Judging literary merit?

I think your question is based on a fallacy. I think that those same "Tom, Dick, and Harrys" who judge the quality of what they read feel equally qualified to judge what they hear and see.

More people read books, of whatever quality, than listen to classical music or delve into the mysteries of fine art. Books are more democratic. Look around you; they're everywhere, from the airport to the grocery store. I talk about books with all manner of people. Symphonies rarely come up, frankly, nor does art.

Sure, plenty of us are literature snobs and it pains us to hear people say that War and Peace is boring and J.K. Rowling is a genius but the fact of the matter is plenty of people would rather own a velvet Elvis than the Mona Lisa, or listen to the Jonas Brothers over Beethoven too.

I am very confident in my ability to judge the merit of a book but that does not mean that I believe my word to be law. Yes, it may be a better book, objectively, but if the reader hates it he will derive no value from it. No one will ever convince me that King, Koontz, Patterson, etal., are good authors but you will also never find me telling people not to read and defend what they truly enjoy. It does me no damage and it apparently makes them happy. What's the harm in that?

I truly enjoy leading horses to the water of the words I value but you will never catch me dead trying to shame them into drinking it.

***Edit) Thank you, KK. That's very kind.

Bravo, Vet! Beautiful answer!

It is my opinion that there is art in everything one does whether it is visual, physical and preforming or audio. Art is in the eye of the beholder and I agree that some who give one form of art high merits haven't a clue as to other art forms and give it/them low merit, and then the ones they do give high points to are really not that great on the whole, but to that individual(s).

The written word is an art form whether it is a document or a best selling novel, except to me when it is convoluted and doesn't make any sense, or is like the spoken word for instance from a politician for example full of double talk and waffling, yet that persons back benchers and some supporting of that party or individual reporters tout it as brilliant.

You are right, many of those who believe they have the pulse on literature (especially those who are paid to do so and have a degree in liturature) have a tin ear for music such as symphony, dull sense of humour for comedy, little insight to drama, and have poor balance to enjoy dance.

Yet these same person(s) may tear apart a beautifully done performance so that others will not take a chance to judge for themselves and still give high acclaim to a written rag putting it in the top 10 'must read' and waste people's money purchasing it.

"Water World" directed and staring Kevin Costner was torn apart by the critics. Even hearing what they said I paid to see it and I really enjoyed it; I judged for myself.

Quite possibly the same thing that makes you believe that you are qualified to judge people who judge books;-)

I would probably be quite happy to judge the merit of a painting or a symphony (actually I've slammed Andre Rieu on many occasions,) but do not have the same level of interest in painting or music as I do in literature. That is why I chose to study English Literature at university and not Art or Music.

As Reader suggests, the difference between Literature and other art forms is that it is more accessible. You only need to go as far as the local service station to pick up a cheap paperback, or you can access them at the local library. However, I have never claimed that my opinions on Literature are accurate or, indeed, anything more than subjective. They are just opinions. Everyone else on Y!A has the right to disagree with me or prove me wrong.

I don't hear many people who think they are qualified to judge the artistic merit of a a piece of literature. Mostly what I hear is "oh it was real good" with reference to a particular book without any notion of how to support such a statement.

People say "I loved it!" but they cannot elaborate on what it was they loved, why they found the book appealing, etc. They just "love it" or "hate it." It's just a gut level response with nothing to back it up. Few people have the background or experience necessary to judge any kind of writing.

I think that writing, though, is more accessible to many people than is painting or classical music. Since they have less exposure, they have less to say (thankfully).

That's my take on it. I only know a few people to whom I'll listen when it comes to book recommendations. I find, too, that a lot of people who are over effusive about a particular book ("The 'DaVinci Code' is the best book ever!") don't actually read but rather follow the other sheep around.

I can't add much to what reader said, but I will add the following: I think that people think 'If I can read, I can write.' Since writing is perceived as a more mechanical task (putting pen to paper, or clicking keys on the computer) than in being Paganini on a violin, or painting like Caravaggio, there's an assumption that anyone can be a writer, while not just anyone can be a great violinist or a great painter.

You can argue that drawing the bow on the violin, or drawing the sketch on the paper, is equally mechanical as an action, and it is--but it's not perceived as such, and thus people think that writing is 'easier.'

Absent any evidence for my following claim, I'd argue that there probably have been millions more stories written than symphonies composed or paintings painted, so it IS more democratic of an art form as well.

