<li><p>What do you consider the greatest English novel ever (literarily and philosophically)?</p></li>
<li><p>Why had there been so much contrasting opinions on many acclaimed novels? For example, Ulysses is rated 1st on the top 100 novels of the 20th century, but was labeled pornography (i.e. “porn” parts are of no literary value) for more than 10 years. Finnegans wake was decried as a joke. Great Gatsby was rejected from publisher to publisher. I am sure there are many more such examples. Shouldn’t a great novel be recognized as great almost immediately? Even if critics need time to digest it, it shouldn’t take more than at most a year, right? But still many greatest works are not appreciated until much later. Were the critics morons?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I don’t have an answer for #1 but I’ll go for #2…</p>
<p>The critics of any given time are heavily influenced by the trends and opinions of the time, as well as by some of their own pretentions (e.g. critics who believe that a best-seller cannot possibly have literary merit simply because it’s a best-seller). Styles, and notions on the acceptability of different styles, change. Can you imagine what Victorian critics, accustomed to the styles of Dickens and Hardy, would have thought of a novel like <i>As I Lay Dying</i>? A lot of great novels are the forerunners of new styles and trends rather than conforming to whatever the current ones are, so of course the critics are shocked and horrified when something comes along that upsets their notions of what a good novel should be.</p>
<p>Also there are social/political issues involved - a novel that we might consider great now might have been panned for something like frank treatment of sexuality back in the day.</p>
<p>I don’t have an answer for #1 either, but as to #2, a great many artistic works of all genres weren’t properly appreciated during the lives of their creators. I think you might enjoy reading Henry James–his novels and short fiction, and then comparing his fiction with his very astute non-fiction. He was also an important literary critic and theorist, and it’s not often that one gets the chance to get so inside the head of an author on the subject of his/her craft.</p>
<p>Emerson said that “To be great is to be misunderstood,” but he also said that “to believe that was is true for you in your own private heart is true for all men–that is genius.” On this view, greatness is visionary–it charts new ground, expanding genres and opening up avenues of human perception, but in a way that goes beyond the idiosyncratic and appeals–utlimately–to the universal. In this sense, great literature often transcends current convention and consciousness in a way most critics cannot. If great art is both ground-breaking and universal, it shouldn’t surprise us that there is often some lag time before its greatness is recognized.</p>
<p>Also, are you sure Gatsby was rejected from numerous publishers? Already one of the leading short-story writers of his day, Fitzgerald was under contract with Scribners when he wrote the novel. As for recognizing genius, you may want to look at the letter Fitzgerald’s editor wrote to him after reading one of the final drafts. It’s remarkable for its foresight and acumen–he basically declares it one of the greatest American novels ever written.</p>