With a few of the root causes of crappy American literature out of the way, let's take a look at some of the other problems with American letters.
The bulk of American literature lacks any sort of imagination or creativity. For the most part, there is an idea in American literature that people must write what they know. This is a big problem simply because people don't know a whole hell of a lot. They know their particular lives and experiences and their own philosophies, but there is little to actually distinguish an author from any other idiot aside from the ability to type.
So your life sucked, eh? That's nice. So did mine. So did everyone else's. Life stinks, get used to it.
So you went to the wilderness/Paris/Burma? That's nice. No, I really don't care what you did there.
So somebody you know is an asshole and/or criminal? That's nice. I hate them and I really don’t care what they have to say.
Everyone is stupid but you? That's nice. You're half right. After all, if everyone else is stupid, the odds are 6 billion to 1 against you.
I'm all for interesting stories by interesting people. However, most of the people who write these sorts of stories really aren't all that interesting. They want to either brag or bitch and I really don't enjoy hanging out with people like that, so why would I want to read something they wrote? They're obnoxious, overbearing, and they have little to actually say.
Even fiction is guilty of this sort of journalistic gobbledygook. Take, for instance, Steinbeck. All of his books are essentially one "real" story after another. It's stories about "real" idiots doing "real" things and we are somehow supposed to take some lessons from these stories. In fact, they are really nothing more than extreme idiots doing stupid things, yet we are somehow supposed to accept them as generally representative of the world at large. Personally, I don't buy it. They are really just exaggerated examples of some idea that Steinbeck has in his head, but if these archetypes of normal idiocy were not accepted as somehow realistic, he would be completely unrespected. This of course, leads into the next topic:
In order to understand American literature, one must understand that writing is, in itself, a form of fantasy. Even true stories are designed to interest us and intrigue us while giving us glimpses into other worlds that we do not understand. This, obviously, explains the popularity of such works as Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings, and the Foundation series. These works all describe fantastic worlds and fantastic people and it is not hard to understand why the average Joe wants to read these stories.
However, it is generally understood that many of the "great works" of American literature are not fantasy at all. No, they are fact. Maybe not actual fact, but they are works of Truth. They tell us of the real and they do not shy away from illuminating that reality. They are there to educate us about the world we live in and what really happens out there. At least that's the idea. Of course, that's a bunch of bullshit.
The Truth that American literature provides is a fantasized Truth. It is an exaggeration of minor issues and it turns real people into people that are so real they are fictional monsters. Am I really expected to accept the idea that all Texas teenagers are depressed, aimless morons who will screw anything that moves, be it woman or beast? According to The Last Picture Show, the answer is yes. Is every Christian a moralizing but amoral hypocrite? The answer is a resounding yes according to... well... just about everybody.
Personally, I don't take these truths to be self-evident. These are, instead, merely fantasies of the idiocy of everyone, the writer, of course, excluded. Were I to take any truths from the Truth offered by American literature, I would highly recommend that the United States nuke itself rather than allow these people to continue to breathe.
There are two reasons why these fantasies continue to propagate throughout the vast, empty hole known as American literature. However, to understand these reasons, one must understand who these books are written for: intellectuals. Usually rich ones.
I use the term intellectual loosely, since most of the readers of these books are really just pseudo-intellectuals. They play the part of the intellectual in order to seem like intellectuals. This saves them the trouble of appearing to be stupid when other rich pseudo-intellectuals spout off their appreciation of the latest dross spewed out to the masses. Fortunately, these people are the only ones who actually read or reread these books, so their effect on the populace is approximately nil. Or probably less.
With this in mind, we can begin to understand the reasons for American literature's appreciation of depicting poor people as stupid. After all, the great works of American literature are, by and large, written about stupid poor people. Toni Morrison is, of course, excepted from this, as there are some people in her books that are of average intelligence. However, they are still usually poor, so they are part of the fantasy.
The intellectual rich is reading about how poor people are stupid and they are lauding the books that say this. Does this sound bad to anyone else? Okay, maybe it is just me, then.
The first reason why intellectuals and the rich would like to read about the stupid poor is, of course, to make themselves feel better about being rich or intellectuals. After all, the poor are stupid, so they deserve to be poor. Or, in the contrary case, "I am an intellectual, so I will not be poor." Isn't that a nice concept? It is largely untrue, of course, but it is still nice to imagine if you are either rich or an intellectual.
As well, since American literature is dedicated to disseminating Truth, the literature is dedicated to bringing this idea across as an actual fact. Thus, rich people can feel better about being rich because they are not like these real people in this Truthful story about the idiocy of those with no money. "It's not my fault I'm rich, I'm just not a moron." How's that for a moral to be gathered from a national literature?
The other reason why intellectuals and rich people would like to read about the stupid poor is to feel like they actually care about poor people. That way, they can feel like they know these people with no money and tell themselves that they will do something about it someday. Obviously, they won't but they will tell themselves that and make themselves feel better. After all, they read it in a book and books don't lie! Otherwise, the rich man who owns the publishing company would not have published it, would he? Think about that for a little while.
However, we are not done with American literature. There is yet more to say, and by God, I'm going to say it!