You are carefully choosing adjectives to parse out difference in quality of meaning based primarily on how close a setting mirrors a history/location/event that you know of or can reasonably be certain of understanding.

You seem to think that I'm staging some grand mirror show of a post modern argument... that there is no real meaning. Bull. My statement is that no matter how rooted in a real setting, with real place, time, and events, that book can still seem far-fetched and unrelated to the reality of an average reader, based on their experiences, beliefs, education, etc. A person can argue the 'reality' of the circumstances of a story, but does that really matter to a reader, to whom it doesn't correlate to anything truly concrete? I guess the answer to that question is that it depends on what is truly important in that story. If the central aspect of the story is the loss of a child and how that can change a person, the struggles and challenges. The ability to truly explore that in writing, to possibly give insight into humanity, does not necessarily depend on place, or the reality of it. If a story is as much about a place and time, a set of circumstances, then the reality of the setting is vitally important to the experience of the story. Hans Fallada's EVERY MAN DIES ALONE is a good example of a story that is as much about loss as it is about living as a German in Berlin during WWII. The combination of the two is a powerful and thrilling novel. (The exception here being truly well achieved distopian, or near-future cautionary, sci-fi which can use the bit of freedom to closely explore the current society, politics, institutions, or whatever.)

It seems that the issue that I have with your response is two-fold. I am not making the statement that all books are equal, or that the individual experience of reading them is the only value of a book. I believe that some books hold a true and discernible value beyond any individual experience. Secondly, I believe that you're viewing framing your argument through the lens of the very best of 'Other Fiction' compared to the collective average of speculative fiction. I've read a great many bad or mediocre books that fall either category. I've read more truly great books that would be considered 'Other Fiction', though there are a great deal more books in that category. I believe that the very best speculative fiction novels can comfortably stand with most of the best Other Fiction.

Now, we've both spend more time than needed on this, since our basic argument is the same. People need to read more than just genre fiction.

I think that it's important that everyone reads. If a person is only capable of reading a couple books in a year and it is Harry Potter, the person still is reading. If a person has read a 100 books, and they're all Harry Potter and the equivalent, I find that to be rather sad. If a person considers themselves a reader but they're not reading a wide variety books, classics, history, biographies, literature, speculative fiction, I know that person is doing a great disservice to themselves.

In response to your father, those movies are crap. Entertaining, popcorn movie, crap. Tolkien has always been interesting in his mythic storytelling and world building as well and an entertaining epic fantasy. Escapism for most people, and not much more than that. It is one of the best of what it is though. My wife has much the same opinion as your father when it comes to things that require a suspension of belief. Though oddly, she did love the tv show Firefly.