Mainstream or Literary?

[Rushie]

I am inspired by LuckyH's post on the Elergy for Easterly article. It makes me want your thoughts on writing mainstream vs literary. I've always thought literary would be too "hard" for me to write well, so am focusing on writing mainstream. But maybe I'm wrong. What think ye?

[Maxinquaye]

I think "mainstream" fiction gives the most freedom, so I sort of try to combine the two. Whether that means "literary" is not for me to decide. Literary is in the perception of the reader.

Also, my natural proclivities, that I'm bound by, also seem to require a certain gravitas of the prose. :P

[CaroGirl]

I try to write to write literary but usually fall too far on the side of mainstream, in my own opinion. Perhaps reader opinion is more important, however, in this designation.

[NeuroFizz]

Write your story in the best possible way that makes readers keep turning pages, that entertains them, and that makes them want to buy more of your stories. Let agents and publishing professionals worry about how to classify it (you can have a say at this stage, of course).

[gothicangel]

I know an editor will place me firmly in the crime shelves, but that doesn't mean I can't use literary techniques. I wish more crime authors would!

Ian Rankin thought he was writing a literary novel, but got put on the crime shelves. As his editor said to him: 'who would you rather be: a dry academic, or John Buchan?'

[Libbie]

Really, I'm the ONLY one who clicked "Literary?"

I write historical fiction, which a lot of people would consider mainstream, but as much as it chagrins my ass, I have to admit it's really literary. Heavily. This chagrins my ass because I frequently dislike the literary fiction I read. I think you have to make an emotional connection with a literary author in order to swallow anything they produce, and I too often find literary fiction to be a lot of mopey navel-gazing. So having, finally, to admit that I write literary fiction has been rough on me.

But here I am, standing up in the support group.

Hi. My name is Libbie, and I am a literary fiction author.

All together, now: "Hi, Libbie."

I'm sorry, world, for inflicting my mopey navel-gazing on you. But I hope my emoness (disguised in history) makes me millions.

[willietheshakes]

Fucked if I'm gonna choose.

Stephen Sondheim put it well (and a little less crankily) in Sunday in the Park With George:

"Stop wondering if your vision is new.
Let others make that decision --
They usually do.
Move on."

[Fredster]

My stuff has too many chases, guns, and explosions to be all high falutin' and literary.

My aim is to entertain, not to impart Something Important or A Deeper Understanding of the Human Experience. :)

[gothicangel]

Have you read The Red Riding series?

[Shadow_Ferret]

I'm a little baffled by either term.

I write genre fiction. Not sure if that's considered mainstream or not.

[Libbie]

My aim is to entertain, not to impart Something Important or A Deeper Understanding of the Human Experience. :)

Entertainment is my aim, too. I just don't seem to be able to do it without getting all WOOOoooOOOOoooOOOO with the words.

[firedrake]

I think "mainstream" fiction gives the most freedom, so I sort of try to combine the two. Whether that means "literary" is not for me to decide. Literary is in the perception of the reader.



This.

[Maxinquaye]

Really, I'm the ONLY one who clicked "Literary?"


I admit to putting in words like 'gravitas' in my fiction, and other words of that ilk. Then I remove them and put in something clearer. If I can use a paragraph like this in my books I'll be happy for a day.


John felt the emanations of gravitas from the objectification of her grotto


But if I keep it in I will win the bad sex-award. I'm not sure I want to.

[willietheshakes]

If her grotto is emanating gravitas, she should probably see a doctor. Just sayin.

[Libbie]

If I ever win the bad sex award, I will frame it and display it prominently in my home.

And yeah, I'm pretty sure they make an OTC cream for gravitas of the grotto.

[Libbie]

This.

Fair enough. When I read it, I perceive my own writing as literary. Hence my clicking of the Literary button.

[Maxinquaye]

If her grotto is emanating gravitas, she should probably see a doctor. Just sayin.

Haha, I know.

But on a serious note, I think mainstream fiction gives you - as a writer - more scope to play with language. Genre fiction requires a tighter control of language.

At least, that's my understanding. Genre fiction is more story, mainstream is more style. That is a gross simplification, I know, but on a very superficial level I think that holds true.

