What is the difference between literature and general fiction?
October 22nd 2006 12:38
Walk into a bookstore, almost any bookstore, and you will probably notice that the fiction books are divided into sections. You have your science-fiction and fantasy sections (usually together), your crime/mystery section, sometimes a romance section, and then you'll have the general fiction section and a literature section.
A question I am often asked is... what is the difference between literature and a normal book?
If I am feeling like a smartarse (which I usually am), I will answer "Literature books are about a centimetre taller and a centimetre wider".
A less basic answer would be to say that literature is of a higher standard than general fiction. But isn't this subjective? Why would a publisher release a 'general fiction' book if it's an admittance of lower quality? The truth is, my smartarse answer is the most objective way of telling the difference.
Here are some thoughts on the matter...
If the book is aimed at an intellectual type, it is literature. Following on from this logic - if a book is shortlisted for, or wins, an award of some sort than it must be literature too (having been voted on by academics).
The reason for the size difference (see aforementioned centimetre rule) is that it is a way for publishers to draw a line between the literature and general fiction market - a way of marketing their book as being a work of literature. This in turn serves as a good indicator for the bookstores... when a bookstore recieves a newly released book it is up to them (or their head office) to determine what genre they will class it as. The size difference between literature and general fiction helps us determine what section we will put it into.
The Da Vinci Code - paperback size, into general fiction.
The latest Peter Carey book - literature size, into literature section.
But it's all very arbitary... there's no accounting for taste and some of the books that publishers attempt to market as literature (that genre of slightly-classier books for the more intellectually-minded) are every bit as trashy as their more shelf-friendly cousins in general fiction.
Where did this size difference originate? I'm chuckin this one out here, and I admit that I don't really know, but I think it might harken back to the tabloid vs. broadsheet distinction between newspapers... being that, using Australian newspapers as an example, the Telegraph is for the working classes and that the Herald is for the more white collar or upper class citizens. The Herald is bigger because the richer people have more table space to spread their paper out... a sorry reminder of the British class system.
Not that a book being an extra centimetre in size really says much about table-space, but maybe it's a subconscious thing that publishers have tapped into without knowing it, and the upper class of the reading world (ie. those who disparage and despair at most general fiction) recognise on some level or another (be it subconscious or otherwise) that these slightly-larger books are for them.
And to confuse things even more, publishers have started using the literature size for the genre usually referred to as 'Modern Women' (think Maeve Binchy, Charlotte Bingham, Marian Keyes) and also for Teen Fiction. It's all very confusing... especially if you work in a bookstore and you're trying to figure where a book is meant to go on the shelf. It's all literature's fault - snobs!
PS. I don't have a problem with literature or general fiction. I just think the diffirentiating of the two smacks of pompousness.
A question I am often asked is... what is the difference between literature and a normal book?
If I am feeling like a smartarse (which I usually am), I will answer "Literature books are about a centimetre taller and a centimetre wider".
Literature
A less basic answer would be to say that literature is of a higher standard than general fiction. But isn't this subjective? Why would a publisher release a 'general fiction' book if it's an admittance of lower quality? The truth is, my smartarse answer is the most objective way of telling the difference.
Here are some thoughts on the matter...
If the book is aimed at an intellectual type, it is literature. Following on from this logic - if a book is shortlisted for, or wins, an award of some sort than it must be literature too (having been voted on by academics).
The reason for the size difference (see aforementioned centimetre rule) is that it is a way for publishers to draw a line between the literature and general fiction market - a way of marketing their book as being a work of literature. This in turn serves as a good indicator for the bookstores... when a bookstore recieves a newly released book it is up to them (or their head office) to determine what genre they will class it as. The size difference between literature and general fiction helps us determine what section we will put it into.
The Da Vinci Code - paperback size, into general fiction.
The latest Peter Carey book - literature size, into literature section.
Not literature.
But it's all very arbitary... there's no accounting for taste and some of the books that publishers attempt to market as literature (that genre of slightly-classier books for the more intellectually-minded) are every bit as trashy as their more shelf-friendly cousins in general fiction.
Where did this size difference originate? I'm chuckin this one out here, and I admit that I don't really know, but I think it might harken back to the tabloid vs. broadsheet distinction between newspapers... being that, using Australian newspapers as an example, the Telegraph is for the working classes and that the Herald is for the more white collar or upper class citizens. The Herald is bigger because the richer people have more table space to spread their paper out... a sorry reminder of the British class system.
Not that a book being an extra centimetre in size really says much about table-space, but maybe it's a subconscious thing that publishers have tapped into without knowing it, and the upper class of the reading world (ie. those who disparage and despair at most general fiction) recognise on some level or another (be it subconscious or otherwise) that these slightly-larger books are for them.
And to confuse things even more, publishers have started using the literature size for the genre usually referred to as 'Modern Women' (think Maeve Binchy, Charlotte Bingham, Marian Keyes) and also for Teen Fiction. It's all very confusing... especially if you work in a bookstore and you're trying to figure where a book is meant to go on the shelf. It's all literature's fault - snobs!
PS. I don't have a problem with literature or general fiction. I just think the diffirentiating of the two smacks of pompousness.
| 84 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Little Angry Doll
Falling Haiku Leaf
Inner West Life
Is Conrad's Heart of Darkness more worthy than Tolstoy’s War and Peace because it's shorter and thinner?
Or does a fifty two line description of a purple sage thicket carry us into the writer’s projected scene?
Love your post.
Comment by Luke
Old Movies
Cane Toad Warrior
Comment by Keira
Keira's Blog
Looking at the two examples provided - does cover art play a piece in the literature vs general war? The second cover is pretty tacky, whereas the first is all artistic and whatnot...
Comment by Luke
Old Movies
Cane Toad Warrior
and yeah I've hit myself in the head with a book falling asleep, but usually it's on the train (!)