I have a problem with classifying my novel and I wondered if anyone had any views on what the distinguishs literary from commercial fiction. Of course there are novels that fall obviously into one or the other category but, as far as I can see, there is a huge proportion of novels that seem to fall into the grey area in the middle. Other categories such as horror or science fiction seem easier to define but even then, it appears that the best fiction in these categories is not too formulaic and tends to transcend its genre somewhat.
And yet it looks as though agents and publishers are determined to fit every novel squarely into a nice, neat box so that it's pre-digested somewhat for the reader.
Any opinions on this?

I think any fiction can be comercial so long as it has broad appeal. And commercial fiction in turn can almost always be categorised by genre, or as literary, or whatever. Ian McEwan, though deeply literary, is also commercial.

Anyway, that's my take on it!

Ani

So do you mean that commercial is only commercial if it sells in big quantites but literary is an attribute inherent to the work? What is it that makes Ian McEwan 'literary' and not Ian Rankin? (just to take 2 Ians for example)
I always thought that literary fiction was where style dominates over story and commercial was where story dominates over style. For me there was no quality judgement involved here - you can have good and bad versions of both - but this doesn't seem to be the accepted view.

If you can understand it on your first reading, and don't feel the need for a pile of study notes and a discussion group, then it's commercial fiction.

Colin M

To be honest, I have not read Ian Rankin, but I take something as literary when it seriously engages somehow with the larger meaning of life. I suppose that sounds pretentious, but the literary writing certainly isn't 'pretentious by definition'. And genre writing can certainly be literary. Commercial fiction can be literary. In fact, I'd say there is writing that is written to be commercial, and maybe isn't commercial because it doesn't sell, and literary fiction which ends up selling and so is commercial. Anyway, I don't see literary and commercial as co-exclusive terms. It's just sad that literary fiction often is not commercially successful (and therefore not commercial).

And again, this is simply my view on the question.

This one could run and run ...

I disagree that literary fiction in some way engages with the larger meaning of life whereas genre fiction doesn't (very often). I have an aversion to most literary fiction mainly because it doesn't often stretch outside of, well, itself. Sometimes, the style of literary fiction has pretensions for covering the bigger issues of life but usually when you strip away the style all you find are the author's personal tastes. For me, Ian McEwan is a good example of this: very clever, consistent style, but ultimately limited content. His characters never seem to do much other than react in 'realistic', i.e. intellectual, and predictable ways.

By contrast, I could name a dozen sci-fi writers of the top of my head who have regularly tackled the big questions about why we're here and what we're meant to be doing and the nature of right and wrong. Interestingly, literary fiction only ever touches these issues when it slips into sci-fi - not that it calls itself that when it does - e.g. Brave New World, 1984. Doris Lessing wrote a very strong essay on this subject, following her sci-fi books that started with Shikasta. She was very annoyed that her speculative books were taken seriously because she's seen as a literary author whereas the works of someone like Olaf Stapledon have all but disappeared.

Personally, I found her Shikasta series to be brilliantly thought-provoking about the meaning of life. But her 'normal' literary stuff bores the pants off me.

Terry

Ashlinn

Commercial Vs literary? Does it matter to you?

I assume you've written/are writing what you feel is a great novel and should be read by a wider audience. So long as you have set out to specifically write something that fits into your own definition of commercial or literary, or a specific genre for that matter, then I would guess the important element to you is that it is good and ready for the next step of finding a agent.

Finding the agent is obviously the difficult bit and I therefore assume you're asking the question with the view of pitching to potential agents as either 'commercial' or 'literary'?

But most of the advice I have ever seen on the matter is find an agent who already represents work or writers that have something in common with your own work - i.e. agents who 'get' your style of writing and content/subject matter.

I think there is a danger that the whole Commercial Vs Literary debate can be a little self-selecting and self-serving, with writers and books (and readers) ending up in ghettoes from which they do not ever break out.

I guess this is human nature to a degree and the publishing industry for you. But I would argue it shouldn't be something to for you to worry about at the moment.

I try not to distinguish between the two, primarily because in the past I have had an aversion to anything I considered 'literary', but ended enjoying those works when I eventually read them. Therefore there is a danger that I could miss out on a great book because "I don't read that kind of stuff".



<Added>

Sorry, I meant

So long as you have NOT set out to specifically write something that fits into your own definition of commercial or literary, or a specific genre for that matter

Terry,

I can't agree with your initial statement as in my opinion genre fiction can be literary. While I have not read the Shikasta books, I read about them and they sound quite literary to me. And it's precisely the stretching that makes it literary - whether stretching to find the truth, or stretching boundaries in style, or whatever. I think that the term 'literary' broader than genre; I see it as a characteristic of fiction (or other writing) rather than as a genre. And while Ian McEwan's writing is more or less plain realism, his word-level writing is exquisite and he deftly explores the inner landscape.

