Hi everyone. Quick Q. What do publishers and agents mean when they say they are looking for "mainstream/contemporary"?
- Status
Not that I know or anything, but it would seem to mean that "contemporary" means now, like not 10 years ago or 10 years hence, but roughly now-ish. And "mainstream", to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, means thematically contemporary, dealing with current issues. Perhaps even including elements of current pop culture.
Good question. I'm interested to hear someone else's take on it.
Good question. I'm interested to hear someone else's take on it.
Thanks CaroGirl. I agree with you and was sort of thinking along the same lines. BTW- I love your quote!
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,652
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
IMHO -- mainstream is stories about real people in real settings about real problems, but not really genre or "literary" -- meaning it has a wide audience.
Contemporary means the story happens within the last 20 years or so. Some might even argue anything post-WWII would be considered contemporary.
Contemporary means the story happens within the last 20 years or so. Some might even argue anything post-WWII would be considered contemporary.
mainstream
Primarily, mainstream doesn't have a real meaning other than what the publisher assigns it. To publishers, a mainstream novel is any novel from any genre that can capture the entire spectrum of the reading audience. It's a book that escapes being labeled as "genre."
Michael Crichton is a mainstream writer, even though he clearly writes what most would call science fiction. So was James A. Michener, even though he wrote what was clearly historical fiction. So is Margaret Atwood. even though what she writer can sometimes be called fantasy, sometimes science fiction, and sometimes literary.
There are many readers who simply will not read a novel if it's considered a genre novel, and is labeled as such.
Contemporary, on the other hand, tends to be fiction set in the contemporary world, that generally has NO SF/fantasy connections, and is broader in scope and has more story than literary fiction, though some contemporary writers are simply literary writers who write well enough and broadly enough to escape being called a "literary" writer.
Both Joyce Carol Oates and [size=-1]Nicholas Sparks[/size][size=-1] are usually considered "contemporary" writers, even though most of what Oates writers is clearly literary, and much of what Sparks writers could be considered romance.
[/size][size=-1]John Updike, Kurt Vonnegut, and writers of thier ilk are also usually considered "contemporary" writers.[/size]
[size=-1]
It's been said that "mainstream" writers are genre writers who write well enough and broadly enough to escape a genre, and that "contemporary" writers are literary writers who write well enough and broadly enough to escape the "literary" label.
There's an awful lot of truth in this.
[/size]
lindsayann said:
Primarily, mainstream doesn't have a real meaning other than what the publisher assigns it. To publishers, a mainstream novel is any novel from any genre that can capture the entire spectrum of the reading audience. It's a book that escapes being labeled as "genre."
Michael Crichton is a mainstream writer, even though he clearly writes what most would call science fiction. So was James A. Michener, even though he wrote what was clearly historical fiction. So is Margaret Atwood. even though what she writer can sometimes be called fantasy, sometimes science fiction, and sometimes literary.
There are many readers who simply will not read a novel if it's considered a genre novel, and is labeled as such.
Contemporary, on the other hand, tends to be fiction set in the contemporary world, that generally has NO SF/fantasy connections, and is broader in scope and has more story than literary fiction, though some contemporary writers are simply literary writers who write well enough and broadly enough to escape being called a "literary" writer.
Both Joyce Carol Oates and [size=-1]Nicholas Sparks[/size][size=-1] are usually considered "contemporary" writers, even though most of what Oates writers is clearly literary, and much of what Sparks writers could be considered romance.
[/size][size=-1]John Updike, Kurt Vonnegut, and writers of thier ilk are also usually considered "contemporary" writers.[/size]
[size=-1]
It's been said that "mainstream" writers are genre writers who write well enough and broadly enough to escape a genre, and that "contemporary" writers are literary writers who write well enough and broadly enough to escape the "literary" label.
There's an awful lot of truth in this.
[/size]
- Joined
- May 14, 2005
- Messages
- 12,862
- Reaction score
- 2,846
- Location
- A Small Town in Germany
- Website
- www.sharonmaas.co.uk
Jamesaritchie said:
That's a great definition. I'd agree with it.
I personally consider contemporary as anything taking place in my lifetime.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,652
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
Except "contemporary" generally means no fantasy, etc. -- I suppose ghosts or spirituality or some supernaturual would be okay (e.g. Amy Tan) but not wizards or super heroes, even if the story happens in modern times (e.g. Harry Potter). As for horror or thriller, etc. most people won't consider them "contemporary" but more genres (horror, thriller, suspense, chick-lit, etc.)
