I see a lot of the “literary merit” talk being about a book being heavily implicit therefore allowing for more analysis and retaining interest in crowds, but this seems to be what constitutes “good” for quite a few folks ive seen. Like the title said, given your own subjective experiences in reading, have you found works that wear their ideas on their sleeve, and do it well? Do you prefer heavily implicit ideas that require constant analysis and deriving? Do you think both can be considered to have “good writing” (in the depth sense) given that they deliver their ideas well through a compelling narrative and cast?
(If there’s anything I may be mistaken about or lacked elaboration in, please feel free to correct me!)
by RadiantOberon
3 Comments
It’s neither bad or good in itself; you’ll be hard pressed to argue that there aren’t truly enduring books that stand as works of obvious social critique and which can be straight up polemic – Dickens addresses the reader consistently and directly, Zola doesn’t shy away from clear criticism of society, Hugo goes on long rambling digressions – and Germinal, Great Expectations and Les Miserables are all true classics.
Anyone that says it’s 100% bad just hasn’t read like half the classics.
It’s a preference. Different kinds of books will attract different audiences. For example, for younger or more diverse audience you want to be more explicit.