so you believe that the only criterion for evaluating a work of literature (or, if we apply this concept to any form of art -- paintings, sculpture, music, whatever) is just the individual passion for it? No objective and absolute value, no intrinsic merit? :rolleyes: Are you telling me if some spotty teenagers tell me MichaelAngel's Pity is nothing but a crappy piece of marble, should I respect him simply because he doesn't have passion for it? Isn't the Pity a masterpiece per se , regardless of what you feel about it? How can you even think of comparing King Lear to Harry Potter with a sort of a neutral attitude? This is blasphemous!!! This is applied to arts relativism, something I consider not only wrong, but even dangerously flattening! :p

I totally agree, except that IMO it ALWAYS merits intellectual engagement, at least to some extent. Reading is not merely putting syllabs together. You read in order to understand and hopefully remember what you grasped precisely by means of an intellectual effort of some degree, depending on many variables. It's called learning. And you don't learn only when you study. On the contrary, this happens seldom. Unfortunately.


do you want a list? I basically consider good literature any work of literature which outlives fashions and time and (even if to a lesser degree) space, which gives me some deep intellectual emotions that I'm going to keep and hopefully share (if possible). An experience of pure beauty which develops my fantasy and broadens and deepens my thoughts and ultimately enriches me and makes a better person out of me. "Trendy" literature only enriches its authors and is likely to be blown away without leaving any significant trace.

I wish I could master English better. It's terribly hard to let myself completely understood.....