Re: art and language

John L. Leland scripsit:

> because my personal definition of great literature is
> purely pragmatic:
> if people still enjoy reading it after 100 years, it is great literature.
As a personal definition, that's pretty good, but IMHO there is no such
thing as a theory of literature (or other art) founded on value judgments.
Value judgments represent one of two things: 1) a working critic's
judgment on what is worth working on and what isn't, and 2) the history
of taste.  The latter is essentially a species of leisure-class gossip.
(No offense intended, of course.)

> anyone but a handful of people have read through voluntarily or ever will;
> another list from sheer popularity headed by LOTR, which millions have read
> enthusiastically despite its length. I personally have no hesitation in saying that
> LOTR is the greater book.
As someone who enjoys both of them, I don't find it useful to agree or
disagree.

> d) books that were very popular for
> one generation,but have never revived (e.g. Ossian or Southey's epics)
Interestingly, one of Southey's stories (not epics) has survived to the
point where it is known to every anglophone child, though the main character
has changed drastically:

        http://www.edsanders.com/stories/3bears/3bears.htm

--
All Gaul is divided into three parts: the part          John Cowan
that cooks with lard and goose fat, the part            www.ccil.org/~cowan
that cooks with olive oil, and the part that            www.reutershealth.com
cooks with butter. -- David Chessler                    jcowan@reutershealth.com