I’ve been advised to query my work as “upmarket fiction”but maybe that’s just a “politically correct” way to say “women’s fiction”? Do you think things labeled upmarket get the same funneling as women’s fiction? Anyway, I agree that especially lately, I much prefer women’s fiction to literary novels. I want a clear story.
Ok, this is what I came to ask (if these are the same genre)! I guess it's also the same as "book club fiction"? Maybe we define it as "anything that might conceivably be chosen for Reese Witherspoon's book club"? Scientifically, that's not a good definition, but descriptively it kind of works.
I have lots of thoughts about "middlebrow" fiction -- Robertson Davies had a word for the middlebrow audience -- I think he called in the "clerisy". I believe I am essentially a "middlebrow" reader but I think -- well, I think most good books are "middlebrow", really. I guess Ulysses isn't, and maybe not Mrs. Dalloway; but -- isn't Dickens kind of middlebrow? Surely Trollope is, and Gaskell! And probably Eliot and Austen too.
It seems to me there is -- or at least was! -- a "men's fiction" category that sort of parallelled "women's fiction" -- the midcentury thrillers, basically. Alastair MacLean, maybe. With women writers doing this too, like Helen MacInnes. Or, in a slightly different vein, a writer like Paul Gallico.
It's interesting you mention Jeffrey Eugenides -- because, isn't he all but forgotten already? Anyway, I have to be prompted to remember The Virgin Suicides. And I couldn't tell you what he's published more recently.
Anyway, I've spent a couple days in the hospital (my wife needs a stent, it turns out) and I'll be there the next two days as well, but I want to think about this and maybe right something more extensive.
When I read and enjoyed Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow I thought it was a “literary” novel in the same vein as A Visit From the Good Squad, Where’d You Go, Bernadette?, Bowlaway and any number of other novels by lesser-known authors who are on my favorites list. In fact, Tomorrow reminded of a Russian novel where learn of a character’s thoughts and experiences leading up to his death.
i'm surprised that you say Tommorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow is womens fiction. I read it because someone got me a copy, and it felt like literary fiction to me? maybe I'm more out of touch with literary fiction than I thought, but it was, you know, beautifully written but sort of pretentious and hollow IMO.
It's kind of interesting to apply your analysis here to Sally Rooney—I think a certain type of negative Rooney criticism regards her as basically writing "women's literature" (or "romance novels") that is being published by literary imprints for no clear reason. I'm a Rooney fan so I don't exactly share this criticism, but I see it around.
But I think you might give the reason here, which is… she's Irish. She's working in a different ecosystem. So… she is able to evade this distinction and becomes a literary writer (vis-a-vis her position in the marketplace) who sells like a non-literary writer.
I agree completely. They're imposing a distinction on her that doesn't exist in Ireland. And the lack of that distinction is precisely why she was able to write something both accessible and sophisticated.
I’ve got a review almost finished I’ll send you! Very interesting discussion re; women’s fiction. I’ve thought that the disdain for “commercial” fiction entirely in place to protect the literati of university/MFA/NYC circles who need to write more erudite stuff for the folks in the white tower. This completely ignores people who want to be entertained whilst waiting at an airport - in language that distracts from daily life without reminding them of their comparative lack of MFA degree etc. I had a prof once warn me about “selling out” regarding writing “commercial” fiction and I agree with your take on it - better to be commercial than unread. I’ve had too much coffee today - this isn’t as polished as I’d like it to be.
A lot of distinctions in literature seem to boil down to snobbery or reverse snobbery, but then I say that as something of a genre pleb. How does the author justify two different tenses in the same story? I saw something similar in the Hyperion Cantos, where Martin Silinas told his story in first person while all the others were conveyed in third person or epistolary forms. I liked all of them but it just felt a bit odd to have all the different tenses in the same story.
I haven't read much in terms of women's fiction-- except those which my wife recommends, like Where the Crawdads Sing, Kristin Hannah, etc.--but, none that I have read have been bad, just not exceptional. I've read far more fantasy, and the same problem exists there. There are the exceptions like Le Guin, Gene Wolfe, and Guy Gavriel Kay, but the vast majority of readers are not reading those authors.
