# What is 'Literary Merit'



## dwndrgn (May 24, 2006)

I'm going to begin a series of posts - mostly out of annoyance I'll admit.  However, I truly do want to get this figured out, if only for my peace of mind.  So, what do you think are the defining elements of 'literary merit', in other words, what makes a book have it?  I'll post a poll, but if the answers I give you to choose from aren't sufficient, please add your own.  I'll also make the poll so that you can choose more than one.


----------



## j d worthington (May 24, 2006)

Oh, this one's going to be a hot potato!!!

It's a thorny problem, and far too many confuse what entertains them, what they like, etc. with something that has "literary merit", which I take to mean lasting value, something not simply for the generation it was written in, but which still speaks to those long after, as well. And that, I think, is the crux of the matter: it has to speak to deep human feelings/longings/emo- tional needs on some level in order to have true literary merit. This does not mean it has to have truly _universal_ appeal (that is, it does not have to appeal to everyone across the board) -- else nothing would earn that term. But it does have to reach a fairly representative number of (at least fairly well) educated and discriminating people over a period of time. Which is why, for example, the majority of the early Gothic writers of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries don't apply (though I have a fondness for them myself); they were often artificial, contrived, and paid little attention to real human thoughts and emotions (even in the limited realm of fear/terror they often used artificial standards). This is also why so few young writers have produced such, because it generally takes a certain amount of life to garner the experience to judge what is and what isn't genuinely affecting. There are exceptions, but they are relatively few. It is also why so few professional writers quite fit the bill (though, again, there are exceptions); because often -- especially during the pulp era -- the motivation was simply to put bread on the table by entertaining rather than probing the human condition in any meaningful way (which, incidentally, has as a prerequisite that it be intrinsically interesting, as it touches chords the reader can identify with on multiple levels). This is not to knock the pulp writers, many of whom I highly respect and enjoy reading, and would hate to see their work go out of print; simply that the necessity of selling to an artificially standardized magazine often limited the scope of what a writer could say or how they could say it. It also has to be informed with the writer's _Weltenschauung_ in such a way as to convey an idea of the world from a perspective no one else has done, in an intelligible way that gives at least a haunting glimpse of the world through someone else's eyes and mind (and, if I'm allowed the phrase, heart). It has to have more to it than simply entertaining (laudable though that be, and I consider it a worthy enough goal in itself). It has to open up the reader to an inner experience he/she has not had before, and in such a way that it adds to their understanding of life, the world, and the universe around us. It often leaves us with a sense of awe, an almost humbling experience, because truly meritorious work contains a beauty that catches the breath and leaves one with something precious, even if dark, unpleasant, horrific, etc.; the best of it is also in language that is itself beautiful, no matter what it conveys. And -- at least in dealing with human emotions/reactions, etc. -- it must be firmly based in realism, no matter how fantastic the tale itself may be. (Which is why so much horror fails on this score; the people within the tale simply don't react the way someone confronted with such a situation is likely to act or feel in reality. Few people confronted with a genuine violation of natural law would show heroics. They're more likely to be left trying to simply keep their mind from breaking. I'm not talking here about slashers, etc. I'm talking a truly supernatural event -- an impossibility in reality, of course, as anything which happens happens in accord with natural processes.)

A longer answer than I intended, but -- for the moment -- it's the best I can do.

Next victim? (Fools rush in......)


----------



## alicebandassassin (May 25, 2006)

cant be quantified in simple terms or all authers would use the fomula and all books would be blockbusters. Its that extra thing in a book that grabs you and it ether there or it aint you cant force it and its not the same thing for every book


----------



## littlemissattitude (May 25, 2006)

I haven't read the other responses yet because I want to answer without being influenced by others' opinions, so I apologize in advance if this repeats anything that has already been said.

I checked the second choice - was it clear and uncluttered writing without being simplistic? - as being absolutely essential to writing that has "literary merit".  This is because I think that just being flowery doesn't make it as "literary" and in fact often gets in the way.  I'm probably in the minority there, as I know a lot of people in real life who think that "fancy" writing automatically makes something "literary".  I disagree.

