This is a business, interview with JA Jance

[psychotick]

Hi,

Michael can I just disagree with you on one key point. The market for "literary fiction" is not small. It is in fact exactly the same size as the market for genre fiction - because it is genre fiction. The separation of certain works from the genres by claiming them as literary fiction, is artificial. You can call LOTR as literary fiction if you like. It's still fantasy. And while it may have an additional set of messages in it that JRRT wanted to put out there - the triumph of good over evil, the value of the bonds of friendship etc, that doesn't make it not fantasy. It is always of its genre.

Those books that are described as literary works and which are also small earners, are primarily those books which simply aren't very enjoyable. Probably because some pretentious and quite probably foolish and ultimately self defeating writer said to himself (or herself - not wanting to be sexist here in handing out brick bats) I want to write a book that only has a message. That only values style familiar genre elements. That only values prose over plot.

I have no time for fools like that. I especially have no time for fools like that who believe that their very lack of comercial success is proof that their book must be literary brilliance.

In the end prose, plot, genre, style, message are all elements of a book. And the best books have all of them.

I mean lets go back to sparkly vampires. I haven't and will never read it. But do you really imagine that because it's commercial it doesn't have something in it that appeals to the human condition of teenage girls? That the prose isn't at least good enough to get out of the way of the story? That there isn't enough style? I say its commercial because it has all of these elements - maybe not equally balanced but they're all there. And that therefore it sells. Meanwhile the books of the aforementioned high brow intellectuals which are purely of literary merit, are actually failures - not because the readers aren't capable of appreciating the literary merits of the work, but simply because the writers failed to include all the elements in writing a good book.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Sparkly Vampires pay for Great Art.

Or sometimes turgid pretentious snobbery!

 

[Toby Frost]

I think there is a genre of literary fiction, but it's a pretty recent invention, presumably to either help people find books they'll like or, more likely, to sell more copies by further compartmentalising things. My objections boil down to this (and please note that these are sweeping generalisations):

1. That a "literary" novel is inherently superior to a "genre" novel. It isn't - it's just different. Liking plot, excitement and happy endings is not indicative of a simple or juvenile mind. That's the highbrow equivalent of judging a fantasy novel by the amount of rape and torture it contains.

2. A lot of literary novels seem like, well, navel-gazing. Again, I generalise, but I'm not sure that the world needs another novel about a liberal arts professor in no way like the narrator who has a breakdown that involves a lot of sex with an attractive girl student, whilst making weak jokes at consumerism and/or the working class.

3. Genre is often the best way of "sneaking in" deeper commentary and getting it to a wider audience. Look at the philosophical ideas underpinning Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep or Dune, or the criticism of modern life in Raymond Chandler's noir books. It is wrong to suggest that when genre novels get clever enough they become literary: they were clever to begin with. (Stephen King compares the acceptance of Chandler by critics as inviting a woman with a dodgy family to dinner and then whispering about her past).

4. The reinvention of genre stories in a "literary" style irritates me greatly. A rewrite of Blade Runner with less action and more angst isn't a new idea, although it could easily be presented as such to an audience trained to think of SF as complete pulp.

 

[Michael Coorlim]

Well, there are two primary views within the academic study of literary work:

One, Literary Fiction is a genre like any other, with its own tropes.

Two, Literary Fiction is distinct from commercial/paraliterary/genre fiction.

There is no strong consensus as to which of these views is correct, so if we (or anyone) espouses one view without acknowledging the legitimacy of the other, we are simply presenting our own opinions.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

espouses one view without acknowledging the legitimacy of the other,

So there are two genres of Literary fiction then

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

A summary for anyone who hasn't clicked on the link:

Q: Can I ask you about writing fiction?
A: **** off and stop asking me questions.

Really? That's not how I'd describe it at all. So much so that I wonder if you even clicked the link.

In fact, the 'interviewer' does a fairly decent job of summarizing the piece himself.

'I’d never read any mass-market genre fiction before I read Dance of the Bones, and none of the writers I know write it, so I spoke to Jance in the spirit of genuine curiosity about why and how she writes. It was immediately clear that she was ready for battle, and it’s not hard to understand why. Commercially successful artists in all mediums are forever being condescended to by people who favor, and are favored by, a (shall we say) poetic view of the creative process. It’s not uncommon for the famous writer to condescend right back.'

Q: I don't read genre fiction, further I've never read genre fiction, and no one I know writes it. Mind if I condescend to you and belittle what you do for the next few minutes?

A: Knock yourself out. I'm used to it. But be warned, I will not make it easy on you.

