Choosing a Genre isn't Easy for Everyone

In the larger scheme of things, it doesn't much matter how I label my novels (because it doesn't matter much what I do---they still don't sell), but the whole debate over women's fiction is an interesting one. I was directed to an article recently, which discussed how literary agents are discouraging clients from slotting their books as women's fiction. Popular alternative suggestions are upmarket fiction, book club fiction, even "relationship fiction". (Relevant note for independent authors: Those are not categories even offered by KDP.)

 

This leads me to conclude that even agents don't know what women's fiction is. I sure don't know, and that's (apparently) the genre of every one of my books.

 

Things become even more confusing when one browses the Amazon book selections under the search term, "women's fiction". These novels are all over the place when it come to subject matter. A biggie for both querying authors and indies who are marketing is that we need to find comps. I've never been able to find comps for my novels. Some experts, such as David Gaughran, pooh-pooh the subject of plot similarity. Gaughran, for example, instead leans on, "fans of (bestselling author name) will love this book". But drilling down, author and plot direction are basically one and the same. Most bestselling women's fiction authors have a hook; for example, Kristin Hannah. I've never read any of her novels, but my observation is that they're mainly historical. Or Colleen Hoover, who's lumped in with women's fiction, even though her novels mainly involve some kind of bad relationship (or I might be mixing that up with the drama over the current lawsuit). 

 

My point is, I can't use Kristin Hannah as a comp, because readers would be expecting historical fiction. I don't write historical fiction. Nor could I use Colleen Hoover, because I don't write tales about couples psychologically torturing each other. 

 

Maybe the problem with women's fiction is that every Thomasina, Dickie, and Harriet is mislabeling her books. That's akin to every romance author hogging the women's fiction market by choosing double categories (I've seen it over and over).

 

As far as agents' genre suggestions, they, too, seem to be on board with miscategorizing novels. "Upmarket", in simple terms, is a plot-driven book with literary writing. "Book club fiction" is meant to provoke discussion; thus, "book club". All women's fiction writing isn't literary; mine certainly isn't. And as for book clubs, I can't even imagine any book club discussing Running From Herself. What's there to discuss?

 

What happened to just a good old-fashioned, or new-fashioned, story?  

 

I kind of envy writers who know what genre they're writing in. The tropes are cut and dried, especially when compared to the elusive women's fiction genre, which, in fact, has no built-in tropes. 

 

In the past I always chose women's fiction when setting up my books for publication, because I figured they would primarily be of interest to women. Men like action; women like pondering what that action means. I've begun to move away from women's fiction, though, mainly because everyone has their own (incorrect) definition of what it is. Besides, at least one male bought Running From Herself, and he even gave it a good review.

 

Either KDP (and/or agents) need to abolish the term completely and begin adding categories that better classify books, or authors like me will be forever stuck with "contemporary fiction". 

 

I recently re-categorized one of my novellas, Bad Blood, as suspense. I bet (hypothetical) readers would be miffed. "That's not suspense! It's women's fiction...or whatever you call it!"

 

As things are right now, it's lose-lose for authors who publish books with ambiguous and varied themes. I suppose, fortuitously, that's not going to be a long-running problem for me. I'll be publishing "Title Yet to be Determined" this year, and then I'm done. 

 

But really, this issue needs to be resolved.