You decide. But I like "Anonymous"s take-no-prisoners style in this attack on chicklit. The argument, though, is familiar to anyone who's been through the Nancy Drew/Wildfire Romance/Goosebumps wars: bad writing (and reading of said) drives out good. But junk has always been with us, and the audience for literary fiction has always been small. And Anonymous has a tendency to bolster questionable premises ("Chick lit claims . . .) with a muddle of not necessarily codeterminant facts (" . . . to be representative of women's lives, their hopes, fears, dreams and values"). She does this again later, with "as America increasingly devalues intellectual rigor, education and compassion, it becomes harder and harder to find a good book." What does compassion have to do with any of this?
For a more laissez-les-bon-temps-roulez attitude toward this argument, try Nick Hornby's essay on "How to Read."