July 19, 2005

I have not been very prolific here lately, so I can't afford to let my long comments elsewhere go unposted here. This was a comment I made regarding literary fiction on a blog that I think is a pro-Democratic party blog (thus not on my daily reading list any more than a pro-Republican party blog would be), but I digress. Here's the thing. Tell me how smart or stupid it is:

I have an idea about one key difference between 'literary' fiction and the more direct kind of fiction [not sure what to call it]. It's a theory I've come up with over several bathroom sessions, so I think it carries some weight.

It's often pointed out that fiction can be thought of as having two vectors: vertical (poetic reflection on each single moment) and horizontal (compellingly driving the plot forward). I think the best fiction is equally strong in both directions, but there aren't many writers who are equally talented at both. I think Nabokov comes the closest, but a Steven King novel still beats a Nabokov for page-turning appeal. Shakespeare comes to mind.

But my probably unoriginal theory is that the vertical dimension is an imitation of how we remember events in our lives (and we tend to remember only the things that subsequent experiences have made to seem more important or resonant and we also have the luxury of being able to reflect on the poetic meaning of what was a traumatic event at the time). And page-turning fiction is more like experiencing events for the first time.

So it's kind of like the difference between having amazing experiences when you're in your twenties vs. reflecting back on your life when you're in your eighties. And how can you say that one is better or more important than the other? To me it's like criticizing a house because it's not an airplane.

The other thing (and I have to confess that I'm a McEwan fan, though I admit he doesn't always hit 'em out of the park) is that, to paraphrase Duke Ellington, there are only two kinds of fiction: good and bad.

I’ve thought of literary novels as those that resonate, that after you’ve read it stay with you in some limited but distinct way, which seems to be the same thing as your vertical definition. Also, a literary novel can be re-read, but one that’s strictly a page turner cannot be, at least not with anywhere near the sensation experienced on the first read through.

I wouldn’t consider stating that you’re a McEwan fan a confession as he generally gets great reviews. Admitting you’re a D. Steele or H. Robbins fan would be a confession.

Posted by: Peter G. at July 19, 2005 03:16 PM

"I wouldn’t consider stating that you’re a McEwan fan a confession as he generally gets great reviews"

My McEwan confession made sense in the comments thread where I first posted that. Some people there were saying they thought McEwan was a literary bullshitter who simply couldn't put together a good plot. So it was a tongue-in-cheek confession. But of course it makes no sense at all in the context of this post, now that you mention it.

Posted by: Jeremy Brown at July 19, 2005 05:01 PM

	Comments   NAME:   EMAIL:   (optional)   URL:   (optional)   COMMENT:       Enter the colored letters from the image above and click "submit":

Comments