it There are lots of people who completely loved this book who would disagree. Who are we to say they are wrong? I've never read it, but my guess is that many people find it immensely entertaining.
Spelling, grammar, sentence structure, etc - those are things that can be looked at objectively because there are rules and a correct form. But that's only one part of what makes a book 'good'. I'm not sure what you mean by technical 'functions' - a book functions to entertain or inform, I suppose, but whether or not it actually does that is, again, subjective.
On what grounds? Are they claiming that it's a great work of literature, or are they simply saying they enjoyed it? Are they just saying they liked it better than the other six books they've read in their lives? Sorry, but maybe at some point we have to discuss who the readers are and why they think a book is good. I don't mean to offend anyone. I didn't start this thread because I wanted to assert a set of literary values. I started it because I really want to understand why certain books are considered great and certain others, including big bestsellers, are considered (by most critics, at least) garbage. We're ... us. We have as much right to say they're wrong as they have to say they're right, so long as this is just a matter of opinion. That's what I'm trying to get at: Is this just a matter of opinion? Or is there some objective standard we can use to say THEY'RE right and WE'RE wrong and we should damn well change our minds because our opinions are demonstrably incorrect? Many people find pornography entertaining, too, but does that mean it's great literature? I don't think so, and my guess is that most people who like pornography and find it entertaining would agree that it's not great literature. So what IS great literature?
There seems to be some discordance in what you say here. "The other six books they've read" isn't meant to offend anyone? Really?
Overall, I agree with your position, Minstrel. My reply was to the post that asserted we can objectively determine that Twilight is officially bad. And I just don't know that we can really dismiss anything so easily. I posted earlier that I think what most people are seeking from books are: Entertainment, Education, and Enlightenment. It didn't seem to resonate with anyone, which is fine, because it's really just a random thought. But, (here I go bringing it up again, so take this FWIW), I suspect that for the bestsellers the most important aspect is Entertainment. I think for critically acclaimed novels, the most important would be Enlightenment. I think critics like books that make them nod in agreement or think 'yes - I never thought of it that way," or somehow otherwise make them think deeply about some subject. Not everyone likes to engage in or appreciates rumination, although I suspect that writing critics and writers tend to enjoy it at a higher frequency than does the general populace. But everyone likes to be entertained. So to have the broadest appeal, stories with more of an emphasis on entertainment, rather than enlightenment are going to sell better.
I dont see it as offensive but a sad truth, if i showed you sketches of some machine would that make you an expert on it? Not saying we are experts but we all had that book when we were younger that we enjoyed and thought it a masterpiece but years later after we read lots of other books and pick that book we start to notice errors in it and stuff we never saw in it before. I got a friend that i never saw mention a book in his life, even in school unless forced to read something he wouldnt pick it up, one day he came to me and told me he started to read "Da Vinci code" and he was amazed by it and he loved it so much he still does, and i thought it must be an amazing book that made you pick it up, for me it was an interesting idea but a cheap shot that the writer knew what would sell, but give it couple of decades and it probably wont even be remembered.
Side note: these are not mutually exclusive conditions I think the problems lies, not in the qualifying of objective standards, but in the subjective weighting of these standards. What matters to you more as a reader is not the same as what motivates other readers. For some, the drive of a story can easily outweigh even the poorest writing; for others, trying to drag through poor punctuation and repetitive structure are just too much to bear, no matter how good the premise was.
I feel embarrassed to have to even point this out, but "good" is not an objective word. "Sophisticated"? sure. "Healthy"? Sure. "Profound"? Yes. McDonalds, to use a non-sensitive example, is not objectively bad. Poor tasting? Yes. Unhealthy? Yes. Low class? I'd say that too. But someone with bad taste, who is either cheap, poor, uneducated, or just doesn't care, might love McDonalds. If everyone can agree that unhealthy food is bad for you, then sure, we can just say McDonalds is bad, as long as health is the standard. The same goes for easy novels. However, that's a decision that everyone has to agree on first, and unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. As I mentioned in the previous thread, the best you can hope for is to point out specific parts of whatever piece it is you want to judge, and explain exactly what it is you like or dislike. For instance, the vocabulary is very basic. Fair point. Can't argue. The writing is extremely repetitive. He uses the same noun ten times in one page! Of course, all these observations can be defended, but I think the greatest thing about literature applies to this as well, which is everything is open for interpretation.
