The infographics are useful, but the third for Commercial Fiction blithely falls into the common practice of suggesting that any novel that fits into a genre can't be upmarket or literary.
Just think of Charles Dickens, who most would say wrote literary fiction, but whose novels are precursors of the crime genre with detectives, murderers and graphic descriptions of the criminal underworld in
Oliver Twist, Bleak House and
The Life and Adventures of Martin Chuzzlewit. What of Tolkien's entire catalogue, which would be shoved into the fantasy genre—whatever you think of his stories, they're certainly not fast-paced and I bet that any film goers who enjoyed the movie adaptations were bored witless by the depth and slowness of the source material, if they tried reading the books.
It's been said rather cynically, that literary fiction wins prizes given by the publishing industry who hope to popularise the intellectualism of their highfalutin authors' novels which don't sell well, whereas commercial fiction rarely gets any prizes but sells in the millions. There are plenty of authors who are highly respected, having won awards, but who are struggling to make a living, including one of my favourite writers Rupert Thomson:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/mar/02/bestseller-novel-to-bust-author-life
At the other extreme, there's
Harold Robbins who wrote tawdry novels with lots of sex and corruption in them, that were turned into Hollywood films and have sold 750,000,000 copies. His own life was one of excess, and he admitted that he wrote only for money and cared nothing for style or the contempt of the critics. He was as vulgar a man as the characters in his trashy books, and he died penniless with few mourners.
My own crime novels aim to be literary in scope, and they fit the parameters given in Carly Watters' infographics. As further proof of my literary ambition I'm as poor as a church mouse!
Perhaps I should sell out, and get jiggy with some commercial fiction...