It is often difficult for those who argue that a modern book is one of the literary greats to get support for their argument. For some reason, when it comes to literature, age is one of the most important factors for being considered brilliant. That is not obviously universally true, but you can't help wondering if Austin or Dickens were writing now would they be noticed as much?

Both sides of the argument make sense. On the one hand how can you judge the genuine appeal of a book until it has been successful not only in it's own time but also in the times that follow? Great literature, people claim, has a universal appeal across humanity that is not dependent on cultural or temporal factors. This is slightly spurious when you look at other artistic mediums - Van Gogh did not enjoy particularly remarkable success in his own time yet is now considered one of the all time greats.

There are, undeniably, other factors that come into play when considering old masterpieces as modern greats. Take the Mona Lisa for example, undeniably a fine piece of artwork, loved by many, but is it really the most valuable painting on the planet or has its worth been increased by the fuss that surrounds it? The Mona Lisa is as much a product of people ?who know about these things? saying that the painting is magnificent, than some allure that it has for the general populace.

I think the same criticism can be levelled at certain literary masterpieces; people view them as brilliant because that is what we are taught. Dickens, for many, is as dry as an old shoe and about as enjoyable as stabbing yourself in the eye, but nevertheless every generation counts Dickens as one of the greatest writers ever. For an even more pertinent example: Shakespeare, you merely have to ask a classroom full of students and they'll tell you the bard is boring and they don't understand what all the fuss is about.

Part of the problem is that those who are considered most capable of commenting on books have often read so widely and developed their own tastes to such an extent that whilst they might be experts their tastes are perhaps too refined. Those who consider themselves wine connoisseurs usually view enormously successful wines at the cheaper end of the market as vinegar.

Modern books have every right to be considered as greats, but success should not be considered sufficient, that would be like saying that soaps are the greatest television ever because they are phenomenally successful. In every generation there is a certain amount of trash that has a remarkable success, remembered only by those who experienced it and then ignored by every generation that follows until the end of time. I would give an example, except that not being alive in the Victorian period I'm not really in a position to comment on massively successful flashes in the pan that were then subsequently forgotten. I'm sure there were some though.

If you are looking for a classic to read, whether it be modern or not, take a look at ASDA Books for a wide range of titles at excellent value.