And playing with language is, to me, half the fun of writing.

[firedrake]

Fair enough. When I read it, I perceive my own writing as literary. Hence my clicking of the Literary button.

Having read your snippets I'd agree with you! :D

[Libbie]

Haha, I know.

But on a serious note, I think mainstream fiction gives you - as a writer - more scope to play with language. Genre fiction requires a tighter control of language.

At least, that's my understanding. Genre fiction is more story, mainstream is more style. That is a gross simplification, I know, but on a very superficial level I think that holds true.

And playing with language is, to me, half the fun of writing.

Huh. I always thought "genre fiction" was just a marketing label for the story itself and really didn't have anything to do with the type of prose. I mean, Ray Bradbury and Ursula LeGuin certainly never balked at playing beautifully with language, but they are most definitely "genre" writers.

[Maxinquaye]

Huh. I always thought "genre fiction" was just a marketing label for the story itself and really didn't have anything to do with the type of prose. I mean, Ray Bradbury and Ursula LeGuin certainly never balked at playing beautifully with language, but they are most definitely "genre" writers.

On a very superficial level, i think what I said is true.

But then again, if I ever get published, my publisher and agent will take a look at me and say:

"Er... Max, I don't want you to take this the wrong way, but we think you should stay in your room and write. We'll handle marketing and publicity. Okay? Wonderful books, btw."

[Etola]

The separation of literary and mainstream makes me scratch my head, honestly. It just seems like a way for people to look down on a certain type of writing. There are fantastic, fantastically well-written and powerful books that I would not consider "literary" but I would still consider Really Good. And then there are stories I've read by people in my writing classes, whom I suppose were trying to write "literary," and it was almost as if they were playing with literary techniques and not really telling an interesting story. The whole "True Art is Incomprehensible" approach. Is that what "literary" is? How would something, like "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time" be categorized? How about Moby Dick, which is basically an action story coupled with a whaling encyclopedia?

I'd ask how people are defining this separation, but I'm not sure if it's something that easily defined, so much as it might just be only a marketing approach.

[James D. Macdonald]

The difference between "mainstream" and "literary" is the publisher's logo on the spine.

[Use Her Name]

I confuse mainstream with genere fiction, and literary often seems that it was decided by acedemics. Many stories sold as literary are simply mainstream with excellent writing, so I chose combination, because I write mainstream with excellent writing (I hope it is above par).

[scarletpeaches]

I know an editor will place me firmly in the crime shelves, but that doesn't mean I can't use literary techniques. I wish more crime authors would!

Ian Rankin thought he was writing a literary novel, but got put on the crime shelves. As his editor said to him: 'who would you rather be: a dry academic, or John Buchan?'A dry academic.

At least, that would be my answer if I didn't resent this false belief that literary = dry/boring/staid/lots of big, meaningless words.

[scarletpeaches]

My stuff has too many chases, guns, and explosions to be all high falutin' and literary.

My aim is to entertain, not to impart Something Important or A Deeper Understanding of the Human Experience. :)I don't see that the two are mutually exclusive.

[Maxinquaye]

Some of the best books out there are "literary" books. Lord of the flies, comes to mind. Then you have really good genre books, "Wizards of earth sea" by LeGuin. I think the people that make the distinction between literary as "good" and genre as "bad" fiction end up wailing on the critics pages like Zadie Smith. In the end, that's their only outlet.

[Libbie]

Who says "literary" means "better than?"

I always just took it to mean a particular flavor of fiction, heavier on the imagery than others. If you really like a lot of sensuality (that's THE SENSES, not sexy) in your fiction, then maybe you'll consider literary to be "better" than mainstream or other flavors, but if you don't, you won't.

[Bubastes]

I consider myself a genre and mainstream author. If someone else considers my work literary, I would be very pleased, but that's not my call to make.

[Fredster]

I don't see that the two are mutually exclusive.
In my head, they mostly are. I generally accept this definition from Wikipedia (though it's tagged on the site as needing a citation ;) ) :

Literary fiction is a term that has come into common usage since around 1960, 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 (i.e. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.e.), paraliterature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraliterature)). In broad terms, literary fiction focuses more on style, psychological depth, and character, whereas mainstream commercial fiction (the page-turner) focuses more on narrative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative) and plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_%28narrative%29).

