Literature for the people or literature for the intellectual elites? The writer and polemicist, well known outside the literary world for his participation in the television talk show The anthill de , famously married to the presenter , has won the Planeta, the jackpot prize for literature in Spanish, worth one million euros. In the delivery itself, this Wednesday night in Barcelona, anticipating possible criticism, Del Val got into a thorny topic, which is still the old discussion between high and low culture, that difference that postmodernism (and the Planeta award) have brought to light.
“It is written for the people, not for a supposed intellectual elite,” declared the winner. “I want to thank Planeta for turning literature into a popular event. Commercial and quality are the bases of this award. Considering it as different things is failing people.”
In recent years, the Planeta has caused resentment for its commitment to commercial writers, some of them from the television world, such as Del Val or, winner in 2023. A sector of the readership remembers with nostalgia when the prize was awarded to writers considered literary: from Eduardo Mendoza to Rosa Regás, from Juan José Millás to Soledad Puértolas, also Antonio Muñoz Molina, Juan Marsé or: Mario Vargas Llosa and Camilo José Cela.
In recent years the list of honors has been dedicated to that literature considered commercial, with the exception of 2019, when, as a surprise, . “Every seven or eight years,” says Vilas himself, “the Planet chooses real writers. It’s time for another batch. I propose one: Sara Mesa and David Uclés. Good literature triumphs alone. Don Quixote y One hundred years of loneliness They are literary and popular works. Popularity is an attribute of great literature, but commerciality It is a ridiculous concept applied to literature.”
So what is the difference between commercial and literary? A first approximation could be that the literary tends to conceive literature as an artistic expression, while the commercial tends to put the meat on the grill of entertainment. “I do not intend to leave any message with my novel. I propose a way to entertain yourself through emotion. I do not intend to transcend with any message,” Del Val said this Thursday, exemplifying this point, at the press conference for the award. And the pretensions are translated into the style: the literary novel tries to display a poetic style (whatever the poetic style may be), while the commercial one is concerned with “hooking” readers with a fast-paced plot. .
“Commercial literature repeats known models, that familiarity can make it reach many readers, but that is why it does not usually contribute anything to the history of literature,” says Antonio Monegal, professor of Theory of Literature and Comparative Literature at the Pompeu Fabra University and author of (Acantilado), among others. “But everything is literature: the literary ecosystem is very diverse and everything has its function. I am a great reader of detective novels by , but I know that he would not have deserved a Nobel Prize,” he adds.
The contrast, precisely, between the last Nobel Prize winner, , and the last Planeta, Juan del Val, exemplifies this difference well. The Hungarian practices a dense, sometimes experimental literature, a dark forest into which only the most seasoned readers can enter, while Del Val triumphs among the masses. Commercial authors are encouraged by the mass audience, literary authors are encouraged by the core of literary readers, critics and academia. And there comes the cultural distinction that the sociologist proposed: having refined tastes serves to distinguish those who want to enjoy what is meant. Today, the so-called cultural omnivoresaccording to Richard Peterson, are suitable for everything: whether it’s a literary monument of the type or an entertaining science fiction novel with no more pretensions. The discussion is always present, whether in the length of the queues at the Book Fair (where the commercials win by far) or in the discussions of recent years between literary poets and the avalanche of young naïve poets who, disembarking from the Internet, sold tens of thousands of collections of poems (a very uncommon thing) and .
Although as Monegal points out, there is gray territory. “He sold a lot and is remembered with enormous recognition.” And we cannot say that the previous literary winners of the Planet (the Millás, Pombo, Muñoz Molina or Torrente Ballester) were cursed writers from the underground. Its success is also enormous. Currently, he is achieving tremendous success with a very literary text, (Siruela), which mixes the historical story and magical realism around the Spanish Civil War. “An editorial phenomenon is not the same as a literary phenomenon,” says Uclés, whom he instructed in this regard. “The first involves designing a work so that it sells a lot. The second has a strong literary work behind it and, suddenly, it sells a lot. I have been afraid that critics will undervalue me for selling a lot without having read me. And I think that sales success has kept me away from some awards.”
From a business point of view, these two worlds, commercial and literary, are already separated at birth. The large publishing groups house commercial and other more literary imprints, and the physical book itself tells the reader what to expect. Literary collections usually have austere and regular, more elegant designs. It is more voluminous, has larger print, a hard cover, a colorful cover, often with gold and raised letters. It is noticed, it is felt. The literary novel tries to reach the reading public, who is already there, reading. To the reader trained in reading. Commercial texts try to go further and include new audiences (that could be their greatest virtue): it is a criterion used by many people not initiated into literature when choosing a book to give as a gift. If it is the Planet, it will be good: it cannot look bad. And even more so if the author is famous.
“It is curious that these differences surprise us in literature, but less so in cinema,” says Monegal. He cites very important directors who are very minority, such as (of whom the Nobel Prize winner Krasznahorkai is a screenwriter) or , but he also points out that no one denies the merit of a filmmaker like , creator of great films for large audiences. But the issue of transcendence returns: “Probably, Spielberg will not occupy the same place in the history of cinema as Buñuel or Fellini,” Monegal emphasizes.