- Joined
- May 14, 2005
- Messages
- 12,862
- Reaction score
- 2,846
- Location
- A Small Town in Germany
- Website
- www.sharonmaas.co.uk
maestrowork said:
Well, yes, because contemporary is by definition non-genre, whereas fantasty, SF etc are classic genres.
maestrowork said:
That's generally the point I was making. Mainstream comes from genre, contemporary doesn't. Mainstream is a genre novel that is broad enough to appeal to majority of all readers, , and contemporary is literary fiction that's broad enough to appeal to the majority of all readers.
But even though much mainstream comes from genre, it's still most often "plausible," and "realsitic" in nature. Not all genre fiction is going to make the cut. I don't think you're going to find many super heroes or the like in mainstream fiction. Most of the time, the mainstream audience wants fiction set in the now, or the near now, and fiction they can believe.
Some supernatural does creep into contemporary fiction, but even there it's likely to be "believable" suprernatural. [size=-1]"The Lovely Bones," by Alice Sebold, is probably a good example of this.
The contemporary audience does generally regard ghosts, spirits, and life after death as believable, as long as it's presented properly.
Most novels in either mainstream or contemporary make the cut because of a publisher's decision. If they decide the novel has a much broader appeal than what a given genre has, or than what straight literary fiction has, there's a good chance that novel will be marketed as mainstream or contemporary.
There's a good chance such novels won't be called anything that might put a negative label in a reader's mind. Many publishers are now reluctant to put the words "science fiction," or "fantasy," or "mystery," etc on teh cover of a novel they want to sell as widely as possible for fear doing so will turn off readers who normally will not read science fiction, fantasy, mystery, etc.
Sales numbers alone can often make a publisher market a writer as mainstream or contemporary. When's the last time you saw the words "horror novel" on teh cover of a Stephen King or a Dead Koontz novel? Or even on an Anne Rice vampire novel?
It's very difficult to define what a mainstream or a contemporary novel is because the parameters keep changing. To a publisher, the best definition of either is a novel the widest possible spectrum of the reading audice will buy. I think you just have to read as many as possible of each, if you want to intentionally write a novel that fits, and even then it will likely be a pubisher's decision as to whether or not you've succeeded.
[/size]
Jamesaritchie said:
An interesting observation. Does this trend potentially threaten to blur the entire idea of "genre", in so far as it's been driven by the big bookstores' need to categorize their stock?
caw.
Genre
Who can really say? But I doubt it. There are too many novels published that are so clearly genre that I doubt too much blurring will occur. But for the writer, blurring the lines is usually a good thing. It's like crossover record sales. If a country singer has a hit that is also played on pop stations, sales are going to be far larger. The same applies to rock songs, etc. There are many who will never listen to a song on a pure country station, but if that song is picked up and played by a pop staition, these same listeners may never know it's also a country hit.
I think the aim has always been to find "crossover" novels, ones that might be compared to "Pop" music.
The only readers you lose are those few who simply won't read outside the genre this novel might have been published in, and the gains you receive from other readers far outweigh these tiny losses.
But who knows? I'm old enough to remember when everyone thought paperbacks were the wave of the future, and that hardcovers would largely disappear. Now hardcovers are all the rage, and it's paperbacks that are in trouble.
blacbird said:
Who can really say? But I doubt it. There are too many novels published that are so clearly genre that I doubt too much blurring will occur. But for the writer, blurring the lines is usually a good thing. It's like crossover record sales. If a country singer has a hit that is also played on pop stations, sales are going to be far larger. The same applies to rock songs, etc. There are many who will never listen to a song on a pure country station, but if that song is picked up and played by a pop staition, these same listeners may never know it's also a country hit.
I think the aim has always been to find "crossover" novels, ones that might be compared to "Pop" music.
The only readers you lose are those few who simply won't read outside the genre this novel might have been published in, and the gains you receive from other readers far outweigh these tiny losses.
But who knows? I'm old enough to remember when everyone thought paperbacks were the wave of the future, and that hardcovers would largely disappear. Now hardcovers are all the rage, and it's paperbacks that are in trouble.
Jamesaritchie said:
My WIP has similarities to Prizzi’s Honor andThe Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight. So I thought, why don’t I look up the genres of those two, and hopefully they’re mainstream and I can label mine that way. But now I’m stumped. Are the genres of published books listed anywhere?
- Status