Q: Okay, good. This is a two parter. First, tell me the secret magic formula to making millions with genre fiction; and second, genre fiction is trash that's meant to entertain and divert airline travellers so they don't worry about their plane crashing. Tell me why that criticism is valid.

A: Um...

 

[Toby Frost]

Fair point, Fishbowl, and my post was a gross exaggeration. I wouldn't want to suggest that you were wrong to link to this, and if I did suggest that, then apologies.

But I am surprised just how angry she is, and how unwilling she is to engage with the interviewer, even if it's to correct his mistakes. This:

You’ve written more than 50 books. How do you do it?

You write 1.78 books a year.

just seems close to saying "That's a stupid question". And the issue about "writing for regular people" seems no less patronising to me than idea of "literary" fiction being better than "genre". The whole tone of the interview seems to go like that. Perhaps the interviewer was wrong, or foolish, to say that a chunk of her writing was cliched - that's not a nice thing to hear at all - but the response doesn't do genre writing any favours, either. You're right that there is a sense of "Tell me why you've lowered yourself to this level" about it all.

Strange one, really. Interesting, but pretty odd. There's something entertaining about an interview that's more than "Tell me why everyone should buy your next book", though.

 

[Ursa major]

Well, there are two primary views within the academic study of literary work:

One, Literary Fiction is a genre like any other, with its own tropes.

Two, Literary Fiction is distinct from commercial/paraliterary/genre fiction.

So unless we believe that Literary fiction is, miraculously, entirely free of tropes, how is it distinct... or is absolutely all of it better, in terms of quality**, than anything written in those ("other") genres? (Which brings me back to that question I asked, i.e, what does one call Literary Fiction that fails to meet the high standards expected of it?)


** - The distinction must be quality, as to have other means of identifying it would suggest that there are, indeed, tropes.

 

[Venusian Broon]

what does one call Literary Fiction that fails to meet the high standards expected of it?)

Not very good?

Anyway, I've linked this before - it's an definition of literary fiction by a literary writer (I think). I'm not sure I agree with it, but at least it gives a bit of an answer to the what literary fiction does that is distinct from genre writing. Or at least Anita Mason's view:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2014/apr/22/genre-fiction-literary-centre-anita-mason

 

[Ursa major]

Thanks.

From that linked article:

A genre novel is governed by limitations, and the whole of the writer's skill is directed towards creating the best possible novel within those limitations.

Talk about stereotyping**....


** - A characteristic of those (unknowingly) advertising their ignorance. In this case, that ignorance extends beyond book marketing and takes in some of the greatest pieces of Classical music, pieces that work within, work around, play with, and transcend the restrictions the composers have chosen to work within (for any given piece).

 

[MWagner]

As someone who enjoys both popular (genre) fiction and modern literary fiction, I'll take a stab at explaining the appeals of each. Keep in mind that in every element we're looking at a continuum, not a binary popular/literary.

Purpose:

• Popular - Entertain with an emotionally-engaging story that draws its power mainly from narrative tension and release.
• Literary - Challenge the reader to examine some psychological or political aspect of the human condition.

Worldview:

• Popular - Validates widely held values and beliefs about how the world should work. Offers comfort and clarity.
• Literary - Hews to modernist notions about the unknowability of the truth. Raises questions but offers few answers.

Plotting:

• Popular - Deliberately manages tension through a conventional narrative structure of rising tension, reversals, and emotional climax.
• Literary - Eschews narrative profluence and emotional manipulation in favour of a naturalistic portrayal of human conflict.

Characterization:

• Popular - Characters demonstrate extraordinary capabilities, such as uncommon courage, resourcefulness, and self-sacrifice, as an avenue for wish-fulfillment by the reader.
• Literary - Psychological realism is paramount, with the author striving to present fully realized characters with all the weaknesses and flaws humans typically posses.

Prose:

• Popular - Prosaic, utilitarian prose that can be scanned quickly in the interests of moving the story along. Cliche and common phrases are useful shorthand.
• Literary - Prose is worried over and burnished relentlessly until it is fluid, poetic, and flawless. Metaphor and symbolism are employed to evoke depth of meaning.

These are only generalities. Many books straddle the popular/literary divide on some of the above elements.

 

[Michael Coorlim]

I generally agree with MGWagner's definition of it, as my personal usage of the term "literary", but the important thing to keep in mind is that the label is defined in its use. What does "literary" mean in the context of the particular conversation?

One thing I try to avoid, as an author of commercial fiction, is to avoid defensiveness or appearing to have a persecution complex when it comes to discussions of literary fiction. Yes, when someine is discussing it they may be defining "quality" as "possessing literary elements" rather than marketability, and that might be the ideology they're selling, but that doesn't mean that that's what I'm buying.

