Y'see, I grew up on Tintin, Astérix, Lucky Luke, Chrystine Brouillet, Perry Rhodan, Agatha Christie, Bob Morane, Lilian Jackson Braun, Sherlock Holmes, Isaac Asimov... All books and authors where things happen. As such I expect some sort of genuine plot when I read a book. A succession of events that ensues somewhat logically one from the other.
Unfortunately, the epitome of awesome literature in the 20th century, if the critics are to be believed, are rambling, mind-numbing accounts of the evolution of the major character's neuroses and how they interact with each others, both the character's and other characters'. This make for great reading if you are, oh I dunno, a psychiatrist, but if you want a plot you'd be better served looking at land grant charters.
I don't care that these are deep analyzable books. I can't help feeling there is a problem with the ambient critical approach in which it seems critics can't focus on characters if there is plot in the way. It seems as if plot is some sort of parasite of their dear characters.
I couldn't care less they can analyze Réjean Ducharme's L'Hiver de Force (Wild to Mild) into the next millennium and back. I still think it's barely readable tripe.