Does a book need to do more than tell a good tale to be enjoyable?
Does a book have to be filled with social/political/philosophical commentary/theory to be good?
I've been lurking here for a while and its really confusing to me as to what makes you guys tick. Seems like a good plot and being decently/well written just isn't enough for you guys.
Mind shedding some light on this for me?
>>7458317
>Does a book have to be filled with social/political/philosophical commentary/theory to be good?
if you're a critical theorist
if you appreciate literature in general, then you want to learn something new about how people think by, more or less, seeing it done on the page.
you want to feel like you've lived a bit of other people's lives. not just watching a bunch of events happen like a movie but feeling it and experiencing it and gaining from it when you're out the other side, like real life (sometimes).
>>7458337
But that can easily be applied to a bunch of shitty YA novels
Maybe. Sometimes.
>>7458317
>Does a book have to be filled with social/political/philosophical commentary/theory to be good?
Every book is filled with social/political/philosophical commentary/theory, regardless of whether or not the author intended it.
The issue is, were not here to talk about books were here to talk about literature. You know, books with deep meaning and artististic value.
If you enjoy a book just for its plot your essentially enjoying it for its entertainment value. While there's nothing wrong with that (as much as this board would like you to believe there is) for the most part their shallow, forgettable experiences, unless of course it's an honest to goodness really great story, which definately does happen.
I've sat down an enjoied some of the cheesiest sci-fi and fantasy you could think of. They were enjoyable, yes, but also fairly forgettable.
Books that make you think tend to have more staying power. Which is why we talk about them here.
To sum things up, were here to talk about literature based on its artistic merit. That's how we judge things here. There have been numerous books I enjoyed at an entertainment level that I call shit here because they have little to no artistic value. That being said there are numerous books that have such a tremendous entertainment value that they can just be called good books based on that alone.
Once you start exploring literature you'll understand.
>>7458361
Pretty much this.
The depth and complexity at which an author is able to explore an idea or theory also tends to go hand in hand with the authors ability to write and engaging/quality story.
There are exceptions. I've read literature with lots of "artistic merit" with pants on head retarded plots and literature with little to no artistic merit with super engaging plots.
>>7458353
something new i said
something new
>>7458317
>Does a book need to do more than tell a good tale to be enjoyable?
Not really
>Does a book have to be filled with social/political/philosophical commentary/theory to be good?
No, but Bonus if it is
The most highly respected books are those which combine the philosophical content with a clunky story and convoluted writing.
>>7458317
>Does a book need to do more than tell a good tale to be enjoyable?
nope
>Does a book have to be filled with social/political/philosophical commentary/theory to be good?
a good book can't help having some socio-political or philosophical value, but the extra-literary value is not what makes the book good, it comes with being good. it's not like people cram in random political statements in the middle of their work. it comes with the territory.
>Seems like a good plot
people won't admit here but narrative is more or less a parasite on prose. plots are worthless.
>Mind shedding some light on this for me?
on what
