The Great books concept

taste is certainly subjective, and comparing "serious" literature, as he puts it, to "popular" literature, might be questionable--but then, books that were originally popular have achieved classic status later on. Shakespeare is a great example of this phenomenon. still, i disagree that there are no aesthetic standards. for instance, i could take works in the same genre, say science fiction, and state that Ray Bradbury wrote better than L. Ron Hubbard, and i don't think i'd get much of an argument, except from $cientologists. the test of time is relevant here, i think. Shakespeare is still read and performed widely, but that's not true of most of his contemporaries, and that reflects the superior quality of his work.

There is, of course, a subjective difference in the representation of what the author is trying to - how he or she expresses himself. But I still believe that there is an objective difference in what the author is saying. The Brothers Karamazov is a great work because it encompasses so much. It is not a different expression of lesser works - it includes and goes beyond them. Duration plays a part as well. Popular novels do not last in the readers mind. They are subjective representations, but contain no objective truth. They are ephemeral. They do not affect the manner in which we live today, tomorrow, or affect the way in which we think. I am forced to believe that that which defines me goes beyond that which merely placates my temporary boredom. Not to say that there is no place for popular novels. They are simply not quite the same level of Art that better works are.

I think the author of Bakku's review is expressing the same frustration that many literary-minded non-academics (and more than a few academics) are experiencing; literary academia has long perpetuated the notion that if a contemporary literary work is popular, then it can't be good literature (and genre literature is straight out). Many scholars of literature don't feel this way at all, but somehow the literary community has continued to give off this sense of what constitutes good and great literature. It has led to a backlash such as what we see in the above review. However, if the above reviewer actually believed what s/he wrote, then that person would walk into the library or bookstore blindfolded and select reading material at random.

Of course we can decide whether or not some literature is better than other literature; we won't agree in every case (e.g., some here think The Brothers Karamazov is one of the greatest novels ever written while others think it should be prescribed to insomniacs who aren't responding to medication ), but we will agree in most cases.

I agree with yitwail that the longevity of a work should be taken into account; if people continue to read it of their own free will decades, centuries or millennia after it was written, then it's probably a great work of literature (whether you personally like it or not).

Thalion, you get to the heart of what makes great literature great: what does it encompass--does it speak to the universal human experience or provide insights into human nature? Does it make you think? Add to this adept style and technique, and you've got a literary winner.

To sum up this long-winded and rambling post: yes, we can determine what is and isn't great literature with a high degree of agreement. However, with regard to contemporary literature, we must be careful who's doing the labeling.

I'm no experienced reader either... but i have to comment.

Greatness of a book can be measured in the readers that hold it great. Of course you can't measure art vs. art because there is no basis, but something different about one can grasp extraodinary interest. Then comes the greatness

The distinction of anything can be said to be illusionary. Because everything is based on perception. But to dismiss it would make everything and anything quite bland.

This statement misses an entire body of valid literary criticism of the type which analyzes narrative structure, sentence structure, metaphorical construction, economy of expression--a host of "markers," for want of a better term, which distinguish one work from another on a purely artistic basis. I earlier mentioned Poe's Fall of the House of Usher. It is, in the short story form, just about the greatest example of economy of expression--not a line of it but what tends to the conclusion of the story. Among the "classic" novels, Great Expectations is a classic of economy of expression, and from an author not noted for that characteristic. To suggest that art cannot be compared is to fall for the dodge most popular among "post modern" folks, which, with all the unnecessary verbiage removed, is that its art becaus i claim to be an artist and i produced it. Slapping oil on canvas does not automatically qualify one as an artist. Putting a collection of words on paper does not accomplish as much, either, and doing so certainly does not entitle one to have one's work compared to the likes of Poe or Dickens.

The self-appointed reviewer quoted by Bakku is mixing his/her apples and oranges. Of course there can be no accounting for individual tastes. It's perfectly OK to hate Dostoyevski and admire, say, Michner or Clavell. That is a reflection of one person's personal taste and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. When we speak of 'great literature', however, we are generally speaking of something more than personal taste. At the very least, we are speaking of concensus. Nobody says that you have to like Shakespeare. But it's difficult to deny the greatness.

I have just realized that this statement is not true. I mentioned House of Usher in a different thread. I can only plead encroaching senility.

That's ok. I liked your post anyway, and agreed with it.

I never said slapping oil on a canvas qualifies one as an artist... what i said you cannot compare art vs. art. You cannot personally compare art without referring to personal taste.

as you mentioned literary criticism of the type which analyzes narrative structure, sentence structure, metaphorical construction, economy of expression...
what makes ones use of these superior to the other? Your own perception.
Maybe you were speaking of a general opinion. in which we would agree. As i said greatness is made by those who hold it great.

Maybe i didn't make my post clear, let me rephrase it.. Merry Andrew put it much better. you alone can't truly compare arts and it be valid, because they are based on your individuality. But as Merry put, you can look at the general concensus

It's not just a matter of consensus, and it's not really a matter of personal taste. You can look at art or read literature and gauge the degree of skill or craftsmanship it took to create. While I enjoy J.K. Rowling far more than Fyodor Dostoevsky (whose work I find only slightly preferable to having teeth pulled), I recognize that Dostoevsky's work is far more intricately crafted with layers of plot and meaning. His work says much more about the universal human experience and does so masterfully. While Rowling's work is akin to a comfortable cottage on a lake, Dostoevsky's work is a masterfully designed and finely constructed mansion.