It's about vision
I hardly attacked anyone for not having the same literary taste as I, but what's more peculiar is how it's even possible to speak of a homogenous literary tendency when the only author I mentioned in my post was Dostoevski?
I'm not interested in petty reactions, such as that my views of literature annoy you. Is that productive? What I expressed was a more open approach to reading literature considered difficult, which is far from homogenous; if anything, it couldn't be more heterogeneous.
What is unsettling, and it truly is, is how easily certain literary works are dismissed. Is it possible to speak of a book which one hasn't even finished reading? I'm not discounting feeling altogether, or one's inclinations or sense for things or the world; that is necessary and meaningful and personally informative. A book should clearly resonate with one on some level, should captivate one, or at least grip or make one shudder. As readers, and you may disagree, but I think it's important to be able to move beyond our personal interests, beyond our often circumscribing tastes, and be able to or at least willing to read what is outside our, generally small, circumference of desire. It's dismissing a novel which an author has sacrificed his life for, if he or she is a serious author, based on a subjective response that I find questionable and truly disturbing. Our assessments, especially when based primarily on feeling or mood, which are ambiguous and fleeting things to base any decision on, are simply wrong.
I could have phrased a few remarks of mine differently and should have. It's not that I think FSF is pure crap, but more that he as well as Salinger are simply extremely overrated. FSF is a competent and able writer, but I don't think more than that. Why are he and JDS more well known than a writer such as James Purdy - precisely because of a homogenized sense of taste, which is the guiding rule in this country. You say I should respect people who like different books than I do (though I hardly gave a list) but then denounce anyone who likes DHL as an idiot. I have yet to read DHL so can't speak of him, but why not adopt your own tenets? To return to Purdy, just to give one example, in Europe, where there is more of a heterogeneous sense of literature, he is very well known. He is a real visionary, but America discounts its visionaries.
The fact as you point out that JDS wrote little is not cause for critique, certainly not. Rimbaud wrote two slim volumes of poetry, but they were revolutionary and they prefigure much of modern literature. But JDS' is far from Rimbaud and that he had very narrow stylistic range, quite the contrary, clearly is cause for critique. What is the vision of the literature? How is he transforming the word? Or any writer. What is being done with language? And what is the writing saying about humanity?
It's not that one need use an advanced vocabulary; I agree with you precisely - the use of complex or "difficult' words doesn't make something more relevant or poignant as you said, but that really isn't the point. What is being done with those words - that's the point. I don't have a fervor for Hemingway, far from it, but his writing is as stylized as Lautreamont, though he uses the simplest of words. Yet, he transformed literature. It's difficult to discern nowadays, but his writing was quite revolutionary. Knut Hamsun's Hunger had a decisive influence on Hemingway, as much of the early 20th century literature in America and Europe, but Hamsun's impact and influence on other writers is not well known nor has it been explored much, which is probably due to moralistic condemnations of him as a Nazi sympathizer.