"harperperennial:  youmightfindyourself:  Chart of favorite books matched against average SAT scores.  Via Facebook, so here, have a sack of salt. Also this: ""Update: I changed Lolita from 'Erotica' and 'Pride and Prejudice' from 'Chick Lit' to Classics. You literature majors all lack any sense of humor."" But interesting nonetheless.  I could easily write 5000 words about all the different things that annoy me in this chart, but I realize it's just some thing from Facebook that was probably made by someone who has never even read most of these books, so I shall try not to dirty my beautiful mind thinking about it for too long. But really, THEIR EYES WERE WATCHING GOD is ""African American"" (African American what?) while GONE WITH THE WIND is a ""classic"" and TUESDAYS WITH MORRIE and THE FIVE PEOPLE YOU MEET IN HEAVEN are considered ""Philosophy""? This is why I hate the trend toward ever more obsessive categorization of books— while categorization can sometimes be useful in pointing readers toward the books they'll like, it's just as often used as a way to artificially elevate certain books while marginalizing others.  And gee, I wonder what set of criteria people could use to make these category distinctions? Hint: check between the legs of the author in question. If that proves inconclusive, you might want to investigate her skin color.  As Sarah Schulman has pointed out, categorization matters because it affects how books are sold; how books are sold affects what books get made and who gets to read them. It also affects how much authors get paid for their work. Let's not forget that ""African American"" author Zora Neale Hurston spent the last decade of her life working as a maid. I have a feeling ""philosopher"" Mitch Albom hasn't cleaned a house in a fairly long time."
{}