The Curious Enigma of the Lit-Lover by Derek McPhee

Let us, for just a moment, assume that we are living in a perfect world---a world where no one has heard of any argument as insipid as, "Who is cooler? Bieber, or Gaga?"

I can already feel some of you nodding in agreement. I know because I, like you, have seen and heard those discussions and rolled my eyes so many times I could probably sketch out (accurately) what the frontal lobe of my brain looks like.

By nature, we discriminate. We judge all things and, if it is on the page, our writer senses become sharper. We are intimately acquainted with what writing should be---and we know what it should not be by this very same token.

Let us consider the likes of Dan Brown, Christopher Paolini, and Stephanie Meyer. These writers are simply doing what we all want to do: they're telling their stories. Still, their success inspires greater scrutiny--especially from other writers.

The elitist voice in all of us would like to claim that they are pop-cultural hacks, that they don't deserve success because their writing skills aren't up to our standards.  Still, these authors have inspired countless people to read. For this, even the pulpiest of work has an immeasurable value: "plant the seed of curiosity and hunger in the words behind the spine of a book."

In the same way not everyone wants to pick up a copy of Dostoyevsky, Murakami, Niffenegger, or Herbert, we should not be overly critical of works that now do what the "greats" of literature are unable to do.

Do we want a world brought together by a love of literature, or a world torn apart and fragmented by it? All literature has a place---not everything will be right for you---but it does have its place. Next time you feel like jumping all over someone for liking sparkly vampires, go to the roots of why you love literature and discuss those elements instead.

Those insipid arguments that make you roll your eyes… are they stupid because they are, or because you’re forcing them to be?