I love the questions you’ve posed and am curious to hear what others have to say.
I agree with you; serious literature is that which makes the reader wrestle with the big questions. When did it become unpopular to wrestle with your thoughts, ideas, deeply held beliefs? How do you know if you truly stand for something if you haven’t wrestled with it?
My hope is that authors will start writing more “serious” literature for children. No shade to books like DogMan and Diary of a Wimpy Kid (because they DO have their place) but how do these books sharpen a child ability to critically think? Kids need serious literature, too.
And to your question about genre—I do think “genre” literature can be serious literature. Look at books like THE ROAD and FAHRENHEIT 451, those are serious literary fiction in my mind but they also can be classified as dystopian. They are serious lit because they push the reader to wrestle with big questions—good and evil; how do you find hope in a desolate place.
Is it possible that PERSUASION could also be classified as a romance, too ? (I cringe at the thought) but… come on! When Wentworth writes that letter to Anne, I melted!
Could genre classifications be thought of as tools to help “shelf” a book or add more description to its type—not something that detracts from the quality?
All the Jane Austen novels I've read are definitely 'romance.' I remember listening to a podcast once where the hosts were doing a series on rom-com's and actually included Jane Austen in their lineup.
Wow, the Gardner book is interesting! I'd never heard of it before. I do feel like jumping up on a soapbox on this question of what is "serious" literature, though, which I think is a hugely important question for us now.
The question of what is "serious" very much depends on the channels of distribution for literature, which have varied over time. So: in the early 19th century, novels were mainly distributed in book form, and only to people who could afford to buy books. That seriously limited distribution. Most of the novels that were published were either designed to be consumed only by the paterfamilias (the racy stuff) or were for family consumption in upper-class families (e.g., Jane Austen). I haven't seen much evidence that anybody was concerned with what was "serious." The question was more what the appropriate audience was for a particular work.
Things really changed in a way that I think is profound and important when serial publication got going. The major change agent here was Dickens, whose serial publication of Pickwick went from a few hundred copies per number to thousands. This made his writing (and the writing of the many other authors who published in this format) much more broadly available. Pretty much all of them were avidly interested in the commercial returns on their work. Dickens kept close track, and Trollope was so proud of his literary earnings that his posthumously published recital of the grubby facts seriously damaged his reputation after his death. The mid-19th century rise of the lending library also made literature much more broadly available.
Dickens, Trollope, Gaskell, Collins - and hundred of other authors - were mainly concerned with writing something that could be published in serial format (which could only happen if the editor/gatekeepers thought it was appropriate for general audiences). Again, the question was not whether it was "serious." In fact, all of these authors thought of themselves as trying to write for the broadest general audience they could. (So while people now think that Dickens is "serious" and only for the elites, Dickens would have been mystified by this characterization. I wrote about this here: https://clairelaporte.substack.com/p/more-than-a-story-the-power-of-literature.)
In the latter half of the 19th century, though, some writers started to wrestle with the strictures imposed by the channels of distribution of literature. Authors whose works had been rejected by lending libraries, and others who had trouble getting past the editors of serials, started to make the argument that their work was "art" and should not be subjected to censorship by lending libraries or serial editors. A leading voice here was Thomas Hardy, who wrote a somewhat embittered essay, "Candour in English Fiction," about this.
I suppose that we can be sympathetic with those who wanted to make literature high art (although Shakespeare would have been as mystified by this concept as Dickens) and very "serious." But when you distinguish between popular entertainment and high art, you begin the process of transforming literature into an elite pastime. I don't think we benefit from doing that, because it gets us to where we are now: most people deciding that they'd rather not read at all - too hard.
Thank you for bringing this much needed dimension to the "serious" literature discussion. And with so much excellent insight and background on the history of publication and distribution, as well. I totally agree with you on all this. As one who labors on the craft side of the literary arts, I am easily overwhelmed by this aspect as well. It's not anything I can control.
Except, that's not necessarily true in the new era of platforms like Substack. I also wonder if the serial novel will come back into vogue in this new Substack era. I know authors are doing it. But it doesn't seem to have hit any kind of real momentum. Yet. Though, I am hopelessly "behind" on these matters, and likely won't catch up any time soon. In fact, to me, the literary landscape seems to be trending more toward the "everyone for him/herself" mode. Ha!
