What is Literary?

When I am about to say something that I know others may take offense at, I almost always use IMO (In My Opinion). If it's something that someone may really resist, something that could possibly anger them, start a flame war, or turn others irate, I'll use IMHO (In My Humble Opinion). Because it makes the truth easier to digest. When others possibly offended by my words read, "Oh, it's just this crazy bald man's opinion," they're able to accept what I say a little easier. I also use those acronyms while critiquing the fiction of others. Because in the end, no matter what I say, no matter what you say—for all our highly vaulted opinions—it's all our "humble opinions… " and our humble opinions only.

Once I told my high school biology teacher that I thought I understood something. He was busy, but he waited for me to continue. His name was Mr. Rahn. Thick glasses. Hair combed to the side slightly like Hitler. But he was ANYTHING like Hitler. Soft spoken, keen vision dancing behind those coke-bottle glasses.

That's how I remember him, IMHO.

I explained to him that we may not all see the same things, hear the same sounds. He told me to go on, and so I did, explaining that I saw through MY eyes, but not through HIS eyes. I was told what I see is the color blue. If I could take my eyes out of my head and insert his eyes in my sockets, perhaps blue would look more yellow, more purple, than the way I see it which could be more a reddish hue. The intensity of photons is there for all of us to view, but we all view with the eyes God gave us, and we all hear with the ears we were born with. We think with the brains we were given.

Did you know the eyes don't truly see? They merely relay information to the brain which does the seeing. The brain takes the signals from our five senses and turns them into something that makes sense. Our eyes and ears and skin and tongues and olfactory senses are nothing more than modems and cables transferring energy to our brains. What you call the color blue is what I call the color blue (usually). But sometimes—let's leave the colorblind out of it for now—the way our brains take the blue and see it is different from the way others perceive it.

Which is why people have been known to argue over colors. Over hues and tints.

But what if… just what if the way that you see/perceive/comprehend the color blue is how I really see/perceive/comprehend the color red? We can say it's merely perception, but in reality (IMO), it's abstract as soon as the signals hit the brain. We don't have to think about it. It just happens—these signals being processed into reality. You could say that realty takes place within our brains, and what happens in the space surrounding us doesn't exist until it explodes among the synapses and neurons of our brains. If we're pessimistic people, the world will be a dark and foreboding place. If we're positive, we'll see the world through rose colored glasses. If you believe in God, you  believe inside your brain, and you will see God all around you, even in Nature Herself.

Our brains keep us breathing, keep our hearts beating. We don't tell our brains to do these things. Along with our central nervous system, our brains make our hair and fingernails grow. Our brains keep us breathing and peeing and crapping, and we don't even have to think about it (unless there are medical symptoms). In fact, when we DO consciously try to take over is when we often screw things up. Which is why Bruce Lee took Zen and described it as No Mind.  

When a martial artist practices a kata or karate form until it becomes embedded into his muscles, experts explain that this is muscle memory. After a time, the practiced movement becomes second nature and we don't have to think about it. This is the No-Mind state (in a VERY simplified explanation). When you become nervous, you may consciously try to do something. And when you consciously try to do things are the times you often fail. When you practice and practice and practice, until whatever it is your practicing—whether it be katas or writing or preaching or speaking or acting—it begins to burn within you. It begins to flow within you. And when you consciously try to breathe, to write, to dance… that's when it goes to hell.

Oh, you can edit your fiction. You can critique your dance steps. But after you've corrected the problem, you need to practice until it embeds deep down inside the cells of your muscles, until it saturates your subconscious and you no longer have to consciously think about it.

History is written by those who conquer others. But there are other wars waged that do not consist of literal death and killing, and some of those wars are economic. Some of those wars are literary. Whoever has the most toys or weapons win. Whoever has the most money will create the definition of what it means to be literary. Whoever donates the most money to universities, whoever pays for a library, they gain a bit of control. And if a certain organization constantly lobbies and funds education, it effects our definition of literary fiction.

I'm going to look up literary fiction on the internet in just a minute. Then I'm going to tell you what I think literary fiction is, IMHO. But first, let me attempt to describe literary fiction based on what I read in literary journals. When I read Clarkesworld or Realms of Fantasy or Zoetrope: All-Story or GUD Magazine, I see a pattern.

