Some thoughts on "literary" as an adjective

Posted by J. Mark Bertrand
on Wednesday, May 02, 2007
|
Permalink

 
"Literary" is one of those terms, like "Christian," that will always have a little play in the definition. Two reasons: (1) the people who use the word in a positive sense do so in a variety of different ways, and (2) critics impose at least part of the range of meaning, and their definitions often incorporate distortions. I won't even attempt to untangle the nuances. If there was a checklist for determining what is literary, then it really would be just another genre. But I'm going to throw out some thoughts, for what they're worth.

1. In spite of the fact that the debate is often framed as "literary vs. genre," the two concepts are not antithetical, and they aren't mutually exclusive. Literary novels often incorporate genre elements, and genre novels often achieve a literary sensibility.

2. If you think the argument between literary and genre is spiteful, try listening in on the argument between crime noir and cosy mysteries. Even in "pure genre" contexts, there are many disputes about what fits and what doesn't.

3. Who gets to define the terms? Authors should always have the freedom to apply whatever labels they like to their work, even if the results are ridiculous. I have heard romance novelists talk about their style as literary because they used flowery language, and I laugh at that. When I call my own work "literary noir," I imagine someone else is laughing at me.

4. When it comes to defining what is literary, you have to make peace with the idea that there are no absolutes. I don't know of any succinct definition that couldn't be qualified with exceptions. But guess what? This is true to a lesser extent with the various genres, too. Just ask the poor ladies trying to figure out the difference between romance, chick lit and women's lit.

5. In grad school, "literary" was used as a synonym for "good." You often hear people these days say things like, "The classics were genre fiction," to which a grad school prof would say, "No they weren't -- they were good." If a genre writer wrote a good book, it was considered to have "transcended the genre."

6. I've actually read a fair bit of nineteenth century genre fiction, and while it's quite literate by today's standards, there is usually a qualitative difference between the classics and popular genre books. This is why, when the canon is changed to emphasis not literary merit but marginalized voices, the reading isn't as enjoyable.

7. Others may disagree, but for me "literary" is a synonym for "whole." Some people emphasize plot, others emphasize character. A good literary piece includes a strong plot, strong characters and a strong style. At Relief, I don't reject stories for having detectives in them or romance. I reject because they're lacking in one of the essentials.

8. I read genre fiction. I write genre fiction. I help other people write genre fiction. It's unfortunate, I think, that so many genre authorsfeel like they have to adopt literary rhetoric -- or denigrate it -- because there's no shame in writing genre books.

For what it's worth....