Lastly, it's more subjective. I know writing I dislike when I see it--but unless something is truly execrable, people may disagree with me on it. It may be harder to disagree on the merits of a well-painted painting (Rococo bores me, but I can recognize it's well-painted) or a well-composed symphony (most Romantic composers likewise bore me, but I can recognize a well-composed piece of music) than on the merits of a well-told story. What I want in it is assuredly not what a Harlequin Romance reader wants in it, and the deluge of books compared to music or art ensures that the Harlequin reader and I have room in which to disagree.

Can just say that I'm reading The DaVinci Code right now, and it's not all that it's hyped up to be. Just to add on to what patticharron was saying.

Anyways, like others said, reader really got this one.

The thing is, most people don't look at books as art. They see it as just a story. And as reader said, books are everywhere and in SO many different forms (from YA to children's to How-To's to adult to religious to classics) that it's hard to look at every book critically, when some aren't meant to be. I know a lot of us really hammer on Twilight, including me, but the truth is that it's not meant to be looked at so critically. Yes, it should at least be well written, but we can't help that now.

The point is, a lot of books nowadays are just for entertainment, and nothing more. But things like art and symphonies are things that people recognize as "above their level" that they know they can't understand. How many people think that if you can tell what something is and it's painted/drawn well, as in clean-cut, it's art? And that a canvas with paint thrown onto it isn't? People can normally understand most books, because they're *made* to be understandable.

That said, literature *is* a democratic art form. If it weren't, we wouldn't have so many vampire books out right now. Did you notice that with teens, vampires are very and extremely in? I see them everywhere and it's a result of Twilight's success. Of course, vampire books were around before Twilight, but I happened to notice a few months ago that a publishing company put out these certain vampire books I'd read a year or two ago with newer, flashier covers to attract more attention. Because YA readers want vampires, and they want cool vampies. How can you not call this a democracy?

It's true that not everyone can accurately judge the artistic merit of a piece of literature. That's entirely true. But you can't really blame them for it, since the media has transformed this specific type of art so that when someone reads a lot but reads nonsensical books that have little meaning, they think they're well-read and that they *are* qualified to judge literary merit. That's just how it is.

Hope this answers your question :)

Edit: And Vet is right. Everyone *is* entitled to their own opinion. If an English major says they like a certain book for certain reasons, and a high school student says they like a certain book for the same reasons, is the English major more right? Or if the English major doesn't like it for the opposite reasons, that the high school student is wrong?

Art in general is a lot of opinion. This includes literature, art, and music. In art class, we've had SO many class discussions about what art is, and have never gotten anywhere. I always find myself walking in circles with my points, because it's not a straightforward topic. Literature is no different. Sure, some people are better at analyzing than others who might not realize that you should analyze at all, but in the end, it's still just a bunch of opinions.

And again, this makes it democratic. The only thing that makes literature more democratic than other art forms is the fact that, as reader said, books are everywhere, as I said, books aren't always looked as art, and as Vet said, public schools don't educate students on art and music the same way they do with literature.

I read this question last night while I was feeling irie, and it sort of bummed me out.

This is a very sad question.

The most obvious reason that a lot of people feel comfortable discussing literature is because most people are still given an introductory education on what sort of things to look for and judge literature by. They are taught basic principles, encouraged to apply them, and allowed to practice them.

Art and music, however, have basically been cut right out of our school systems. You can take electives, but who wants to? Frankly, our society is embarrassingly ignorant of the finer arts, musically and visually.

And that isn't something to be happy about, it's a travesty that damages art overall. The less interest and discussion there is about any art the less it will advance. By cutting education of art, and by discouraging elementary discussion of it we only damage the advancement of that art. Who cares if someone only has, "I like it a lot," to say about what they just read, heard, or saw? Why does someone need to have a $50,000 vocabulary to have a valid opinion? That is a horrible fallacy that hurts all of society.

So my answer to the why here is: Because people are allowed to develop at least a rudimentary understanding of how to evaluate what they read and aren't given those tools for art or music.

And my suggestion to people who feel like they have passions for any area of art is to start getting other people involved in it. Art is not something to be snotty about, or feel superior because of, it's something that we need to share with each other and encourage. It's a key to social advancement and community building. We need to walk out of the Ivory Tower mentality and bring our passion to the potato fields and try to spread it.

People who hoard knowledge, and judge people for not having it are societal cancers.

Reader said it all and then some. Absolutely brilliant answer. I'll edit this in the morning with my thoughts. I have a few floating in my head but nothing worth articulating or anything that makes sense.