Throughout this past year there’s been a persistent idea percolating around the literati: could literary fiction really be dead? No for real this time?
No less an authority than Philip Roth wondered last year whether people still had the patience to read novels. Last month Lee Siegel wrote an article wondering “Where Have All the Mailers Gone?” and wrote, “fiction has become culturally irrelevant.” A few months ago, in an article titled “The Death of Fiction?,” Ted Genoways took stock of the explosion of creative writing programs coupled with the vanishing space for literary stories in magazines. Last year David Shields published REALITY HUNGER: A MANIFESTO, which examined culture’s thirst for reality, and why current literary novels feel lifeless as a form.
Now, the idea that fiction as a whole has become culturally irrelevant is patently ridiculous when you consider that people are currently buying TWILIGHT underwear and when Avada Kedavra has been a trending topic on Twitter the last few days. The novel is far, far from dead, and Carolyn Kellogg at Jacket Copy wrote a gleeful takedown of Siegel’s article.
And let’s also acknowledge that this is not a new idea. Here’s a post from The Guardian in 2001 wondering about the end of literary fiction, and here’s one from the Times in 1992 predicting the end of the novel as we know it due to, wait for it, hypertext.
But could there be something to all of this hand-wringing this time? Sure, J.K. Rowling, Dan Brown, Stephenie Meyer, and James Patterson are some of the bestselling authors of all time and have created cultural tsunamis, but that’s genre fiction. What about literary fiction? Do our current literary luminaries pack the same cultural punch as their counterparts did in the past?
Major publishers are publishing fewer literary novels. Review space is almost nonexistent. The Internet has empowered the crowd at the expense of elites. Could it be real this time?
And if we are witnessing a slow decline in the impact of literary fiction, what’s behind it?
Most of all: is this something we should fear?
(If you’re wondering what makes a novel “literary,” here’s my take)
Summer Ross says
There comes a time for change in every genre, maybe literary fiction's time is now? I'm no expert or anything, but personally in order for any writing to stay alive it has to change with the times, and embrace that change fluidly. I do not think it is the end though.
Anna Bowles says
I think the identification of ‘literary’ as a genre has had a stultifying effect. The things I like best as a reader have both literary credibility and perceived populist features like narrative drive and a focus on relationships. But my perception (looking in at adult novels from children’s publishing) is that if you write a book that is good in both those ways you are actually sunk nowadays because, increasingly, both literary and genre publishers will consider it too far outside the ballpark to fit their list.
Kathryn says
Oh, I hope not. If done well, literary fiction can be fantastic, mind-expanding reads. I tend to gravitate towards both writing and reading lit fic.
But I don't think it's going to lose its place. There's always an audience, and when it comes to literary merit, frankly, I believe it'll always be strong.
Locusts and Wild Honey says
Hmmm…yes. I do think literary fiction is moving from the mainstream to more of a niche thing.
On the one hand, it's a little sad. Literary fiction is, I think, the highest form of the novel.
But it was never really suited for mass consumption, anyway. And if more people are reading great storytelling, that's probably a good thing for books overall.
(I found it! The silver lining!)
Amy B. says
Well I know literary fiction turned me off when I became aware enough to realize that the vast majority of what is deemed literary is written by white guys. It's always felt like an exclusionary club. Kind of like golf. In fact, really like golf. Literary fiction needs its Tiger Woods to make things more exciting and open. Though hopefully sans sex scandal.
Katherine Hyde says
I leave it to wiser pundits than myself to determine whether literary fiction is dying. But IF it is, I think one of the reasons for its demise is precisely the growth in MFA programs, which tend to turn out writers whose work has been workshopped to death. A certain amount of instruction in craft is necessary, but writers should learn primarily by reading great writing, by practicing on their own to develop their own unique voices, and by actually getting out there and LIVING LIFE. What's coming out of MFA programs these days seems drab and uniform, because so many of the writers have never yet been out of school. They have polished their prose till its glassy, but it has no real life experience to reflect.
