Why Mainstream?

Mainstream, in my opinion, is a commentary on the human condition. It's a story of how a person, or people, cope with their situation.

Genre, on the other hand, is plot-driven, caring little for the development of a character, but telling a gripping story instead. It's more about will the good guy catch the bad guy, army "A" be victorious over army "B," or will he/she fall in love, etc.

Mainstream also has a plot, and should have a gripping story as well, but is more concerned with the individual character(s). When reading mainstream fiction, the reader grows to care for the character(s), and fears for their survival and/or well-being. It should also have a theme that drives the story, rather than being plot-driven.

For example, in John Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath," Steinbeck describes the conditions of the Joad family and how they cope. It's a character and theme driven novel. Some might call it literary, perhaps it is that too. I think the definitions can come close to overlapping. In his story, we learn to care for the Joad family. We cry with them, laugh with them, all the while Steinbeck develops his theme of inhumane treatment of the less fortunate.

Does that help?

Thanks

That helps me! I am much new at writing, so I was curious as to just what the terms meant. I like your explanation. Thank you very much.

Valona said:

Mainstream, in my opinion, is a commentary on the human condition. It's a story of how a person, or people, cope with their situation.

Genre, on the other hand, is plot-driven, caring little for the development of a character, but telling a gripping story instead. <snip>

Click to expand...

I have to disagree with your statements. Divvying up genres by whether they are plot- or character-driven is misleading. Within each genre you can find some of each, to varying levels of success. In my mind you are describing literary books as opposed to mainstream ones.

A Grisham, Crichton or DeMille is a mainstream offering simply due to definition: It has a subject matter appeal to a broader audience than say, paranormal, romance or sci-fi. Obviously there are crossover novels that transcend genre limitations, so this isn't meant to be an absolute statement. But for every Potter plot, there are a thousand similar stories that will never be read by the same people who read Potter.

I have written in genre (fantasy) and in mainstream. There are benefits and drawbacks to both of course. To address the original post, my preference probably swings a little to mainstream, simply because there is less effort in world-building, less exposition to explain what a "mxunst" looks like, and no wretched hyphenated names.

Jenken,

I'll stand by my statements. I agree with you that there are varying degrees in each category, literary vs mainstream vs genre. However, most genre novels are what I said, primarily plot-driven, whereas, mainstream are primarily character driven with a plot line and theme. I will agree too, that many novels "labeled" mainstream are plot-driven, but become classified as mainstream by their large appeal to a wide audience. However, in my opinion, and it may just be my opinion, many of them are still genre, but with a wide appeal.

Strict literary, on the other hand is more concerned with prosaic style, language, descriptions if you will, of some kind of human condition. It too can be character driven, but usually does not have a plot, or much of one at least. That's why they're boring to read, in my opinion.

Read "Lilies of the Field" or "Red Badge of Courage" for examples of what I mean by literary fiction. I may be wrong, but I had a hard time figuring out a plot line in either of them. Oh, I suppose they had some modicum of a story, but neither of them gripped me, but had wonderful descriptions of the conditions at hand. If they had told a gripping story, rather than repetitious descriptions of conditions, I might have liked them.

I don't mean to be disagreeable, and hope you don't take it that way, but I’ve studied this in some detail. Read Sol Stein’s books on writing, or if you can find it, Dean Koontz’s book titled “How to Write Best Selling Fiction.” I think it’s out of print, but he has an entire chapter devoted to this subject.

what he said.

I agree with maestrowork too. In a nutshell he said what I was trying to say. Well done.

Strict literary, on the other hand is more concerned with prosaic style, language, descriptions if you will, of some kind of human condition. It too can be character driven, but usually does not have a plot, or much of one at least. That's why they're boring to read, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I don't agree - literary fiction absolutely has plot. It has to. You don't get a chance to do anything with language if there's nothing happening (unless you are a poet )

As to the original question, I read and write mainstream because it's where I find the most depth, though I still find a lot of bestseller fiction is pretty shallow. I dabble in some genre too.

maestrowork said:

Oh, April, I can show you a few literary works that have absolutely no plot.

("some things happen" doesn't make it a plot, by the way... )

Click to expand...

Then you should be suspicious of those works - but I would still bet that if they aren't experimental works, there's a plot.

literary fiction absolutely has plot. It has to. You don't get a chance to do anything with language if there's nothing happening

Click to expand...

Personally, I would not describe anything with a substantial plot as literary fiction. It's more likely mainstream with a literary style to it, but mainstream nevertheless, or it could even be genre, but not very likely.

True literary fiction has no plot. It's just descriptions of some condition or happening. It goes nowhere, does nothing, other than inform. In short, as far as I'm concerned, it's a lovely essay.

Hmm -- mainstream fiction with a literary style IS literary fiction. Where did you get the notion that "true" literary fiction has no plot? That doesn't make any sense.

