My writing is often, but not always, the former (though I leave bits out). My writing is more often than not, with occasional and usually deliberate exceptions, the middle one. My writing has been accused both of being the latter and of utterly failing to be the latter and I have absolutely no concept of whether or not it is. Up until quite recently, I was happy to accept the above without recourse to paralysing angst, self-loathing and occasional existential crisis or, indeed, question.

But if I want to send it around, surely I have to know? Equally, a many-named critter gave me an either or with a section of my work "if you are marketing it as literary then... but if not then...".

I have some pretty big concepts underlying my writing that, I think, suit the idea of it being literary. Equally, the fact that the question is even being asked leads me to suspect I am at least in spitting distance thereof. But I don't "feel" like a literary writer. Also, I have a catastrophic lack of enthusiasm for metaphor, poncey hyperbole in description and suchlike, which makes me think I'm not.

So, in an effort to get my head around what is and is not literary, and with a prestated lack of comprehension of any of the definitions I have found, here is a list of some of the books / authors I have read enough to remember, what is your opinion as to their literary / non-literary status and, if you are feeling bored, even a justification as to why:

Stephen Tolz : A Fraction Of The Whole (some awful editing and some fantastic concepts )

James Kelman : How Late it Was, How Late (which awed me with its brilliance)

Will Self : (quite a lot of things)

Kazuo Ishiguro : Never Let Me Go

William Golding : Lord Of The Flies

Terry Pratchett : (quite a lot of things)

JRR Tolkien : (quite a lot of things)

Susannah Clarke : Jonathan Strange And Mr Norrell (recommended, especially if you have a lot of time to fill )

John McGahern : That They May Face The Rising Sun

Douglas Adams : (ah... more or less everything)

Ben Elton : Stark (please don't despise me )
Ben Elton : The First Casualty (really, please don't despise me )

Gaius

Well, speaking personally (I'm sure there will be those who disagree) the basic groupings are commercial or literary, with some boarderline examples.
With literary fiction the prose works twice as hard; it carries the story (which may be more of a concept than an actual plot) as well as being read and enjoyed in it's own right - Sebastian Barry's The Secret Scripture is a case in point; even the boring bits were lovely and could be read for the use of analogy and metaphor alone. However, some literary authors completely swamp the story by playing with the prose until it is opaque, eg, Will Self.
So my take on your list =

Stephen Tolz : A Fraction Of The Whole - Can't say, haven't read him.

James Kelman : How Late it Was, How Late - Ditto

Will Self : (quite a lot of things) - Literary

Kazuo Ishiguro : Never Let Me Go - Literary

William Golding : Lord Of The Flies - Literary

Terry Pratchett : (quite a lot of things) - Commercial, Fantasy.

JRR Tolkien : (quite a lot of things) - In a class of his own, like Shakespeare

Susannah Clarke : Jonathan Strange And Mr Norrell - Hmmm, I think I'll plumb for Commercial Historical (I know it's Fantasy, but it's written like historical fiction), but boarderline literary.

John McGahern : That They May Face The Rising Sun - - Can't say, haven't read him.

Douglas Adams : (ah... more or less everything) - Commercial, SF humour.

Ben Elton : - Commercial Lad-lit.


- NaomiM

<Added>

I think the problem you have with your mss, Gaius, it the plot is more concept than story, and the characters are more analogy than flesh and blood, which moves it towards literary and away from commercial fiction. If you feel, however, that your prose is not sufficient to carry the novel, then maybe it's best to decide what sort of author(s) you'd like to write like, and learn from them.

Welcome to the crossover club!

Also, I have a catastrophic lack of enthusiasm for metaphor, poncey hyperbole in description and suchlike, which makes me think I'm not.

No, that just means you've got good taste - although we'd be hard put to it to write things without metaphors - 'catastrophic' is one, you could argue... it's certainly hyperbole . But bad writing is bad writing, whatever part of the market it's aimed at. And lots of first-class literary fiction is plainly written, but pitch-perfectly so; in plainly-written commercial fiction, I would say, the prose tends to be serviceable, fit-for-purpose, rather than a positive pleasure in itself.

