Doyle: 7
Griffin: 2

Sherlock Holmes is a great, memorable creation, no doubt. The writing is quite good and enjoyable, thought not great. However, even Doyle got bored of the series eventually and tried to end it.

For me, though, this is about the best read, not the best character. not the best plot, not the most influential, etc.

If you just want to pitch the most memorable characters, try Heracles, Conan, Batman, Odysseus, or even Mario. But that'd be another thread.

"For me, though, this is about the best read, not the best character. not the best plot, not the most influential, etc."

People are over-pushing the "Favorite author" aspect. Whoever said your favorite author had to be determined by "the best read" and not the author who was, well, best? Or perhaps the author who had the biggest influence on you? In fact, who said that "the best read" wasn't the book with the best characters?

The other day I lamented the surfeit of sci-fi and fantasy on this thread, and you among others complained. But this is what I meant.If you've ever been really influenced by a writer, then chances are, that writer is one of your favorites. The fact that so many people here are going for "most entertaining" suggests that they haven't really experienced a lot of what literature has to offer.

+10 semck I attempted to argue the same elsewhere. There is more in books than popcorn entertainment. Books change lives

Going for what you consider to be the most entertaining isn't necessarily wrong.

True, literature can do a lot besides being entertaining, but there's no good reason to assume that depth/thought-provokingness, or anything else, for that matter, is the true measure of a work/author's worth. People who study literature for a living generally say that literature should be deep and insightful, but of course they say that - they're people who study literature for a living. That's like asking a bunch of dieticians what the most important quality in a food is - they may be quite qualified to evaluate foods based on nutritional qualities, but they don't have the authority to say that's best way to evaluate foods - indeed, many people would argue that, depending on the circumstances, taste can be more important than nutritional value.

It's certainly possible to make a pretty decent argument that entertainment is the most important aspect of fictional literature.

In the age of YouTube, I doubt it

People still read for enjoyment in the Age of YouTube. Plus, where do you draw the line between literature meant to be performed, like dramas and whatnot, and the sort of stuff that people do on YouTube?

As I say, Fish, if a writer has ever changed how you look at the world, then it's pretty improbable that you like another writer better because he makes the time fly by in an airport.

We've all read and enjoyed page-turners. I do myself all the time, and, like you, I'll defend their value. That said, I'm dubious that we've all been impacted by really great literature, or I don't think we'd be seeing these patterns. So, as I said, I've experienced more of what literature has to offer: like you, I've enjoyed a good mystery. But have you ever stayed up late into the night just thinking because of what just happened to a character that you _loved_?

It's not just literature majors who value depth and skill in literature, any more than it's only music majors who can see that Beethoven had a little more to offer than Bon Jovi (even though I listen to the latter slightly more frequently).

I did say, semck, "FOR ME...this is about"

I didn't say that "favourite" couldn't mean other things for other people, nor did I say that other people should agree with me. In fact, previously in this thread I said that it could be about just about anything for anyone. If you want "favourite" to mean the most influential and life changing and talk about that, great. You can talk about your opinion, and I can talk about mine. For me, it's also the journey there that's interesting, discovering new authors and perspectives, etc. in this thread, not the end game - who wins. For other people here, it's the final score that matters, and that's OK too.

I've read thousands of books and have a library of probably just under five hundred. About half is scifi/fantasy/horror, and the rest is scattered across the map. I suspect some people on this thread may be vaguely equivalent with different interests, give or take a little or a lot, except maybe with a kindle instead of hardbacks, or an english degree instead of spending a few years working at a library.

I have read life-changing books. I also have a good collection of classics, and have read them too, some more than once. I've read the books of most of the major religions and taken a class in world religions. I have a dozen different translations of the bible. I've extensively researched shamanism.

And I'm not likely the most well-read person here, not by far.

And for me, "favourite" means a book I'd like to read over and over, the one I'd pick over the others if trapped in a cabin in winter. And yes, that one book will be popcorn entertainment. And I'm damn proud of that.

Now might be a good time to bring up "The Three-Decker" by Rudyard Kipling, which is essentially a lament for the death of the Victorian three-volume novel. It's basically Kipling's way of saying "you can have your deep, angsty, thought-provoking stories if you like, but I miss the lighthearted stuff you read for enjoyment".

Go read it, if you haven't already. It's quite a nice poem.

