My Funk & Wagnall's Standard Encyclopedic Dictionary defines literary as "of, pertaining to, or treating of literature."  By this definition, practically all writing is literary.
        Among fiction writers, however, definitions of what constitutes literary fiction vary.  In researching the term on the internet and in my local library, the generally accepted definition is "Fiction that is devoted to the literary aspects of writing, with the emphasis being on the style of writing rather than on the art of storytelling."
        According to my latest copy of  "Novel & Short Story Writer's Market,"  literary magazines look for fiction that include creativity, style, flawless mechanics, and careful attention to detail.  They claim to target a well read and well educated audience.  Except for a few large circulation publications like The New Yorker, most literary magazines are published by educational institutions.
        The late Marion Zimmer Bradley did not think too highly of literary magazines.  In her article "What is a Short Story," she says, "The average reader does not read for literary reasons. The average reader does not know that literary reasons exist. The average reader -- this cannot be overemphasized if you wish to make a living at writing fiction -- reads to be entertained."
        According to Ms. Bradley, you should write commercial fiction if you intend to make a living at writing (she refers to nonliterary as commercial).  But she was not entirely correct.  There have been some literary writers who made it big, such as Tennessee Williams and William Faulkner.  The vast majority of  best-selling authors, though, are those who write "commercial" stuff.
        When I first started writing, I was sending my stories out to every zine I knew of, including literary zines--because I didn't know any better.  Surprising-ly, I had one story accepted by a literary zine called "The Small Pond."  I read their guidelines more closely later, and in my opinion, the story didn't seem to fit.  But accept it they did.
        Literary zines vary greatly on what they will accept.  Some will accept only literary material, flatly stating that they are not looking for genre stuff such as romance, sci-fi, horror, etc.  Others will accept genre stuff if they deem it to be written in a literary style.
        The literary zines that I've read were not impressive.  There was one story about two friends who spent an entire day traveling from one eating place to another, describing in detail every meal that they ate.  That was it.  Nothing else.  Another story, classed as literary horror, was about a woman who started growing teeth all over her body.  She keeps growing teeth on her legs, arms, and other body parts.  The story ends with her entire body being covered with teeth.  During the course of the story, she sees doctors and dentists about her malady, but there's never any explanation.         Occasionally I found an interesting literary story, but most were like the two stories mentioned above--boring and senseless.
        So what is literary fiction?  I find it hard to zero in on a definitive answer.  Perhaps it's just a state of mind?  I don't know.  But if I was pressed for an

answer, I would have to go along with the commonly accepted definition: Fiction that is devoted to the literary aspects of writing, with the emphasis being on the style of writing rather than on the art of storytelling.
        Judging from the literary stuff  I've read, that seems to be an apt description. 
   
                  Critiques   
  
"What Is Literary Fiction" -- critique #1:
  
             This article does a Herculean job in a mere 500 words—explaining what literary fiction is all about, and contrasting it with “commercial” fiction. The author uses diverse sources, and in the end, we have as clear an understanding of literary fiction as we’re likely to get if we read 5,000 words on the subject.
        This is an article worthy of any writing magazine. Well done.
  
                   ====================
  
"What Is Literary Fiction:" -- critique #2:
  
           Ah, the question of what constitutes literary fiction continues. I admire the author's courage, as it isn't easy to hold and defend the position taken. The rewards of such effort are meager, and it's a never-ending challenge to hold at bay the defenders of contrary opinions. Still, the author willingly commits to that task and makes a noble effort despite the odds.
        An argument is made that literary works are boring and senseless. I find the author's defense of that argument simplistic and a bit juvenile. It hearkens back to high school glory days when most students  held all things literary in contempt, days when we were simply too busy being young to bother with "Two Years Before The Mast" or "Out of Africa" or "Heart of Darkness" or any of the countless page-turner literary works surviving the passage of time.
        The writer opens the piece with a dictionary quote, a definition of the word "literary" that one would be hard pressed to refute, then contends that nearly all written works are literature by that definition . The piece closes with a legitimate but contrary definition of the same word, and unreasonably, it is that minor  definition that the author contends is most commonly held. Providing a few examples or statistics in support of that opinion might bolster the stated position and improve the article.
        I seriously attempted to follow the author's logic but the arguments are studded with obtuse twists and turns. The logic used is untenable. The piece is more a container for disassociated thoughts than a legitimate attempt to offer a definitive description of literary fiction. It rambles.
        The word "stuff" is used too many times. I suggest this piece would benefit from outlining followed by a careful rewrite. It lacks polish and organization, and frankly I don't believe it is marketable as written.