I agree with E.T. Feeling is incredibly important in literature. A book might be very well written and thought provoking, but without causing a connection between the book and the reader it is empty. For Whom the Bell Tolls is a widely recognized great work of literature, but it was an agonizing read for me because I could not care less about the subject matter. There was no connection. Harry Potter on the ither hand is widely controvercial, but I felt a greater connection with it because I connect more with the importance of family and friends in life than whatever Hemingway was trying to convey.

Musiclover91 raises a good point as well. Classics are those things that go aganist the norm and get away with it. For this reason many books that should be classics get overlooked. Either they come ot early and the world is not ready for them, or they come to late and missed the literary revolution. This is why I believe more books than just the classics should be analyzed in schools. Many books have classic potential and get ignored.

Literature is any written work, regardless of genre. Great literature is literature that evokes emotion, causes the reader to feel. Great literature is something in which a reader can connect or relate to. Therefore, what is chosen as great literature will vary from person to person depending on how the reader interpreted the author’s message, how the reader responds.
Many novels become labeled as ‘classics’ based on how strongly the public responds to them. Classics are often novels that stood out in their time period, possibly discussed new or controversial ideas.
In my opinion, the Harry Potter series is a series that is not considered worthy of academic study, and should be. Many view the series to be children books, stories about magic. Instead the Harry Potter series actually consists of adult messages and themes, worthy of critical exploration. From the time that I began reading the books in the third grade, the Harry Potter books have remained the best books I have ever read.

Defining literature as "Great" is very objective. Everyone has different tastes. Martina, for example could care less about For Whom the Bell Tolls, while I'm sure there are English majors out there who would happily content themselves studying the novel for a semester if they could. Also, great works typically boast one prominent aspect to which their greatness is attributed. For instance Owl Creek = perspective. Let me digress for a second. I feel as though the root of this discussion is implicitly aimed at Beowulf, which was not considered "Great Literature" and subsequently deemed not worthy of academic study by many prioir to Tolken & Heaney taking it under their respective wings. Here's what I think: pre-translation, I don't consider Beowulf great literature, post translation, I do. Why? It started out as a random compiliation of myths passed down via oral tradition, but now it has been comprehensively pieced together, in a way that sheds light on the time period. That's the aspect which makes it great: historical commentary,albeit indirect/uncalculated. Isn't that worthy of study? Most definately.And if not for the initial interest taken in Beowulf by its proponents, it might still be neglected to this day. I guess my point is there's no real gauge of what is and what isn't worthy of study. Yes, I mentioned Twilight earlier and now I'm contradicting myself, but although it's poorly written you could research the source of its mass appeal.Even if literature isn't great it can still be studied.And now I'm rambling.

I like that E.T. said "Great Literature can be any type of writing that is influential enough to change the way a person sees a subject." because, by my definition of Great Literature, that's exactly right. In reading, we're living vicariously through the narrator/ chararcters- this opens us up to new insights and perspectives which have the power to shape our opinion.

Great literature is anything that the common person can relate to. Novels become classics because the average reader can relate to the protagonist or any other character for that matter. The novels setting may be different from now, but the novels are classics because people can relate to them during any time. For example, everyone can relate to the character Beowulf. He may be a fictional superhero from old century England, but I believe that everyone feels like they are a superhero at one point in their lives.
My favorite book is Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. I love this book because I can relate the character Elizabeth. I feel what she feels and I see what she sees. The character Jane also reminds me of my best friend. Even though the novel is set in England during the eighteen hundreds, I can still relate to the novel.

Musiclover91 said that "Readers are drawn to certain genres because of their personal experiences and interests." This goes along with what I think is great literature. It also proves that classics are SO diverse. Classics can not be placed into one genre, but into countless genres.

Elizabeth, I also LOVE the Notebook. It brings out every emotion in me which makes it easy for me to connect with the story. I think that the Notebook is a story that any highschool girl can relate to, which makes it a classic according to my definition.

Literature is any type of wrtitten works, such as poems, novels, short-stories, etc. Great literature is a written work that appeals to a person on a personal, emotional, or intellectual level. What appeals to one person as "Great Literature" won't necessarily appeal to someone else as "Great Literature." Written works become classics when they appeal to "the masses," no matter what the time period. When a novel has a large and popular public response, people regard the work as having permanent worth. I think novels by Nicholas Sparks are considered not worthy of academic study because they are labeled as "chick" books full of romance and sad stories, to raise an emotional response in the reader. Many people do not think these novels have deep intellectual themes, and thus they are not considered worthy to study. The best series I have ever read is the Harry Potter series. Although many aspects of the plot are not realistic, the themes connect the reader to the characters and their struggles. The series appeals to many different readers on an emotional and personal level.

