Literary/Mainstream

[AmyBA]

I was thinking of mainstream/contemporary fiction as compared to literary fiction. I agree, other genres do have definitive resolutions at the end; I just wasn't including them in my thinking here, which maybe I should have been.

[maestrowork]

Oh yeah, literary fiction is a different animal. Sometimes it is hard to separate literary from mainstream (both are relatively character-driven, etc.) One thing is: all things considered, a literary best seller probably sells 5000 copies; a mainstream best seller sells 100,000+. :)

[BlueTexas]

I have a really hard time drawing the literary/ mainstream line with contemporary authors. Anyone have thoughts on what defines literary?

[maestrowork]

My own definition is that Literary (as opposed to "Literature") is more about the beauty of the language, imagineries, characters' internal world, etc. I read one literary book (well, didn't finish) which was nothing but a long internal monologue (no dialogue... everything was reported or summarized by the narrator). Of course, some have strong stories, too, but they're still more about structures, language, complexities, etc. (e.g. The Hours).

On the other hand, I consider something like Cold Mountain mainestream/historical even though it's really close to being literary. Or anything Michael Chabon or John Irving puts out...

That's what I think, anyway.

[AmyBA]

To my mind, literary fiction tends to be more introspective and character-driven, while mainstream is more plot-driven. Literary fiction is also more focused on the use of language in a noticeable way; mainstream fiction writers also make careful use of language, of course, but not in such a way as to make the reader consciously notice.

[brokenfingers]

I agree.

My understanding is that literary is more about the writing itself - the skill and beauty of the author's manipulation of it.

Mainstream is more concerned with the story.

[BlueTexas]

Gotcha. So we'd be calling Elizabeth Berg, Isabelle Allende, Margaret Atwood all mainstream. Can anyone think of any contemporary literary authors?

[AmyBA]

I would consider Joyce Carol Oates more literary than mainstream/contemporary.

[pdr]

Doesn't the literary world consider Margaret Atwood a literary writer? I think I've read articles by critics who write of her as a 'great literary writer'.

Isn't the theme one of the things about literary writing that makes it not popular fiction? I'm talking about theme as an idea, something that a writer feels strongly about and wishes to communicate to the reader. Literary writing is idea driven as well as wonderfully written.

Literary fiction also has depth and layers that make it an intellectually satisfying or stimulating read. Good literary fiction leaves a reader thinking!

[maestrowork]

Mainstream can have themes and can be deep and complex with layers and make the readers think... At least I think my book does.

I do think literary fiction is more concerned about characters and the use of language, structure, symbolism, imageries, and themes. Plot is secondary (it's not to say they don't have plot -- most stories have plots, even mundane ones).

[JenNipps]

I've split this off from the "What is mainstream?" thread because I think it deserves it's own space. This is honestly something I've never thought of -- mainstream vs. literary -- so I think it's quite interesting. I'll have something to add to it tomorrow when I can think again.

[wurdwise]

Maybe we could consider Barbara Kingsolver a modern day literary author. Her use of lanquage is magical.

[JanaLanier]

I agree with PDR, that literary fiction is multilayered writing, heavy on theme and symbolism. I also agree with Ray, that there is an overlap and some mainstream works can have those qualities.

Maybe Contemporary/Mainstream is all the stuff that's not literary, and not genre?

I'd consider Margaret Atwood, Barbara Kingsolver, and Isabella Allende literary.

What about Tom Wolfe? Jodi Piccoult? John Irving? Are they mainstream or literary?

Geez, the more I think about it, the more confused I get. It would be nice to understand it, if only to know how to pitch a book to an agent. A beta reader described my writing style as 'vaguely literary,' and I'm still not sure what that meant.

[maestrowork]

John Irving or Tom Wolfe would be mainstream, I believe.

[pdr]

When having this literary/mainstream/contemporary discussion with other writers or English Literature students I discovered that American universities teach a slightly different version on literary, mainstream or contemporary writing. Anyway if you care to think about these ideas from a non-American point of view, then I was taught, and I teach that contemporary and mainstream writing are very similar. That is why you see editors asking for mainstream/contemporary fiction as if they are the same thing. Fiction that is contemporary is written about the time we live in - our contemporary time. It is mainstream because it is of general interest, i.e. of interest to many readers - the mainstream of the population.

Certainly Ray, mainstream/contemporary writing may have a strong theme and be about ideas but literary writing is more. Why are so many new writers eager to be known as writers of literary fiction? Why is popular fiction regarded as less important writing? We are taught that literary fiction is the best type of fiction to write because it is not just a story, it's not just about characters, it's not just about the human condition, it's about a writer with consummate skills using her language to express through words, with her personal and honest interpretation, the important ideas of our time.

All very high faluting and for many writers somewhat like the quest for the Holy Grail. Personally I feel that literary writers tend to be born not made. That's mainly because I've taught writers for a long time and can just about tell from the first session with a new class who will tend to have a literary writing style and who wont. They don't set out to be 'literary'. They just are. Give a literary writer the task of writing a romance and they will write a literary book with a story centred around a romance! Give a non-literary writer the task of using symbols and a serious idea to create a layered and deeply meaningful story and they will write a simple entertaining tale!

Tom Wolfe and John Irving are mainstream/contemporary by my definition too, Ray.

Jana, whoever said 'vaguely literary' wasn't exactly crystal clear about literary writing were they? Don't try to force yourself to be literary. Just write and call your writing mainstream/contemporary!

[wurdwise]

I think my style of writing is literary. What you said hit the nail on the head. No matter what subject, I can't help myself from writing prose. I could never see myself writing an action thriller, the enjoyment I get from writing comes from trying to tell my story in the way I like to read them, delighting in the images and the authors take on humanity, of things the way I see them, to have the reader see those images too.

[Jamesaritchie]

To the publishing world, the boundary between literary and mainstream is most often one of money. If it doesn't sell well, it's literary; if it reaches the mainstream audience and puts up mainstream numbers, it's mainstream.

[wurdwise]

I changed my mind then!:D

[pdr]

I don't think Maxwell Perkins, that editor of the 20thC American literary greats, would be happy with Mr Ritchie's comments about today's American publishers!