It seems to me that the best of literary fiction–books like _Gilead_ and _Peace Like a River_–is still popular even in our attention-challenged culture. You just have to have something to say, and pay as much attention to plot as to prose.
Katherine Hyde says
AACK! I meant to type "polished their prose till it's glassy"! (and I just commented on Facebook this morning about misused apostrophes . . .)
Remus says
All the following is just In My Opinion.
Sure, J.K. Rowling, Dan Brown, Stephenie Meyer, and James Patterson are some of the bestselling authors of all time and have created cultural tsunamis, but that's genre fiction.
I'd make a different distinction there, Nathan. All of those are 'popular fiction'. Genre fiction has rules. The only rule for pop fiction is 'Whatever sells books, do it'. Genre, romance, horror, and cheesy Mary Sueisms can all be lumped into the same book, as long as you do it in a way that will sell to the masses of readers with unsophisticated, lowest common denominator tastes.
And that answers your next question: And if we are witnessing a slow decline in the impact of literary fiction, what's behind it?
As profit margins get stripped away, due to economic problems and new competition from technology, it's natural for the publishers to seek only the product that they can sell the most. There are fewer people in publishing for a love of the art, or as a higher calling. Most of them these days are just trying to make a buck. They'd sell fart joke manuals if they could get the chain stores to promise shelf space for them.
Most of all: is this something we should fear?
I'd say no. Literature won't disappear, it'll just become unsellable and noncommercial. But authors will be driven to write it regardless. And with low-cost publishing options opening up, even those literary labors of love will find a market. They just won't show up in chain stores.
Looking even further ahead, it's likely that the pendulum will swing the other way. Someday the public will decide again that they want literature and are willing to pay for it, and someone will figure out a business plan that makes it profitable. Maybe next generation. Everything comes around again, eventually.
Nicole L Rivera says
This is totally not answering the question but for some reason when I read "Twilight underwear" I couldn't stop laughing, out loud, at Starbucks. People are staring. What can I say? The five year old in me is alive and I find the idea of people parading around with Taylor Lautner on their behind quite hilarious.
Amber Forbes says
I could say I'm sad to see it go, but to be perfectly honest, the only time anyone really reads literary fiction is if it's for a school assignment. The last literary thing I read that was my own choice and not something a school assigned me was "Lolita." It was a great, beautifully written book, but its effects don't cling to me as tightly as novels that straddle the line between literary and commercial, like The Forest of Hands and Teeth by Carrie Ryan, or Libba Bray's Gemma Doyle trilogy. I don't think literary fiction is dead itself, but I think its meshing more with commercial in those books that straddle the line between commercial and literary. A couple of months ago I was having a conversation with my sponsor of the ASU CWC, and we were both talking about how it's very possible to write a novel that's elegant in story and words while appealing to the masses. Some of the best YA books, I've noticed, seem to do this. For me, I'm trying to write my novel so that it straddles the line, because pure commercial books and pure literary books have NEVER stuck to me as tightly as books that are in between. Admittedly my published short stories are purely literary, but that's because there's a market for those–not so much with novels anymore. Plus, I want to show the world that I can write beautifully, and my short stories prove that, even if my novels turn out to be more story than great writing (trying to balance both). I sincerely believe that writing can be both an art and a business as the same time.
Mira says
My opinion: No.
For one thing, the wonderful thing about e-books is that nothing can be blocked from publication, and everything can find an audience.
People create. Literary writers will create. And those who love literary fiction will read it.
In fact, the more commercial fiction becomes prominent – and rightly so, imho – the more there's likely to be an underswelling of literary fiction in reaction to that.
Which is also good. I've said this before, sorry to repeat myself, but I believe commercial fiction and literary fiction are both equally necessary to the field of writing. They rely on each other and can not flourish if the other isn't also present.
Hillary says
Is it losing its place in culture or is it just evolving into one of many options as opposed to one of few options as more ways to entertain one's self arrive each year?
What do the numbers say? How many lit fic novels are published each year compared to ten or twenty years ago? Are the lower sales numbers due both to other options (genre novels, online ent, e-books, a bazillion channels on tv) AND due to more competition within literary fiction?
