: : 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

: Who ever said it isn't literature? I mean, something can be literature and fantasy at the same time, right? I once went to a bookstore that listed Journey to the Centre of the Earth and From the Earth to the Moon under SciFi & Fantasy, and if those books aren't literature, what is?

: Also, I don't think that literature is based upon content. I mean, A Tale of Two Cities, IMHO is long-winded junk that never gets to the point. So if Dickens is literature, who says Tolkien isn't?

Yes, The Lord of the Rings may indeed be literature. But who decides what is and isn't literature. As Robroy posted, sometimes a book becomes famous because of the noteriety of the author. Other works were so good that they stood the test of time and slowly came to be recognized as literature. Well, LOTR has been around almost fifty years. Ain't it about time for the critics, or whomever, to get off the proverbial pot and make up their minds about Tolkien? I suppose if JRRT had written in never ending sentences without punctuation he would have hailed as the new James Joyce. A recent reviewer just gave that accolade to Frank McCourt for Angela's Ashes. Fortunately for McCourt (or more importantly me) Angela's Ashes is emminently readable - even without quotation marks, whereas Joyce just drones on and on and on. I'd love to get an audio book of any book by Joyce as read by Ben Stein in his famous monotone voice. Of course I'm aware of Joyces importance to modern literature, and I don't want to diminish his artistic merit - even if I don't see it myself. I'm not one who enjoys trying to figure out what the writer was REALLY saying. I'm a literalist. Don't tell me you're in love with a girl while qctually meaning the Church. There are very few allegories that I have enjoyed, most of which can be found in Aesop's Fables.