[horribleman]

Does anyone know what defines a novel as literary?

I've been puzzled about the 'criteria' fora while now! I don't know what makes something literature!

[fortytwo]

Great literature should do some good to the reader: must quicken his perception though dull, and sharpen his discrimination though blunt, and mellow the rawness of his personal opinions.
A. E. Housman
On the other hand Brian Aldiss said that Fantasy is literature for teenagers

[Valada]

Maybe it's simply literature that looks at some of the "big questions", or human nature, etc. Or, even more simply, you might define it as writing that is fiction yet sets out to do more than simply entertain...

[ChrisW]

I've read books from the literature section of the bookstore and to me there is no difference between them and Most fantasy i've read apart from the setting. Fantasy presents the same themes and messages but set in a different world than our own.

To me literature = critically acclaimed.

[allanon]

"literary"- dull and boring books, which are loved by strange and stupid people, called critics. http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Tagalie]

Literature-with-a-capital-L means books that University lecturers can get at least one hour's worth of rambling out of.

Preferably they must contain themes ending in "ism" ie post-structuralism.

If they're published in the Penguin Classics series this is also a big clue.

Tolkien was in my university library, also Leguin and a lot of decent SF because Liverpool does a good MA in Science Fiction.

[jfclark]

Obviously there are no fool-proof definitions of what is "literary." Some people think of it as a snobbish term, and will therefore take pride in claiming their favorite books are not literary. Others will do the reverse.

But isn't "literary" fantasy somewhat like pornography--you know it when you see it? Most people would probably say that The Lord of the Rings is "literary," because it feels like it's bigger than the sum of its parts, because Tolkien's use of language is so compelling, because the sensations it arouses are deeper than the plot, etc. By the same token, I read David Gemmell or Robert Jordan and simply know that their books aren't "literary." They're the equivalent of Tom Clancy in the spy-thriller category, all plot and virtually nothing else, except for some likable characters whom you don't want to die.

When you're reading a fantasy work, and you begin thinking about structure, technique, language use, metaphor, philosophy, non-plot related complexity, or allusion, that's probably a good sign that what you're reading is "literary." If the book does not encourage you to think any of those thoughts, it's probably not. For me, Tolkien, Eddison, Lord Dunsany, Gene Wolfe are "literary" fantasists. In my opinion, Jordan, Martin, Brooks, etc. are not.

[garywassner]

Many people who are unfamiliar with fantasy assume it is frivolous and purely entertaining. Simply becasue it doesn't deal with contemporay issues or historical fact-based plots, and because it does incorporate the 'fantastic' in every supra normal aspect, they think that it cannot also be literary and profound. Obviously that is a great misconception.
I sincerely hope that my books qualify as literary fantasy. My background is in 19th century European philosophy, and I find fantasy to be an incredibly appropriate genre for exploring ethical issues. The concepts of honor and sacrifice, heroism and courage, loyalty and love, and particularly good and evil are thematic for me and for my characters.
I agree completely with jclark in his last post. He said it so well!! The fundamental differences between Tolkein and Jordan are as great as those between authors like Thomas Wolfe and John Grisham. You can enjoy both, but on such different levels.

[Bardos]

I pretty much I agree with all of you from Caldazar and below. You told it all; there is nothing left to say!! http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[ChrisW]

Most people would probably say that The Lord of the Rings is "literary," because it feels like it's bigger than the sum of its parts, because Tolkien's use of language is so compelling, because the sensations it arouses are deeper than the plot, etc.

Well going by your definition i'd say that Tolkien isnt literature and that Jordan is. http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif
Tolkien doesnt make me feel those things, Jordan does.

Oh and going by my own personal definition, Jordan is not literature but by yours he is http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/wink.gif.