The stuff I write is all about the story. My entire goal is for someone to tell me they loved something I wrote because they couldn't stop turning the pages, not because it Touched Them with its Deep Meaning.

But, the joy of the world is that we're all different, and write things for different reasons, right?

[Lady Ice]

I am inspired by LuckyH's post on the Elergy for Easterly article. It makes me want your thoughts on writing mainstream vs literary. I've always thought literary would be too "hard" for me to write well, so am focusing on writing mainstream. But maybe I'm wrong. What think ye?

I like literary. I enjoy playing around with how a story's told and creating dense multi-layered work, the kind you'd study (not that I actually succeed in this). I associate mainstream with populist uninventive fiction- but of course, literary books can become mainstream.

[Diana Hignutt]

I just "wrote" my first novel years ago. I had no idea at the time how I should write other than how I felt like writing. I had no conceptions of mainstream or literary. I've seen that book (a Spectrum Award Nominee and now out of print, btw) classified in different libraries and book stores as:

Fantasy

Science Fiction/Fantasy

Literature

General Fiction

Fiction

Literary Fiction (more than I would have expected after learning more about the business)

Women's Studies

Gay and Lesbian Fiction

Historical Fiction (honestly, my druids did not deserve this genre at all)

GBLT Fiction

So, I have no f-ing idea.

[Phaeal]

I write stories.

[kuwisdelu]

I admit to putting in words like 'gravitas' in my fiction, and other words of that ilk. Then I remove them and put in something clearer. If I can use a paragraph like this in my books I'll be happy for a day.

What the hell's wrong with the word gravitas??

:Huh:

[Etola]

I write stories.

Thank you, I think you hit the nail on the head for me :)

[scarletpeaches]

What the hell's wrong with the word gravitas??

:Huh:That's what I thought.

Even in real life I'm accused of using 'big words' and often hear, "Ooh, look who's swallowed a dictionary!"

I'm not going to dumb down my normal speech, and nor would I dumb down my characters'. If that's how they talk, so be it. It's daft to try to sound more intelligent and the same applies to attempting to sound less wordy.

Just talk how you want to talk, and write how your characters want to speak.

[kuwisdelu]

Just talk how you want to talk, and write how your characters want to speak.

You know how I talk.

They don't make enough earmuffs.

[scarletpeaches]

*tee hee*

Muffs.

[Maxinquaye]

What the hell's wrong with the word gravitas??

:Huh:

Nothing at all, but the characters I come up with wouldn't ever say to another character:

"I dare say, old chap, you are indeed a cantankerous blight upon creation!"

They would say:

"Oh, fucking hell, you're a right idiot aren't you?"

So I never get to use a word like gravitas. :(

[Phaeal]

What the hell's wrong with the word gravitas??

:Huh:

Mmmm, roast beef and mashed. Pass the gravitas.

[Diana Hignutt]

What the hell's wrong with the word gravitas??

:Huh:

My damned editor keeps telling me to knock it off with the fancy-dan big words. She says, we all know you're smart, you don't have to show us all the time how smart you are. And, I keep saying, but I always use words with precise meanings. I write abhorrent rather than yucky, so sue me. And then she gets all pissed and asks why I hired her if I was going to question her advice. She claims it breaks the flow of the narrative for readers who might not have the large vocabulary I have. Do I want stupid readers, I ask. You want all possible readers, she replies.

Help at all?

[kuwisdelu]

Nothing at all, but the characters I come up with wouldn't ever say to another character:

"I dare say, old chap, you are indeed a cantankerous blight upon creation!"

They would say:

"Oh, fucking hell, you're a right idiot aren't you?"

So I never get to use a word like gravitas. :(

Well, dialogue is a different matter. POV, too.

My narrators generally know such words.

[Fredster]

Me write pretty one day. :)

[gothicangel]

A dry academic.

At least, that would be my answer if I didn't resent this false belief that literary = dry/boring/staid/lots of big, meaningless words.