I think this is true of genre fiction in general. There are generally different priorities for readers of literary and genre works. Things like plot and world building in fantasy and sci-fi often take precedent over characters and prose. Themes are also a bit more simply explained in genre fiction, though that's not guaranteed--and can lead to the unimpressive meandering you mentioned. I also think the vast number of self published works in genre fiction push down the average quite a bit, though the median is still, as you say, entertaining.
I think there is also a mutual dislike of the other in this case. Fantasy readers are often reading for escapism, so they don't care for deep philosophical battles within a single character's mind. They call lit fic, like you did yourself, pretentious. And literary fiction readers sneer at the, relative, simplicity--prose probably is a driving factor in this feeling in my estimation.
Genre's are fluid and ill defined--are Ishiguro or Marquez fantasy?--There is also a struggle within the mind of the author as well. Le Guin was quick to say she was a fantasy writer, through and through. I'm not sure about others, but I'm sure there are authors who wish they were shelved with Tolstoy and not Sanderson.
I do hope that the breaking of these barriers helps blur these lines to the point that works are discussed on their merits. One of these could still be it's place within the tradition of a genre. Though, with the state of things, making these conversations more onerous is probably not ideal.
I think I am confused; do genre writers want to write literary fiction? Or be read by people who only read literary fiction? Why?
I dont read literary fiction unless it has a theme I have momentarily become obsessed with. Otherwise I only read fantasy, SF and horror.
Whenever I read your newsletter I feel like I am getting a glimpse into some alien world. I read based on vibes, and prefer older titles. When you posted about the self published fantasy books, I immediately went to check it out and several of the finalists were on Kindle Unlimited, so I got them.
Even with all the bookstagram people I follow, they mostly just read new releases by Black authors and even on Goodreads, most people read romance or random nonfiction books. Even though I primarily follow Black women readers, none of them have read these books (or posted about them if they did). Though, my reading habits are inwardly driven not based on what is new or popular.
Love how you explained this. Do you think sometimes a writer already has in mind in which direction she (and Backman— I agree with what you said here!) would like to take her book? So it is not up entirely to the agent, the author knows she’s writing a more accessible book and she’s doing that on purpose? or that she wants to make a book that relies on language and structure and critical positioning more than story and character and warm feelings? I like your example of Meg Wolitzer as one who has managed to straddle the divide, and I think of Lily King this way too.
I think it's a lot easier to sell a book if it's women's fiction versus literary fiction. MUCH easier. So if an author doesn't care about prestige, or cares less about prestige than having a career, then I do think they take their work in a women's fiction direction, yes
Very interesting discussion, but your points about publishers breaks down a bit. Pachinko was published by Grand Central, which is basically the same as Putnam on the commercial/literary scale, so I'm not sure how it came to be seen as literary while Homeseeking is not. Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow is published by Knopf, which certainly publishes some commercial fiction, but that generally skews thrillerish (Girl With a Dragon Tattoo, etc.), not women's fiction, and though the Zevin book is plot-driven, I don't think I'd call it women's fiction.
Women’s Fiction is my favorite type of book to read. I “discovered” Meg Wolitzer last year…I would have categorized THE INTERESTINGS as lit fic. The line, as such, is gossamer thin.
Naomi, I appreciated your insights here! I queried my book as women's fic, upmarket, and book club, and my agent ultimately deemed it "upmarket." The literary vs women's fic (or upmarket) debate reminds me of when I was in college, majoring in journalism and minoring in creative writing/English. The creative writing students always seemed to assume that journalism students were doing some lesser form of writing, and the journalism students didn't pay much attention to the English department/were mostly thrilled to find a career that paid them to write. But from my limited, newbie observation, the industry seems to pay more attention to genre distinctions, especially whether something is literary, than readers do. Most, like the commenters here, read across genres.
Super interesting. I've always wondered about this. How, for instance, Elizabeth Strout won Pulitzers for the Olive Kitteridge books, which to me seem exactly like women's fiction. She must have just been positioned in the market right.
Eleanor Oliphant is the type of fun, smart book I'm always trying to find. I think of it as finding books that are either "high NYC" or "low MFA" (I think I stole the NYC vs MFA from Slate at some point). Unfortunately a lot of books marketed in the vein are busts (like Where the Crawdads Sing - it's really hard to know that from reviews, especially if a book is buzzy). Claire Lombardo is a recent author I read who sits there for me - I loved Same As it Ever Was.