Great question. My answer is perhaps democratic and relativist. Serious literature is whatever a reader chooses to read seriously, however they choose to define serious! 🙃 Shakespeare can be read lightly for fun, pop lyrics can be mined for meaning. I distrust our attempts to tell others what is and isn't serious – the individual reader more often than not knows when they are being serious. For me, serious literature is anything I feel compelled to re-read, because it has asked more questions than I have answers.
I love all this, Simon. I think that was, in part, what I was getting at with my question (much to myself) about literature that is pure delight also being "serious" in its own unique way. When I look around me on any given day--at creation, at my children (grown now, and yet still marvels to me--okay, not always, but on good days!), at almost any aspect of life--I can't help but think we are meant to take delight seriously.
And then, your last sentence about what serious literature is for you, is exactly what it is for me, too.
You mentioned being too busy for a steady stream of newsletter posts but, even if you're not writing new material, you're demonstrating here a great knack for curation; by setting these two perspectives together, Gardener and Lewis, with some bullet-point observations and questions can be as thoughtful as a fleshed-out piece. I'm glad you saw a way to fit these two takes into a single conversation!
Also kinda thrilled by this: "Nowhere is genre mentioned. Not in the quotes I shared at least. Lewis—as the title of his essay suggests—talks about the fairy story being the form (or genre) he thought would best fulfill his intentions as both Author and Man. Gardner speaks of any artistic medium as being “good,” as long as it meets the standard of being “true” or “moral” art."
Genre stuff deserves a little more time in the sun here, I'm happy to see it championed
Other commentators have already alluded to it, but I always find it fascinating how many of the „founding fathers and mothers“ of genre literature are considered classics nowadays: Jane Austen (romance), Mary Shelley and Bram Stoker (horror), HG Wells and Jules Verne (science fiction), etc. So obviously genre fiction can be „literary“ as long as it’s old enough…
Also, let’s not forget that many revered literary figures wrote for the broad public - Shakespeare and Molière didn’t just want the Court to see their plays; Goethe‘s „Sorrows of Young Werther“ was the it-novel of Europe; etc etc.
Last but not least, the redefinition of what’s classic and literary occurs in our own time. I‘ve witnessed the canonisation of Tolkien, and I feel the same is in progress with John Le Carré.
I love the questions you’ve posed and am curious to hear what others have to say.
I agree with you; serious literature is that which makes the reader wrestle with the big questions. When did it become unpopular to wrestle with your thoughts, ideas, deeply held beliefs? How do you know if you truly stand for something if you haven’t wrestled with it?
My hope is that authors will start writing more “serious” literature for children. No shade to books like DogMan and Diary of a Wimpy Kid (because they DO have their place) but how do these books sharpen a child ability to critically think? Kids need serious literature, too.
And to your question about genre—I do think “genre” literature can be serious literature. Look at books like THE ROAD and FAHRENHEIT 451, those are serious literary fiction in my mind but they also can be classified as dystopian. They are serious lit because they push the reader to wrestle with big questions—good and evil; how do you find hope in a desolate place.
Is it possible that PERSUASION could also be classified as a romance, too ? (I cringe at the thought) but… come on! When Wentworth writes that letter to Anne, I melted!
Could genre classifications be thought of as tools to help “shelf” a book or add more description to its type—not something that detracts from the quality?
All the Jane Austen novels I've read are definitely 'romance.' I remember listening to a podcast once where the hosts were doing a series on rom-com's and actually included Jane Austen in their lineup.
Wow, the Gardner book is interesting! I'd never heard of it before. I do feel like jumping up on a soapbox on this question of what is "serious" literature, though, which I think is a hugely important question for us now.
The question of what is "serious" very much depends on the channels of distribution for literature, which have varied over time. So: in the early 19th century, novels were mainly distributed in book form, and only to people who could afford to buy books. That seriously limited distribution. Most of the novels that were published were either designed to be consumed only by the paterfamilias (the racy stuff) or were for family consumption in upper-class families (e.g., Jane Austen). I haven't seen much evidence that anybody was concerned with what was "serious." The question was more what the appropriate audience was for a particular work.
Things really changed in a way that I think is profound and important when serial publication got going. The major change agent here was Dickens, whose serial publication of Pickwick went from a few hundred copies per number to thousands. This made his writing (and the writing of the many other authors who published in this format) much more broadly available. Pretty much all of them were avidly interested in the commercial returns on their work. Dickens kept close track, and Trollope was so proud of his literary earnings that his posthumously published recital of the grubby facts seriously damaged his reputation after his death. The mid-19th century rise of the lending library also made literature much more broadly available.