I can also see a pattern in lesser-known webzines devoted to literary fiction. It's completely different from the more well-known publications above.

What I see are two types of literary fiction in the world today, and I'll try to explain what I see in the literary world.

I see one type of literary fiction in which the fiction describes everyday life and makes it real.  It's that simple.

That's it.

This type is usually at free webzines and whatnot, and it can be quite enjoyable, IMO.

Other publications tend to believe that the sentences must be long and winding and use an extraordinary amount of hyphens and ellipses—not to mention semicolons and colons—to such an extent that it takes a certain type of mental hurdle to get through such literary work, until a mental acuity "snaps alert" in one's mind (or the reader falls asleep exhausted). In this literary style of fiction, the language is SOUPED up like a racecar's engine. I read stories with 24 valves of madness, stories in which big-block V-8 engines rumble like thunder in maddeningly long sentences.

And my head hurts.

The more complicated the sentence, the longer it is, the more metaphorical or Lovecraftian or poetic it reads, the better. Right?

Wrong. And this is just my humble opinion. (Oops! I meant to say IMHO. Sorry. It won't happen again.)

Now, before I get into too much trouble, let me look up what literary fiction means. The two definitions I gave above are based on my observations of what publications put out as literary fiction. I really don't care what the definition is, because what I described above is what is featured and showcased as literary fiction in today's world, and those with the most money funding what they call literary fiction are those who are—whether they know it or not—enforcing their definition of literary fiction. And, it seems to me, that those with the money have decided that the best literary fiction must use the most mathematically complicated sentence structure possible, the longest-winding sentences, and the most experimental techniques known to humankind. If we stretch our minds enough, we can use words such as surreal and magical realism.

Now when I say those with the most money, what I mean are those publications that are being funded. The publications that are being funded by Government Grants or from the private sector and Universities, are those publications with the most money.

From are most beloved Wikipedia (whom you should never trust without checking the sources first, but I never do), we find this definition:

Literary fiction is a term that has come into common usage since around 1960, principally to distinguish serious fiction (that is, work with claims to literary merit) from the many types of genre fiction and popular fiction (i.e., paraliterature). In broad terms, literary fiction focuses more on style, psychological depth, and character, whereas mainstream commercial fiction (the page-turner) focuses more on narrative and plot.[citation needed]

What distinguishes literary fiction from other genres is somewhat subjective, and as in other artistic media, genres may overlap. Even so, literary fiction is generally characterized as distinctive based on its content and style ("literariness", the concern to be "writerly"). The term literary fiction is considered hard to define very precisely[1] but is commonly associated with the criteria used in literary awards and marketing of certain kinds of novels, since literary prizes usually concern themselves with literary fiction, and their shortlists can give a working definition.

I put in bold the words "somewhat subjective" above. That's the only changes I made.

One could use Wikipedia's definition to describe literary fiction, but what I enjoy doing is going by experience. I love to find things out for myself. And one of the things I've discovered while reading literary fiction is a sense of ambiance blossoms within the mind that doesn't happen with plot-turning fiction (genre or thriller). If the reader can push themselves into the literary fiction, into GOOD literary fiction, then a sense of realism opens up and swallows the reader's mind.

But I would like to argue one point: what of Mark Twain? Wasn't he one of America's greatest writers? What of Hemmingway? Both sometimes used long sentences, but their writing was more concise than the long-winding sentences of literary fiction today. And I am definitely NOT complaining about writers I greatly respect such as Salmon Rushdie (who picked some of my favorite literary short stories in Best of American Short Stories 2009 as guest editor along with Heidi the most remarkable editor).

The main point I would like to make, IMHO, is that literary fiction, true literary fiction, isn't long-winding sentences crowded together on a page to make the reader do mental jumping jacks. True literary fiction creates an ambiance of setting, the quality of mood and depth of character not found in most genre fiction. That doesn't mean speculative fiction and literary fiction doesn't overlap (see Wikipedia's sacred definition above), because the do often overlap.

