Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
No, there's a fourth definition:
Good = It's stood the test of time. Dickens wasn't a "highbrow" writer; he was writing serials for weekly or monthly magazines - the "soap operas" of his day. Shakespeare even more assuredly wasn't - he was writing popular entertainment for the masses. The reason that both have remained popular for such a long time is that they were writing about the human condition, and that's timeless. I don't need someone in an ivory tower to tell me that "Great Expectations" is a great novel - I've read it myself many times and I know for myself that it's a great novel. There are few, if any, writers, who have created as many characters as Dickens which have entered the popular culture of the English-speaking world. If we say that someone is a "Scrooge", we all know what that means even if we haven't personally read "A Christmas Carol". He was truly one of the greatest novelists ever to write in English, and THAT's why his books are (rightly) regarded as timeless classics.
|
This presupposes that time has meaning, or if you prefer, a reference point, which it does not.
I dislike Dickens and Shakespeare, to me they are not very good. I will most likely not read their works even though they are available for free. I am not sure what this means.