What IS a "good book"?
How do you define literary quality (beyond mere enjoyable prose)?
Is the "difficulty" of a book intrinsically directly proportional to its quality; can a book suffer from excessive difficulty or be good in spite of (or due to) its "easiness"?
>>7732259
A good book is hard to find.A bad one isn't.
You dig?
>>7732373
So a book must be obscure in order to be good?
While I can believe that "the classics" aren't as well-read as pop lit and photobooks of cute dogs, I don't think that their obscurity its cause for their quality or vice versa.
And that raises another question, what IS a "classic"? Can classics ONLY be defined in retrospect?
I've been thinking about critical theory and the nature of quality and poptimism vs. traditional academia all day and it's just been fucking my whole shit up senpai
The Brothers Karamazov