Dickens, Trollope, Gaskell, Collins - and hundred of other authors - were mainly concerned with writing something that could be published in serial format (which could only happen if the editor/gatekeepers thought it was appropriate for general audiences). Again, the question was not whether it was "serious." In fact, all of these authors thought of themselves as trying to write for the broadest general audience they could. (So while people now think that Dickens is "serious" and only for the elites, Dickens would have been mystified by this characterization. I wrote about this here: https://clairelaporte.substack.com/p/more-than-a-story-the-power-of-literature.)
In the latter half of the 19th century, though, some writers started to wrestle with the strictures imposed by the channels of distribution of literature. Authors whose works had been rejected by lending libraries, and others who had trouble getting past the editors of serials, started to make the argument that their work was "art" and should not be subjected to censorship by lending libraries or serial editors. A leading voice here was Thomas Hardy, who wrote a somewhat embittered essay, "Candour in English Fiction," about this.
I suppose that we can be sympathetic with those who wanted to make literature high art (although Shakespeare would have been as mystified by this concept as Dickens) and very "serious." But when you distinguish between popular entertainment and high art, you begin the process of transforming literature into an elite pastime. I don't think we benefit from doing that, because it gets us to where we are now: most people deciding that they'd rather not read at all - too hard.
Claire,
Thank you for bringing this much needed dimension to the "serious" literature discussion. And with so much excellent insight and background on the history of publication and distribution, as well. I totally agree with you on all this. As one who labors on the craft side of the literary arts, I am easily overwhelmed by this aspect as well. It's not anything I can control.
Except, that's not necessarily true in the new era of platforms like Substack. I also wonder if the serial novel will come back into vogue in this new Substack era. I know authors are doing it. But it doesn't seem to have hit any kind of real momentum. Yet. Though, I am hopelessly "behind" on these matters, and likely won't catch up any time soon. In fact, to me, the literary landscape seems to be trending more toward the "everyone for him/herself" mode. Ha!
Thanks again for all your excellent insight. :)
Great question. My answer is perhaps democratic and relativist. Serious literature is whatever a reader chooses to read seriously, however they choose to define serious! 🙃 Shakespeare can be read lightly for fun, pop lyrics can be mined for meaning. I distrust our attempts to tell others what is and isn't serious – the individual reader more often than not knows when they are being serious. For me, serious literature is anything I feel compelled to re-read, because it has asked more questions than I have answers.
I love all this, Simon. I think that was, in part, what I was getting at with my question (much to myself) about literature that is pure delight also being "serious" in its own unique way. When I look around me on any given day--at creation, at my children (grown now, and yet still marvels to me--okay, not always, but on good days!), at almost any aspect of life--I can't help but think we are meant to take delight seriously.
And then, your last sentence about what serious literature is for you, is exactly what it is for me, too.
Thanks for taking the time to discuss! :)
Here's to taking delight seriously!
You mentioned being too busy for a steady stream of newsletter posts but, even if you're not writing new material, you're demonstrating here a great knack for curation; by setting these two perspectives together, Gardener and Lewis, with some bullet-point observations and questions can be as thoughtful as a fleshed-out piece. I'm glad you saw a way to fit these two takes into a single conversation!
Also kinda thrilled by this: "Nowhere is genre mentioned. Not in the quotes I shared at least. Lewis—as the title of his essay suggests—talks about the fairy story being the form (or genre) he thought would best fulfill his intentions as both Author and Man. Gardner speaks of any artistic medium as being “good,” as long as it meets the standard of being “true” or “moral” art."
Genre stuff deserves a little more time in the sun here, I'm happy to see it championed
Other commentators have already alluded to it, but I always find it fascinating how many of the „founding fathers and mothers“ of genre literature are considered classics nowadays: Jane Austen (romance), Mary Shelley and Bram Stoker (horror), HG Wells and Jules Verne (science fiction), etc. So obviously genre fiction can be „literary“ as long as it’s old enough…
Also, let’s not forget that many revered literary figures wrote for the broad public - Shakespeare and Molière didn’t just want the Court to see their plays; Goethe‘s „Sorrows of Young Werther“ was the it-novel of Europe; etc etc.
Last but not least, the redefinition of what’s classic and literary occurs in our own time. I‘ve witnessed the canonisation of Tolkien, and I feel the same is in progress with John Le Carré.