| The author that "everyone knows" today may also be forgotten, or even ridiculed, after a decade or two has passed, whereas books that are not as popular during their own time may be rediscovered again and again by new generations.
So, no, I don't think that popularity by itself is any measure of greatness, nor is how many awards a book wins. Durability is far more reliable when it comes to judging a book's quality. A book that is popular during its own era and yet speaks to people across generations is a far better candidate for "greatness" than either the blockbuster bestseller or the obscure award-winner.
We might also remember that we live in an era where a book, or a person, or a movie, or anything else can be famous for being famous. Once the hype begins, people will read a book out of sheer curiosity, and then talk about that book because everyone else is talking about it. They may hear as much bad as good about the book -- I'm thinking of The Da Vinci Code here -- and still they buy it. Such books will even be read by people who don't ordinarily do much reading. For someone who's only read a handful of books in the last few years, a very mediocre effort can appear exceptional simply because they have nothing much to compare it to.
I don't believe it's fair to call a book "great" until it's been around for a long time, because until then we lack the perspective. A newer book may, of course, be great -- it's not like it actually gets better with age -- but it doesn't make sense to me for anyone to attach that label simply because a book is currently in vogue, whether with the general public or with the literary establishment. |