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!

Heathcliff seems like Rochester 2.0.

Um, well, the rest of the book will cure you of that impression.

I actually have one shelf of novels on my bookshelf arranged by books I read mostly for the language at one end, books I read mostly for the plot at the other, and the 40 or so books in between arranged by where they fall on that spectrum. (Other shelves are arranged in similarly odd fashions, but it makes sense to my brain. No one else can find anything without searching every shelf, but I know exactly where everything is.) Whenever I've tried explaining that system to anyone, they'll look at that shelf, and just about everybody will contest my placement of at least a few books -- some where I thought the language was paramount, someone else thinks of first as a great adventure story; some that I read almost solely for the plot, someone else will be totally puzzled as to why I didn't notice how intoxicating the language is. So, using that as a definition of "literary fiction" seems somewhat subjective. (Which, I suppose, any attempt to categorize books beyond "these are books" will be.)

Hil, that is such a cool way to shelve books. You are teh awesome.