What makes a book great?

[ALBRIEF]

Ok, I am sure I will be lambasted for this but I hope not! During my recent, and new, adventure through the "greats" of literature I stopped to ask myself why I am doing this. My answer was simple: I just wanted to read them for the sake of reading. Is it so bad to read the classics casually like I do? Do I have to dissect the plot and characters and symbolism to the very last word? Can't a book just be enjoyed for readings sake? I guess the point of my post is to not feel so "guilty". As if these need to be read with a critical mind. I have read Moby Dick, and others, and done so with thorough interpretation; but is it so bad just to read these classics and let them be a great book because you enjoyed them and received pleasure from them?

[JCamilo]

Yes, no book is a great book because You enjoyed them.
Your pleasure didn't change a single word of Moby Dick, so think well, your pleasure can not be the reason why Mody is such a great book. That simple.

Now;
You do not have to read only great books.
You should read only for your pleasure.
There is those who enjoy critical reading, but I bet most of them had a first contact with the book that was not critical at all.
You do not have to like only great books. Sometimes pleasure is caused by the most triffling things in the world. To each with his own.

[blazeofglory]

This is a question no one can answer fully and satisfactorily, and indeed we can not judge, and of course it is the reader who kind of judge. Certainly the book I like most may not be of your taste.

[Dark Muse]

I belive that a person can read a book for pure pleasures sake and that one does not have to anylize everything they read. I truly see nothing wrong with that. And furthermore, what truly makes a great book great? A book need not be a renowned classic to be great in the eyes of its reader. And even books that are judged great on a larger scale are only done so by the opinons of people whom have read them, and even so such books do not meet with everyon's taste, as no book does.

I think a book that might be viewed on the greater scale as rather unimportant, can still be great within the eyes of its reader, if it does speak to that person in someway.

[brambleshire]

A book is called a classic because it stands the test of time, and continues to influence people centuries later. But it's up to the individual whether they think a particular classic is a good book or not.
Over-all though, classics are called classics because they have a wide impact. Some people may wish to analyse them, but it's not necessarily the key to loving a book. People with no qualifications can be moved by Shakespeare.

[tscherff]

it is like viewing a classic painting. you can analyze each brush stroke and dissect each quadrant of the picture or you can just step back and take in the panorama. either way it is breathtaking.
so what you are asking is if you go to see art do you want to view the monet, van gogh, michelangelo or the smiths and jones. to me the answer is easy. i have so little free time i can't waste it on the wannabes

[elitespart]

Whether a book is great or not will definitely vary from person to person but one qualifying factor for me is its ability to evoke a emotional response and connect with the reader. Dark Muse summed it up perfectly.

[crazefest456]

oddly enough, we were discussing this in my english class a few days ago.
On the topic of the Literary Canon...
You're right; you shouldn't feel guilty. The way you're enjoying it most probably is because you're treating the book correctly (in it's interpretation and recognition of literary elements) subconsciously.

[Shea]

I agree that you shouldn't feel guilty. I used to feel the same way. Lately though, I'm compelled not really to disect a book so much, but more to learn the "extras" of it. For instance when I read some of the Bronte sisters, I found that I enjoyed the stories more when I knew more about the way women had to live during their time.

[Tersely]

Or you can put it this way. You write a 2000+ novel and two people read it. One says "Wow I really connected with the characters, setting, background, details...I found it so interesting to read. I really enjoyed it." Meaning they took it all in as they felt it little by little, extracting real enjoyment from it.
Or one who gets over analytical and interpretive.
"Its not choppy, solid base, characters actions believeable, plot convincing, I read books like I'm an unemotional robot,..ect,ect,ect." Non personal.
I always believed that people who write stories, novels, literature had the first person in mind or at least wanted someone to really take in and enjoy what they wrote. I'm like that. I wouldnt want to labor ridiculously over something if I didnt think it would be a good read someone out there in the world can enjoy. I'll read classics and get into them for me (which seems to help even better for school) then someone who reads it just to be well-read. If I take it personally I remember details alot better too.

[HelpwithHuxley]

Ok, I am sure I will be lambasted for this but I hope not! During my recent, and new, adventure through the "greats" of literature I stopped to ask myself why I am doing this. My answer was simple: I just wanted to read them for the sake of reading. Is it so bad to read the classics casually like I do? Do I have to dissect the plot and characters and symbolism to the very last word? Can't a book just be enjoyed for readings sake? I guess the point of my post is to not feel so "guilty". As if these need to be read with a critical mind. I have read Moby Dick, and others, and done so with thorough interpretation; but is it so bad just to read these classics and let them be a great book because you enjoyed them and received pleasure from them?

This is EXACTLY what I told my 11th grade English teacher!

[FuzzySeduction]

I don't know. Reading a book for me is /only/ about pleasure. If I cannot derive pleasure from it, then why should I go to the trouble of sloshing through the mud? However, I think that each chapter should be at least reflected upon. Pausing to think about what has happened to that point may bring to light things one might have forgotten or disregarded. Though those that came before me are right... this isn't something that can really be answered in an educated manner without coming out of qualification and into opinion. =/.