The Bells and Whistles of Literature

[burntpunk]

Accepted. The cream of literature have universal qualities such as strong character-development, structure, pacing etc. -- Exerting all of these qualities synchronously will land you a good book. A great bicycle. The wheel, the frame ... all the component work. But what about a great book or bicycle? Now, I'm not asking for a discussion which will turn into a list of all the 'glorious' elements that produce 'glorious' literature. This'll end up either subjective or objective or I'll use the adjective quickly ... either way, screw this, screw that.

What are those little things that make great literature? What are the bells and whistles on the bicycle that make it brilliant?

For me:
1.Expression
2.Emotion
3.Drama
4.Truth
5.Introspection
6.Humour

What about you?

[LitNetIsGreat]

I really think it is all of those things and none. The same is true with the “what is literature” sort of threads. There are no correct and incorrect definitions of either, you cannot pigeon-hole literature and art in this way.

If you take Virginia Woolf as an example in Mrs Dalloway the plot is Clarissa going out to buy some flowers for a party. That’s about it. There is no pacing, no great drama, not much expression, little humour, no "twist and turns," not much really happens. It does have realism in character and truth– which was part of Woolf’s manifesto - character and truth, it but it has little else. Still, it is easily one of the most influential and important novels of the 20th Century, but by a standard list of definitions of what makes literature it would be abject failure.

I don’t mean to be a grouch or anything:( but this is what I believe.

[mono]

This seems a subject impossible to agree or disagree upon fully, and may depend on the literature fan; a poetry and classic literature geek, like myself, may have different values in literature as opposed to a fantasy and science fiction reader (not my cup-of-tea).
One common trend, I think, that makes a piece of literature great: the relations of its contents to its society and time. People read a novel and promote its popularity because its writer advocates for the reader; the story follows the reader's interest, the characters do what the reader wants to do (or would do in the same conflict of the novel), yet the writer holds control of the story, which amuses the reader. I think this holds true regardless of literature genre: a book functions as an advocate, a thing of beauty, and a piece of amusement.
Neely pointed out the oddity and rare plot of Mrs. Dalloway. The study of psychology remains young, but, in Virginia Woolf's time, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung seemed all the news and hype, and what made Mrs. Dalloway great in its generation, though it did not seem the most popular in its time, as well as all 'flight-of-consciousness' literature in the era seemed the sudden interest in psychology and what makes the mind tick.

[Drkshadow03]

This seems a subject impossible to agree or disagree upon fully, and may depend on the literature fan; a poetry and classic literature geek, like myself, may have different values in literature as opposed to a fantasy and science fiction reader (not my cup-of-tea).


This is a good point. I would add that a third person exists like myself who enjoys both poetry, classic literature, fantasy, and science fiction. Not that you necessarily said or even implied that such a person cannot exist, but I do think it is worth reminding everyone that one can like all four of those categories.

[Dr. Hill]

Strong recurring theme.

[JBI]

I don't particularly like these notions - great literature is created by not containing, or by containing new, rather than containing the. If there was a formula, it would be too easy - great literature works on innovation rather than formulas.

Also, there was a thread about universals before, and I don't want to get into it, but if you notice, the poetic traditions of China and Japan are very different than the traditions of West Europe, which are, traditionally, somewhat different than Northern Europe, which are completely different than Persian, etc. The styles are very different, and it is impossible to find a distinct formula, other than commonalities in the handling of certain tropes.

In that sense, Quintilian becomes the foundation, even more so than Aristotle, given that only one part of the poetics survives. The sense of metaphor is the centre to poetry, and to good prose really, and that seems the most constant thing. But yes, Rhetorical devices, and language patterns, which vary by language, seem the only fair way to arrive at conclusions. Everything else is really dependent on tradition or time period.