> It's possible that now, with greater knowledge of the sweep of literary history, that you'd recognize what's good (or even great) about it.
That's an awfully subjective field. I think Neil Stephenson is 'great', but find most 'high literature' to be a waste of time. I like various forms of visual art, on the other hand.
It's sort of like an old man here in Italy once told me when I asked him how to judge if a wine was good. He looked at me as if I were a bit daft and says "well, it tastes good". Granted, he probably had refined his taste buds over the years, but the main point was to drink something you like.
That's an awfully subjective field. I think Neil Stephenson is 'great', but find most 'high literature' to be a waste of time. I like various forms of visual art, on the other hand.
It's sort of like an old man here in Italy once told me when I asked him how to judge if a wine was good. He looked at me as if I were a bit daft and says "well, it tastes good". Granted, he probably had refined his taste buds over the years, but the main point was to drink something you like.