239. Do You Prefer ‘Literary’ or ‘Genre’ Fantastical Fiction?

We love stories with fine writing.[1. Photo by Jonathan Francisca on Unsplash.] As the Scripture says, “A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in a setting of silver.” But sometimes readers just want basic style, quick tools for the simple job of getting you in and out of a fantastical work of fiction. Which kind of stories do you prefer and why? Episode sponsors Audio-Epic.com: “1232” podcast Laurie Christine: Garden of Mysteries: A Dragon Slayer Bible Story The Jabin Kainos series by Vince Mancuso Mission update New review of Baptism by Fire by Alexandra Gilchrist Subscribe free to get updates and join the Lorehaven Guild 1. What I mean by ‘literary’ fiction vs. ‘genre’ fiction Literary fiction Tends to focus on poetical language, deeper themes, character journeys. Sentences and paragraphs can be much longer and more complex. Books often use words as ornate instruments, not as simple tools. Less emphasis on reaching more readers and more emphasis on the Art. Tends to have limited readership and become educational, not just fun. Genre fiction Tends to focus on basic plot, tropes, clear and simpler ideas/characters. Sentences are more basic—subject, verb, object—and much shorter. Books use words mainly as tools for the job, not ornate instruments. Less emphasis on the Art and more emphasis on reaching more readers. Tends to have broader readership and become fun, not just educational. 2. Why I get vexed by some ‘literary’ associations Notice I didn’t say “literary fiction” but associations—ideas around it. I feel vexed when literature teachers get preoccupied with Symbolism. This confuses the means of symbols for the ends of their meanings. See, for example, the false teachers who reduce the Bible to symbols. Some teachers really do seem to be imposing their views on the book. I recall several such examples from my old American Literature classes. Simple words, like “nightcap,” got misinterpreted with sexual meanings. Also, thanks to my upcoming novel, I’ve stumbled into a niche subgenre. Turns out that “missionaries in space” has a few very literary attempts. Of two top examples (I won’t name them), I’ve tried to read one so far. Frankly, the novel was dull. Very little sci-fi. Aliens way in the distance. The novel followed mostly very wealthy, remote, and unlikeable persons. And that’s another stigma with “literary” schools—the aloof elitism. Meanwhile, many literary sorts get preoccupied with politics and culture. They seem to think that real life also functions by “literary fiction” rules. And of course, the dullest teachers can turn great books into chores. One sci-fi writer, Bruce McAllister, tried a famous experiment in 1963. As a presumptuous student age 16, he wrote to 150 top literary figures. He asked: Did they really consciously put all these symbols in their work? The answers to the questionnaire were as varied as the writers themselves. Did Isaac Asimov plant symbolism in his work? “Consciously? Heavens, no! Unconsciously? How can one avoid it?” Iris Murdoch sagely advises that “there is much more symbolism in ordinary life than some critics seem to realize.” Ayn Rand wins the prize for concision; addressing McAllister’s example of symbolism in The Scarlet Letter, she wrote, “This is not a definition, it is not true—and, therefore, your questions do not make sense.” Kerouac is a close second; he writes, “Symbolism is alright in ‘Fiction’ but I tell true life stories simply about what happened to people I knew.” McAllister later became a literature teacher and a notable sci-fi writer. Though McAllister now claims, “It never occurred to me that [the writers] would answer,” once they did he was delighted—as was his English teacher: “a sweet, teacherly soul,” impressed by his industry but unable to absorb the import of its result. The search for symbols would continue, at least until the end of the 1964–65 school year. “The conclusion I came to was that nobody had asked them. New Criticism was about the scholars and the text; writers were cut out of the equation. Scholars would talk about symbolism in writing, but no one had asked the writers.” Ultimately, the answer is not “the literature teachers are making it all up.” Instead it’s more like, “Sometimes they make it up, but not always.” So there are intentional deeper, symbolic references in literary fiction. 3. Great genre fiction can also show literary flair But guess what. Sometimes genre fiction also includes deeper meaning. Genre fiction, too, can break out a startling sentence or sweet symbol. In so doing, the genre fiction may echo one key principle of the gospel. Scripture seems to endorse at least one “folly” that upends “wisdom”: For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 1 Corinthians 1:18–20 And yet Scripture includes many books, like Proverbs, extolling wisdom. Paul seems to dismiss a kind of purely academic, worldly wisdom. He is not advocating some totalizing vox populi, vox Dei notion. Scripture itself is clearer in some places than others (called perspicuity). Yet the Bible also holds incredible depths that scholars keep seeking out. So my resolution is not as simple as “why not both?” but is close to that. Personally, I believe in “genre fiction” that can incorporate literary value. Again, the gospel is all about Jesus stooping down to reach humans. This key doctrine honors His “elite” nature as God yet also His humility. In our search for fantastic stories, let’s honor authors who do the same. Accessible stories can also try ornate sentences and deeper symbols. I want stories with a “big word” at least once a chapter, get me thinking. Every once in a while, break out a long paragraph or complex sentence! But keep things simple, in order to reach readers and serve one another. Thus we seek that invisible asymptote between “literary” and “genre.” (And if you’re unclear on the meaning of asymptote, look it up!) Com station Top question for listeners Do you prefer “literary” or “genre” fantastical fiction, or seek both? RK McClure (@pearls4swineguy) on X enjoyed episode 236: @‌Lorehaven and specifically, the #FantasticalTruth Podcast has been so good for me. They have validated my love and use of fantasy, sci-fi, and even #ChristianHorror for God’s glory. If you have ever wondered if Christians can engage with horror, give this episode a listen. Davidls commented on the episode 236 page at Lorehaven.com: A combination of the death of a classmate, and watching one of the Faces of Death films, showed me that I was too casual about death in general, but also that I wasn’t completely desensitized. When watching a slasher film I knew that the whole thing was fake, so I wasn’t bothered by it. When I saw a story about death in the news, I didn’t think of it as fake, but I also didn’t have much in the way of compassion because they weren’t people I knew, and I hadn’t seen their horrible deaths. But with the death of a classmate, and seeing the gruesome deaths of others, it was like I had been woken up by a cold bucket of water and a punch to the gut. Compassion was awakened in me. And as I come to know Jesus better, that compassion grows. Next on Fantastical Truth This is our final episode before Thanksgiving 2024! As we head into the holidays, let’s thank God for His gift of the complex gospel that He has made simple for us, as we go on seeking and finding His fantastical truth.