What makes great literature?

[angryTurtle]

Hello

I am trying to put together (for some academic work) a paragraph which encapsulates marks of excellence in literature.

In the visual arts we might cite mastery of the medium, richness and expressiveness of sensory qualities, depth and clarity of meaning, originality of style, and organic unity of form. But how might we translate that to literary work?

What, in others words, makes great literature?

Thanks for any suggestions.

angryTurtle

[kelby_lake]

moi!
no, great literature has to:
1)have interesting characters
2) has to be relevant to people
3) has to be very 'human'
4) every line should be quotable
5) must raise a question

[PeterL]

To paraphrase your comments about the visual arts:
In the literary arts we might cite mastery of the language, richness and expressiveness of literary qualities, depth and clarity of meaning, originality of style, and organic unity of form. Or, to be succinct, good literature says something that people want to read and says it well.

[kasie]

To paraphrase your comments about the visual arts:
In the literary arts we might cite mastery of the language, richness and expressiveness of literary qualities, depth and clarity of meaning, originality of style, and organic unity of form. Or, to be succinct, good literature says something that people want to read and says it well.

I might add Universality to the above - great literature says something about the Human Condition that reaches across time and space. Great Literature tells you what it is to be human whether you are living in Ancient Greece, Tudor Britain, nineteenth century Russia or the here and now. If a book has 'dated' then perhaps it isn't really great - good, maybe, and worth reading because it reflects life in a particular era or place but not necessarily continuing to have relevance to people wherever or whenever they are reading.

[PeterL]

I might add Universality to the above - great literature says something about the Human Condition that reaches across time and space. Great Literature tells you what it is to be human whether you are living in Ancient Greece, Tudor Britain, nineteenth century Russia or the here and now. If a book has 'dated' then perhaps it isn't really great - good, maybe, and worth reading because it reflects life in a particular era or place but not necessarily continuing to have relevance to people wherever or whenever they are reading.

Yes, universality is included, but it would be anyway, because Earthlings only write about a limited range of things. The localizations are what make it interesting.

[kasie]

Yes, universality is included, but it would be anyway, because Earthlings only write about a limited range of things. The localizations are what make it interesting.

[PeterL]

Why confused?

[ben.!]

If a piece of literature can stand the test of time of about 100 years, and people can still know about it and read it, then I consider it great literature. Also if it is written well, and makes us question human values, or ourselves.

[ben.!]

Dunno. I'm only up to chapter 7.

But so far, The Kite Runner's story is gripping enough. I'm liking it, gives you a different perspective of the Middle East than the one that's always featured on the news. If people remember it, and it enters some sort of 'classic' publishing such as Vintage Classics or Penguin Modern Classics/Penguin Classics in thirty or so years, then I shall think it would have stood the test of time.

If it's super good, it will stand the test of 100 years. But not many novels can do that, they must be really good.

[djy78usa]

Ultimately, it comes down to the individual. Someone can tell you a particular work is great all day, but it is up to you to decide.

[kasie]

Why confused?

I stand corrected - universality with a small u, not Universality with a Capital U.

I was confused until I realised you were snidely pointing out my error - which I accept (though I would remark as an aside that such pompous superiority is unlikely to enable you to make friends and influence people, though perhaps you will be happy enough in your lonely position of pre-eminence.)

I thought maybe I had wandered by mistake into the Fantasy Forum.

[PeterL]

I stand corrected - universality with a small u, not Universality with a Capital U.

I was confused until I realised you were snidely pointing out my error - which I accept (though I would remark as an aside that such pompous superiority is unlikely to enable you to make friends and influence people, though perhaps you will be happy enough in your lonely position of pre-eminence.)

I thought maybe I had wandered by mistake into the Fantasy Forum.

"Snidely"??!! I am sorry that you took it that way. It was not meant that way.

[kasie]

"Snidely"??!! I am sorry that you took it that way. It was not meant that way.

Ruffled feathers duly smoothed!

[Mariami]

I think it's very important for book to be interesting from the start and flaw well.

[djy78usa]

That's true. Literature is a very subjective thing, however it's also true that some books are far better written than others, don't you think?

Absolutely, but the story in a poorly written book might speak to me more than the story in a well written book. In that case, I would rank the poorly written book above the other. It's the same way with movies, music, or any other art form. That's why I love forums like this. People can come here and, instead of flat-out saying "A is better than B," we can discuss what aspects of A we liked, or what we didn't like about B; there are no absolutes.