We are not talking about types and descriptions of books. Descriptions are helpful. We are not arguing over descriptive typing. You have ranked them in comparative class, quality and worth in your world... talked about them as re-hashed fairy tales not on the level of more "serious literary works" or "SF pills". Your attitude stinks when speaking to other book lovers that come on to your thread to answer your question... And you may never get that.
The earlier works of SF (Asimov, Heinlein, Vonnegut) along with Tolkien were great. Most of what we have nowadays is indeed a rehash. I'll read this stuff if something really good comes out....which isn't often.
BTW, literary novels aren't as good nowadays as they were in the late 40s and early 50s. However, non-fiction seems to be at a peak right now, especially with biographies. One reason is that (Doris Kearns Goodwin notwithstanding) biographers (and many historians) are using original sources such as interviews. The prime example of the incredible history/biography is Robert Caro with his excellent multi-volume bio of Lyndon Johnson. I think this trend started back in the late 60s with the publication of T. Harry Williams' Huey Long which showed oral biographies (interviews with people involved with subject matter) could be excellent sources.
Oh, and my reading is a bit more eclectic than made out here. Usually I read a history/biography followed by fiction which could be literary novels, Westerns, detective, and, yes, even SF (but only after looking carefully to sort out the vast amount of junk out currently out there.)
p.s. PJ's autobiography recommendation: Witness by Whittaker Chambers. A biography about Chambers also came out a couple of years ago and I think I'll check that one out too.