Thirty years ago our (non-American) publishers would have been looking for that 'great literary work' to publish because they believed that good literary fiction became the classic literature that endured. They wanted their publishing house to be associated with such works. American publishing has always been more money orientated so I can see that today, when money is a god, some editors would confuse mainstream and literary fiction. However some non-American publishers still say, in their writers' guidelines, that they only publish literary fiction and not mainstream or genre fiction. They do differentiate between the two.

The definition of literary writing is a difficult beast to pin down. Charles Dickens was so popular that the police had to handle the crowds when the new issue of his magazine with the next chapters of his newest novel came out. He was regarded as a popular novelist. Now he is regarded as a great writer, his works are called classics. I'm not personally sure he is a great literary writer but sometimes he was! Passages like the opening of 'Bleak House' where he starts off describing the fog and ends up in the mental fog of the Chancery courts take some beating.

Jane Austen - to choose another writer you will all have had thrust at you in school some time - is a great literary writer, her skill with words and her technique are superior to Dickens. But he had honest passion to fuel his writing, and strong feelings about certain ideas that he wrote about to make his readers aware of his society's injustices. Austen has an incredible understanding of human relationships and that wonderfully ironic touch to reveal her ideas to the intelligent reader.

Literary fiction is different from mainstream/contemporary but I can't work out a good definition for myself. I keep coming back to 'depth', to style, to a sense of being made to think about something in a new way, a mental stretching that mainstream does not. Maybe 'Captain Correlli's Mandolin' (spelling?)is an example of a modern literary work? If it were a mainstream work it would not have those odd, out of the plot chapters with different character's views and the story's ending would have been slightly different. As it stands now it has the feeling, for me, of a well written literary work.

[maestrowork]

Are we talking about "literary" or "literature"? To me, they are different. Dickens novels are literature, but I don't consider them "literary." Same with Jane Austen. I think they're very mainstream. You can't be more mainstream than Oliver Twist or Emma.

But Virgina Wolfe? Yeah, literary.

[pdr]

I think that most professors of English Literature regard most of the works they study and teach in the English Literature canon as literary writing. That's why it's 'English Literature'! And literary writing can and does deal with contemporary topics. Jane Austin, by your earlier definition of a literary writer being one who uses langauge well, is certainly a writer of literary fiction. Her subject matter at the time she wrote would not, I think, have been considered as mainstream writing for the general public.

I wonder, Ray, from your example of Virginia Wolfe, if you think that literary writing is actually that esoteric, arty farty, airy fairy, what-the-hell-am-I-reading stuff that goes by the name of 'cutting edge', experimental writing? It's the sort of fiction that gives most people mental indigestion and makes beginning writers furious that it gets published when their more traditional writing doesn't!!!!

Just to confuse us all even further James Joyce's 'Ulysses' was an experimental novel that is now regarded as a literary work. Sigh!!!

[maestrowork]

Maybe I am. Because, otherwise they would be "mainstream" because they sell in millions (such as John Irving's novels -- he uses the language with great skill and flair too, but he sells a lot of books). My definition of "literary" tend to be "it's way out there." An ex-teacher of mine writes arty-farty "literary" novels -- a book about six people sitting around talking about life and love and such, for example. His books don't really sell, but they may be studied in Lit classes.

For me, I still say literature is different than "literary." In lit classes, you have anything from Jane Austin to Joyce to Amy Tan to Michael Chabon (the last two I consider "mainstream" and I'm sure the first two might be considered "mainstream" in their times as well). It's kind of like music. Mozart's music was considered pop and even "vulgar" in his times. But now, it's "classical." And in a century or two, John William's movie scores will all be considered "classical."

For the sake of discussing what publishers TODAY regard as literary vs. mainstream, I think the arty-farty criterion might not be too far off...

;)

[pdr]

Ah me! I hoped we would have some of the other writers joining in, Ray. I don't like to appear to hog a topic. Come on, you other non-genre writers, we are only tentatively suggesting what the differences between mainstream/contemporary and literary writing might be to the two of us. Add your two penneth (cents) worth of comment. There are no rights or wrongs, just interesting, differing opinions.

Anyway the definition you are happy with, Ray - pretentious arty farty crap - (and a lot of my genre writing friends use that definition of literary writing too) does actually refer to 'experimental' or sometimes it's called 'cutting edge' writing in my non-American experience. It may be literary writing one day, (James Joyce, e e cummings) but right now it's experimental.

No, I am not confusing literature with literary writing. It's just that one expects the best literary writing to become 'English Literature' one day in the future. Most fiction studied at University is studied because it is regarded as the best writing that says something about the human condition.

John Irving wrote that book about Owen Meeny (sp?) and one about a most peculiar family with the bear and the incestuous relationship between brother narrator and one sister? If so I think he's mainstream and it wouldn't be polite for me to say what I think about his subject matter or his writing style. I remember reading a post you made raving about Ernest Hemingway, another writer I think is over praised, so our tastes are obviously widely different. I never could get into Michael Chabon either! Sorry about that.
I hope they aren't called literary writers in the USA.

Back to literary writing. How about a negative definition?

Literary writing isn't pretentious.
It doesn't use polysyllabic words for the sake of sounding grand.
It doesn't use long, complex and convoluted sentence structures to baffle the reader.
Literary writing doesn't just tell a story.
It doesn't aim to be the most beautiful writing ever written.
It doesn't aim at the highest I.Q.s only.
Literary writing doesn't confuse, or bore the reader.

On the positive side all I can say is that literary writing is serious, superbly written and leaves a reader thinking.

[JenNipps]

Back to literary writing. How about a negative definition?

Literary writing isn't pretentious.
It doesn't use polysyllabic words for the sake of sounding grand.
It doesn't use long, complex and convoluted sentence structures to baffle the reader.
Literary writing doesn't just tell a story.
It doesn't aim to be the most beautiful writing ever written.
It doesn't aim at the highest I.Q.s only.
Literary writing doesn't confuse, or bore the reader.

On the positive side all I can say is that literary writing is serious, superbly written and leaves a reader thinking.

That's not a bad definition. I think we might be able to add that literary writing doesn't always stick to genre lines and perhaps that's why much of it (in my experience) is lumped in with mainstream.

