What exactly is it that makes a book good or shit? If you were trying to be as objective and scientific as possible, what specific factors would you say have to be present in order for the book to be considered worthy of critical acclaim?
>>7753395
being written by Gene Wolfe makes a book good.
>>7753405
Those autists wouldn't know a good book if it slapped them in the face.
>>7753415
well duh. it's just the 'objective and scientific' part of op's bait. it's an appropriate response. honestly though op wouldn't either.
>>7753395
when it transcends the meaning/unmeaning dichotomy.
>>7753422
I'm just trying to understand what critics are looking for when they read books. If it's simply how much pleasure reading brings people, then you have to accept that 50 Shades of Grey is better than Ulysses. This is probably not the case, so I was wondering what else we can put it down to other than subjective opinion.
>>7753431
intersubjectivity senpai.
just read a bunch of nyrb articles and synthesize it yourself.
>>7753395
- Having had the largest possible count of previous owners' dicks in them
- Political leanings of the author
- Meme value (of course measured by a price/meme or meme/page ratio), with special attention being paid to:
> References to other meme authors, and
> The quality of the inevitable title drop
The author needs to have been dead for at least 25 years.
>>7753609
Are you trying to say that Infinite Jest is shit?
>>7753395
Triggering aesthetic experience
You never get that flowing feeling in the brain or the tingly limbs?
>artistic medium
>objective and scientific
Lmao ok dude, what a fucking autist
>>7753395
Depends entirely on the audience.
People just wanna have their way of seeing things confirmed rather than challenged.
Then there's a clique of readers who are only concerned with how smart they get to look while talking about the book. Even better if it's a really shitty book, because then you get to say "you didn't understand it", and can hog the spotlight without being challenged or contradicted.
>>7753431
Ulysses is a much more original work, it has more historical importance, it's characters are more endearing, it shows more mastery of language and style, and it's just something that can be mused over and analyzed and rewards more through deeper rereadings.
>>7753395
Its a "you know it when you see it" kind of thing, but you have to critically read at least a thousand books first.
>>7753395
>objective truth
>>7754145
I always think of it like wine. A very good wine can only be appreciated by someone experienced in dissecting and appreciating high end wine - the average person might enjoy it, but the full experience is wasted on them, or they flat out just don't enjoy it; find it overwhelming etc. The complexity and balance of elements makes a good book (prose, characterization, the list goes on), an average book (like Green) is simply a dumbed down version, with shallower elements, and is much more accessible. You can really have an objective good/bad metric to literature (universally), but maybe you could say how much one might get out of a book is a measure of its quality i.e. Ulysses has been studied for nearly a century whereas most people on /lit/ could take in TFioS on the first read through...just how I look at it. I am a winemaker, so the analogy is probably easier for to take seriously.
>>7754173
>insinuating that i wouldn't objectively her truth
>>7754185
can't* really have...
>>7754155
>inferret jest
>>7753395
1. The book is coherent and the actions described are logical, even if that logic isn't initially apparent. This is the most basic level of quality, being able to communicate an idea to the reader. You would be surprised how many people would fail to do this.
2. Having those ideas be meaningful in the real world, while still having entertainment value. This is the difference between a novel/poem/essay and a textbook.
>science
>objective
>>7753431
>comparing what horny milfs feel with 50 shades to the transcending bliss that is reading Ulysses
u wut m8
There is no objective way to determine what makes a book good which is more or less the point of reading. Look, you can read John Green and get something out of it if you try. Doesn't mean it's good or bad. If there were any objectivity about books then reading would be pointless and no one would talk about them. People like to argue and books allow that because they aren't objective in any way. So just read widely and figure out what you like, then make your own decisions on what is good/bad
>>7754592
I would disagree that ideas are important to a story. A story (book/poem/etc) only needs to make you think and reflect for yourself. Trying to find meaning in books is like searching for words in a word find. The ideas are pointless with personal reflection l and independent thought, so I'd say that any book that tells and enjoyable story and gets you to think about your life/own ideas is a good book
>>7754866
without*
an*
shit can't type
>>7754866
That is correct. I guess instead of an idea, like a message or moral, I meant some sort of insight into the real world. That not only are the actions described in the story logical and coherent, but have some relationship to reality.
>>7755022
Oh in that case I agree w you. Just can't get behind moralistic tales/books with obvious agendas (eg Poisonwood Bible). I'd say that one of the few constant marks of a "bad" book is didacticism, the tendency to try to convince or teach the reader something
>>7754717
You clearly didn't read or comprehend the whole post
I've been wondering /lit/
Why do a lot of modern books lack prose altogether. Like I read a lot of books prior to WW2 and they're always full of prose and ways of writing, and sometime after the 50s, something changed in writing.
What happened exactly?
>>7756093
Modernism
>>7756189
Modernism started before WW2.
>>7756189
Are you sure...
Like what happened
>>7756199
Modernism itself wasn't the end of stylistic prose, it simply caused the post-modern hangup.
By the way "Post-modernism" as a movement is best compared to a vacuum.
>>7756226
Its kinda weird, cause you read post-modern books that have no prose or anything to them, and these are popular.
I just don't know WHY exactly we went from prose and style to just words on a page.
>>7756093
People became pretty much illiterate. From my German perspective, I feel like there are maybe 500 people in Germany today that are as eloquent as the average 20 years old philosophy student in 1850. Bachelor theses from that time have a higher linguistic standard than almost anything written past 2000. Modern philosophical literature is a joke. Even among the "intellectual elite" (professors, newspaper editors in chief, poets, etc) most wouldn't survive a literary debate with some random 19th century duke's wife.
>>7756279
The brilliance of the olden ways are just simply brilliant, as drunk as I am now. Listening to Mozart with a fat lip of dip in my lip, I cannot ignore that something, something changed.
Why, why did it change. Why?
quirkyness
>>7756315
Idk man, but desu the late 18th century was pretty much the peak of Western Civilization since the fall of Rome. It might take another 1000+ years but the dark times will end, Anon.
>>7756341
he is just SO LAME
>>7756093
>Why do a lot of modern books lack prose altogether.
> and they're always full of prose and ways of writing
what does this mean?
>>7756361
you just can't take someone who loves life and isn't afraid to show it. that's what so beautiful about the new sincerity movement
>>7756389
the new sincerity movement is cryptofascist dreck
dissenters are told to shut up and conform, conformists are lauded as 'sincere' for reinforcing established dogma
>>7756256
People will read any bullshit if it makes them feel smart for reading it
>>7756279
>I feel like there are maybe 500 people in Germany today that are as eloquent as the average 20 years old philosophy student in 1850.
They didn't just let every braindead pleb into university in 1850. Up until midway through the 20th century university was for the rich and intellectually gifted.
>>7756414
But still, the absolute number of outstanding intellectuals and artist should be much, much higher today. It seems as if we're so obsessed with equality and mediocrity that we are killing every spark of brilliance. We should write because we love creating masterpieces, we should strive to use the full spectrum of language for explaining what numbers can't explain. Instead, we only write for everyone to understand the essence of what we're saying. We've killed language as a form of art.
>>7756437
Why are you identifying with the problem, be part of the solution.
People will continue to be idiots for as long as we're on this planet, but at least try to be one of the people going beyond it.
>>7756437
People just don't care about art of any kind as much as they used to. It's all about consumerism now.