Colin, Ani,
I'm not sure that it's as clear-cut as that. Personally some of my favourite novels are as clear and transparent as water but manage at the same time to be thought-provoking. "Grapes of Wrath" is a literary masterpiece but also a very straightforward novel. I have read three times, not to understand it better but to savour it again. Sometimes 'literary' authors tie themselves up in stylistic knots just to show how clever they are (I do like his writing on the whole but Ian McEwan does a bit of that - he spends 3 whole pages in Atonement describing the clenching and unclenching of a fist and I really felt like saying 'Get off the stage,Ian and get on with the story'

I agree with Terry that literary novels don't necessarily tackle the bigger issues; some do, some don't. One of the problems I have with literary writers is that they focus their efforts on obscuring their meaning from their readers to ensure that only the 'worthy' can understand them. Then, you have writers like George Orwell, a writer whose writing was infused with humanity and passion, who tried to convey his message to the widest possible audience in the simplest, most straightforward way possible. Given a choice, let me into your gang, George.

<Added>

Sorry about the smiley face - It wasn't meant as an aside against Ian McEwan. just a mistake.

But John Steinbeck's writing is very literary. And I don't see obscurantism as a quality of literary fiction. I think I can see how it happens - a writer is trying not to hit the reader over the head with meaning, is trying to deliver an experience, an epiphany, but succeeds at delivering confusion instead. But I'd say that's not a criticism of literary fiction, but a criticism of a specific piece of writing.

I admit that I don't remember the clenching and unclenching of the fist in Atonement, but perhaps it was a setting for an inner narrative?

I think what I'm trying to say is that there is a conception that literary fiction is more intelligent, more stetching, more meaningful, more creative in short, than non-literary fiction. Not only that, but the same conception extends itself to literary writers being better writers than non-literary writers. And I strongly disagree. I don't mean that the opposite is true: that genre writers are all those things and literary writers aren't. We all know that most genre fiction is intentionally formulaic and predictable. However, there are some non-literary writers who sometimes are labelled as genre, sometimes not, who in my view are far more stretching, enquiring and exciting than most so-called literary writers.

We've talked about this before on WW, but there is a kind of literary establishment in this country that decides what are 'proper' books - those that should be on the Booker Prize list, or that should be studied for A levels. Now, it's entirely up to this establishment what books it likes and which it doesn't. But what bugs me is that it wants its choices to be taken as the real thing. It double bugs me that if anything it's the other way round, e.g. that someone as brilliantly creative and stretching as William Kotzwinkle is all but ignored in the UK while spiritual lightweights and foppish stylists like Salman Rushdie are held up as great writers.

Terry

Ani,

My reference about John Steinbeck was in refutation of Colin's point. He is a literary writer but you don't need any study notes or in-depth analysis to understand what he is saying. It couldn't be clearer. So, for me, that is not a valid definition of what constitutes 'literary' work.

Reading back I meant to say that a certain number of so-called literary writers seem to equate stylistic pirouettes with depth of meaning and it's simply not true. In my opinion, Paul Auster, Alice McDermott, Carol Shields and Ian McEwan (to a lesser extent) are guilty of that.

When I read reviews of David Mitchell's Cloud Atlas (which I haven't read) a huge portion of the discussion is about structure and style and very little about the story and that turns me off straightaway. Give me content over form every time.

Of course all of this is a personal opinion and I accept fully that it is one many disagree with.

Ashlinn

Beadle,

You are right, the category my novel fell into was the least of my concerns while I was writing it, until now. Now I want to sell it and, like it or not, I have to accept that it is a product and it needs to be positioned as such. My problem is that several professional people who have read it have highlighted that I have a 'category problem'. I've had to do a major rewrite because of that and time will tell if that worked.
Personally I think my novel is just a good story but somehow I find it very difficult to stick the right label on it.
I brought up the subject precisely because I am against this system of forcing everything into boxes but that's how it is and it's not going to change for me.
Ashlinn

What advice did the professionals give on what could be done to make it 'fit' one genre or another and did it help with the re write? It might get even worse as if your book is accepted, they will want to know what genre of person you are and how your exciting contemporary background can be used to promote the book!

'No one but a fool wrote except for money' as Dr Johnson's saying goes. I don't think it's fair to criticise someone for no reason other than that their work sells large volumes. A 'literary' writer might simply have a different model of how to make money even if it's not millions as there are prizes for literary works. Of course only a few win them but then only a few 'commercial' writers make millions.

Anyway, I hope you find a way out of your category dilemma.

Jane

Jane,

In fact my problem was not one of literary vs commercial really (I just brought it up because I was interested to hear what others thought about the subject - there's nothing I like better than a good discussion especially about books) My novel fell between general fiction and murder mystery. The feedback I got was spot-on and very helpful and I rewrote the story so that there was still an underlying intrigue but not a murder.

Now I think it's close to as good as I can make it so it's make or break. If it doesn't work this time, I'll start something else.

Thanks for your interest
Ashlinn

<Added>

As for the money thing, I don't think anyone criticised anyone for making money from selling piles of books. We'd all like to do it ourselves too much. My own dream is to make enough of a (modest) living from writing that it could be my job and not my hobby, not to make millions.