But I also checked "other", because I maintain that for something to be properly "literary", it must actually have something to say.  Which is why I don't read a lot of literary fiction - I can't see where much of it is really saying anything important or relevant.  Just throwing words doesn't ever rise to the level of "literary" in my opinion.  A novel might be fun, it might even be "good", but if it doesn't contribute something to the human conversation I don't believe it should be considered "literary".

On the above standards, I guess there are a lot of books that are considered "literary" by the mainstream that I would disqualify from that designation.  By the same token, there are books that are not classified as such that I would maintain qualify very easily.  No examples of either right now, though, as it is too early in the morning to pull that kind of information out of my poor brain.

All this, of course, is just my two cents' worth.  It is very possible that I have an eccentric definition of "literary" tucked away in my personal dictionary.


----------



## Paige Turner (May 25, 2006)

I'm still tweaking the equations, but it basically comes down to robots, again. Though inversely proportional, in this case.


----------



## CarlottaVonUberwald (May 25, 2006)

i picked other... rarely in a book do i cactually feel bothered by the quality of writing in a book..except when its just thoroughly pretentious... its like having a film with a great scripot and good camera angles is nothing if the stories appalling


----------



## murphy (May 25, 2006)

I think for a book to have literary merit, it has to be well written and stand the test of time. Jane Austin comes to mind. Her books still appeal to people in the modern world.


----------



## CarlottaVonUberwald (May 25, 2006)

also...i'd say that most people on this board are above being the average person on the street... im sure they wouldnt be the average persons choice... although i agree with your statement... i don't think mr. smith of birmingham would agree.... ( no i have nuthing against brummies or mr smiths..just making a point lol)


----------



## Thadlerian (May 25, 2006)

I think the keyword might be 'balance' or 'harmony'. Harmony between the extremes of the themes involved in the book.

Immanuel Kant said about aesthetics that a good work of art imitates the harmony found everywhere in nature. Now Kant was a 19th century philosopher, with all sorts of strange, idealistic ideas, but I think he might have had a point.

I like to test this idea on various books. _Harry Potter_, for instance, is a series in which (at least in the first 3-4 books) I see harmony on several levels. There is a perfect balance of alienness and familiarity; monsters, magic, wizards, but all within a set of institutions nearly identical to those we meet in everyday life (school, christmas, mass media, government, etc.). There is a perfect balance between risk and security; Hogwarts is on the overall a very safe environment, guarded by highly responsible adults, but it can at the same time be a chillingly dangerous place for those who seek adventure, not to mention all the crazy (although rarely lethal) accidents that happen because of various magical activities.

There are probably others as well. I think these harmonies, not originality or marketing, were what made HP so wildly popular from the beginning.

I haven't read or analyzed enough great and successful books to declare this a rule, but we'd have to take into account a great number of dimensions on which harmony can be found.

Well, that's my idea, and I hope I expressed it in a sufficently comprehensible way.


----------



## tiny99 (May 25, 2006)

alicebandassassin said:
			
		

> cant be quantified in simple terms or all authers would use the fomula and all books would be blockbusters. Its that extra thing in a book that grabs you and it ether there or it aint you cant force it and its not the same thing for every book


 

same here


----------



## Joanne Mitchinson (May 25, 2006)

Could it be actually getting your work into print?


----------



## dwndrgn (May 26, 2006)

So far it looks like actual language in and of itself doesn't play a large role.  The story seems tantamount according to the opinions expressed here.  Standing the test of time, would mean to me a universality of theme that can capture the minds of more than one generation and a balance or harmony of opposing themes.

I really like this balance idea - you can carry it through many things.  You hate it when the villian is just over the top bad right?  But when that over the top baddy is opposed by mr or mrs perfect goody goody, you can see the humor and silliness and campiness and understand what the author may be telling you about our lives or society in general.


