Author David Lubar once wrote: "If you're ever in doubt about whether a story is literary, there's a simple test. Look in a mirror immediately after reading the last sentence. If your eyebrows are closer together than normal, the answer is yes."
The suggestion is that literary works are at best perplexing and at worst unintelligible. We might delve a little deeper, however, and ask what kind of narratives are these that have the power to crinkle our brows. Were we (as readers), for example, forced to compile personal lists of novels we consider literary, there would doubtless be a considerable overlap in opinion. Still, many books would as surely divide us into opposing camps - even books constructed with care, rigour and love. So what factors are and aren't important?
Must literary fiction be serious or 'worthy'? Is profundity or loftiness a prerequisite?
Must it be wordy, poetic or well-written? Is language important?
Must it be cerebral or thought-provoking in its subject? Is literariness about theme?
And what of character, which so often trumps story in works labelled 'literary'? Is this central to its essence? Plot may be incidental and not strongly causal; things may 'just happen' - whereas in popular fiction, plot is king ... all of which begs the question, can mainstream or genre works ever be considered literary?
Certainly importance beyond mere story seems important. But beyond that, one might argue that literary works have no defining natural quality other than that they are durable; that though they may have been written tens or hundreds of years ago, they possess at heart something that remains valid to this day - an essential, enduring truth.
The suggestion is that literary works are at best perplexing and at worst unintelligible. We might delve a little deeper, however, and ask what kind of narratives are these that have the power to crinkle our brows. Were we (as readers), for example, forced to compile personal lists of novels we consider literary, there would doubtless be a considerable overlap in opinion. Still, many books would as surely divide us into opposing camps - even books constructed with care, rigour and love. So what factors are and aren't important?
Must literary fiction be serious or 'worthy'? Is profundity or loftiness a prerequisite?
Must it be wordy, poetic or well-written? Is language important?
Must it be cerebral or thought-provoking in its subject? Is literariness about theme?
And what of character, which so often trumps story in works labelled 'literary'? Is this central to its essence? Plot may be incidental and not strongly causal; things may 'just happen' - whereas in popular fiction, plot is king ... all of which begs the question, can mainstream or genre works ever be considered literary?
Certainly importance beyond mere story seems important. But beyond that, one might argue that literary works have no defining natural quality other than that they are durable; that though they may have been written tens or hundreds of years ago, they possess at heart something that remains valid to this day - an essential, enduring truth.