Why does Tolstoy or Shakespeare for example have more merit than

>>8909513
fucking READ THEM. Their superiority is self-evident to everyone who is familiar with them - fuck you for thinking its worth anyone's time to fucking spell it out for you

there is no reason this thread should exist.

>>8909522
So anecdotal evidence is an objective measurement of worth?

You can't fully objectively measure the worth of literature because its worth only exists based on the impression it gives the reader.

It depends on what you want to get out of literature. I'm not familiar with different scales of measurement for what could be gained from reading, but at the very least you can see that certain books are written with a higher quality than others. More effort was put into them, and they simply come together better.

For me I would say the worth is a combination of entertainment it provides, quality of the writing, and its contribution to humanity's understanding of the universe.

>>8909536
>wont read the text or take others' word for it
>"How is anyone supposed to know"

Really got my noggin joggin

>>8909542
How can you determine that more effort was put into one work over another?

>>8909547
How do you know I haven't read it?

Anecdotal evidence cannot support objective claims of worth. That is intellectually dishonest.

>>8909513
Even in entertainment terms both of those writers can knock Stephen King out the park.

Would have been a more difficult question if you picked boring or academic writers, rather than ones anyone can read and enjoy

>objective

this is the biggest meme word of this generation

>>8909560
So what position do you hold?

>>8909558
Are you claiming those writers are objectively better at entertaining than King? How can you measure this objectively?

File: 1474002561905.jpg (603KB, 840x1176px) Image search: [Google]

603KB, 840x1176px

>>8909560
>everything its relative nobody its wrong XDDDD :)

>>8909513
Steven King has never written a character like Hamlet, basically.

>>8909550
Maybe shouldn't say more effort, but rather the cleanliness of it. If it's put together very well, it' slikely more effot was applied, though not guaranteed.

Terrible thread.

>>8909570
That's not what I said you disgusting pleb.

>>8909579
Yes, it is.

>>8909568
No, I'm not claiming that they are objectively more entertaining. Though if you wanted to work this out, you could ask people what they find entertaining, and sketch out from the things people report as being most entertaining a list of common features. And I think that of those qualities, Shakespeare and Tolstoy would be better at providing them than King, especially taking consistency into account, considering the fact that King's oeuvre contains maybe 3 or 4 household names contrasted with Shakespeare's 13 or 14 (and that's a conservative estimate.)

And of course this implies what I predict will be the common features of things people find entertaining will not at all necessarily be what we commonly think of as features of entertaining things. Which is something for you to mull over, OP.

>>8909513
That's a bit like asking why a steak dinner cooked by Gordon Ramsay is better than a big mac meal that some 16 year old cooked you at mcdonalds. It's not even worth discussing why some people prefer the big mac meal.

>>8909513
Here's the closest thing you'll get to an objective measurement

The majority of well read people/academics prefer Tolstoy and Shakespeare to Stephen King

Beyond that, you're not going to get anything objective

For whatever reasons, Shakespeare makes a larger and better impression on well read audiences than Stephen King does

On the other hand, King makes a larger and better impression on poorly read audiences

Objective is a meme word anyways

File: is this pleb serious.jpg (57KB, 576x436px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 576x436px

>>8909513
>this entire post

i actually could explain why shaky bill and toystory are OBJECTIVELY better, but i like to keep the important knowledge all to myself

>>8909573
F A L S T A F F

>>8909536
>anecdotal evidence
if you had half a brain you would realise that "anecdotal evidence" makes no sense when we talk about literature.
you either read a book or you don't.
get a brian moran

>>8909513
Objectivity is a lie. Run while you still can.

This is what happens when you study a STEM subject without studying it's methodology.

fucking lol at all the people on this thread saying it's not worth their time to explain something so self evident. is it, perhaps, because they have no clue themselves?

>>8910156
>is it, perhaps, because they have no clue themselves?
It's probably because it's a stupid question

>>8910174
then why waste time responding dismissively to it when that time could be spent doing something else or actually answering the question

>>8909513
No, there isn't. I mean there is applicability, staying power, relevance, layered symbolism, all that cool stuff. Some works like some of vonnegut's are objectively worse than some of say Joyce's, but ultimately time just tells these things. Literature means printed words on paper. These guys are mostly lonely losers who try very hard to seem smart without actually accomplishing anything, because all they have left in this world is a bookshelf sitting in the hole where friends and hobbies used to be. You should not care what they think about what you read.

>>8910179
to deter OP from making shit threads in the future

>>8909513
Yes the description of places and people for example. Authors like Tolstoy, Goethe and Shakespeare tell eternal stories, which reach and interact with fundamental human archetyps, while Stephen King only hits them sometimes by chance loses them rapidly and can't really grasp them.

>>8910196
pretty stupid plan of action

if OP's question is bait then biting will only encourage him to post it again. if OP's question is sincere then refusing to answer it will only encourage him to post it again

>>8909513
the depth and language domain

>>8910213
> if OP's question is sincere then refusing to answer it will only encourage him to post it again
Never underestimate the power of shame and humiliation.

>>8910226
never underestimate the power of peseverence.

>>8909513
>Why does Tolstoy or Shakespeare for example have more merit than say Stephen King?

>Is there some kind of objective measurement of literary worth?
No

>>8909513
>Why does Tolstoy or Shakespeare for example have more merit than say Stephen King?
Critical consensus based on study of the texts.

>Is there some kind of objective measurement of literary worth?
No, of course not.

>>8910174
Explain how it is a stupid question

>>8909708
This is the best answer.

The distinction between what is good and bad comes out of the number of books you've read. If you've only read 5 books, stephen king is going to seem wonderful. If you've read 500 books, it's likely that you'll find whatever seemed great about him has been great in some of those 500 other books. Literary worth is largely a game of comparisons

>>8910226
autism

>>8909522
idiot

>>8910350
Why is /lit/ full of so many low IQ idiots who don't know how to critically think and need people to hold their hand to understand basic logic?

>>8909585
no it's not

>>8910396
Stop avoiding the question with ad hominems

>>8909522
>>8909560
>>8909577
>>8909579
>>8909750
>>8910125
>>8910174
Grow up.

>>8909513

>Is there some kind of objective measurement of literary worth?

Yes. My opinion. King sucks. Tolstoy is based.

>>8910526
Great post.

>if you can't use it to feed your superiority complex, it isn't ~real~ literature

>>8909599
this was probably the best reply ITT, minus that pedophilic Ramsay mention.

>>8909599
Because people like cheap and easy

Although your comparison doesn't work TOO well because McDonald's is nowhere near as easy to digest