[Kransha]

It is my highly unprofessional opinion, that readers ought not to be 'categorized' to any extent. At least, I ought not to. My tastes are diverse, highly-cultured, hyper-intellectual, and sociologically unchallangeable by any bastion of mediocrity. I am as a rock in a tempest sea of Pope, Pepys, Pullman, and Plato, I am a tower of firm and sturdy strength, forever unwavering, unmarred by the petty conjectures of the semi-literate public! I am as constant as the northern star!

Not bloody likely.

In truth, I am of the opinion that readers, at least, should not be polarized. Anyone cane break the bounds of a certain genre, which is of importance. If books are to be categorized in such a way, like those who read them, there would be few who fit neatly into a single niche. The habitat of the literate public is, as put, public literature. I cannot believe that a fantasy afficionado would be loath to dabble in the world of "suspense-thrillers" from time to time. The recent surfiet of Dan Brown-mania, in my area (author of the extremely lucrative books Angels and Demons and The Da Vinci Code) has exorcized the simple bonds of many readers of diverse genres, who all united around the current fad. I, myself, feel slandered that books and readers must be segregated thusly. There might as well be different drinking fountains and bathrooms for the sci-fi delvers and the romantics (perhaps I am taking that to far, though).

I will propose a sort of example, one that defies category, perhaps because of mediocrity, or perhaps because of grandure. A number of books have been multi-categorized over the years, or created new groups and new followings. Recently, and area newpaper I subscribe to ran an article by a well-known journalist, one Jonathan Yardley, about J. D. Salinger's teenage-psychoanalysis novel, The Catcher in the Rye. The article analyzed, and condemned the 'classic.' It is a known fact that The Catcher in the Rye is a very popular book for English teachers, who use it in their classes, both young and old. When the book first came out, it was both hailed and railed against by the public. Some fell to their knees amd worshipped, saying that it was a fully comprehensive expedition into the human soul. Others said it was angst-filled, overly symbolic drivel (I will not make my own views on the book known, to retain objectivity, but merely use it as an example). Yardley, the author of the aforementioned article, seemed up in arms against Salinger's book, and with much evidence to back him up. In a way, Catcher was a book that, whether or not it was good, defied convention. Supposedly, teenagers are able to relate to the storytelling protagonists. Some claim that the book is, in fact, to literal for the age group that it was 'written for' because of the massive amounts of symbolism that supposedly lie therein. Disregarding the chains of 'literati' and 'popularist,' where does Catcher lie on the literary spectrum? It more presents an anarchic mass, that wobbles to an fro unethically, too 'faux-cogniscenti' for the popularists, but too 'illiterate' for the 'literati.' There are a surprising amount of books just like this, and groups that swarm around them. All such syndicates are probably very defensive of their genre and/or preferred work. I could argue about, despite the appeal of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, the books she writes are not high culture, but I have met many intelligent individuals who believe that Rowling's works should be at least as literate as Tolkien. *cough*

Tolkien works must be both 'literate' and 'popular' if my say is to be counted. Simply because a book has a following, that does not mean it is illiterate. Plato's immortal Republic is the basis for modern idealism, a philosophy which has covered the world and is, in the opinion of many, the 'right' philosophy. One could say that a sensational, revolutionary book like that is the most 'popular' book ever to be written, simply because its messages ring just as true, if not truer, today, than they did when the volume was first penned, even if no one knows of its importance nowadays. Is Republic illiterate, then? I certainly hope not, or else a majority of the stem-off philosophies and schools of thought derived from the teachings of Plato and Socrates must be illiterate, thus deeming one of the most favored philosophical ideals null and void of meaning. That pretty much demeans 20 centuries of global culture, doesn't it?