What makes a "masterpiece"?

Please give me the lengthy list you seem to be referring too.

 

You could always just google "bible paradox" or similar. Better yet, include "list" in your criteria. There's no need to discuss it here. It's derailing the thread.

 

True, it's just annoying when somebody says "so many" but only refers to one.

 

I was surprised to see the thread turn into a discussion of the Bible- how did this happen? I think the Mahabharata and The Book of the Dead were more interesting reads, but there is a lot of truly worthwhile information in the Bible. I don't think I'd use it as a guidebook to my life though.

As for classics, I think they come in a variety of shapes and forms- the Aeneid is very different than The Divine Comedy, or Paradise Lost, or Blood Meridian. I think one of the things they have in common is the quality of the writing- each of them are masterpieces from the quality of writing and thought they present- and indeed the conversations they continue to develop upon.

 

I think it depends on genre. More specifically on fantasy, there have been authors who are not the greatest writers but have the idea set down that is very catchy and awesome. So I think the main ideas in a work of fiction is what makes a good read. You can have good writing about something stupid...like ferris wheels...

 

But there's a difference between a well-written book and a classic/masterpiece. There are plenty of books that I love that will never be classics, simply because they cannot/will not be qualified as such by the people that matter (academics, critics and theorists).

 

I agree and I think works that expound upon or present the nature or great concerns of the era in which they are written, as well as those which help push the boundries of style are those most likely to be studied and classified as classics.

 

Sadly, this thread had to be closed because someone decided to turn it into a religious debate.