Some of the larger bookseller chain stores have this division in their fiction section--part of it will be labeled, simply, "Fiction," while the other is "Literature."

I've been thinking a lot about this lately (don't ask me why).

What are the criteria for determining whether something is literary enough to be considered "literature" versus mere "fiction"? Is it a matter of academic preferences? Are there academics in English departments who specialize in "non-literary fiction"?

Is the difference merely that one is plot-focused while the other explores "deeper issues"?

The usual distinction, at least in regards to how the layouts of the stores are labelled, is between "literary" and "popular" fiction. For the most part, "popular" fiction, in the modern vernacular, is genre-based. This unfortunately means that Octavia Butler gets shelved next to the schlocky sci-fi writers, while Jean Aeul gets put in the literature section.

Yeah, see, and that's exactly why it doesn't make sense to me.

Though most of the Barnes & Nobles i visit tend to separate the genres out--sci-fi, romance, western, mystery.

The thing i really don't get, though, is when stores separate out all of the genres and STILL have both literature and fiction sections. Who makes the decisions as to which books go where?

*after thinking a little more*

In a way, i think my frustration also ties in with the "why read lesser stories" thread: why are there so many books (non-genre) that fall into fiction rather than literature? Why do publishers publish it? Or, more problematic, why is (non-genre) non-literary fiction popular in the first place?

heh - I was noticing the 'literature' section at B&N earlier this week!
They're using it at B&N as fiction. What stores use both?

I think it might have been a Waldenbooks or B. Dalton. If i recall correctly, they reserved the literature section for the kinds of things you're forced to read in high school (Lolita, To Kill a Mockingbird, anything by Hemmingway, etc.).

I guess my gripe is more with the exteme popularity of Grisham-style books that don't fall into any genre. I just don't understand why people read them.

The other part of it is, i really wonder who it is that makes the distinction--is it the publishing companies or is it academia?

yeah, this kind of baffles me too, but i guess it's a matter of whether a book can stand the test of time and thus ascend from mere "fiction" into "literature." but it's a fairly arbitrary distinction, and not generally terribly accurate or helpful, i think.

_______________________________________

Inactivist of the Radical Status Quo

It's certainly more helpful than having no criteria at all!

As I understand it (from many exasperated writer and editor friends) the publisher's marketing department usually makes most of those decisions, based on what audience they think the book should be marketed to; it ties in to the advertising for each book (what media, interviews, etc. will be bought or solicited).

There is a "class" association involved--there are folks who will buy "fiction" but won't go near "literature" and vice-versa, and for genre it's even more pronounced (sometime when you want a laugh, look up an assortment of promotional squibs for Margaret Atwood books and read how carefully her publicists avoid using the words "science fiction" anywhere, heh).

Shameless plugging another of my affiliations: The Interstitial Arts Foundation, a fledgling arts and media movement. (Anyone want to join the mailing list? Let me know, it's no trouble to add another eddress.)

*grumbles something about the evils of marketing and classism*

I'd love to join the mailing list. Do you know offhand whether they allow people to link to their site (it looks like something i'd want to add to the sidebar of my journal, or to the main page i'm making for myself).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Circus [bodyguard]:
I guess my gripe is more with the extreme popularity of Grisham-style books that don't fall into any genre. I just don't understand why people read them.

---

Grisham's shelved in "Law" in Popular Fiction at Borders.

And people read these books for the same reasons they watch James Bond movies and listen to the mainstream radio stations: it's entertainment that doesn't require conscious thought.

There's a "Law" section now? Wow, here he's just mixed in with everyone from Borges to Wallace.

I guess that's legit, the mindless-entertainment thing.

Are there any academics out there who take popular fiction seriously?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Circus [bodyguard]:
Are there any academics out there who take popular fiction seriously?

---

i'm certain that there are. this is post-modernity, remember. there are not supposed to be any distinctions between "high" and "low" culture anymore.

_______________________________________

Inactivist of the Radical Status Quo

quote:

---

Originally posted by Circus [bodyguard]:
Are there any academics out there who take popular fiction seriously?

---

define "popular fiction"...is it the best-seller list? cause Neil made it onto that with American Gods and Coraline...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobalt:
i'm certain that there are. this is post-modernity, remember. there are not supposed to be any distinctions between "high" and "low" culture anymore.

---

there are still distinctions, we're just not supposed to apply value judgements anymore...

____________________________
Have pity for the minimalists...

To me, art is so fickle it's silly to do all of this categorization.

"Literature" is too broad a term. What may be literarture for one person may not be for another.

However, insofar as bookstores are concerned, the "literature" section should probably include those books you have to read in school, and books that necessarily aren't but are impressed upon the popular conscience (Frankenstein, perhaps. I don't know if they make you read that one in school).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silverfoot:
define "popular fiction"...is it the best-seller list? cause Neil made it onto that with American Gods and Coraline...

---

I think i'm sort of loosely using the term as Dweller posted it. I'm not thinking of very strict criteria...it's sort of hard to define these things in a way that doesn't trivialize the differences between them (and i'm not very coherent lately). I guess i'm thinking of someone like Anne Tyler or John Grisham as popular fiction, and someone like Jose Saramago or Harper Lee as literary fiction.

Part of the problem--and this is one of the things that i'm trying to get at--is that i don't understand why the distinction is made between "literature" and "fiction" in some bookstores in the first place. What's the point? Why do it? Davey points out that there are class issues involved, which i find interesting--but i'm not sure that it answers the question.