----------



## heron (May 26, 2006)

What is literary merit, in my opinion it is something that defines or redefines. Let me try to explain by first going a little off base. Most if not all of you have heard of the group Nirvana they had artistic merit and their body of work will still be around in a hundred years, but why there were certainly better accomplished musicians better lyricists or even better more established groups at the time( I can hear the howls of outrage from here). So what was it that Nirvana had and the others didn’t, they had the moment. What they had was timing, they appeared just when the genre needed to redefine or die. There have certainly been better bands and songs since but it will be Nirvana, like Elvis or The Beatles that people will hear in classes about music in a hundred years time.

Back to literary merit and now ill give you examples to argue over. Tolkien in my opinion has literary merit as quite frankly he is the father of the modern fantasy genre. Just about all the fantasy conventions were put in place by him and have been copied incessantly since then by ninety percent of the authors that followed. Like I said in a reply to a different thread elsewhere when you’re dealing with legends it’s hard to break convention so you just try to give the legends a slightly different spin.

So Tolkien defined the genre so who has redefined it, in my opinion I would say Terry Prattchet. His Discworld novels have taken all the tired old and over used conventions of modern fantasy and breathed new life into them; the orphaned boy doesn’t become king. But the most important thing about his work is that it forces others to look for new stories and new ways of telling them just as Nirvana did with the music industry, after they finished no band could seriously take to the stage with a perm and half a can of hairspray, and after Prattchet no author could seriously go back to the orphaned farm boy saves the world routine.


----------



## Thadlerian (May 26, 2006)

heron said:
			
		

> and after Prattchet no author could seriously go back to the orphaned farm boy saves the world routine.


Isn't that a complete and detailed summary of Wheel of Time (started in 1990)?


----------



## littlemissattitude (May 26, 2006)

heron said:
			
		

> So what was it that Nirvana had and the others didn’t, they had the moment.



Probably off topic, but what Nirvana had was Kurt Cobain who, despite being a very screwed-up boy in a lot of ways, had a brilliant way with words and the ability to reach in and grab the listener's soul and shake it to its very foundations.

Yeah, I'm still pissed off at him that he did what he did.

Not so off topic is that this is might be what happens in a work of real literary merit (as opposed to works that get labeled that way because they are trendy).  A writer comes along who has the right combination of a way with the language he or she writes in, combined with something relevant to say and the ferociousness of spirit to say it fearlessly and in spite of all opposition.


----------



## iratebeaver (May 27, 2006)

i think what really makes up a good book is clear, in depth characters and plots. I also believe that in order for writing to be considered good it has to hold the attention of the reader. I've read one or two books that i didn't like but held my attention.


----------



## Carolyn Hill (May 27, 2006)

Hmm.  Depth, layers, content to chew on.  Prose that aptly, effectively, precisely conveys the author's intended effect.  Both are essential, in my opinion.

Standing the test of time is one way to identify such works.  But other, younger works also have literary merit.

I dunno.  By "literary merit," are we pursuing an academic definition?  I hope not, but that's what springs to mind when I hear the phrase. 

(Speaking personally, I like prose that sings.  Not purple prose, but sentences that vibrate in my ear and mind.  And I like ideas that sing, too.  And characters, characters whose skin I can inhabit and believe in.  But my personal preferences are probably irrelevant; a phrase like "literary merit" implies a general standard that many/most/authoritative people can agree on.)


----------



## littlemissattitude (May 27, 2006)

Brown Rat said:
			
		

> By "literary merit," are we pursuing an academic definition?  I hope not,...


And all I can say to that, Brown Rat, is a big amen.  But that's just because I've usually not been that enthusiastic about writing presented to me in as "of literary merit" in an academic setting.

Have I said this month, yet, by the way, how much I really don't like (because I hesitate to use the "h" word, although it would probably be more accurate in describing my feelings about it) _Catcher in the Rye_.  If not, conisder it said.


