So I believe a "work of literary merit" is a terminology used to describe the value and importance of a work of literature as a whole. For example, Ellison's Invisible Man consist of a greater literary merit than, per say, Gayle Forman's novel, If I Stay. One would conclude that Ellison's novel holds more skill and is more "meaningful". I dislike this. I truly love the novel If I Stay and I wish I could through some similar stories in the amazing "work of literary merit" box. Okay, so clearly I'm sort of iffy on this whole literary merit thing. I mean, every story holds its own importance, value and meaning so why must we pick and remove specific novels and throw them in the category of a literary merit? Also, why does it have to focus so much on the skill of the writing? If its well written? Why can't it just be a good read that keeps us up at night? Some of the books placed in that category are (I'm sorry) *trash emoji*. They make me fall asleep, literally. I have to read a good portion of a work of literary merit about ten times over and over before I could wrap my head around it. Is that why it holds more skill? Or maybe I truly have the wrong view and interpretation of this. A story of literary merit that kept me up at night was Beloved. Its obviously holds a high level of skill in the writing and all this and that, but honestly, the thing that really made me through it in that category is the way she used foreshadowing. It was more complex. Morrison mentions incomplete allusions to events that are later carried on and shown in further chapters in the novel. The novel shows a meaningful representation of time and occurrences in which the story took place.