Another WW member had an encounter with an agent or publisher who suggested that they make their wip more 'commercial'. So what is it, I'm wondering, that makes it so?

Is it plot?
Writing style?
Pace?

or what?

Stand back and don flak-jackets...

This is my thinking-aloud about what literary fiction is, FWIW.

http://emmadarwin.typepad.com/thisitchofwriting/2010/11/okay-so-what-do-i-think-literary-fiction-is.html

I think it's a spectrum thing, plus a matter of degree.

As with that post, but seen from the opposite end, you could list say twenty qualities that commercial fiction has, and each commercial novel would have quite a few, but not all.

Plus of course almost nothing in writing is binary, so for each of the qualities it can be more, or less - leading to an almost infinite combination of possibilities.

If you wanted my guess, I'd say that the agent/publisher is saying "more commercial" meaning various amounts of change to make:

More, clearer forward-movement of the story

More clearly belonging to one genre or another

The story should be more thoroughly resolved

Less with slippery, don't-know-how-to-take-this protagonists, unreliable narrators

Structurally and in terms of plot, things are clearer. It doesn't preclude non-linear time-lines, for example, but I've just been re-reading the opening of The English Patient, and wonderful but it's really quite hard to know where you are. The literary reader is patient with that, and willing to work it out for the reward that it promises. The commercial reader (which may just be me wanting a book for the bath after a long day) may not want to, or may not be able to to work it out

The prose needs to make the story slip down more easily, and if that means sacrificing some real originality for easy-reading, then so be it.

<Added>

One more thought. Commercial readers (for want of a better term) are extremely knowing about their genre - love games being played with it, love having expectations confounded, as long as the promised satisfactions of that genre are still delivered.

BUT they're not so knowing or interested in literary games the text might be playing (interested to see that I automatically wrote 'text' not 'story' there...) or literary expectations of form that might be confounded...

And if that kind of game playing means sacrificing narrative drive, human interested and/or the satisfactions of the genre, then it's definitely a drawback.

For example, I remember a blog review of TMOL who said, "I couldn't get into it, the first few pages were just SO BORING."

The first few pages of TMOL consist of the Peterloo Massacre and the loss of a child and its near death. I can only assume that it was the writing that made her feel that way.

I am definitely going to have to don the flak jacket for this comment, but I was talking to the agent who handles foreign rights for my agency about why my book was marketed as literary in the US and commercial in the UK and she said it was because it was emotional. Apparently in the UK a strong emotional component pushes things into commercial. Read what you want into that...

That, of course, is only one kind of commercial. There's also the kind that is commercial because it focuses primarily on event over character. Kind of an interesting dichotomy because one is so character based that you are forced to feel the character's emotions, where the other sort of commercial is just the opposite.

in the UK a strong emotional component pushes things into commercial.

Wouldn't suprise me - in the sense that our recent literary tradition has been, you could argue, quite dominated by what my (Welsh) MPhil tutor called "that airless male English tradition - Amis, Barnes, McEwan, Ishiguro". And he didn't mean it nicely...

Emotions are worryingly messy, female, un-English things, as we all know. And some readers find it hard to see a story as "event-driven" if the events are essentially emotional.

One thing I've discovered in recent years, mainly from attending workshops in the USA, is that there is a whole world of commercial writers who tend to approach what they do differently (to most other writers). But I agree with Emma that it's a matter of degree.

There are a perhaps surprising number of writers who produce work that sells well and who make a good living from it. They tend to work hard, write a lot, meet deadlines, are flexible and often passionate about what they do. Second, they tend to be much better at business than other writers. They're also very good bullshit detectors and they go about what they do without much concern that it is not recognised on the whole by the literary establishment. It often amuses them that while they can see where the establishment is coming from, the establishment often doesn't see them, even if it believes it does.

Okay - where my tin helmet comes into play is that I don't like the vast majority of commercial fiction. But that doesn't mean I don't respect the people who write it, and have learned a lot from them. More, I'd say, than I've learned from the non/less-commercial writing world.

Because that's been an intriguing paradox for me: that commercial writers are often brilliant at teaching the craft. Perhaps this is because - and here's where I reverse my tin helmet - they tend to work at it a lot harder, and produce a lot more writing, than some of the 'establishment' authorities.

