... Crime and Punishment is an outstanding novel. It just is and would be in any language I would argue.
As a classic example of people having different tastes, I have twice tried to read it and never got beyond about page 25. So, however much ir 'just is' for you, it 'just wasn't' for me.
... Crime and Punishment is an outstanding novel. It just is and would be in any language I would argue.
As a classic example of people having different tastes, I have twice tried to read it and never got beyond about page 25. So, however much ir 'just is' for you, it 'just wasn't' for me.
I do not think there is much doubt it is an outstanding novel. What you are expressing is dislike.
All of that is true and I acknowledge that there are further depths to be found in reading Cervantes in the language he wrote in. But that does not in itself mean that the work in English is bad.
Two things can be true at the same time - it is incredible in mediaeval Spanish but it is really good translated into English.
It depends on the translator. The greatest book of all time could be ruined by a poor translation. That's all I'm saying. You seem to think I'm arguing against reading books in translation. I am not. I just think there should be a separate list for them, which acknowledges the translator's skill as well as the author's.
Arcane literary theory makes you unemployable unless you change direction. I learned that the hard way.
@Pomona - I've never, ever come across any literary critical view that wouldn't rate Jane Austen as a 'serious' novelist or as a 'lesser' novelist than Eliot or The Brontes.
I have no idea where you've picked up that impression.
On the issue of Marxist critical theory 'taking over'. There was a lot of that during the Structuralist kerfuffles of the late '70s and early '80s and aspects of that, and feminist critical theory have largely become mainstream. There may be something of a backlash now.
Rumour has it that Gen Z are getting into lengthy novels such as The Count of Monte Cristo - if The New Statesman is to believed. At least in audio-book form.
@HarryCH The Odyssey has been mentioned several times, and that is written as poetry.
Which I often forget as the translation I read (about 20 years ago now) rendered it as prose. It made for a cracking story.
Whereas the translation of The Iliad that I read rendered the whole thing into English rhyming couplets, which necessitated such linguistic gymnastics as to make it virtually incoherent.
@Pomona - I've never, ever come across any literary critical view that wouldn't rate Jane Austen as a 'serious' novelist or as a 'lesser' novelist than Eliot or The Brontes.
I have no idea where you've picked up that impression.
Well I've picked up that impression too! I wouldn't call it a "literary critical view", more a sort of disdain for "bonnet fans" that some English Literature specialists seem to have. I think it's a relatively recent reaction to Austen's mass popularity over the last few decades and I have occasionally heard words like "reactionary" or "bourgeois" thrown around in support, contrasting her unfavourably with Eliot in particular.
I suggest that the difference between the two is that reading Austen is a bit like going to a party with a good friend who occasionally nudges you and says: "Look at that guy - what an idiot!". Whereas reading Eliot is a bit like going with your wise but rather earnest teacher or governess, who says: "Now attend to this - it will make you sadder but wiser to see the foibles of human nature..."
I think "Silas Marner" is absolutely brilliant but the longer Eliot's books get the more annoying I find them. The end of Middlemarch is particularly annoying where she spends a whole chapter spelling out in painful detail what the moral of the story is supposed to be. "Well the problem was that Dorothea didn't really have enough scope..." thank you for pointing that out, in case I had not realised this over the course of the previous thousand pages...
I'm with Auden: many books are undeservedly forgotten; none are undeservedly remembered.
Also, C.S.Lewis' view that there is no one set of excellences that make all good books good.
Both believed that some books were objective good or bad, and that there were classics which were much better than others. But in principle neither would have drawn up a canon and said these books and these only are real literature.
My understanding is that the concept of a canon was originally satirical: women scholars who were discouraged from writing academically about women talked of there being a canon of great usually men who were approved for scholarly study as a way to castigate the phenomenon. Then conservative scholars with no sense of humour tried to defend the idea seriously.
Personally I like lists of greatest authors - I think it's a fun parlour game. I think there's something important about an aesthetic achievement that goes beyond expressing attitudes that one can approve of. But it's not wrong to read and enjoy authors that would never make it onto those lists.
