Good literature?

Hi folks - today my colleagues and I discussed at university if "Bridget Jones' Diary" is good literature. Some said no, some said yes and when someone compared it with "The Importance of Being Earnest", we were all confused - I believe that "The Importance of Being Earnest" IS good literature and Bridget is not, even though they are both, in a way, comedies.
Now, I need your help: it's been quite a while that I read Wilde's play and I don't have enough time to spend on analysing it. Why is "The Importance of Being Earnest" good literature? What are the elements that make it good? Do the same elements occur in Bridget Jones (I'm sure they don't - but what do you think?)

I thank you very much for your replies in advance.

Ha HA ha HA

Earnest is good beacuse the writing is...Good!

Diary is not good lit beacuse...it's just plain terrible.

I know. It doesn't really answer your question. But it is the truth

imo

I know it's some time since you posted the query but here's a late reply.

What makes *anything* good literature is the way words are used. The elegance and choice and sentence construction make a huge difference and Wilde was an absolute master at the right choice.

To illustrate in the simplest terms, an author may write: 'The princess walked into the room wearing a gown which was covered with diamonds and her hair was piled on top of her head and fastened with a pearl clip.'

Okay, it gets the picture across but it's not literature in the sense of elegant and innovative use of words.

It could be improved in a dozen different ways but let's look at just one.

'Into the room came the princess, her gown a rainbow of sparkling diamonds, hair in curls atop her head and fastened with a pearl clip.' It's not great literature but some thought has gone into designing the sentence to give the best effect for the genre.

It's not enough to just write the first thing that comes into your head, every word, every sentence, every paragraph must be crafted so it gives information with maximum impact for whatever you, the author is trying to portray.

Of course we can sit and discuss what we enjoy more reading anything by Wilde is of course more interesting to me that Bridget Jone's Diarys, but to labal good art and bad art goes against Wilde's aestheticism! "Art for arts sake"
how can you label what is good and what is bad?
If you are going to do this(which seems arbitrary in a way) you must first define good art. Good luck with that. Is good art something that moves you? Inspirse you? Has a positive message? Is elequant? I am sure however you define art we can think of great works that would not fit the criteria. It is one thing to say you don't enjoy a certain work, but to say it is bad art seems to be exactly what Wilde was so adiment against.
Food for thought I suppose

I completely agree, who are we to determine what constitutes "good art"? Personally, I despise modern dance but that doesnt make it "bad", just something I don't enjoy. At the same time though, I think Mr. Wilde would be amused to find his works being compared to Bridget Jones' diary.