Thread: Literary Writing vs. Genre Writing

Can someone explain the difference and maybe provide a few books as examples? I know it's a fine line but no one's been able to explain it clearly. I sometimes also see hate directed towards genre writing... what's wrong with it?

The main thrust, as I see it, is that literary writing is as concerned with the actual writing as it is with the story. Genre writing is usually seen as being the realm of inferior writers, because there is more importance placed on the story, and very little to how well the author is able to put his or her words together. Literary writing is often seen as being for the egotistic author, the one who loves to turn a phrase more than tell a story.

These aren't the 'official' definitions, but they're a rough idea of why each is viewed the way they are.

I tend to prefer reading the so-called literary authors but I simply have no idea what a genre book is. The different subjects authors like to write about? It wouldn't do to say that one should aspire to decent writing of their own and to enjoy decent writing by others? Is there not ample opportunity for the literate writer to turn a phrase no matter his/her subject?

It's a ridiculous and comical distinction.

Theodore Sturgeon, Fritz Lieber, Gene Wolfe, Jeffery Ford, Ursula LeGuin, Chip Delany, Harlan Ellison, and (I could go on and on)...all wrote science fiction, fantasy, and horror for pennies a word in genre magazines.

Now. You kick back and read 'A Saucer Of Loneliness', 'Space-Time For Springers', 'The Fifth Head Of Cerebus', 'Creation', 'The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas', 'Time Considered As A Helix Of Semi-Precious Stones', 'The Deathbird' (I could go on and on) and you think about and you come back and tell me that those aren't literature.

I'll stab you in your fucking face.

Read. Enjoy. Be moved. Get pissed. Laugh. Cry.

Then decide.

Originally Posted by Leyline

It's a ridiculous and comical distinction.

Theodore Sturgeon, Fritz Lieber, Gene Wolfe, Jeffery Ford, Ursula LeGuin, Chip Delany, Harlan Ellison, and (I could go on and on)...all wrote science fiction, fantasy, and horror for pennies a word in genre magazines.

Now. You kick back and read 'A Saucer Of Loneliness', 'Space-Time For Springers', 'The Fifth Head Of Cerebus', 'Creation', 'The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas', 'Time Considered As A Helix Of Semi-Precious Stones', 'The Deathbird' (I could go on and on) and you think about and you come back and tell me that those aren't literature.

I'll stab you in your fucking face.

Read. Enjoy. Be moved. Get pissed. Laugh. Cry.

Then decide.

When you've finished stabbing people in the face - literary fiction and genre fiction are all literature. That isn't the issue.

Cheers,
Rob

Originally Posted by Rob

When you've finished stabbing people in the face - literary fiction and genre fiction are all literature. That isn't the issue.

Cheers,
Rob

Not gonna happen. Way too many stab-worthy faces in the world. Alas.

And you know exactly what I mean.The writing in all the stories I mentioned, and by all the writers I mentioned, is as literary as it gets.

Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery." Is that a genre? Or it that literary?

I would say The Lottery is literary. We had a discussion on this short story in my AP Lit Senior class, and we only read literature-based things. Genre fiction is practically shunned in classroom settings, and I've never seen a genre book on a reading list, unless you're taking a children's literature class in college. Those lucky bastards get to read Harry Potter.

But to me, literary fiction focuses more on the elements of writing than genre fiction does: literary fiction seems to put more emphases on literary devices, such as symbolism, theme, motifs, ect...It doesn't concern itself so much with the story as with the message the story is trying to portray.

What I got out of The Lottery was this: certain traditions are stupid and need to be broken and not kept around just for the sake of tradition.

But, to me, that does not mean genre fiction is inferior. My current novel, Witch Tourniquet, is genre fiction, but I focus equally on literary devices, the story, characters, and all of that to make it a well-balanced, intelligent, interesting read. The purpose of my choosing fantasy for this novel is to aid in my theme. Witch Tourniquet would not mean much if I wrote it in the "literary genre." It means more in fantasy.

