What is Good Literature?

Lord of Light

Lord of Light

New member
This is something that has bugged me quite often. The so-called "good literature" of today tends to be books such as Isaac Asimov's Nightfall, and even To Kill a Mockingbird, which the author's name escapes me right now...
I realize everyone has their own tastes of literature. However, what MAKES literature good? Well, it seems that has quite often been forgotten. I'll tell you what I mean. To Kill a Mockingbird was put on the top 100 list in the world. Well, is it all that good of a book? Quite frankly, no, its not. Yes, its been rated so by hundreds of CRITICS, who I must say, I'm very disappointed with, and they say its one of the best. But why is it not? Because it fails to do that which good literature should do. Good literature should first off, in the first few paragraphs, capture the attention of the reader. About 1300 out of 1500 books I've read failed to do so. Its not because of me being picky, believe me. But there are certain elements that critics have forgotten to look for.

I will finish this post tomorrow morning, so don't jump to conclusions, please allow me to finish.
 
I graciously allow you to finish. Yet whilst doing so, I remind you of a Fox News discussion where someone said "They often use the Nobel Peace Prize" to scourge a nation such as China. You know, choosing the dissident that went to prison for opposing whatever government is currently hated most. And I recall how many years ago there was a terrible scandal in Miss Universe when judges were overheard in their hotel room discussing who needed to win to promote international relations.

Do critics promote books that further their personal feelings on social justice, politics, and personal freedoms? Yes, they do. To Kill a Mockingbird was all about how one courageous white lawyer (I know...courageous and lawyer in the same sentence) defended an unjustly accused black man in a southern town.

Look at how much attention was garnered by "An Inconvenient Truth," that film by Al Gore about climate change. Hollywood was definitely making a political statement with the Academy Award. You know and I know that Al Gore can't be better than Al Pacino or Gore Vidal (pun intended).

And this is not a modern phenomenon. Look at Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe. It became an overnight success...in the North...because it dealt with a harsh taskmaster and his lowly, meek slave. And this in the years leading up to the American Civil War. Have YOU ever read Uncle Tom's Cabin? I can safely say no, you haven't. As literature it's a collection of cliches, bad attempts at suspense and drama, and old stereotypes about blacks. Even though it is sympathetic toward blacks, it is too much to read through all the watermellon eating and how Little Eva "done growed like Topsy." Yes, I have read it, and it left me scarred for life....

Now, I await the end of your first post.
 
I think the only judge of good literature is time. That which survives the test of time, and influences other writers, is good.

This is not the same thing as literature which makes the "trendy" list and is thus promoted by English teachers and Lit professors. My kids joke about the "approved" list, which includes books like Catcher in the Rye, Lord of the Flies, Grapes of Wrathand Heart of Darkness. All of these are supposed to make Significant Social Statements, yet I doubt any of them will still be read by the third decade of the 21st century (even now, I suspect that their major market is schools and college bookstores, due to their placement on required reading lists.)

I remember the sputtering furor by the English intelligentsia when a popular poll of British readers identified The Lord of the Rings as the greatest work of literature in the 20th century. But...hobbits? Wizards? Where was Virginia Woolf, or James Joyce, or Ezra Pound? You don't mean to say that those literary giants were eclipsed by a fairy tale!? Indeed it did. The opinions of literary critics pass and fade, but good literature endures on its own merits.
 
I thank both of you for your input, and now that I'm awake, I will continue my first post. You are very much right EveningStar, when you say they look at the theme to determine whether its good or not, and Prince, I agree, truely the only good judge of literature is time. Now, who these books are read by, that's a bit of a different matter. For example, Catcher in the Rye, which I've read myself, had quite a bit of language in it, and yet we expect youth to read it, basically influencing them to use that language themselves.(except nowadays all they have to do is turn on the TV) So frankly, I believe that it is quite often forgotten that, just because critics say a book is good literature, say for example, Nightfall, by Isaac Asimov, and they then expect youth to read it in their high school reading class, then they are exposing them to things that could influence them in a very bad way. In this book, there was inappropriatness, which I will not even begin to describe, and it, quite frankly, was to strange to believe. I realize it was written as a Sci-Fi book, but quite frankly, Asimov went to much Sci-Fi and forgot to keep at least a little realism.

