| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Literary merit redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(old)
editwhat is a literary merits?
I wouldn't consider The Da Vinci Code to be the best example of something that doesn't have literary merit because its not very clear why. I am assuming it' more of a butt hurt thing for the Christians than anything else. Considering most people would have seen the movie but not read the book they wouldn't understand why it can not be considered for literary merit, even worse if they've only seen the south park episode they would assume it was for the fact that The Da Vinci Code is a fictional work.
-Start
5/24/2010
The Da Vinci Code does have at least some arguable amount of literary merit. A common characteristic of literary merit (at least in fiction) seems to be some kind of deep-level character development, usually in some way that propagates the overall plot. An example of this characteristic is obvious in Huckleberry Finn's epiphany in the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain.
Relative to this, the book Twlight by Stephanie Meyer does not have any considerable amount of literary merit since the overall plot is loosely defined and there is little to no actual character or plot development (more-like a series of loosely related events that eventually lead to a vague climax).
This is subjective, yes?
-End
Fiction only
editIs it true that literary merit pertains only to fiction?
--as we say in the lead sentence, linking the same article. --P64 (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Existence
editDoes this page really need to exist? It offers nothing. 79.70.184.163 (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps this can be merged with Western canon"? Rwood128 (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Quality
editSince my deletion request was denied without any changes being made, I've gone through the article and removed anything that was poorly written, or that resembled original research or synthesis. There was very little there to start with, and now there's even less. I can't imagine how an encyclopedia page could ever possibly cover an issue like this, but since it isn't going to be deleted, it needs an absolutely massive amount of improvement. 79.70.188.34 (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Merge proposal
editUnless there are objections I will merge the articles.Rwood128 (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Merge completed. Rwood128 (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)