Sorry (oops, there's another one) - joining this debate a bit late perhaps...
Literary vs non- literary? I've come to think of this as a strictly academic thing. Publishers, agents etc. like to propound the idea of work as literary because there's a certain culture of critique and debate that comes up then... and it's all good publicity. But I once heard somebody say any work has to be given at least 50 yrs before you really know if it's "literature" or not - and it's not really based on readership or response so much as something academians refer to as "the canon". Phallocentric jokes aside, it's basically whether or not this or that piece of writing is considered to justifiably provoke debate within and externally to it's context... seeing as this is a highly subjective categorisation it continues to aggravate. As a result, "popular" novels (suggesting that literary works are the unpopular ones!) are starting to appear on course lists everywhere, and lecturers and teachers are rejoicing and condemning the whole thing in equal measures.
This doesn't clear anything up does it? Sorry (again!)
Green smiley - colon and closed bracket
Yellow wink - semi-colon and closed bracket
Smileys/emoticons. I think they're great....