Hello. I won't get into the vast array of issues with the term 'literary fiction' as opposed to 'genre fiction' and why it's nonsensical, other than to say that a lot of people seem to use it as a stand-in for 'good' writing. For example, people say that Jane Eyre writes literary romances whilst Stephanie Meyer writes terrible genre romance. I see that as basically saying one is good, the other bad. I'm wondering, if one were to aim to write 'literary fiction', how would one go about it? It's often said that the meaning of a story should come without force and that 'bad' writing is to force some sentimental meaning and evoke sentimentality. Literary fiction apparently extols the goal of achieving more meaning in the writing than genre fiction. It emphasises character over plot. There are a lot of commonly known comparisons between genre and literary fiction, but the achievement of meaning in a story is the issue here. In trying to write a piece of literary fiction I would like to emphasise character and meaning (as I would normally strive to do) over flashy surface-level events, but doesn't this go against the rule of not forcing meaning? What I mean is, you should focus on the story and let the hidden depths of your mind write the meaning from the values you hold as the story develops. But from what I've read, literary fiction doesn't care so much about plot. It feels odd to sit down and try to conjure up some agenda, too much like preaching. Normally I'd focus on just telling a good story, but I don't see how trying to specifically write a work of literary fiction can be done without setting down to shove a bunch of morals down the reader's throat. Essentially, I have no idea how to start a story without a plot because that's what a story is. This is the main reason I don't understand the term 'literary fiction'. Care to discuss?