How about a huge argument?
What makes good literature? What makes bad literature? What isn't literature at all?
okay, I remembered one poet i like from past 1900. e e cummings
I like any poet from anywhere as long as their poetry doesn't appear in new yorker or harpers or any other magazine like that
okay, I remembered one poet I like from before 1900. p v zesen
You don't need any poetry done before Baudelaire, actually. Perhaps some Romantics are fine, the rest is good for academical purposes and stuff and it's not necessarily bad (of course not), but Symbolism brought many technical innovations which were MUCH needed, and let's not forget about the influence futurists and surrealists have had on postmodernism (good postmodernism, that is).
hurrr. you can talk about "good postmodernism" and i can talk about "good pre-modernism"
hahaha christ: http://books.guardian.co.uk/danbrown/story/0,,1719147,00.html
This is a bit sick though: The Da Vinci Code, which won best book at last year's British Book Awards...
hi guysi agree davinci code is excelent literature and revive modern lit as we know it
lullll
I know someone who shouts "IT'S A STOOOORRYYYY" every time I point out the stupid, retarded mistakes Dan Brown made in that book.
Even fucking JK Rowling did enough research to get most of her major facts right. But Dan Brown?? "NEW SECULAR ORDER"???? Idiot!
are we talking about what makes a good read or what makes a good written work?
different evaluative frameworks...
have to agree with bookworm. A good read doesnt mean its a great literary work and vice versa - good example would be those trashy romance pocketbooks or those neverending anthologies - they're not necessarily well made but the content is entertaining.
There are some cases though that those two descriptions can be incorporated in one book but I have yet to think of a good book that had those.
I would say that good literature takes a subject of human interest and presents it to the reader in an artful and intelligent manner.
Dry definition, but hey, 'swhat I've got.
Works I'd think of as exemplary literature include Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Nietzsche, 1984 by Orwell, Farewell to Arms by Hemingway, Tale of Genji by Murasaki Shikibu (sp?) and Snow Country by Yasunari Kawabata.
>>51
What made you think she is a bad writer? I like Harry Potter very much. One reason is because my English is limited and books written in difficult English are out of my depth, though.
I like reading mystery and detective stories, though they are not in English. In my layman's opinion, what makes them interesting is due to plots and beautiful language. Both of them are really important. If a plot is not well thought out, I think I'll be bored. If an author's language is awful, I can't bring myself to continue reading.
By the way, I have a thing about books by Higashino Keigo.
He has written a lot of books, and all his books are really good.
Gabriel Garcia Marquez.
Enough said.
> Enough said.
No. Not unless your intent was to post 20 letters, three of which are upper-case. That's all I got out of your post.
If you have something to say, say it. Don't assume all your listeners know what you are talking about and agree with you - in that case, there was no point in opening your mouth in the first place!
personally i'd rather read something i know i'm going to learn from, than just some story a writer made up to make money. the books that i find the most valuable, are those that entertain and enlighten at the same time.
As far as what makes art good art, I think it has to stick with the reader/viewer long after they're exposed to it. It should ideally inspire other works derived from the original.
I'd say in that respect Don Brown does come close to the standard. His books (not my favorites, BTW) did inspire people to look into Christian history. Steven King can't do that. The Dune series, at least for me, does much the same.
Or for movies, I'd have to point to Star Wars. This has to be the first Sci-Fi to spawn a real world religion.
For TV, I'd have to go with Lost and 24.
I like how this thread turned into being all about Dan Brown. The man must have done something right to have all of you bring him up as the first choice in a discussion like this..
I hope it's obvious to people here his stuff is POPPY, they're built like crimis ffs ;) reading it tells me it's not meant to be some super intelligent uber world shaking thing, but uses some important and controversial ideas to create a very interesting and entertaining story. This sort of story brings more of a kick to me than reading the typical kind of crimi, where some random person is just murdered and then you end up finding the murderer.
==============================
The question was what great literature in general is. >>2 definitely got it right. Of course the implication that people are selective and will not prefer certain contexts... GREAT literature can be a made context in which many people can think and of which many people can debate. This might happen while it's contemporary, or the work will become interesting and relevant at a later point in history. You never know what the future generations will think as the great literature of this day and age.
