I have found in my studies of literature that about half of it is lengthy, tedious and self-indulgent. I have written papers questioning authors and their inclusion into canonical literature. I even studied under professors who had researched the purported "dead while males", and found that a some of them had been included because they had a particular place in society and thus became standard through influence rather then talent, or particular vision.

However, many were enlightened, enjoyable, and thought provoking. They entered the canon not on the strength of a title or political leverage, but through true artistic ability that surpassed such passing fads, much like good music, or good art, or good poetry.

I would not segregate what I *think* is good literature from that which has been *determined* (or labelled) to be good. I keep all of my Tolkein well displayed, along with my Robert Jordan, my S. Andrew Swann, my David Gemmell, my Robert E. Howard, and my William Shakespeare . . . ad nauseum.

The definition of good literature is as much a personal thing as it is a general consensus among the population of critics and readers. It is as much a consideration of time as it is a transcendence of time. But I do tend to remain leary of people who try to deify Tolkein, as those who deify any of the "defined" literary giants. Simple power of purchase is not the only measure of a writer's worth. And I like to keep in mind that as a product of a Western culture, I don't have the ease of access to the great writers of Asia and the east, whose number of printed books outnumber my own, and whose canon of literture goes back centuries before my own.

My own definition of literature follows the above story. Tolkein told a good story, and that is what I am always in search of as part of the definition of "good literature."

-Rob