what is mainstream?

Many of you noticed the poll on my sidebar, in which I asked “What is mainstream fiction?” With a landslide fifteen votes, the answer amongst readers of Diana’s Diversions was “Fiction that’s not in a particular genre.” Distant second was “anything that’s not lierary (i.e., ‘commercial fiction’)” with three votes, and then, bringing up the rear was “anything that sells a lot of copies, with one.

We also had the ever popular “none of the above” with three votes. Would those of you who voted “none of the above” weigh in in the comments section below and tell me how you would define it?

I ask for a few reasons. Last week, a writer on one of my lists said that she thought “anything in hardcover was mainstream.” I wanted to see if this was a widespread feeling. Juding by that answer’s complete lack of support in the voting box, I think not. Yeah, I didn’t know what that chick was smoking, either. Hardcover’s just a format.

Secondly, I just finished judging a contest in the “mainstream with romantic elements” category, and several entries were straight up, no-bones-about-it, romantic suspense. Now, since we’ve already been over what a mess contest categories are on this blog, I won’t beat a dead horse. But why are people entering straight romantic suspense into the mainstream category? Is this because, more than any other subgenre of romance, romantic suspense has the most crossover appeal? I have noticed that there is a certain percentage of romantic suspense which is packaged and pushed as “mainstream” rather than romance. It’s easy to spot. They don’t put the clinch covers on them. Allison Brennan, for example, is an author whose romantic suspenses are packaged as mainstream fiction, to great success. Alison Kent is an author whose romantic suspenses are packaged as romances. I never noticed this divide until a romantic suspense author pointed it out to me. Now, I notice it all the time. (Note: I think some rom. susp. authors are perfectly happy with their packaging, because they think of their books first and foremost as romance. I’m not trying to say that one way is better than the other.) But I did think it lead to awkward judging situations. These didn’t even seem like books with a low romance/suspense quotient either. The writers just wanted to call them mainstream, dammit, perhaps because the title conferred a certain legitimacy onto their work that “romantic suspense” did not.

Thirdly, I ask because that’s the packaging of my book. Now, my book has no pretensions to romance. It has few pretensions to “romantic elements” even. I’d probably be laughed out of the RITAs if I entered. (Chick lit isn’t necessarily romance. There’s romantic chick lit, same as there is romantic suspense, but that’s a whole other blog topic.) I think of it as chick lit, because of the feminine coming-of-age storyline, snarky voice, and general attitude of humor with which it’s told. But apparently my definition of chick lit is not the generally held view, propagated by book reviewers, snobby women’s fiction critics, and Curtis Sittenfeld, which is unfortunately something closer to, “insipid, shallow, girl-in-the-city who likes shoes story.” I don’t think anyone would claim that their book is insipid or shallow, or that anything they’ve written belongs in a genre defined by how much the protagonist likes foot coverings. It’s like saying noir is “those stories about drunkards.” I don’t appreciate that this is the prevailing attitude towards a revolutionary subset of women’s fiction. I know I’m fighting a losing battle. ::sigh::

Mainstream to me, is a non-definition, the book industry’s equivalent of “miscellaneous.” If something is “in the mainstream,” it means that it has strong appeal to the general population. but that covers a lot of ground. Mainstream fiction encompasses a variety of popular bits of genre and commercial fiction, and commercial fiction that doesn’t fit neatly into a given genre. My book isn’t YA, it isn’t suspense, it isn’t romance, it isn’t chick lit. There’s a whole list of things it isn’t. Which, I guess, means it’s “mainstream.”

Interesting, huh? As usual, thoughts below. I’d especially like to hear from you “none of the above” folks.