----------



## j d worthington (May 27, 2006)

littlemissattitude said:
			
		

> And all I can say to that, Brown Rat, is a big amen.  But that's just because I've usually not been that enthusiastic about writing presented to me in as "of literary merit" in an academic setting.
> 
> Have I said this month, yet, by the way, how much I really don't like (because I hesitate to use the "h" word, although it would probably be more accurate in describing my feelings about it) _Catcher in the Rye_.  If not, conisder it said.


Hmmm. I don't have that problem with Catcher in the Rye; but, after my exposure in school to Dickens, it was a long time before I could tolerate anything other than "No. 1 Branch Line: The Signalman", which I'd run across on my own before that. I shudder to think how I would have felt about Hawthorne if I'd first read his work in school; thank heaven I read some of his stories years before they tried their butchering act on him in my presence (my, that sounds awfully pretentious). As it is, I still love Hawthorne, largely because I ignored everything they said.


----------



## Joanne Mitchinson (May 27, 2006)

Kurt Cobain was a mass of talent, and always in a mass of pain, he can be forgiven for leaving us too soon, and the Foo Fighters are still knocking out some rather nice material (Perhaps with the help of a medium!!!).
I think C.S.Lewis' a better fantasy writer than Tolkein.
Perhaps as well as getting into print, literary merit is when a writer writes in a way that can touch the hearts and change the thoughts of millions?


----------



## Carolyn Hill (May 27, 2006)

J.D. and Littlemissattitude:  Luckily (or perhaps unluckily?) I didn't read Salinger or Dickens in school.  When I was fifteen, I started _Catcher in the Rye_ and threw the book across the room (bleh, such an unpleasant main character); I've never bothered to finish the novel.  Dickens, I love; even his unpleasant characters are written about in ways that please me.


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 28, 2006)

Interesting thread - I was trying to figure out what common denominator may be most present in the literary genre, and in the end I thought it could be "human insight" - a way of addressing ourselves and how we relate to the world and existance, through the experiences of the characters of the story.

The insight doesn't have to be an overtly stated philosophy in the work - simply a way in which the book encourages the reader to think, and to look at the world in a different way.

2c.


----------



## Joanne Mitchinson (May 28, 2006)

All books are about human insight, as Spinoza said we each have (we are all) a[n] unique perspective upon the universe. Writers have to achieve the capture of different perspectives other than their own - to make their charcters work.


----------



## littlemissattitude (May 28, 2006)

Brown Rat said:
			
		

> J.D. and Littlemissattitude:  Luckily (or perhaps unluckily?) I didn't read Salinger or Dickens in school.  When I was fifteen, I started _Catcher in the Rye_ and threw the book across the room (bleh, such an unpleasant main character); I've never bothered to finish the novel.  Dickens, I love; even his unpleasant characters are written about in ways that please me.



I've had to read _Catcher_ three different times for classes, starting in 8th grade and ending with an upper division English course in Popular Fiction (thank goodness most of what we read for that class were either science fiction, fantasy, or mysteries).  I hated it (yeah, there's the "h" word; I just couldn't help myself) the first time, and things didn't improve with repetition (did I spell that correctly?  It doesn't look right to me).  As far as Dickens goes, I just haven't ever been able to read him.  I've tried numerous times, but I've never been able to get into any of his novels.


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 28, 2006)

Joanne Mitchinson said:
			
		

> All books are about human insight, as Spinoza said we each have (we are all) a[n] unique perspective upon the universe. Writers have to achieve the capture of different perspectives other than their own - to make their charcters work.


 
Maybe, but some of those perspectives could be plain boring or cliched.


----------



## Hawkshaw_245 (May 31, 2006)

It's so subjective....A classic to me is tripe to someone else.

I despise T.S. Eliot with  a passion. I suspect he was in league with Lucifer.

Yet there are those who adore his work. 


I thought George Lucas' novelization of the original 'Star Wars' saga was superbly well-written, yet I've scarcely found a soul to echo my sentiments.


