Literary Fiction—A Tough Sell?

In looking through the types of books agents want and in scanning sales on Publisher's Marketplace, it seems more to me that agents love literary fiction. BUT they want it to be literary fiction that includes a strong story, not the pretentious, self-absorbed "art" that is so often produced under that label.

.

Sagittarius said:

I've read a couple of different agent blogs that states that literary fiction is a tough sell because commercial fiction is easier to promote and caters to the average I.Q., thus creating mass appeal. Has anyone found this to be true?

Click to expand...

Caters to the average I.Q.? Bullshit. That statement had to come from a faile dliterary writer.

The most intelligent people I know, and I know a bunch who qualify for MENSA, read and write commercial fiction, not literary fiction. Literary fiction is tough to sell because most of it isn't readable by anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature.

There certainly is some very good literary fiction out there, but not much compared to commercial fiction. That's why it's a tough sell.

Sagittarius,

James said there is some very good literary fiction out there.

I see you're new, so welcome. If you want to have a debate about commercial vs literary fiction, this probably isn't the place. Good luck, tho. Those threads tend to get locked cause of that whole respect your fellow writer thing. We like that around here.

To answer your ques, IQ has nothing to do with this. If you do your research, you'll see a commonality of certain universal elements in what's published and successful. As rainsmom said, strong story is one, for example.

I was recently rejected by an agent because she felt my novel wasn't commercial enough. She felt she'd have trouble selling it. While my novel is somewhat literary, I think it does have commercial appeal. Literary novels with absolutely no commercial appeal are definitely a tough sell. Everyone's in this business to make money.

Sagittarius said:

So, Jamesaritchie, I guess you would consider Janet Evanovich and V.C. Andrews to rival John Steinbeck and Mary Shelley? Yeah, you're right, only idiots read and write literary fiction. Andrew's poisonous doughnuts sure explored the realms of the human condition. I say this without a bit of pretentiousness—more of frustration with modern society.

Oh, yeah, and Dickens sucked! So did Tolstoy—'War and Peace' was such a critical disaster—any trailer park princess can consume that drivel in a day and a half.

Click to expand...

ummm, welcometo aw.

one of the things writers need to do in addition to writing is READING. I don't always agree with james, but I certainly didn't see him claiming that lit fic was universally bad or that vc andrews was the equal of steinbeck.


If you're going to call Steinbeck a literary writer, and you're welcome to, he was, then you just summed up half your very problem. Go read Grapes of Wrath, where Steinbeck uses an excellent grasp of the English language and relatively simple sentences to tell a very powerful tale, and compare that to a of the indecipherable, pretentious crap that makes a fair chunk of what is on the shelves under litfic today--the two are complete worlds apart.

This thread is only seven comments long but it already contains comments which are offensive to me, as a writer of literary fiction, and offensive to my friends who write more commercial works. We respect our fellow writers at AW, but I see precious little respect in this thread.

By all means discuss why literary fiction is sometimes considered more difficult to sell than commercial fiction (there's a clue there in the word "commercial"); but NO MORE comments about literary fiction being self-absorbed or pretentious, or how readers of commercial fiction are IQ-impaired. It's insulting to both sides and I won't have it; and if it continues I'll close the thread.

Right. Back to the topic on hand. Is literary fiction more difficult to sell than commercial fiction? And if so, why might that be?

Okay. I'm new here, but let me give my $.02 worth.
Several years ago, an agent who asked for my manuscript called and asked if I would consider simplifying it as it gave her a headache due to the number of characters and diverging plot lines. She considered the plot fascinating, but it was not easy to follow the action.
When I asked if this was necessary, she laughed and asked if I knew the difference between literary and commercial fiction.
She said, "Commercial fiction is reading for fun. It must be a quick read and not too complicated for the reader. Literary fiction doesn't pay the bills. The plot is slower to unwind and makes the reader think."
When I asked why this was a problem, she said it was all about the money. She said she could sell ten times the number of commercial fiction manuscripts as opposed to literary fiction.
I've kept the plot intact and needless to say, she did not become my agent.
I love all fiction, and try not to be concerned about where my work fits in.

My take on lit fiction: In high school, when we read "To Kill A Mockingbird," I got engrossed halfway through the story, took it home, finished it in a weekend. Loved it! By the end of another month of painstaking "what does this symbol mean?", tests, and being told my opinion was wrong, I wanted to burn the book. I had to very carefully remember my feelings when I first finished the story.

So now, whenever I think of "literature", I think of English teachers ramming symbols down my throat one chapter at a time that are supposed to teach me about the greater meaning of life. I can really only remember one English teacher who tried to teach us to love reading and books as well as teach us grammar. I don't know if that's accurate for the general population, but that's why literature's a hard sell to me (I really can't speak for agents/editors). I always feel like there's a teacher over my shoulder, telling me to decode this or that and get the higher meaning that'll bring me to enlightenment. Fair to people who write literature? Probably not. I would have hated "To Kill A Mockingbird" if I hadn't finished it long before the class.

I really hope that didn't offend anyone (Writers or English teachers -- I know there are great English teachers in the world, too ).

That's funny Miriel. I remember the same thing. I loved Animal Farm until the professor had us take it apart and analyze every little thing. By the time we finished, I hated it!

Esmeralda said:

When I asked if this was necessary, she laughed and asked if I knew the difference between literary and commercial fiction.
She said, "Commercial fiction is reading for fun. It must be a quick read and not too complicated for the reader. Literary fiction doesn't pay the bills. The plot is slower to unwind and makes the reader think."

Click to expand...

I think the logic is flawed here. Some of us find literary fiction that is slow and makes us think is fun.

