The article addresses the problem of relationships between canonised and non-canonised literature as illustrated by August Strindberg and women’s literature of his time with a focus on Marie Sophie Schwartz. According to the concept of canonicity by Rakefet Sheffy, canon can be viewed as a dynamic process within the literary system involving both its central and peripheral elements. Consequently, the main thesis of this article is that even minor writers are involved in canonicity, albeit their contribution is often downplayed by canonised artists. Whereas the history of Swedish literature views Strindberg as a canonical writer, a reputation he earned during his lifetime, women’s literature is often regarded as lacking real literary impact. However, women writers were extremely popular in the second half of the 19th century, paving the way for the development of the novel as a genre. Strindberg’s comments on Schwartz’s works indicate that he was aware of her novels’ social engagement. He himself, as a realist writer, was no stranger to this kind of writing. Yet, having changed his literary style, he took to marginalise tendency writing, taking up the position of a canonical artist occupying the centre of the literary system. Nevertheless, the theory of canonicity offers an insight into the processes of literary innovations, focusing on the fluctuation of literary strata as well as social and ideological factors as relevant for the establishing of the canon. In this light, women writers seem to have strongly contributed to the canonising of the genre of novel, though their impact reminded unnoticed by those holding positions of power in the world of literature.