This is what Mark Lawson said, a propos Michael Crichton's death:

Broadly, there are three basic elements that a novel can contain: narrative, ideas and prose. Novelists can still flourish within different markets if their essential talent is storytelling (Jeffrey Archer), thinking (John Berger) or crafting sentences (John Updike), but it is exceptionally rare for an author to have the gift of all three: John le Carré is the primary example. Crichton was unusual in a genre obsessed with narrative in also being fascinated by ideas, but his prose, a bare and sometimes ugly scaffolding for the facts and twists, held him back from higher literary standing: one reason that The Andromeda Strain is the most accomplished of his books is that it is deliberately written in the neutral tone of science reporting.

Literary fiction is often assumed to be about ideas and prose at the expense of storytelling, but the stuff which really works has first-class storytelling at its core - Lord of the Flies would be a classic example. When it doesn't, it's because the prose is being fancy, or fancily bald, for its own sake, rather than being in service of the storytelling (though which it is, will always be a matter of taste).

I blogged about this, a while back, because I write in that tricky crossover part of the market, and I'm always trying to understand what it is that makes it work, or not work. I do think it's harder to sell work which falls between two pigeonholes, but I also feel that if that's where you naturally write, you'll never write as well if you go against nature.

http://emmadarwin.typepad.com/thisitchofwriting/2009/08/the-third-way.html

Emma

<Added>

And this was me pondering my own crossoveriness, which may or may not be relevant to yours:

http://emmadarwin.typepad.com/thisitchofwriting/2007/10/brainy-and-sexy.html

The weird thing is that agents and eds always claim to want both! "Commercial concept with a literary execution" is a common cliche.

And all the literary fiction editors spend their time telling the sales team "this is her most commercial yet, honest" which all the commercial fiction editors spend their time telling the publicists "it's really beautifully written, you know".

The very broadest definition is that commercial books get sales and literary books get reviews, and the ideal of course is to get both.

The trick I suppose is to take the best from each genre, and not the worst. The best combination is a wonderful clarity of expression and an originality of thought that is intelligent, accessible, thought-provoking and entertaining. The worst is a poorly written book abounding in conceit, clunky metaphor, ill-thought-out analogy and distracting tricks of prose.

Having said that, some very successful literary novelists IMO fall into the latter group, so like everything else, I guess it's subjective.

Not sure if this post helps at all reading it back. Feel free to ignore!

<Added>

sorry, should have read "WHILE all the commercial..."

The thing with crossover is that making the most of prose and ideas often gets in the way of the ruthless plottiness that commercial fiction needs, and rampant plottinness doesn't leave the space for prose and ideas that literary fiction needs. It is genuinely hard to do all three at once, and have them all work in themselves and together. And if it doesn't succeed, neither the plot-lovers will like it (too wordy/fancy, ideas too complicated/obscurely put) nor will the literary lovers (too driven, no pleasure in the prose, ideas not obvious/fundamental enough).

In other words, you can't sell successfully into either market. So you get rejected (as I know, very well) even though the individual elements are good. (I would say, though, that it's also a nice, impersonal reason which kind editors use for rejecting a nicely-written middle-of-the-road book for which the real reason is that it's just not compelling enough.)

The weird thing is that agents and eds always claim to want both! "Commercial concept with a literary execution" is a common cliche. And all the literary fiction editors spend their time telling the sales team "this is her most commercial yet, honest" which all the commercial fiction editors spend their time telling the publicists "it's really beautifully written, you know".

So when editors and sales teams are pushing a book, they'll be trying to reassure the booksellers that THIS one doesn't have the faults that its literary or commercial bretheren tend to. (Like those cigarette ads in the 50s busy assuring people they will not hurt your throat, or that this hairspray isn't sticky).

But what I was getting at in my blog was that if you can find a way to do all three - plot and prose and ideas - well enough, and well-integrated enough then it's possible to sell into both markets, rather than neither. Though as my editor said, 'I can't tell you how rare that is.'

Emma

Susannah Clarke : Jonathan Strange And Mr Norrell - Hmmm, I think I'll plumb for Commercial Historical (I know it's Fantasy, but it's written like historical fiction), but boarderline literary.

Ya see, I had assumed she was full-on literary as the pleasure of reading well-wrought prose is the only possible justification for a book that is four-foot thick in small type with almost no discernible story line! Incidentally, lest you get the wrong idea, I absolutely loved it and cited it as my favouritest read for quite a long time.

Welcome to the crossover club!