(Sorry to be so late getting in on this. Sick family, catching up on work, and post-conference piddly stuff kept me out of it.)

[pdr]

Talking to my students about literary writing it seems that perhaps we just have to accept that even editors have a hard time defining 'literary' although we all seem to recognize it when we read it. I feel strongly that it is not self-conscious or deliberate but rather the result of the writer's personal style, attitude to the theme and a more philosophical subject matter.

On the other hand there are writers of genre fiction, particularly crime fiction and historical fiction who make every effort to write a literary work of fiction. It seems, from reading critiques, that these writers have created 'literary historicals' and 'literary who-done-its'. From the authors' comments they have done so because they do not like the critical snobbery about genre fiction.

Where does that leave us? To answer the question about marketing, perhaps you could call your work 'mainstream/contemporary' and let the editors discover if it's 'literary'?

[maestrowork]

There's also a sub-genre called "inspirational fiction." And I don't mean Christian fiction because many of these novels are not about the Christian faith (although they inevitably have some religious/spiritual tilt to it). For example, A Christmas Box, Five People You Meet In Heaven, etc. They're mainstream, but also "inspirational" because they tend to have somewhat a "preachiness" to it.

Comments?

[pdr]

Apologies, Maestro, but I don't know your examples nor have I read anything like them. At least I may have but they were labelled 'Christian'.

I would like to move from the Novels forum though, (and before anyone yells I'll apologise first if I have trodden on someone's toes by using incorrect proceedures, but I'm short of time) two examples from the thread about Pacing. You made some comments I think might fit here.
The examples :

Telling:
Joe didn't eat enough, always in a hurry. Efficiency was crucial for a man like him. He filled his sock drawer with the same style of white socks so he didn't have to hunt for a matching pair in the dark. His closet was full of black and navy slacks, white dress shirts, and solid colored ties. Joe had enough problems to deal with at work, and a wife who found fault with everything he did.

Showing:
He smoothed the navy tie across his chest with one bony hand, and poured himself a cup of black coffee with the other, careful not to splash it on his white shirt. "I'm going to be late again."

"Where'd you put the damned sugar," his wife snapped, slamming one cupboard after another. "Why can't you just leave it on the counter until I've had my third cup?"

Aside from your comments on showing and telling I wondered if you thought that these two examples actually showed a Mainstream and a genre style of writing? The 1st example was booed. I don't think it would have been in Mainstream writing.

[maestrowork]

I don't see it as mainstream vs. genre issue. I have seen both styles in mainstream. But in genre (at least suspense/thriller -- the stuff I read), it's more like example #2 -- fast pace, a lot of showing.

Personally I like a little bit of both.

[pdr]

It's difficult to pinpoint what I want to say. As the two samples are not published but two examples nicely created to explain showing and telling it might be hard to tweak them about without upsetting their writer.

The second example is full of action but not ideas that the reader can latch onto.
The first, especially if tweaked to be Joe's point of view in the third person, actually says a lot more.

That seems to be one of the special things about mainstream/contemporary writing: more ideas and a style that might appear to be more like telling than showing.

[maestrowork]

I think with any genres, telling can be very effective to get some ideas across. The problem is that if we overuse that technique, we take the readers out of the story, and we end up spoon feeding them the ideas, instead of them "getting it."

The first example (telling, summary) can be rewritten effectively as example 2 (showing, action)... it might take a little longer to get those "ideas" across, but when the readers "get" it, there's that "wow" factor.

It just so happens that in mainstream, especially ones that are not action packed, it's more common to see "telling" because it's a quicker way to get the points across.

I think it comes down to how much you trust your characters and your own storytelling, and how much you trust your readers. Some writers feel that they must tell the readers everything, or risk losing them. Some writers trust that their readers are smart enough to understand and read between the lines, and that their dialogue/action speak volume.

I hope we are talking about the same thing... it's morning... and I didn't have coffee yet. ;)

[pdr]

Don't seem to be able to attract a few more interested parties to discuss this, Maestro, and I'm going to be zooming aorund the globe for the next ten weeks and won't be able to keep up with you as I have to use the little time I will have to write a couple of articles and another chapter.

I did want to say that I don't find the second piece 'better'. It was all action with little to think about and I don't find that it did reveal much at all about the two characters, at least not the amount the first piece told us about them.
And yes, maybe Mainstream/literary is more tolerant of author intrusion as in omnicient POV and 'telling' sections of writing.

Thank you for helping me and my students to work through some interesting ideas.

[pixiejuice]

Hi guys, I'd like to chime in here, quite a bit late if there's anyone left reading.

Give a literary writer the task of writing a romance and they will write a literary book with a story centred around a romance! Give a non-literary writer the task of using symbols and a serious idea to create a layered and deeply meaningful story and they will write a simple entertaining tale!

PDR, I think what you've said here touches on my own definition of literary/mainstream. "Literary" is a label that can be applied to any kind of story, genre or non-genre. And I don't think that literary has to mean the book doesn't sell, or is confusing, or arrogant. Literary only means that in addition to a story, there are underlying themes and ideas to make the reader think. A non-literary story is a "simple entertaining tale".

John Irving is a good example of a literary writer whose books sell. They are not arrogant or confusing. The literary is an addition to the story. All stories, literary or non-literary, have to have the neccessary character development and good language if the book is going to work.

I just finished reading a great novel, Kiss Me, Judas by Will Christopher Baer, which I would consider genre writing. I don't normally read genre writing so I'll have to guess at the exact placement of this, but I guess I might say it was part crime-drama and part twisted romance - but underneath the classification of plot (which is what genres do), the storytelling is definately literary because it has those underlying ideas and themes.

The literary label is something extra, which is why I personally consider it better. It is a story with more than just the surface layer to think about. But not everyone is looking for that in a story. Some people just want simple entertainment, which is fine, and that is why non-literary writing has its place.

[ritinrider]

A friend of mine just returned from a writing conference where this subject was brought up and debated. Finally a published fiction author said, somthing like:"literary fiction makes the reader think about issues. Mainstream fiction is more relaxing and doesn't require a lot of thought". I'm not sure if those were his exact words or not, but that's the basis. Anyway, Jen asked me to post that thought here.

