Can something simple and fun be great literature?

[Brandon Hanvey]

Can a piece fiction/non-fiction that is simple and fun be considered great literature or does it have to be deep and meaningfully in order to be truly seen as a great work? Are simple works (even when superbly created) always seen as entertainment but never truly be considered literary?

[Chris Nowlin]

I'm curious about this. But did you have any specific examples in mind?

[Subotai]

I think all literature has depth of some kind.

[Joe Grendel]

I think Tom Sawyer is both fun and great literature. I'd put The Hobbit in both categories as well.

Heck, I'd say Where the Wild Things Are and a number of Dr. Seuss works are great literature.

So, yes.

[Brandon Hanvey]

I think all literature has depth of some kind.

But does having more depth make it a greater work of lit?

[K'Nort]

The way I usually hear "great literature" defined is along the lines of having an impact and being stirring and teaching something about the human condition and blah blah blah, and that certainly can be called depth.

I know there's an example just out of reach....

[Brandon Hanvey]

I'm curious about this. But did you have any specific examples in mind?

I didn't really think of an particular work when I thought about it. But take any action movie. Most of them have simple plots, but some are very well done and enjoyable. Could those movies be considered good literature?

[Chris Nowlin]

The way I usually hear "great literature" defined is along the lines of having an impact and being stirring and teaching something about the human condition and blah blah blah, and that certainly can be called depth.

I know there's an example just out of reach....

And I usually just don't hear it defined in any tangible way.

--

How about Peanuts?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Define "simple."

I think you've set up rather a false dichotomy here. Some things which are not particularly complex are nonetheless deep and meaningful. Aesop's FABLES is one example, TOM SAWYER - already mentioned by Joe Grendel - is another.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I didn't really think of an particular work when I thought about it. But take any action movie. Most of them have simple plots, but some are very well done and enjoyable. Could those movies be considered good literature?

Well, movies aren't really literature any more than they are sculpture. Movie scripts might be literature, but movies themselves are not.

But your general question - sure. I'd argue that the better Laurel and Hardy shorts are great movies, as are THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD, SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARVES and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK.

[Brandon Hanvey]

Define "simple."

I think you've set up rather a false dichotomy here. Some things which are not particularly complex are nonetheless deep and meaningful. Aesop's FABLES is one example, TOM SAWYER - already mentioned by Joe Grendel - is another.

To me, simple is something that isn't trying to be more than it is. It tells the story it wants without having the reader have to know or search for anymore info than the story supplies to enjoy the story fully.

[JeffreyWKramer]

To me, simple is something that isn't trying to be more than it is. It tells the story it wants without having the reader have to know or search for anymore info than the story supplies.

The examples I gave all still work, then. The moral to each of the FABLES is laid right out there. You can read a lot of depth to TOM SAWYER, but really pretty much everything is right out there.

Same with ROMEO AND JULIET, really. And JULIUS CAESAR. And a lot of Shakespeare, really. While Shakespeare has some very deep plays - LEAR, THE TEMPEST, etc. - in a lot of them, the greatness comes from the characters and the language - i.e., more surface elements - more than symbolism, deep structure, etc.

[Donald M.]

To me, simple is something that isn't trying to be more than it is. It tells the story it wants without having the reader have to know or search for anymore info than the story supplies to enjoy the story fully.

If that's your standard then I'd say there are a great many "simple" books that qualify as great literature, just as there are complex books that don't.

[Pól Rua]

I think Joe nailed it with 'Where The Wild Things Are'.
Maurice Sendak for the win.

[K'Nort]

To me, simple is something that isn't trying to be more than it is. It tells the story it wants without having the reader have to know or search for anymore info than the story supplies to enjoy the story fully.

That could really depend on the reader though. Symbolism always goes right over my head, for example. I didn't even catch it in Lord of the Flies. (I was 12, though.)

[Brian Cronin]

I think that you cannot be "simple" and be great literature, but, as others mention, I think we all may have different interpretations of the word simple.

-Brian

[Chris Nowlin]

I think that you cannot be "simple" and be great literature, but, as others mention, I think we all may have different interpretations of the word simple.

-Brian

Is everybody on the same page about the word "great"?

[Athena Bast]

I dunno.. BONE doesn't make yer head hurt when you read it.

[Lenore]

Catcher in the Rye strikes that chord, I think. A fairly straightforward, conversational story with no major plot points and an unsophisticated viewpoint. Still makes a helluva read and held up over time to become a classic in coming of age tales.

