thanks for all the responses (ducks back down behind the parapet to avoid shrapnel)

MPayne

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 think if you have the honesty to admit you only had half an ear to it, then have the good grace to admit there may be a bit more to it than tosh.

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.

If I asked somone what To The Lighthouse was about, and they were able to tell me then I'd think they hadn't understood much of it either.

But as you clearly have a better answer - what is To The Lighthouse about?

And that's a serious question - to which you claim to have an answer. So I'd like to read it.

Virginia Woolf has earned the right to call whatever she likes shite.

<Added>

MPayne - I should also add I don't post to try and make myself look good or show myself in a good light - that's not a consideration.

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.

Terry, you may not directly claim to be a better writer but you certainly IMPLY that these people are all overrated - in your opinion.

A Character Attack? - every response you've ever made to my posts has been insinuation there there is a flaw in my judgement simply because I enjoy literary fiction - That's a Character Attack.

I didn't attack your character, I highlighted the flawed aspects of your arguments and offered you some advice.

Naturally, I don't expect you'll take it - knowing everything and all

<Added>

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.

It's all about you Terry, isn't it?

Nobody will tell Terry what to do. No way. Terry doesn't compare himself to anyone. No Way. Terry will be a success on his own terms no matter what anyone says.
Terry doesn't need the approval of other writers. No Way.

Terry doesn't seek to knock other forms of literature to boost his own sense of self-worth - No Way.

Good Luck with that.

Freebird's original question was about what makes a novel trying to sell into the current market more "commercial" rather than more "literary" in the eyes of editors and agents - who are of course trying to see through the eyes of the readers they want to sell to.

So in that context Woolf or Joyce or anyone else aren't relevant, however historically important and/or delightful to us.

To be really brutal, Freebird's question is about the business of craft intersecting with market, and the question is: what makes debut novels by unknowns in the last fifteen years or so "more commercial" as opposed to "more literary"?

But as you clearly have a better answer - what is To The Lighthouse about?

I have a 6,000 word essay discussing To the Lighthouse - it more than satisfied my MA tutors, thanks. One poster on this site has read it, because they were interested and I'm not adverse to sharing my work as a rule - but why would I share my hard work, thoughts and research with someone as obnoxious and aggressive as you? There are also many, many published works discussing To the Lighthouse which you could consult if you were genuinely interested.

MPayne - I should also add I don't post to try and make myself look good or show myself in a good light - that's not a consideration.

I was trying, politely, to say that your aggressive and offensive posting manner isn't appreciated. I was obviously too subtle for you, so I'll put it more simply. It's ugly. It makes people think you're a troll. It doesn't give the impression of a person interested in genuine debate.

<Added>

And yes, Emma's right, all this is way off the original question and topic. Sorry, Freebird.

I didn't attack your character, I highlighted the flawed aspects of your arguments and offered you some advice.

If that's your idea of advice, I hope you don't work in counselling.

Listen, everybody: I apologise for rising to Greentown's bait. S/he did this before on WW and I should have known better. I admit I'm sensitive to some of the snobbishness that can get shown towards genre (in my case, SF mainly) fiction. But, chips on shoulder aside, my deepest-felt position, and one I believe I live and write from, is close to Ray Bradbury's, to do with finding one's own way, wherever it leads - genre, literary, just story-telling. And that's a direction that any writer of any kind of fiction can follow if it appeals to their sense of adventure.

Just seen this:

It's all about you Terry, isn't it? Nobody will tell Terry what to do. No way. Terry doesn't compare himself to anyone. No Way. Terry will be a success on his own terms no matter what anyone says. Terry doesn't need the approval of other writers. No Way.

Well, yes, my response to you was all about me since you were directly attacking me. As for comparison, didn't I mention Ray Bradbury a couple of times? And before you take the slant on that that I'm saying I'm as good as him; no, I was saying that I feel close to the direction he headed in with his writing.

As for no one telling me what to do. Again, no: I said you can't tell me what to do; not anybody. Throughout my writing life, I've gone on courses, workshops, etc, taken by all kinds of different writers. The last, a few months ago, was taken by literary writer/tutors and I learnt a lot (think I said so on WW). I could make a very long list of people I've taken advice from.

How about you? You're a writer. What courses/workshops, etc, have you taken; which writers/tutors have you sought advice from?

Doh! Sorry, folks; rising to the bait again. However; I'm not going to take this kind of crap lying down.

The way this thread has gone is a very good example of why longtime members don't want to post on the public threads.

So right, Carol. Give it a rest, greentown.

the question is: what makes debut novels by unknowns in the last fifteen years or so "more commercial" as opposed to "more literary"?

Realise that might seem a slightly odd way of putting it, so just to unpick a little -

the "debuts by unknowns" is because that (I assume) is the category of writer that the WWer Freebird's asking on behalf of is in that position - a debut by a writer with a name which isn't known can't rely on readers/media-interest from earlier books, nor on interest because the name is known from another context.

and "the last fifteen years" because the market changes (hell, most of us were only just getting into email fifteen years ago, and the e-book reader was just a twinkle in someone's eye...) and even that's probably a bit generous - five years would be more likely.

and "more commercial" instead of "more literary" in book trade terms, as considered by an agent or editor who's trying to work out whether she can get sales and marketing to back her at the acquisitions meeting...

I thought this was an interesting debate and it's horrible that it has become so nasty. Greentown, you are clearly very thoughtful and have a lot to contribute, but personal attacks such as the one you have made on Terry Edge are simply not acceptable. If you turn on people every time they disagree with you, people are simply not going to want to engage with you - WW isn't a site that survives on the excitement of mud-slinging.