Heavens. Nobody should mistake greatness with the need for forced angst or overwrought "social consciousness." Stevenson was one of our great writers, and he wholeheartedly embraced tale over "issues."

I mean, this started in defense of Sherlock Holmes, for crying out loud.

"True, literature can do a lot besides being entertaining, but there's no good reason to assume that depth/thought-provokingness, or anything else, for that matter, is the true measure of a work/author's worth. People who study literature for a living generally say that literature should be deep and insightful, but of course they say that - they're people who study literature for a living."

That's a bit like saying "Of course those that study science say it should be used for the betterment of mankind, they're people who do science for a living--really, who's to say if work devoted to studying the chemical makeup of cells is more important than work devoted to helping cosmetics companies create the next great makeup design concept? After all, don't they both benefit humanity in SOME capacity?"

You can get enjoyment out of reading Tom Clancy.
You can get enjoyment out of reading Ernest Hemingway.

One of these authors makes for a lasting contemplation on the effects of war on society, what it means to be a man, if that idea is flawed, and what it means to try to rise to the occasion and maintain grace and individuality in a world that's anything but graceful or individualistic.

One of these authors lets you have the fun of watching explosions and secret ops missions...and then watching them on the big screen...and then unlocking an achievement for blowing a guy's head off while playing the XBox version.

Do they both produce something fun and entertaining?
Yes (believe it or not, people DO read "literature" because they find it entertaining.)
Would you raise your kids on movies, XBox and Big Mac meals alone over family trips, culture, and actual conversations over a proper dinner?

...Well, if you live in the America of 2014, then yes, apparently, I suppose you might.

Literature is NOT reserved for the elite or those who devote themselves to studying it--that's an image of literature that's emerged over the last 50 years, and it IS partially the fault of those who decide to treat literature as if it were an opportunity for them to get up on their pretentious soapbox and codify everything in such obscurantist theoretical terms that nobody knows what they're talking about (and those that DO have either ceased to care or are too busy writing their own masturbatory thesis on how a Deconstructionist reading of "Hamlet" is actually a critique of mass consumer culture and is the product of a capitalist ideological superstructure fostered by a lack of performative gender and the not allowing "the thing in itself" to rise to the forefront of consciousness and hey, this is making your brain start to melt and wonder "What the hell happened to the story about the guy trying to decide what the point of life was and whether or not to kill his uncle?" I thought so.)

Tom Clancy was a writer, for sure...not so much an author.

An author writes "Huck Finn" and tackles the racism and social relations of his time, and does so in a way that was fun to read then, and fun to read now.

An author writes "1984" or "Brave New World," and does so NOT to create a Young Adult 5-novel franchise, but rather to look at and comment on political and social ideologies and totalitarianism and the relationship of the individual to the whole and how that relationship's difficult and, if we're not careful, costly and deadly.

An author writes "Pride and Prejudice" or "To the Lighthouse" and does so NOT because they're trying to tap into a "Chick Lit" market, or because they took Gender Theory classes and are writing to that one specific audience, but rather because they think they have something to say about class relations and men and women and what pride and prejudice over trivial matters can do to people.

An author writes "The Divine Comedy" or "Paradise Lost" or "The Brothers Karamazov" NOT to throw out conspiracy theories about how religious institutions work--I'm looking at you, Dan Brown--but rather because they think they have something to say about the nature of religion, or about good and evil, or how we should live our lives, or what these religions actually say and actually mean, or can mean.

And, yes...

An author writes "Hamlet" and makes it the longest work written in the course of their career because, whatever it is you want to say they're saying, they're trying to say SOMETHING about "what a piece of work is a man," and what the human condition really is...interspersed with sword fights and intrigue and jokes and everything else that keeps an audience entertained.

semck is right when he says "Nobody should mistake greatness with the need for forced angst or overwrought "social consciousness""--though I'd argue he stressed the wrong words.

Social consciousness is necessary for good writing--write a 6-part novel series on escapist fantasy or sci fi and I'll say that's fine, you're a writer, and not an author (or auteur, because the only way I can make my position of an elitist arguing against literature being viewed as nebulous and elite is to use a French word.)

If you make that sci fi story actually tap into the social consciousness, however, then you might have something--

A sci fi paperback series is the equivalent of a 6-part 1950s B-movie serial.

A science fiction book taking a hard, long look at something? That's H.G. Wells looking at class difference with the Morlocks and Eloi in "The Time Machine" or commenting on European imperialism with "War of the Worlds," and there are of course plenty of other great authors and examples as well.

