What should be considered "Good" literature?

[Anonymous No.1503302]

Books, adorned with beautiful prose and poetry, are usually considered good literature. Like a hollow drum made up of shiny material capable of making a good deal of noise, they attract a lot of attention from humongous students of literature. It is easier to be intellectually satisfied by such ostensible display, the thirst for greatness, which attests the beginning of the journey of a scholar. Whether the greatness is just a shadow of the true concept, is rather beyond such individuals.
Like a rotten but gigantic tree, that shatters at the first strike of lightening to reveal its soulless interior, these books display their meritocracy to the wise, when they approach them with their mind full of knowledge and life full of effort.
For, true greatness lies in the rigor and ideas that are central to the contents and not the embroidery.
It is an idea which sparks off burgeoning wisdom and actuates the reader, than simply provide a moment of pleasure, that is truly great.
And that is why classical literature triumphs mightily when subjected to demeaning comparison with modern literature; modern literature with its roots buried in the intellectual barrenness of the author, than the fertile soil of rigorous efforts and thought.

[Anonymous No.1503307]

How about you post a useful thread?

[Anonymous No.1503309]

>>1503307

Except for the possible spell-check error, its quite
nice. Unless of course you take it as a personal rebuff.

[Anonymous No.1503327]

meaningless drivel

[Anonymous No.1503337]

I'm not sure how you expect us to take you seriously if you never bother to back up any of your arguments with evidence. And I think your biggest problem with good prose is that it escapes you: "triumph mightily," "humongous students of literature," etc.

[None !WvWWh.l.CE No.1503342]

>>1503327

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1503349]

>Books, adorned with beautiful prose and poetry, are usually considered good literature
kind of circular, at best it doesn't help us get anywhere.

>. Like a hollow drum made up of shiny material capable of making a good deal of noise
You don't specify what noise, it could be anywhere from the sublimest rhythms to mundane banging. Through this metaphor, and your suppression of its affirmative qualities, you throw your whole rhetoric into question. You treat the drum as superficial and empty when it is quite capable of producing a merry fullnesss and vivacity through certain use.

>ue greatness lies in the rigor and ideas that are central to the contents and not the embroidery.
It is an idea which sparks off burgeoning wisdom and actuates the reader, than simply provide a moment of pleasure, that is truly great.
A thoroughly Platonic way of thinking. The idea is inseparable the conditions in which it arises, content is inseparable from from and vice versa. You are like a Plato trying to get people to get people to stop gawking at shadows you don't like the look of, or a Christian telling people to stop having so much fun. Thoroughly life/play-denying.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1503351]

>>1503349
*inseparable from form

[Anonymous No.1503370]

You cannot mask your lack of evidence with sesquepedalian language

[Anonymous No.1503385]

8/10. pretty impressed to be honest.

[Anonymous No.1503396]

What big load of bullshit.

[Anonymous No.1503428]

>>1503396
dumbass.

[Behemoth !!Twl3DmqEY/B No.1503446]

1. Denigrate singular achievement of flowery and aesthetically pleasing writing.
2. Use needlessly academic diction and purple prose
3. Pretend it's classical even though that's anachronistic and only heightens the hypocrisy of the statements.
4.?????
5. PROFIT!

[Anonymous No.1503476]

>>1503446
>1. Denigrate singular achievement of flowery and aesthetically pleasing writing.

That's not being done at all. Read again.

[Anonymous No.1503487]

OP, I am not sure what you are trying to say.

If you enjoy a book, it is good literature. That simple. Why would you need somebody else's approval to enjoy something? Now, I can see an actual use to defining what is good versus bad literature in the education system, but in terms of a book being used for entertainment it simply should not matter.

[Anonymous No.1503491]

>>1503487
>academic use
That's right.

[Anonymous No.1503513]

- Art is subjective
- Experts and scholars do not have an objective better taste
DEAL WITH IT.

What you think it's good literature is just a consensus more or less defined by everyone, it's not objective, it's not right. You can use all the arguments you want to put the book on a pedestal, other people will have arguments against it.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1503522]

>>1503513
>Art is subjective
misuse of the term 'art'

[Anonymous No.1503525]

>>1503491
My apologies on the verbose, awkward sentence.

>>1503522
>misuse of the term 'art'
I am not 3513, but elaborate.

[Anonymous No.1503529]

>>1503522
Yeah, I'm just not taking 4chan too seriously and having a leap of faith that I got my point across with those words.

[Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva No.1503530]

>>1503513
>>1503522
>>1503525
misuse is the wrong word


try misplaced

[Anonymous No.1503786]

Jumping for bustice.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1503813]

>>1503525
First, subjectivity and objectivity is more or less irrelevant in coming to understand how we use the term 'art'. All we can really use a term like 'art' for is to refer to that set of human works we wish to exemplify or set above the rest, as accepted by the main. What other use could we have for such a term? It's a term used to facilitate communication of a subject; I say "hey dude lets talk about Art" and we will fairly surely have a general idea about what each other is talking about.