Some writers though are just bad.
Lewis said (I think in Experiment in Criticism) that if there's even one person who reads a book and then re-reads it over and over, that that book cannot be completely bad. So when he thinks of a great book, he starts from the premise that it ought to be capable of producing pleasure for readers not just the first time round, but the second, the third, etc. It's been too long since I read EiC, and I need to go back and read it again--but it was very useful to me. He wasn't just laying out a list of Top 100 Great Books, he was trying to get at what makes a book worthwhile.
I'm pretty sure the idea of a "canon" goes back to the Bible, but got attached pretty quickly to the set of books most commonly taught in school. Which would have been before feminist theory came along--anyone have an OED and want to look up the first uses of "canon" in this sense?
That first set of books would probably have been the Greek and Roman classics. English literature was looked down upon for quite a long time--you enjoyed Shakespeare at home or in the theatre, but the Iliad and the Odyssey were truly great.
I just think there should be a separate list for them, which acknowledges the translator's skill as well as the author's.
I think the problem would be whether you count different translations of the same book as different entries on the list.
A list of best translations (evaluated in terms of the contribution of the translator) would not be the same as a list of best translated books (evaluated in terms of story, character, etc, as well as prose style or poetry). In the second case it would seem odd to have, say, Pope's and Alexander's and Wilson's versions of the Iliad in three different slots.
Even in a short poem, like say Horace's, two different translations aren't two independent poems - even if the particular music of the Latin can't be reproduced much of the poetry is in the train of thought and the images.
Oh dear, I must learn to read more carefully. I read the posts above about Eliot being so ... well, earnest and drab, and kept thinking--that's not the T.S. Eliot I know....
It certainly wasn't the case when I was at university.
And yes, I have rather the same reaction to Middlemarch ad opposed to Silas Marner.
Is it just me, or do Shipmates find contemporary sexed-up adaptations of 19th century novels highly irritating? Wuthering Heights as soft-porn (I refused to see that one) and Stephen Knight's Peaky Blinders-esque version of Great Expectations full of opium, flagellation and broad-as-a-barn-door social comment?
... Crime and Punishment is an outstanding novel. It just is and would be in any language I would argue.
As a classic example of people having different tastes, I have twice tried to read it and never got beyond about page 25. So, however much ir 'just is' for you, it 'just wasn't' for me.
I do not think there is much doubt it is an outstanding novel. What you are expressing is dislike.
Indeed. Just because I don’t particularly like a book is irrelevant to whether it deserves to be called a great literature. Ditto great music.
... Crime and Punishment is an outstanding novel. It just is and would be in any language I would argue.
As a classic example of people having different tastes, I have twice tried to read it and never got beyond about page 25. So, however much ir 'just is' for you, it 'just wasn't' for me.
I do not think there is much doubt it is an outstanding novel. What you are expressing is dislike.
Indeed. Just because I don’t particularly like a book is irrelevant to whether it deserves to be called a great literature. Ditto great music.
Yes. I have never been able to finish War and Peace, that does not change its status as a great novel, in my opinion. I liked Anna Karenina very much so it is not just something about my relationship with Tolstoy.
But this is also not getting any closer to what is a "Great Book", it cannot just be about personal taste, my ability to finish long, or hard, works of fiction or how popular the books were.
If we use the canon analogy then there must be an element of consensus about it.
The NT books didn't select themselves, contrary to conservative evangelical opinion. Someone had to make those decisions and they were made collectively.
In the case of literature, art, music etc tastes and fashions change. Ii used to have a book from the 1930s that had reproductions of 'great art'. As well as the Rembrandts and Vermeers there were Victorian genre paintings we wouldn't categorise that way now. There was also no Braque, Picasso or Matisse and a disparaging reference to 'modern art' in the introduction.
Consensus is easier said than done.
I'm not a fan of these '100 best novels', '100 best tunes', '100 best rock riffs' etc etc etc.
But I think there are some generally recognised classics/examples that we can recognise even if they aren't to our taste.
