Literary Novels

[Jack Klaw]

Have you noticed certain agents and publishers who say they are only interested in reviewing "literary" novels? I, for one, think the industry has conspired to make true works of literature rare. They have decided the masses don't read it, so there's little coin there. And the writers bear their share of blame as well, for falling into lockstep with bad practice. It is said that the arts flourished in Ancient Greece, but they deteriorated into stereotypical characterization, weak motivation, stet set-ups and standardized plot lines in Ancient Rome. Was it our emphasis on genre, the industry insistence on easily finding the right section in the bookstore for each offering that led to our downfall and the present sad state of fiction writing? Perhaps the golden period in English literature is just about expired, replaced by Tom Clancy thrillers, Robert B. Parker, Robert Crias and Michael Connelly detective novels, John Grisham and Scott Turow legal tales, Stephen King and Dean Kuntz spine chillers, Louis L'Amour westerns, and Nora Roberts and Catherine Coulter Romances. There are still a few good writers holding out against the relentless thump of rubber-stamp publication. Anne Tyler. David Guterson. Anne Prouelx. You probably have your favorites as well. Thousands of novels, and only a handful worth more than a nod of dismissal. Or do you disagree?
Klaw

[linton lewis]

I disagree about Turow and Parker

[Glen T. Brock]

Jack,

Just about all of the so called classics were origionally popular novels, poems, or plays. Old William Shakespeare himself wrote for those sweaty masses. Dickens was serialized in the newspapers of the time. Politicians and whores become dignified with age. I guess that works with literature too.

Glen T. Brock

[Bob Kellogg]

Good points, guys. Since I'm berift of higher education in literature, all I know is what's promoted to read and what's discussed. The few times I've ventured into the world of contemporary literature, I've been sorely disappointed.

Glen's right about the classics, Jack. They all told compelling stories. Styles changed with the years, but the stories endured. What made them classics, IMO, is their depth of characterization.

The post-modern movement is designed to fail with the public, and that seems to be what's currently defined as literary fiction. Am I wrong?

If that's what you mean by expired, I think you're right.

Bob K.

[mike fulton]

Jack,

I agree with you in part. There are a lot of things happening in communication in general, among them, the mass distribution of tools which were once held by the relatively few people who had the werewithal to own them. Now, nearly everyone is a desktop publisher to some degree.

"Genre" publications have always had greater appeal than the "literary" publications. Ever hear of the "Penny Dreadfuls?"

There's a reason for the imbalance. It's called market demand. Like it or not, the general American public doesn't have the patience (or skill in some instances) to take on works by cerebral authors, but the general public still reads. The individual eventually finds the author who writes for him. There are so many writers now that it is almost impossible for a reader to go into a bookstore and NOT find something that will appeal him.

Is there a conspiracy to limit the number of works of literary fiction? I don't think so. I do, think, however, that a "literary" publisher often favors the writers who espouses the political views of the publisher. Writers who affiliate themselves with universities catch on to this very quickly. A large number of female college professors align themselves politically and tout themselves as feminists.

Recently, there was an article in Poets and Writers Magazine which discussed how the author of the article asserted that publishers of poetry favor openly homosexual men.

By now, I am sure that most of the correspondents in the forum have noticed that there are actually books which are published for reasons other than literary merit. The market will continue to consume the works of authors long after they have reached their stride.

Pedigree figures heavily into the equation of how literary fiction is published. (This is going to draw fire, I know, so I'm putting on my helmet and flak jacket). If John Updike sneezes into a Kleenex, it gets published. (Offsetting this somewhat disturbing fact is that Larry McMurtry [who is not considered a 'literary' author] seemed to be as prolific). I don't think Larry sends in the actual Kleenex, though. He probably sends in a treatment for a screenplay about someone who sneezes.

Tonight i went to Barnes and Noble, and I flipped through several books by two authors who have been mentioned several times in this forum. It didn't take too long for me to realize that dreck sells.

Yeah, Jack, there's a lot of junk out there.

[Jack Klaw]

Mike, Bob, Glen, Linton
Maybe certain authors transcend genre...I know they write in the format, and yet manage to stay interesting. Mosley, Parker, Crias, and Francis, to mention a few examples in the detective/murder mystery genre. It is interesting how, after a writer becomes a big hit, he can occasionally do 'one from the heart'. I notice Grisham has been doing that with A Painted House, and I heard he's got a new one coming out for Christmas. Stephen King seems to have shifted his emphasis within the 'horror' genre...but Grisham steps way outside his genre of preference (legal thrillers) with these 'little' stories.

Parker is solid with his Spenser series, but seems to wander off-track (my personal opinion) with his other offerings, even though they are still in some form of the cop/detective genre. Connelly, too, seems pure gold when writing a Hironymous Bosche detective story, and less interesting (again, subjectively, to me) when he takes on other stories...though his Terry McCalibs are starting to move up there.

There is a guy, Thomas Perry, who knows how to shape a protagonist and craft a plot...he did two fresh and inventive novels about a sympathetic hero who was a killer for hire. (The Butcher's Boy and Dog Day). I loved them so much I tried to buy the movie rights, but Perry said somebody else owns them. The two novels did okay in bookstores, but nothing great. Then he switched to a heroine, an American Indian who uses her native skills to make unfortunates disappear. (mostly women beaten up by their rich, brutish husbands or lovers) Less interesting to me personally, but that series seems to be moving up on the charts.

So I guess good writing is where you find it, regardless of...or maybe in spite of genre.

Klaw

P.S. I've posted a piece over on my pmp site titled "A Few Words on The Importance of Genre." I won't give you any more details, as I've been accused of rampant commercialism (guilty as charged).