Literary Merit

Shakespeare was the greatest writer in the history of the written word.

Let that sink in for a second. Really ponder it. Some people, people who have never even read Shakespeare's work outside of a classroom, will accept this as fact because an English teacher told them it was true once in tenth grade. Others will agree because they're intimately familiar with the Bard and the influence his work has had on our language and the way we use it to tell stories. Still others will disagree for reasons of their own and a debate will rage until the fire I just started dies down into embers in a comments section somewhere on Youtube, with the last two combatants devolving from the initial quarrel into a discussion about who can and can't spell "fag".

The argument isn't the point. The fact that there is an argument, is the point. Why do those people, those that think of Shakespeare (for example, you could substitute any of the classic writers in there) as the greatest writer or, indeed, even a great writer after 400 years think that way? What makes them feel so strongly? I'm not talking about what you'd consider a personal opinion. My favorite novel is Ender's Game but I wouldn't get into a fight over it. I wouldn't try to provide facts or examples for it being a great novel, although it certainly is that. No, I'm talking about a real idea here.

In high school (or middle school, if you're exceptional) you learn about Literary Devices. Things like Theme and Imagery, things that are capitalized because your teachers want you to know they're important. You learn, through essays and exercises, to seek out and comment upon these things in the "Great Literary Works" you read.

That, I think, is what makes the difference for most people. Scholars look for things like the Devices, and decide a work's (be it a play or novel or otherwise) Literary Merit, based on their inclusion. For instance, when you finish your work and start looking into publishing, you'll find a number of publishing houses seeking what they call "Literary fiction".

I don't pretend I know what the fuck that means, quite frankly, because its nonsense.

I believe its nonsense, because looking for Theme doesn't make a story better. Or more interesting. Or more fun to get lost in. The Great Gatsby is a great story because Fitzgerald wrote compelling characters and put them in situations that draw in his readers, not because he included subtexts of classism or social commentary. Those things exist in the story, sure. But they exist as natural byproducts of the story.

I've already pointed out that writing isn't a lucrative career for most people. Its exceedingly rare to find a millionaire writer. Hell, its uncommon to find a hundredaire writer. Its a difficult market to break into even  if you're not just looking to make money. And literary acclaim doesn't come with popular fame and fortune. Some of the most beloved writers (retrospectively, at least), the most acclaimed, were penniless. Or hated by critics in their own time. If fame and fortune is your aim, well, keep in mind that many of history's greatest are only rich and famous now that they're dead. Likewise, some of the most prominent writers, in terms of financial gain and popularity, are derided by the literary elite.

My point here, is that every piece of writing will, to some extent, be literary. Its unavoidable. They may be overt or subtle, they may be outlandish or conservative, and they may be vital to the story or simply accidental side-effects. The important thing isn't literary merit. Never set out consciously to write something that will appease scholars. Write a story, the rest will follow.

Yours,
-S.R.