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.

I've never thought about which one I like better- I think I prefer not to.

Also, a book I've mentioned before, but still is one of my all time bestest books evah - If Not Now, When? I need a new copy something fierce too. If it's not considered a classic, it should be. It's beautiful and inspiring and sad, informative and a good all around read.

Amazon keeps recommending Siddhartha to me. Which I think is a fair call (I've read it before), but I believe they have reached it by a misleading route (it's based on a book I bought someone else).

I am two chapters in. Heathcliff seems like Rochester 2.0.

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.

I honestly think "literary fiction" is too vague of a term, and its description too amorphous and subjective, to call it a genre or sub-genre. Any two people could read the same novel and disagree on whether the emphasis was on language over character, etc.

And if the emphasis *is* on language over character, that really seems -- to me -- to be the authorial equivalent of masturbation. This is simply *my* opinion, and I have known to be totally crack-headed, but I think in any work of fiction, character is paramount. They drive the plot, make the writing compelling.

For instance -- and I truly don't know what contemporary novels are considered "literary fiction" -- I absolutely agree that Michael Chabon's language in Kavalier and Clay is dizzying and intoxicating. But if his characters hadn't been so fully realized and so compelling, I wouldn't have gotten past the first couple of chapters, no matter how intoxicating the language was.

What was the other book?

Also what about non-fiction stuff? Bleeding heart that I am, I love Buckley's The Right Word, if only for his defense of using profanity (it's what sticks with me most). The Assasin's Cloak is wonderful (though it's probably more of an anthology), The Last Lion, and of course the biography to stand atop all biographies, T Harry Williams's bio of Huey P. Long.

Aaaand I just found a whole nother bookshelf I missed. It's got King Solomon's Mines from 1893!