>>7721349
That's false.

>>7721349
True. As much as I like think otherwise, in truth, all things are equally worthless.

>>7721361
So what are the objective markers for quality in literature?

>>7721349
Picture is of George Burns.

I always thought of him as a classy guy. He never swore in front of kids and didn't tell dirty jokes over the radio.

I still kind of think he had a dirty mind, though.

>>7721349
I was kind of hoping there would be more interest in this topic.

Also, the title should read, "There is no objective marker for quality in literature"

>>7721369

whether or not Bloom likes it tbqh

>>7721441
i hope you are being sardonic.

>>7721349
There are objective markers for qualities, but there is no objective standard for choosing which of those are to be most highly valued.

>>7721408
it's a stupid topic that has been discussed to death, and god knows you're not gonan get anything novel on 4chan

lurk more newfag

>>7721349
False you faggot.

God might be dead, but not everything is allowed.

Which quality?

For instance, a work's quality as an appealing work can be measured by how widespread it is, as a product you can measure income, and as an expression of the author you can measure writing speed and whether or not they even finished it.

Define your conditions.

>>7721349
Two works are comparable in any aspect that they share, but no works are comparable as a whole, because a book has infinite many aspects.

True.

There are several objective markers of aesthetic quality.

Also True.

Well, there are objevtive markers for craftsmanship. Quality, however, is pretty subjective.
You might think that a book that is terribly crafted is still of high quality and I could not refute that. I could merely point out flaws in the way it was crafted.