> I wasn't speaking of fiction in my original post. The purpose of fiction is to create an experience in the mind of the reader rather than to convey informatio

> I wasn't speaking of fiction in my original post. The purpose of fiction is to create an experience in the mind of the reader rather than to convey information. As such, you can't judge a work by an absolute standard, really the only measure of success is how well the writing tends to induce the experience the author intended. This of course will depend on how well the author has anticipated the mind of the reader. Ah, I misunderstood. I agree with you that redundancy is a common problem even in "good" works of non-fiction, though I think it's sometimes a sign that one has approached a work too late, not that the work is generally poor. I found the oft-recommended A Demon-Haunted World, for instance, to be an over-long, dull, repetitive, low-value work... but if I'd read it when I was 14? Who knows. Judging from others' testimonies I suspect I'd not have had the same complaints if I'd read it at a different time in my life. Full-on self-help books—to include pop-business books—I would exempt from this cautious judgement, since useless padding is practically a codified, defining property of the genre. > It is true that no preferences exist free of introduced bias. My problem is mainly with things that people train themselves to like in order to appear "sophisticated". It's like an arms race, where people learn to like progressively less pleasant things in order to differentiate themselves. Everyone would be happier if we collectively said "screw sophistication" but nobody wants to be the first person to appear "boorish". Absolutely a problem. Humility, compassion, restraint, self-awareness, and plain speaking are everywhere in short supply. [EDIT] looking back, I think I took your words "the 'classics' of western literature" more broadly than you intended them, i.e. to include fiction, verse, et c.