What authors would you consider "Mainstream Fiction"?

I would say a lot of books on the "Bestsellers" list would be mainstream, for instance Khaled Hosseini ("A Thousand Splendid Suns" and "The Kite Runner"), Jeffrey Eugenides ("Middlesex").

In my opinion, mainstream fiction is slightly more character based than plot based, and if it wouldn't go on the romance/fantasy/thriller/western/action/etc... shelf then it is likely mainstream.

Hope that helps a bit!

Hello, I'm not sure what is considered "Mainstream Fiction" but I think I remember reading some place that authors like (Stephen King and Lisa Jackson) Works fall into the category.

I'm snow and this is my first time at NaNoWriMo. I I'm not sure what I'll be doing for my novel yet but I know for sure it will have a mix of Horror/mystery/suspense and romance. So I guess like you I'm trying to find a home base.

Good luck!

snow :)

Hmmm... See this is why I'm (and I think others are) confused. I'd put "The Kite Runner" in LitFic I would think.

Who would you classify as LitFic then? (And where would it go on the shelves at the bookstore?)

Welcome snow! :) This is my second year (I changed my user name and it was easier just to reregister, that's why my join date is 2007). I remember having a hard time trying to classify mine last year too. I think last year's would have straddled mainstream/ChickLit ~ at least as they are in my mind. It was sort of Nanny Diaries-esque...about a first year teacher. I still want to work on it...lots of people said it had potential. It wasn't quite as light as TND though, and there wasnt the romance element, so I would have LOVED mainstream as an option last year.

The more I think about it, the more I think mine's probably LitFic... But then since someone else said they'd classify "The Kite Runner" as mainstream... I'm beginning to think it's just a judgement call. And if you decide to publish, leave it up to the agent and/or editor. LOL. :)

Well, I will put a disclaimer saying that it was only how I personally would classify them. Maybe it's because I never understood how LitFic is defined, and always thought that a work could be literary but would still fit under a category. The only book I've read that I would have described as literary is "House of Leaves" by Mark Z. Danielewski, and that's only because I cannot get over the excessive words, footnotes, and chaotic layout long enough to get past page 50. But I've always thought of literary fiction as novels where the author seems to say, "Who cares about the story, just look how well I can write!"

Here's someone else's definition that might help, with their examples of authors who fit the category:

http://www.toasted-cheese.com/jj/fiction.htm

Ok, thanks. That helps a lot. Yeah...I'm definitely going in mainstream. I don't think my novel's going to be all that symbolic or multi-leveled, even if it will be psychological.

Thanks a lot! :)

I've always thought of LitFic as culture- and issues-driven and mainstream/general fic as more plot- and character-driven. Something like "The Poisonwood Bible", which deals with social issues, politics, and cultural upheaval in Africa is definitely more LitFic; the characters are interesting, but they're all representatives of different sides of the arguments presented more than actual people you would care about, and the "plot", such as it is, follows a progression of the issues the book deals with rather than an actual independent storyline (probably one reason that book bored me to tears and I finished hating every single person in it...but that's just me). Mainstream/general is something that's fictional but can't be strictly called, for instance, sci-fi or romance. The first book that comes to mind for me here is "Where the Heart Is" by Billie Letts (actually, any Billie Letts, but her first book is by far her best, IMHO). It does have some elements of coming-of-age and romance, but it's not strictly either of those; it's just a story about a girl living her life and trying to do her best with the hand she's dealt. In short, I think of mainstream fiction as something that didn't really happen but could have happened in the world as we know it.

When I think of mainstream fiction, I think of Michael Crichton.

I would place The Kite Runner in LitFic.

I agree completely. While Crichton's work tends to have elements of science fiction worked in, it really is mainstream fiction. I define mainstream fiction as stuff that people would read even if they're not into the other genres that the work would fall under.

For example, medical fiction tends to bore the crap out of me, but The Andromeda Strain is something I regularly re-read. Scifi (as in the future-science in fiction part, not the spaceships and aliens part) could put someone else to sleep, but Jurassic Park might be right up their alley.

