the basics of great or memorable literature

[cacian]

please list here what you think is the basic/s of any great effective or memorable literature.

for me it has to be:

timing.

if a book can transcends time/ cultures/ societies and most importantly bridge ages between people ie any one can read it, then it has achieved what it has meant to achieve.

[Poetaster]

I don't know if there is any theory or set list, but I think in general, looking at what might be called the 'canon' the work should speak for its time, but also have some kind of 'applicability', or cultural resonance. Reading something like The Illiad as a fair appraisal of both sides of the Trojan war might be anachronistic, and I don't think it's comments on 'arete' or 'Aristoi' are exactly universal, but the story it tells is still an important one to at least European culture, as are the characters in it.

Having an outstanding level of quality in writing is also important. This one is subjective of course, but I've not heard many people say that Homer or Virgil or Dante are bad writers.

[Whosis]

All of the basics of literature--plot, setting, theme-- revolve around great literature. I don't know of any great literature that gets away without that fluff around the edges that is setting. Usually there's a really good idea of where the book is located, but the thing that really enhances a book is character. John Steinbeck has taught us this with characters that shine and work well together. Yes, I think indeed he has shown us that character is how a book can be the best it can be.

And I think what I said about setting is very true. The difference in literary books is that the author often spends the first part of every chapter introducing the setting or at least telling more about the characters--no dialogue, which is something I have not noticed so much in books that are just for fun reads.

[stlukesguild]

All of the basics of literature--plot, setting, theme-- revolve around great literature.

This assumes that by "great literature" what we are speaking of is the novel. "Great Literature" also includes plays/theater, poetry (short, long, epic), short stories, philosophy, history, theology... indeed non-fiction of all sorts.

I suspect that we would find it near impossible to establish any universal checklist for "Great Literature"... or "Great Art" as a whole. All we might say is that "Great Art/Literature" resonates and continues to resonate with a great many "serious" art/literature lovers, subsequent artists/writers... those who have invested a considerable amount of time, thought, and effort to the appreciation, preservation, and promotion of Art/Literature.

[Sangi]

Time is as cruel as a satan and as gracious as an angel. It can heal the worst wound likewise it can suck the beauty out THE beautiful. What appears to be true today might turn out to be different tomorrow. So I would say if a literature serves its purpose in its time itself then it becomes great. Just my opinion...

[Whosis]

Literature can be restricted to the profession of the author, or a literary work, which would include some subjects. I majored in English in college, so I'm used to thinking of novels when I think of literature--about all we read, other than Shakespeare's plays. But poems would be a likely fit too in addition to short stories. Especially when literature is great or memorable, though, I think of the novel myself. Even the other stuff I've considered often gets glanced over, and greatness, such as a top list of works of the century, seems reserved for the novel.

[desiresjab]

Take only the similarities between Jack London and James Joyce, and that is the answer.

[Whosis]

Sounds like a riddle to me. Is it that they both appreciated nature?:p

[stlukesguild]

Even the other stuff I've considered often gets glanced over, and greatness, such as a top list of works of the century, seems reserved for the novel.

The novel may have held sway from the late 19th through to the present... although that is debatable. T.S. Eliot, Wallace Stevens, Pablo Neruda, Rafael Alberti, Miguel Hernandez, Antonio Machado, Federico Garcia Lorca, Fernando Pessoa, Octavio Paz, Paul Celan, Rilke, Pablo Neruda, Eugenio Montale, Boris Pasternak (as poet) are all quite equal to the finest novelists of the last century (Joyce, Proust, Faulkner, Nabokov, etc...). Short "stories" or short "fictions" have been equally important when we consider Kafka, Hesse, Mann, Landolfi, Calvino, Borges, Monterroso, Cortazar, O'Connor, Barthleme, etc... And theater? What of Tennessee Williams, Anouilh, Genet, Beckett, Arthur Miller, Brecht, Frisch, Durrenmatt, etc...?

Most of the lists of the "Top 100" works of literature seem to have been compiled and published by publishers with a focus on contemporary novels in English... which are largely all that are known by the average reader and what sells for the publisher. This in no way makes them the "greatest" works of literature as a whole. Sacred texts such as the Bible, the Qur'an, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana; non-fiction such as Plato's Republic, Montaigne's Essays, Goethe's Italian Journey, Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Octavio Paz and J.L. Borges' essays; and poetry such as Dante's Comedia, Milton's Paradise Lost, Homer's Iliad & Odyssey, Virgil's Aeneid, Blake, Byron, Keats, Shelley, Goethe, Rilke, etc... (to say nothing of theater and those works which straddle the line between genre) are all counted among the greatest works of literature, and a good majority are studied in any more advanced surveys of World Literature.