[Serik]

Making a profound statement about the human condition through "simplicity" and conciseness is more difficult than using complex metaphors and structure, etc.

Sun Tzu's The Art of War instantly comes to mind. It's influenced countless military strategists over the ages, yet it's a remarkably straightforward and accessible work. But this doesn't prevent it from being any less insightful or "great."

[MichaelMogg]

I don't think that literature is necessarily defined differently as much as it has different applications, as do some films. Some works are great -- or considered literature -- because of their historic significance, either in its content or its style. Other works are "literature" for their universal and timeless application (usually applies to older works).

Maybe a "simple" work would define a generation, or would embody a new style of writing altogether. In that case, if it has an impact on the future of writing, I suppose its literary importance is undeniable; hence literature.

If we were to be given a specific example, it would be easier to debate 'yes' or 'no', since at this point, it's a valueless/unqualified semantics debate. :confused:

[Reptisaurus!]

Scott Pilgrim is not great literature.

*Shakes Fist*

[moebius]

Interesting that a lot of our thoughts went directly to Tom Sawyer.

I'd say a lot of the best noir and crime literature (Highsmith, Chandler, Hammett, Ellroy) is super straightforward, and I also think it could be described as "great".

Great example on the movie side of things is the Holy Trilogy.

[Brandon Hanvey]

Scott Pilgrim is not great literature.

*Shakes Fist*

Who said anything about Scott Pilgrim? :D

[Sir Tim Drake]

I think Joe nailed it with 'Where The Wild Things Are'.
Maurice Sendak for the win.

There's a professor in my department, a specialist in children's literature, who is an expert on Maurice Sendak's work and knows him personally.

My answer to the original question is yes, definitely. The Iliad and the Odyssey are simple and fun. Of course, simplicity is a matter of perspective. There are lots of great literary works that are fun to read, but that also reward deep scholarly analysis.

[clayholio]

I say of course - "Don Quixote" is one of my favorite books, and it's not terribly complex. There's no rule that says something must be painful, tedious reading in order to be great. Making a piece of work entertaining is part of the writer's job.

[Tages]

P.G. Wodehouse is enough to confirm that the answer is "Yes."

[thehod]

Agatha Christies works are quite simple in their structure, if sometimes overly complex in their plot, and she's considered the pinicle of her particular genre.

[Tages]

Agatha Christies works are quite simple in their structure, if sometimes overly complex in their plot, and she's considered the pinicle of her particular genre.

"The Simple Art of Murder" ruined Agatha Christie for me.

[thehod]

"The Simple Art of Murder" ruined Agatha Christie for me.

I'd never even heard of "The Simple Art of Murder", so after a quick shuffty on wikipedia I'd be interested in readine what Chandlers critisms of Christie were. Chandler seems to be one of those writers that I've always been meaning to getting around to reading, but never actually managed to.

I can agree that some of Christies plots hinge on quite convenient
circumstances, but there are others that are quite brilliant in their execution, "And Then There Were None" being one of them.

[Gingold]

I think Charlotte's Web meets the criteria.

[Davideaux]

Jim the Boy by Tony Earley is a great simple story about an orphaned boy growing up in country by his uncles. It's very straightforward but deeply felt also.

[founder81]

I don't think that literature is necessarily defined differently as much as it has different applications, as do some films. Some works are great -- or considered literature -- because of their historic significance, either in its content or its style. Other works are "literature" for their universal and timeless application (usually applies to older works).

Maybe a "simple" work would define a generation, or would embody a new style of writing altogether. In that case, if it has an impact on the future of writing, I suppose its literary importance is undeniable; hence literature.



By this definition, the earliest Golden Age comics would count.

[General Grievous]

Can a piece fiction/non-fiction that is simple and fun be considered great literature or does it have to be deep and meaningfully in order to be truly seen as a great work? Are simple works (even when superbly created) always seen as entertainment but never truly be considered literary?

Yes. Stan lee is a classic example of Fun and simple, and i would consider that comic book literature.

Simple stories. teenage nerd gets bitten by radio-active spider!

Gamma bomb explosions?

[jessecuster3]

Elmore Leonard writes great literature, without a serious amount of depth to it.

[Dreadstar]

To me, simple is something that isn't trying to be more than it is. It tells the story it wants without having the reader have to know or search for anymore info than the story supplies to enjoy the story fully.

Dashiel Hammet, anyone?

Mickey Spillane, maybe?

Nah, strike that last one, I'll not be in the position of trying to defend Spillane stuff as "great."

[Subotai]

Elmore Leonard writes great literature, without a serious amount of depth to it.