I’ve been advised to query my work as “upmarket fiction”but maybe that’s just a “politically correct” way to say “women’s fiction”? Do you think things labeled upmarket get the same funneling as women’s fiction? Anyway, I agree that especially lately, I much prefer women’s fiction to literary novels. I want a clear story.
Yes upmarket is basically women’s fiction. Just means it's a smart book, but won't be positioned to get prestige or critical attention
Ok, this is what I came to ask (if these are the same genre)! I guess it's also the same as "book club fiction"? Maybe we define it as "anything that might conceivably be chosen for Reese Witherspoon's book club"? Scientifically, that's not a good definition, but descriptively it kind of works.
I have lots of thoughts about "middlebrow" fiction -- Robertson Davies had a word for the middlebrow audience -- I think he called in the "clerisy". I believe I am essentially a "middlebrow" reader but I think -- well, I think most good books are "middlebrow", really. I guess Ulysses isn't, and maybe not Mrs. Dalloway; but -- isn't Dickens kind of middlebrow? Surely Trollope is, and Gaskell! And probably Eliot and Austen too.
It seems to me there is -- or at least was! -- a "men's fiction" category that sort of parallelled "women's fiction" -- the midcentury thrillers, basically. Alastair MacLean, maybe. With women writers doing this too, like Helen MacInnes. Or, in a slightly different vein, a writer like Paul Gallico.
It's interesting you mention Jeffrey Eugenides -- because, isn't he all but forgotten already? Anyway, I have to be prompted to remember The Virgin Suicides. And I couldn't tell you what he's published more recently.
Anyway, I've spent a couple days in the hospital (my wife needs a stent, it turns out) and I'll be there the next two days as well, but I want to think about this and maybe right something more extensive.
When I read and enjoyed Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow I thought it was a “literary” novel in the same vein as A Visit From the Good Squad, Where’d You Go, Bernadette?, Bowlaway and any number of other novels by lesser-known authors who are on my favorites list. In fact, Tomorrow reminded of a Russian novel where learn of a character’s thoughts and experiences leading up to his death.
i'm surprised that you say Tommorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow is womens fiction. I read it because someone got me a copy, and it felt like literary fiction to me? maybe I'm more out of touch with literary fiction than I thought, but it was, you know, beautifully written but sort of pretentious and hollow IMO.
It's kind of interesting to apply your analysis here to Sally Rooney—I think a certain type of negative Rooney criticism regards her as basically writing "women's literature" (or "romance novels") that is being published by literary imprints for no clear reason. I'm a Rooney fan so I don't exactly share this criticism, but I see it around.
But I think you might give the reason here, which is… she's Irish. She's working in a different ecosystem. So… she is able to evade this distinction and becomes a literary writer (vis-a-vis her position in the marketplace) who sells like a non-literary writer.
I agree completely. They're imposing a distinction on her that doesn't exist in Ireland. And the lack of that distinction is precisely why she was able to write something both accessible and sophisticated.
I’ve got a review almost finished I’ll send you! Very interesting discussion re; women’s fiction. I’ve thought that the disdain for “commercial” fiction entirely in place to protect the literati of university/MFA/NYC circles who need to write more erudite stuff for the folks in the white tower. This completely ignores people who want to be entertained whilst waiting at an airport - in language that distracts from daily life without reminding them of their comparative lack of MFA degree etc. I had a prof once warn me about “selling out” regarding writing “commercial” fiction and I agree with your take on it - better to be commercial than unread. I’ve had too much coffee today - this isn’t as polished as I’d like it to be.
A lot of distinctions in literature seem to boil down to snobbery or reverse snobbery, but then I say that as something of a genre pleb. How does the author justify two different tenses in the same story? I saw something similar in the Hyperion Cantos, where Martin Silinas told his story in first person while all the others were conveyed in third person or epistolary forms. I liked all of them but it just felt a bit odd to have all the different tenses in the same story.
I haven't read much in terms of women's fiction-- except those which my wife recommends, like Where the Crawdads Sing, Kristin Hannah, etc.--but, none that I have read have been bad, just not exceptional. I've read far more fantasy, and the same problem exists there. There are the exceptions like Le Guin, Gene Wolfe, and Guy Gavriel Kay, but the vast majority of readers are not reading those authors.