Indeed. Just because I don’t particularly like a book is irrelevant to whether it deserves to be called a great literature. …
By what criteria?
Criteria broader than “I like it” or “I don’t like it.”
I think that would include consensus, as @Gamma Gamaliel, mentions, or at least wide acceptance that something qualifies as great literature. Reasons why particular works qualifies might be varied.
Going to music, I’ve said before that with a few notable exceptions, I don’t particularly enjoy Mozart’s music. But I would never mistake the fact that most of what Mozart wrote doesn’t appeal to me as an indication that Mozart wasn’t a great composer.
Indeed. Just because I don’t particularly like a book is irrelevant to whether it deserves to be called a great literature. …
By what criteria?
I think we could list a few things
* Innovation
* Influence
* Choice of words/grammar
* Beauty
* Longevity of an audience
For me I think there's also something about a work that is not just new. Fashion follows novelty, books that are loudly proclaimed in 2026 may not still be considered so in 50 years.
Indeed. Just because I don’t particularly like a book is irrelevant to whether it deserves to be called a great literature. …
By what criteria?
Criteria broader than “I like it” or “I don’t like it.”
I think that would include consensus, as @Gamma Gamaliel, mentions, or at least wide acceptance that something qualifies as great literature. Reasons why particular works qualifies might be varied.
Going to music, I’ve said before that with a few notable exceptions, I don’t particularly enjoy Mozart’s music. But I would never mistake the fact that most of what Mozart wrote doesn’t appeal to me as an indication that Mozart wasn’t a great composer.
I think there is something about complexity, or at least something that is capable of being complex. I think this is because complexity (in music as well as fiction and so on) means that one can get things out of it on repeated listening.
Indeed. Just because I don’t particularly like a book is irrelevant to whether it deserves to be called a great literature. …
By what criteria?
Criteria broader than “I like it” or “I don’t like it.”
I think that would include consensus, as "Gamma Gamaliel", mentions, or at least wide acceptance that something qualifies as great literature. Reasons why particular works qualifies might be varied.
Thanks. For me, this begs the question of the identities of those involved in any consensus or wide acceptance. Would it predominantly be people from WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic) societies?
* Innovation
* Influence
* Choice of words/grammar
* Beauty
* Longevity of an audience
For me I think there's also something about a work that is not just new. Fashion follows novelty, books that are loudly proclaimed in 2026 may not still be considered so in 50 years.
Thanks - interesting mix of criteria. Some of the most innovative and influential books do not score well on beauty.
Maybe it is all about fashion. Do some books continue to be read because they're on a list of books that deserve to be read? Or does the list of books itself determine the criteria by which books are deemed to be worthy of being added to the list? (And I'm kind of reminded of the way that stock market indices are constructed.)
I think Jane Austen is under-valued and not taken seriously enough as an author. In addition, there are many other pioneering women writers who are barely known - for example, Margaret Cavendish was writing science fiction in the 1660s. It seems bonkers that nobody has tried to adapt The Blazing World for the screen!
Thank you for this!
I downloaded it to my Kindle and I'm really enjoying it. The lilting style and she has an amazing and fascinating imagination.
* Innovation
* Influence
* Choice of words/grammar
* Beauty
* Longevity of an audience
For me I think there's also something about a work that is not just new. Fashion follows novelty, books that are loudly proclaimed in 2026 may not still be considered so in 50 years.
Thanks - interesting mix of criteria. Some of the most innovative and influential books do not score well on beauty.
Maybe it is all about fashion. Do some books continue to be read because they're on a list of books that deserve to be read? Or does the list of books itself determine the criteria by which books are deemed to be worthy of being added to the list? (And I'm kind of reminded of the way that stock market indices are constructed.)
Here's an idea to play with: maybe books only become Great when they are scrubbed from the impact of fashion. Which means that when one is studying a book which is modern and fashionable, one is as likely to be studying the crowd of people who are performatively reading a particular selection of books as the book itself.