Now, with regard to subjectivity in art; this is best represented by the term 'taste'. Everyone has their own tastes which are subjective etc etc. The point is that this doesn't matter when we employ a term like 'art' because we don't use it to refer to subjective tastes, we use to to refer as above. Now, let's take my previous discussion and interpret it like the moron who misuses the term 'art' treats it:
"Dude let's talk about art"
"But art is subjective"
"Yeah but you know what more or less know what I mean when I raise the subject right?"
"sure"
and so discussion continues without a problem
Now, if someone considers something controversial part of that set, there still isn't a problem because all that needs to be done there is to see whether one needs to expand the set or not to suit whatever relevant need is required in that situation. Expand if you need to, contract if you need to.

[Anonymous No.1503854]

>>1503813
Except you raised the subject of what is art yourself. I avoided that redundant discussion on what is art to make my point clear. I just said "art" assuming you would understand what I meant, exactly because of what you said. Also, art is not what is "above", for the values for this are also uncertain, subjective.

Besides, OP asked what is GOOD art (specifically literature) and that was what I was talking about, obviously. I was refuting the proposition that stated there is an objective line separating good art from bad art (and art from not-art, which is a whole other subject you went for on your own) or even shades of grey in a scale measuring quality. There is no such scale.

Taste is subjective because the values of taste are based on previous experiences, instinct, emotion and so on, very personal shit. But other than taste, people think that critics and scholars have an objectively better opinion, for they judge more on knowledge than feeling (less about taste), so they should know when something is good. Except there is no straight line from bad to good art. Literature or art experts disagree on a lot of subjects, have different opinions and of course, different experiences and knowledge. You cannot ignore that the judgement is always attached to the judge.

responding to tripfag troll

[Anonymous No.1503945]

>>1503854
> I was refuting the proposition that stated there is an objective line separating good art from bad art (and art from not-art, which is a whole other subject you went for on your own) or even shades of grey in a scale measuring quality. There is no such scale.

Lolwut?

[Behemoth !!Twl3DmqEY/B No.1503969]

>>1503476
>Books, adorned with beautiful prose and poetry, are usually considered good literature. Like a hollow drum made up of shiny material capable of making a good deal of noise,

>For, true greatness lies in the rigor and ideas that are central to the contents and _not_ the _embroidery_.

>It is an idea which sparks off burgeoning wisdom
>than simply provide a moment of pleasure

>its roots buried in the intellectual barrenness of the author
>rigorous efforts and thought.

You read it again, dipshit. You're probably the one who wrote it and you don't even understand what you're actually arguing. Jesus christ.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1503970]

>>1503854
>Except you raised the subject of what is art yourself
No-one has raised the subject of what art is in this thread

>I just said "art" assuming you would understand what I meant
Yeah, I understood you actually meant 'taste'

>art is not what is "above", for the values for this are also uncertain, subjective.
You haven't understood a single line of what I wrote

>OP asked what is GOOD art
no he didn't

>I was refuting the proposition that stated there is an objective line separating good art from bad art
You must like arguing against yourself a lot I guess, idk because no-one else has said anything about that

>
Taste is subjective because the values of taste are based on previous experiences, instinct, emotion and so on, very personal shit. But other than taste, people think that critics and scholars have an objectively better opinion, for they judge more on knowledge than feeling (less about taste), so they should know when something is good. Except there is no straight line from bad to good art. Literature or art experts disagree on a lot of subjects, have different opinions and of course, different experiences and knowledge
Whatever, you're the only person who is concerned with that in this thread. Everything I have said applies just as much to classifying categories of the set 'art', and there is no problem, and subjectivity and objectivity are more or less irrelevant.

>Literature or art experts disagree on a lot of subjects, have different opinions and of course, different experiences and knowledge. You cannot ignore that the judgement is always attached to the judge.
Cool, but that doesn't grind our ability to use the term 'art', or to map out correctly different categories in such a set, to a halt in any way

[Anonymous No.1503971]

>>1503945
I'm saying the scale does not exist objectively, it's personal and it depends on your values. Sounds weird, like I could compare any shit to Portinari, Munch, Michelangelo or whatever, but the point is that no matter how obvious it looks, it's not separated from personal experience and taste.

Let's put it this way: prove that the scale exists on a higher level than opinion.

PS: saturday night, I'm going out, see ya tomorrow

[Anonymous No.1503974]

bamph.

[None !WvWWh.l.CE No.1503977]

>>1503969
>not saging
thanks for announcing that you're late to the party 'bro-hemoth'

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1503983]

>>1503971
>I'm saying the scale does not exist objectively, it's personal and it depends on your values.
This is irrelevant to how we use a term like 'scale' in the discourse of art.

