Literature (Contd.)

Continuing on Babai's thoughts:

I think a really good book achieves all the elements mentioned (entertain, enlighten, provoke thought and action). Stephen Fry said it well in his tribute to Wodehouse:

"Without Wodehouse I am not sure that I would be a tenth of what I am today - whatever that may be. In my teenage years, his writings awoke me to the possibilities of language. His rhythms, tropes, tricks and mannerisms are deep within me. But more than that, he taught me something about good nature. It is enough to be benign, to be gentle, to be funny, to be kind."

I am sure PGW's writing has that effect on most people: While one is laughing to distraction at the antics of Bertie, it weaves a subtle skein and traps one into a life of 'Noblesse Oblige' where not doing 'the done thing' is the worst crime possible. Thus, it entertains and yet instructs.

Writing is first and foremost an art, after all; and art, while it might convey a message, has to enthrall one with its creativity and beauty.

Also agree with babai on how one's tastes and perspectives change with time. The teens were the times for bournvita and Jeffrey Archer. Now I prefer bitterness in coffee and brevity & pithiness (not a quality this post can be noted for :)) in literature. Thus, quality of prose figures as the top criteria in my reading nowadays...

For those who are interested in the Stephen Fry article in its entirety: http://www.pgwodehousebooks.com/fry.htm