Nita

[JenNipps]

Anyway, Jen asked me to post that thought here.

Gee, thanks, Nita. lol.

Seriously, though...

When we were talking on Yahoo, I asked you to post it because I think there's something to that. I've heard something similar, though I can't say exactly where because I don't remember.`

[Cate]

For the record--I love the book "A Prayer For Owen Meaney" and dislike Hemingway. Of course, I grew up in his hometown so that might account for some of it.

I am horribly confused about literary/mainstream/genre writing. The worst part is that there doesn't seem to be an actual definition as far as I can tell--although I like the discussion here--it does help.

[aruna]

I started reading Jhumpa Lahiri's The Namesake recently. It's beautifully written, indeed, but in the middle I discovered I was bored. It's little more than one very long character study,with carefully descriptions of the environment, clothes, traditions etc.
A book doesn't have to race from one cliff-hanger to the next to hold my attention, but it does have tohave some point to it. If I keep asking mysekf "where is this going?" then it's lost me. I'm not sure if I'll finsih that book. Luckily I borrowed it from the library.

Very ofren, with some literary writers, I get the feleing of the emporer's new clothes. A lot of linguistic fireworks, but nothing much said. Of ocurse, the critics fall over themselves praising such works!

[aruna]

A friend of mine just returned from a writing conference where this subject was brought up and debated. Finally a published fiction author said, somthing like:"literary fiction makes the reader think about issues. Mainstream fiction is more relaxing and doesn't require a lot of thought". I'm not sure if those were his exact words or not, but that's the basis. Anyway, Jen asked me to post that thought here.

Nita
I don't know if I agree with that definition. So much literary fiction centres on the actual language, but if you scratch the surface they don't really say that much; I've read many a highly-prised literary novel which doesn't make me think about any issues beyond admiring the author's use of words.

On the other hand, a good mainstream novel has many layers and can make you reflect, depending on what the theme is. I consider myslef a mainstream author and my themes have to do with ethical living, multiculturalism (hate that word!) identity, personal growth; but I try not to push thise tipics down my readers throats. The themes are all subservient to what I hope is a ripping good story.

[AprilBoo]

I just found this thread, and there's likely no one paying attention, but I'm going to throw my two cents in anyway.

In addition to plot-driven stories vs. character-driven stories (which I think is a major difference between mainstream/contemporary and literary) and the use of language (again, a major difference), I also think that mainstream/contemporary fiction is more aligned with convention than literary fiction. Certain genres have certain notes a writer has to hit - romance has to have a cute meet and a happy ending, horror has to have some sort of monster or looming fear, etc. - and mainstream/contemporary fiction often falls into the same sorts of patterns, being limited in scope and common storylines.

Literary fiction goes as far afield as it wants and often pays attention to issues of form (sometimes the way you tell the story is as important as the story you tell) - that's how works like Ulysses are literary. They did something new with the form. Don Quixote is a another good example - it's a literary classic because it was the first piece of writing in the form that we now consider a "novel" but really it's almost a fairy tale about a guy who suddenly decides to be a knight. And as far as scope goes, literary fiction tackles it all. Think One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. It's about a family, and the community they live in, but it's also about the entire history of Latin America.

I read some literary theory that said that literature isn't literature unless it's seeking some truth and uncovers some knowledge. I think that's another measure that can sometimes be used to separate mainstream/contemporary and literary. In mainstream/contemporary, like some other people have said in these comments, telling a good story is the ultimate goal. Literary fiction concerns itself with revealing some knowledge in addition to telling the story.

[Valona]

Okay, from what I’ve read above, I’m seeing a lot of what I feel are erroneous definitions of “contemporary,” “mainstream,” and “literary” fiction. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not an expert, but below are what I’ve always been told are the meanings of these words:

Contemporary - meaning fiction written in modern day, with a modern-day style, versus the archaic styles common to 100 years ago or more. I hope we’re all writing in a modern style. If not, we’re living in the dark ages and as my kids are always telling me, "you need to get a life." Since I’m sure we are all writing in today’s writing style, I’ll leave this definition alone.

Now as for my differences of opinion.

Mainstream - to me, while having a plot, is normally more character driven. Plot-driven stories are usually found in genre fiction. I write young adult/mainstream fiction. My novel, "The Bridge Beckons" is character driven, but still has a plot. Character driven stories are NOT the exclusive property of literary fiction, if at all. Mainstream fiction is concerned with the human condition, and explains how a character, or characters (i.e. character driven), cope with their circumstances. While having a plot, it is not plot-driven.

Literary - as has been stated here can be character driven but more, language and style driven. It's primary purpose is to paint a picture or make a commentary on some world condition. Literary writing is the darling of the elite, or ivy-towered group. In my opinion, literary fiction is little more than an essay dressed-up as fiction. That may explain why literary “novels,” if one can really classify a literary work as a novel, do not usually sell well. Who wants to read an essay or commentary, when what the general public wants is a story with characters they can curl up in bed with?

[Greer]

Valona, I don't think you're being fair with some of your definitions. For instance, "contemporary" merely means written at the moment of discussion -- it has nothing to do with style. WG Sebald is a contemporary writer, but he is certainly classified (if one has to do such a thing) as a modernist -- very old-fashioned. The same can be said for John Irving, whose writing resembles Charles Dickens more than pretty much anybody. Essentially, there is no such thing as "today's writing style," as randomly opening ten books on the shelf should attest to.

I also think it is unfair to say literary fiction's primary purpose is to "paint a picture" or "make a commentary". Certainly this is one of the many purposes, but the primary? I can't think of one recent literary novel that one could reasonably call "an essay dressed up as fiction." In fact, many recent bestsellers, such as Jonathan Foer's "Everything is Illuminated," Jeffrey Eugenides "Middlesex," and Jonathan Franzen's "The Corrections" are all literary novels, all of which have a plot and all of which appealed to the masses.