I'd disagree, some of his stuff is quite strong. The characters you can't argue with.

As for the first book I read which qualified as lit: The Little Prince.

[Slam_Bradley]

Dashiel Hammet, anyone?

Mickey Spillane, maybe?

Nah, strike that last one, I'll not be in the position of trying to defend Spillane stuff as "great."


I'm more than happy to be in that position.

[jessecuster3]

I'd disagree, some of his stuff is quite strong. The characters you can't argue with.



Whoa explain this one... his stories are very straight forward.

[Subotai]

Whoa explain this one... his stories are very straight forward.

On the surface, yes, but his ability to depict characters through actions and dialogue - nearly unmatched. Even in 'serious' fiction.

[Gordon Smith]

There's a professor in my department, a specialist in children's literature, who is an expert on Maurice Sendak's work and knows him personally.

My answer to the original question is yes, definitely. The Iliad and the Odyssey are simple and fun. Of course, simplicity is a matter of perspective. There are lots of great literary works that are fun to read, but that also reward deep scholarly analysis.

I think the Iliad and the Odyssey are far from simple, although I would say that they can be read and enjoyed at a superficial level without needing to delve into the more complex subtext and subtleties that pack both of these poems.

[Joe Grendel]

The only Agatha Christie that I'd say qualifies as literature -- that is, it speaks to the human condition, instead of just being a long logic puzzle -- are the stories about Tommy and Tuppence Beresford (the so-called "Partners in Crime"), but those definitely qualify, particularly the later ones, when the former flappers are in their 70s and 80s, and the stories are as much about family and mortality as they are about catching Nazis.

(They're great books, incidentally, and it's a shame the Poirot and Miss Marple books overshadow them so completely.)

Wait, there's a standalone Christie that also qualifies. I forget its name, but it's got Harlequin in the title. You can't really discuss it without giving the secret away, but it's almost like she was channeling another writer in penning that one.

[Sir Tim Drake]

I think the Iliad and the Odyssey are far from simple, although I would say that they can be read and enjoyed at a superficial level without needing to delve into the more complex subtext and subtleties that pack both of these poems.

Yeah, that's what I was sort of trying to say.

[Paul McEnery]

Echoing C&C:

do we even know what we mean by "great"?

BTW, the final argument between me and the ex-wife was about whether or not women write "great" books. (I think you can see the problem here.)

Or then again, maybe you can't. Because I was talking about the particular genre of "great" books, which women don't actually do at all, let alone well. So I figure defining terms is quite important here. :D

For me, it's about something that transcends genre, snapshots the zeitgeist, stands sui generis, and probably (imho) adds to narrative technology.

To take something relatively uncontroversial, T.S. Eliot's Prufrock, Hollow Men, and The Wasteland are all "great" poems: formally innovative, something that even people who don't like poetry wind up knowing, catches the times, isn't like anything else (oh, and is actually good). But his later poems and plays don't do the job anywhere near as well. Ash Wednesday and the Four Quartets have some sonorous lines in them, but are rarely quoted for a good reason; and in any case, they're formally slack, and frequently just sound good until you investigate them. I could go on, but I won't. Lucky all y'all.

We can say the same thing about Ulysses and, though the jury's always going to be out on this, Finnegans Wake.

I don't think complexity is necessarily the issue though. You can do all of that with simplicity -- and Beckett proved it.

[Paul McEnery]

The only Agatha Christie that I'd say qualifies as literature -- that is, it speaks to the human condition, instead of just being a long logic puzzle -- are the stories about Tommy and Tuppence Beresford (the so-called "Partners in Crime"), but those definitely qualify, particularly the later ones, when the former flappers are in their 70s and 80s, and the stories are as much about family and mortality as they are about catching Nazis.


I read those, years ago. But do they predate Nick and Nora?

[Paul McEnery]

Dashiel Hammet, anyone?

Mickey Spillane, maybe?

Nah, strike that last one, I'll not be in the position of trying to defend Spillane stuff as "great."

Oh come on, give it a shot.

Better prose writer than Hammett, at any rate.

[moebius]

IIRC, Chandler's critique of Doyle and Christie was that they cheat the audience by holding keeping vital information "off stage".

I've always loved detective fiction for its ability to be a great read and an insightful study of society's lowest reaches. Low brow and high concept at the same time.

[moebius]

By "simple" literature I think about literature that is instantly accessible to the reader. In this respect, Pynchon or Joyce would be the archetypes of "not simple" in English literature. I think the Illiad and Oddyssey aren't necessarily simple, becuase to fully appreciate the story you really need to understand the mythology.