Why do people really like Arundhati Roy's work is an interesting question to think about because her books are part of the current zeitgeist. We cannot really answer the question about how the audience reacted to Austen because (as far as I know, I could be wrong) she was relatively unknown during her lifetime. We can maybe say something about Austen's audience in the 21st century, but it was written far enough ago to be a different world for most people.
We can see connections, examine the beauty and so on.
It certainly wasn't the case when I was at university.
And yes, I have rather the same reaction to Middlemarch ad opposed to Silas Marner.
Is it just me, or do Shipmates find contemporary sexed-up adaptations of 19th century novels highly irritating? Wuthering Heights as soft-porn (I refused to see that one) and Stephen Knight's Peaky Blinders-esque version of Great Expectations full of opium, flagellation and broad-as-a-barn-door social comment?
I think said reaction to Austen is driven more by adaptations as a simulacrum for the books, leading to a type of Austen Fandom that is somewhat disconnected from the actual books.
Wrt Wuthering Heights, in defence of Emerald Fennell (something which I am NOT inclined to give, because I think she is bad at making films) it isn't supposed to be a faithful adaptation.
Austen had a small but select readership. She was introduced to the Prince Regent, who asked her to dedicate her next novel to him: see 'Emma'.
Someone fitting into the zeitgeist is of course no guarantee that they are merely a fashionable writer. Who could be more 'Victorian' than Dickens? Shakespeare's theatre company worked for the monarch. He was a renowned writer in his time, and certainly his writing has relationship to cultural currents of the era. He wrote 'Macbeth' because the new king was Scottish.
I have not read Arundhati Roy, but have nothing against her. Are you not keen on her work?
I think Jane Austen is under-valued and not taken seriously enough as an author. In addition, there are many other pioneering women writers who are barely known - for example, Margaret Cavendish was writing science fiction in the 1660s. It seems bonkers that nobody has tried to adapt The Blazing World for the screen!
Thank you for this!
I downloaded it to my Kindle and I'm really enjoying it. The lilting style and she has an amazing and fascinating imagination.
Apparently someone tried to loosely adapt The Blazing World for the screen but it wasn't very good. I'm glad you are enjoying it - the 16th and 17th centuries are full of a lot of fascinating women writers that go under the radar.
But part of the value of older books is that they are written by people living in a different context to ours, as Lewis said. They might have enduring appeal because they are about universal themes on some level - love, hate, grief, revenge - but the people writing them were inevitably influenced by their own environment. For example, Tolkien thought it was quite reasonable for all his female characters to be left at home (except for Eowyn, who makes the very reasonable point that home is no longer a safe place to be left) but this is such an alien idea to a modern audience that the people adapting his works for the Jackson films changed Arwen's character into an elven ranger and had her fighting alongside Aragorn.
I'm working my way through Emily Wilson's translation of The Odyssey at the moment (and it's a lot more readable than certain other translations I've read) and there's a lot of emphasis on the correct way to provide hospitality. Not just a bed for the night and some food, but lavish gifts of clothes and valuable objects. Not just valuables, but help to continue the journey - chariots, a ship, even an escort. This is totally alien to the modern attitude to strangers turning up on the doorstep and asking for help.
Austen had a small but select readership. She was introduced to the Prince Regent, who asked her to dedicate her next novel to him: see 'Emma'.
Someone fitting into the zeitgeist is of course no guarantee that they are merely a fashionable writer. Who could be more 'Victorian' than Dickens? Shakespeare's theatre company worked for the monarch. He was a renowned writer in his time, and certainly his writing has relationship to cultural currents of the era. He wrote 'Macbeth' because the new king was Scottish.
I have not read Arundhati Roy, but have nothing against her. Are you not keen on her work?
Not at all, I mentioned Arundhati Roy because I really like her books. I'm trying to think through how a book becomes a "great".
Hopkins made a distinction between lines that he could imagine a poet (Tennyson, Shakespeare, Wordsworth) writing if he was that poet (although if he tried he couldn't), and lines that he couldn't imagine writing at all. He thought the second kind was what kept one reading or rereading a poet.