Mary says
Whether it is or not, my biggest beef has always been that people perceive genre fiction has having no literary value, as if it's all fluff with no substance, as if all genre fiction writers were somehow sub par to literary fiction writers. If it means the death of the elitism of literary fiction… well, let's just say I won't be too bummed about it.
Dave @ A Writer's Look says
Maybe if literary authors were better at marketing themselves, they wouldn't have this problem.
The primary reason for a person to pick up a book is because they want an escape from everyday life — out of all the genres (besides non-fiction), literary is the least likely to offer that escape.
Most of the non-writers I know who read primarily literary novels (and usually have something against genre novels, which amuses me) do so not because they want to experience the story, but because they want to be able to talk about the book with their other friends who also read it. Some of them openly admit to not enjoying the read itself, which is ridiculous, but that's another tangent.
Anonymous says
We can blame it on the movies (someone did); and, yes, film structure and story have dumbed down people's narrative capabilities.
We can blame it on the 160 characters of SMS or the 140 characters of Twitter – SMS being the largest form of written communication in the World at this point (true fact).
We can blame it on the Schools and parents who've allowed a generation (or two) to grow up without the ability to engage in complex narrative – resulting in the dumbing down of all other cognitive functions.
We can blame it on the downfall of independent bookstores and publishers in favor of online shopping and box stores.
Unfortunately, when you combine these factors (and a few others), the notion that Literary Fiction (and other forms of complex writing) are dying is far too real.
What we don't know is what are the long-term ramifications? What could they be?
Anonymous says
The literary novel is not dead, just rarely published. The novels are still written and readers still appreciate them. The literary novel simply cannot compete with the genre novel in the marketplace. It seems to be low risk business practice to go with novels that come with movies, action figures, t-shirts, etc. and low risk is good business.
I am reminded of my world history teacher telling me that the ancient Romans were concerned about the breakdown of the family unit, 'kids today'. Maybe the family unit never existed like we think it did. I think we too may believe that when we were younger there were more literary novels and better writers. We are all fans of our nostalgia.
I buy into the group thought that literary fiction is just another genre that has never been published heavy in any year, and is always looked back on in the entirety the genre.
Shelli says
I don't think literary fiction will ever fade away as long as women love their book clubs. Book clubs are a place to plumb the depths of hidden meaning, not just to sit around and say, "I liked it. I really liked it." In fact, in my book club, the likes of Jodi Picoult have been scorned, Stephanie Meyers defended, and Markus Zusak celebrated. There's a reason The Help is still on the New York Times bestseller list for over a year.
Anonymous says
The uproar concerning the declining popularity of literary fiction reminds me of the shifting popularity of different genres of music of music over time. I firmly believe that the literary novel will not die, but it may be that we see new forms, or that there will have to be different approaches to niche marketing (as happened in the music industry as well) I think some of the panic is coming from a perception (I can't tell whether there is merit to this or not, so take the comment with a grain of salt…) that other forms of media have historically shifted in popularity of genre much more quickly than books. With the advent of the internet, I suspect that trends in what is popular change more rapidly than in the past.
Shoot, I don't know if I am making sense – all my animals have me distracted today…
Stu Pitt says
Newspapers still report prize and Nobel winners in lit, so that's popular.
Literary fiction writers today are mostly navel gazing wimps, so there are no Mailer/Vidal type brawls to report.
Nervous major houses don't publish literary fiction with any sort of exciting sex action, so scandals are limited. Houellebecq caused a minor stir, but he was French.
Writers all say the same things in interviews, and their politics are middle-of-the-road boring, lest they offend anyone. Naipaul can still piss people off, but he's old.
Losing its place in culture? In America, yes. Game over.
swampfox says
Look at it this way. With the advent of Jazz, Rock, Hip Hop, Country, and whatever else, you would have thought that Classical Music would have gone to the wayside.
But no. There is still a huge audience for the great composers of history and the masterpieces they wrote, which are timeless. I think the same is true for novels in regards to Literary Fiction.