We need to remember that the novel is a relatively new (as in "Nouveau" Romance) literary genre... dating in the West largely from Cervantes in the 1600s, and not really becoming a dominant form until the mid-19th century.

[cacian]

I don't know if there is any theory or set list, but I think in general, looking at what might be called the 'canon' the work should speak for its time, but also have some kind of 'applicability', or cultural resonance. Reading something like The Illiad as a fair appraisal of both sides of the Trojan war might be anachronistic, and I don't think it's comments on 'arete' or 'Aristoi' are exactly universal, but the story it tells is still an important one to at least European culture, as are the characters in it.

Having an outstanding level of quality in writing is also important. This one is subjective of course, but I've not heard many people say that Homer or Virgil or Dante are bad writers.
I am up a for an international literature that could be read by all. Dante certainly fails to bridge the concept and therefore is unitile in terms of what literature ought to achieve.

[cacian]

Take only the similarities between Jack London and James Joyce, and that is the answer.

Is similar a basic of great literature?

[Whosis]

The ability for a play like Romeo and Juliet to be recast in any time and place is what makes the literature a timeless and universal work. Thus, it is like a universal work. Really, though, you would have to go to paintings and music for something like that, as literature must be translated.

[Poetaster]

I am up a for an international literature that could be read by all. Dante certainly fails to bridge the concept and therefore is unitile in terms of what literature ought to achieve.

'unitile'? And Dante originally wrote in Italian for a medieval Christian audience. I'm not really sure what you expect. Literature from totally different eras, and let's face it totally different philosophical traditions than our own, do give us different worlds to experience. If you are looking for a contemporary and easily read Dante, Homer or Aeschylus you are going to run into some problems.

[cacian]

'unitile'? And Dante originally wrote in Italian for a medieval Christian audience. I'm not really sure what you expect. Literature from totally different eras, and let's face it totally different philosophical traditions than our own, do give us different worlds to experience. If you are looking for a contemporary and easily read Dante, Homer or Aeschylus you are going to run into some problems.

well perhaps it is time we thought globally. literature ought to bridge all cultures under one roof the whole world would benefit from it.


hence the concept of appropriate language in literature. if we are to write globally we are to consider all differences and appropriate language ie no vulgarity no swearing and no sexual innuendos in an international literature.
what do you say? someone has got to start somewhere.
or
one could only hope :D

[Poetaster]

well perhaps it is time we thought globally. literature ought to bridge all cultures under one roof the whole world would benefit from it.


hence the concept of appropriate language in literature. if we are to write globally we are to consider all differences and appropriate language ie no vulgarity no swearing and no sexual innuendos in an international literature.
what do you say? someone has got to start somewhere.

You seem to enjoy making grand, sweeping statements about what literature should and is doing. Statements that seem to have no or little bearing on reality.

I don't think having a 'universal' literature is really possible, and any attempt to do that it doomed to either failure or not saying anything important at all. Or both. Chinua Achebe said the same thing as me in one of his essays. Have you ever heard the saying 'You can't please everyone'? Besides, if you can't have swearing or vulgarity then you are not bridging all cultures.

[cacian]

You seem to enjoy making grand, sweeping statements about what literature should and is doing. Statements that seem to have no or little bearing on reality.
literature is grand any less of a sweeping statement and it would be undermining it.


I don't think having a 'universal' literature is really possible, and any attempt to do that it doomed to either failure or not saying anything important at all. Or both.

global literature is all the rage and it is the most possible thing to do. no one yet has attempted it. I wonder why because that puts travelling under a unitile activity. what is the mind waiting for? a sweeping generalisation that it is half asleep under a dosage its own half baked shoddy morality that failure is what it is?


Chinua Achebe said the same thing as me in one of his essays. Have you ever heard the saying 'You can't please everyone'?
I know about it and that is one sweeping generalisation in need of a revamp a reality check. how is that one cannot please everyone and language is the most we have in common?


Besides, if you can't have swearing or vulgarity then you are not bridging all cultures.
life is not serious and swearing/ inappropriate language is a serious business. the two obviously collide.
vulgarity undermines language and sets barriers and turn people into vulgar themselves.
a vulgar swear full inappropriate literature is like a derelict desolate falling down house no one wants to live in it.
the logical forward thing everyone wants to do is to renovate it to make it attractive/pleasant and appealing so that one can sell it for others to live in it and make profit.
that is ultimately the role of good literature is to make profit a good solid ongoing profit.

[Poetaster]

literature is grand any less of a sweeping statement and it would be undermining it.

If literature is 'grand' it needs to be carefully considered, not let it fall into fabulism.


global literature is all the rage and it is the most possible thing to do. no one yet has attempted it. I wonder why because that puts travelling under a unitile activity. what is the mind waiting for? a sweeping generalisation that it is half asleep under a dosage its own half baked shoddy morality that failure is what it is?

