I'm just wondering how you define what is valuable

[Ezekiel 4:9]

My friends, I'm just throwing this out into the blue. How do you tell the difference between a good book and a bad book? To be more precise, I would like to know how to determine the value of a literary work without recourse to either

1) subjectivism (people like what they like) or
2) dogma (literature "must" have theme or form or political subtexts or whatever).

If subjective preference is the sole measure of value, then Shakespeare is no better than Dan Brown--in fact, he's objectively "worse" than Dan Brown in a trans-subjective sense, since far more people prefer to read Dan Brown. Is there a sufficiently flexible alternative to subjectivism in matters of evaluation?

[blazeofglory]

Value in literature is the hardest thing to come by. I mostly read a piece of literature for information. I recently read Voltaire and Russel and stylistically Voltaire proved better and more elegant yet I am hooked to Russel for a variety of reasons. Why Russel interests me is he is more informative whereas Voltaire engages me emotionally and I get lost in his world of imagination but come out with no substance other than packs of emotional stuffs.

Russel and Voltaire are both well read philosophers yet Russel is more scientific and rationalistic.

Let us just a piece of literature from an objective lens and if you look at them from a subjective perspective you cannot get any worthwhile things at the end of the day.

[mal4mac]

I mostly read literature for enjoyment. People differ in what they find enjoyable. I quite like Russell because I find philosophical ideas enjoyable, and he (often) writes well.

What use is information unless it adds to your enjoyment? The yellow pages are very informative but I don't read them for fun.

By the way Russell is far from being my favourite purveyor of philosophical entertainment, I'm much more enjoying Moby Dick! The greatest artists can convey philosophical information with concision, and make it entertaining. Using 'balancing whale heads' as a metaphor for philosophical balance was just too good...

[JCamilo]

My friends, I'm just throwing this out into the blue. How do you tell the difference between a good book and a bad book? To be more precise, I would like to know how to determine the value of a literary work without recourse to either

1) subjectivism (people like what they like) or
2) dogma (literature "must" have theme or form or political subtexts or whatever).

If subjective preference is the sole measure of value, then Shakespeare is no better than Dan Brown--in fact, he's objectively "worse" than Dan Brown in a trans-subjective sense, since far more people prefer to read Dan Brown. Is there a sufficiently flexible alternative to subjectivism in matters of evaluation?

Actually, Shakespeare is the best selling author of all time. He is the most popular author ever, Brown does not come even close and Shakespeare wasnt even trying. So, subjectivelly, Shakespeare is the man.

And calling objectivism as dogma is far-fetched. Literature must have certain qualities to be considered good simple because you know what a good dialogue is, a good character use, plot, scenary, description, language use, rythim, effect, etc. You have what to compare for, you know already how it works.

[LitNetIsGreat]

My friends, I'm just throwing this out into the blue. How do you tell the difference between a good book and a bad book?

I find that Miss Prism's words answer the question quite well when she says "the good ended happily, and the bad unhappily. That's what fiction means." She is a bit batty though. Quality then I suppose.

[cyberbob]

I think a distinction between good and bad definitely exists but in general things can be good in different ways and no "right" answer exists.

Food, for example, can be definitely bad (putrid/rancid) but the idea of usefulness depends on the context.

Since no writing can hurt you physically like rotten food it's not as clear cut but I think practically, writing can be considered good or bad.