But I sincerely believe that a sense of the times and characters comes alive in the writing of mark Twain. I believe Hemmingway nails reality to the wall with his powerful voice. I think it's possible for writers to write literary fiction without using incredibly difficult mental-gymnastics of the English language.

Am I saying the complicated stuff doesn't work?

Heavens, no! I'm saying it's possible to trap a sense of reality in both kinds of writing style, that it's possible to trap depth of character and the ambiance of an area of building while writing concise and clutter-free style fiction, and it's definitely possible to trap a sense of realism within the more accepted literary style (the long-winded stuff).

Going back to Mr. Rahn and my observations about the five senses, I think we know where I'm going with this: your sense of literary fiction may be different from mine. But when you read, does it explode with realism within your mind?

Great! Then to you, THAT is literary fiction.

Unfortunately, both styles of writing are missing the boat today, IMHO. I am now referring not to the two styles of literary fiction I've noticed being published, but now I am referring to both speculative fiction and literary fiction (in what is considered its highest, fluffy state). Don't kill the messenger, for these are only my feelings (for I would never dare to say these are my thoughts, for how could one such as myself understand literary fiction?).

Speculative fiction (horror, fantasy, surrealism), mainstream (thrillers and romance) tend to be plot oriented. Unfortunately, readers of these types of fiction often miss out on realism on deeper levels, and they will never experience those deeper levels of feeling through print without literary fiction.

In literary fiction, I've read wonderful stories reading like poetry that definitely made me feel powerful emotions that were real, and because the emotions were real, I felt a sense of realism. However, where the hell did the plot go?

I think it's very important that publishers and writers understand that readers want to go on a journey, an adventure. But most of America works hard and they don't have a lot of energy to devote to reading. Reading is on a downslide in America (just ask the fearful lit agents and publishers and editors of major magazines and newspapers).

So do you think you can calm it down a bit? Do you think you can create a sense of realism in the reader with fewer words? Do you think you can pull a Hemmingway? Probably. But what about a Twain? Can you pull a Mark Twain by creating a sense of realism that is so palpable it effects your entire generation and sets you up as a superstar? Yet, while pulling your Twain (which some diehard literary enthusiasts would demand is like pulling a boner), you'll be using as few words as possible.

To me, that is the most magnificent art in literary fiction: when the writer can use the fewest words and STILL create a sense of realism that is SO strong in the readers that it captivates an entire generation. The writer who can move the most hearts with the fewest words is the writer who is the literary genius, like the martial artist who uses the least amount of energy to evade an attack.

For all you literary writers and publishers out there, keep on creating that wonderful sense of realism within your writing. Make love sing in your work. Make despair weep from the pages of your journals and periodicals. While I publish literary stories that will do both. Some of the fiction that Liquid Imagination Magazine will publish will use complicated sentence structure creating ambiance and a sense of realism found nowhere else. But other literary fiction will be devoted to plot, and we will find those writers who can move mountains with but a few words.

Like Jesus who stood before Lazarus' grave and said, "Come forth." Those two words have been preached on through the Centuries. Or Martin Luther King who said, "I have a Dream."

Or, possibly, even Mark Twain who said, "To get the right word in the right place is a rare achievement. To condense the diffused light of a page of thought into the luminous flash of a single sentence, is worthy to rank as a prize composition just by itself...Anybody can have ideas--the difficulty is to express them without squandering a quire of paper on an idea that ought to be reduced to one glittering paragraph."
- Letter to Emeline Beach, 10 Feb 1868

I have been so guilty of attempting to write the literary style of the status quo. I have tried to be what others are instead of who I am. I have tried to climb mountains in Porches when I should have been using climbing gear and grappling hooks. I have tried to scale these city walls while wearing a tuxedo, when I should have been using hammer and chisel to chip away the stone of heavy words.

To get the right word in the right place, and to express my dieas without squandering a quire of paper.

You know what? After looking over this entire volume of words I've just produced, I realize that Mark Twain would laugh and laugh. Then he would sit down and write something like this:

The bold above is pure Mark Twain. And he is better than all the pompous asses in the literary world today (IMHO). Twain is SO much better than myself. And someday, one day, I will almost get one entire page written the right way.

On that day, I will be happy.