Literary Merit

[Fox12]

I've been studying literature for a while now, and a conversation I had the other day about "literary merit" got me thinking about the term. Namely, that most of my favorite stories probably wouldn't be considered "high art" by my peers. Stories like Watchmen, Berserk, End of Evangelion, and Lord of the Rings would never make it onto a list of classics, even though they're just as complex as any work of literature or film I've enjoyed. Indeed, maybe more so.

I find this rather strange, since I researched the term "literary merit," and realized that there aren't any objective standards. This has me rather split.

On the one hand I think there should be a sort of dividing line between pop fiction and well written classics. I helps keep things organized. On the other hand it seems like legitimate works or brilliant art are excluded because of their genre, and not because of their content. Stories like Watchmen, and Eva, which come from traditionally pulpy mediums, but that manage to be masterpieces in their own right. It seems absurd, then, that those kinds of stories should be ignored.

My question is this: do you think there should be a criteria for studying "art," and if so, what should it be? Or do you think that the whole thing is subjective, and should be ignored?

 

[Ambient_Malice]

I do find it questionable that you list "Lord of the Rings" among those things, since many would deem it to be one of the greatest works of literature in British history, crafted through years of careful research and planning. A "classic" if nothing else.

You are right, however, that "literary merit" is basically fluff with no real quantifiable definition.

 

[Queen Michael]

To me, art is any work that's beautiful. That's my definition. If a book is written so beautifully that it makes you cry, it's art, no matter the genre. Same thing goes for all other media.

 

[Thaluikhain]

A literary classic is something you force kids to read in high school, because nobody else will.

More seriously, Shakespeare wasn't written as high art, something to be enjoyed by English teachers, he was writing for the general populace of the time.

 

[Buffoon1980]

For something to have literary merit it should explore what it is to be human in a sophisticated and nuanced way. I realise that's not exactly a helpful or precise definition... sorry!

 

[DefunctTheory]

The way I always understood it, the difference between 'literature' (Something with 'literary merit') and writings of other types is the writing itself - Basically, are the words themselves pleasant all by themselves, even divorced from the subject matter.

I suppose another way to put it would be 'style over substances.' Not that it can't have substance too.

 

[Shymer]

My question is this: do you think there should be a criteria for studying "art," and if so, what should it be? Or do you think that the whole thing is subjective, and should be ignored?

I believe art should be available for study. Each of us can learn something about ourselves, at least, by working out what art has merit (to us) and what doesn't. Other artists can also learn about their own art by studying others. Cultivating well read students is a meritorious activity. A framework is not necessarily an evil - it can be enabling.

The desire to 'organise' by creating immutable defined buckets to sort works into is not to my taste, but it is very human. In the world of literature, this has resulted in promotion of the study of certain genres and styles of writing and story-telling (my school and library only stocked books of certain types). In my lifetime I have seen this rigid structure start to bend and flex. I would argue that easier access to work from across the globe using the Internet has resulted in a necessary shift away from societal groups being able to dictate a narrow palette of 'worthy works' to people. That being said, the Internet is also prone to funnel people into only 'dwelling' amongst people who share your values or are interested in the same things. Perhaps we are trading one master (government/society/academia) for another (celebrity/promotion/sales)?

It is comfortable to stay amongst genres you have previously enjoyed - but it does seem a shame.

One interesting criteria for literary merit is longevity/durability. Lord of the Rings certainly passes this test and Watchmen looks like doing so too. I am not personally familiar with the other two you mentioned - perhaps if we are still discussing them in twenty years time, then your taste may be totally aligned with meritorious works.

 

[doggy go 7]

If something wants to be considered great (in any genre) I think it should try to follow this mantra: "say something unique, or say it uniquely". Hemmingway's The sun also rises is written in a completely different way to how other books are, similarly with Ulysses. I have a sneaking suspicion "literary merit" tends more towards the unique way of saying things, and cares less about saying something different. LoTR isn't written uniquely, but it is (or at least, was) a completely unique story (PERSONAL OPINION TIME: though I couldn't read LoTR all the way through because I found his style of writing so bloody dull, and so couldn't get into the story at all).

Yes people ignore great works of art because they're from non traditional genres, but those people are generally pompous arses, and you'll find plenty of people willing to accept great art wherever it comes from.

 

[K12]

I think it's more or less arbitrary and there can't be a real definitive dividing line. It gets decided by English professors and literature critics. Neither "popular fiction" nor "literary ficiton" is a mark of quality or enjoyability in itself. Either can be nonsensical or boring or pretentious or shallow or cliched or thinly-veiled diatribes.

I'd say that the general differences are: Popular fiction emphasises plot, often with stock characters for audiences to project either themselves or people they know on to and they exist to drive the plot. The settings will probably be either familiar or deliberately mysterious and alien. There is often lots of dialogue which can be conversational and often directly tied to the plot (i.e. characters talking about what's happening or what might happen).

