My disagreement with your objection relates to the way "great books" are inflicted on others: as thought-provoking, as containing (or describing) truth. Here you are, yourself:

And that's what great novels do: they make you think.

Despite the fact that a third of Zen is dedicated to Robert Persig's problematic understanding of motorcycles, two or three lines in Grapes of Wrath communicate a worldview and a reality with far more clarity and insight. This is my whole point: Zen didn't make me think. Pride & Prejudice didn't make me think. Nietzsche didn't make me think; rather, I'd argue that his diseased and angry worldview can be discounted by inspection.

And I disagree: in many cases, books do survive because generation after generation after generation has been forced to read them. This isn't to say all old books are bad. I'm not gonna say a single negative thing about Shakespeare.

Invoking journalism only serves to muddy the water. We're talking "great books" not things written last week. We're talking works that stand the test of time (however they accomplish it), not immediate works for immediate digestion.

I think it's foolhardy to try to tell someone that they have to like a book, whether it be Pride and Prejudice or Gormenghast.

And that's my beef - I've been told over and over again that I have to like Jane Austen.

And I don't.

And fuck them for saying I do.