Did you miss the part where I love Faulkner and Quentin Compson is my homeboy?

BWAH! I think I need to re-read Faulkner. I read several books- The Sound and the Fury, As I Lay Dying and a book of "Southern Nysteries". I have only read them once, so I have little to no memory of them.

I don't know if anyone else has this problem-- I need to read a book 2 or 3 times befor I have any real recall of it (unless I read it for a class in which case I recall the discussion). All the books I can speak of in-depth I have read upwards of 3 times-- so I can speak with knowledge about comparatively few books, and many, many of those are classic youth stories and serials, some of which no one else seems every to have heard of.

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.

So how would you define "literary fiction"?

And if the emphasis *is* on language over character, that really seems -- to me -- to be the authorial equivalent of masturbation.

Emphasizing language doesn't mean character is unimportant. I also don't see a delight in language as any less directed at the reader than an investigation into character.

But then I don't see anything wrong with masturbation, either.

My nomination for future canon-worthy? Something Wicked This Way Comes by Ray Bradbury. Gorgeous language, Good and Evil, and one of the coolest fathers in a book, ever.

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.

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 would like to point out that there is no work of literary fiction which is not rendered in words. So it boggles me somewhat that you'd dock a writer for an emphasis on language. Admittedly, this is my college brainwashing, and betrays a strong Modernist aesthetic, but better written equals better altogether in my mind. I think Teppy's got a strawman going because other than Finnegan's Wake there aren't a ton of books considered masterpieces in English which focus exclusively on language. And even Finnegan was a purposeful exploration of what is possible with English, and expanded the range of the novel, pushing its boundaries outward, creating space for other writers to do more.

It is certainly an arguable point (and much criticism after the Modern area did engage in this argument. Note how I didn't use the dreaded "post-modern"...uh, shibbolleth) - but I can't treat an emphasis on language as a category on the same plane with character or plot. Character and plot are rendered in language.

And what does "an emphasis on language" mean except that more care and attention are paid to being well-written?

When you look at Van Gogh's cypresses, you don't discount his painting technique to compare the rendering of the cypresses with a photograph of a cypress. The way he paints it is the painting, and what makes distinctly his own.

I really think this notion that style is separable from content is illusory. Kavalier and Clay is the whole of Chabon's writing ability - his characters are vivd because of his facility with language.

Canon Balls: I don't think Alice Walker will survive into canon. She spends way too much time in dialogue with the surface issues of her time (and also her later works pitch story and character out for speechifying). I mean even among contemporaries among Black women novelists, I think Toni Morrison, Jamaica Kincaid and Gloria Naylor will prove more durable.

eta: Mind - that's just my opinion. Alice Walker defenders should feel free to throw kumquats at me.

It's easier for me to think about genre writers who might prove interesting in fifty years. Again (with my bias showing) books which are better written, which do have a finer grasp of language endure. Also, historically, writers with very strong, distinctive sensibilities - which stand out even in their time - tend to last. Moreso than writers who only reflect the mores of their time. It's the extremely black, bleak perversity of Wuthering Heights (among other things) which makes it more than just a 19th century novel. As I've noted before, the damn thing opens with a bunch of dead puppies strung over the back of a chair. Dead puppies! That'll catch your attention. She makes Wm. S. Burroughs seem like a cuddly sentimentalist.

To counter my own point though (and in agreement with what Micole suggests) - I do also think each era produces its own kind of generic High Literary Prose Style.

Seconding Sophia's Irving inclusion. My favorite world-building writers would have to be Maupin for his San Francisco, Roddy Doyle for building a Dublin I know, even though I don't, Walter Moseley for rebuilding LA past, and probably Pelecanos.

Damn, now I've got like 12 books I want to re-read just reading this thread. K&K is defintely topping the list. It was also one of the last ambitious novels I managed to get start and finish in recent years.

However, Jilli reminds me I want to dig out SWTWC again. It's a shame the movie wasn't better, because the casting was impeccable, IMO.

And Hec says much better what I was trying to say re: Character and language. I still maintain that plot is seperate and less tied to language.

BTW- Whenever Sean is around, I have mentioned your Hamlet theory last night at the bar and several of the patrons would like to know where they sign up to make out with you.

I think Toni Morrison and Jamaica Kincaid are ALREADY canon, but I might be on crack. I did read them quite regularly in classes in college. I personally prefer The Color Purple to Beloved because during Beloved I spent a lot of time trying to figure out WTF was going on.

The overwhelming image from Beloved that sticks with me a so profoundly disturbing is the image of a black man in a bit (like a horses bit). I am not sure I can ever read that again. (this is a criticicm I actually think that the disturbing images are what makes the book great).

I think I approach 'literary criticm' in an odd way-- I was an undergraduate Literature major, and about 1/2 way through I really discovered that what I loved about literature was not necessarily the language-- but what the literature of a time told me about it's people and how that compared to today's worldview. I guess that is part of literary criticism but a smaller one than language, I wager. My favorite literature class was "personal narrative" where we read journals and essay rangind from Sei Shonagan to Virginia Woolf to Frederick Douglass to Susan B. Anthony, to teens holocaust diaries.

I probably should have been a history major...

And what does "an emphasis on language" mean except that more care and attention are paid to being well-written?

In this case, I meant a particular kind of language, although it's hard to define what. I don't mean style vs. content (which I agree is a division that falls apart after a while); I mean particular kind of style.

I do also think each era produces its own kind of generic High Literary Prose Style.

Like that.