Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffC
Surely what matters is the enjoyment the reader gets from whatever they read.
|
I agree that enjoyment is an important aspect of the value of reading a book, but there are other aspects too - such as what you learn from it (more broadly, how it changes what you think). Some books will have more to give than others, but what the reader takes from the book depends also on the reader.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
There is a social (collective) opinion of what is good literature/writing and what is bad. This may or may not match individual preferences. Neither is right or wrong, but certainly they exist.
|
Really? I think that defining this is problematic. Academia seems to have moved, in many areas at least, to a post-modernist position where the idea of a "correct" view of facts is suspect, never mind values (not that I agree with them, but that seems to be a consensus in many areas). Looking more broadly, is the social consensus what sells, what people read? So, is Dan Brown great literature, in terms of the social consensus? What collective opinion are you thinking of, that "certainly" exists? If it's the traditional view of what constitutes good literature, I'm not sure that this coincides with a social consensus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow
Aren't there books that haunt you long after you've read them?
And aren't they worth distinguishing from the books that were great while you were reading them, but can be disposed off the moment you've finished?
|
This is another interesting perspective. For me, I find that it's the content, rather than the form, that is more likely to cause this. A recent account of an "honour" killing caused me to skip breakfast and has stuck with me since, but it wasn't because it was great lit. Books that I remember having a big impact on me were those where I first encountered an idea, not necessarily where it was best expressed.