Also, incidentally, until very recently all novels were "literary." The rise of the novel can in fact be traced to the rise of "literary fiction," so I tend to disagree with your suggestion that literary works aren't novels, since they basically are the exact same thing. Certainly there were a great number of experimental works in the sixties and seventies as well as modernist exercises in the twenties and thirties that are difficult to follow and have little identifiable plot or linear narrative. But to lump all of those together with the rest of "literary fiction" is unfair.

In the end I think it is difficult and probably pointless to try to define these things. The blurring of boundaries in literature is happening more and more (see Neal Stephenson or Jonathan Lethem), and to try and pigeonhole a style or a novel is not fair to literature or the author.

[Valona]

In the end I think it is difficult and probably pointless to try to define these things. The blurring of boundaries in literature is happening more and more (see Neal Stephenson or Jonathan Lethem), and to try and pigeonhole a style or a novel is not fair to literature or the author.

I totally agree with you on that. It is becoming more and more difficult to distinguish these boundaries.

n fact, many recent bestsellers, such as Jonathan Foer's "Everything is Illuminated," Jeffrey Eugenides "Middlesex," and Jonathan Franzen's "The Corrections" are all literary novels, all of which have a plot and all of which appealed to the masses.

However, I feel these are examples of literary fiction. They are mainstream with a literary style. At least that's how I would define it.

Like I said, I'm not an expert, but I have read about the subject a lot from writers like Sol Stein and Dean Koontz and others.

[Another]

Not sure if this is helpful, but over in the Water Cooler erotica genre forum, some discussion is going on about the union of literary and erotica. Part of the discussion is on the issue of defining "literary," market for same stand alone or wed to erotica (could be any other genre) and the changing definition of "Literary." For instance, I said there, in part:

"The definition of "literary" narrows when linked to erotica. For those of us raised on Joyce, Dostoyevsky, Fowles, Kafka, Mann, Durrell, Lawerence (DH&TE), Malraux, Gide and more recently McCarthy, Proulx, Ondaatje and Morrison, the definition seemed clear enough: character, theme (preferably "human condition"), style ("lyrical") dominate, plot is secondary and sex scenes serve broader purposes.

However, as a review of GE’s referenced site (GE is poster) for Henry Miller Award nominees of "best and worst literary sex scenes" makes evident, "literary" erotica may well be short on many of the above points but retain the term merely because of writing style. Witness a sample below from Alchemy of Desire where reviewers rate it above average on the "literary" scale:

I took the hard little ball of her ankle in my mouth and sucked it so fully that it acquired a deeply erotic dimension. I then journeyed to the promise of her fleshy calves and sucked them so fully that they became sexual organs. And then I slowly curved around the shin and ascended the dome of her knees, resting at the peak, mouth open and lips moving. Descending on the other side I banked to the back, and drove my tongue flatly down the smooth highway of her inner thighs, eyes firmly set on the dark line of the final ranges. And so I journeyed slowly, seeking the source of the musk; and as I came closer and closer and the flesh grew and grew and the musk grew and grew, my control began to waver. From my mouth I became my nose. From handing out pleasure I began to hunger for it. Window by window, my thinking mind shut down. Reason, intellect, analysis, perception, speech — everything went, one by one.

I suspect readers class this as "literary" for such phrasing as "ball of her ankle," "ascended the dome," "smooth highway of her inner thighs," and perhaps the passing, shallow probe into mind set with, "Window by window, my thinking mind shut down."

How we all could slice-edit this junk is another issue, but the point remains (here the discussion veers off on use of agents): If one is shooting for old term "literary" even if highly erotic, seek an agent for literary fiction houses. If one is merely writing erotic scenes with some style flourish, go directly to "erotic" publishers. Of course, there is another option, a very old and extinct one: write only from the heart and only for yourself, then let the chips fall where they may."

Seems these thoughts parallel some of the discussion posts here, which may or may not reflect the truth of the matter as publishers and agents see it.

[KingRat]

I find this thread very interesting and it relates to something I've been pondering for a while: Is anyone writing "classics" anymore? I mean, decades or centuries from now will anyone be reading today's novels, and if so, which ones? I love reading works by Steinbeck, Dickens, Dumas and the like. Now I primarily read historical nonfiction because I can't find books on the shelves that interest me the way those books have.

My natural tendancy is to write in that style (or maybe a better way to put it would be "try") but I've purposefully abandoned it in order to write something that might actually get published some day. But, if I sit down and just write, totally unconscious of the "rules", it would read more like Dumas than Grisham.

[JenNipps]

I think many of us would like to think we're writing classics, but I think, truthfully, only time will tell.

Unfortunately, I don't think I'll be around to find out what's classic by then. *s*

[Lindo]

I've never heard anybody come even close to being able to define the difference between Fiction and Literature and all you have to do is be around bookshops that try to have seperate shelves to find out how slippery it is.

For one thing, I'd say the definition two posts above is exactly what I think of when somebody tries to tell me a book or writer is too "literary" to be mere fiction. They're doing all that stuff.

I'd say time is better spent trying to bridge or ignore such boundaries than trying to establish or enforce them.

[apmom]

Bump. :)

I've read this thread, JJ was kind enough to link it for me, and I'm still confused. I have something up in the Lit section of SYW now, not sure it's the right spot.

As I read this thread, it made me wonder, can/should anyone realistically define their own work as literary fiction?

Thanks for any thoughts.

[jordijoy]

Apmom,
I found the following info on line several weeks back, kinda long, but it talks about the importance of defining your work genre. It was very helpful to me.

Fiction Genre Descriptions

Categorizing your book is easy for some authors, agonizing for others. It’s like asking a person, “Where are you from?” If you’ve lived in Ohio your whole life, “Where are you from?” is a very straightforward question. But most people have lived many different places over the course of their lives. And if you’ve grown up in Minnesota, spent five years attending college in Chicago, are currently raising your family in Lansing, Michigan, but work in Grand Rapids. . . well, then, “Where are you from?” is a very complicated question.

Classifying your book into a single genre often poses a similar conundrum. What’s important to remember is that you must find a way to classify your book. We didn’t make up these genres; they are staples of the publishing world. And before you query an agent, you must understand how the publishing world will view your product.

So if you’ve written a mystery, congratulations! You will experience no genre angst. But if you’ve written a novel that is both literary fiction and historical fiction with a suspenseful murder plot and some gothic, paranormal characters—then we feel your pain.

