"Interpretive Writings Taken More Seriously?" Followup

First off, I'd like to apologize for my post "Are interpretive Writings Taken More Seriously?" sounding more opinionated then I originally intended. It's my fault that it came off as "Why are Interpretive Books Better??". This was not the intention of the post.It was supposed to outline why literature enthusiasts (rather than "our culture" as I mistakenly put it previously) hold interpretive literature in the highest regard.
The problem is, this observation may be entirely idiosyncratic, and I'd like to see if anyone else notices the same thing. When it comes to those who are very knowledgeable, or "experts", on literature and it's history, it seems they think of interpretive writings as more important than regular stories.
Another issue remains in separating interpretive literature and everything else. Someone previously mention Stephen King novels as being "regular" stories, but I'm sure King has his own messages beneath the context of his stories. This goes for countless other authors as well. Perhaps its not interpretive vs. regular, it's just the extent in which the author takes his or her metaphors.
On that note, maybe literature enthusiasts find extended metaphor more impressive than general morals and themes. Once again I could be wrong in thinking enthusiast take these works more seriously. Tell me what you think.

Why Billy Pilgrim? Part 1

We've already learned from Mr. Kunkle, as well as the first chapter of Slaughter House-Five, that Kurt Vonnegut initially had trouble finding the framework in which to contstruct his Dresden story. This is understandable, as Vonnegut more or less stated he sounded like a broken record everytime he tried to lay out the schematics for a novel about his experiences in World War II.

Now, making headway into the book, it has become obvious that our "hero", Billy Pilgrim, is the apparatus in which Vonnegut chose to use in order to tell this story. But why Billy Pilgrim? Perhaps his ability to become "unstuck" in time makes it easier for Vonnegut to potray the life of a veteran inside and out. Maybe Vonnegut chose to use this character because he couldn't use himself to potray the long term effects war had on him. After all, Vonnegut was far from dead when he wrote this novel. Or maybe Vonnegut didn't want to write another depressing, realistic veteran story, but something a little more innovative.

I feel there are many other reasons Vonnegut used Billy Pilgrim to tell this story, but I can't find them unless I finish the book. I will continue to explore this in Part 2, after we finish the novel.