Editor's words not mine!

I have yet to meet a dry academic. Either that or my Uni's English lit department is populated with liberal hippies!

[Maxinquaye]

Well, dialogue is a different matter. POV, too.

My narrators generally know such words.

If I can make sense of my third WIP I'm planning to use third omni for one of the POVs, and then I can have the freedom to use more BIG words. :D

[kuwisdelu]

The word big is so small.

[raburrell]

Honestly? I haven't a clue what creates the distinction, if indeed there is one, but I've been told I write literary. Fortunately, my naval and I spend very little time chasing the the perfection of the longing stare.

[Maxinquaye]

I actually liked this introduction to literary fiction (http://books.google.se/books?id=kdDa_qM8UJAC&lpg=PP1&dq=literary%20fiction&lr=&as_brr=3&pg=PP9#v=onepage&q=&f=false) :)

[scarletpeaches]

She claims it breaks the flow of the narrative for readers who might not have the large vocabulary I have. Do I want stupid readers, I ask. You want all possible readers, she replies.

Help at all?I want readers who don't expect me to talk down to them and aren't too lazy to look up words they don't understand, rather than expecting me to spoonfeed the story to them.Editor's words not mine!In which case they should know better...

[Brindle MacWuff]

I want readers who don't expect me to talk down to them and aren't too lazy to look up words they don't understand, rather than expecting me to spoonfeed the story to them.In which case they should know better...


Get out of Dundee, Scarlotti, they think gravitas is a new type of vodka based cough medicine.

I always equate gravitas with Stewart Granger. Dunno Why. Stewart Granger, in a slacks and cardigan, leaning aginst the fire, with a look on his face like he's been told that his arse is about to burst into flames.

Again.

Anyhoo,

[scarletpeaches]

Eh'll hae a peh. An' an ingin' ane an' a'.

[Cliff Face]

Hmm, I clicked Mainstream because I've never set out to write literary fiction... but then, I suppose my novels aren't mainstream either, technically. I mean, they resemble mainstream movies in a way, but for fiction they aren't in the popular majority for genre or style, so...

Meh. Now I just want it to be literary fiction, because that would make me smile.

[DreamWeaver]

My damned editor keeps telling me to knock it off with the fancy-dan big words. She says, we all know you're smart, you don't have to show us all the time how smart you are. And, I keep saying, but I always use words with precise meanings. I write abhorrent rather than yucky, so sue me. And then she gets all pissed and asks why I hired her if I was going to question her advice. She claims it breaks the flow of the narrative for readers who might not have the large vocabulary I have. Do I want stupid readers, I ask. You want all possible readers, she replies.

Help at all?People DEVELOP a wider vocabulary by reading words they don't know and getting the meaning from the f*ing context. I hate it that teachers have convinced so many that they have to stop reading & grab a dictionary to figure out what an unfamiliar word means. Your agent is right in that stopping to check a dictionary ruins the flow, and wrong in supposing that it's necessary. If you're a good writer, you can use whatever damn vocabulary you want, and your readers will figure it out from the context without a f*ing dictionary.

Sorry for the swearing--this whole situation is a pet peeve. I think you probably figured that out. Which makes this entire rant superfluous.

[Kenzie]

A dry academic.

At least, that would be my answer if I didn't resent this false belief that literary = dry/boring/staid/lots of big, meaningless words.

Agreed. Some literary fiction is indeed very dry, sombre, academically weighted, what have you. But a lot of it (my favourites included) is whimsical, playful and highly entertaining. To me, 'literary' is about the focus on words themselves - word choices, playing with words (especially homonyms), a greater use of metaphor - and deliberately breaking/bending the rules a little (sentence fragments, passive voice, etc). I think literary is also often about extremes, either with the story itself - getting away with things that are completely unrealistic - or in a kind of opposite way, completely amplifying something small and everyday into something extraordinary, just by the way it's portrayed. These are the things I enjoy about writing what I consider 'lit fic' anyway - testing the language, stretching it in different ways.

