LITERARY VS. GENRE

by John M. Floyd

Several years ago, a fellow mystery fan mentioned something I found interesting. She told me she’d just finished James Lee Burke’s Edgar-winning novel Cimarron Rose, and said it was one of the best literary mysteries she’d ever read. A “literary” mystery? I wasn’t even sure you could use that term to describe what was essentially a crime story. When I later read Cimarron Rose, though, I realized she was right.

The words “literary fiction” mean different things to different people in the writing world. I suppose almost everyone would agree that it refers to stories that are primarily character-driven rather than plot- or action-driven, but there’s more to it than that. Literary fiction often uses more elegant and colorful language than “genre” fiction (also called “commercial” or “category” or “popular” fiction). And its endings are more likely to be vague and unresolved, and therefore more thought-provoking.

But I think the main thing that determines whether a fictional piece can be classified as “literary” is the extent to which the main character changes in the course of the story. In literary fiction, the protagonist almost always experiences a profound emotional change of some kind. The character discovers something about life, and either attains the peace or happiness or fulfillment he or she has been searching for, or finds out why it’s unattainable. Whatever happens, the hero (or a point-of-view character other than the hero, in cases like The Great Gatsby and Shane) usually finishes the story as a far different person from the one who began the story, because he has learned a life-altering lesson.

For all those reasons, I would call Cimarron Rose, and many other crime/suspense novels and short stories, literary as well as commercial.

My wife has her own view of all this. She maintains that anything that appears on The Hallmark Channel or anything chosen for Oprah’s Book Club is literary fiction. And she might be right. I certainly doubt that Hallmark will feature “Die Hard” or “Terminator 2” anytime soon, or that The Big O would endorse a Spenser novel or a Sue Grafton mystery.

It should probably be mentioned that critics almost always prefer literary fiction to genre fiction. Stephen King has been trying to climb that particular hill for years, and has only recently received the critical praise he deserves. (The change seems to have begun shortly after he published the excellent short story “The Man in the Black Suit” in The New Yorker a few years ago.) And the same bias is true for movies. I remember seeing a poster long ago for “The Ipcress File”; that film was advertised as “The Thinking Man’s ‘Goldfinger’.” Maybe it’s just me, but that logline struck me as a little uppity — as if Ian Fleming’s best book, and also a good movie, could be appreciated only by idiots.

Speaking of Mr. Bond, I should add that in the case of genre fiction, the protagonist does not undergo great changes between the beginning and the end of the story. He or she remains pretty much the same — which is one reason Joe Leaphorn and Indiana Jones and Travis McGee and Stephanie Plum (and 007) make such good series characters. After all, nobody really wants them to change. Fans like them just fine the way they are.

To get back to the basics, here’s a quick list of what I believe are some differences between “genre” and “literary” fiction:

Genre stories and novels:

• are action-driven
• feature a hero who doesn’t change
• use simpler language
• favor entertainment over illumination
• may be a series
• are heavy on plot
• are faster-paced
• focus on external conflicts
• usually have a definite ending
• attract a larger readership

Literary stories and novels:

• are character-driven
• feature a hero who experiences change
• use more elegant, sophisticated language
• favor illumination over entertainment
• are usually standalone (non-series) stories
• are light on plot
• are slower-paced
• focus on internal conflicts
• are sometimes open-ended
• attract more critical acclaim

The kicker, of course, is that the very best fiction incorporates elements of both. Those stories, short or long, have great plots and strong characters, entertain and educate, use external and internal conflicts. Examples: The Godfather, Mystic River, To Kill a Mockingbird, Deliverance, The Silence of the Lambs, Lonesome Dove.

As a writer of short crime stories, I try hard to develop my characters and their relationships to the point that my “commercial” fiction sometimes qualifies as “literary” as well. (Most magazine markets state in their submission guidelines whether they will consider genre fiction at all, so it pays to know the difference.) One of my favorite mystery short stories — “Poachers,” by Tom Franklin — first appeared not in AHMM or EQMM but in The Texas Review. I’m sure it was accepted there because the language and message of the story was as literary as it was commercial.

A good way to end this discussion might be a little poem I published in Writer’s Digest, back when they featured light verse. It’s called “Literary vs. Genre”:

By the way . . . purely literary fiction confuses not only the hero. It often confuses me as well.

I’d just as soon stick with “Goldfinger.”