as you might have hoped.

I can agree with the main argument here (as stated briefly in your reply to Ghavrel), even if the way you frame it seems, to me, a little overly reliant on the concept of genres. Remember that genres are entirely artificial categories, created to help us contend with and sort through the vast amount of reading material out there. Yes, each genre has its core of "popcorn" books, like Steele for the mystery-lovers or Salvatore and Eddings for the fantasy people; these tend to be both unambiguous and unambitious. The best novels, however, blur the edges of genre and sometimes defy categorization entirely. Much of the literature you've mentioned in past discussions contains prominent fantastical elements. If not for the quality of the writing (and the thoughtful treatment of the human condition, as you mention), it would belong on the Sci-Fi/Fantasy shelves as well. (I am thinking in particular of The Master and The Margarita here, since I just saw you suggest it for the book club. Okay, it's satire, and the playful twisting of reality serves a political/literary purpose. But the same can be said of 1984, along with many many others.)

Anyway, I don't think we really disagree very much - I am all for diversity in reading. But at some points you come across like the library patron who sets too much store in the little genre stickers (yes, I know, you don't use libraries ). In my opinion, it is better to keep an open mind and allow for the possibility that any speculative fiction book might use distance to analyze, rather than escape, and that any fantasy book might turn out to be a stirring commentary on mankind. In the same way, I always allow myself the option of disliking works within the great English literary canon (sorry, Donne). Genres are guidelines, nothing more, and they certainly don't determine where literary greatness is going to blossom next.