I mean, there are certainly writers who write books in order to sell them without worrying too much about quality, and there are writers who are more interested in making a point or exploring a theme through a story (not to say they're not in it for money either; it is their career, after all). Maybe this captures the distinction; i don't know. There's something to be said for skilled storytelling, whether or not there's a moral attached to it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobalt:
i'm certain that there are. this is post-modernity, remember. there are not supposed to be any distinctions between "high" and "low" culture anymore.

---

there are still distinctions, we're just not supposed to apply value judgements anymore...

---

I have to agree with Silverfoot on this one (although i suspect she might have meant it sarcastically).

I don't think there's really any way of getting around the "high/low" culture dichotomy--it exists independently of any value judgements we attach to it. That is, i don't necessarily think that "low culture" is bad or that "high culture" is good--they simply exist. Both contain aspects that are not to my liking, but that's merely my opinion.

For example: John Grisham has sold a ton of books and is probably considered "low culture." I can't stand his writing style and i have no interest in the things he writes about. Is he a good writer? *shrug* Not for me to judge.

Meanwhile, Thomas Pynchon's The Crying of Lot 49 might be considered "high culture." Although i generally like Pynchon's style and subject matter, i didn't particularly like this book. Is he a bad writer? *shrug* Not for me to judge.

[This message was edited by Circus [bodyguard] on June 09, 2003 at 07:40 PM.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grand:
To me, art is so fickle it's silly to do all of this categorization.

"Literature" is too broad a term. What may be literarture for one person may not be for another.

However, insofar as bookstores are concerned, the "literature" section should probably include those books you have to read in school, and books that necessarily aren't but are impressed upon the popular conscience (_Frankenstein_, perhaps. I don't know if they make you read that one in school).

---

Yeah, but what do all the books they make you read in school have in common, aside from the fact that you're forced to read them?

I ask again, does the difference lie in the intent of the author? Is it that the aim of "fiction" is to simply tell a good story, and the aim of "literature" is to use the story as a vehicle for exploring the psyche/society/philosophy/etc.?

Corollary question: why is it that you generally don't find Calvino's Cosmicomics or T-Zero in science fiction sections? Why are they shelved with literature instead? Is it because he wrote things other than science fiction? Or is it rooted in a certain bias in favor of his writing or against the idea that those works belong in science fiction? Or is it that publishers like to attach only one label to an author?

Conversely, why is it that Philip K. Dick always appears in science fiction but not in literature? (Or substitute Octavia Butler, for that matter.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Circus [bodyguard]:
*grumbles something about the evils of marketing and classism*

I'd love to join the mailing list. Do you know offhand whether they allow people to link to their site (it looks like something i'd want to add to the sidebar of my journal, or to the main page i'm making for myself).

---

OK, you're on by your profile address. (If you'd rather use a different account just send me a note at the address on the IAF pages.)

Linking would be much appreciated. How can we become a major arts movement if nobody knows we exist? <g> (There's even been some discussion of creating an icon for anyone who wants it, but there are so many other things we're doing to get this idea flying I don't know how soon that'll happen.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Circus [bodyguard]:
There's a "Law" section now? Wow, here he's just mixed in with everyone from Borges to Wallace.

I guess that's legit, the mindless-entertainment thing.

Are there any academics out there who take popular fiction seriously?

---

I think so: some of the last several years' post-grad thesis and dissertation proposals, at least that I've heard about through friends, take popular fiction quite seriously! And often, by relating it to older schools of writing or to aspects of contemporary culture, the candidates are forcing their advisors and committees to take it seriously, too. One step at a time, I suppose.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Circus [bodyguard]:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grand:
To me, art is so fickle it's silly to do all of this categorization.

"Literature" is too broad a term. What may be literarture for one person may not be for another.

However, insofar as bookstores are concerned, the "literature" section should probably include those books you have to read in school, and books that necessarily aren't but are impressed upon the popular conscience (_Frankenstein_, perhaps. I don't know if they make you read that one in school).

---

Yeah, but what do all the books they make you read in school have in common, aside from the fact that you're forced to read them?

I ask again, does the difference lie in the intent of the author? Is it that the aim of "fiction" is to simply tell a good story, and the aim of "literature" is to use the story as a vehicle for exploring the psyche/society/philosophy/etc.?

Corollary question: why is it that you generally don't find Calvino's _Cosmicomics_ or _T-Zero_ in science fiction sections? Why are they shelved with literature instead? Is it because he wrote things other than science fiction? Or is it rooted in a certain bias in favor of his writing or against the idea that those works belong in science fiction? Or is it that publishers like to attach only one label to an author?

Conversely, why is it that Philip K. Dick always appears in science fiction but not in literature? (Or substitute Octavia Butler, for that matter.)

---

Because genre writing is considered "low" until proven otherwise, and "sci-fi" is still used as a derogatory term in many instances. The same is true for fantasy, mystery, horror, contemporary erotica (some older works have transcended their ghetto, don't ask me how), GLBT, romance, &c. See note on Margaret Atwood, above. Ursula K. Le Guin sells in multiple sections but she's a noteworthy exception to the rule. Mary Doria Russell's The Sparrow was originally marketed as something dangerously close to literature--and became a national bestseller when Oprah selected it for her TV reading club--because the editor who bought it wasn't an SF editor. (It's an amazing work. Read it.)

My definition of "literature" has more to do with the quality of the story and the writing than the author's intent to load it with symbolism or subtext. Good storytelling counts high with me.

Marketers, and by extension publishers, like to sell authors in tidy little niches because most people like to buy books based on clear expectations of what they'll be getting. (I have actually seen reviews and letters to authors from people who ranged from mildly peeved to truly outraged that the new book wasn't just like the last one, no kidding.) <shrug>

(This post seems exceptionally disjoint to me, but I can't get my brain to connect all the bits this morning. Sorry; make of it the best you can and forgive me, please?)