I agree with anoymous10 and Martina that Lord of the Rings and the Harry Potter series are not considered worthy of academic study, but should be. They are both great series that have many layers and levels that could be extensively studied, but are not in academic classrooms. Instead we are studying works such as A Portrait of a Young Man as an Artist that are boring, complicated, and do not appeal to me on any level.

In general, literature is any written work. There are no word limits or guidelines that they must follow. Anybody who can write can create literature. “Great Literature” is a title given to the “classics”, works that outlast any other. These works generally have symbolism, morals, or use new techniques. I believe that works become classics because they are considered revolutionary for their time period. For example, Edgar Allen Poe is considered a classic author because he invented the detective story. Others become classics because they make the reader stop and ponder the novel with questions like, "What if the lady told her lover to open the door with the tiger behind it?" (Frank Stockton). The Looking Glass Wars by Frank Beddor is an amazing novel but would not be considered for academic study because of the fantasy elements. Even though the novel contains themes of responsibility and courage, the idea of magic would turn people away. My favorite books are The Giver by Lois Lowry and Island of the Blue Dolphins by Scott O'Dell. Both novels are so different from what life is like in present day that it provides a relief from reality. They also are so entertaining that I can read them over and over again.

I agree with musiclover91, classics should be based upon the connection not the hidden meanings. Shakespeare's works are always analyzed in school, but did he really think about how he could stick in as much symbolism and themes as possible? or was he just trying to find words that fit the iambic pentameter?

Musiclover91 makes a good point, "Most books are deemed classics because they went against the normal standards of their time period; they stood out". The fact that they were unusual/different is what initially made people begin studying them. Many books that could be considered classics aren't given that recognition because they are overlooked.

I agree with english07, "Instead we are studying works such as A Portrait of a Young Man as an Artist that are boring, complicated, and do not appeal to me on any level." If schools were to include novels that appeal more to teenagers/high schoolers in the curriculum, I think that enthusiasm for english would increase.

I agree with Colleen and the Beowulf reference. Since there is no real gauge of what is and is not worthy of academic study and academic study can shed light and perspective on great literature, then great literature can be defined as anything the reader/studier can dissect and take away a crucial meaning or purpose. (Hopefully that makes sense)

I also agree with anonymous10 and english07!! We all have fairly different interpretations of great literature, but I think most of us could argue that more modern and interesting novels could be considered worthy of study in school. Although since we read these types of novels anyways we probably wouldn't be learning much. I guess that's kind of the point of this class is to focus on British literature so we can appreciate other types of writing.

Literature is anything that is taken by a reader and read and comprehended at a higher level than an ordinary piece of writing. For instance, books that high school students study would be considered literature while pieces that elementary school students would read would not be considered in the same category. Great Literature, to me, means that the piece os worth being studied in schools nd picked apart to look at the deeper meanings of the story than just what we gain at the surface. There are many pieces that are already used in these academic studies, but at the same time so many are left out becuase of certain elements of the book or the fact that it would offend a group of people. There are several books that i have read by Michael Crichton, such as Prey which is one of my favorite books, that are great pieces of literature but should not be conisdered Great Literature because they are not ground breaking and there is not much of a meaning behind the story. On the other hand, pieces such as The Lord of the Rings have been around for centuries and are defiantely worth academic study but would never be considered for it.


I agree with Elizabeth in her Nov 9 post by saying that great literature is anything that we can take a crucial meaning from, as you saw that is waht i have kind of said already.

I also agree with english07 because the boring books that we are forced to read detract us from wanting to read more "literature" because what we know as "literature" is boring stories that sometimes make no sense. If more interesting pieces were studied than the students interest in literature would definatley increase.