The following genre descriptions are intended to quell genre angst.

Chick Lit:

Chick lit describes its intended readership as much as its story’s content. Chick lit often has light-hearted, amusing tales of dating woes, career foibles, and personal antics as they relate to the problems of average female 20- & 30-somethings: finding the right career, the right man, and the right attitude. The stories are usually fun, down-to-earth, quirky, and entertaining—a good beach read.

Similar to romance, the central conflict of chick lit often includes love and relationships; however, unlike romance, it is rarely rooted in pure fantastical romantic gratification. Moreover, don't confuse chick lit with women’s fiction. Like chick lit, women’s fiction often explores similar themes related to women’s struggles with men, their friends and family, or their own sense of self. Unlike chick lit, women’s fiction often delves into deeper, more serious conflicts and utilizes a more poetic literary writing style.

Commercial fiction:

Commercial fiction uses high-concept hooks and compelling plots to give it a wide, mainstream appeal. Commercial fiction often has the “ouuuh” factor: summarize what happens in your novel is a single, succinct sentence, and you invariably get, “ouhhh, that sounds interesting!” Plot (the events) and story (the overall tale) are first and foremost; characters’ choices and actions create heightened drama that propels the reader forward with urgency.

Like literary fiction, the writing style in commercial fiction is elevated beyond generic mainstream fiction; but unlike literary fiction, commercial fiction maintains a strong narrative storyline as its central goal, rather than the development of enviable prose or internal character conflicts. Commercial fiction often incorporates other genre types under its umbrella such as women’s fiction, thriller, suspense, adventure, family saga, chick lit, etc. Commercial fiction is not the same as "mainstream" fiction, which is an umbrella term that refers to genre fiction like science fiction, fantasy, romance, mystery, and some thrillers.

Crime Fiction:

Crime fiction centers its plot on the perpetration of a crime. There are two main subgenres of crime fiction: detective fiction and true crime. True crime focuses its story on the crime scene and the criminal mind. Lurid crime scenes, graphic violence, con games, organized crime, and the criminal underworld are all familiar elements in true crime fiction. Detective fiction, on the other hand, focuses its narrative on the professional or amateur investigators seeking to solve the crime and bring the criminal to justice.

Detective fiction involves “detection” of a crime. Detective fiction can be a subgenre of both mystery and crime fiction, depending on the type of characters doing the sleuthing, and the story’s emphasis on the “mystery" vs. the “crime”. Sub-genres of detective fiction include hard-boiled, noir, and police procedurals. For this reason, you often see this genre grouped together as crime/detective/true crime.

Fantasy:

Fantasy uses imaginary worlds and mystical creatures within its storyline. Familiar characters of fables and mythology such as princes and princesses, knights, dragons, giants, faeries, goblins, gnomes, wizards, and witches often show up in this genre. Magic, spells, swords and sorcery, supernatural powers, talking animals, and fanciful kingdoms are welcomed stereotypes.

Common fantasy themes include quest for precious objects, rescuing damsels in distress, and battles against discernable good and evil. Unlike science fiction, fantasy is rooted in make-believe rather than science; its only limitations are the expectations and preconceived notions of its dedicated readership. Fantasy subgenres include modern, historical, mythological, epic, alternate and parallel worlds, dark fantasy, and graphic novels. Fantasy is also included in the general grouping of “genre fiction,” “category fiction,” and “mainstream” fiction.

Historical Fiction:

Historical fiction is often a work of literary fiction or commercial fiction in which the plot and story transpire during a distinct era in the past. True historical fiction portrays conflicts and characters that depended on a particular time period for their existence (Civil War battles and heroes, slave trade in colonial America, 18th-century British royalty, 1960s civil right leaders, etc.) These conflicts and characters are inseparable from the author’s decision to set the story in a non-contemporary era; the historical time and place influence the unfolding narrative and the characters' struggles within it.

Historical fiction is a careful balance between fact and fiction; and although characters and events may be exaggerated or completely made up for the sake of a good story, accurate historical facts and details lend credence and legitimacy to the overall tale. Although literary or commercial fiction often incorporates historical elements into their stories for atmospheric effect, this is not the same as historical fiction, which uses historical settings and time periods to establish its core conflicts.

Horror:

Horror fiction has one inelucable goal: to scare its readers. Its chilling pendulum swings with a broad arc, and uses a wide range of techniques to terrify and titillate its audience. From extreme blood and guts, graphic violence, murder and mayhem to psychological suspense, criminal underworlds, supernatural folklore, erotica, and surrealism, horror often portrays the base, subversive side of its fictional world.

The problem is not defining horror, but defining the manner in which it engenders fear in the hearts and minds of its readers. Subgenres include dark fiction, dark fantasy, cutting edge, erotic, extreme, occult, vampire, gothic, psychological, supernatural, paranormal, pulp—the list goes on, illustrating the innumerable and imaginative ways that horror explores the unspeakable. Unlike traditional thrillers and suspense, which are based in reality, horror often uses folklore and fantasy to create manifestations of evil, death, and destruction.

Literary Fiction:

If you marvel at the quality of writing in your novel above all else, then you’ve probably written a work of literary fiction. Literary fiction explores inherent conflicts of the human condition through stellar writing. Pacing, plot, and commercial appeal are secondary to the development of story through first-class prose.

Multi-layered themes, descriptive narration, and three-dimensional characterization distinguish this genre from all others. Literary fiction often experiments with traditional structure, narrative voice, and storylines to achieve an elevated sense of artistry. Literary fiction often merges with other fiction types to create hybrid genres such as literary thrillers, mysteries, historicals, epics, and family sagas.

Multi-Cultural

Multi-cultural can be a tricky genre to simply pin down because it can mean different things to different literary agents and publishers. Most insiders will agree that multi-cultural fiction is a code word for books that possess racial and ethnic diversity within the depiction of its characters, cultures, and conflicts. This includes African-American and Latino fiction. In addition, books characterized as multi-cultural often fall under the broader genre umbrella of commercial fiction, romance, chick lit or literary fiction. Waiting to Exhale, House on Mango Street, and Joy Luck Club are all examples of multi-cultural fiction as well as commercial/literary fiction.

