So, what constitutes good literature?

[Gentlemommy]

This is sparked by a conversation with a fellow HS mom.... I feel so dumb at times because I *should* know this stuff right? However, if it weren't for the various lists and recommendations of others, I really wouldn't know what it means when something is said to be Good or Great literature. What is it that makes them good? I mean, I can name some books that are or aren't, but I don't know what makes them so.

Can anyone clear this up? I'd like to be able to go to the library or bookstore and find good literature on my own, kwim?

Edited May 1, 2012 by Gentlemommy

[Hunter]

This is going to be a great thread! :lol:

 

Gentlemommy you are NOT dumb!!!!

 

This is going to be entertaining. :lol:

[morosophe]

As a lit major, I am finding far too many things to say. Since I doubt you really want a ten-page discourse, I'll try to give you my simple answer.

 

Here's what determines whether a piece of literature is "good": What is it communicating, and how well does it communicate it? For nonfiction, this could be, how well does it present its evidence or make its case? For fiction, however, the question usually becomes, how well does the piece draw the reader in?

 

This quickly leads to the question everybody seems to hear when thinking of "good literature": Did you like it? Note that this is not actually the same question. There have been several books that I have *hated* that I have had to concede were "well-written." Often, this has been a problem with the reader (i.e., me); sometimes, it's because the answer to question #1 up there has been unsatisfactory to me. Funny how much easier it is to dislike something when you fundamentally disagree with it, no matter how technically perfect it is.

 

Similarly, guilty pleasures, like, say, most "beach reading"--romance novels; Tom Clancy; Nancy Drew, or Hardy Boys for the kids; the other varied descendants of the "pulp novel"--are not usually considered good, no matter how much they are liked.*

 

However, the definition of an engaging author is that readers are engaged: they want to learn what happens to the characters, or read more about the setting, or enjoy the use of language, etc. And that's usually the kind of thing people discuss when talking about "good literature." Unfortunately, this is also where there's the most disputation: what is liked in literature, or in any art, varies from person to person, as people have been pointing out since the dawn of time. (Do you prefer the proverb, "For each mouth, a different soup," or "A different man, a different taste," or "De gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum"?)

 

But when you have found reading something to be a profitable use of your time and agree with it enough that you think others should read it; when you are able to eagerly recommend a book (or poem, or movie, etc.) to a friend with a clear conscience; then, what you are really saying is: This is good literature. I agree with what it says, and I love how it says it. Or, as my lit profs might hunt me up for forgetting if I didn't include: It raises some important questions. It still has me pondering it. (Because otherwise, it could sound like you'd have to fully understand a piece of art to find it "good," and nothing is further from the truth. By the way, this is one of my husband's criteria for good movies: if he dismissed it years ago, but still catches himself occasionally pondering it, it means that it engaged him way more than he had realized.)

 

And when a lot of different people can agree, despite their different tastes, that something is good and should be read by others, that's usually agreed to be as close to an objective opinion as we can get as to how good something is. (Hey, this is where the "beach reading" above falls down: What does your father think of Danielle Steele? Have you ever tried rereading Nancy Drew as an adult? Blech!) And when even more people agree that something is good by liking it over a long period of time, it's even more likely that not only is the piece engaging, it speaks to some fundamental truths (whether asking questions or answering them) of human existence. This is what we refer to as "classics."

 

So, in modern day parlance, if something gets four stars from 450 reviewers on Amazon, and it has loads of editions with copyright dates ranging over decades, it's pretty much a surefire winner.

 

Now, the whole "Good" versus "Great" debate--I'll leave that to others. :p

 

*Note that some items in genres of the type I would consider "beach reading" have managed to appeal to more readers than those of that genre and even stay popular over time, such as Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (a member of the "Gothic Romance" school of pre-pulp fiction) or Raymond Chandler's works.

[5LittleMonkeys]

Two sites here and here, that might give you some insight.

[Roadrunner]

I think good literature stays with you. You find yourself thinking about those books long after reading them.

[shann]

My edited for time and space :lol: opinion is

Good literature is:

-Well written

Grammatically correct or appropriate for character. Not repetitive, well chosen and crafted words/sentences. You can tell the difference when someone simply poured all their thoughts out on a page vs when someone thought and thought and edited until they honed their words down to the perfect combination. No trite writing, characters, or events

-Believable

The world and characters created should follow the author own rules and not disengage the reader from the text.

-Well plotted

Enough setting and detail to add depth but a quick enough plot to maintain interest

-Thought provoking

 

Great literature is all this plus at its center are universal human themes. Not themes that a limited audience can relate to such as: Single girl in the city. Rather themes that all people across nationalities, circumstance, and centuries can closely relate to and feel the Truth of.

[morosophe]

My edited for time and space :lol: opinion is

 

And boy, did you do such a better job editing than I did!

 

Good literature is:

<cut stuff> Not repetitive...

 

I actually have to take a little bit of issue with this, although I love the rest of your list. It all depends upon how something is repetitive. Repetition can be a poetic or rhetorical technique, also known as anaphora; like other poetic techniques, it can be used profitably in prose, as well.

 

In ancient oral cultures, repetition was used a lot for mnemonic reasons, and I don't think anyone can deny that the pieces we have from, say, Homer still qualify as "good" or even "great," by your definition.

 

So, to clarify: it depends why the repetition is there and what effect it has, whether it makes for bad literature.

 

I'll finish with an example of one of the most famous and stirring uses of anaphora in the modern day:

 

"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

 

(Winston Churchill, speech to the House of Commons, June 4, 1940)

 

(copied straight from http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/anaphora.htm, where the italics were added to highlight the phrase being repeated. The other fascinating thing about this passage is that it's mostly in good, solid, short, if choppy, Anglo-Saxon words; you can almost feel your teeth baring as you speak it. That final phrase, indicating what is being rejected, is of smoothly-flowing French origin. Sorry, the lit major in me comes out sometimes!)

Edited May 2, 2012 by morosophe

[shann]

I actually have to take a little bit of issue with this, although I love the rest of your list. It all depends upon how something is repetitive. Repetition can be a poetic or rhetorical technique, also known as anaphora; like other poetic techniques, it can be used profitably in prose, as well.

 

"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

 

(Winston Churchill, speech to the House of Commons, June 4, 1940)

 

 

Beautiful quote!

Yes, purposeful repetition can be beautiful and powerful. I didn't express myself well regarding that. I meant when an author...accidentally keeps saying the same things over and over again, just in different words. It was a point made by William Zinsser in On Writing Well that really stuck with me. I always edit my writing now to eliminate sentences that have already been said, especially if I said it better in another sentence.

Not sure if that made any more sense :tongue_smilie:

[morosophe]

Beautiful quote!

 

Isn't it?

 

Yes, purposeful repetition can be beautiful and powerful. I didn't express myself well regarding that. I meant when an author...accidentally keeps saying the same things over and over again, just in different words. It was a point made by William Zinsser in On Writing Well that really stuck with me. I always edit my writing now to eliminate sentences that have already been said, especially if I said it better in another sentence.

Not sure if that made any more sense :tongue_smilie:

 

Absolutely! "Self-help" and "inspirational" books can be horrible this way. Sometimes I've wondered if the original author ever even reread anything, or just typed it out in a NaNoWriMo rush and self-published it.

 

Anytime you can cut verbiage without losing content or emotional appeal, your work is all the better. I certainly can't deny that!

[Riverland]

I'm so glad I opened this thread. These are some great responses on a subject I didn't think would interest me. Thanks, ladies.