This might be a self evident question but I feel like we sometimes

A human is a self-learning mechanism. We spend a lot of our time trying to model the world around us.
The finish-line of conscious thought is understanding the true nature of reality and since reality is refracted through our senses understanding our senses is an integral part of fulfilling that task.
Most literary works are notable for faithfully capturing a certain mode of perceiving reality.
There are also some that are notable for directly tackling those questions.

>>9848819
So you think it is necessary for a book to be extremely compelling for a human being? How come then that there are books that have many many fans extremely compelled by it but which are decidedly not literature, but they do have much more admirers(I'm sure you can name a few of them)?

>>9848832
>much more admirers
than almost all literary works*

>>9848832
Where did I say that a book has to be extremely compelling?
As I said works that are praised for their literary quality are the ones that most faithfully capture a certain way of perceiving reality, but there is no guarantee that this way of perceiving reality will be accessible to most people.
Even though I said we spend a lot of time trying to model the world this is only in comparison to other animals. Most people don't think that deeply about the world around them most of the time and honestly sometimes it can be anti-productive.

>>9848860
[late reply, I was eating]so a work being extremely compelling is not a condition for it to be considered of the highest quality? How?
I'm just looking for different perspectives itt

>>9848970
Well, I seem to be the only one around but since you're asking.
What do you mean by compelling? Different things would be compelling for different people.Do you mean popularity? It is generally recognized and you yourself admitted that popularity and literary quality are quite independent factors.

>>9849058
it was a response to
>Where did I say that a book has to be extremely compelling?
quality is defined by how compelling a certain work in a certain medium is to the human mind compared to other works in that medium, is it not?
Oxford dictionnary says:
quality="The standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something."
compelling="Evoking interest, attention, or admiration in a powerfully irresistible way."
if it is not measured by comparing how compelling a work is to the human mind, then by what are they measured?

>>9849088
>quality is defined by how compelling a certain work in a certain medium is to the human mind compared to other works in that medium, is it not
Who said that?
>If it is not measured by comparing how compelling a work is to the human mind, then by what are they measured?
I already shared my opinion on that matter.
Different things provoke interest in different people. If as I say capturing reality faithfully is a distinctive quality of a literary work then the works that portray reality in a way closer to the one you perceive would be more compelling to you. On the other side it is possible to recognize that a literary work captures faithfully a certain mindset without personally relating to it. Then you can find a work of fiction relatable but recognize it does not capture reality.
Doesn't sound perfect but something like that.

A.I. detected.

>>9849220
Excuse me if I misunderstood but case one(portrayal of reality personally compelling to you) seems very reliant on personal taste and case two (literary work that faithfully captures a certain mindset) would include a psychological analysis of someone, or what does 'mindset' mean in this context?
Would you agree with the statement that literature is supposed to be 'universally personally compelling'? Why/why not?
>>9849226
shit I'm exposed

>>9849269
Storytelling is universally compelling to the extent that humans are curious creatures and storytelling captures the imagination.
Anybody would consider a work that gave them some sort of insight literary and believe it's the greatest masterpiece ever until they discover something that makes more sense to them.
There isn't really any objective measure. But we can assume that a fully grown person of sufficient education and experience will have gained a certain level of understanding of the world and other people that is similar to a person of similar stature.

>>9849351
So what I get from this literature is a really vague concept but lit is recognizable for any/most mentally capable persons when they see it? Is literature better defined by stating what is not literature as it is so vague? I'm interested, wondering if there are more perspectives about the questions itt?