>it's not separated from personal experience and taste
THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH THIS YOU FUCKING DUMB SHALLOW-PATE, GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK FUCKING SKULL

>prove that the scale exists on a higher level than opinion.
WE DON'T NEED TO PROVE ANYTHING BECAUSE THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE TO HOW WE USE THE TERM 'ART' OR OUR DIFFERENTIATION OF THE VARIOUS CATEGORIES OR LEVELS OF SUCH A SET

[Anonymous No.1504001]

>>1503945

>batscream

[Anonymous No.1504027]

>>1504001
Bats don't use cream.

[Behemoth !!Twl3DmqEY/B No.1504028]

>>1503977
>>1503446
Unlike you I have shit to do with my day. I came home and saw this thread still here.

[Anonymous No.1504035]

>>1503813
I like this post. One of the reasons I get pissed off with a lot of your shit is because you sometimes post stuff as clear and cogent as this.

[None !WvWWh.l.CE No.1504058]

>>1504028
too bad the shit you do with your day is just as pointless isnt it?

[Behemoth !!Twl3DmqEY/B No.1504082]

>>1504058
Yeah...

[Anonymous No.1504083]

>>1504058
what job do you do?

[Tom Harper No.1504093]

>>1504083
Tybrax is a rentboy. He works for older men he meets on craigslist.
that's the story of how I met tybrax

[None !WvWWh.l.CE No.1504107]

>>1504093
fucking hell i dont know why i tell some of you these things on msn.

i'm addicting to buying clothes noww though so i need the money also i only suck dick -_-

[Anonymous No.1504108]

>>1504093
Is there anybody here who is not a faggot?

[None !WvWWh.l.CE No.1504112]

>>1504108
i'm not gay but yeah there seems to be alot of homosexuals on this board especially the really faggy ones that think being gay makes them superior (really need to get over their repressed homophobia and read the joy of gay sex)

[Tom Harper No.1504114]

>>1504107
I understand that you do this for money
But I thought what we had was special and it hurts me to know you're out there with strangers and not cuddling up with me ;_;

[Anonymous No.1504117]

>>1504112
Nono. I figured all of you are gay from the general posts. I was asking with the abnormal sense of the word.

[Tom Harper No.1504119]

>>1504117
I am who I am, please don't judge me for it.

[gallowsCalibrator No.1504141]

>>1504119
HOW 4R3 W3 TO JUDG3 YOU 1F NOT BY WHO YOU 4R3?

OH 1 KNOW

BY YOUR S1LLY 4V4T4R

W1TH TH4T K1ND OF LOOK YOU 4R3 MOST C3RT41NLY G4Y

[Anonymous No.1504142]

>>1504119
What do you think of the O post?

[Anonymous No.1504152]

Why are all the annoying tripfags from the shit side of Edinburgh.

[Tom Harper No.1504156]

>>1504152
But I'm not from Leith.

[None !WvWWh.l.CE No.1504158]

>>1504152
shitty leith apartment fag should take up a trip :)

[Anonymous No.1504160]

>>1504156
Aren't you from Georgie way?

Also; I'm not from Leith... although, I do live in an apartment in Albion Place across from "leith's San Siro"

[Tom Harper No.1504162]

>>1504160
Naw man. Not Gorgie.

[Shitty Leith Appartment Fag No.1504163]

>>1504158
I'm surprised I'm even remembered. I've only mentioned it like once or twice.

[Shitty Leith Apartment Fag No.1504164]

>>1504158
I'm surprised I'm even remembered. I've only mentioned it like once or twice.

[Tom Harper No.1504167]

>>1504164
My lovely tybrax remembers everything :3

[Shitty Leith Apartment Fag No.1504176]

>>1504162
Then where do you hail. And let's face it, I shouldn't really be making fun of anywhere in Edinburgh... I mean, it's not like we're in Glasgow or Dundee right?
>>1504167
So I have noticed/

[Tom Harper No.1504182]

>>1504176
I live near the bypass. Let's leave it at that.

[None !WvWWh.l.CE No.1504187]

:)

[Anonymous No.1504209]

its basically impossible to define but you know it when you see it, hope this helps

[None !WvWWh.l.CE No.1504235]

Ayn's hair is kind of weird

[Anonymous No.1504657]

Pop fiction is a writer's personal fantasy that is also the fantasy of a large population of readers.

Classics are books that colorfully illustrate human emotions in a unique way. Readers like them not to fantasize, but simply for the certain human qualities that it reminds them of. Humans experience so many things at once, but a classical book hones in on a few experiences and exemplifies them so that the reader may relate.

[Anonymous No.1504678]

Good literature...

==> Anything written in French from 1800 to 1900.

Beyond that, it has to be decided each book separately.

[> No.1504715]

>Rand