Anyway, as we agreed in the earlier thread, it's pointless to try and create these clear boundaries. Literature, like the rest of the world, is full of shades of gray.

I enjoy reading and writing mainstream because I like working/experiencing from reality. I don't read much fantasy/sci-fi because I often find it hard to keep myself in such a different world (maybe I'm just lazy). I should read more in genre, I suppose, I just never know where to start, aside from classic writers like Asimov...

I suppose the easiest answer is because I'm more comfortable with it. It's what I've been reading most of my life. And it's what I've been TAUGHT to read. Also, I think you can 'do more' in a mainstream work: you can have suspense, romance, maybe even a little sci-fi without having to be restrained to those genres' rules.

All this said, I'm a beginning novelist (I've been writing a long time though) who is starting to wonder whether her books are going to be classified as "romance," lol.

Valona said:

Personally, I would not describe anything with a substantial plot as literary fiction. It's more likely mainstream with a literary style to it, but mainstream nevertheless, or it could even be genre, but not very likely.

True literary fiction has no plot. It's just descriptions of some condition or happening. It goes nowhere, does nothing, other than inform. In short, as far as I'm concerned, it's a lovely essay.

Click to expand...

Val, where did you get these ideas from? True literary fiction has no plot? You're talking about some of the greatest literature ever written, and you think it's lovely essay that goes nowhere and does nothing?

I'm not trying to be ugly, but what are you reading? I think your opinion on this subject is misguided and incorrect.

I want everyone to know, I'm really enjoying this discussion. I'm finding it enlightening and well as entertaining. No offence taken with anyone who disagrees with me. After having my latest novel torn to pieces by several critique groups, I've developed too thick a skin to be offended. Besides, everyone is entitled to their opinion, including me.

I just found this link http://www.davidlubar.com/litfic.html and had to laugh. It describes what I'm trying to say about literary fiction to a "T."

David Lubar, the author of the above report, reminded me of Ernest Hemingway. Few of his stories have much, if any, plot. Probably "The Old Man and the Sea," has the most developed plot, if you can call it a plot. And his novels are literary, are they not? They are classic literary in my mind. They have no or little plot. Read the linked article to see what I mean.

I maintain, if a piece has a plot, well developed characters, and a theme, it's mainstream. It can have literary merrit, but it's still mainstream, not literary.

Here's another one. Especially read the definition by Denise Jeffrey. The other's are good too.

I think most writers confuse the definitions between literary and mainstream.

Yes, good discussion.

David Lubar is one of the last people who should be commenting on literary fiction. Frankly, most people who make this kind of commentary don't understand literary fiction, haven't made any real effort to appreicate it, or can't write it (not saying you're one of these people, Valona, I'm referring to Lubar). Many of his jokes are rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the history of literature and the mistake of taking a very small sample size and extrapolating incorrectly. The self-referentiality joke, for example. Yes, we've all had writing workshops with overly clever kids who think they are very post-modern, but before we make fun of it let's think about where this strategy came from, and the very important, political function it played in many novels -- all of which, by the way, had plot.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion of literary fiction, but to say a story having plot automatically precludes it from being literary is, for lack of a better way of putting it, incorrect. I have to ask -- how many contemporary literary novels have you read in the past five years? The past ten? The past twenty? By your definition, have any literary novels even been published in that time?

As for Ernest Hemingway's novels: For Whom the Bell Tolls, The Sun Also Rises -- these don't have plots? Have you read them?

Maybe we need to define plot? Maybe you're confusing "literary" with "philosophical" or "intellectual"? Not sure what the disjuncture is here...

Good point Greer - maybe we should talk a little about what we're considering "plot" here. I'll throw out a bare-bones definition - a causal series of events. Or, we can use Aristotle's definition - the underlying action.

Hemingway novels have plots. They are also literary. For example, The Old Man and the Sea. The old man is an unsuccessful fisherman - because he is unsuccessful, his fishing partner's mother refuses to let his fishing partner go out with him anymore - because he is unsuccessful, he decides to take his boat out farther into the ocean in hopes of finding more fish - because he takes his boat farther out into the ocean, he hooks a big marlin, and because he is alone, he has difficulty reeling it in - because the fish is so large, he can't get it in the boat so he ties it to the side - because he's had to tie the fish to the side of the boat, he becomes shark bait, and loses the fish to the sharks - because he's had such an exhausting experience, he collapses in his hut - because his old fishing partner got worried about him and finds him in such exhaustion, they decide to go out together, regardless of success

I haven't read that book in a long time, but I think I got all the points right. There's clearly a causal series of events. There's also clearly an underlying action. What makes this literary is that it functions on an allegorical level as well - man vs. nature and the importance of relationships.

The Lumbar piece was funny, but it was just that - humor. Not literary criticism. I could make a million jokes about the books on the bestseller list right now, but that doesn't mean anyone should take them as real criticism.

