So, speaking of Sean Stewart, Salon is running excerpts from his new novel, Perfect Circle (which is excellent). Chapter One is here.

I don't think there's any point in trying to guess canon, and I disagree with David about "literary fiction"--it's a subgenre in exactly the same way cyberpunk is, the way "mainstream" is a genre the way "science fiction" is. Which is to say there are some broad general characteristics and tropes that books wthin each category share, although they are mainly treated as marketing categories.

I also think in fifty years it will be clearer what in Chabon and Stevenson are about our time instead of the past they ostensibly cover (I say this as an article of faith; I haven't read either).

In terms of litfic I think is worth reading -- this would be easier to answer if a third of my bookshelving hadn't collapsed Thursday, meaning many of my books are still in ignomious mounds on the floor. But I'll say: Margaret Atwood (I'd opt for Cat's Eye but I haven't read Surfacng), possibly Robert Olen Butler (need to reread), A.S. Byatt, Angela Carter, Edward P. Jones, Geoff Ryman's Was (as well as his more sfnal/fantastical work), Christina Stead (who should be better known than she is), Sarah Waters, Sandra Cisneros ... a lot of people in D-S who I'm going to be embarrassed to have forgotten when my books are cleaned up.

My list, of course, tends to books with elements of the fantastical and the historical, and to women writers -- because those are the things that interest me. So David's list, I am sure, would be quite different.

I'd also note that although we're in a historically rich period for the production of literature in English -- has the language ever been more widespread, or utilized by people of more different social, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds? -- we're in a relatively poor period for the production of *translation* into English. A lot of what's going to be in the world literary canon centuries hence may be tremendously popular in its own language -- but invisible to the monoglot English audience, which is currently a notorious hard sell on translated literature.

Which is to say, yeah, that Haruki Murakami really blew me away.

I've been skimming The Kerfluffle, and I haven't seen any definitions of either "literary fiction" or "the canon." Did I miss them? Trying to guess from context isn't helping, as "literary fiction" would seem to overlap "the canon" quite a bit. Was there a post or two where these terms were defined?

goes back to reading the Star Wars books

I would define "mainstream fiction" as fiction without counterfactual elements in the environment, plot, or event; that is to say, they're unreal because they're fiction, but they don't contain fantasy or sf elements. I would define "literary fiction" as a subset of mainstream fiction which is characterized by some but probably not all of the following attributes: an emphasis on language above character and character above plot; structure based on epiphany or reverse epiphany rather than action; and with the class markers of certain publishers or lines.

Like sf, horror, and mystery, it only dates back to WWII as a genre, although like sf, horror, and mystery, it has significant precursors throughout history and particularly since the 19th century. (This is not a popular belief. But I hold it anyway.)

The canon is the set of works universities or educational authorities hold it necessary for a well-read person to know well enough to recognize allusions to. It's going to change based on time period, culture, university, and who you respect as an educational authority.

Which bit don't you think is a popular belief Micole? Because I would pretty much agree on every count. (Except that universities, at least lit departments, will these days generally say they don't believe in a canon or in the idea of being "well-read"--although of course in spite of that a canon of sorts is re-emerging.)

Most people I've talked to date the formation of genres further back than I do. WWII may be too facile, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense to use contemporary genre categorization to discuss works before the 20th c.--except very carefully, with lots of disclaimers--but I see a lot of people arguing for 19th or even 18th-c. dates of establishment.

I don't feel oppressed. ;) I just thought I should make it clear where my terms where less than generally accepted.

I don't have a sense of whether or not my ideas of "litfic" are accepted or not, since "literary fiction," as Raquel pointed out, is a term often used but seldom defined.

Hmmm, well of course the idea of genre itself is very old (Plato!) but it used to mean something much broader...fiction itself is a single "genre" in the older sense. But in the more recent sense where we talk about SF, fantasy, crime etc as "genres" I'd pretty much agree with you...all these genres have extensive genealogies but it's only recently that they've been considered distinct enough to have, say, their own sections of the bookstore. (Although crime/mystery might be an exception there... for example I think Penguin Books was using the distinct green covers for crime titles right from the beginning, ie 1935.)

Oh, and I really like your description of literary fiction!

I have just spent the last hour combing through our stacks. I found stuff I have that's been mentioned (usually they were bought at book sales) that I haven't read- Pligrim's Progress, The Things They Carried, I think there were one or two more.

Books that weren't mentioned- The Stranger, Siddhartha, Brave New World, Sheridan's plays, and some more (those were the first that popped into my head.

Also I have roughly 15 books on Shakespeare (not counting the actual plays and cute "Shakespearian Insults" type stuff. Some of them are wonderful insights into the works or the man, some of them I think are wrongheaded (Mr. Bloom I'm looking at you) but I've enjoyed reading every one of them. I was going to try to connect that to literary criticism, but now I don't feel like finishing that point.

As far as future cannon books, on my shelves Eco, Adams, Wodehouse, Irving, and Tom Robbins.

Agree with Plei and think Cat's Eye would be the one.

Gibby's not alone in using brand names as short hand signifying social class and like that.

Armistead Maupin's Tales of the City did this. I think it brought a big chunk of '70s culture to life. I don't know if the use of Tab, clothing references, and sexual attitudes would have resonated as much with me if I hadn't lived through the time period. Still, I could see this book, and possibly the sequels, being taught in English classes 20 years from now.

The Stranger, Siddhartha, Brave New World, Sheridan's plays, and some more (those were the first that popped into my head.

Siddhartha and Brave New World are good 'uns. I read the latter right after reading 1984, and I liked 1984 better, though I understand they're two different books. Regardless, you almost always end up mentioning them in the same breath. I was wondering whether it was an order thing; in my limited experience, anyone who's read both likes the one they read first more.

And I've begun reading Wuthering Heights now, thanks to this thread. I'd forgotten how much I love the 19th century English writing style. It's so proper and verbose, yet so meticulously constructed.

I read 1984 first, and liked Brave New World better. It's been too long since I read either for me to really remember why, though.