Nothing you state here shows why the "six books" statement was not offensive. You state that 1) perception of quality can change with age - which indicates objectivity is not part of the equation; 2) you present anecdotal evidence of one person you know - again, hardly an indication that everyone who likes that particular book is poorly read in general.
I would say that even "healthy" and "profound" are not objective. And your McDonalds example is just another example of the "I don't like it so anyone who does is so much lesser than I as a person" mentality. I just see this whole discussion as trying to find a way to pat ourselves on the back for liking a particular book/author, and kicking the people who like something we can't stand.
you got 1 wrong... didnt say it was by age but by the time we read lots of other books 2. no were did i say all fans of that book are the same
I really don't understand the argument that just because something is popular it is therefore good. For example, if this post was loved by all, and then if I was to print off copies of this post and every single person on earth bought one, and it continued to be read long after I had died, would this post be a better piece of literature than Dante's Divine Comedy? I'll admit it, I do think there are some works that are better than others. I think the life's work of Thomas Pynchon, say, is much better than the life's work of Tess Gerritsen. If that makes me a literary snob then, fine.
My 'argument' is more along the lines that just because you (generic you) don't like something doesn't mean those who do are morons. And that's what I'm seeing frequently on discussions of 'literary quality'. It just comes across as an excuse to massage egos by insulting those who don't agree with our tastes.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder Having read the various posts in this thread I have to say that it appears to me be one of those questions which can never be answered satisfactorily. Firstly we all have our own preferences as regard genre etc. Secondly our expectations vary widely and thirdly the I.Q. required to read some of universally acknowledged great literature is beyond many people. By this I don't mean to offend anyone in any way shape or form. I am simply stating a fact. That is also not to say my own I.Q. is anything out of the ordinary. The 'popular' writers of best sellers have however found a formula that works for them and if that involves catering to the lowest common denominator then who are we to criticize.
Ah, then you'll have to forgive an honest misunderstanding (I've not had a cup of coffee today), and I do agree with you. But saying that, there has been a number of things that I've not really cared for but do recognize the value in, it's just not to my 'tastes'. For me it does go two ways. I don't like to think I look down on anyone for liking certain books I personally consider doggerel. Hell, at least it means they are reading. I really don't like the Harry Potter series, but I have no problem with people liking the series so long as they also have no problem with me not liking the series. That's really my only rule to be perfectly honest.
Another thing I'd like to add. I value others' opinions, but that depends on how much they read and know about literature in general. For example, I may not agree with everything Harold Bloom says, but he's extremely well-read, and I tend to value his opinion more than your average well-read reader. Elaborating on what I said before, one of the reasons people in academia get to decide what's "good" (i.e., suitable for discussion/analysis) is because of the sheer number of works they've been exposed to and have discussed with other well-read people. In my eyes, someone who has been exposed to that much literature is a little more qualified to decide what is worthy of discussion and what isn't.
You've made several posts since I last posted, and, while I respect your opinion, I can't respond to each of them individually. But it seems to me that you misunderstood what I'm trying to do with this thread. I am NOT trying to pat myself on the back for liking a particular book, and I am CERTAINLY not trying to kick people who like books I don't. I'm trying to figure out whether there are standards by which we can ALL agree that a given book is good or bad. I really didn't mean any offense when I made that "six books" comment a few posts ago. I was simply acknowledging that many of the people who like "Twilight" (for example) may not have read many books, and therefore, even if they're very bright, don't have the context required to properly evaluate the book. That's not an insult to them, it just means they haven't read many books. I know and respect a lot of very smart people who haven't read many books. I have an uncle who's one of the most intelligent, sanest, wisest men I've ever met, and I love him dearly, but he's not a reader - he likes to restore old sports cars. I don't know what he'd think of "Twilight" or any other book, but if he liked it, I certainly wouldn't hold it against him or think less of him. I'm trying to ascertain whether we can measure things like depth of character, complexity of plot, and (mostly) resonance of theme.
Would you still value his opinion? Or rather, would you value it as much as an opinion from someone who reads a lot?