I love doing deep analysis on texts. It can make the books far more enjoyable than they already are.

Twizzle said:

...Those threads tend to get locked cause of that whole respect your fellow writer thing. We like that around here...

Click to expand...

Do we?

Jamesaritchie said:

Caters to the average I.Q.? Bullshit. That statement had to come from a faile dliterary writer.

The most intelligent people I know, and I know a bunch who qualify for MENSA, read and write commercial fiction, not literary fiction. Literary fiction is tough to sell because most of it isn't readable by anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature.

Click to expand...

Yeah. That sounds very respectful.

Sagittarius said:

I've read a couple of different agent blogs that states that literary fiction is a tough sell because commercial fiction is easier to promote and caters to the average I.Q., thus creating mass appeal. Has anyone found this to be true?

Click to expand...

... I like literary fiction, myself, and I am far from being any rocket scientist. (My IQ is most likely below average.) So this assumption you've encountered is wrong in regards to me at least.

I do have to confess that I don't grasp a lot of the passages in many literary works I read. Even so, I still read the works and enjoy them too. Lots of good insight in 'em.

I've taken to defining literary fiction as anything I like to re-read. So, if my reading preferences must be judged: Either I'm smart enough to know there's more to it, or dumb enough not to get it all in one reading.

Dickens was writing to pay his bills. He was a pulp writer in his time. So were a lot of the writers we now think of as "literary".

A good book is a good book. Write what you want to write and then worry about a market for it. Literary fiction can sell just fine

I tend to agree. So much of what we see in commercial fiction, on TV and at the movies is plot driven. Everything happens quickly.
Character driven books often move slower, allowing the story time to unfold.
While I like a good plot, personally, a great character stays with me longer.

Great plots and great characters together stay with me the longest Good thing that stuff isn't mutually exclusive.

Unimportant said:

Someone -- Nathan Bradford, maybe? -- suggested that literary fiction has a plot that happens "internally", while commercial/genre fiction has a plot that happens "externally."

Click to expand...

While I think it's true that a lot of literary fiction happens internally, I'll have to second what some others have said here. Genre/commercial fiction has internal conflict, too. I'm having a hard time thinking of a book I've read recently where there wasn't internal conflict.

A while ago, I saw a very commercial film with the plot of: Small-town girl, through a series of incidents, finally grasps her self-worth and leaves her crummy fiance to surround herself for people who support and appreciate her.

It struck me after watching it that there's probably a literary novel with a plot just like that. Thing is *spoilers* it's really the plot to Monsters vs. Aliens, and the series of incidents involves a cockroach, Jell-o, and exploding spaceships. Commercial/genre doesn't mean no internal conflict -- but that conflict is usually sharing the stage with something else. Like world domination.

scarletpeaches said:

Do we?

Click to expand...

Hopefully, yeah. I was saying that the mods insist on posters being respectful--giving the newbie a heads-up. And that they'll lock threads if they're not. I like that insistence. Too bad if it has to get to that, tho--that people can't stay respectful and gotta talk smack about IQ instead of discussing marketability issues and stuff.

I get your point, tho-and amended my post cause you're right. The only part of James' post I agree with was his statement that there's some very good literary fiction out there--the part Sagittarius seemed to overlook. I see how it made it look like I was agreeing with his comments on IQ. My oops. Cause I sure as hell don't. But then that wasn't the OP's orig topic, anyway, and I'll leave it now. *sigh*

Literary Fiction? Really?

I've followed this thread with some interest, as my current WIP is hard to classify either of the two. After all is said and done, I think they (Those that KNOW) make it up on the fly, depending upon which market analysis guru they're having lunch with.

As a writer, I write the best story I can. It's supposed to entertain and absorb the reader. I also write to satisfy my own intellectual needs and for the challenge. Now, when it is shaped up enough to publish, a whole different set of tools and determinations have to kick in. Publishing is not about art, publishing is a business designed to make a profit from the right product. Unless a writer has spent time in that world; as in, deriving a paycheck, then they need to defer to those that work there.

If that means they'll take my (hopefully literary) novel and call it commercial, after a few months of tweaking, I don't care much, as my main reward was in the writing part of the project. On the other hand, were I to decide to write a "best-seller" I guess I'd have to do some market research first...

Richard L. Sutton said:

As a writer, I write the best story I can. It's supposed to entertain and absorb the reader. I also write to satisfy my own intellectual needs and for the challenge. Now, when it is shaped up enough to publish, a whole different set of tools and determinations have to kick in. Publishing is not about art, publishing is a business designed to make a profit from the right product. Unless a writer has spent time in that world; as in, deriving a paycheck, then they need to defer to those that work there.

If that means they'll take my (hopefully literary) novel and call it commercial, after a few months of tweaking, I don't care much, as my main reward was in the writing part of the project.

Click to expand...

Best. Post. Ever.

Speaking from an agent's perspective, literary fiction has one cyclical disadvantage and one inherent disadvantage. The cyclical disadvantage is that the market is tough at the moment. There are still literary novels selling, but they're harder to move than in the past. Of course, horror is also down, as is sf, etc. YA, on the other hand, is hot. I say it's cyclical because I believe it will change.

The inherent disadvantage is that I believe there is a greater percentage of writers who want to write literary fiction than the percentage of readers who are drawn to it. It makes sense, if you think about it; writers write in part because they love words. Most readers are story first, beautiful language second.

Having said all that, you didn't get into this business because it was easy, did you? If you love literary fiction and that's what you want to write, that's what you should write.

You know, I don't think it helps that we tend to package literary fiction in a certain way. I'd be interested to see the response to more literary novels with commercial packages and taglines.

Firebrain, who just realised that her last novels were litfic. Oy vey.