How can it be 'all the rage' and 'most possible' is no one has attempted it? That doesn't make sense.

The rest of this is the most opaque thing I've read all week.


I know about it and that is one sweeping generalisation in need of a revamp a reality check. how is that one cannot please everyone and language is the most we have in common?

How is it a 'sweeping generalisation' if it warns against generalising? Language is the most we have in common? Then in that case literature cannot by definition apply to everyone if we are all different sans our language. And, furthermore, we all don't have the same language. Can you read all the world languages without outside help? I certainly can't.


life is not serious and swearing/ inappropriate language is a serious business. the two obviously collide.
vulgarity undermines language and sets barriers and turn people into vulgar themselves.
a vulgar swear full inappropriate literature is like a derelict desolate falling down house no one wants to live in it.
the logical forward thing everyone wants to do is to renovate it to make it attractive/pleasant and appealing so that one can sell it for others to live in it and make profit.
that is ultimately the role of good literature is to make profit a good solid ongoing profit.

What serious study do you base this on? Because at the moment I can't help but regard this as piffle.

[cacian]

If literature is 'grand' it needs to be carefully considered, not let it fall into fabulism.

fabulism? far from it. Literature is everyday life an ideal life. fabulism is an ideology. I do not see how the two would ever relate.
literature must reflect an idea that suits all forms of understanding. there is no understanding in inappropriate.


How can it be 'all the rage' and 'most possible' is no one has attempted it? That doesn't make sense.

good question I would like to know why but instead one can think up a way or two.
language is no barrier. the globe can have one common language they read and understand that could be English. a global story could be written in English to be read by all.
this takes time effort travelling but it is not impossible. in fact it is a project worth taking worth a while.
educating the globe is something I aspire to for it is very much in need of it. let's get those tyrants to sit and read. that will keep them occupied. lets keep them sat forever.


The rest of this is the most opaque thing I've read all week.

opaque is a word that keeps creeping up. I always imagine it to be a shape for some reason. like a hexagon. no idea why.


How is it a 'sweeping generalisation' if it warns against generalising? Language is the most we have in common? Then in that case literature cannot by definition apply to everyone if we are all different sans our language. And, furthermore, we all don't have the same language. Can you read all the world languages without outside help? I certainly can't.



What serious study do you base this on? Because at the moment I can't help but regard this as piffle.
it is not a study it is an analogy. this is how I interpret the state of language in literature today.
I could paint it and it would be most undesirable. a literature painting. :)

[Poetaster]

fabulism? far from it. Literature is everyday life an ideal life. fabulism is an ideology. I do not see how the two would ever relate.
literature must reflect an idea that suits all forms of understanding. there is no understanding in inappropriate.

Well there in lies the difference between me and you as readers I guess.


good question I would like to know why but instead one can think up a way or two.
language is no barrier. the globe can have one common language they read and understand that could be English. a global story could be written in English to be read by all.

Nonsense, not everyone will want to learn English, and English itself has evolved rapidly into other branches like panglish. Verity is the spice of life, as it seems to also be inevitable. Language and even dialect are problems even between two English speakers a lot of the time. In short: it's not gonna happen.


this takes time effort travelling but it is not impossible. in fact it is a project worth taking worth a while.
educating the globe is something I aspire to for it is very much in need of it. let's get those tyrant to sit and read. they will keep them occupied. lets keep them sat forever.

Now this certainly sounds like fabulism to me, but I can be quite cynical. I'm sorry, I just can't share this optimism so fine - I guess.


it is not a study it is an analogy. this is how I interpret the state of language in literature today.
I could paint it and it would be most undesirable. a literature painting. :)

I'll leave aside that the point of your comment was not an analogy - I think we are done here. Nice chatting. :)

[Dono]

One of the overlooked aspects of great works is subtle thematic repetition. People subconsciously look for patterns in everything. Some of the best and most successful authors knew this and used it to their storytelling advantage. Shakespeare's recurring use of wise fools and foolish royals; Dant e's simple yet powerful descending circles of hell; some like Joyce or Hemingway whose very writing style was a comfortable recurring pattern. For a work to resonate over thousands of years it must feel familiar in some way even if the reader doesn't recognize that aspect. A character everyone knows in real life, or a scene everyone can picture...and patterns.

[Ruben Meijerink]

In this book by Terry Eagleton about poetry (How to Read a Poem), there's this

In Lotman's view, a good literary work is one rich in information; and information is a matter of deviation. The more stable, predictable elements of a text, such as metre, belong to what one might call its dominant code. But because they are so regular, they tend also to be less perceptible. These are known to information theory as 'redundant' elements, which are necessary for conveying information but not in themselves informative.

Anyone agrees?