Oo.
Thanks, I think.
I read your bloc and wasn't immediately overjoyed to think of myself as a member. But, I agree with you that, as I am here, I have to run with it because:

it's best to decide what sort of author(s) you'd like to write like, and learn from them

The author I want to write like is me.

lots of first-class literary fiction is plainly written, but pitch-perfectly so

Which is my aspiration, even if I haven't achieved it yet. I pick things from different places, most recently Hemingway, but also Kurkev (which I think is a translation anyway) both of whom impressed me with the simplicity and accessibility of their prose. But I don't think I could ever have the lack of imagination to deliberately set out to copy another writer's style.

Incidentally, to add to my list from above:
Ernest Hemingway : For Whom The Bell Tolls >> Literary or commercial?

a wonderful clarity of expression and an originality of thought that is intelligent, accessible, thought-provoking and entertaining

Isn't that what we all write with?

ideas too complicated/obscurely put

I have a nasty feeling this may be my natural tendency. Certainly, I have had feedback from any number of readers on early drafts who have somehow failed to pick up on what I considered to be blatant exposition.

Gaius

<Added>

PS: To add to my list again:

Literary or commercial?

Andrey Kurkev : Death And The Penguin (which is utterly brilliant and well worth a read)

Mikhail Bulgakov : The Master And Margarita (weird, definitely weird)

I think trying to sort things into literary or commercial doesn't work for any book more than a decade or two old, because the wheat has been sorted from the chaff for us by time, and leaves us with the ones which do both well, if you see what I mean. And the structure of the market has changes hugely.

The author I want to write like is me.

Which is the only author you'll ever write like well enough to get published. Which is why - perhaps arrogantly - I reckon the best thing to do is to get better at being yourself, than try to emulate someone else, however wonderful they are. They're wonderful because they're absolutely themselves, and you can't do that as well as they can. Unfortunately, if your self just is crossover, then it's harder. But it can be done.

Emma

<Added>

"Certainly, I have had feedback from any number of readers on early drafts who have somehow failed to pick up on what I considered to be blatant exposition."

Some of this may be because you're being too darned lit'ry, but it may also be the inherent problem that you know what you mean already, so can't see where you haven't given the reader, who doesn't know, enough to get it.

can't see where you haven't given the reader, who doesn't know, enough to get it

Stupid readers. Grrr.

Seriously, you've rather exactly summed up what I was going through not so long ago. One reader even talked about her interest in "the bits I leave out" but then, frustratingly, could give me no help as to what they were. Possibly this was unsurprising seeing as I had left them out...

But I think I'm getting there... It works for me, anyway.

G

Yes, Grrr. I have a rule of thumb that if it seems just slightly creakily obvious to me, it's probably about right for the reader.

But it's the kind of place where trusted readers are very useful. On the other hand, they can get so used to your writing that they get things which no other reader would. I think that can happen even with publishers' editors, and an author they've worked with for a very long time...

Emma

Gaius, apologies for not having read all the posts on here in detail. I just thought I'd make a comment on the ms of yours I read a while back (the one you're still working on?).

It's clearly very difficult to say what is 'literary' writing and what isn't. However, quite a lot of literary writing has a certain feel to it; a non-genre feel. Which sounds obvious, I know, but the fact there is a fair bit of crossover these days doesn't help. For instance, 'The Light Ages' by Ian R Macleod is Science Fiction but it reads like literary fiction, in that the content of the prose and the ruminations of the characters are more important than the plot events and the world-building elements. At the risk of massive generalisation, I'd say literary fiction often works more from inside out (but of course, genre fiction does this too) character-wise, and genre fiction a bit more outside-to-inside. For example, I read a superb literary short fiction story the other day which ostensibly was SF, in that it was about cloning (a rich couple's dog in this case), but its focus was very much on the personal journey of the main character.

(As an aside, the reason genre writers get irritated with the likes of Margaret Atwood saying she doesn't write science fiction because she doesn't write about talking squids, is that it implies genre writers don't ever write about 'real' stuff. Which is why I'm trying not to either/or this: it's a matter of degree that may or may not tip the balance in an editor's mind about what your stuff actually is.)

What I recall of your ms is that it raises a lot of serious questions about human nature, yet its approach is maybe more event-driven than character-ruminating. I don't recall it having a literary atmosphere about it as such. It's direct and unambiguous; also very intelligent. Which isn't to say the right cover and blurb couldn't sell it as literary fiction. Maybe, all told, you have to decide yourself then submit accordingly.