Literary fiction has far less of a plot, sometimes feeling like bugger all is happening at all. It also usually has a smaller scope, limiting itself to a couple of places and a couple of characters who get very richly described using every word with care. There will be very little dialogue, any functional or conversational dialogue between characters won't be written but just summarised. The settings will tend to be uncanny and quasi-familiar (like a cultural ghetto of a modern city or an everyday family seen through the eyes of an autistic child) and exploring the setting and how the character lives and feels and thinks will be the whole point of the book, not just serve as world building for the overall plot.

It's mainly a question of prioritising form or prioritising structure, literary fiction paints a picture with words whilst popular fiction tells a story. Although this kind of thing goes out the window when it comes to classics. Something can become literary purely by being influential 50 or 100 or 500 years after it was first written.

 

[chikusho]

Also, Watchmen is listed as one of Time's all time top 100 novels, among the likes of Catch-22, One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, Neuromancer and 1984. It's been lauded enough to be one of the great works of our time, just like LOTR (which other posters pointed out). See the list here:
http://entertainment.time.com/2005/10/16/all-time-100-novels/slide/all/

Also, I'm not sure exactly, but both Berserk and Evangelion has had enormous impact on Japanese culture. They are probably more likely to be listed as great classics over there if nowhere else.

 

[freaper]

We were using the Norton Anthology (English and American) during our lectures, and you'll find Maus, a graphic novel, in the American one. Barthes said that literature is what gets taught, and for the most part I can agree on that. In the end, if a work can affect you deeply, the genre or acclaim doesn't really matter. In fact, during my classes on graphic novels Watchmen was mentioned several times as being one of, if not the best constructed piece.

 

[Fox12]

I do find it questionable that you list "Lord of the Rings" among those things, since many would deem it to be one of the greatest works of literature in British history, crafted through years of careful research and planning. A "classic" if nothing else.

You are right, however, that "literary merit" is basically fluff with no real quantifiable definition.

Oh, I would agree. I love Lotr, and I think there's a lot worth studying. But it's not considered part of the official western "canon," and you'd probably get snubbed if you submitted a paper about it as part of an application essay, partly because it's fantasy. In fact, it's the perfect example of what I'm talking about, since it's become the first main battleground for including different types of stories in western acadamia. It's surprisingly controversial, and it's the main reason I made this thread. A lot of people like turn their nose up at Lotr, but then they have begrudgingly admit that, yeah, it's actually pretty good. It's also one of those wonderful stories that bridges the gap between popular and academic writing.

 

[Fox12]

Sorry, my new phone just freaked out on me. Could a mod remove this message please?

 

[Fox12]

double post

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Whoa. Lord of the Rings is considered a classic by many.

 

[G96 Saber]

A literary classic is something you force kids to read in high school, because nobody else will.

More seriously, Shakespeare wasn't written as high art, something to be enjoyed by English teachers, he was writing for the general populace of the time.

The general populace at the time was, by our standards, very well educated in certain respects; their understanding of the Liberal Arts dwarfs the vast majority of those living today. Shakespeare, for instance, gained an education at a local grammar school (that took all locals) that is today the equivalent of a University Classics degree (à la Boris Johnson).

In regards to the OP's question: Literary Merit is, to my mind, a combination of emotional complexity, depth, originality and rhetorical flourish. Despite superficial appearances, rhetorical flourish is the easiest to define and quantify; since Ancient times, people have noted how particular phrases can be used to create memorable lines - antithesis, for example, is famously used by Oscar Wilde on multiple occasions. They generally go like this: The ___ do/think/act/etcetera, The ___ do/think/act/etcetera. Usually, opposites are put together.

The other three factors all intersect, and are more difficult to formulise. It must be said, however, that it is very easy (especially in this day and age, in which rhetoric is not widely know or studied) for a great story to lack rhetorical flourish. The Great Gatsy is quite poorly written and yet it is still a great work. Harry Potter, similarly, is average at best; despite its limitations Rowling crafted a brilliant work.

 

[Ogoid]

As someone with an English degree, I have to say...

A literary classic is something you force kids to read in high school, because nobody else will.

... this is really all there is to it.

 

[FPLOON]

I assumed a lot of stories that end up getting considered to having "literary merit" only receive that after they get thoroughly examined after XX amount of years since its first publishing inception by a jury of literary scholars and shit... Using their subjective observational skills and their objective knowledge of writing, they check to see if it's a prose/poem that could either be use to educate the next generation of readers/writers/people in general and/or if it is truly something that shall always be brought up throughout the pending future as an example standard in one or many literary devices... Sometimes, they choose correctly... Other times, the next generation cannot seem to grasp why a particular prose/poem is worth the readthrough in general... And other times, we joke that someone was smoking some weed and just choose it because it's "2deep4me" or some shit...

Anyway, despite all of the technical mumbo-jumbo that leads to Prose X or Poem Y getting that "classics" seal of approval, unless the general public can keep its popularity going, it will only mean "something" to those that actually care about that shit... Then again, I will honestly say that some of those Prose/Poems still slip through the cracks of becoming classics and/or popular until they're "rediscovered" long after the author/writer has long been dead...

 

[Casual Shinji]

Does it matter really?

As long as it rests positively in the collective memory of the public it doesn't matter if it's given "true merrit" by the higher-ups or the intellectuals.