Now, I don't think you want to argue the difference between literary and genre. I think you want to argue the difference between mainstream and non-mainstream (can't think of any other way to word it). Mainstream gets slammed for having poor quality. One of my old textbooks slammed mainstream, stating that the quality of writing was often poor, character development was sloppy, and plot development was often simple, and not good simple.

The fact that people argue over what is and what isn't "literary" might just be a clue that there's not much of a distinction.

And if anybody wants to start defining what "mainstream" is, they better pack for the winter.

The big question would be this: what does it matter to a writer?

Originally Posted by GraysonMoran

The fact that people argue over what is and what isn't "literary" might just be a clue that there's not much of a distinction.

Laymen argue over what is literary and what isn't. There isn't so much controversy in academics. Literary fiction is largely based around the types of themes that are addressed in the writing.

The easiest way that I can put it is this: if a piece of fiction addresses a fundamental human flaw, rather than a personal one, in an indirect way, then the piece is literary. It really just so happens that the type of writing that has those qualities defies categorization, because it is so focused on the character.

To Leyline, science fiction is a bit of a strange thing, because we have a tendency to put anything that is set in a time in the distant future or on a different planet into the genre... even if, sometimes, some SciFi pieces are clearly literary.


How do I know this? I've done nothing but bury my fuckin' head in journals from the past sixty years ever since I fuckin' got to college. Books are the only things that don't sleep with other men for as long as I have them checked out.

The easiest way that I can put it is this: if a piece of fiction addresses a fundamental human flaw, rather than a personal one, in an indirect way, then the piece is literary.

Then almost all SF from the 60's till now is literary. Since then, the basic point of SF has been the study of human nature by way of technological and social advancement or (sometimes) regression. Until the late 80's the overall theme could have been stated as: "Despite evolving technology and increasing knowledge, human nature remains basically unalterable." THAT all changed as the concepts of nanotechnology and self-programming AI became common knowledge and predicted 'just around the corner' in the scientific community. It transformed into "How will human nature survive in the world it has made ?"

Put another way, until the Vingean singularity postulation (and, even more importantly IMO, Drexler's publication of Engines Of Creation), SF revolved around the drama of making the world known. After the postulation, it revolved around the world advancing beyond comprehension into the unknown.

How the human being deals with the conflicts generated by those situations is, still, the focal point.

Laymen

??????????????????????????


So, all you have to be to be literary is address a flaw?? What a crippling concept. Mostly put forth by crippled people: who dissect things they can't create.

The idea that there's a difference between what is "personal" and what is "human" flies directly in the face of what I'd call "the humanities".

And sounds like we're saying that most hardboiled private eye potboilers are "literary" because the guy going for the chick and getting screwed is really a human failing. Whereas something like Macbeth or Othello, with their insanely rigged-up royal failings, aren't.

The problem here is people trying to define "literary" (even people who would not be stupid enough to try to define "art").
When it's really easy to define genres. Which are basically, defined by trappings, the way a costume defines a person's character. If there is no murder in it, it ain't a mystery. If there's not a stud with no shirt on, it's not a romance. If people have normal names, it's not fantasy. Or words to that effect.

Genres define themselves. There is no definition for literature.

Originally Posted by GraysonMoran

So, all you have to be to be literary is address a flaw?? What a crippling concept. Mostly put forth by crippled people: who dissect things they can't create.

Does a perfect being have internal conflict?


The difference between what is personal and what is human is the difference between a teen who is self-conscious about his skin and a teen who tries to find his identity. They might be entwined, but if the author only addresses the self-consciousness, then it wouldn't be literary. It would just be a short.

That's pretty standard. No controversy.

(even people who would not be stupid enough to try to define "art")

Wilde attempted to define art. Would you say that you know more about the definite nature of art than Wilde?

I apologize that you aren't at the very epicenter of the academic field to make these distinctions; but, whilst we have people more knowledgeable than ourselves, let's recognize that we don't know everything.

Originally Posted by Shakespeare

...the wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Wilde attempted to define art.

Originally Posted by JosephB

Wilde attempted to define art.

Yes.

Wouldn't you agree that it is the attempt that matters? I suggest you begin listening to Miley Cyrus, if you don't.