<snip>This is totally alien to the modern attitude to strangers turning up on the doorstep and asking for help.
I’m not saying one way or another whether John Buchan’s works count as great literature, but I have been struck by how much hospitality to strangers is offered / expected in the early twentieth century milieu, a world where, beyond the railways, many people travelled no faster than foot pace.
I do think personal taste is an aspect of this. I’ve found, despite much perseverance, that I’m really not that keen on Dostoevsky, but love the rich humanity of Tolstoy. Obviously this is not a judgement on their respective merits. Dostoevsky is just a bit glum isn’t he?
I love Proust: his wildly acidic observations about the high society he inhabits are so funny, plus his voyeuristic preoccupation with (supposedly) other character’s outré sexual preferences.
Austen is a great writer of course.
It's also good to read new works. Just finished M. John Harrison’s ‘The End of Everything’ which possessed his usual combination of mordant humour and poetry. It was brilliant at capturing a particular down-at-heal English seaside ambience. Was it about Brexit? Was it about AI? Up to the reader I suppose.
I would recommend reading for pleasure.
Dostoyevsky isn't actually meant to be dour: much of it is a black comedy. Dostoyevsky characters don't do mad things because they're spiritual; they do they're because they're comic.
(The problem here is that humour is hard to translate - one too many words can labour the punchline. Also we tend to think that if someone's serious they can't be funny and if they're funny they can't be serious.)
Dostoyevsky isn't actually meant to be dour: much of it is a black comedy. Dostoyevsky characters don't do mad things because they're spiritual; they do they're because they're comic.
(The problem here is that humour is hard to translate - one too many words can labour the punchline. Also we tend to think that if someone's serious they can't be funny and if they're funny they can't be serious.)
Wait, you think Raskolnikov killing Alyona Ivanovna is supposed to be comedy?
Dostoyevsky isn't actually meant to be dour: much of it is a black comedy. Dostoyevsky characters don't do mad things because they're spiritual; they do they're because they're comic.
(The problem here is that humour is hard to translate - one too many words can labour the punchline. Also we tend to think that if someone's serious they can't be funny and if they're funny they can't be serious.)
Yes I have sometimes suspected I am missing something in his work that is supposed to be funny, but which hasn't translated well. I understand my relative lack of fondness for his work is my problem: wouldn't dispute for a moment his stature as a writer.
'I mentioned Arundhati Roy because I really like her books' Oh that's good. I read plenty of contemporary work as well.
Jesus,for sheer nastiness that’s hard to beat.
Why is that nasty? I am baffled.
Re-read your comment: if not meant to be nasty please explain.
Sorry, I am also confused as to why this was a nasty comment. Why is it nasty to say that they like Arundhati Roy's work?
I don't know if it sheds any light, but I would normally hear "Oh that's good" as being rather sarcastic, in a way that "That's good" isn't. Also, I was a bit puzzled about the negative in the preceding question "Are you not keen on her work?", which I can hear in different ways, depending on the accent.
But in the absence of accents and other clues about where we're from, we don't all "hear" what other people write in the same way.
'I mentioned Arundhati Roy because I really like her books' Oh that's good. I read plenty of contemporary work as well.
Jesus,for sheer nastiness that’s hard to beat.
Why is that nasty? I am baffled.
Re-read your comment: if not meant to be nasty please explain.
Sorry, I am also confused as to why this was a nasty comment. Why is it nasty to say that they like Arundhati Roy's work?
I don't know if it sheds any light, but I would normally hear "Oh that's good" as being rather sarcastic, in a way that "That's good" isn't. Also, I was a bit puzzled about the negative in the preceding question "Are you not keen on her work?", which I can hear in different ways, depending on the accent.
But in the absence of accents and other clues about where we're from, we don't all "hear" what other people write in the same way.
No, I wasn't intending to be sarcastic. Or 'nasty'.
It's been touched on that a book can read differently at different times in your life. My prime example is Miss Marjoribanks by Margaret Oliphant. In my 20s it was an Austenish social comedy, in my 30s a feminist tract, in my 40s a clear-eyed look at limitation, failure, ageing and mortality.