----------



## j d worthington (May 31, 2006)

Eliot? Hmmm, that's a tough one....

Personally, I'd say he was important for his impact on the first part of the 20th century, with some moments of brilliance (sometimes extensive moments, but moments nonetheless), but taken as a whole, I find his work thought-provoking but rather redundant. However, despite the fact I tend toward vers libre myself, I'm afraid Eliot, Pound, cummings, Stein, et al., seriously crippled poetry in many ways, and it's going to take a long time for it to recover (assuming it does). (I like much of the work of each; but I still think the overall effect was deleterious to verse....)


----------



## chrispenycate (Jun 4, 2006)

I suspect that, for a literary critic at least, a work should be exceedingly difficult to follow, or (preferably) totally incomprehensible before it can be said to have any merit (Ulysses as an example) Good sales figures are a definite indication that a work is poor; after all, if _ordinary_ people can enjoy it, it can't be any good !
(occasionally, an author having died along time ago, preferably young, and in romantic circumstances can outweigh sales figures; but nothin can save him or her of he's had a large output- slow, tortuous writing is an essential)

And unconventional use of punctuation is, while by no means essential, helpful in achieving merit, which somewhat invalidates your second point.

If one and three were the critical points, my writing would be literarily meritous (which it isn't) I can do erudite, and I can manage the incomprehensibility too!

Ah, yes, it should preferably end in tragedy; none of these nasty happy endings. 

Dare I say that for me the content is more important than the style? Is that really too gauche?


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 4, 2006)

Chris, I'm going to argue a couple of points on this. (Just for the sake of being contrary, of course!) 

I'd say that this applies to literary snobs or bad literary critics. (Edmund Wilson fitting into the first category, I suppose.) Shallow reviewers, in other words.

As for *Ulysses *-- after growing up hearing what a great, important book this is, how difficult it is, etc., I was very trepidatious about approaching this. So, when I tried it a few years ago, I was very pleasantly surprised to find a thoroughly enjoyable book that rather ran the gamut of emotions (several portions had me laugh out lout -- something rather rare for me with books -- and others actually brought tears, they were so touching). I wouldn't recommend it for everyone, but I personally found it a much more approachable book than I'd expected; very human, rather than the austere piece of statuary I'd been prepared for.

But then, if some of these reviewers -- pardon, critics -- saw what I've just said, I'm afraid Joyce would get toppled from his pedestal....


----------



## Carolyn Hill (Jun 5, 2006)

chrispenycate said:
			
		

> I suspect that, for a literary critic at least, a work should be exceedingly difficult to follow, or (preferably) totally incomprehensible before it can be said to have any merit



So the literary critic wouldn't think _Pride and Prejudice_ is a classic?


----------



## chrispenycate (Jun 5, 2006)

Please tell me that my somewhat tongue in cheek, exagerated post was not taken entirely at face value.
While it's often said that those who can, do, those who can't, teach, those who can't teach, administrate and those who can't even administrate either criticise all of the previous, or get elected and pass laws stopping them from, still, making general statements about any group (even politicians) is a losing proposition.

Still, the type of literary critick I was parodying would indeed reject any book which was relatively easy to read, and gave pleasure (we've got the same in music; simplicity to be rejected at all costs, like medecine it has to taste nasty to do you any good), although if the author was sufficiently dead perhaps she could be held up as an example despite the popularity


----------



## Carolyn Hill (Jun 5, 2006)

chrispenycate said:
			
		

> although if the author was sufficiently dead perhaps she could be held up as an example despite the popularity



LOL!   I _thought_ you might be joking, Chrispenycate.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 5, 2006)

Brown Rat said:
			
		

> So the literary critic wouldn't think _Pride and Prejudice_ is a classic?


More than likely: no, they wouldn't.

