James Joyce’s “Ulysses” dares you to try to read it. Thick as a phonebook and infinitely denser, the modernist masterpiece is notorious for its ability to break the will of even the most dedicated literati. While the book’s value was questioned on grounds of obscenity in 1921, the 21st century finds the value of literature itself uncertain in an environment populated by new forms of media.

So why bother with Ulysses? Why bother with fiction at all?

Such was the question that followed the release of President Obama’s summer reading list, which included four works of fiction, such as “The Bayou Trilogy,” a collection by Daniel Woodrell, and “Rodin’s Debutante” by Ward Just. President Bush, by comparison, consistently chose weighty works of history and political theory for his reading list.

Notably, conservative columnist and radio host Michael Medved wrote, “Does it make sense for the president of the United States to carve time out of his busy schedule to read novels?”

Medved implies that a novel — by its very nature — is a waste of time, only meant for “relaxation.” So the question isn’t only whether President Obama should indulge in fiction, but whether anyone should.

Jonah Lehrer, author of “Proust Was a Neuroscientist,” is a firm believer in the value of literature, especially the difficult variety.

“Literature really requires that you do something that’s a little more sophisticated from the perspective of your brain,” said Lehrer, also a contributing writer at Wired magazine.

Difficult literature, like the aforementioned “Ulysses” and the works of Marcel Proust, can develop what Lehrer terms “executive function.”

“It’s the ability to focus, to ignore irrelevant detritus and distractions, to exert self control, to be more measured and deliberate,” Lehrer said. “(Executive function and difficult literature) both demand focus. It sort of builds up mental muscles that can lead to good and important leadership skills.”

While Lehrer makes a distinction within the genre of fiction (between “difficult” and “pulp” fiction), such an assumption doesn’t hold water with University professor Anna Ivy.

One of Ivy’s English classes on contemporary British literature looks at issues of gender, immigration, social class and the evolution of the welfare state. The novel they’re reading? Harry Potter.

“(Harry Potter) posits a very negative view of British conservatism, and J.K. Rowling focuses a lot on labor politics in the novels,” Ivy said. “I think (all) fiction gives readers a unique insight into the cultural norm.”

Ivy doesn’t buy into the idea of ”canonical” literature, the theory that some fiction is “good” and others “bad.”

“Shakespeare was the pop culture of the 16th and early 17th centuries, and fiction itself was a genre actually considered trash literature,” Ivy said, explaining that the value of literature is inherent, not relative. For example, Ivy teaches a class on so-called “chick lit:”

“It’s considered very synthetic fiction. But it deals with some very serious issues about feminism, marriage, maternity, and a woman’s place in the work place,” Ivy said. “It doesn’t make it less significant and or less sociologically based just because it’s witty and funny and acceptable to the mass audience.”

But the mass audience’s options extend far past fiction or non-fiction; or between “Harry Potter” and “Gravity’s Rainbow.” Lehrer said that the rise of “literary” television like HBO’s “The Sopranos” and complicated plots featured in shows like “Lost” can impart similar benefits of difficult fiction.

Rejecting Marshall McLuhan’s mantra of “the medium is the message,” Lehrer explained it is “less about the medium, and more about the message, and more about how complicated the narrative is.”

“The most complex narratives have come in the form of words and literature, but I don’t think it enjoys some kind of monopoly on complex and cognitively challenging culture,” Lehrer said.

Yet again, Lehrer’s sentiment clashes with those of a University professor. John Rubins, creative writing teacher and an author himself, said that fiction’s ability to place the reader in a point of view cannot be replicated in another medium, and an individual who replaces, for example, Dostoevsky’s “Crime and Punishment” with HBO’s “The Wire” is losing a crucial lesson in human experience and knowledge.

Unlike non-fiction, Rubins continued, literature allows the author to place the themes and issues before any political or didactic objective.

“My major impetus behind (writing) is maintaining what I would call honesty. I’m not asking for something back, I’m not asking for people to think I’m a wonderful writer; I’m giving them a story,” Rubins said. “My goal is to get out of the way, and I think that’s probably how (fiction) is very counter to almost all non-fiction.”