Clearly the book does not change, but the writer has imbued it with a truthfulness and complexity that connects with your evolving life experience.
Extrapolating to whole eras, a lot of books agree with or appeal to popular attitudes or beliefs, but don't outlast them. Think of bestsellers of yesteryear - who now reads Harrison Ainsworth or George Meredith or Marie Corelli?
So you might define as 'great' those works that transcend their time and read meaninglyfully to successive generations or different cultures.
I think said reaction to Austen is driven more by adaptations as a simulacrum for the books, leading to a type of Austen Fandom that is somewhat disconnected from the actual books.
Agree entirely. It's the movies that make the stories romantic. Austen's works are satirical.
A: Because of their role as cultural artefacts that tell WEIRD people who we are - both as individuals and as members of a society where novels matter. (Sport is an example of a contrasting cultural artefact that comes to mind.)
I think said reaction to Austen is driven more by adaptations as a simulacrum for the books, leading to a type of Austen Fandom that is somewhat disconnected from the actual books.
Agree entirely. It's the movies that make the stories romantic. Austen's works are satirical.
Judging by a conversation I had once, there would be those disappointed to learn Mr Darcy does not go semi skinny-dipping were they to read the book.
I usually detest TV adaptations - eg the travesty of Cranford - with their squirmy byline of 'based on'. Actually, they do with Agatha Christie novels as well, but it's more exasperating when the audience is led to believe this is what Austen or Gaskell wrote.
Adapting the written word for the screen is a very difficult job so I do have some sympathy for writers - also often a lot of bad decisions are made by Higher Ups rather than writers themselves. Also sometimes an adaptation is better than the book - I think Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy is an improvement on the books, and yes I read the books before the films came out I also strongly prefer Dickens on screen to Dickens in written form - I feel that Dickens suffered from being alive before screenwriting was a viable career (and writing for stage is Quite Different).
Comments
I do not think there is much doubt it is an outstanding novel. What you are expressing is dislike.
It depends on the translator. The greatest book of all time could be ruined by a poor translation. That's all I'm saying. You seem to think I'm arguing against reading books in translation. I am not. I just think there should be a separate list for them, which acknowledges the translator's skill as well as the author's.
The one time when the translators skill does get acknowledged is when it comes to ancient/classical writing
Arcane literary theory makes you unemployable unless you change direction. I learned that the hard way.
@Pomona - I've never, ever come across any literary critical view that wouldn't rate Jane Austen as a 'serious' novelist or as a 'lesser' novelist than Eliot or The Brontes.
I have no idea where you've picked up that impression.
On the issue of Marxist critical theory 'taking over'. There was a lot of that during the Structuralist kerfuffles of the late '70s and early '80s and aspects of that, and feminist critical theory have largely become mainstream. There may be something of a backlash now.
Rumour has it that Gen Z are getting into lengthy novels such as The Count of Monte Cristo - if The New Statesman is to believed. At least in audio-book form.
Which I often forget as the translation I read (about 20 years ago now) rendered it as prose. It made for a cracking story.
Whereas the translation of The Iliad that I read rendered the whole thing into English rhyming couplets, which necessitated such linguistic gymnastics as to make it virtually incoherent.
Well I've picked up that impression too! I wouldn't call it a "literary critical view", more a sort of disdain for "bonnet fans" that some English Literature specialists seem to have. I think it's a relatively recent reaction to Austen's mass popularity over the last few decades and I have occasionally heard words like "reactionary" or "bourgeois" thrown around in support, contrasting her unfavourably with Eliot in particular.
I suggest that the difference between the two is that reading Austen is a bit like going to a party with a good friend who occasionally nudges you and says: "Look at that guy - what an idiot!". Whereas reading Eliot is a bit like going with your wise but rather earnest teacher or governess, who says: "Now attend to this - it will make you sadder but wiser to see the foibles of human nature..."
