However, your definition of "fluff" is at odds with the consensus opinion of a great many people who read literature. What you are calling "fluff" is material that may not be appreciated if you don't take the effort, which you clearly say you do not. You want your books to be more or less effortless. That's fine.

Clearly, all appreciation of art, literature, music, movies or the like is subjective, but we talk about things being worthy expressions when we build a consensus that endures over an extended period of time.

Consensus on the worth of works of literature is not something that "literary elites" come up with just to feel superior or to lord over other people. Individual academics may certainly do that, but the general reason why "serious literature" is considered "serious literature" is because it has enduring meaning and value that transcends its time. Lots of other people were writing plays during the time of Shakespeare, but we don't remember them because they wrote poorly, or had nothing to say to us.

Railing against "elites" as a political tool is one thing, but at some point, if you reject consensus in literature completely you are descending into garden-variety anti-intellectualism.