Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Il Palazzo]

A good metric, and one that at least the staff at my university uses, is the number of publications about the literary work in literary journals.
Or, in other words, if people can find enough depth in it to write papers about it, then it's good literature.

[Frumple]

... what about the quality of papers, though? Because I've seen plenty that... well, it's that classic, "I'm pretty damn sure the author wasn't writing about that. Sometimes the author specifically said otherwise. You can construe it that way, sure, but I think you may be reading between lines that don't actually exist." sort of thing. Well spun bullshit is still bullshit Though it's definitely true the line between bullshit and academic analysis is admittedly somewhat fine. Usually have to know the technical language of the field in question to be able to discern if it's BS or not.

As a general heuristic, though, yeah, that's better than most. Still, I've read a lot of fanfiction that you could pull quite a bit of academic-level literary analysis out of your arse about, if anyone cared to. People look at folks that actually do that like they're silly, though

[pisskop]

Go 100% Non-fiction!  A term that sounds informative but may really just be opinions!

[RedWarrior0]

Yeah, fiction can be based in reality, and non-fiction can be not based in reality. It's quite odd.

Not signing up. Just posting to watch.

[Jimmy]

Heh, the old "What is Literature?" argument again.

My list is the top 500 greatest works of literature prior to 1954, from which I'll pull 52 works. The page also contains a link to the definition of literature, which I'll put below in case anyone else is interested in the process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_canon

[fqllve]

I guess so. Maybe more likely the books that people pour years into writing, drawing on every memorable part of their lives and weaving it into the finished product, vs a seasoned career writer that does three books a year of rehashed procedural tripe (entertaining but leaves you feeling  hollow, like eating mcdonalds o-o)

That's a good general rule, but I think it says more about the quality of something than whether or not it's "art." Even then it's not always true because I can think of plenty of books that while I'll commend the author on their effort, I wouldn't say they were particularly enjoyable or artistic (Guy Gavriel Kay's works would fall under that).

That also leaves out a lot of things like outsider art, aleatory art, automatic writing, cut-up, and stuff like that, which would normally be grouped under the category of art writing. Still probably a more useful definition in practice though.

My list is the top 500 greatest works of literature prior to 1954, from which I'll pull 52 works.

Why 1954? That leaves out so many great authors, like Burroughs, Murakami, McCarthy, Joy Williams, Ron Rash, Eco. The list goes on.

Anyway, I always thought the idea of a canon was more for academic use than anything real or substantial. It can be a good rough guide, but it's inevitably missing a lot of worthwhile stuff, depending on your tastes.

[penguinofhonor]

I guess so. Maybe more likely the books that people pour years into writing, drawing on every memorable part of their lives and weaving it into the finished product, vs a seasoned career writer that does three books a year of rehashed procedural tripe (entertaining but leaves you feeling  hollow, like eating mcdonalds o-o)

So Edgar Allen Poe isn't literature? He wrote his stuff mainly to pump out for money. He was one of the earliest career authors and catered to pop culture.

[vagel7]

Those lists of yours are still missing some very influential pieces of literature. One of them is the Truth and Justice pentalogy. The only reason it is not on those lists is because it for some reason hasn't been translated into English, yet scholars of western literature have carefully studied it and have noted it of being the corner stone of modern Estonian literature. I'll also add that the pentalogy was written between 1926-1933.

In my opinion of people read something because scholars or academics say that it must be read and that you must make certain conclusions from a book, then it destroys the very foundations of books. A book must make the reader think about the theme or themes of the book on his own.

[GlyphGryph]

I remembered the other books in my library. The most important of which is
"A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson

This book is absolutely amazing, and written by one of the best modern authors in the world (in my opinion). It is a must read, and you should probably considering reading all of his books - A Walk in the Woods, Mother Tongue, In a Sunburned Country, At Home, I'm a Stranger Here Myself, Seeing Further: The Story of Science, Discovery, and the Genius of the Royal Society.

Every one of his books is amazing. If you are really lazy, you could at least try reading his children's book "A Really Short History of Nearly Everything", of course.

He is a better writer than most modern "lit" writers (imo, even the ones I like), and you will get a lot more out of his books insofar as understanding the human condition, the world, other cultures and peoples, psychology, and the workings of humanity. His books are primarily books about people, and the things they do and places they live.

[Trif]

Oh hey, sign me up for this. 52 books should be doable.

Oh, by the way, can anyone suggest a good e-book reader? I want to brush up on some more classical literature, and I don't see why I should buy printed editions if everything is in the public domain.

[Loud Whispers]

I got my first two books for the first two weeks; Homer's the Iliad and the Odyssey. Technically they're both collections of books so I don't know how feasible or in general how that'll work. Worth a shot though.

[GlyphGryph]

We've decided anthologies and collections of shorter stories count as books. Thankfully.

[Dutchling]

I only know 20k leagues under the sea. Good book, but I assume you already know that.
Plenty of classics in there though. I think I'll steal some of those for my own list..

[pisskop]

So I've made my book list based on what I have. Here goes:

[snip-snip-snip]

It leaves another eight or so King books to read, but I'll finally make a dent on my collection. Thoughts?

King is good stuffs.  I started on him early, though mostly I don't read any fiction, and it wouldn't be him if I did.

The Gulag and thre archipelago is heavy, both in content and context.  Lots of torture, pain, and suffered indifference.  Got real thick and long at times.

Instead of just Dante's Divine Comedy, get the whole set.  It is really one of three books.  The other two are really more spiritual works, but its worth considering them as they all tell the story, as opposed to just one third.  Also, get the one in prose instead of the easy read ones and perhaps lookinto his life  a bit.  Much of the book is based upon his life.

The New Testament is long and quite thick if you're not into doing so.  Most of them today give you, in the back, a 365 day plan to reading through the bible.  Its expected to take a bit of time.  Also, King James version is by far considered the most faulty translation.

Umm, I've read a good deal of the books listed, but got nothing to say, except I really liked the Long Walk.  It was one of the first ones I read by King and the visuals could easily resound within me.

*Tommy Knockers is long, but overall a good story.  A little weak at the end, imo, but well enough.*

I suppose I don't have an official list yet. . .  I couldn't really plan my next book anyway, because I read at my whim.  Probably philosophical/theological, though.  But I have wanted to get back into Learning Latin. . .

[Dutchling]

Instead of just Dante's Divine Comedy, get the whole set.  It is really one of three books.  The other two are really more spiritual works, but its worth considering them as they all tell the story, as opposed to just one third.  Also, get the one in prose instead of the easy read ones and perhaps lookinto his life  a bit.  Much of the book is based upon his life.
 .

I have a copy of Divine Comedy, and it's hell + two others (haven't read it yet, saving it for 2013). Or do you mean those three are together part of another trilogy?