Okay, I have to admit I don't know who David Lubar is, or his qualifications. He just seemed to have a humorous way of explaining what I've been trying to say here.

Did you read the comment on the other link by Denise Jeffrey?

I'm not saying Literary fiction does not have a plot, just that plot is not a major concern with literary writers. They are more concerned with as Sol Stein said in his Book Stein on Writing,

The literary novelist is concerned primarily with character understood in depth and engaged in activities that are resonant with the ambiguities and stress of life. The richness of the best literary fiction is derived primarily from the creation of characters who will persist in the reader's mind after the reading experience is over. Those novelists and nonfiction writers who strive to produce durable work share an interest in precision and freshness in the use of words, insights into human nature and the physical world, and in resonance.

Click to expand...

Plot, is therefore is of secondary importance in literary fiction, whereas in mainstream or genre fiction, it is of paramount importance whether plot driven (genre) or character driven (mainstream).

I agree with AprilBoo that The Old Man and the Sea has a plot. Not much of one, as compared with most genre and mainstream plots, but it has one. I haven't read Hemingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls, so I can't comment on that one, but I did read The Sun Also Rises and had a difficult time finding anything that could be described as a plot. A series of happenings, yes. I never did figure out the point of the story. Falkner is another literary writer who uses little to no plot development in my opinion, but I'm sure some erudite people would disagree with me on that too.

Still, my assertion here is that literary fiction is not PRIMARILY concerned with plot, though I agree it can have one.

This is a bit of a reversal from your earlier posts, Val, but I'm glad to see you're coming along.


How about an example of a fuller plot than Hemingway? You've given examples of literary novels that you think have no plot - how about a mainstrem novel that does? I'd be interested to see the comparison.

You say I'm coming around, but actually I think you guys are. Really, though, I think we've been in agreement all along, just describing the same thing in different ways. Maestrowork has done a pretty good job of describing what I have been trying to describe all along in my bumbling way.

Those so called circular plots, in my way of thinking, are as good as no plot at all. They are not satisfying to me. I'm one who needs to have everything wrapped up in the end, and I think most readers feel the same way. Otherwise, we're left frustrated, when what most people want to read is something to help them escape reality for a short time and enjoy the ride. Literary fiction doesn't always do that, and that may be why it doesn't appeal to the masses. There will always be some ivy-towered people who will enjoy literary fiction, but I guess I'm just a dumb dolt, because I don't get anything out of it. All the exploration of philosophies, meanings of life, nuiances of relationships, symbolisms, etc., that maestrowork mentioned, are lost on me. In short, I find much of what is classified as literary fiction, boring.

Always keep in mind, my opinion is worth about as much as you paid for it.

Well, Valona, you went from saying that if a novel had any plot whatsoever than it absolutely could not be considered literary fiction to agreeing that literary fiction could have a plot. I'd say that's "coming around."

And you, or anybody else, are certainly not a dumb dolt if you don't enjoy literary fiction. Different people enjoy literature for different reasons, and no reason is more important than another. The debate over "high" and "low" culture is old-fashioned and not helpful. Some people, like me, have certain expectations for art and what it can do. I am interested in the political, emotional, and philosophical possibilities of literature. I find language to be a sublime and perplexing phenomenon. This is why I enjoy literary fiction. Others have different expectations, and that is fine.

By the same token I think it's unfair to refer to "ivory-towered" intellectuals as the only ones who might find interest in literary fiction. I just returned from having a very interesting conversation with a friend who has just finished reading a literary novel. He loved it. He said he loved it precisely because the book was written non-linearly and was inconclusive -- "the way we think and the way we live," he said. He is a middle-aged clerk at the local market with a high school education. Very far from any ivory tower, I'd say. In the end, not everybody reads to escape, and not everybody cares to have everything tied up, because, truly, this is not an accurate reflection of the world we live in. Again, for those who read to escape, this would not be appealing, and again, that is fine. I hold no disdain for those who expect nothing more than escape from literature, and I would hope nobody would disdain me for expecting it to do more and celebrating it when it does.

You made some good points Greer, and I apologize if I offended anyone with my Ivy Tower remarks.

I just have one comment of yours that I want to clarify. You said that I,

went from saying that if a novel had any plot whatsoever than it absolutely could not be considered literary fiction to agreeing that literary fiction could have a plot.

Click to expand...

I never said that. If you'll re-read my comments above, in my second posting I said:

Strict literary . . . is more concerned with prosaic style, language, descriptions, if you will, of some kind of human condition. It too can be character driven, but usually does not have a plot, or much of one at least.

Click to expand...

I still stand by that statement, and I think we've all agreed about that. Maybe what we're differing about is our definition of plot. Circular and indeterminate plots to me are as good as no plot at all, and that's probably just my opinion, but it's what I feel. I also spoke of Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath as being literary, and I do feel it had a definate plot.

I don't think we're actually disagreeing about much. Just differing on small differences in definition and perhaps some misunderstandings.