It's when social consciousness is filled with false "angst" or is "overwrought" that's the problem.

To pick on the Young Adult book crowd one more time--

Part of the reason "1984" and "Brave New World" work, are engaging and remain engaging is that they feel genuine--they weren't made to pander to a teen demographic that finds that trendy, they're dystopian because Huxley and Orwell were genuine in their concern, weren't overly-angsty, avoided overwrought purple prose, and as a result,their works are timeless...

...rather than "Divergent" (which I so recently railed against) pandering to a teen demographic when dystopian stories were trendy and coming across as nothing more than pretentious, badly-written drivel filled with fueled by teenage angst as written by a 20-something (wait for it) Creative Writing major.

Spoiler alert--there has YET to be a lauded author who was the product of a Creative Writing major...plenty of flash-in-the-pan writers, but AUTHORS seem to need to be made of sterner stuff (and have actually, you know, experienced life outside that cozy little workshopping writer's circle.)

There's nothing wrong with appealing to popular taste--Shakespeare did that.

He wrote revenge tragedies, in part, because those were popular and sold.

He also took the time to give Hamlet more lines than any other character, and thus instead of him being merely someone who stacks up bodies all over the stage or revels in revenge, he takes the time to have his sincere, angst-ridden hero actually question Life, the Universe, and Everything, and it's telling that THAT is the focus of the play, and any killing is brief and, on more than one occasion, pure accident rather than joyous revenge.

Literature, then, should be accessible in its sincerity and engaging nature for all, and there a qualitative difference between Tom Clancy and Ernest Hemingway--

The difference between a writer and an author.

So, on that note, Doyle wins 7-2...and speaking of Shakespeare...

He's back...potentially to lose again!

So, following on the heels of our "What I enjoy reading more vs. what's better" discussion...

Hamlet vs. Harry, and William Shakespeare vs. J.K. Rowling. :)

And I like both authors...but if you don't know what way I'm voting, you've clearly never listened to me in your life (and are thus wise already!)

Shakespeare: 1
Rowling: 0

Shakespeare

Rowling = utter dribble.

Shakespeare already lost. Rowling.

Rowling. Shakespeare is much reduced when read. I don't know why anyone outside of school should bother trying. Rowling writes a good tale and has influenced countless millions for the better, in contrast to the likes of, say, Thoreau who has influenced around half a dozen.

Shakespeare.

Shakespeare, if tge William Shakespeare actually looses to a petty modern day author like Rowling... that will be the day

Good rant, obi. I like a good debate and there are lots of good points there.

Sure, there are lots of trashy sci fi paperbacks, just like in any fiction genre (harlequin romance bodice-rippers anyone?) Just because it's popular and populous and isn't a reason to put it down, other than maybe from sour grapes because it's not your chosen path... :)

I wouldn't call Rowling dribble. She's a good, not great, author for the YA crowd and she's a step up from some of the other popular YA books. Still, I wouldn't read one of her books more than once.

Shakespeare.

"Shakespeare is much reduced when read. I don't know why anyone outside of school should bother trying."

And his poetry...?

"Rowling = utter dribble."

While I've already voted Shakespeare, I don't think it's fair to say Rowling writes drivel at all...Stephenie Meyer and E.L. James write drivel. What's more, I'd say Rowling's more creative than some...more creative than Tom Clancy...takes more creative power to imagine a whole world of wizards and witches in the modern day before that was "a thing" than it does to write 50-something books about *insert generic special ops or military mission here.*

Shakespeare: 5
Rowling: 2

Off the wall suggestions:

I have just read The Mask of Demitrious by Eric Ambler on someone's recomendation. It is a great yarn for anyone who likes detective stories. Anhything by Edward Abbey is pretty good too - the Brave Cowboy or the Monkey Wrench Gang in particular. My favorite quote goes something like this:

“Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners.”

Oh yes i almost forgot. In my opinion this is a great book and you can read it in 10-15 minutes:

http://www.aprendendoingles.com.br/ebooks/the_man_who_planted_trees.pdf

''When I reflect that one man, armed only with his own physical and moral resources, was able to cause this land of Canaan to spring from the wasteland, I am convinced that in spite of everything, humanity is admirable. But when I compute the unfailing greatness of spirit and the tenacity of benevolence that it must have taken to achieve this result, I am taken with an immense respect for that old and unlearned peasant who was able to complete a work worthy of God.''

