Twilight or Hamlet?

Harold Bloom, on who my character Leo Wool is based, has said that literature is to be read comparatively. In other words, that the way to criticize literature is to read widely and closely and then compare: greater than, less than, equal to. Therefore, if one were to read, let's say, Stephanie Meyer's Twilight next to Shakespeare's "Hamlet," one would have to say that Hamlet is clearly greater than Twilight. Why?

There are many arguments to be made and the purpose of my play, in part, is to make those arguments as clearly as possible. As well as the counter-arguments. Very briefly, Bloom's arguments tend to return him to the western canon as a legacy come down from Homer, dealing with certain questions of how we live and make meaning. 


Yes, it always comes back to meaning-making. Which gives us a stronger sense of that delicate anguish called meaning? Which can you return to again and again and again throughout a lifetime and always come back with richness?


We live in an age where the difference between high art and low art is muddied. An age of "I like what I like, so nuts to you."  


What do you think? Can anyone say one piece of art is fundamentally better than another?