Mainstream and Literary are the same thing; fiction that does not fall under a commercial genre category such as romance, horror, sci fi, etc. Of course there are blends of genre fiction and literary fiction. That's what I write, and I call it literary romance. I think it tends to be called mainstream by those who are afraid of the "literary" title! I've heard so many say they are afraid to read literary fiction because it's too hard to follow. Well, not all of it is.

Literary/Mainstream Authors: Marilynne Robinson, John Irving, Ernest Hemingway, John Updike

On the contrary; I think literary fiction and mainstream fiction are basically opposites. Think of a blockbuster compared to an art house movie. LitFic will always win the most awards, and mainstream fiction will earn the most money. If an author's works are almost always adapted for movies, it's mainstream. If the author's name appears larger than the title on the cover, it's mainstream. If it's in Oprah's Book Club, it's LitFic. If an author's works are almost always adapted for movies on Lifetime, it's LitFic.

First writer that pops into my head is Dan Brown. Books that come to mind are the Chicken Soup for the Soul books...

But that's all I've got to say about them. *shrug* I don't think this is the genre for me. Hmm...

Blockbusters are similar to commercial fiction (genre fiction), such as Stephen King and Danielle Steele. Arthouse would be more like Avant Garde/Experimental fiction.

Possibly, mainstream fiction is literary fiction that got lucky, since this style is hard to sell and doesn't tend to generate much income, regardless of what we call it.

I've never actually read "House of Leaves", but one of my friends has, and she's told me about it.

I've always thought of LitFic as normal, every-day life sort of writing, where as Mainstream (though it's actually a new concept to me) is more of the bizarre, yet could still possibly happen to someone, fiction. Kind of like the mixing of genres idea that floated around.

Concluding, from what I've heard, I think "House of Leaves" would be more Mainstream. But that's just what I think. 8D

Kate Atkinson comes to mind.

I work for a corporate book retailer which makes no distinction between "literature" and "mainstream fiction" -- so we have Harper Lee alongside Candance Bushnell — likewise Charles Dickens, Jane Austen, Phillip Roth and Nicholas Sparks.

I agree with the idea that "mainstream fiction" is more character-based than plot-based, but it really is difficult to sit down and pinpoint the difference. I know this might sound terrible, but I always think of "literature" as this highly symbolic, planned and epic work of fiction -- as opposed to what I try to write, which is usually the story of an up-and-coming intern / bookseller / poet just trying to make her way in the world and avoid any unseemly romantic mishaps. Mainstream fiction, to me, usually revolves around characters who don't take themselves too seriously, includes quirky characters and/or subplots, and doesn't deal with too many "heavy" issues. Again, I know that might sound bad -- I don't mean any disrespect to mainstream authors. I hope to someday consider myself one of them! That's just how I best define the genre in my mind. Meg Cabot, whose works include "The Princess Diaries" series and "Size 12 is Not Fat," is an author who immediately comes to my mind — and her novels fall into literature / fiction, young adult and young adult sci-fi.

The "Chicken Soup" books are self-help, and Dan Brown is a mystery/thriller author. At least at the bookstore where I work . . . but I could see where Brown could be considered mainstream fiction as well.

When I think "Mainstream Fiction", I think Dan Brown, I think Michael Crichton, Dean Koontz. I think John Grisham and Tom Clancy. Yeah, I think you could point to any one of these authors and say, well he's more a mystery writer, or a writer of legal thrillers, or spy novels and so on and so forth, but at the end of the day, Mainstream Fiction is the kind of fiction that ends up in airports and grocery stores in the form of mass market paperbacks. It can be really great literature, or it can be really generic pulp literature dressed up as really great literature (I'm looking at you, Mr. Brown), but all in all it's stuff that's meant to be page turners, fun, exciting, light reads.

I never thought of this in terms of author or plot but what you can buy at the airport or take to the beach. Almost always paperback.

Thanks for that link Dahnya, those definitions really work for me.

Also, I would be careful about slotting authors into one category another. Many of Michael Chriton's books are SF, but "Travels" is travel narrative/self absorption -- I mean, self development. Authors certainly have specialities, but they do cross over.

