I guess I am not entirely sold that the novel is "Literature." I think that there is value in the work, but I guess I need to be sold on how the work actually is representative of "Literature." This is probably where things become a bit murky because the actual definition of what falls into "Literature" varies and I am not sure if there is an absolute and totalizing definition of what "Literature" is. It is difficult to engage in such a discussion without injecting some level of personal opinion into it. With that in mind, I think that the subject matter of the work and the manner in which Strout develops the plot sounds more like "popular writing" more than a work of literary value. I don't really see the work intertextually connecting to others in continuing a discourse that has been established in literature, nor do I see it seeking to broaden its own understanding to be included in a canon of literature. I see it as a work that details the incidents of love, infatuation, secrets, and concealment. I see it designed to evoke a popular reaction and a popular aspect to it more than one of a "literature" nature. In this, I think that there has to be a greater discussion of what defines "Literature" and how this definition may or may not apply to Strout's work.