I think "Silas Marner" is absolutely brilliant but the longer Eliot's books get the more annoying I find them. The end of Middlemarch is particularly annoying where she spends a whole chapter spelling out in painful detail what the moral of the story is supposed to be. "Well the problem was that Dorothea didn't really have enough scope..." thank you for pointing that out, in case I had not realised this over the course of the previous thousand pages...
Lewis’ Experiment in Criticism is awesome!!
A list of best translations (evaluated in terms of the contribution of the translator) would not be the same as a list of best translated books (evaluated in terms of story, character, etc, as well as prose style or poetry). In the second case it would seem odd to have, say, Pope's and Alexander's and Wilson's versions of the Iliad in three different slots.
Even in a short poem, like say Horace's, two different translations aren't two independent poems - even if the particular music of the Latin can't be reproduced much of the poetry is in the train of thought and the images.
Novelist, LC, novelist!
It must be a recent thing then @TurquoiseTastic and @Pomona.
It certainly wasn't the case when I was at university.
And yes, I have rather the same reaction to Middlemarch ad opposed to Silas Marner.
Is it just me, or do Shipmates find contemporary sexed-up adaptations of 19th century novels highly irritating? Wuthering Heights as soft-porn (I refused to see that one) and Stephen Knight's Peaky Blinders-esque version of Great Expectations full of opium, flagellation and broad-as-a-barn-door social comment?
Yes. I have never been able to finish War and Peace, that does not change its status as a great novel, in my opinion. I liked Anna Karenina very much so it is not just something about my relationship with Tolstoy.
But this is also not getting any closer to what is a "Great Book", it cannot just be about personal taste, my ability to finish long, or hard, works of fiction or how popular the books were.
The NT books didn't select themselves, contrary to conservative evangelical opinion. Someone had to make those decisions and they were made collectively.
In the case of literature, art, music etc tastes and fashions change. Ii used to have a book from the 1930s that had reproductions of 'great art'. As well as the Rembrandts and Vermeers there were Victorian genre paintings we wouldn't categorise that way now. There was also no Braque, Picasso or Matisse and a disparaging reference to 'modern art' in the introduction.
Consensus is easier said than done.
I'm not a fan of these '100 best novels', '100 best tunes', '100 best rock riffs' etc etc etc.
But I think there are some generally recognised classics/examples that we can recognise even if they aren't to our taste.
I think that would include consensus, as @Gamma Gamaliel, mentions, or at least wide acceptance that something qualifies as great literature. Reasons why particular works qualifies might be varied.
Going to music, I’ve said before that with a few notable exceptions, I don’t particularly enjoy Mozart’s music. But I would never mistake the fact that most of what Mozart wrote doesn’t appeal to me as an indication that Mozart wasn’t a great composer.
I think we could list a few things
* Innovation
* Influence
* Choice of words/grammar
* Beauty
* Longevity of an audience
For me I think there's also something about a work that is not just new. Fashion follows novelty, books that are loudly proclaimed in 2026 may not still be considered so in 50 years.
I think there is something about complexity, or at least something that is capable of being complex. I think this is because complexity (in music as well as fiction and so on) means that one can get things out of it on repeated listening.
1. The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K Le Guin
2. Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
3. Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel.
You can tell by the state of the covers!
Maybe it is all about fashion. Do some books continue to be read because they're on a list of books that deserve to be read? Or does the list of books itself determine the criteria by which books are deemed to be worthy of being added to the list? (And I'm kind of reminded of the way that stock market indices are constructed.)
Thank you for this!
I downloaded it to my Kindle and I'm really enjoying it. The lilting style and she has an amazing and fascinating imagination.
Here's an idea to play with: maybe books only become Great when they are scrubbed from the impact of fashion. Which means that when one is studying a book which is modern and fashionable, one is as likely to be studying the crowd of people who are performatively reading a particular selection of books as the book itself.
Why do people really like Arundhati Roy's work is an interesting question to think about because her books are part of the current zeitgeist. We cannot really answer the question about how the audience reacted to Austen because (as far as I know, I could be wrong) she was relatively unknown during her lifetime. We can maybe say something about Austen's audience in the 21st century, but it was written far enough ago to be a different world for most people.
