/lit/ - Literature

File: 80 KB, 1250x517, franz.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Apr 27 21:49:02 2015 No.6465150 [Reply] [Original]

what makes a "good" book?

is it valid to say that classic writters such as shakespeare, cervantes, joyce, goethe, proust etc. are superior to contemporary ones, equally famous (if not more), known all over the globe, such as jk rowling, grr martin, stephenie meyer, dan brown, agatha christie, stephen king and paulo coelho?

if so, why?

after reading the 5 books of ice and fire chronicles, i have this feeling that all those thousands of pages cant get close to the profoudness of books that, although are considered classics, are very small, e.g. the stranger, werther, the metamorphosis. couldnt avoid to think: what a waste of time

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 27 21:54:39 2015 No.6465172 grrm isn't trying to write anything beyond entertainment

Anonymous Mon Apr 27 21:57:26 2015 No.6465183

aesthetics discussion. only so long before this turns into a flame war.

I guess I'll start. I have a weak conviction on my personal theory of aesthetics.

I believe that a book can be demonstrably, objectively good, regardless of observer. not simply that a good book can be good regardless of reviews, but regardless of humans overall. like - a beautiful book will inspire an understanding of the object of beauty and emotion on a more fundamental level. some may not relate to this objectively good piece in their own subjective perception of it, but it is none the less good. commonly, scientists have speculated that humans experience different visions of color, i.e. the way I perceive blue may be entirely different from the blue you see. does this make blue any less a reliable property, on the metaphysical level? a beautiful piece of art might be perceived as less beautiful by the observer because of some contingent factors. but a good piece of art is something you ought to appreciate,

this sounds pretentious. I'm just guessing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 27 21:57:33 2015 No.6465184 >>6465150 both pynchon and dfw are pretty popular. don't even pretend like any of the classic writers you mentioned were even close to the contemporary ones in terms of popularity.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 27 22:00:09 2015 No.6465190 >>6465183 get to the point

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 27 22:02:32 2015 No.6465195 >>6465184 i know more ppl that have read the contemporary then the classics, although they have all "heard" of them. they are more read nowadays

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 27 22:04:52 2015 No.6465203 >>6465190 subjective/objective false dichotomy

Anonymous Mon Apr 27 22:06:28 2015 No.6465208

>>6465195
because they are considered classics and are (to some extent) taught in schools.
same reason as to why everyone knows who picasso is, but couldn't name a single contemporary painter.

and what makes a "good" book is completely impossible to answer, it's subjective.
although i'm guessing most people would agree that a classic book would have to have a lot of substance, philosophically and/or politically.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 27 22:07:52 2015 No.6465210 >>6465183 this is anything but pretentious, it's degenerate.

Circe Mon Apr 27 22:07:54 2015 No.6465211
File: 21 KB, 312x480, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>is it valid to say that classic writters such as shakespeare, cervantes, joyce, goethe, proust etc. are superior to contemporary ones, equally famous (if not more), known all over the globe, such as jk rowling, grr martin, stephenie meyer, dan brown, agatha christie, stephen king and paulo coelho?
Yes, of course.
>If so, why?
http://www.bartleby.com/27/15.html

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 27 22:10:08 2015 No.6465216 >>6465210 can you elaborate? genuinely interested in understanding aesthetics better. I haven't read anything on the topic of aesthetic theory and I feel intellectually naked when I talk about art. is Adorno a good place to start?

Anonymous Mon Apr 27 22:14:06 2015 No.6465237

>>6465216
>I believe that a book can be demonstrably, objectively good
this implies inherent value
>a beautiful book will inspire an understanding of the object of beauty and emotion on a more fundamental level
and if it doesn't? sounds subjective.
>some may not relate to this objectively good piece in their own subjective perception of it, but it is none the less good
how?
>but a good piece of art is something you ought to appreciate,
>ought

i'd love some examples of objectively good art, or are you strictly talking theoretical?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 27 22:14:42 2015 No.6465240 >>6465150 No, classical writers are not "better" than cotemporary writers; case in point: Bukowski.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 27 22:15:41 2015 No.6465242 >>6465240 Bukowski isn't classical

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 27 22:19:54 2015 No.6465255 >>6465211 thank you

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 27 22:21:21 2015 No.6465262 >>6465242 kek

Anonymous Mon Apr 27 22:24:36 2015 No.6465270

>>6465240
bukowski is good, but his work will take decades to achieve the greatness of masterminds of the western canon. only when our society suffers a big change, then we'll be able to see his work as a mirror of an old society, a cause to the future-current situation

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]