By "great" I guess you could go by "meaningful," ie not just meant for mass consumption. Or you could go with a definition that looks at the quality of the work compared to all others of its type.

I'd also say Murakami is "simple" while still being "great". I find modern Japanese novelists are actually really good at being accessible. Romance language Magical Realists? Not so much.

[Joe Grendel]

I read those, years ago. But do they predate Nick and Nora?
I believe the very first Tommy and Tuppence story was among the very first things that Agatha Christie wrote, so probably.

[Joe Grendel]

IIRC, Chandler's critique of Doyle and Christie was that they cheat the audience by holding keeping vital information "off stage".

Hmm, I went through a Christie phase in high school. I never recall any scenario in which she didn't play fair. She would include clues that didn't seem like clues, but that's all part of the game, IMO.

[Dreadstar]

Hmm, I went through a Christie phase in high school. I never recall any scenario in which she didn't play fair. She would include clues that didn't seem like clues, but that's all part of the game, IMO.

She certainly isn't as bad as say, Patricia "Completely Out Of Leftfield" Cornwell.

[captain_unimpressive]

Kurt Vonngut's Breakfast of Champions comes to mind.
It was simple, in a lot of ways, and great, in a lot of ways.

[moebius]

Hmm, I went through a Christie phase in high school. I never recall any scenario in which she didn't play fair. She would include clues that didn't seem like clues, but that's all part of the game, IMO.

It could be that that criticism was levelled primarily at Doyle.

The one that probably applies to Christie is that murder in her novels is done for highly unbelievable reasons by highly unbelievable people. I think Chandler said something like "Hammet took murder out of the parlour and put it back in the gutter, where it belonged."

I bought the complete works of Raymond Chandler when I moved to Boston (which has nothing to do with why I bought them), and that was five years ago, so it's been awhile.

Tages, a little help?

[Mikl C]

Roald Dahl!
Especially Fantastic Mr Fox :D!

[Tages]

It could be that that criticism was levelled primarily at Doyle.

The one that probably applies to Christie is that murder in her novels is done for highly unbelievable reasons by highly unbelievable people. I think Chandler said something like "Hammet took murder out of the parlour and put it back in the gutter, where it belonged."

I bought the complete works of Raymond Chandler when I moved to Boston (which has nothing to do with why I bought them), and that was five years ago, so it's been awhile.

Tages, a little help?

Hooray, I'm useful!

http://www.en.utexas.edu/amlit/amlitprivate/scans/chandlerart.html

There are less plausible examples of the art than this. In Trent’s Last Case (often called "the perfect detective story") you have to accept the premise that a giant of international finance, whose lightest frown makes Wall Street quiver like a chihuahua, will plot his own death so as to hang his secretary, and that the secretary when pinched will maintain an aristocratic silence; the old Etonian in him maybe. I have known relatively few international financiers, but I rather think the author of this novel has (if possible) known fewer. There is one by Freeman Wills Crofts (the soundest builder of them all when he doesn’t get too fancy) wherein a murderer by the aid of makeup, split second timing, and some very sweet evasive action, impersonates the man he has just killed and thereby gets him alive and distant from the place of the crime. There is one of Dorothy Sayers’ in which a man is murdered alone at night in his house by a mechanically released weight which works because he always turns the radio on at just such a moment, always stands in just such a position in front of it, and always bends over just so far. A couple of inches either way and the customers would get a rain check. This is what is vulgarly known as having God sit in your lap; a murderer who needs that much help from Providence must be in the wrong business. And there is a scheme of Agatha Christie’s featuring M. Hercule Poirot, that ingenius Belgian who talks in a literal translation of school-boy French, wherein, by duly messing around with his "little gray cells," M. Poirot decides that nobody on a certain through sleeper could have done the murder alone, therefore everybody did it together, breaking the process down into a series of simple operations, like assembling an egg-beater. This is the type that is guaranteed to knock the keenest mind for a loop. Only a halfwit could guess it.

Chandler found most contemporary detective fiction to be tremendously implausible, neat and sterilized of all the messiness of reality. Hammett, he says, was the guy who put the messiness back in, who gave characters actual reasons for killing instead of just to provide a corpse.

He also takes into account that in reality, obsessively overplotted murders such as the kind regularly found in Christie novels are those that the police find easiest to solve.

[Paul McEnery]

On the issue of simplicity vs. complexity:

Only a fool would think that Tales from Topographic Oceans is greater than Anarchy in the UK.