Lisa says
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only." Charles Dickens, 1812-1870
We've been wringing our hands over the oncoming demise of our valued treasures since, well, Dickens (and before) – and the truth is, treasures, literary and otherwise, survive because they feed our a priori human need for intimate and beautiful conversation about this shared existence
Jay says
I quote you from your "definition of literary fiction" post: …"literary fiction is more challenging to read than genre fiction because it requires the reader to infer a great deal of the plot rather than simply sitting back and watching the plot unfold. It requires empathy to relate to characters as humans and to deduce the hidden motivations and desires that lurk beneath their actions."
The problem is more is required of the reader. Almost like work. Is it worth it? Absolutely! Unfortunately, folks used to being spoon-fed everything tend to balk at having to work to earn their joy. And we are increasingly becoming a spoon-fed, balking society. (Geez, I sound cynical.) Now get oughta my yard!
Ted Cross says
There will always be those who love literary fiction, though whether they make up a large enough group to be able to be profitable with it is debatable. I don't mind really nice prose if it is directly for story purposes, but once it gets even a whiff of snootiness I don't have any interest in it. I'm a genre guy. BTW, did you really say Mailer was literary? The couple of his I read didn't seem that way to me.
Megan Haskell says
Mary said: "If it means the death of the elitism of literary fiction… well, let's just say I won't be too bummed about it."
This is exactly the change that I see coming. Yes, there is and will be a market for literary fiction, but literary fiction has to get off its high horse first and tell a good story.
There are good and bad works in every genre (and I think literary fiction is a genre, even if it's just the repository for any work that can't be defined as something else). There are master works in sci-fi (Ender's Game), fantasy (Lord of the Rings), Apocalyptic (The Road)…I could go on, but the point is that these master works have literary value. It's a change in definition, or maybe a change in focus, but it's not the death of literary fiction.
cheekychook says
First off I have to say this topic is the perfect follow-up to yesterdays discussion about what's more important, the writing or the storytelling. In my opinion these two issues are very closely connected.
For some people, literary fiction is the ultimate writing, the be-all-end-all-I-despise-reading-anything-else answer to the question "what shall I read?"—for other people, literary fiction is like the snooty, overpriced wine that may or may not taste as good as the $10 bottle on display at the checkout line, it's the book you feel like you SHOULD like (because important people have said it's so good) but is boring/wordy/tedious/something else that makes you wish you'd bought the book with shiny silver cover instead.
Sometimes you want to read the New York Times (even if you may have to pause to look up a word now and then)—other times you just want to know what happened today and you go to Yahoo News. The information is probably similar, the delivery is very different.
When it comes to novels, obviously preference and ideals play a big part in what individual people want to read, but I can't help but think that a lot of the current labels "literary", "commercial", "romance", "women's fiction" do a lot more harm than good. Sure it's nice to have a classification system, and genres exist for a reason, but I think a lot of people really want to read books that are hybrids of these categories—and I think the desire for more encompassing books may be something that contributes to the downfall of something like a strictly "literary" genre.
Literary fiction will always exist—there's so much of it already,classics that are not going anywhere—and new books will always arise that simply have that more "literary" feel to them, but I would not be surprised if "upmarket" or "mainstream" or "crossover" or "whatever you want to to call the literary work with commercial appeal or the commercial work that's so beautifully written" becomes more prominent.
Generally speaking I think our society wants the escape of the story (as so many people said in yesterday's comments, beautiful prose will only get you so far if you're not really using it to tell a compelling story)—and many people are willing to forgive less than stellar writing if it allows them to read the story they feel drawn to. That doesn't mean they wouldn't read a fantastic story that happens to also be written with amazing style and gorgeous prose. I think they would.
Rather than looking at it as the "downfall of literary fiction", as though it's a loss or a bad thing, I prefer to look at it as setting the bar for literary fiction not higher, but at a different angle. Mind-blowing, thought provoking, stylized, intelligent, character driven stories can still have plots, and can still have commercial appeal. Is it hard to do all of that in one book? Sure it is. But no one ever said writing a book was easy.