Must mention Conrad and Hemmingway too. Even though, certainly the latter, appears to be deeply unfashionable now.

In response to obiwan's rant:

First of all, you analogy about the scientists is 100% correct: the scientists don't actually have the authority to say that their "true" science is more valuable than science with more tangible results, like cosmetics or whatever. While I think most people would agree with the scientists in this case, that doesn't mean we should agree with them just because they're scientists, but rather because we've weighed all the arguments and decided what we've decided for ourselves.

I haven't actually made any arguments for measuring things solely by enjoyment yet - I've mostly been defending the possibility of the existence of such an argument up to this point. In fact, I believe, as do most of you, probably, that both insightfulness and enjoyment need to be taken into account. However, I do assign a slightly higher value to enjoyment than might be expected, and here's why:

Enjoyment is basically what justifies the existence of fiction. If all you want is insight or information, non-fiction is much more efficient. The advantage of fiction is that it can deliver similar insight to you in an enjoyable manner. It makes the message more effective by drawing you in and involving you in it. As a result, fiction that isn't enjoyable isn't really taking advantage of its own nature. In the words of the person who coined (or maybe just popularized, I don't know) the categories of "escape" and "interpretive" fiction, "Enjoyment - and ever more enjoyment - is the first aim and justification of reading fiction".

Again, I'm not saying that enjoyment should be the only metric used to measure the value of fiction, but I am saying that it's one of the most important, because ultimately, the more enjoyable a book is, the more effectively it can accomplish whatever other purposes it has in mind, and a book that's not at all enjoyable is going to have a hard time affecting anyone, since no one's going to bother finishing it.

I'd write more, including playing devil's advocate for the idea that enjoyment is THE most important aspect of a book, but I really hate typing in this tiny little window, and I also feel like this is a pretty subjective topic, and we're not going to agree on it any time soon.

As for Shakespeare vs Rowling, I'll go with Shakespeare.

I worded the first paragraph poorly: I meant to say your analogy is consistent with the point that mine was trying to make.

Shakespeare: 6
Rowling: 2

"Enjoyment is basically what justifies the existence of fiction."


And there we disagree.

I'd argue BETTERMENT is what justifies fiction--and that can be as simple as the kind of small, short thrill you get from reading a Tom Clancy thriller to the longer-lasting good that comes from asking "what a piece of work is a man?" and examining everything from politics and racism to gender roles and ideas about love.

It's a bit like saying that what justifies food is its ability to keep us alive--

That's true, but what kind of life do you want it to be?

Do you want to be bloated and out of breath because you gorge on nothing but Hershey's, giving you a quick burst of sugar and not much substance?

Or do you want to be a lean, mean in-shape machine that treats your body like a temple and eats only the healthiest food...even when it tastes like crap?

Or do you want to be a complete and total food snob and turn your nose up at everything but the best of the best of the best, to the point you become pretentious and alienate others?

The answer is somewhere between those three extremes, yes?

There's room enough for junk food, healthy food and gourmet food...

But the latter two categories should almost certainly exceed the first one if you want a healthy life?

Then there's room enough to enjoy some escapist science fiction trilogy alongside your Hemingway, Shakespeare, Austen and Vergil...

...but if ALL or MOST you read are those escapist science fiction paperbacks, then chances are you're going to have shut yourself off culturally and will suffer for it?

After all, I'd also argue part of the value of literature is putting yourself in someone else's shoes, and taking that experience and helping you make real-world decisions, so that when discussions about "the nature of love and marriage" come up on the ballot or discrimination is an issue or we have discussions about politics, you've actually taken the time to read your Orwell and Steinbeck and Swift and Shaw and Huxley and all the others that make that conversation go.

You're a bit shut out of that conversation if the extent of your intellectual experience is enjoying a frivolous space opera with cardboard cutout good guys and over-the-top bad guys.

So no, I'd say literature isn't primarily justified by enjoyment (though it SHOULD be entertaining most of the time) but rather that it should make you better somehow, whether that's better for a day in enjoying a space opera or better for a lifetime because you can use Edgar Allan Poe's poetry to teach a grade schooler how vowel sounds work, and even get him to understand why the guy in "The Raven" is just a little afraid.

And the latter there lasts a LOT longer than the former, and should be praised as such.