fiction vs. genre fiction. At last you can write to your grandma and tell her the paradigm exists.
In order to do this, we need to get to the roots of taxonomy. The prime determiner of type, class, phylum, genus, and rank—the umbrella spread over all written fiction—is relevancy, and execution on said relevancy. Did the writer want to publish the latest, bestselling, paranormal romance for a certain audience, or did they want to use alien juxtaposition to create transcendent commentary on the human condition that society would discuss in-depth for decades? Twilight and Solaris. Both books are executed reasonably well and contain elements of fantastika. But with Meyer's novel, the operatic focus on melodrama, character, and plot provides minimal opportunity for sophisticated discussion. (I would guess, however, that numerous Master's theses have been written with Twilight as an informative text given the state of culture in universities today...) With Lem's novel, however, there is ample depth to hash over humanity's ability to come to terms with the Other, limitations of existence, liminal ontology, as well as xenophobia. The psychology, sociology, and existentialism inherent to Solaris provide a thematic foundation which makes it clear his and Meyer's novels are of differing relevance: Twilight is for the individual, Solaris is for humanity.
In case you missed that, literary fiction is not exclusively realist fiction. More than tropes, devices, settings, realism, etc., literary fiction is a type of fiction which primarily digs into the human condition. It wants to explore, highlight, or comment upon a broader aspect, or aspects, of existence. It successfully delivers upon these themes and ideas with complementary style and technique. It aims to incite discussion on complex, sophisticated angles of life. It is intelligently written, and treats its readers as intelligent. It is not literature enjoyable by everybody, but it is literature intended to have meaning for everybody—for the masses, rather than a mass. And lastly, it subsumes any other sub-classification of fiction. So, go ahead, call Solaris 'science fiction'. It is. But I'm here to say it is literary fiction, first and foremost.
Perhaps a good way of framing relevancy is Margaret Atwood's criticism of fiction which she decries as “squids in space”. But you're writing science fiction, too! some readers respond to her. It becomes clear when looking at Atwood's work through the literary lens vs the pulp science fiction lens she is referring to (i.e. science fiction with plot focus, 1D characters, limited writing technique, etc.), however, that something is different about her ouevre. Atwood's goal is to transcend these basic elements of fiction and offer the willing reader and society something more substantive, something with broader meaning to discuss and ponder and potentially incite. With due respect to Vernor Vinge, he is an author who wants to tell a sci-fi tale and make a buck. Fair enough. Society has a place for that—a place I often, often also find myself shelling cash out for. But the legacy of his works is popularity and entertainment, not human relevance. Nothing wrong with that, but decades from now he will be a wikipedia entry, whereas there is a good chance people will still be discussing The Handmaid's Tale (unless, of course, Atwood's vision unfortunately becomes reality, natch).
All classifications after literary fiction is the milieu we know of. Cut and sliced based on setting and device, it is where the majority of opinion ebbs and flows. The sharpest knife to dissect this milieu is realist vs non-realist fiction. One works with a setting that we know either existed or exists today, and puts into play plot devices, events, characters, and scenes that are or were possible in reality. The non-realist side, sometimes referred to as fantastika or speculative fiction, deals in settings, events, characters, and/or plot devices that are not known to be part of human reality or possible. Another sharp knife is time: stories yesterday (historical fiction), stories tomorrow (science fiction), and stories today (identifier lacking, but which often includes crime, horror, romance, thriller, bestseller, mainstream*, popular fiction, contemporary literature, etc.) Another potential blade (though it often encounters hard surfaces), is the that of genre. Science fiction is considered a genre, for example, and branching outward are a number of sub-genres—space opera, hard sf, cyberpunk, etc. Once the branches extend far enough, however, ambiguity sets in. Thus, be aware this blade won't always cut as deep as one may like. It goes without saying that a work of fiction can be any combination of the above, including literary fiction. Just be aware potential consideration as literary fiction needs come first.
Some of you clever readers will pick up on the fact I have not 100% clearly defined, 100% clearly delineated “relevancy.” And indeed you are right. It is slippery. Fences can be erected, but still some things get through, or conversely, don't get through when perhaps they should. There are books which do not seem to be literary fiction but are taken as such, and vice versa. Relevancy, as a concept, is not watertight. And yes, I'm aware there is some merit to the statement: the literary establishment doesn't take _fill in your favorite genre here__ seriously.
In response, I offer the following: the label “literary fiction” is a flag announcing a book's intentions more than anything, and is more useful for it. When seeing that a book has those words on the cover, is classified in the book shop as such, or is mentioned in such (breathless) tones, a reader can broadly surmise it intends to do the things described above. The reader, however, will not be able to guess the means by which said intentions are delivered (despite jokes about French existential angst). Is this literary cyberpunk, literary historical fiction, literary epic fantasy, literary contemporary drama, literary Nordic noir—who knows? Compare this to an encounter with a book labeled “cyberpunk”, “historical”, “noir”, etc.. In that encounter the reader knows the medium, but not the message or intent. It could be cyberpunk of the most humanitarian interest, but also cyberpunk seeking the cheapest thrills, for example. And that's not even opening the Pandora's box of writing quality; you just don't know whether the latter writer is able to string words together in an effective, complementary manner, or just together. With literary fiction there is almost—almost—a guarantee that the writer knew what they were doing when putting word #2 after word #1. There is no foolproof formula, but I daresay the “literary fiction” label offers more helpful information for a would-be reader than a genre label.
So yes, you will need to write to your grandmother, again, and tell her you've been mislead. I provided only a framework not a definitive formula to the matter of literary taxonomy. Apologies for that. But I hope that I've at least drawn a grid in the gray that will allow you to better triangulate fiction, and more importantly, to appreciate the label “literary fiction”. Thus, for that dwindling corner of academia which refuses to acknowledge the potential for fiction utilizing non-realist devices, setting, or events, read this post twice, please. I think we're on the same team. And you, science fiction reader who plays the victim card when your favorite book is not recognized by the 'arbiters of literary fictions', take a look at your book's relevancy and execution. Is it just trying to entertain you, or is there a deeper purpose, a deeper message or commentary the author was trying to pass on to you and society. If yes, complain! If no, realize that your personal interests are your personal interests, and there is nothing wrong with that. I salivate thinking of reading a Jack Vance novel, but I know it's for personal reasons, not literary.
So there you are, have at it. :)
*I sometimes see comments or blog posts referring to realist and/or literary fiction as “mainstream fiction”. Please stop. Mainstream fiction is another way of saying popular fiction. It's what's being read in large quantity in the mainstream—bestsellers for the masses, not elite or niche interests. It thus includes extremely popular writers like George R.R. Martin, i.e. a writer who is not writing realist fiction. Love it or leave it, Martin is a mainstream author (along with fantasy, grimdark, etc).
No comments:
Post a Comment