Dan Sinykin, in his opinion piece [“What was literary fiction?”](https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/what-was-literary-fiction/) (The Nation), argues that literary fiction is no more, and that the common interpretation of what it includes became too loose and distorted from its original meaning to mean anything today.
I found the article interesting, albeit too light on the reasons why this genre would be considered dead. His main focus is on Amazon’s referencing method, but I don’t think it makes a lot of sense to take a private corporation as a point of reference, regardless of how big it is in the book market. If literary fiction is a ‘dialectic between art and entertainment’, and if a book does not, in one way or another, align with this definition, then it is simply missclassified. Reputable booksellers, not overly relying on algorithms, would probably classify that book under a different category.
What do people in this sub think of Sinykin’s stance?
Also curious to know about your favorite books that fit within this category!
by awalkattwilight
2 Comments
No.
I would propose, especially in light of modern pop culture, literary fiction’s somewhat smug attitude that it is the only valid artistic form (or at least, the way some people/authors/outlets present that smug attitude) is so trite as to be almost not worth spending time on.
I wonder if that’s maybe what the piece is getting at but I’m not sure cause the thoughts are a bit jumbled imo.
The marketing issue for example, is not about literary fiction’s merits, so much as the realities that the audience by and large never gave much of a shit about it to begin with. Just look at the last century. In terms of cultural impact, *pulp fiction* is king, not literary. Harry Potter has more fans that most literary fiction will ever have, and attempts to downplay popular fiction as lacking merit doesn’t grant merit to literary fiction.
It just makes literary fiction look like fiction for snobs.
The idea that literary fiction is uniquely noteworthy in some way is advocating qualities that are far *far* more niche than the smug attitude around it has ever wanted to accept.
No.
What a pretentious, ahistorical article. Ugh.