Mainstream or Literary?

Rushie · Dec 3, 2009

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 · Dec 3, 2009

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.

CaroGirl · Dec 3, 2009

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 · Dec 3, 2009

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 · Dec 3, 2009

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 · Dec 3, 2009

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 · Dec 3, 2009

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 · Dec 3, 2009

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 · Dec 3, 2009

Have you read The Red Riding series?

Shadow_Ferret · Dec 3, 2009

I'm a little baffled by either term.

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

Libbie · Dec 3, 2009

Fredster said:
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 · Dec 3, 2009

Maxinquaye said:
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 · Dec 3, 2009

Libbie said:
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 · Dec 3, 2009

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

Libbie · Dec 3, 2009

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 · Dec 3, 2009

firedrake said:
This.

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

Maxinquaye · Dec 3, 2009

willietheshakes said:
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 · Dec 3, 2009

Libbie said:
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!

Libbie · Dec 3, 2009

Maxinquaye said:
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 · Dec 3, 2009

Libbie said:
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 · Dec 3, 2009

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 · Dec 3, 2009

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

Kalyke · Dec 3, 2009

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 · Dec 3, 2009

gothicangel said:
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 · Dec 3, 2009

Fredster said:
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.

Mainstream or Literary?

What do you write?

Mainstream

Literary

My works sort of combine the two

I write both but in separate works

That cheeky buggerer

Living the dream

The grad students did it

Toughen up.

Worst song played on ugliest guitar

Gentleman. Scholar. Bastard.

Village idiot

Toughen up.

Court Jester

Worst song played on ugliest guitar

practical experience, FTW

That cheeky buggerer

Gentleman. Scholar. Bastard.

Worst song played on ugliest guitar

Worst song played on ugliest guitar

That cheeky buggerer

practical experience, FTW

Worst song played on ugliest guitar

That cheeky buggerer

Still looking for stars...

Your Genial Uncle