I'm not sure that genre equates to commercial, at least not particularly neatly. Successful commercial writers tend to use genres but aren't bound by them, whereas there are plenty of genre writers who are not commercially successful.

Terry

I think "genre" equates to "commercial" in the booktrade mind, to some degree - in fact I've heard the terms used pretty much interchangeably.

Mostly, I think, because one of the key qualities of successful commercial fiction is that it does what it says on the tin: cover, title, author's name, blurb, type of promotion and so on all send out a clear message: this book offers a clear, known set of satisfactions to the reader which are associated with this look.

And what kind of story it is (whether what's fundamentally at stake is staying alive, or finding your life's partner, or starting a new life from the ruins of the old one) is also very clear, and the story promises to be powered by that.

It's one reason selling literary fiction is so hard: most of what it can promise is that it's not quite like anything you've read before - which to the ordinary reader wondering whether to buy a book or a cinema ticket, is a bit like buying a pig in a poke.

Of course "genre" doesn't neatly equate to "commercial" - in the obvious way for a start, that there's such a thing in the booktrade mind as - say - "literary crime" or "historical action adventure". And some of the things which I was suggestion are qualities which push a book towards being commercial are of course entirely independent of genre.

Thinking of what Terry's saying of commercial authors, it's being very interesting belonging to the Historical Writers Association - and indeed to the RNA - because of course lots of their members - the majority, probably - are doing the book-a-year-in-this-series thing: clearly-defined well-told stories for a clearly-defined readership.

And whatever we're talking about, there's always a moment when I find myself saying "Well, of course, I'm semi-literary", which is the point at which things get all blurry and hard-to-define (No, not that way. Though they are good parties. Specially the RNA.). Much of what is a sine-qua-non about how you write a saleable book, in the vast bulk of the book trade's turnover just doesn't apply so easily or neatly at the small and rather fringey end which we call literary or literary-commercial crossover.

I think what 'make it more commercial' means probably depends on the novel in question. But maybe one can say that a commercial novel is likely to have a problem focused on the characters at the core of it, rather than a problem focused on the writing itself? I mean problem in a good way - as in, the problem that the novel sets out to solve.

I think what 'make it more commercial' means probably depends on the novel in question. But maybe one can say that a commercial novel is likely to have a problem focused on the characters at the core of it, rather than a problem focused on the writing itself? I mean problem in a good way - as in, the problem that the novel sets out to solve.

That's really interesting. I can see that a commercial novel is likely to have a problem focused on the characters. But what do you mean by a problem focused on the writing itself? Do you mean, like a philosophical issue the author is interested in, that he's using the novel to solve?

Terry

I caught a snippet of John Banville on the radio this morning - talking mainly about sex in fiction.

Most book industry/publishing folks would probably categorise John Banville as a writer of mid-brow literary fiction which has achieved commercial success i.e. sold a lot.

He was chatting away with Rachel Johnston and the host about the differences between sex in genre fiction (erotic fiction) and sex in his book (literary fiction) and the point of erotic fiction being to get the reader off.

He brought up the issue of being asked what a novel is about and his view that a novel is not about 'anything' - it is about 'everything'.

I think this describes exactly the difference between genre fiction and literary fiction on a fundamental level -
i.e a crime novel is about a crime, it is not about 'everything'.
Erotic fiction works when the reader gets off - it is not about 'everything'.

Many will of course argue that some genre fiction has come on from my simple definition, and that you can have literary detective/crime novels or literary erotic fiction.

And while of course there is some truth in this, I think it would be difficult to make the argument that these novels are genuinely literary in the sense of say, Infinite Jest or Ulysses or The Corrections.

Literary/Crossover novels are first and foremost commercial genre fiction which is written in such a way that may appeal to the non-genre reader.

For example, Camus' The Outsider features a crime but it is not crime fiction nor commercial fiction and it is not 'about' a crime.

It is most definitely about 'everything'.

On the other hand, Louise Welsh's The Cutting Room, is a crime novel with a literary tone/quality. That is to say, the nature and significance of the plot over the character, make it a commercial/genre novel rather than a literary novel.

It is most definitely about 'something' rather than being about 'everything'.

