> I feel an issue behind this essay is that it makes assumptions of the purpose of literature. That literature should be difficult to read, and that difficult works are the only works that transfer knowledge, is not reflected in contemporary understanding of literature... anywhere. Although there are essays discussing the merit of difficult literature, they have always been in response to an equal or greater number of essays denigrating difficult literature.

"Literature" in the sense he's using it doesn't refer to every work of fiction. I don't know that literature has to be challenging to be good (A Farewell to Arms is pretty universally recognized and it isn't long or difficult), but an audience that reflexively gravitates only toward YA novels is demonstrating a certain lack of desire for thinking. The number of political takes I read that involve analogy to a children's book about wizards is somewhat hard to look at without thinking that our current literary environment engenders a lack of critical thinking.

I don't know that women's literature has "always" been respected; why did Emily Bronte (among many other Victorian woman authors) write under a male pseudonym?