The difference between literature and 'category' writing

Captain Con

For me the best description of the difference between literature and the best of category/cohort writing (sci-fi, detective, thriller etc) is that the literary novel sets out to comment on the human condition.

This works for me because it means the best of category efforts are not excluded from being called literary because the best in each category say something or reveal something about the human condition in a new way. It may not have set out to do so but may end up being described as literature.

Anybody else got any handy way of differentiating the literary novel from the category novel?

Anouilh

This is one of the old chestnuts of criticism.

Some potboilers become classics over time so it's hard to keep everything within one category.

"Literature" is often considered to be ultra-serious so it's worth remembering all the writers who started off publishing short stories and lurid dime novels in popular magazines.

http://moderntwist2.blogspot.com/2009/10/fearful-excitement.html#links
There a link in the title bar in the blog above that might be of use.

However, the influence of the deconstruction of literature (along with everything else) now means that many critics are even dispensing with the notion of "genre".

ally2

There is often dispute about literary fiction versus genre fiction and the lines can be blurred. But it can take years to produce a high quality novel that epitomises the 'human condition' and is painstakingly, almost neurotically crafted and rewritten. Language, character, insight, depth of feeling, etc. all figure to varying extents in literary fiction which can be close to art in its depiction of the world.

Having said that there are plenty of short stories and novels written as literary fiction that are total and utter crap and would pale beside a good work of genre fiction. Everything needs to be scrutinised for pretentiousness and gimmicks.