- Stories
- Forums
- Community
- Tools
- About
![]() |
The CC Blog is written by members of our community. Do you want to write a blog post? Send Us a blog request |
On occasion, confusion arises among authors about the definitions of “literary fiction” and “genre fiction” and whether these classifications mean anything, or even whether “literary” isn’t just another genre. Here’s my take on the terms:
Literary fiction makes the familiar unfamiliar.
Genre fiction makes the unfamiliar familiar.
These definitions are far from perfect—humor writing, for example, doesn’t necessarily fit well into either—but I find them helpful in framing the debate.
Naturally, plenty of work satisfies both these requirements—making both the unfamiliar familiar and the familiar unfamiliar—which is why the literary/genre divide is an oversimplification. If the author so wishes, genre work can illuminate the human condition. And literary work can include vampires and hyperdrives. Whether to market such work as genre or literary is a marketplace decision, not an artistic one.
(About those marketplace matters: Yes, there is a genre of books for sale labelled Literary. This is a misnomer—one might as well claim there are genres called Nuanced or Straightforward—but, thanks to the industry, we’re stuck with it.)
There is also a species of amateurish fiction we might call Bland Contemporary Realism, which eschews the tropes of genre but fails to achieve the texture of the literary. In other words, it “makes the familiar familiar” and is generally a slog to read. Yet somehow, it manages to get published from time to time.
The existence of Bland Contemporary Realism is one argument against thinking of literary fiction as a genre. Badly done science fiction is still sci-fi, while bad so-called literary fiction isn’t really literary, no matter what the bookshelf label says. The literary is a quality that any fiction may possess.
Responses to this blog
To make things even more complicated, frequently genre fiction — SF and fantasy, at least — make the familiar unfamiliar by rendering it through the perspective of the unfamiliar. It's a truism in those fields that one can address real-world topics by relocating them to the future, or an alien world, or a non-mundane situation — the X-Men as metaphor for racial discrimination, say — and perhaps bypass the filters of readers who might otherwise reject an overtly political, or sexual, or religious work. At that point, the genre work is performing some of the same function as the literary work. But that still fits within the analytical framework of your commentary, I think.
Rick
Very interesting post. Thanks for sharing.
My cousin recommended it to me so I borrowed it. It revolved around the day to day life of three very boring people-
The man who starts the book wishing he could be a filmaker has a moment of passion and goes to do filmmaking.
The man who was going to kill himself (and I swear he has no other role in the book, no characteristric except being suicidal and a good buisinessman.) this man decides not to kill himself. And it's not even some good reason like he realises that loss is a inescapable part of life. The reason he survives is three random people come and tell him that suicide is not a good option and then he falls in love with one of them.
The girl who lost faith in love finds love with the above mentioned character.
And that's all I can tell you about the characters journeys. There's nothing else. It was like the characters were just there to fulfill the goal the writer has given them and then she forgot to give them character.
They had no other problems in life accept those singular problems and then they solve those singualr problem in single steps. Real people's struggles involve several problems and several tries to solve them. Everything they do revolves around the theme, so they don't seem like real characters. I get that the main theme was to fulfill your dreams but it was too on the nose. The book is just theme and no plot if that makes sense.
I am not hating on the writer. I give props to her for publishing four books (four more than me) but I finished this book and went 'wait, is that all that happens? There must be more pages.' The plot and characters left me unfulfilled and wanting more complexity.
It IMHO was a book trying to be deep but which ended up being really straightforward.
This was Fran's book review of This Is Not Your Story, thanks for watching, hit that like button and subscribe. (I've been watching too much booktube, sorry.)
So if anyone likes this book don't come at me this is just my opinion but This Is Not Your Story a literary novel by Indian author Savi Sharma is what I consider a straightforward novel to be.
I haven't read her works (So no comment from me), but I've seen Sally Rooney fall into the label of 'bland contemporary realism.' It was from a Spectator article that I read a few months back. Tbh, I should read more lit fic considering I'm writing it...
This article was helpful in understanding: nybookeditors.com/2018/07/what-is-literary-fiction/
I think that a more encompassing explanation of this idea of Bland Contemporary Realism might be any work where themes and symbolism take precedence over character and story. In my mind, true literary fiction can achieve both. The Handmaid's Tale, for instance, can be appreciated solely as an excellent story without any interpretation of the themes or social commentary present in its pages. Exploring those ideas simply adds to the reader's experience. I would argue that in order to achieve literary status, a book must first provide its readers with an enjoyable experience, elevating itself to a more thematic plane only once this basic requirement has been met.
Respond to this blog
Please log in or create a free Critique Circle account to respond to this blog