I'm not too sure about the difference with mainstream, except perhaps that mainstream fiction to me is maybe more rooted in realism and caters for a wide range of tastes (so basically, not taking things to such extremes or breaking the rules so much). Unlike genre fiction, a lot of plots could easily be either mainstream or literary and the categorisation comes down more to language. It's not to say that one is more well-written than the other, just that the focus/intention is different.

[Albannach]

Neither. I write genre and thank God for it.

Other people make other choices.

[Libbie]

Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one who has the nards to admit to writing literary. We're up to seven now. I'm kind of surprised at how much snarky hostility I'm seeing here toward literary writing, but that's cool. I fucking hate anything that has a vampire in it on principle (Brahm Stoker's Dracula and Fevre Dream excepted.) We all have our preferences.

[Cliff Face]

Then I suppose, Libbie, that you won't be reading my epic vampire novel whose main plot is the protagonists search for the perfect blue hair dye...

*scratches self off best seller list*

[sohalt]

Neither. I write genre and thank God for it.

By now the belief that genre cannot be literary has been thorougly eradicated even in the most elitist academic circles.

The myth, that genre is automatically looked down upon by literary critics, is for some strange reasons still fervently propagated by many writers of "genre fiction" and I really wonder why.

Also, if you actually study literature at university, you should be able to place any novel in a genre. ("Jane Eyre" for instance can be considered a gothic novel or a Bildungsroman). Writing "genre" doesn't mean anything. Everyone writes genre. You cannot not write genre. There is only a variation as to how far you stick to the conventions of one particular genre or if you rather mix and stir and shake up things a little.

[sohalt]

I think ultimately the choice between mainstream and literary is about the level of risk you are prepared to take.

Mainstream writers may take a certain amount of risk with regard to the content of their novels (because mainstream appeal is very much about wishfulfillment and desires are strange beasts), but those who go for literary also take risks with regard to the presentation. Whereas meanstream writers are constantly concerned about losing their readers, by confusing or alienating them, by taking them "out of the story" - those who go for "literary" actually want to challenge their readers.

They require their readers to take more risks too. In a mainstream novel, I get a fairly clear idea from the start what the writer wants to achieve, whom he wants me to feel for, wheter he wants to scare me or make me laugh and so I can judge rather early if he is going to suceed and if the novel is going to be worthy of my time. In case of a "literary" work it takes me much longer to figure out what the writer actually wants (if I manage this at all), so it's harder to judge their competence. By the time I can form an opinion I have already been forced to invest considerable effort. That can suck if the emperor has no clothes. It can also be super great, if he does. Because sometimes they do. Just because "literary" goals are often less obvious, doesn't mean they cannot be reached as effectively (even more effictively, IMHO, because "literary" catches me off-guard. Mainstream can entertain me, but only "literary" will ever truly break my heart)

Clearly, literary is less predictable. In case of a work with literary ambitions it's much harder to know what effect it is going to have on me. Sometimes I like not knowing things. Many people don't. That's why mainstream has mass appeal and literary hasn't.

Mainstream writers can argue that "literary" writers are actually taking fewer risks, because they can always pull the "misunderstood genius"-card. That's of course a very handy excuse not available to mainstream writers.

Literary writers can argue that mainstream writers are taking fewer risks. If you fail at mainstream, your readers will merely hate you for wasting their time. If you fail at literary, your readers will hate you for wasting their time _ and_ trying to make them feel stupid. So with mainstream you only risk being perceived as boring. In literary you risk being perceived as boring and pretentious.

And finally, why so modest people? It's not as if you absolutely have to choose. Why not go for both, meanstream success and literary acclaim?

You can challenge your readers in ways they don't have to notice, if they don't want to, if you distract them with a compelling plot.

Shakesepare was a crowd-pleaser.

Most of us here write in the hope of one day being published; that's already unrealistic enough for the majority. So if we dream, why not dream big?

[Libbie]

Then I suppose, Libbie, that you won't be reading my epic vampire novel whose main plot is the protagonists search for the perfect blue hair dye...