Becca says
I just think all it's going to take is one person to right the novel, the "literary" novel, and it will always be there. It may decline, but I don't think it will ever go away.
Ken says
My take is that the cultural impact of literary fiction is indeed declining, and it's in large part because there are more forms of competing high-quality storytelling than existed a few decades ago.
The Wire. Red Dead Remption. Grand Theft Auto 4. The Sopranos. Those have been able to grip the cultural moment in huge ways, and literary fiction has to compete in that space now.
Should we worry? No. Just like we don't need to worry that ebooks will end quality books as we know it (you'll just need to know where to look), the same will hold true for lit fic. People will still want to write it, and people will still want to read it.
Kate says
I don't know. I'm more up-to-date on the book industry now than any other time in my life. And I was an English major, which was part of the problem. I was too busy reading the "classics/cannon/whatever" to read the new stuff. That is until I realized the book business is cranking out awesome books every year.
I do tend to prefer books with a literary element and I define that as something going on beneath the surface. In fact, I love books that do both and more and more authors are accomplishing this I think. Some of your clients' recent releases are perfect examples. In both Rock Paper Tiger and The Secret Year, both protagonists have a lot going on inside. But the authors (wisely) don't inflict pages and pages of narrative summary on the poor readers to establish those internal journeys.
I don't think the literary novel is dead. It's just evolving to accommodate the culture.
P.S. I'm friends with my Victorian lit professor on Facebook (I know…) and I happen to know she taught Twilight in one of her classes last semester. And she's no softy. Twilight is changing the way people think about books and romance and love and all that stuff. If that's not literary, I don't know what is.
Bryan Russell (Ink) says
Interesting question.
Certainly I don't think literary fiction is dead, or meaningless. And the meaning, the impact, of literary novels is usually much easier to see somewhere down the road. It's easy to look back and see the influence of the Roths and Mailers and Updikes. But the influence of Aleksandar Hemon and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie? We'll probably have to wait a bit.
I do think things change. Popularity shifts, and forms shift with it. I think the market for difficult literary novels has shrunk in North America (though it was probably never that huge to start with). Is there a shift to more of a populist literary fiction? I think so. But these things are culturally oriented, and culture is fluid and malleable. Popular taste is rarely static.
Niche markets buoy up certain forms, and then niches slide into mainstream once again. And then out, and then in.
I watch kids on skateboards, sometimes. There was a time when they were very rare, sort of an interesting sub/counter-culture. But when I was a kid they hit mainstream. People were riding skateboards everywhere. Shops flourished. They made video games about Tony Hawk. And then it slipped out of the mainstream, returning to something that more resembled its subculture roots. And yet now? I see more kids on skateboards again. Will it hit mainstream again? Perhaps. Perhaps not. And there are offshoots, too. There's these new things, I don't even know what they're called. Thin middles, paddle ends. One spinning wheel at the front, one at the back. The foot sways the rear of the board back and forth, sort of a fanning motion, with the energy transferred into forward speed.
Things change. New forms come along. Tastes shift, shift again, back and forward.
Dead is pretty definitive. And in this, the age of the vampire, things rarely stay dead for long. All it takes is one good bite…
j.leigh.bailey says
While I'd hate to see any area of fiction (genre or literary)go away, it probably wouldn't affect me much if it did. I have to say I'm not a fan (in general) of literary fiction. I'm definitely a genre-fiction girl! However, I truely believe that a well written story, no matter the genre classification, will find a home.
D.G. Hudson says
Literary fiction will survive, but it may have to take a back seat for a while. IMO, you need a certain amount of education to read and understand literary fiction, which does put it into a different class and makes it less appealing to the unwashed masses who look to Amazon for their reading suggestions.
Also – literary as a term tends to turn some writers off as it evokes the idea of elitist writing.
I hope literary fiction isn't dead, but perhaps it's time to give it a boost of reality. Strip away all the pretense of elitist literature – and make it easier for the readers to understand a 'deeper' sort of novel. Of course, it involves thinking about what one is reading.
