What truly makes great literature?

[Mr.lucifer]

Is Emotional truth the real meaning of great literature?

[cafolini]

I think it's pistachio cookies in letters.

[PeterL]

I believe that great literature must be well presented, interesting, and possess universality. It can possess those in dofferent quantities, but that will make it less great.

[Arrowni]

Great readers make great literature.

[LadyLuck]

For me great literature is made by relatable tales. Great literature should be able to be read today or 200 years from now, and you should still be able to feel as if the characters are real.

[Gregory Samsa]

Great litterateur is subjectively, but should be like Kafka said the ax for the frozen sea within us.

[cafolini]

For me great literature is made by relatable tales. Great literature should be able to be read today or 200 years from now, and you should still be able to feel as if the characters are real.

I think this might need some expanding because I agree with it. The characters must call upon the reality of the times. Relatable tales is a major part of it.

Anything that doesn't call upon the realities of the times, if it called upon that once upon a time, should not be considered great literature today except for its ability to let us know about history. Something from the classics, of course, will always fit today a certain amount, but they fit a lot less than some people fond of them imagine. All classics must fall as great literature as they no longer apply to today and become history. Room must be made for today.

[JBI]

A cross between traditional adherence and innovative genius.

[hawthorns]

It has to have a nice binding that smells good with really cool pictures on the front.

[LadyLuck]

I think this might need some expanding because I agree with it. The characters must call upon the reality of the times. Relatable tales is a major part of it.


I think for me the characters need to be timeless. I love books where the faults and strengths of the characters are things still seen today. Sure the setting, the era may be different, but people are people and they've not changed that much. For me, they need to "feel" real. I need to be able to sympathize or at least empathize with them, and for me this is more tied to how realistic a response to a situation is rather than how authentically written a period piece is.

[hampusforev]

A cup of black coffee and a golden retriever by your side... oh wait no that's a great morning.

[john7]

It's a long story.http://goo.gl/6jlsv

[osho]

Nobody can exactly say what makes great literature and it is the summation of great many things. Emotional truth is some part of it not the whole of it and intellectual fervor another part. A philosophical ingredient makes it spicy and a good style gives it a new height and combined with all these building blocks the uniqueness or originality of it gives it a new direction and finally it is the spirit of the writer that gives it a momentum. You cannot reduce it to a few things but it demands so many things that makes a piece great literature and that passes the test of time. The classics we have today from Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, James Joyce, William Faulkner speak plenty of it

[Jack of Hearts]

This reader watches the world revel in subjectivity and laughs. It's a sad day that you're feel paralyzed within your own perspective.

This reader sees great literature as the byproduct of great living (combined with a love for language). Those men must have felt alive- Joyce as he beg, stole and borrowed through a life of lechery and (as his letters reveal) questionable sexual practices. Faulkner, at one point, said he wrote because he needed the money (presumably to finance his basic living and alcoholism). Hemingway.

Point is, their books are just the snail trails they left behind as they crawled along. Completely holistic.







J

[donaldbracy]

One that's thought provoking, feels relevant in some way and one that evokes sympathy for the protagonist(s) in the mind of the reader.

[kelby_lake]

Universality. The ability to speak across generations and centuries, whilst retaining the spirit of the time in which it was written.

[LadyLuck]

Universality. The ability to speak across generations and centuries, whilst retaining the spirit of the time in which it was written.

I think you just nailed what I was trying to get at. Thanks :thumbs_up

[usman.khawar]

yeah universality is good word for this. The ability to speak across generations and centuries, whilst retaining the spirit of the time in which it was written.

like these three paragraphs in the answer of "is God a reality or myth"?

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63000&page=4

[irinmisfit92]

It is going to be really hard to find a piece of work that can be very universal, especially because it's difficult to relate to the lives of the people in the 15th century.

Even the use of language, I suppose. In a conversational manner I don't think anyone today (unless they're trying to be funny) speaks like how the characters in Wuthering Heights did.

[Chris 73]

A good story helps.

[LadyLuck]

It is going to be really hard to find a piece of work that can be very universal, especially because it's difficult to relate to the lives of the people in the 15th century.

Even the use of language, I suppose. In a conversational manner I don't think anyone today (unless they're trying to be funny) speaks like how the characters in Wuthering Heights did.

I don't think it is too difficult. The best stories are ones that you can relate to even years later. The language and the setting might not be the same, but who can't relate to the characters in Wuthering Heights? For me, it isn't the verbiage or setting that makes the story. It is the realistic nature of the characters. Do their emotions and reactions feel real?

[cafolini]

I don't think it is too difficult. The best stories are ones that you can relate to even years later. The language and the setting might not be the same, but who can't relate to the characters in Wuthering Heights? For me, it isn't the verbiage or setting that makes the story. It is the realistic nature of the characters. Do their emotions and reactions feel real?

Excellent post. Clearly to the point. We must move on with what's relatable, as you said before. By the same token, the problem is not that of universality. The problem is that today universality (whatever that might mean in the jargon) is multiplicity. Cultures that seek identity will fight it without any results and in a useless museum other than for historical purposes. Those purposes are enough for what's needed.

[sickboy]

It has to have a nice binding that smells good with really cool pictures on the front.

call me shallow hey but i ditto that haha.

[cafolini]

call me shallow hey but i ditto that haha.

I wouldn't call you shallow, and the humor is good to an extent. But it might not be all encompassing as you might want to make it sound. It depends on the purpose of the presentation and the context of the publication.:hat:

[Brett Cottrell]

42 is the answer. If it isn't the answer to your question, you're asking the wrong question.

[LadyLuck]

42 is the answer. If it isn't the answer to your question, you're asking the wrong question.

:biggrinjester:

[Desolation]

The fundamental aspects of the human condition have not changed much in Western society over the centuries. So universality is not necessarily difficult in that regard.

However, I think that universality implies to some extent that anyone/everyone could relate to it, and I do not believe that all-inclusiveness should be an absolute criteria for good literature. Reflections on society are nice and all, but I much prefer reflections of an individual, which entails that it might not click with some people.

[Darcy88]

The work shows evidence of its creator's genius, of his or her mastery of the craft, as well as profound psychological/philosophical insight? But I suppose that might just be begging the question.

[Alexander III]

It is going to be really hard to find a piece of work that can be very universal, especially because it's difficult to relate to the lives of the people in the 15th century.


I have to disagree, One of the most relatable books I have ever read was the Satyricon, written almost 2000 years ago and yet I felt like it was written for me. I am sure everyone has books or poems which they felt written just for them.

I Can relate very well to Dante and Sir Philip Sidney's love sonnets and unrequited love.

There are many things which are unchanging amongst humans. All that does change tends to be laces and frills anyways. But the core of humanity is the same. I cried at my grandfathers funeral in the same way the a roman child would have cried at his grandfathers funeral. I got drunk outside in the moonlight just like a chinaman from the Tang Dynasty has done a thousand years ago. I have loved, and felt joy and sadness, and have felt the stars in the same way that everyman has, since our harrier ancestors saw the Mediterranean plateau become flooded. That I think is the beauty of literature. It reminds us that most of what we hold so important and dear are just frills and laces. It reminds you that you will die just like every man before you and everyman after you. And that is one of the most inspiring and beautiful thoughts a man can have.