What defines good literature?

So only that which remains timeless and universal goes on to be considered literature?

 

Canonical literature.

 

I don't see how you can limit the use of such a common word to such an uncommon category.

• 
  1. written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit.
  (by whom, exactly?)
  2. books and writings published on a particular subject.
  (regardless of literary merit)
  3. leaflets and other printed matter used to advertise products or give advice.
  (campaign literature, for example, is mercifully short-lived)

That tells us very little about defining what's "good" in literature. Besides, how do we know what's timeless, when we ourselves, our tastes and concerns, even our great social upheavals, are so fleeting? As for 'universal', there can be no such thing. Only quite recently have we even had access to the literature of other cultures, and we can have only the vaguest idea of what influenced those cultures through their own greatness, rather than through the political direction of their times, and no idea at all of what's disappeared in the flip-flop of empires on other continents.
Some excellent material is always lost or destroyed and some crap is always retained, even enshrined, by the preference of the selectors (however they get on the committee).
As for a literary canon, it's selected in hind-sight (again, by a self-appointed elite) as having been influential on a recent period or current culture. Or, of course as belonging to a specified domain, such as Christian or Shakespearean writings - in which case the limping pedestrian gets shuffled in with the lyrical flights.
Both of those selection processes are fine, as far as they go, but the committee of the next generation will re-shuffle the contents, toss a few, add a few...
Literature is forever incomplete.

 

It is difficult to justify the idea that any piece of literature can be better than any other. However, simply saying "it's all subjective" doesn't solve the problem either. It still stands that we're here, on this forum, to improve. Improvement is meaningless if it's all subjective. Perhaps some of us don't want to "get better". Perhaps some are just here for a laugh. Fair enough. But something just doesn't sit right about throwing ones hands in the air. It feels to much like "over-fitting the data" or confusing "the map with the territory".

 

The notion of subjectivity is generally quite trite.

 

Quite so. We are constantly balancing between academic criteria and personal taste. No, it's even more complicated, we have to weigh academic criteria (the relatively constant requirements of literature) and cultural mores (what is acceptable in public discourse) and societal circumstances (what pivotal events and concerns are reflected in the literature) and personal taste.
Plus, it has to hold the reader's attention long enough to convey its message.

 

I would argue there's a fifth variable in there... something even the aliens might understand. Or at least, that's what I was trying to say.

 

I think trying to pinpoint a collective agreement on what is ‘literature’ is akin to trying to pinpoint a collective agreement on what is ‘art’. It is a constantly moving target and the variables are endless. It changes with time and culture. It can be something that withstands the test of time for certain, but it can also just be something of importance today that maybe is less important tomorrow.
I think really in my mind it comes down to quality and effectiveness. Not simply being entertained by the story and execution, but being changed in my core by it! Does the writing bring the interested reader into exactly what was intended by the author? Does it make you actually ‘feel’ and not just ‘escape’? Do you experience the entire range of emotion throughout the experience? Do you connect with the characters in a way like you believe them to be right there beside you? Can you hear, touch, smell, taste and feel virtually every aspect of the story?
To me that is true literature! I can be entertained by a fun read, but often once done I move on and don’t really think to much about it later, but if I am a new person once finished, it will always hold a place on my bookshelf.

 

Sure. It's easy. Mark Twain did it over a hundred years ago:

“A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read.”

 

I wonder whether he would say that now that his work is considered classic - at least enough for people to argue as to whether it ought to be censored, revised and given to innocent schoolchildren to read.
I guess how we know whether a work of art qualifies: somebody wants to reproduce it by the millions and somebody wants to put a diaper on it.

I'm only half facetious (as was Mark Twain). There may be good literature that doesn't become classic, and classics that aren't good literature. But if something goes on stirring up controversy, it must have significance.

 

Maybe instead of "nobody wants to read" it's sometimes "nobody wants other people to read."

Twain himself never intended to put himself in the category of literature. He said, "My books are like water; those of the great geniuses are wine. But everybody drinks water."

 

And yet....
That's just it. If you have something important to teach people, and you have a facility in the use of language and can couch your lesson in the form of stories, your work may survive, whether it's popular or unpopular in your own time.

Actually, the contemporary popularity depends on several factors independent of the writer or the work. Just off the top: literacy rate, availability and price of books, political and religious climate, trends and fashions.

 

This is a good post.

Mathew Arnold's touchstones, the canonical texts, are by definition pretty Eurocentric - they came out of the old education systems. Really, though, there are different canons, and people are becoming more and more aware of this who take books somewhat seriously. The canonical Japanese texts are pretty awesome.