I know we all have our own opinions as to what are good books, and some of us won't even pick some books up due to our beliefs. For example, many people have read the Harry Potter series. I've chosen not to, because I feel it very much goes against what I believe. Now, I understand the controversy surrounding the Harry Potter series' magic and the Lord of the Rings trilogy magic, but I would prefer if that stayed out of this thread.

So, in due time, what will remain good literature? And WHY should it be so?
 
Well, trying to guess what literature will stand the test of time and ultimately be judged "good" is the challenge, isn't it?

I think the "why" is that truly good literature taps into the universal themes of human existence, and will strike a chord with everyone everywhere. Literature that is more a reflection of the outlook of a particular artist in a certain time and place tends to be faddish and fall into obscurity. For instance, even though the setting of Huckleberry Finn was the American antebellum South, the themes found in the work are timeless, reflecting facets of human struggle and triumph throughout time. In this way they are like Shakespeare, whose works transcend the Elizabethan time he wrote from. These works will remain classics (as, I believe, will The Lord of the Rings and the Chronicles of Narnia.)

On the other hand, authors like Tom Clancy, David Weber, and Terry Brooks will pass away in time, for they're tied too much to their periods (as, for example, Rider Haggard has). The same has been true for the avant garde authors so lionized in the early 20th century (the ones who Lewis identified as "Clevers" in his classic Pilgrim's Regress.)

Time alone will tell what books will become classics, though if you read enough of them, you get a taste for them. Being required or recommended reading in a Lit course does not qualify it. A good measure is that books which people want to read over and over are good candidates. For instance, I've read the Chronicles more times than I can count, and enjoyed works like Huck Finn several times, but I only read Heart of Darkness once, and that as a discipline to see what all the fuss was about. I'll never open it again - it's an "artificial classic", whose "popularity" is solely due to the pressure of English teachers who want book reports.
 
Ah, the joy that is curriculum development...POTW has summed up what I would answer, but I will add a few comments. Qualifications? Well, I'm related to three college English professors ;).

Many of you know that I taught English in the public school system (seventh grade and seniors, mostly). I've always told my students what I would tell even a published author: the ideas are what counts. You can have the most perfectly spelled and punctuated writing imaginable, but if you don't say much of anything it won't be worth reading.

Good literature /should/ speak to universal themes; that's why it passes the test of time and why the "Gossip Girl" novels will be out of print while people are still reading Lord of the Rings. As a species, we humans are incredibly self-centered, and we're interested in...that's right, ourselves. Literature, art, and even music ought to tell us about who we are, where we've been, and where we're going. That becomes much harder to do in a day and age that doesn't believe those sorts of universal truths are possible.

That's not to say that good literature which will stand the test of time doesn't also reflect the time in which it was written. That's one statement of POTW's that I'd like to qualify. Literature is not written in a vacuum, and thus it will inevitably highlight some of the mores of the culture it came out of. Thus, good literature can stand as a primary source. However, as POTW mentions, if an author is /too/ tied to their own place and time, they won't address those universal questions that worthwhile literature wrestles with.

When I was taking my Research Methods class for my MA in Literature, one of my classmates did her semester project on the Nancy Drew series. She traced all of the revisions that had been made just in the 50 years the series had been around: everything from the type of car Nancy drove to the terms used to refer to characters of different races. Talk about not standing the test of time; you'd be amazed what had to be changed already.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Light said:
This is something that has bugged me quite often. The so-called "good literature" of today tends to be books such as Isaac Asimov's Nightfall, and even To Kill a Mockingbird, which the author's name escapes me right now...
I realize everyone has their own tastes of literature. However, what MAKES literature good? Well, it seems that has quite often been forgotten. I'll tell you what I mean. To Kill a Mockingbird was put on the top 100 list in the world. Well, is it all that good of a book? Quite frankly, no, its not. Yes, its been rated so by hundreds of CRITICS, who I must say, I'm very disappointed with, and they say its one of the best. But why is it not? Because it fails to do that which good literature should do. Good literature should first off, in the first few paragraphs, capture the attention of the reader. About 1300 out of 1500 books I've read failed to do so. Its not because of me being picky, believe me. But there are certain elements that critics have forgotten to look for.