So, to finally conclude I would say that the average reader will be able to tell you what a genre/commercial book is 'about' because it's about something specific and describable, whereas nobody will be able to tell you what a literary novel is 'about' - because it's about 'everything'.




<Added>

Rachel Johnson

So, to finally conclude I would say that the average reader will be able to tell you what a genre/commercial book is 'about' because it's about something specific and describable, whereas nobody will be able to tell you what a literary novel is 'about' - because it's about 'everything'.

I can see the attraction in this but I feel a strong urge to resist its over-simplification. For a start, I can't see that all literary novels are about 'everything', including Ulysses. Likewise, I'm not sure genre fiction is always just about 'something'. It could in fact be argued the other way around: that the best genre fiction transcends its necessary limitations to encompass 'everything', whereas a lot of literary fiction, in attempting to be about 'everything', ends up being about bugger-all.

Thinking about this some more, the problem - at least as it appears to genre writers - is that those who prefer literary fiction tend to slide their preference smoothly across into the strong implication that literary writers are more intelligent, more 'everything' than genre writers. They can't help it: they have the backing of the literary establishment; the Melvyns and the Mariela's who think they know what they and anyone else who's in the know should like, even if it's often as much fun as a pube wax.

And while of course there is some truth in this, I think it would be difficult to make the argument that these novels are genuinely literary in the sense of say, Infinite Jest or Ulysses or The Corrections.

This kind of statement is honestly meaningless to me. The best genre novels may not be 'literary' in the sense that they're of the literary genre. But then I suspect you don't mean that; I think you mean they aren't as insightful, as deep, as intelligent as the 'genuinely literary'. But for me, there is far more insight, more 'everything', in SF novels like The Dispossessed by Ursula K. Le Guin, More Than Human by Theodore Sturgeon, Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes, The Disappearance by Philip Wylie, than the admittedly confusing but let's face it mental bollocks of most of James Joyce.

I got tired of the same kind of snotty argument Banford puts forward when I was in school. Yes, it has a general point - that much of literary fiction is about something serious, whereas much of genre fiction isn't. But for me, literary fiction tends to fall down on going the whole hog of 'serious', hide-bound mostly by its self-obsession (Joyce again). Whereas the best genre writers seem to understand better how to use their tools to really open up the big human questions.

Terry

I have to say Terry Edge, that I think you come at this debate the whole wrong way round.

And I'm not saying this on the basis of one isolated post by you.

I've now read a great deal of your posts to me and others and the vast majority display a deep unhappiness with the perceived unfair treatment meted out to genre writers by the literary establishment.

It's a huge chip and you need, for your own peace of mind, to ditch it.

There is an air of working class puritanism about your angle on this subject.
Like people who eulogise about the 'salt of the earth' working classes being the best sort of people and then using that justification to keep huge swathes of the population in ignorance and poverty - because that's where they're happiest and they wouldn't enjoy the responsibilty of wealth anyway.

You are happy to do the work of those who would reduce everybody to lowest common denominator-ville, and deprive everybody of what you deem literary, or snooty or snobby or hoity toity (is this it Terry?), you would take all of that away and fill the airwaves and bookshelves with Doctor Who and Blakes 7 and I Robot - all on the basis that they are just as meaningful.

Where do you think they get their plots Terry? Which of those might have a connection with Ulysses or The Iliad - any of them?

But that's just stuck-up nonsense to you - is it?

You don't even really understand or acknowledge the basis of good SF - because you're so handicapped by your own pig-headed determination to destroy anything which professes to be 'better'.

There are some great SF writers who would be categorised as literary, Asimov definitely in some work. Ballard certainly, Bradbury in Fahrenheit 451, Orwell, Dick with The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch - one could go on and on.

But that isn't enough for you and I don't know why?
It's not enough for you to know that a few SF writers have achieved literary greatness and transcended the bounds of the SF genre - NO - that's not enough - you want to make the case that what? - All SF writers are kept back by some literary establishment conspiracy - denying the genius of all SF writers - what nonsense.

You don't get Marian Keyes claiming Joyce is shite. You wouldn't most defintely get Ballard claiming that. Your arguments have strayed out of the limits of reason and in to the comic grounds of farce.