Lots of things are "poopy&qu^ "poppy", but it did get people to ask questions that by and large hadn't been asked before. I think that that is a step toward being literature. I don't think he's a shakespeare, and I'm not sure what will happen to DVC in 10 years.
But I don't think being "poppy" disqualifies a work as literature. Shakespeare was popular in his time, Lucas was in his, Mozart etc. They were -- at the time of course -- reasonably popular. I don't agree with the popular conceit that if "the unwashed masses" liked it, it can't possibly be anything literary or deep. Great artists, IMO are capable of both.
A great piece of literature is also timeless. If someone 40 years later can relate to something you wrote, it's likely that it's literature. I read some of Ray Bradbury's stuff, and Brave New World, and 1984, most of this was written in the '50s and '60s, yet it makes perfect sense to me, a person not even conceived in the years those books are published. They made me think about things that I'd never thought about.
If we're talking poetry as literature, it needs to evoke a feeling that you have never been able to put your finger on before, describe something in a way that you have never heard a thing described previously - while still being accurate and clever. (Think John Donne or T.S. Eliot "The Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock" or Emerson's seriously haunting lines in Brahma: "They reckon ill who leave me out; When me they fly, I am the wings".) Great poetry wraps you up in its language like...a mummy...or Sailor Moon when she was transforming and that translucent pink ribbony stuff wrapped around her...
Great poetry makes you think thoughts that you had never conceived of before, or view old ideas in a uniquely new light. Even a poem that is trite or average can be redeemed by containing an image or an idea that is somehow profound.
I think we're talking literature in general. I tend toward novels and scifi, but I think what's true of one type of art ought to work for others. What makes Shakespeare great would also work if applied to TV shows (though they'd have to modernise the Middle English a good bit), and would likely make a good novel, if done correctly.
I think a great piece of literature also has to speak to human experience -- it shouldn't be so wrapped in "German culture" or "American culture" that it wouldn't make sense to a Kenyan or a Japanese. That's one thing I like about MAnga, it can speak to me even though it's in a sense written to Japanese people.
Salinger rules, catcher in the rye inspires mind-control doo doo doo doo (twilight theme thing). I never read the da vinci code but I didn't like the movie. Shakespeare rules, and look at how awesome kurosawa's movies are. They take shakespeare plots and play them out with samurais, and they are still incredibly thrilling. I like how he portrays shakespearean characters and such. I saw part of the macbeth one, throne of blood, I liked how the fates were played by this buddhist warlock dude.
MacBeth occurs in Scottland ... I don't see where Buddha comes in.
Clockwork Orange - Anthony Burgess
The trial - Kafka
The Castle - Kafka
Animal Farm - George Orwell
Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
The Idiot - Dostoyovsky
Robbery under Arms - Rolf Boldrewood
Lolita - Nabokov
I agree with 63. No doubt 63 has also read some other excellent reads, Journey into the night, by Celine and On the edge of reason by Miroslav Krleza.
Dude in Throne of Blood it doesn't take place in scottland same story different setting duh hhahaa. What is your point about Macbeth being in Scottland get rid of all the scottish nights and replace them with Samurai and the king with a Shogun hahha. like another example of a story being put ina different setting with a movie is Matchpoint which is a film adaptation of Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky. Hhahah 63 read his huge ass books but can't even spell his name right what a dumbass.
North Korea thinks that I sell a nuclear weapon to Islam radical group from lack of funds at last.
I think that a radical group uses the nuclear weapon which I bought from North Korea for American attack
North Korea is the country which is dangerous to U.S.A
WATCH OUT!
IT's SILMIDO MAN.
He Kills corrupt DPRK agents in a single punch.
I personally enjoyed the writing in F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatspy, even though it relies on the reader's understanding of American culture. I think a book like The Razor's Edge (which I understand even if I don't know that setting) might approach "ideal literature." As for sci fi, I believe stories such as RAH's might come close also, because they are realistic, yet they provide insights into new ideas (social credit, for example).
As for poetry, I enjoy Poe's writing (even though it could be considered depraved by some), e. e. cummings, and Shakzpre.
Now to be vitriolic: Dan Brown's works have exactly the same plotline (murder, mystery, then pseudoscientific explaination, and end with a sex scene!), Dickens' characters are simple and boring (and do I sense a hint of intellectualism?), and most popular books fall below a standard of literature.