[moebius]

On the issue of simplicity vs. complexity:

Only a fool would think that Tales from Topographic Oceans is greater than Anarchy in the UK.

Something can be simple and great (Batman: TAS). Something can be complex and great (Watchmen).

But what is "great?" What do B:TAS and Watchmen have that separate them from Super-Friends and Youngblood?

[moebius]

Hooray, I'm useful!



Heh...I just got that. "Solve, solve, solve the brutal murder...!"

[Tommy]

I think Charlotte's Web meets the criteria.

Yes. Charlotte's Web is by far one of the single greatest works written in English.

[Sir Tim Drake]

Yes. Charlotte's Web is by far one of the single greatest works written in English.

I think this is a slight exaggeration, at least.

[Paul McEnery]

Something can be simple and great (Batman: TAS). Something can be complex and great (Watchmen).

But what is "great?" What do B:TAS and Watchmen have that separate them from Super-Friends and Youngblood?

For me, genuine "great works" are "without which..." stuff. Foundation stones for what came after (or occasionally, I suppose, capstones that sum up what's come up to now).

[Chris Nowlin]

For me, genuine "great works" are "without which..." stuff. Foundation stones for what came after (or occasionally, I suppose, capstones that sum up what's come up to now).

While that is a fine condition, something about it doesn't sit right. At least as a sole criterion

Shouldn't you be able to read a great work and know that it's great.

I'd like to be able to read a great book and say "it's great" and not learn that the only reason I'm wrong is because it drew a lot from this great book.

Am I making sense?

If its only importance is in the context of works of its type... I dunno. Just don't sit right with me.

[Paul McEnery]

While that is a fine condition, something about it doesn't sit right. At least as a sole criterion

Shouldn't you be able to read a great work and know that it's great.

I'd like to be able to read a great book and say "it's great" and not learn that the only reason I'm wrong is because it drew a lot from this great book.

Am I making sense?

If its only importance is in the context of works of its type... I dunno. Just don't sit right with me.

Well, I'd reckon that a "great work" is a turning point. Borges is a turning point for the short story - well, for fiction in general - that reemerges through New Wave science fiction and Brit Invasion comix, not to mention magic realism in general. But what he's coming from is his surrealist background, which he sums up and transforms into something more easily digestible.

Hank Williams's output sums up black and white po' folks music, combining country and the blues into a commercial product with a new verse chorus bridge form that was thereafter popularized by The Beatles.

[Chris Nowlin]

Well, I'd reckon that a "great work" is a turning point. Borges is a turning point for the short story - well, for fiction in general - that reemerges through New Wave science fiction and Brit Invasion comix, not to mention magic realism in general. But what he's coming from is his surrealist background, which he sums up and transforms into something more easily digestible.

Hank Williams's output sums up black and white po' folks music, combining country and the blues into a commercial product with a new verse chorus bridge form that was thereafter popularized by The Beatles.

I understand. It just seems like that the primary criterion is so context-dependent, rather than being more directly about the quality of the work itself.

It makes me... uneasy.

[Paul McEnery]

I understand. It just seems like that the primary criterion is so context-dependent, rather than being more directly about the quality of the work itself.

It makes me... uneasy.

Understandable. You probably think of the work existing on its own, simply being its own individual self.

When in fact, every work is hypertextual, not only referring holographically one point to another inside itself, but making contact points to the whole reality which produced it, to all the other works it pillages or relates to, or to all the works that follow it even.

[Chris Nowlin]

Understandable. You probably think of the work existing on its own, simply being its own individual self.

When in fact, every work is hypertextual, not only referring holographically one point to another inside itself, but making contact points to the whole reality which produced it, to all the other works it pillages or relates to, or to all the works that follow it even.

So my uneasiness is understandable given that my perspective is likely screwed up.

[Paul McEnery]

So my uneasiness is understandable given that my perspective is likely screwed up.

Vertigo is uncomfortable, yes.

Or to put it another way: welcome to the unheimlich.

[moebius]

Understandable. You probably think of the work existing on its own, simply being its own individual self.

When in fact, every work is hypertextual, not only referring holographically one point to another inside itself, but making contact points to the whole reality which produced it, to all the other works it pillages or relates to, or to all the works that follow it even.

You totally didn't need to explain yourself using the word "holographically". Which, ironically, is a good example of a great point that can be made using simple words or complex.

[morna]

mmmm.... what about a Haiku

simplicity... brevity
unquestionably literature
no, this isn't a haiku

but - you know what I mean
It's like art - just because it's s tripped of all extraneous material doesn't render it - un art

it actually strengthens it