>>> Item number 29733 from WRITERS LOG9405B --- (114 records) ---- <<< Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 18:35:02 JST Reply-To: WRITERS Sender: WRITERS From: Mike Barker Subject: TECH: Literary Fiction v. Popular Fiction greg quoted penner as suggesting that these qualities distinguish literary from popular fiction (darn - conventions, stereotypes, now qualities? wish the categories would quit shifting on me...) - 1. Completeness and integrity of the fictional world. I'm surprised to see this as a distinguishing mark. I thought consistency and integrity were essential to good writing. - 2. Complex characters If this is the common complaint that popular fiction uses stereotypes while literary fiction uses "better" characters - come on. Let's get real here. I've found flat, round, even four-dimensional complexities in all kinds of writing - and again, it seems as though this is essential to good writing. On the other hand, if you want to argue that popular fiction tends to deal with popular kinds of characters, while literary fiction tends to deal with marginal or unusual characters - hey, some folks like plain folks, some like it hot. There are times and places for both (there are some very marginal characters in popular fiction, too). I will admit that popular fiction sometimes doesn't push a character to the limits - but sometimes character delving isn't terribly interesting, either... balance, now, that's a concept. - 3. A prose style that aims at its own individuality and interest AH! Fascinating, as the guy with the eyebrows would say. I prefer that the style should be TRANSPARENT to the reader - not grab attention. I agree, in general, that popular fiction does tend to avoid styles that poke the reader in the eye and say look at how clever a writer I am. Not that the styles aren't there, but when they start getting between the reader and the story, popular fiction pulls back. I like it that way... So - literary authors let their writing get in the way ON PURPOSE? I always thought it was just bad writing. Now I'll have to think about this. Why would anyone want to do this? - 4. Economy of means. I'm not sure what this means. - 5. An organic relationship of mutual influence between plot and - character. Nice words. Since I thought making the plot and characters go together was another fundamental for good writing, I guess I don't understand what's supposed to be different. - 6. An attempt to create and satisfy needs entirely within the - scope of the narrative. Huh? Sounds like a fancy version of closure, don't leave dangling threads, and so forth. Not clear to me what the uniquely literary contribution is. - 7. The primacy of point of view vis-a-vis content. egads, but that comparison was pitiful. given the rather incredible emphasis by good popular writers on not doing what he accuses popular fiction of doing - has the man read popular fiction, or does he just like sniping at a stereotype without reason? Matter of fact - mystery (one of the genres, and fairly popular) uses point-of-view and limited knowledge rather heavily. Might even consider this one of the trademarks of that genre. Sorry - while I do think popular fiction does require content, I think limited knowledge and careful use of point-of-view are simply part of good writing again, without any real distinguishing value for identifying literary vs. popular work. I can see I'm not going to pass this test. Out of seven items, one I don't understand, one I consider a black mark against any kind of writing, and the other five I thought were common to good writing of any kind. As an alternative point or two... Randy has talked about the texture of the writing before, suggesting that the literary writer works at making the writing, characters, plot, allusions, and so forth work together for effect. This implies (I think) that the literary writer needs to be willing to use or abuse conventions of any of these to make the whole work together. The popular writer, by contrast, is more likely to stick with the conventional methods even when they need to be discarded or modified for a particular effect. This doesn't mean that the literary writer can't use purely conventional methods when appropriate, or that the popular writer necessarily sticks wholly to conventions, but that the likelihood of modification to conventions differs. I suppose (metaphor coming...) that the popular writer is still sticking pretty close to the score, while the literary writer is more likely to jazz it up and play in the cracks. Of course, clubs differ - some want a player who sticks to the golden oldies, while some want improvisation. Offhand, popular fiction seems like a better place to start (after all, playing by the rules is one hell of a lot easier) until you've got the rules cold, then start improvising. Thanks for the pointers, Greg! Sorry I didn't do better at understanding them. tink [BTW - for direct email, try barker%aegis.or.jp@ndsuvm1.bitnet]