Literature is a very loosely defined word. For the most part, anything an author creates, fact or fiction, that is designed to be viewed by others can be categorized as literature. Websites, magazine articles, brochures, and novels are all examples of literature. That being said, not all literature is great literature. Great literature implies that that particular work has longevity in its themes and ideals. Most great works are timeless because they identify with readers' emotions and can relate to true to life scenarios. I would also categorize well-written works with great literature. For example, Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness may not be the most morally sound work ever written, it is extremely eloquent and worthy of study. Honestly, the works that are classics and placed in the English cannon are those that have proved their enduring worth (meaning those that have the ability to be consistently applied to various discussions and arguments and still have merit). The best examples of great literature that I have found with enduring worth are Pride and Prejudice and Great Expectations because in nearly every essay I have written I can find a connection from the prompt to one of these two pieces of literature. That in itself speaks volumes about the all encompassing nature of this literature.

Apparently, my response is too long for the wiki so here's the other half... :)

I can say with all certainty that the Maximum Ride series by James Patterson is not worth academic study. Although these novels promote family ties and bonding, they are too farfetched to have any sort of promise of becoming a classic. The fantasy and too modern issues make these novels improbable candidates for the English cannon. The best books I have ever read are by John Steinbeck. Of Mice and Men makes itself especially prominent in my mind because of Steinbeck's nearly flawless execution of the story. Not only is the novel eloquent and grammatically correct (with the exception of the dialect), it is relatable and devoid of barbarity. Of course, I also consider the Harry Potter novels to be some of the greatest of all time (simply because JK Rowling and John Steinbeck are in completely separate genres of literature).

Literature is any piece of work that is meant for interpretation. Personally when I think of "great" literature, I think of any piece of work that can be named or described without being previously read. A piece of work that has enough influence to capture peoples' attention even if they haven't read it yet. Some novels become "classics" because they leave an impression or a moral upon the readers. They evoke a reaction from the reader. Most of the Sarah Dessen books probably would not be considered worthy of academic study but they made me feel what the main character was feeling. The difference in her books is how relate able her characters are. The way the books are written makes most girls (and maybe some boys) want to be the protagonist, or the main heroine in the story. One of the best books I have read was Appointment with a Stranger, which i read in about middle school. Thinking back on it, the difficulty was elementary level reading but the story was so captivating that I honestly cried at the end out of frustration. That type of emotion and reaction is what I would consider "great" literature.

I kind of disagree with Elizabeth when she wrote how "Great literature...leaves the reader with a feeling of content and resolution" only because books like Night by Elie Wiesel and Where the Red Fern Grows did not make me feel super after reading then but i would still consider then "great" because i can still remember the emotions i felt while reading it.

I also kind of disagree with Michael when he said " books that high school students study would be considered literature while pieces that elementary school students would read would not be considered in the same category" because to the elementary school kids, the things they read could be considered literature to them because it's their own perspective and interpretation.

Literature is writing that express the author’s feelings, or interests. This writing can be expressed through poetry, novels, essays, etc. Literature can show the author’s beliefs, ideals, experiences, or struggles. Great literature is writing that creates emotion for the reader. It connects the character’s experiences and the plot to the reader’s experiences or emotions. Literature becomes classic when it is defined as “great literature.” People decide literature is great because of how it appeals to their emotions and what impression it makes on them. I think great literature should leave the reader in awe after reading the text. The literature should strike up thought and emotion to be defined as great.

The Harry Potter series is a great set of books but I do not think it is worthy of being academically studied. The books have great dynamic characters, grand plots, great suspense, and a lot of conflict, but this does not make it worthy of academic study. It does not trigger thought; there is nothing more to the book than the actual text. I do not analyze the character’s motives and I do not ponder why they do their actions. Therefore, I do not feel it should be academically studied.

Les Miserables is my favorite book. Les Miserables has all the key elements I look for in a book: it has an immense amount of conflict and suspense, it sparks all sorts of emotions, and it makes the reader relate to all of the characters.

I disagree with sawismith's opinion on the Harry Potter novels. I feel that the majority of people fail to see the allusions to other literature, including the Bible. The plot and dynamic characters do in fact make the novels great, as proven by the tremendous book sales, but these books are more than just wizardry. They present mastery of moral fiber and depth of relationships. There is much more complexity involved in the Harry Potter novels than appears on the page. I feel that most great literature should be examined for underlying themes. One of the best examples I can offer for this is from the novel Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce. Upon first reading the novel, a reader may not notice the allusions to mythology, but with further research and examination, the connection is evident. J.K Rowling and James Joyce's works are quite similar in this regard, proving that both are academically relevant.

