You are wrong, entirely.

Just because I write that, that way, doesn't make it true. Correct?

Well, just because you saying something is, doesn't mean it is. You gave us several paragraphs declaring what is and isn't but you gave us no links, no evidence, nothing but a bunch of declarations of what you believe to be true. The post we are discussing, however, and the ones linked within it, do contain studies and empirical evidence.

I read him, then I read you - guess who I'm believing right now?

More to the point, let's take this:

The authors we love do not come to us because we're imitating others.

This may be true. I may read a book that my peer group loves and find that I do not love it. Peer pressure cannot make me like it. But peer pressure made me read it. I read James Joyce because I consider myself literate and many other literate people consider him great. I didn't get him. I couldn't handle him. I tried several times and failed, over and over. But I read him. This long-dead Irish guy ended up on my bookshelf. How?

I have not read Dan Brown, or Harry Potter for that matter. I might like them, I might not. I haven't even given myself a chance to find out. The first, because I've already read and enjoyed Umberto Eco and I'm aware of the similarities. The second, but they were introduced to me as books for children and I'm not a child. I might love them but I'll probably never find out.

In that sense, what u/yodatsracist is saying is still completely the case and what you are arguing falls short. For many other reasons, though, I disagree with most of what you offered here. You've written an assertive defense of your ideas, your tastes, but assertiveness doesn't equal truth.