Ha ha - you guys! You guys... you're a class act - if I was to look in the Private Lounge now - what would you all be saying...?

First things first.
Terry Edge my love, you cast the first stone. Go back over your posts to me, all of them, from first to last you've been attacking me and attempting to undermine every point I made. Go back, read your own posts before you start feeling too put upon and victimised.

Emma Darwin

Freebird's original question was about what makes a novel trying to sell into the current market more "commercial" rather than more "literary" in the eyes of editors and agents - who are of course trying to see through the eyes of the readers they want to sell to. So in that context Woolf or Joyce or anyone else aren't relevant, however historically important and/or delightful to us.

You're the one who hijacked the thread originally - You started the whole 'what is literary/commercial fiction kerfuffle' by self-promoting and directing people to your own blog post on literary fiction - so don't try to deflect now. But wait, sorry, I forgot, you told me before, you don't use the site to self-promote - right.

MPayne

But as you clearly have a better answer - what is To The Lighthouse about? I have a 6,000 word essay discussing To the Lighthouse - it more than satisfied my MA tutors, thanks.

I see, the irony is astounding. You would deride anyone who couldn't explain To The Lighthouse to you - but it took you a 6000 word essay... which you're not prepared to share, and which you can't precis and which I doubt was titled 'the meaning of To The Lighthouse' - the point may be lost on you but I have read the text - don't brag about going to Uni (you don't know who else has been!) so you insult others and don't like it when challenged.

I was trying, politely, to say that your aggressive and offensive posting manner isn't appreciated. I was obviously too subtle for you, so I'll put it more simply. It's ugly. It makes people think you're a troll. It doesn't give the impression of a person interested in genuine debate.

But you're not really interested in genuine debate are you? Because I asked you to engage and you said Feck off in no uncertain terms - and you think you're subtle!!! Newsflash - you're anything but.

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:

And yet every one of you is antagonistic towards me as a devotee of lierary fiction. Not one of you, and especially Terry, can let go of Literary vs commercial - it's all very well quoting someone, I don't see any real sign that people are reflecting on the meaning.

How about you? You're a writer. What courses/workshops, etc, have you taken; which writers/tutors have you sought advice from? Doh! Sorry, folks; rising to the bait again. However; I'm not going to take this kind of crap lying down.

Why are you pretending to be the victim Terry?
You're trying to bait me!!! Whatever I say to you, you'll simply shoot down in flames because you have a belief that I'm trying to lord it over you.
You attack me as though I've come here as the dark lord of literary fiction come to demean and debase all SF writers.
I think you'll find - if you look back over all my posts and at your posts to me - you've been the one with the chip - I've not insulted SF or genre writers.

So, I'm not going to feed you.
Just so that I then have to defend myself agains your insults to literary fiction.
And then you'll play the victim again.
Saying you're sorry - Greentown made me do it.
You're responsible for your own neuroses - not me.

I'll take that as a no, then?

I thought this was an interesting debate and it's horrible that it has become so nasty. Greentown, you are clearly very thoughtful and have a lot to contribute, but personal attacks such as the one you have made on Terry Edge are simply not acceptable. If you turn on people every time they disagree with you, people are simply not going to want to engage with you - WW isn't a site that survives on the excitement of mud-slinging.

It's a shame that you see it that way. I, obviously alone in this view, think Terry has been the antagonist from the off - from my very first post.

I think he sees slights where they aren't and goes straight on the attack.
I've responded to that and quite frankly, I'd run out of tolerance - hence the extended responses.
Every single time I've mentioned literary fiction, Terry's appeared accusing me of belittling SF and genre fiction.
I've read and continue to read and enjoy fiction across all genres - but Terry wouldn't know that, as despite the clues in my answers, he hasn't worked it out.


The rest of my vitriol has been directed really at people postinin a half-cocked manner - not really giving the reader enough credit.

For example, implying that only a fool wouldn't be able to explain To the Lighthouse and then when asked, suddenly finding a grand excuse why they can't offer the ready explanation they supposedly had.

It's insulting, off-hand and doesn't respect the effort that people put in when reading and responding on message boards. And to cap it off with accusing the other person of being aggressive.

It's all a bit childish and petty bullying - in the contemporary Big Brother/Ofcom complaint sort of way - passive aggressive and deceitful really.

And the whole 'gang of girls' screeching thing - all piling in one after the other - it's just not necessary, you know - Terry's a big boy.

But hey, I guess that's the internet and 'writers' have no immunity against the slings and arrows.

TerryEdge

I'll take that as a no, then?

Terry, for a start, I choose not to mix my private and internet profile in the public domain.

I don't promote my real world activities in internet forums of any type - so I'm not here with an ulterior motive.

There's no potential for gain for me in playing the big 'I am' on the internet.

What do you really want? Do you want me to tell you which Unis and courses I've been on and what work I've had published?

Now will that really make you feel better and will that make you the bigger person?

Or, more likely, you think because I'm anonymous on here, I can't possibly be a published writer or even educated (yeah, cos we all brag on the net about our degrees don't we?) so you think I'll reveal enough information for you to disect and compare with your own - (who's got the biggest dick?)
and then you think you'll come off best and win the argument and have proved that you haven't got a chip?

Is that about right?

<Added>

Because that's what it sounds like.

Greentown, the difference between yourself and Terry is that he makes thoughtful and considered comments. They may not always be comments people agreed with, but they never reduced to personal attacks.

Your comments are quite spiteful, small-minded and vindictive.