Literature is any type of written work that has a theme or moral. Great literature includes writings that have a deeper meaning behind them. Great literature also creates a special connection to the reader. In many cases, works that are considered "classics" have a highly sophisticated style of writing. While "classics" are considered great literature, they are not always entertaining and captivating, such as the the portrait of the artist as a young man.
The Harry Potter series is the best set of books i have ever read. They engage the reader into the wonders of the magical world in a way that almost make the reader feel like they are experiencing the events first hand. Although children are the main readers of the series, the books appeal to all age groups, giving them a widespread audience.

I disagree with Michael's comment that many books are not considered classics because of elements that are controversial. Many of the so called classics have been on the banned book lists for offensive or inappropriate material, yet they are still widely studied in schools. I think that more books are turned away from being considered "classics" because they just don't interest people.

I agree with english07 because everyone has different opinions on what "Great Literature" really is. No one has the same perspective on literary works. I also agree that "classics" are mainly works that cause a massive public response.

Martina's statement "Many books have classic potential and get ignored," is completely and utterly correct. I had great difficulty making the decision of which book should not be studied in an academic setting because so many novels are overlooked for trivial reasons. I noticed some of the arguments about Twilight by Stephanie Meyer and, although I see how some of my peers argue that its elements are inapplicable, I do not believe that they have delved far enough into analyzing the novel to make that judgment. Unfortunately, this is the case for most good novels that have not reached "great" status. Given time, research, and effort, any good novel can be made great. It is a simple matter of the connections made with the reader and the potential of the narrative to be ageless. It is so unfortunate to see judgment passed so quickly on works of literature based on the plot line. Not every great novel can be written by Charles Dickens and his contemporaries. The content, themes, and development of characters should be the essential pieces of a great work and I feel that the majority of critics have overlooked that.

I agree with Michael that many pieces of literature are not studied because certain groups of people might find the material offensive. Michael also makes a valid point that books, such as The Lord of the Rings, are widely known and worthy of being studied in schools, but are never considered.

great literature is a work that has a great storyline and can relate to people of all ages in some way. Literature in general is any work that is written to entertain the reader. Some novels become known as "Classics" because they were the first of their kind to do something. The classic novels are forever in our libraries because they were the first to write in that style or about that certain subject; all novels similarly written are merely based off the classics. "Great literature" is a work that relates to all people, as earlier mentioned, but can also stand the test of time and can still appeal to readers decades later. The book series of Peter and the Sta catchers was very enjoyable to me. It sparked my imagination and kept my interest all the way through. I didn't want to put the books down and eagerly read to the last page after checking them out only two days before. The books are not studied in our engilsh classes because they are basic fairy tales and do not contain any political points of view and they were not written to describe a culture. The books do not even contain that much detailed symbolism or any advanced literary devices. The novels are simply children's fairy tales, but i enjoyed reading them, even at the age of 16. The best book I have ever read would have to be Holes. The story was very interesting and intricate. I never knew what was coming next in the story and the whole plot kept me guessing.

I feel literature can be anything from The Cat in the Hat by Dr. Seuss to Romeo and Juliet by Shakespeare. Literature is anything can be enjoyed by the reader, whether or not it was written with the intent to be a classic.

My feelings about literature are very similar to Hariotorres. I do agree with what Hario said about the classics normally being written in a very sophisticated manner and also that the classics are not always the most interesting pieces of literature. Although some classics are not that interesting, they can still be considered classics because they speak to the people over a long period of time.

I kind of agree with BruceLee when she said that literature is any piece of work that is meant to be interpreted. Yes, literature is meant to be interpreted but it is not ALWAYS meant to be interpreted. I consider the books of Dr. Seuss to be literature but I do not think that Dr. Seuss meant for Socks on Fox to be interpreted any other way that it was presented. Some literature is definitely meant to be, such Heart of Darkness by Joesph Conrad, but not every single work is meant to be interpreted.

sdfasdf

I apologize for the above comment. This site was rather confusing to me - but I understand it now.
Also, I apologize for the proximity of my comments to the deadline. ):