We can see connections, examine the beauty and so on.
I think said reaction to Austen is driven more by adaptations as a simulacrum for the books, leading to a type of Austen Fandom that is somewhat disconnected from the actual books.
Wrt Wuthering Heights, in defence of Emerald Fennell (something which I am NOT inclined to give, because I think she is bad at making films) it isn't supposed to be a faithful adaptation.
Someone fitting into the zeitgeist is of course no guarantee that they are merely a fashionable writer. Who could be more 'Victorian' than Dickens? Shakespeare's theatre company worked for the monarch. He was a renowned writer in his time, and certainly his writing has relationship to cultural currents of the era. He wrote 'Macbeth' because the new king was Scottish.
I have not read Arundhati Roy, but have nothing against her. Are you not keen on her work?
Apparently someone tried to loosely adapt The Blazing World for the screen but it wasn't very good. I'm glad you are enjoying it - the 16th and 17th centuries are full of a lot of fascinating women writers that go under the radar.
I'm working my way through Emily Wilson's translation of The Odyssey at the moment (and it's a lot more readable than certain other translations I've read) and there's a lot of emphasis on the correct way to provide hospitality. Not just a bed for the night and some food, but lavish gifts of clothes and valuable objects. Not just valuables, but help to continue the journey - chariots, a ship, even an escort. This is totally alien to the modern attitude to strangers turning up on the doorstep and asking for help.
Not at all, I mentioned Arundhati Roy because I really like her books. I'm trying to think through how a book becomes a "great".
I love Proust: his wildly acidic observations about the high society he inhabits are so funny, plus his voyeuristic preoccupation with (supposedly) other character’s outré sexual preferences.
Austen is a great writer of course.
It's also good to read new works. Just finished M. John Harrison’s ‘The End of Everything’ which possessed his usual combination of mordant humour and poetry. It was brilliant at capturing a particular down-at-heal English seaside ambience. Was it about Brexit? Was it about AI? Up to the reader I suppose.
I would recommend reading for pleasure.
Jesus,for sheer nastiness that’s hard to beat.
Why is that nasty? I am baffled.
(The problem here is that humour is hard to translate - one too many words can labour the punchline. Also we tend to think that if someone's serious they can't be funny and if they're funny they can't be serious.)
Wait, you think Raskolnikov killing Alyona Ivanovna is supposed to be comedy?
Sorry, I am also confused as to why this was a nasty comment. Why is it nasty to say that they like Arundhati Roy's work?
Yes I have sometimes suspected I am missing something in his work that is supposed to be funny, but which hasn't translated well. I understand my relative lack of fondness for his work is my problem: wouldn't dispute for a moment his stature as a writer.
But in the absence of accents and other clues about where we're from, we don't all "hear" what other people write in the same way.
No, I wasn't intending to be sarcastic. Or 'nasty'.
@Gary2 which books would you say were great and why?
Clearly the book does not change, but the writer has imbued it with a truthfulness and complexity that connects with your evolving life experience.
Extrapolating to whole eras, a lot of books agree with or appeal to popular attitudes or beliefs, but don't outlast them. Think of bestsellers of yesteryear - who now reads Harrison Ainsworth or George Meredith or Marie Corelli?
So you might define as 'great' those works that transcend their time and read meaninglyfully to successive generations or different cultures.
Agree entirely. It's the movies that make the stories romantic. Austen's works are satirical.
Meanwhile…
Q: Why do novels, and lists of novels, matter?
A: Because of their role as cultural artefacts that tell WEIRD people who we are - both as individuals and as members of a society where novels matter. (Sport is an example of a contrasting cultural artefact that comes to mind.)
Judging by a conversation I had once, there would be those disappointed to learn Mr Darcy does not go semi skinny-dipping were they to read the book.
I usually detest TV adaptations - eg the travesty of Cranford - with their squirmy byline of 'based on'. Actually, they do with Agatha Christie novels as well, but it's more exasperating when the audience is led to believe this is what Austen or Gaskell wrote.