And the one thing Dan Brown ain't is literary -- his characters are thinner than cardboard. I guess nobody's likely to argue that point, so it was just a cheap shot. But in any case, I think the DaVinci Code is thriller/mystery. Just because everybody and his cat read it and you can buy it in every airport in the world in every language doesn't make it mainstream.

Mia

Well said, y'all.

Mainstream fiction would be consummable by almost everyone. Crichton, King, J.K. Rowling, Grisham, Dan Brown are all good examples. If the novel can be easily picked up and not so easily put down, I'd say that was mainstream fiction.
But that's just me.
-Dave.

Double post.

My definition is this: If you know the author's name easily and have read one or more books by the same author, than their works are probably minstream. If you can name the novel easily, but not the author, than the novel is probably literary fiction.

Anne

I'm not sure I would agree with that. I ADORE Jose Saramgo had have read a few of his books, but I'd definitely put him in LitFic. Or maybe my tastes just run towards the deeper LitFic stuff. But Saramago is definitely NOT mainstream.

Me, too...I've never heard of him! LOL!

But what if you've read one or more books by, say, John Updike, Alice Walker, Joan Didion, Joyce Carol Oates (just to remain contemporary), or perhaps one or more by Charles Dickens? Jane Austen? AND can name the novel easily? I'm fairly sure these folks would be considered literary fiction.

But perhaps I don't know my what from my wherefore, since I dropped in here to figure out what the heck mainstream fiction is ;)

I tend to think mainstream is most likely to fall into the category of that which easily grabs you, is great for beach reading, and can easily be obtained in an airport.

I'm fairly sure LitFic has little to do with Lifetime TV. More likely PBS.

Leigh, still puzzling.....

There seem to be a lot of opinions on this.

Personally, I would say that the distinction between mainstream fiction and literary fiction would be that mainstream fiction is more focused on practical life situations (however far-fetched they may be!), whereas literary fiction is exploring an abstract idea through life and characters.

This is just my opinion, of course, and may have mostly to do with the fact that the word "literary" just drips of scholarism.

Authors I would classify as mainstream fiction include Meg Cabot(could probably also be called chiclit), Anne McCaffrey (in her non sci-fi/fantasy books, of course), Susan Juby (although you could argue that she's chiclit).
I would put Charles Dickens, Madeline L'Engle, and Jane Austen under literary fiction.

Hope this helps!

I've always kind of thought about it along the same lines as art. If a book is a hit and is raking in the dough, I'd generally place it under Mainstream. If it sits on a shelf and is read only by a few but is adored and two generations later is finally given the attention and praise it deserves, I'd call it LitFic. That's quite oversimplified, but I think of mainstream books as having a relatively short shelf life (are people going to read this book 200 years from now and find anything relevant or profound in it? - probably not unless starbucks is still the popular place for teens to congregate) whereas I think of litfic as spanning the ages (it may take place now, but in 200 years, its themes will be just as relevant).

Also, I tend to think of LitFic as the books you have to read in school and mainstream as the books you read for pleasure. (Think someone who isn't an avid reader as I'm sure many of us here read litfic for fun, but that's clearly not the norm or the classics would be clogging up the best seller list).

When I think mainstream, I think Nicholas Sparks and John Grisham. The plot is interesting and the characters are memorable and the prose is easily digested and yummy. I consider easily accessible entertainment the hallmark of mainstream. intrguing story and "careable" characters.

See? nanowrimo is helping me already! I used a nonword careable to get my concept down on the page and keep moving.

:)

I agree with LitFic as having a more timeless appeal, but also, I would make the distinction that LitFic includes works that have a purpose or more of a message. You're going to get something out of reading them (pathos, ennui, moral guidance, etc) where as with Mainstream, it's more about the entertainment. I think this is why LitFic is more books that are studied or discussed and Mainstream are more likely made into movies.

Also, if you classify LitFic as having a message or purpose it becomes more clear why people's opinions are so diverse. Some feel that DaVinci Code had a great and deep meaning to it where as others (like me) see it more as a popcorn-style page turner.