Literature can be defined as any written work or composition. In my opinion, "Great Literature" is so objective. What one person considers great, another may consider garbage. However, I believe that some literary works are considered great because of the message they convey. If the underlying theme of a work is controversial, universal, or thought-provoking, the work may be considered great. The novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin" comes to mind. Harriet Beecher Stowe demonstrated to millions the evils of slavery, making her novel a piece of Great Literature. This piece catalyzed change - it provoked thought and engendered emotion. I believe that the amount of people affected by a work has a direct relation to whether or not the work will be considered a classic. This is why some excellent books are not considered great or revered. One of my favorite books, Crank, by Ellen Hopkins, is not considered worthy of academic study. The novel is written entirely in poems, which are organized on the page according to mood and message. Crank is most likely not considered to be Great Literature because of its content - drugs and teen pregnancy. I believe it should be studied because of its message for old and young alike - the dangers of addiction and the value of life.
The best (or at least one of the best) books I have ever read would be The Princess Bride by William Goldman. I read it over and over as a child, relishing its adventure. Its theme of true love and revenge intrigued me. I would recommend it to anyone - especially those who love the movie. (:

I disagree with spork - who said that "great literature is a work that has a great storyline and can relate to people of all ages in some way." I do not believe that in order for literature to be considered great or classic that it must relate to people of all ages in some way. I do agree that the universality of themes is one qualifier for classic literature, but it is not the only one. For example - I am sure that Albert Camus' The Stranger does not appeal to all or have a message that EVERYONE can relate too, and nevertheless it is considered a classic. This is because of its relevance to existentialism.

I agree with musiclover91. The Catcher in the Rye is one of my favorite books and I do classify it as a classic as well. The way J.D. Salinger shows the conflicts, the thoughts, and the actions of Holden Caulfield as a teenager makes it such a great novel. I can definitely see how this is your favortie book.

In response to Elizabeth's commentary on The Notebook - is the novel very much different from the movie? I love the movie and have never read the novel, and I am wondering if it might be worth my while to go pick it up.

In agreement with stacey, I completely disagree with sawismith's commentary on the Harry Potter novels. If the reader is only taking the text at face value, they are not reading for comprehension and underlying themes. To ignore the underlying themes is a sad waste of time, and moreover, disrespectful to the author.

I also agree with Michael and Hairotorres. The Lord of the Rings novels are "classics" yet they are completely disregarded when it comes to school. The series makes various allusions to the Bible. I also agree with many of the other comments from my peers; if schools let the students read more entertaining books (such as Lord of the Rings), then more students would be enthusiastic.

Do not get me wrong....I love Harry Potter. I love the mystical land, Hogwarts, the spells, the suspense, the conflict, the "relationships", and the "underlying themes". I think it is a really good book. However, I do not think it would be an appropiate "academic study" book. (Even though I wish it was)

Great Literature in my opinion is any novel or story that can take the reader out of their veryday lives and make them feel as if what they are reading is real and true. I don't really understand the process of someone labeling a novel as a "classic" because if their definition "great literature" is the same as mine wouldn't Harry Potter be the number one classic series avaiable?

Not to bring up the dreaded "Heart of Darkness," but there was a lot of literary praise for this 100 page book when i felt that the story could have been told and fully grasped in about ten pages.

This one is kind of random but the best book i have ever read, aside from the obvious Harry Potter and Twilight series, would be The Phantom Tollbooth. It was the first book i ever remember reading and i still think the dialogue is hilarious.

LOL! I agree with smallwonder,
"Also, I apologize for the proximity of my comments to the deadline. ):"

Another thing i agree with them on is their choice of novels. Ellen Hopkins' writing is definitly my favorite style to read. I read Crank, Burned, Glass, and Impulse during the span of three days because i loved her literary style and poetic formating. However, I disagree that these should not be considered as "great literature" just because of their mature content; if anything the unique formating should be commended and replicated. All of this is just my opinion of course.

I'm sorry but i also disagree with Micheal when he wrote, "Literature is anything that is taken by a reader and read and comprehended at a higher level than an ordinary piece of writing." Who makes the distinction between ordinary and higher level? Dr. Suess books are not considered literature just because the target audience is young children? I agree that the word "literature" is merely used as a more educated version of "piece of writing," but it doesn't make that writing any better or worse.

Sorry again for this being so late at night =)

I agree with stacey that "Literature is a very loosely defined word. For the most part, anything an author creates, fact or fiction, that is designed to be viewed by others can be categorized as literature. Websites, magazine articles, brochures, and novels are all examples of literature." In government, we learned that parties hand out "literature" (meaning pamphlets, brochures, etc) in order to inform the public about a certain candidate. So literature does not necessarily have to be long novels. They can be anything written that has a purpose, whether it be to entertain, persuade, inform, etc.