Canonically 'western' texts get a bit of a bad rep for being focused on straight white men, and while this is honestly for the most part true it's not everything that the 'western canon' (very often just meaning the 'English language canon') means. It does include Sappho, Alphra Brehn, Langston Hughes and all, but the problem is still there because when we talk about canon, that's so often what's meant. And thinking of canons like this can lead to misunderstandings I think, Shakespeare was probably at least bisexual, who was trying to write plays good enough to sell pies alongside them in a scrappy theatre in the bad part of London - as just an example. While also, more overtly, focusing on the 'canon' ignores stuff like The Tale of Genji, or the poems of Li Bu and his buddy (forget his name at the moment) or the epic poems of Africa. No one should fault someone for not knowing too much about that stuff, though - in English speaking counties we just don't really hear about the other stuff a lot.

Anyway, what defines good literature? It's a good question.

It's something I've thought about a lot over the years. I think it comes down to, in a way, what you want out of it vs what is objectively good writing. And to understand there's a difference between the two. I love Stephen King's writing, always have, but can find faults in individual stories. His endings often are very weak, something he admits himself quite readily when he's asked. He's very popular, but not 'good literature' - and it would be wrong to say he never aims to be 'good' in this sense. Some of his short stories I think are under appreciated little gems. His dialogue is often very ... I don't know, stilted? It sounds like a guy who became an adult in the 70s a lot of the time. Which was fine at the beginning of his career, but can now seem a bit odd. Mind, then again, I'm British - so some American rhythms might sound odd to my ear. However, even though I've not read the original (I can't read medieval Japanese) The Tale of Genji even in translation sounds absolutely beautiful. There's an image in it of a noble woman crying into a sink and it has something like 'The stars shone from the bottom of her washbasin' and that's just gorgeous! King doesn't try to be as artful as that in his writing.

There's a major problem with this question, I think, cultural experiences. George Orwell's non fiction books, like Road to Wigan Peir, mean something personal to me because that's the vague area I grew up in, and a lot of what he writes about sounds familiar, and like people I once knew. It means something different to me than it would if I was, I don't know, an Australian I guess. I don't know if that's objectively a great book, because it says something about the culture I come from. That's probably a bad example, but another version of this is - in Japanese poetry sadness is often expressed by a coat arm being wet with dewy tears, and while I might understand the information that might be conveying, I'll probably never understand that in the same way a Japanese person might.

But some things have really stood the test of time, and continue to be enjoyed, like Genji, or my own personal interest the writings of Virgil and Catullus. I enjoy them, and I think they are both excellent writing even though there's the distance of 2,000 years - and I'll never understand them perfectly because I'm not an ancient Roman, but either I'm misreading them (very likely) or they say something that is still applicable. Catullus wrote on love, and being rejected, and also grief of a lost brother and they are quite emotional. They are still relatable.

At the same time, there's someone like Lady Murasaki, or Dante, who somehow seem even further removed from us than someone like Catullus - because he was writing about his own personal feelings I guess. Lady Murasaki and Dante both described fictional worlds, from out of mindsets very different from our own. They are still great, though, and still continue to influence, and honestly - both are still a lot of fun, although different kinds of fun.

This post is starting to ramble a bit, but what defines good literature? Honestly, I don't know. You can say it's subjective, and while I personally wouldn't agree - you could make a good case for that.

I suppose a good question to ask is: can you like something despite thinking it isn't all that great? Personally, I can. I've read a lot of stuff simply because I enjoyed it. I kinda like reading silly internet horror stories, and sure they aren't 'art', they are fun - and some are just good stories. They aren't objectively great works of art, but I enjoy them.

At the same time, I don't want to draw a line between what is 'good art' and what is 'fun fiction' because that really doesn't help anyone. Honestly, a lot of great works of art, like Dante, Homer, Virgil, Beowulf, are really good fun too. Also such thinking creates a sort of 'us vs the elite' feeling, which isn't great, because it stops people reading those great works and enjoying them. People start to think that sort of stuff is too good for them, or boring, and never actually give them a fair try. I've seen a few times when someone has struggled through every line of, say, Dante, really studying it and finding it a chore - and then when suggested to read it just as a story, they've enjoyed it huge amount more. It would be a shame if people were put off reading Dante.

Sure, ok, Paradiso is very heavy, I don't understand a lot of that too. But, you know, I'm willing to try just 'cos it's fun.

 

Are there just two categories of fiction: canonical and inconsequential ?
Can't a book be 'good' literature without entering the hallowed archives of greatness?
How about a grading system from 1 to 10?
And even then, you can't always tell whether a contemporary 6 will make it to immortality.