Unfortunately, if there are fewer literary books to choose from, isn't that partly because publishers choose not to select those types if they think they can make more on a genre book? A lot of decisions these days are made based on the bottom line.
Eowyn Ivey says
Literary fiction dying? If you mean well-written, compelling stories with depth of character and metaphorical language, just look at some of the movies to come out in recent years. The Road, Cold Mountain, Snow Falling on Cedars, The Shipping News, All the Pretty Horses, Memoirs of a Geisha, Bee Season, Lovely Bones, Blindness, Brokeback Mountain, Revolutionary Road, Atonement, The Kite Runner, Stardust. Just to name a few. Regardless of how you feel about either the books or the movies they inspired, there is no denying the connection. If film is one of the leading media today, the fact that it looks so often to books means something. Literary fiction may be changing, adapting, being used in different ways, but for as long as I can imagine, people will want to hears stories that provide insight into humanity, that capture something both unique and universal.
beth says
If I understand correctly, (and I'm not claiming to), literary fiction is fiction with a higher meaning than the story it tells. If you think about Twilight as a story about overcoming temptation rather than a vampire, and Shiver as a story about losing yourself rather than turning into a werewolf, can genre fiction not also be literary?
beth-project52.blogspot.com
Nathan Bransford says
eowyn-
Interesting though, that all the movies you mentioned were based on novels published before 2006.
Jihad Punk 77 says
Lit Fiction is not gonna die! rather, it will EVOLVE into something else…
Susan Gourley/Kelley says
I agree with Megan and Mary. We force young people to read literary classics in school, test them, study each paragraph and deeper meaning to death and then expect them to fall in love with it? We make it boring work for large number of students and they never get the chance to fall in love with novels of any type. If schools are still using the same novels today they used 30-50 years ago why would young readers understand there are modern works and new authors out there putting out great material?
We authors hear about promote, promote all the time but I seldom see literary novels buying those expensive spots at the front of the bookstore. They need to accept what the rest of the publishing world knows instead of expecting the world to find their novels just because they wrote it.
Anonymous says
Kathryn Stockett's THE HELP has been on the NYT besteller list for like a year now.
I'd say that's literary.
Cheryl Anne Gardner says
It would be sad thing if literary fiction were to pass into the shadows, but I don't think that is going to happen. The Dactyl Foundation for the Arts and Humanities in NYC has something to say about the current state of literary fiction and has started their own review site. They even have a nice comprehensive definition of what literary fiction is and should be.
Hopefully more review sites like this will pop up to give Lit Fic readers the sort of the books they crave whether they be NY Published, Indie Press Published, or even Indie Author Published.
https://dactylfoundation.org/?p=1529
Phyllis says
"Interesting though, that all the movies you mentioned were based on novels published before 2006."
4 years, is that a long time for books made into movies? I really don't know, but I think it's a short time for claiming there's a trend showing that literary fiction loses its cultural impact.
Nathan Bransford says
phyllis-
Good point.
Fran says
I'd say that what has been dying is the access of sharp literary fiction to media mavens, since the figure of the literary critic as someone influential is gone.
The closest you can get to see a book related to real life matters is Colbert making some witty pun.
The public is also aware that most spaces are marketing minced-meat books that two weeks later will be rotting in oblivion. I don't remember the last time I saw an ad for a book meant to rock anybody's personal culture.
Given that the essences of literature and human nature remain mostly unchanged, the problem has to lie somewhere else.
Robert says
After many years of hand-wringing and procrastination, I finally sat down and wrote my literary novel over the last year. My poor timing in this endeavor is rivaled only by my timing in bed.
Scott says
Lit fiction was stillborn in the 1700's (or whenever you want to trace its earliest origin to).
It has always been dead, in the sense that not very many people like it or want to read it. And writing without readers is like a skate park in a retirement community.
