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"?

I've been out all day, so I just got to this question.

I wouldn't define "literary fiction" at all. I don't like the term. I think it's sufficiently vague enough that it implies "fiction that is well-written," versus, I suppose, "crap that Other People read." Okay, fine. Define "well-written." It's just too vague and entirely subjective.

"Literary fiction" as a designation just seems not at all like a definition, but more like an I Know It When I See It type of designation. How does one decide what's "literary" fiction and what's just plain non-literary fiction? Toni Morrison = literary fiction, it seems, but what about Jenny Crusie? Anne Lamott? Pat Conroy?

not the key to appreciating Buffy

Are you presupposing just one key? I think you can climb into a character and appreciate Buffy, or sit back but look only at the universe and appreciate Buffy, or know things like "Joss had always planned this" and "Joss pulled this out of his ass during filming" and appreciate Buffy.

Whose is less valid?

Literary fiction = "We can't slot it anywhere else, and we really like it" or "Well, it's in a genre you/I may not like, but it should be read anyway. It's ART."

I think.

I thought the definition of litfic was something I was too much of a tech plebe geek to get, and I'm glad to see the amount of dissent. I felt like a moron the first time I had to ask, based probably on something like finding James Baldwin shelved outside litfic when I was sure he was all erudite and shit.

Literary fiction = "We can't slot it anywhere else, and we really like it" or "Well, it's in a genre you/I may not like, but it should be read anyway. It's ART."

I suppose I'm a populist when it comes to reading (which is a nice way of saying "cheap, up-against-the-shelves textwhore"), but the designation "literary fiction" smacks of snobbery to me. Litfic always seems to be books that will never be on the Times' bestseller list, and/or books that are long and ponderous (dude, NEVER read Prague) OR about really depressing subjects (see also, every damn book Oprah picks for her club).

the designation "literary fiction" smacks of snobbery to me

Yeah, me too, and it will until someone who likes and values the definition can explain it to me.

It's the books that are better than the other books. It's like a Cabal of books.

It's like a Cabal of books.

All the Don DeLillo books and David Foster Wallace books get together and snicker at the Jenny Crusies and the John Grishams.

I wasn't talking just about the writers' thought processes, though ita's point about what was planned and what happened out of necessity or whatever is well taken.

I was saying that I don't think your analogy is valid, and then I was asking what the difference is between picking apart a show and picking apart a book. I have no answer in mind, I'm just asking.

All the Don DeLillo books and David Foster Wallace books get together and snicker at the Jenny Crusies and the John Grishams.

And Jenny and John huddle together and lament, "Why won't those stupid idiots let me in their crappy club for jerks?"

And what do the Castaneda books do?

And what do the Castaneda books do?

Get stoned. Drop acid. Ponder.