Terry

Yes, for a literary work, there always has to be that credible and absorbing basic story, however good the writing. What makes a book 'literary' can simply be the quality of the writing, but it can also be its appeal to the more literary reader through allusion, hidden or explicit, to other literature. One thing I would say is that I would not associate

poncey hyperbole in description

with literary fiction. It's something the literary writer would tend to avoid.

Unless one's objective is purely financial, surely the best thing is to produce the sort of writing one wants to produce, but to do so to the highest standard of quality as possible.

However, Gaius's main question is how to classify the work when submitting it and he's right - it's certainly not an easy one. Describing one's own work as 'literary' risks sounding pretentious, but one may feel a compelling need to differentiate it from bog-standard commercial.

The answer may be to avoid using either term and, in describing the genre, concentrate on what type of story is involved (love, crime, war, whatever) but, if there is some literary element other than the quality of the writing, bring it in more obliquely by making some reference to an example. If the quality of writing is good, it should be immediately apparent to the agent or publisher in the chapters submitted. Telling them how good (or 'literary' it is could be a mistake!

There's nothing easy about this business, is there?

Chris

Maybe, all told, you have to decide yourself then submit accordingly.

Cf: This thread.

Hi Terry,
Yes it is the same basic storyline, but much evolved and (hopefully) much improved - you were absolutely spot on with quite a lot of the things you said, btw, and what I sent to you as the start now doesn't happen till the end and it happens to a different character in a different way...

its approach is maybe more event-driven than character-ruminating

You are right, but hopefully the characters are a bit more dynamic than they were as I have been battling to stave off the ODTAA monster. There is a lot more deliberate intent to give the characters (well, two of them...) space for rumination... even some intrigue... which helps, I like to think.

I don't recall it having a literary atmosphere about it as such. It's direct and unambiguous

This is where my bugbear begins. My gut instinct is that it is exactly as you describe it. But the type of readers I am trying to hook will very probably have quite a bit of literary work on their bookshelves. There is more than a bit of allegory, morality and other things that the middle-class intelligentsia might like to discuss with erudition over a polite dinner.

Describing one's own work as 'literary' risks sounding pretentious, but one may feel a compelling need to differentiate it from bog-standard commercial.

I think there is a catch-22 here. The problem is in compiling a short-list of people to send it to in the first instance. It doesn't matter how good a commercial novel I have written if I submit to an agent that specialises in purely literary fiction. I'll do just as badly if I send a brilliant literary novel to a purely commercial fiction agent. So, while I don't want to sound either unduly arrogant or pathetically modest in any correspondence, I have to have some kind of an idea what I am selling and to whom. I am not, for example, planning to submit to Mills & Boon! :O

There's nothing easy about this business, is there?

Apart from, on a good day, the writing...

Gaius

Describing one's own work as 'literary' risks sounding pretentious, but one may feel a compelling need to differentiate it from bog-standard commercial.

Actually, I don't think it does to the book trade. Among readers, 'literary' does sound as if you've ambitions for it to be on undergraduate syllabuses, so, yes, you could sound very pretentious. And there's no denying that there's plenty of pretentious lit'ry writing about.

But in the trade 'literary' is a genre, a certain category of book/part of the market, which is distinguished (unlike other genres) less by the plot (thriller, romance, detective) or by the setting (history, space, tropical island), but by the balance of interest, for the reader, between plot, and ideas/prose. It's also, it has to be said, often distinguished by selling in smaller numbers. But they still publish the damn things, don't they.

When you're submitting, fundamentally it's up to the agent to decide exactly where they'd pitch it. You really don't have to try to hard to be precise. The advantage of calling it literary is that you then don't have to decide if it's sf/f, futuristic thriller, or whatever. But literary/commercial really is a spectrum, not binary. you can always call it 'a literary novel set in the near future' or some such. I would avoid the dreaded 'crossover' word, even if it is.

Most agents are quite generalist covering if not the full range from Mills & Boon to (who's the most painfully literary writer you can think of?) then at least several quadrants of the spectrum. It's impossible to second-guess who'll fall in love with it. So I'd always advise casting your net wide, when it comes to deciding who to send it too.

Emma

Actually, I don't think it does to the book trade

Good point, Emma. Taking that into account, I can see that it would probably pay to be more upfront than cautious about the literary classification if that is the style of the writing.

Chris

if that is the style of the writing

And there's the rub.

Thanks everyone, now I just have to finish the damned thing, again...

Gaius