People cite Dickens and similar names as the greats of lit fiction; I may not be the eminent expert on this, but wouldn't most of those guys have been considered mainstream bestsellers in their day, much like Stephen King now? I'm sure even Shakespeare's contemporaries that weren't as widely read/performed scoffed at his crowd-pleasing, low-brow antics when compared to THEIR high-minded and literary work. And now they are gone and forgotten, and he is still around.
There may have been a brief 20th-century spurt of interest in being literary, but it's definitely over. John Grisham and J.K. Rowling put paid to that.
Robert says
"the only time anyone really reads literary fiction is if it's for a school assignment."
Spoken like someone who has been in school all her life.
Kellye Parish says
Major publishers are publishing fewer literary novels. Review space is almost nonexistent. The Internet has empowered the crowd at the expense of elites. Could it be real this time?
I don't think so, because the Internet can go both ways. I have been more exposed to literary fiction through the Internet since college due to the fact that almost every credible small press has its own blog and website now, and through those outlets I am constantly exposed to literary short stories and novels I wouldn't be exposed to otherwise. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and the Internet has been good for niche markets I think.
And if we are witnessing a slow decline in the impact of literary fiction, what's behind it?
Looming Western illiteracy? 😛
Most of all: is this something we should fear?
Mostly I think it will probably push literary aspects of novels into genre fiction, which I tend to think of as a good thing.
Literary fiction might die back as a genre in its own right, but I think this trend has the potential to diffuse literary fiction's strong points into other genres.
My favorite kind of books are genre fiction with literary aspects – so maybe we'll just lose stagnant, self-indulgent and obtuse literary novels in lieu of what Nathan defines as "commercial literary fiction" and what I define as "literary fiction that doesn't double as a natural sedative".
Mayowa says
Literary writers have to make their work more inclusive without dumbing it down. Overall though, I think great culture is dying in all mediums Nathan.
Listen to the new breed of dance bubbleheads on the radio, watch the countless dance/hair dressing reality shows, check out the recycled sequels and prequels that flood the movies every summer.
Deep thought no longer excites the people, hard truths no longer interest the people. Literary fiction just feels the effect more than most other mediums.
Great post
Gehayi says
First I think you'd have to define what you mean by "literary fiction." If you say "literary fiction" to me, I hear that as code for "a boring, self-important story where nothing happens but which the critics claim is Deeply Significant For Our Times." I suspect a lot of people feel the same way, which is why literary fiction is losing ground.
I don't think that literary fiction HAS to be boring or self-important. I do think, however, that for the past thirty years or so that it's been caught in the trap of pretentiousness, which makes people less and less willing to read it–and less and less willing to see it as accessible. The genre is going to need to change if it wants to survive.
Anne R. Allen says
Self-consciously literary fiction may be dying, but I'm sure real literary fiction will always be with us. These days it often masquerades as crime, historical or women's fiction.
And a great point was made by a couple of commenters here: most of the classics weren't written to be "literary." Dickens was the Stephen King of his time.
I'll bet kids a generation from now will be whining about having to read "Carrie" or "Get Shorty" for English class.
Kim Batchelor says
First, thanks for the tip on that spell-thingy. But I digress…
I've always struggled with the genre-mainstream-literary distinctions, making it hard sometimes to find the book I wanted when a bookstore tries to segregate them. Most readers, I'm going out on a limb here, want a good story told well. I'd like to see some of the distinctions erased as they don't serve us very well. And if there's a boom in the sales of whatever format of book, it says to me that people are reading.
Ken Hannahs says
How pertinent! I am currently looking to produce a podcast/book club that will talk primarily about books with a literary bend. I'm doing it primarily because of these reasons that are all mentioned below, namely: literary has a decidedly bad connotation to most people; they're considered boring; people think that there's no plot in them. That's simply not true! I love them, and I'm actively looking for other people that love them and want to talk about them in a podcast format.
Interested? Please visit my website (cheekondesk.blogspot.com) for all those lucious, lucious deets.
And also, before you get your hackles ruffled (or whatever) I asked NB if I could post this here before I posted, so as not to stir animosity.
Thanks for your time, and I hope to hear from you!
-Ken