I will finish this post tomorrow morning, so don't jump to conclusions, please allow me to finish.
Click to expand...

I consider good litterature like old litterature, like Jane Awston, don't know if I spell it right, CS Lewis obviously :p old French like Zola, Moliere, Corneille, Racine, Victor Hugo ... New litterature has a different style, it can be good, but I love old litterature :D
 
PrinceOfTheWest said:
I remember the sputtering furor by the English intelligentsia when a popular poll of British readers identified The Lord of the Rings as the greatest work of literature in the 20th century. But...hobbits? Wizards? Where was Virginia Woolf, or James Joyce, or Ezra Pound? You don't mean to say that those literary giants were eclipsed by a fairy tale!? Indeed it did. The opinions of literary critics pass and fade, but good literature endures on its own merits.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Not only that but on another list from the British Library Associates the top THREE where LOTR by JRR Tolkien, Pride&Prejuidice by Jane Austen and David Copperfield by Charles Dickens, all three of them are poo-pood by the Literary snobs as A.) Tolkien, to 'trendy, and it is a "fantasy" world. B.) Jane Austen is essentially the backbone for almost single chick-flick in existence taht about sums their views of her. C.) Dickens is seen as too "sentimental" and cliche.

I only read the lies of Woolf, Joyce or Pound in my college lit coruses but did I enjoy them? no. Same was true with Heart of Darkness, actually it put me to sleep. I enjoyed Haggard's King Solomons Mines though. I thought it was a fun adventure story, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Surpisingly when I was in Barnes & Noble sometime ago I was looking through the sci-fi section I saw that they now have editions of Edgar Rice Burroughs "Legends of Tarzan" and "John Carter of Mars" complete with "scholarly' essays," "critical examinations" and "recommedned further readings" ( some which are like recommending Tofu when you order a steak.) Burroughs is far from what the literary intelligensia would consider "great works of fiction" they were the serialized stories of the pulp magazines. Yet there is something about the "romantic" depiction of John Carter's Mars ( or Barsoom as he called it) that still so thrilling ,even after we have launched probs to Mars that "stays" with us.
 
Lord of Light said:
To Kill a Mockingbird was put on the top 100 list in the world. Well, is it all that good of a book? Quite frankly, no, its not. Yes, its been rated so by hundreds of CRITICS, who I must say, I'm very disappointed with, and they say its one of the best. But why is it not? Because it fails to do that which good literature should do. Good literature should first off, in the first few paragraphs, capture the attention of the reader. About 1300 out of 1500 books I've read failed to do so. Its not because of me being picky, believe me. But there are certain elements that critics have forgotten to look for.
Click to expand...

:eek: Well,to me "To Kill A Mockingbird" is one of the best stories ever written.I've always envied Harper Lee her simple,yet eloquent style that is so incredibly realistic and amazing,capturing the "feel" of the 30s deep South.Everything..from Scout's observations to Tom Robinson's tradgety just oozes realism,and aches with the evils of prejudice.
Sorry..just had to say all that.I guess you can tell I love it:p

However,I have read that Lord of the Rings is also considered one of the best books ever,and I greatly disliked it(I love the movies though).Although Tolkien did a good job creating a different world,I think he failed artistically to write a good story.He gets so tangled up in words,that it takes forever to get to the point.:eek:

I was taught in school that good literature is a book that "stands the test of time",and teaches something that all generations can relate to.
Anyway,just my 2 cents(no insult meant to anyone);)
 
My books will stand the test of time. I've buried a few of them in a time capsule... :D
 