I think this is true of genre fiction in general. There are generally different priorities for readers of literary and genre works. Things like plot and world building in fantasy and sci-fi often take precedent over characters and prose. Themes are also a bit more simply explained in genre fiction, though that's not guaranteed--and can lead to the unimpressive meandering you mentioned. I also think the vast number of self published works in genre fiction push down the average quite a bit, though the median is still, as you say, entertaining.
I think there is also a mutual dislike of the other in this case. Fantasy readers are often reading for escapism, so they don't care for deep philosophical battles within a single character's mind. They call lit fic, like you did yourself, pretentious. And literary fiction readers sneer at the, relative, simplicity--prose probably is a driving factor in this feeling in my estimation.
Genre's are fluid and ill defined--are Ishiguro or Marquez fantasy?--There is also a struggle within the mind of the author as well. Le Guin was quick to say she was a fantasy writer, through and through. I'm not sure about others, but I'm sure there are authors who wish they were shelved with Tolstoy and not Sanderson.
I do hope that the breaking of these barriers helps blur these lines to the point that works are discussed on their merits. One of these could still be it's place within the tradition of a genre. Though, with the state of things, making these conversations more onerous is probably not ideal.
I think I am confused; do genre writers want to write literary fiction? Or be read by people who only read literary fiction? Why?
I dont read literary fiction unless it has a theme I have momentarily become obsessed with. Otherwise I only read fantasy, SF and horror.
Whenever I read your newsletter I feel like I am getting a glimpse into some alien world. I read based on vibes, and prefer older titles. When you posted about the self published fantasy books, I immediately went to check it out and several of the finalists were on Kindle Unlimited, so I got them.
Even with all the bookstagram people I follow, they mostly just read new releases by Black authors and even on Goodreads, most people read romance or random nonfiction books. Even though I primarily follow Black women readers, none of them have read these books (or posted about them if they did). Though, my reading habits are inwardly driven not based on what is new or popular.
Love how you explained this. Do you think sometimes a writer already has in mind in which direction she (and Backman— I agree with what you said here!) would like to take her book? So it is not up entirely to the agent, the author knows she’s writing a more accessible book and she’s doing that on purpose? or that she wants to make a book that relies on language and structure and critical positioning more than story and character and warm feelings? I like your example of Meg Wolitzer as one who has managed to straddle the divide, and I think of Lily King this way too.
I think it's a lot easier to sell a book if it's women's fiction versus literary fiction. MUCH easier. So if an author doesn't care about prestige, or cares less about prestige than having a career, then I do think they take their work in a women's fiction direction, yes
Very interesting discussion, but your points about publishers breaks down a bit. Pachinko was published by Grand Central, which is basically the same as Putnam on the commercial/literary scale, so I'm not sure how it came to be seen as literary while Homeseeking is not. Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow is published by Knopf, which certainly publishes some commercial fiction, but that generally skews thrillerish (Girl With a Dragon Tattoo, etc.), not women's fiction, and though the Zevin book is plot-driven, I don't think I'd call it women's fiction.
Women’s Fiction is my favorite type of book to read. I “discovered” Meg Wolitzer last year…I would have categorized THE INTERESTINGS as lit fic. The line, as such, is gossamer thin.
Naomi, I appreciated your insights here! I queried my book as women's fic, upmarket, and book club, and my agent ultimately deemed it "upmarket." The literary vs women's fic (or upmarket) debate reminds me of when I was in college, majoring in journalism and minoring in creative writing/English. The creative writing students always seemed to assume that journalism students were doing some lesser form of writing, and the journalism students didn't pay much attention to the English department/were mostly thrilled to find a career that paid them to write. But from my limited, newbie observation, the industry seems to pay more attention to genre distinctions, especially whether something is literary, than readers do. Most, like the commenters here, read across genres.
Super interesting. I've always wondered about this. How, for instance, Elizabeth Strout won Pulitzers for the Olive Kitteridge books, which to me seem exactly like women's fiction. She must have just been positioned in the market right.
Eleanor Oliphant is the type of fun, smart book I'm always trying to find. I think of it as finding books that are either "high NYC" or "low MFA" (I think I stole the NYC vs MFA from Slate at some point). Unfortunately a lot of books marketed in the vein are busts (like Where the Crawdads Sing - it's really hard to know that from reviews, especially if a book is buzzy). Claire Lombardo is a recent author I read who sits there for me - I loved Same As it Ever Was.
As someone who fondly remembers Emily’s recaps of Community for the AV Club, I’m very happy to hear that her book is good and selling well.