But is that a valid assumption? Or just one you've come to because you don't understand why they like it? Is it based on their being younger people (teens)? Because I can assure you that as a teen, I (and most of the people I hung around with) were voracious readers - and yes, we read "tawdry romances" as well as Dickens. Perhaps, instead of pointing out specific books and making comments about the people who read them, it would be more productive to stick to discussing what we, as individuals, define as 'quality literature'. I'm pretty sure there won't be a consensus (as someone else mentioned, I believe, that even common items will be assigned different priorities), and thus there won't be any way of deciding what 'objective quality markers' are, but at least it would get away from the judging of readers and/or focusing on certain authors.
There's more than one dimension involved. Would I value his opinion? Certainly. Would I regard it as informed opinion? No. I would take his opinion for what it's worth, and that means I have to know him and his character, and also to know myself - what does his opinion mean to me? If I compare his opinion to someone else's, I have to take that person's character into account, too. I'm not sure I can easily articulate what I'm after here, but it involves the following: 1) Depth of character. Do the characters seem like real people, dealing with realistic situations, even if those situations are in a fantasy universe? Or do they just seem like nothing, like labels floating across the pages, puppets being forced to enact certain events dictated by the plot? 2) Theme. Is there a meaning to this work that I can't get from a three-sentence blurb on the back of the book? Is there a psychological residue that will keep me thinking about this for months or years after I finish reading it? Or is it just popcorn, a nothing that disappears from my consciousness as soon as I close the book? 3) Complexity. Does this story challenge me? Does it make me work my brain in order to follow how the events and scenes relate to each other? Do I feel, when I close the book, like I've won something? Some writers play chess and others play tic-tac-toe. I'd rather read the chess players.
Why does it sound to me all your post are like baiting? Dont see you putting much constructive arguments to the thread just misunderstanding most the posts here and making debates on those assumptions.
When I was a kid I was a voracious reader, too. I didn't read "tawdry romances", but I did read a ton and a half of "tawdry science fiction." Please understand that I'm not trying to "judge" readers or certain authors. I'm not trying to say certain people are valuable and others are not. Heck, I'm a liberal Canadian, and that sort of thing goes against the grain for me! What I'm trying to do in this thread is to find out if there is such a thing as 'quality literature', as you say above. I believe there is, but I'm trying to get an idea of how we can make that determination. I hope it's possible to do this, and to discuss it, without feeling like we're insulting anybody.
Personally, I probably hold a different view than most people on this forum. I think that serious literature is a waste of time (as serious literature). I've read quite a few serious literary works and, while I value them, I do not value their literary content. Rather, I value their escapist elements; the ability of the author to entertain me through creativity, plot and characters. Through this lens, I only care for characters, theme and complexity insofar as they are able to entertain me. Evaluating a work based on your criteria, for it's own sake, would be a sufficient waste of time, yielding results which I would not consider worth a damn. Rather than your method, I would indulge in evaluating a work based on how much entertainment it afforded me, and in that sense it cannot (yet) be judged scientifically. Remember: aesthetics are not determined by God, or some other sort of higher power, they are determined by the elaborations of primordial human drives. Consider conflict, we do not take interest in it because it is of intrinsic value, we take interest in it because our instincts evolved in such a way that conflict would peak our interests. Conflict, a literary essence, is simply an ingredient of our monkey ancestors' million year struggle with hungry lions. My suggestion, is that you should forego your attempt at reducing literature to a science (for now). Some day, science will have evolved to the point where it can determine aesthetic value by measuring the foxtrot of our minds. Until then, we will have to suffer the horrible egotistical curse of subjectivity.
You're right in your second paragraph. Spewing these sort of sentiments is just stroking the ego, but that doesn't mean the sentiment isn't correct. Next time the doctor tells you you're unhealthy, you go ahead and tell him that's not an objective term. Something profound excites the brain more than something that is not. That is objective. You could argue that different people will be equally excited by different things, but likewise I could argue that some things exercise all (or most) people's minds more than other things do (just like running will exercise the body more than sitting on a couch), and we could run experiments to prove that. Until we do, either of us could be right or wrong. As for McDonalds, you assumed I didn't like it. I simply said it is unhealthy (fact), poor tasting (compared to afresh prime rib, yes, it is poor tasting),and low class (you won't find McDonalds quality food in a 5 star restaurant). Not all qualities exist in equal measure. The whole "everything is subjective" argument is very silly.
