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.

Whereas my shelving is more like "Oh look! There's an available surface over there!"

Hmmm. Use of language will turn me off a book, and books that don't seem to go anywhere can be redeemed through the use of language. I can seperate it from plot, but not character. What I mean is I'm not sure I mind if nothing "happens" but someone paints a beautiful picture for me with the words. But, I wonder if that means that if there is a character and the language is well used- that character is necessarily also painted beautifully.

Okay, that settles it. I'm rereading Wuthering Heights this weekend.

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.

I value worldbuilding far more than character. I'm sure that's related to the fact that I read mostly sci-fi, but if I don't believe in the book's universe, I'm not going to be reading anything else by that author. Much of the best worldbuilding also contains incredibly compelling characters -- Lois Bujold and James Alan Gardner are both fantastic character writers -- but Alastair Reynolds, who is easily my favorite working sci-fi author today, is less about individual characters and more about the big political/technological picture. (I just recently reread Red Mars, and was left with the same impression -- the characters are believable and well-drawn, but they're not in charge.)