While we certainly consider works representing Asian, Indian, and other ethnic cultures and characters as “multi-cultural”, some agents and publisher only mean African-American and Latino fiction when they use “multi-cultural” as a genre tag. For this reason, “Multi-cultural” has as diverse a meaning as the racial and ethnic groups it’s intended to describe.

Mystery:

Mysteries typically focus on the process of solving a crime, rather than the details of the crime itself. The puzzle behind the crime is central to the plot. Amateurs or professional investigators perform the sleuthing, and often a single protagonists or a whole host of characters recur in popular serial titles.

Unlike crime/true crime fiction which explores the world of the criminal mind, mystery focuses on the investigators or detectives determined to bring the criminal to justice. The strong “mystery” narrative behind the crime is a trademark of this genre. Subgenres include cozies, historicals, culinary, detective, supernatural, caper, women in peril, noir, detective fiction, and classic whodunits. Mystery is also a member of the general grouping of “genre fiction,” “mainstream fiction,” and “category fiction.”

Romance:

Romance is a specific fiction genre in which the central conflict revolves around the love story between a man and a woman. The settings are often exotic. The characters are regal and glamorous. And the ensuing story is inevitably dramatic—even melodramatic. Furthermore, writing style aids the passion of the climactic conflicts and events, and catapults the reader through a gratifying romantic fantasy.

If you didn’t intentionally set out to write a romance novel, it’s probably not a romance. There are specific publishing houses dedicated to the publication of this genre, as well as agents who specialize in the sale of these novels. Subgenres include contemporary, suspense, time-travel, futuristic, paranormal, Western, historical, regency, and gothic romance. Romance is also a member of the general grouping of “genre fiction,” “mainstream fiction,” “mass market fiction,” and “category fiction.”

Science Fiction:

Science fiction incorporates various types of science into its story, settings, characters and the challenges that they must overcome. Scientific details, facts, and rules are either adhered to or broken, but either way, they contribute to the contextual storyline as well as the world created within the novel. Science becomes a character itself.

Unlike its genre cousin, “fantasy,” science fiction utilizes scientific elements based in reality—not simply imaginary fables or mythology. However, it is true that science fiction often stretches the bounds of known scientific laws and discoveries, and thus, science fiction sometimes incorporates both science and fantasy into its fictional world. For this reason, they are often paired together as a single genre. Science fiction is also included in the general grouping of “genre fiction,” “category fiction,” “mainstream” fiction,” or “mass market fiction.”

Thriller/Suspense:

The dramatic conflicts of thrillers/suspense are fraught with peril: a life-threatening danger that jeopardizes the protagonist, his or her loved ones, or even the whole world. The stakes are often large—death and destruction to lives, the downfall of an entire nation, an ecological disaster. However, thrillers can also simply portray riveting psychological tension between two opposing characters. Thrillers and suspense fiction are paired together because thrillers often utilize suspense elements in the development of the story—evil lurking just around the corner that motivates the protagonist to hunt down and capture the villain-at-large.

Although both thrillers and mysteries often involve the protagonist solving a crime and bringing bad guys to justice, the central conflict of thrillers/suspense focuses on developing an urgent sense of imminent jeopardy rather than solving a mystery or the detection of a crime. Thriller/suspense protagonists must win at all costs against a menacing, pernicious threat—or else things are going from bad to worse, and fast. Subgenres include psychological, supernatural, military, espionage, political, medical, legal, erotic and literary thrillers.

Women’s Fiction:

Women’s fiction is just that: fiction about women’s issues for a female readership. However, it is not the same as chick lit or romance. While utilizing literary prose, women’s fiction is very commercial in its appeal. Its characters are often women attempting to overcome both personal and external adversity.

Although women’s fiction often incorporates grave situations such as abuse, poverty, divorce, familial breakdown, and other social struggles, it can also explore positive aspects within women’s lives. Romantic love stories are also part of women’s fiction, and although love stories are found in chick lit and romance, the mature depth and tone of their development within women’s fiction set them apart from other genre classifications.

[apmom]

Thanks JordiJoy :)

This is helpful, and important to know that I will have to pin down a definition, but still leaves me unsure.

I think what I've got is lit fic, but I wouldn't say I marvel at the quality of my writing above all else.

[jordijoy]

I think I my second novel is commercial fiction (or) multicultural fiction. I had one agent tell me it was too commerical for her taste and that I should look at agents looking for that type work. Yet it is definitely multicultural work, too. I go back and forward when I query. One day I call it commercial fiction another day I'll call it multicultural fiction!!!

[JBI]

Literary originally was a term given to books which would not be published by regular publishing houses, and instead were published by university presses. Instead of the goal of a literary writer at this time being to sell the most copies of his book, the goal was more of an artistic experimental literary attempt to make an influence using the best, and some would argue the most difficult, prose available, and to probe an issue usually related to character.

The principle example of literary is James Joyce (I find). Regarded as one of the most influential writers of the 20th century, he still does not appeal to many readers. He no doubt had a brilliant command of the language, 30,000 different words in a 261000 word novel, not to mention he implied every single possible literary technique he could (even having one whole chapter punctuated,. but that doesn't mean he is liked by the general public. Generally most readers cannot stand him, cannot understand him, or simply don't know who he is.

Look at mainstream on the other hand; The Da Vinci code is the prime example. This book is designed to appeal to the masses. It doesn't employ difficult language, and uses no real literary techniques, besides sticking a cliffhanger at the end of every chapter. The book has sold because everyone can read it, not because it is difficult. Everyone can understand the language, and as a result anyone can read it. This book sold millions, yet is not considered a "literary" novel because to be honest, the language is mediocre at best. There is no emphasis really on character (please, I read better characterization in comic books) and there is simply no attempt at new, or deliberate stylistic use of language.

The literary novel will rarely be a best seller, simply because they don't usually appeal to everyone. The same way most people never read classics, unless Opera decides to pick one up; the fact remains that they have no interest in reading something primarily for the beauty of the language.

