Quote:
Originally Posted by latepaul
Make all the quality judgements you like but if the issue is repetition and diversity of ideas then Austen-Pratchett is an unfair comparison. Austen only wrote 6 novels. Pratchett has at least that many distinct stories. I'll concede he gets a bit repetitive later on.
|
Agreed.
Also, the idea that works need to be innovative to qualify as capital L literary doesn't even really jive with who the past has already labeled as Literary.
The problem has always been the word itself. Most people tend to use the L word as a means of excluding works/authors they don't personally think qualify--rendering conversations where multiple people's personal definitions of Literary collide, rather pointless.
It's quite simple: a literary genius is someone who writes things that move/inspire a significant number of people. History only gets to decide if someone's work was "classic."
Also note that I've never read anything by Pratchett. One doesn't have to in order to recognize his literary impact.