DaydreamBeliever said:
:eek: Well,to me "To Kill A Mockingbird" is one of the best stories ever written.I've always envied Harper Lee her simple,yet eloquent style that is so incredibly realistic and amazing,capturing the "feel" of the 30s deep South.Everything..from Scout's observations to Tom Robinson's tradgety just oozes realism,and aches with the evils of prejudice.
Sorry..just had to say all that.I guess you can tell I love it:p

However,I have read that Lord of the Rings is also considered one of the best books ever,and I greatly disliked it(I love the movies though).Although Tolkien did a good job creating a different world,I think he failed artistically to write a good story.He gets so tangled up in words,that it takes forever to get to the point.:eek:

I was taught in school that good literature is a book that "stands the test of time",and teaches something that all generations can relate to.
Anyway,just my 2 cents(no insult meant to anyone);)
Click to expand...
I agree with Believer except for the comments about LOTR, which I find to be very great literature -- it has the advantage over To Kill a MockingBird in that it is not related specifically to any human time period, so it doesn't have that to overcome. But I think MockingBird, which takes place in the period when JRRT was writing LOTR in some ways reflects the same themes: that goodness only triumphs when good people are willing to risk everything for it ...

And yah, good literature has to speak to universal themes which can appeal to anyone, in any generation. And I will add, to me it also has to speak to those themes in a way which affirms life and goodness. They say Machiavelli's The Prince is a classic, but if it is so, it is only in that he describes how not to behave -- like a satire. I know that's not how M intended it, but I don't think anything which treats of universal themes in an evil way can be "good" literature.
 
I think that one reason I dislike some of what is called good literature, is that as a writer myself, I've begun to recognize flaws of different authors. I won't tell what those flaws are, because then I could really start a debate, especially since some of them are renowned authors. I won't even mention their names for that matter. But these flaws in the writing tend to do several things, to various people, such as lose the reader's attention, become disheartened and put the book down. Seeing flaws in another writers work can be somewhat amusing(but rather frustrating if the person is dead:rolleyes:), but all it does is encourage me to help others write as best as they can.
 
I wonder if we can honestly say that there is objectively good literature. I mean, Catcher in the Rye is, supposedly, a seminal work whose influence will resonate through its literary antecedents, and I can see why, when it was written, it was thought to be so - it gave a unique insight into the mind of a socially-isolated (or so the kid thought) adolescent at a point in time when teenagers didn't really exist - but now there are much better, much more enjoyable coming-of-age novels, where the characters are much easier to sympathise with.

But then, if we define it as stuff that has universal themes which appeal on some level to everyone, then I suppose that a lot of it exists. Shakespeare, for instance - even if you don't enjoy the language he uses, the plots are magnificent. But in that case, is it good literature? Or just good thought behind the literature?

I'm starting to lose track of my argument (small as it was) now, so I think I'm going to go away and have some food.
 
doctor fortunati said:
I wonder if we can honestly say that there is objectively good literature. I mean, Catcher in the Rye is, supposedly, a seminal work whose influence will resonate through its literary antecedents, and I can see why, when it was written, it was thought to be so - it gave a unique insight into the mind of a socially-isolated (or so the kid thought) adolescent at a point in time when teenagers didn't really exist - but now there are much better, much more enjoyable coming-of-age novels, where the characters are much easier to sympathise with.

But then, if we define it as stuff that has universal themes which appeal on some level to everyone, then I suppose that a lot of it exists. Shakespeare, for instance - even if you don't enjoy the language he uses, the plots are magnificent. But in that case, is it good literature? Or just good thought behind the literature?

I'm starting to lose track of my argument (small as it was) now, so I think I'm going to go away and have some food.
Click to expand...

That depends on what you are meaning. if you mean the likes of say Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn, then yes, I agree. I enjoyed the stories of Mark Twain far more then Catcher in the Rye. However if you mean say the books inspired by things like Gossip Girl, then I disagree. Most modern teen lit, especially when inspired TV shows is more angst ridden then Holden ever was. At least he beleived there was some good in this world worth preserving.

I think it's both in terms of the literature and the ideas. You can't have a good story with out good ideas, but you can also have a good story without good ideas. I think that's what makes Great Literature different. It has both good ideas and a good story.
 
Back
Top