*scratches self off best seller list*

Oh, don't scratch yourself off the bestseller list just yet. It sounds like an instant hit to me. ;)

[dgrintalis]

Boys and girls, I'm going to add some confusion into the mix. Hope that's okay. I write dark suspense/horror that is literary in style and flavor, or so I've been told by others. I just write what and how I write. Quantifying my genre in a query letter has been amusing, at best because the term horror conjures up gratuitous images of blood, gore, and guts, and I am loathe to use literary horror because it sounds so...arrogant, perhaps?

Ah well, I'll just keep writing and let an agent and/or publisher put a label on my words.

[gothicangel]

Gothic maybe?

The more I think about this, the more I think I'm actually literary.

[Lady Ice]

Nothing at all, but the characters I come up with wouldn't ever say to another character:

"I dare say, old chap, you are indeed a cantankerous blight upon creation!"

They would say:

"Oh, fucking hell, you're a right idiot aren't you?"

So I never get to use a word like gravitas. :(

The first example is great, lol. I'd read a book with that. :)

[Maxinquaye]

I'm only in it for the money.

Money?

You can make money writing novels?

Bleeding hell!

[The Lonely One]

As humans, I feel we do not always write with the exact same intentions and feelings.

This is why I don't like to classify myself.

I lean towards the expression of literary fiction, that is, language-play and the human condition, other such sappy things.

But sometimes I just want to brain-fuck my characters and watch them run around.

So, y'know, I'm just a writer.

[C.bronco]

The difference between "mainstream" and "literary" is the publisher's logo on the spine.
Yes, :D
I will be happy to let the publisher decide how to market it.

[Cliff Face]

Somone said something about mainstream being obvious about what the writer wants the reader to feel, ie. that the writer has some devious artistic plan.

I just want to tell a story, but my stuff would fall closer to mainstream than literary. I don't even think about deeper meanings / hidden cues in the first draft. Once the first draft is done, and I can maybe see what I've achieved by accident in the realm of hidden cues, and then possibly I can maximise on that.

And Libbie, would you think more or less of my epic vampire "blue hair dye" story if the MC was a 450-year old lesbian? Just curious, because I'm about *this* close to actually starting that novel... y'know, just cos I can. :)

ETA: And of course it will be choc-a-block full of emo poetry. :D

[Priene]

This just in from an agent: I enjoyed this, but it's unfortunately too literary for us.

(The background noise you may be hearing is Priene splatting himself with a finely-homed, ornately-carved cricket bat.)

[Lady Ice]

Somone said something about mainstream being obvious about what the writer wants the reader to feel, ie. that the writer has some devious artistic plan.

I just want to tell a story, but my stuff would fall closer to mainstream than literary. I don't even think about deeper meanings / hidden cues in the first draft. Once the first draft is done, and I can maybe see what I've achieved by accident in the realm of hidden cues, and then possibly I can maximise on that.


Literary books are written knowing that you're going to play around with metaphor and style.
Both literary and mainstream want to manipulate the reader- all writing is manipulative.

[Libbie]

Boys and girls, I'm going to add some confusion into the mix. Hope that's okay. I write dark suspense/horror that is literary in style and flavor, or so I've been told by others. I just write what and how I write. Quantifying my genre in a query letter has been amusing, at best because the term horror conjures up gratuitous images of blood, gore, and guts, and I am loathe to use literary horror because it sounds so...arrogant, perhaps?

Ah well, I'll just keep writing and let an agent and/or publisher put a label on my words.

I believe you call that "Poe."

[Libbie]

And Libbie, would you think more or less of my epic vampire "blue hair dye" story if the MC was a 450-year old lesbian? Just curious, because I'm about *this* close to actually starting that novel... y'know, just cos I can. :)

ETA: And of course it will be choc-a-block full of emo poetry. :D

Vampires is vampires, and ah hates that rabbit.

[scarletpeaches]

Oh man, that's one less reader for my vampire erotica then...

[Libbie]

Oh man, that's one less reader for my vampire erotica then...

I'll beta-read your sucking vampires if you beta-read the next novel I write in present-tense.

Srsly.

Sometimes getting the opinion of somebody who's harsh on your style is a really good thing.

[scarletpeaches]

I have no problem with present tense.

I shall alert my bloodsuckers to be on their best worst behaviour.

[Maxinquaye]

Or thoroughly mediocre.

I'll be rich!