What is the difference between popular fiction and literature?
I am not sure I can give a definitive answer to this question, but I'd like to share my thoughts on it all the same. Before we can determine if there is a clear difference between literature and popular fiction, we have to define them. I can only define them based on how I understand them to relate to culture.
When we consider something to be "literature" we expect it to have contributed something back to culture that was significant in some way—and that's vague but I'm doing so on purpose, as literature could bring a number of various contributions. Some of the more obvious, like Ellison's Invisible Man or Bronte's Jane Eyre are novels which are most talked about for their social impact. Then there are authors such as Twain and Fitzgerald who changed the literary landscape, each with strikingly different styles; Where Twain created pleasing prose that was simple and comfortable, which remains part of its charm, then decades later, Fitzgerald would stylize prose into something just as decadent as his most famous character. We also have Tolkien who brought high fantasy to incredible heights, and life. Many of these books, their authors, have overlapping qualities, absolutely, but no matter what they're appreciated for they all share the same quality: They evolved the craft, they changed society. Somehow, someway.
It can definitely be argued that applies to works which have negative impact, as well. This might be a tad off topic so I'll focus on popular fiction.
Popular fiction, I consider, is just that: fiction which is popular. It might even be said that may be it should be called Populist fiction*, as it depends on cultural trends. I don't mean to be redundant but it is literally based on what is popular. When vampires were popular, we had lots of vampire fiction. Then we dropped the bloodsuckers and got into brainchompe—er, I mean, zombies and, lo and behold, we were inundated with zombie fiction. After I define that, I can't help but ask myself what would be the need to study and classify the cultural trends for book genres? Who would need to know? Well, the authors would need to know what people wanted—that makes sense, but why wouldn't the authors just write what they want and what sells, sells? Well, authors don't sell on their own, as we know, they sell through publishers who sell to bookstores who sell to consumers. Somewhere in this mix of selling to sellers who sell to sellers, someone needs to know what the buyers want. This makes me believe that ultimately popular fiction is dictated by financial considerations and less on the intellectual or artistic significance of the books.
Literature is defined by the artistic and intellectual significance to society, whereas popular fiction created related to populist trends in fiction.
We go back to our first question and its particular wording. Is there a clear difference between the two? There is a difference, sure, but where is the line? I mentioned Twilight earlier and I think its incredible popularity is notable for this example. People often say Twilight dawned a new era for young adult fiction, which had been wrongfully neglected and considered not profitable up until the vampire-themed novels. When they were shown to be popular, more authors were given a chance to publish their young adult novels and series like The Hunger Games (which some would argue deserve to be considered literature themselves) were able to gain literary credentials. Based on my definition earlier, could this make Twilight a form of literature? My instinct is to say no, despite my definition of literature earlier and the argument that, well, yes, it may have impacted a section of the literary world as other novels have in the past. I do not believe it is bias but a misunderstanding of what truly makes something literature—if that can even be defined. Perhaps, as some people say, it's like pornography and you just know it when you see it? Perhaps it the author's intent which guides the work? Perhaps it's just luck or the right title?
There is a difference between literature and popular fiction, that's for sure, but I don't think it is clear.
* imagine a corny TV laugh-track here. Someone probably stole it off of an abandoned set of Fraiser or Murphy Brown, judging by the joke.
