Scholarly Novels vs. Non Scholarly Novels: Can One Really Tell the Difference?

Soooo this school year has been filled with novels that one would consider "scholarly"; from Frankenstein, to Grendel, to the more commercially accepted novels like A Visit from the Goon Squad, it seems as if every pick of literature I've debriefed this past year has made more more aware of what one should consider scholarly and what one should consider mediocre. When the year first began, I can't lie, I didn't see what the big deal was about these so called "scholarly" novels. They're boring, too wordy, and dry.....right? What makes them so much better than a typical Gossip Girl book? After much practice (thanks to AP Lit) of coming into contact with novels that people would consider sophisticated, I feel as if I can finally tell the difference between a novel filled with literary merit and one that isn't. Recently, I read the novel Palo Alto by, non other than the Hollywood star, James Franco. Franco is known to be a celebrity who appreciates education; he's attended Columbia University, teaches English and acting classes at schools like UCLA and the University of Southern California, and even once stated that he refused to come to set one day because he didn't want to miss class. Seeing how the man is so into education, his novel was sure to be one to go down in history, right? Wrong. So wrong. I was excited to read the novel once I first started; it's an indie based book that follows different characters within each chapter, yet, they all intertwine as the novel unfolds. MY FAVORITE. Books with separate stories are what I absolutely love, and after seeing the preview for the movie (which comes out on Friday) along with getting a preview of the soundtrack (the soundtrack is pretty good......it fits the whole "distressed" teenager vibe the book gives off perfectly) I just knew this book was going to be something I would instantly fall in love with. Yah.......not so much. Let's just say that I never really plan on reading the book for a second time; once was enough. It's not that the book wasn't good or interesting, because it was, but more so the novel just lacked substance. You can tell that Franco really tried to give the book a deeper meaning than it actually has. He added curse words, sexual content, and even the intense moments where a character decides whether or not they should kill themselves or someone else. Super deep, right? Sadly, Franco failed to create a novel with literary merit, in my opinion, and after reading so many this year I feel as if I can easily state why. First of all, the novel lacks a central theme that it's attempting to convey. There was nothing that I can honestly and truly say that I learned from the book, other than the fact that I'm glad I'm not a teenager living in his depiction of Palo Alto, California. One thing I've learned throughout the entirety of this year is that if a novel truly has literary merit, one will be able to think of a central theme the novel is trying to teach it's readers. Secondly, the grammatical style of his novel was very simple.......literally the whole book was filled with simple sentences. It sounded like something a third grader could have written (aside from the curse words). How does Franco expect anyone to really think while reading his novel if his sentences lack any further interpretation? Lastly, the characters in the novel lacked depth. Sure, each one had it's own personal struggles and problems, yet, none of them we're actually developed characters with solid back stories. They were kind of just there. They simply existed. Not enough Franco. Once the movie comes out, I'm sure the novel will be depicted nicely on screen as some sort of hardcore indie story, however, as an actual novel it lacked any type of scholarly development. Ya feel me?