I was reading The Sacramento Bee recently, which featured a piece on Roger McGuinn, the founding member of the folk-rock band The Byrds. I was interested in the story because McGuinn commented that the folk-music establishment in the '60s viewed the Byrds as little more than “barbarians at the gate” because they weren’t purists. McGuinn attributed the folk establishment's attitude to a “kind of snobbishness.” Which got me thinking that this is sometimes how writers of literary fiction view writers of commercial fiction. Which got me thinking about those of us who fall between those categories; who write commercial fiction with literary qualities. Which got me thinking we need a new category for this genre, and that we ought to call it Litcomm.
I Googled “litcomm” to see what was out there, and it appears the term is most often used as an abbreviation for “literary comments” or “liturgy committee” or “liturgical commission.” A search for “genre litcomm” brought up no hits (none!) while “genre litcom” brought up “literary community” and not much more. There was nothing anywhere about a market inhabited by the likes of Larry McMurtry, Pete Fromm, Ron Carlson, Dennis Lehane, and, well, me. (Why should boys have all the fun?)
And get this. Type in www.litcom.com and you’ll find that the domain name is parked, but available for $4,350. (Why stop there? Why not shoot for $5,000?) Oddly, www.litcomm.com has been purchased by a guy in Wappingers Falls, NY, though this name too is parked. Why? Is he a writer? And if not, what’s he’s going to do with it? Type in www.litcom.net however and you’ll see that it is a parking space reserved (gereserveered) for (voor) a Scandinavian company providing “services.” And then there’s www.litcom.org -- which is ahem, best left alone.
I’m curious about other writers’ feelings on this. Is anyone willing to share? Are you a litcomm writer, and if so, should we band together and form a group and maybe march on Washington? Or at the very least, New York City? Let publishers know we’ve got a voice and wish to be heard and that dammit our numbers are huge? Or are there only five of us, one of us unpublished? In the words of Scout Finch, “Shoot me a beet, Pete,” and let’s see where we go.
3 comments:
Well, I think it's clear that literary novels are their own genre market and written often using a set of markers that distinguish themselves: They 1. struggle with moral issues, 2. Are involved closely with the interior life of the characters to the point that they are more interested in characterization than character action, 3. Rely heavily on a perceived intellectualism of their readership, and 4. have ambiguous or sad endings. This is a huge simplification and some writers resist some of these, but I think these are often seen in so call literary novels. We might suggest some other rules for the genre. There is also a good deal of overlap from other genres such as the mystery novel (Chandler, Stout) and the scifi novel (Vonnegut, Asimov) and others.
I think that you're absolutely right and that the litcomm genre has existed for a long time but that part of the appeal is the idea that the literary novel is in some way elevated above the genre novels. I think that the idea is that if there is a form to a novel genre, it is in some way less artistic or creative, but that's like saying a sonnet has less value than a free verse poem, and the great genre writers have created beauty by pushing up against the limitations of their forms and some times breaking it.
Anyway, maybe this is just rambling. Yay for litcomm. I'd like to hope that my own work rises to that level. I know yours does Renee.
Best,
John
Thank you so much for your comments, John (for those of you who don't know John, he's a great writer and a professor of English at Mt. San Antonio College in southern Cal). I agree with your points re: lit fiction, and I'll add one of my own, which is that the writing is rarely spare, with the exception of Hemingway, perhaps, who is often criticized for this (as am I, and so I'm a little defensive about it). Interesting that you brought up the point of sad endings, which I quite enjoy. I hadn't thought of that.
So what are the rules for litcomm? Less narrative and more dialog, meaning more white space? I'm curious, because Marilyn Robinson's GILEAD was an impossible read for me, with the dense (some say "grand") prose. I physically couldn't wade through it. And while plenty will likely argue, I thought Cormac McCarthy's THE ROAD was a fine fit for litcomm. Great characterization but a plot too, as well as tension and -- ta-da -- a sad ending! Am I simplifying? Thoughts?
Well, the idea of genre demands simplification, so yes, we're both simplifying. However, the great thing about it is that genre is just a construct and you can break out of it whenever you like. That's really the best part of it, so you might name a genre rule, and then completely destroy it and it's all right.
Yeah, I think these tend to have a lot of dialog. The Road had it, but maybe here's another litcomm rule too -- playing with literary convention. That was one of the most fun/frustrating parts of The Road. No one had a name. There was an ellipse nearly every paragraph, etc. Roddy Doyle fits all of these rules well. He's one of my favorites, and also in the spirit of litcomm, very successful.
Post a Comment