I write for a living. I know what my readers like, and what they expect. I know what will convince consumers to part with their money. Since my literary goals involve "pay the rent" and "not starve," commercial factors do play a role in what I write, and how I write it. If someone would rather I write less-marketable but more artistic literary fiction, they are free to donate vast sums of money to my patreon in order to free me from the shackles of free market capitalism.

 

[Ursa major]

Many books straddle the popular/literary divide on some of the above elements.

I think you may have found the heart of the problem, that

1. while there is a spectrum running, in the terms you've used, from Literary to Popular, genre itself (including the genre that may not speak its own name) is not found on that spectrum but is orthogonal to it, and
2. some people (deliberately or otherwise) find it convenient to not admit (or concede) to that orthogonality.

In the defence of those who wish to believe that the relationship isn't orthogonal, I would concede that some genres contain a far larger proportion of that which would be considered Popular than others do, and that this is why the idea that genre works cannot be Literary (except by eschewing their genre label) may have stuck. But the popularity of, in this case, an idea really shouldn't be the sole reason we continue to accept it.

 

[Piousflea84]

IMO, there is no fundamental reason why "popular writing" and "literary writing" have to be mutually exclusive. Throughout the history of English-language fiction, many authors/books were both extremely popular and academically "respectable". Shakespeare, Dickens, Mark Twain, Hemingway all achieved runaway success in the mass-market while being acceptable to literary academia.

Somehow, between the WWII-era and the present day, people have drawn up a distinction between "genre" and "literary", and come to the belief that they are for the most part mutually exclusive. This rift in creative writing has led to tremendous hard feelings: every time you read a column on "literary fiction" from a NYT-bestseller author you can feel the bitterness and resentment wafting off the page. It's also caused incalculable damage to university-based creative writing programs. Most respectable academic programs refuse to teach genre writing, even to the point of refusing to allow popular authors like Orson Scott Card and Stephen King to teach Creative Writing. This is despite the fact that many aspiring authors learn from bestselling "how to write" books from Card and King.

This artificial separation of "literary" from "genre" has led to the bizarre snobbery of believing that anything that is popular must not be good. This has led the academic creative-writing field to completely silo itself away from popular fiction. No other artistic field works this way. People who study Animation in an art school are being trained for employment in Disney/Pixar type studios. People who study Music Performance in college are being trained for either the symphony orchestra or popular music (for example, Lady Gaga is a classically trained musician). People who go to Fashion School have the option to study avant-garde Lady Gaga stuff that no one wears, but a lot of them study everyday wear so that their work could end up in Macy's or JC Penney.

However, in the mainstream academic universe (ie, not a shady for-profit diploma mill) there are almost zero programs that teach genre fiction writing. As a college student you are much more likely to find a university class that teaches stuff based on genre fiction, such as the Chicago Business School's "Management Lessons from A Game of Thrones", or the ever-popular "History of Pornography / Sexuality" sociology classes with an inevitable section on romance novels.

* * * * * *
Personally, I think the whole conflict is horribly artificial and meaningless. (A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing) The academic Creative Writing universe has intentionally cut itself off from popular acclaim, which in the end is harmful because it depresses student and public interest in Creative Writing. On the opposite side, there are way too many bitter newspaper columns from authors like JA Jance and Stephen King... why be bitter when you could roll around like Scrooge McDuck in piles of cash?

 

[MWagner]

This has led the academic creative-writing field to completely silo itself away from popular fiction. No other artistic field works this way. People who study Animation in an art school are being trained for employment in Disney/Pixar type studios. People who study Music Performance in college are being trained for either the symphony orchestra or popular music (for example, Lady Gaga is a classically trained musician). People who go to Fashion School have the option to study avant-garde Lady Gaga stuff that no one wears, but a lot of them study everyday wear so that their work could end up in Macy's or JC Penney.

However, in the mainstream academic universe (ie, not a shady for-profit diploma mill) there are almost zero programs that teach genre fiction writing.

Absolutely. If you were to get an English degree from a university, and then go on to spend a couple more years taking creative writing courses or workshops, at no point in those six years of learning about theme, diction, the psychological underpinning of character, authorial voice, exploring moral questions, and crafting sublime prose, would you have learned anything about story. About how to craft a compelling narrative. The literary establishment won't sully its hands with anything so base and pandering. And yet it's story that fills our popular culture, from television and movies to videogames, comics, and popular fiction. Understanding how stories are constructed and why they're emotionally satisfying is something that has to be pursued outside our education system altogether.

 

[Michael Coorlim]

Different people like different things.