The long of the short one
I have often wondered what makes a good literature. is it the characterization? or the story line? or the dialogues? or the vocabulary used? Or is it a combination of all these? When people go ga-ga over great literary works, I am often stumped as to why I don't find them interesting and more importantly what made those stories such a big hit amongst those critics. Some of them are so boring that I couldn't quite crawl beyond few chapters. Irrespective of the number of characters, I loose track of the story line amidst all those adjectives and phrases and themes that they try to explain in their narration. Probably literature students my find it easier, for they've to think through all the metaphors and come up with their own version of what the author could've meant. But is that what stories are supposed to be?? I guess the folk tales or our grandma stories survived through ages mainly because of their simplicity in narration. Even the best seller novels like Dan Browns, Crichtons, Haileys have less recollect value. God father and specific few being a glorious exceptions wherein people recall punch dialogues in them as quotes. Take the case of Vairamuthu's short stories appearing in Kumudham for example. It rambles on to several pages. While the actual story might be just about a pages worth, the rest are all fillers whose absence wouldn't have hurt the story I felt. But probably, it showcases his ability to detail out simpler things. Maybe this is how screenplays are written, minuting everything to the detail possible. But as a quick read enthusiast, it really dampens the flow.