And _of course_ we took it seriously! Does this mean we shouldn't believe _anything _you say is sacred? My world has been shattered!!!*grin*

No, I just had to put in a word for those of who think that some things that are held on pedestals as being above the masses may actually be just a _leeettle_ bit fun after all. (Hey, I can be elitist and egalitarian simultaneously if I want to!)


----------



## argenianpoet (Jun 6, 2006)

Okay, I think I am with the popular opinion around here that there was nothing on that list, save _Other,_ that I felt gave your question justice.  Of course one of them was close, but not quite:  'Clean and uncluttered writing that is clear but not simplistic.'  I have to admit, I did not quite get that one, but it was the closest had it not been for _the ...but not simplistic_. part, because good merit winning prose of any sort is simplistic, and that alone is the popular vote.  If you would have said:  _'Clean and uncluttered writing that is clear and simplistic.'_ I would have went with that, but as it stands Other gets my vote...


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 6, 2006)

Okay, I'm going to take issue with this (as when do I not?). No, good prose is never simplistic (unless used for the sake of satire or irony), though it may be simple. The difference being, of course, "clear, concise, uncluttered" as opposed to "lacking in depth, unrealistically simple". That, I believe, is what is meant here.


----------



## Blue Mythril (Jun 19, 2006)

I chose other because I believe that books that are strong in either of the other three can still be lacking in merit.

I believe that literary merit is a combination of sophistication and flair, with technical skill and craftsmanship.

That is, grammar and vocabulary are important, and a work that is clumsy in either has no literary merit.

However a work that encompasses both but is banal, also has no literary merit.

A work needs to be engaging before it is even noticed and discussed in terms of literary merit. People argue that this means that literary merit is separate to an engaging work (and the Da Vinci code is often cited as a good example of this). However, I personally feel that literary merit is how successfully an author can weild the tools and craft of literature. Sticking to the rules won't win you awards for literary merit unless there is something of substance behind.

I know I can be debated on this, but that's half the fun isn't it? These days there are no absolutes, scary as that may be.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Jun 19, 2006)

chrispenycate said:
			
		

> While it's often said that those who can, do, those who can't, teach, those who can't teach, administrate



 at Chris.  Where I used to work, everyone hated the Division Dean of the division our office was attached to, and some of us once threatened to get a bumper sticker made that said "Those Who Can't Teach, Administrate", but we couldn't find someone with enough guts to plaster it on her car, so we never did it.  Ah, well.

But, you know, there are some folks who aren't far from the position you stated, that of literary critics not liking anything that is actually understandable (yeah, I know, that's a paraphrase of your statement, but I think it's pretty close), and not just literary critics.  For a paper I wrote for an archaeology class one time, one of the sources I used was a book by Lewis Binford, one of the main proponents of the New Archaeology, which eventually became known as processualism.  In the introduction to that book, he came right out and said that he purposely writes so that most people have to read his work several times before they can understand what he is trying to say.  Apparently, he is of the opinion that accessible writing is "sissy writing" or something like that.  Or at least that was the impression I got from what he said there.

Seems like kind of a strange point of view to me - when I write, I always try to make my prose as understandable as possible.  Seems to me like it defeats the whole purpose of trying to communicate if the writer consciously tries to be obscure.  Maybe it's just me, but I've always felt that if I have something important to say (jury's usually out on that, but no matter), I want to make it as understandable as possible without compromising the material.  Maybe he thinks that understandable equals "dumbing down", but I don't think that's necessarily the case at all.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 19, 2006)

Blue Mythril said:
			
		

> I know I can be debated on this, but that's half the fun isn't it?


 
Well, here I am to spoil all your fun! 

You know, darn it, if you're going to go all reasonable on us.... Actually, I'm not sure there's a lot of argument against what you say. The only place I see large "wriggle room" is in your claims that a work that is clumsy in vocabulary or grammar has _no_ literary merit. That one I would debate ... somewhat. If it is clumsy throughout, I'd agree with you. An occasional blemish, however, is to be found in even the best writers.

Other than that, sounds like a good argument to me.


----------