A literary book will be lucky to sell 5000 copies, like I said before, they were originally printed by university presses, though lately there has been more of a demand for literary work. A successful mainstream book will sell tens of thousands of copies, if not hundreds of thousands, or for the best selling types, millions. This is because millions of people can enjoy these books, whereas few can enjoy the literary work simply because of the language, or because it isn't what they are looking for.

I think a distinction between the literary reader, and mainstream reader exists. Of course, some mainstream readers may pick up literary books, or vise versa, but generally the readers are looking for something different. The difference of course is the fact that literary books rarely are plot driven, and that there is a strong emphasis on the language, a language which is deliberately trying to test you (I bet Joyce had to look in a dictionary to dish out all those difficult words, not to mention the fact that scholars still have no idea what Finnegan's Wake is about, though I think there is some consensus now as to who the characters are).

The line is relatively bland, simply because what is considered literary one day may be mainstream the next (If everyone writes like Salman Rushdie, he becomes mainstream), but there is some distinction between the extremes. Someone like Jane Austen is literary in the sense that at her time people weren't writing like that, now the thing that is most defining about her work is her use of language (200 years old now, so you can see the distinction.) Romance novels, and her type of plot have their own genres now. What is once literary becomes common, and what was once common one day may be considered literary if no one writes like that anymore.

Some literary writers achieve bestseller status simply because, though their books are literary, they still are somewhat readable by the average mainstream reader, and their work is either really good literary work, therefore an extremely good novel, or really bad in terms of literary, and therefore really simple to read, or perhaps that the book is a deliberate attempt at simplistic language as a style, such as Hemingway's 500 word no adjective or adverb style, and therefore easily accessible.

Contemporary in my mind essentially means what writers write like today. That I intend to mean "what the average writer writes like today." This changes over time, and therefore books either become classic or are forgotten, and what contemporary is changes with the tastes of the public. Literary today could be contemporary tomorrow, or contemporary today may be literary tomorrow (though that is quite rare).

If you look at the distinction between character driven urban fantasy and magical realism, you can clearly see the distinction between literary and mainstream. The major difference I feel between the two is the handling of the language and of the plot. An urban fantasist's writing is designed to show fantasy in an urban setting, whereas a magical realist is trying to show a real life setting with magical elements.

[apmom]

JordiJoy--Thanks again, and I wish you the best with your contemporary multi-cultural:D

JBI--Thank you for posting your thoughts. Btw the definitions that Jordijoy posted, and your feedback, I think I need to be looking at my WIP as contemporary/mainstream. James Joyce I'm not:)

[dahosek]

I would make the following distinctions:

Literary = the book is reviewed in The New Yorker
Commercial = the book is made into a movie
Midlist = the rest of the books in the book store.

[JBI]

JordiJoy--Thanks again, and I wish you the best with your contemporary multi-cultural:D

JBI--Thank you for posting your thoughts. Btw the definitions that Jordijoy posted, and your feedback, I think I need to be looking at my WIP as contemporary/mainstream. James Joyce I'm not:)

You don't need to be; Stephen King sells more books. The only advantage Joyce has over the rest is that in 500 years people will still be trying to figure out what the hell he was trying to say in Finnegan's Wake, though that was his intent.

No genre is better than the other exactly; as a literary writer your chances of selling books will be greatly decreased, and your literary skill instead of your imagination/storytelling will be more put to the test. If however like you said you are contemporary/mainstream than you should have no problem. Literary writing just isn't your thing, and for most readers, it isn't their thing either.

[Crème de la Gem]

I find this discussion really interesting.

Below is from Wikipedia.



Literary Fiction is a term that has come into common usage since around 1970, principally to distinguish 'serious' fiction (that is, work with claims to literary merit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_merit)) from the many types of genre fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genre_fiction) and popular fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_fiction). In broad terms, literary fiction focuses more on style, psychological depth, and character, whereas mainstream commercial fiction (the 'pageturner') focuses more on narrative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative) and plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_%28narrative%29). Literary fiction includes works written as short story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_story), novella (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novella), novel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novel) and novel sequence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novel_sequence). Of these, the novella is relatively uncommon in English literature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_literature), and more important in German literature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_literature) or Russian literature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_literature). In the world of comic writing, graphic novels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphic_novel) are sometimes considered literary fiction, as represented by a work such as Jimmy Corrigan, the Smartest Kid on Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Corrigan%2C_the_Smartest_Kid_on_Earth).
The distinction has its subjective side, as it is impossible to draw an objective line between literary genres (for example, note that magical realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_realism) tends to be considered literary, while most fantasy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy) writing is not). This is, however, no different than in any other medium. Genres tend to flow into one another and there are always exceptions. For literary fiction, the dividing line cannot be accurately drawn on the basis of content alone, and has to include style as a consideration.
Literary prizes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_prize) usually concern themselves with literary fiction, and their shortlists can give a working definition.
Literary magazines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_magazine), especially those affiliated with universities or ones considered for selection of anthologies by groups like the Pushcart Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pushcart_Prize) or O. Henry Awards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._Henry_Awards), typically limit their fiction. A "no genre fiction" rule for submissions is common.
It has become a commonplace that 'literary fiction' is in itself just another genre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genre). This accords with the marketing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing) practices now general in the book trade. It may also be taken to be the latest version of the death of the novel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_novel) debate that has run from 1950, and reflects the importance of the novel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novel) as it replaced poetry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetry) as the central literary form in Western Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Europe) and North America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America) from the 1930s. However, "literary fiction" does not fit the general definition of a "genre" as it lacks the cohesion of genres like "westerns" or "romance" and lacks any kind of genre conventions. One would be hard pressed to come up with a list of genre conventions that would also apply historically, to include everything from the surrealist prose of Beckett to the punchy prose of Hemingway to the works of Victorian England.
On a recent broadcast of The Charlie Rose Show (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Charlie_Rose_Show), John Updike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Updike) stated that he felt this term, when applied to his work, greatly limited him and his expectations of what might come of his writing, and so does not really like it. He said that all his works are "literary" simply because "they deal with words".



Check this out, too. They have ranked books according to the awards the books won. 1923 of them. How many have you read of those? I have a long list...

http://www.awardannals.com/wiki/Honor_roll:Fiction_books