You're unwilling to accept that not all SF is the equivalent of Joyce?
Why do you think you're worthy of the same acclaim as Joyce, or Beckett too no doubt.
Come of it Terry - that's a mug's game.

The literary canon which it seems you would refute the value of, exists, and will go on existing, whether or not you agree with it. It enables a willing reader to select texts which learned members of society (is this really where your grudge lies - education?), over centuries, have decided add something significant to the body of human knowledge and which are therefore more worthy of reading than other texts.

You wear ignorance and scatter-gun anti-elitism as a badge of honor - and you don't have enough self-awareness to realise it.

You really need to look inside yourself to find the answers to your beef with literary fiction because the man who can't acknowledge that James Joyce or Jonathan Franzen or Martin Amis is a BETTER writer than him - well that man clearly has nothing left to aim for, nothing left to achieve and in his literary career he will do exactly that - he will achieve nothing.

I hate that people talking gibberish riles me so much but in you case Terry it so annoying because it's a willful form of ignorance. It's a determination which is spiteful and bitter in its origins and so self-limiting - especially to anybody who would claim to be a 'writer'.

I heard Banville on R4 this morning as well, although I only had half an ear on it. To be honest, I thought his 'novels are about everything' comment was tosh, probably said because it was a short slot with no time for proper in-depth discussion.

I mean, they just aren't about 'everything', are they? Literary novels may be driven more by a consideration of a particular theme or set of themes, as oppose to straight action, but even a whole range of themes isn't 'everything' and anyway, themes play out via events, at least to some extent.

If I asked someone what, for example, Woolf's To the Lighthouse was about and they only responded 'Everything' I'd think they either hadn't read it or hadn't understood a single word. There are definite themes and ideas that are being explored and these can be traced and named.

I rather like Ray Bradbury's advice in 'Zen in the Art of Writing' not to focus on questions of literary vs commercial worth but to keep your focus on what matters to you as an individual:

"the writer who wants to tap the larger truth in himself must reject the temptations of Joyce or Camus or Tennessee Williams, as exhibited in the literary reviews. He must forget the money waiting for him in mass-circulation. He must ask himself, 'What do I really think of the world, what do I love, fear hate?" and begin to pour this on paper."


<Added>

You don't get Marian Keyes claiming Joyce is shite. You wouldn't most defintely get Ballard claiming that.

You do get Virginia Woolf claiming that though...

<Added>

Also, Greentown, that last post really doesn't show you in a good light.

I'm not going to go through this character attack in detail. But I will respond to this:

You really need to look inside yourself to find the answers to your beef with literary fiction because the man who can't acknowledge that James Joyce or Jonathan Franzen or Martin Amis is a BETTER writer than him - well that man clearly has nothing left to aim for, nothing left to achieve and in his literary career he will do exactly that - he will achieve nothing.

I don't recall claiming I was a better writer than anyone. I also don't recall stating that my sense of worth as a writer is based on comparison with other writers, literary or otherwise. But I am allergic to anyone who tells me what I really need to do, and that I will achieve nothing. Believe it or not, what I achieve or don't has absolutely nothing to do with your opinion of me.

Terry

P.S. I wasn't responding to the debate; I was responding to your post.

I rather like Ray Bradbury's advice in 'Zen in the Art of Writing' not to focus on questions of literary vs commercial worth but to keep your focus on what matters to you as an individual: "the writer who wants to tap the larger truth in himself must reject the temptations of Joyce or Camus or Tennessee Williams, as exhibited in the literary reviews. He must forget the money waiting for him in mass-circulation. He must ask himself, 'What do I really think of the world, what do I love, fear hate?" and begin to pour this on paper."

I agree with this in the biggest way possible!

I agree with it, too. I'm reading a brilliant book about Bradbury at the moment. I'm up to where he's his twenties and starting to establish himself as a good writer, not just a pulp writer. He's beginning to sell stories to literary magazines but what's admirable about him is that he's so focused on finding his own way. He talks about how his turning point was realising that he needed to use his own emotional experiences as a starting point for his stories, not just imitate his writer heroes. In this respect, he believed that the writer must be part of the story, not observing it at an emotional distance.

Terry