I didn't know how to phrase the title so it's not quite what I mean. What I'm talking about is of certain authors and books that I recognize that they're not great literature but I happen to like anyways because I get immersed in the world they create despite not having the best prose or not being completely original.
Three examples come to my mind at the moment which are Stephen King, H.P Lovecraft and J.K Rowling. In the case of King he himself considered his literature as the equivalent of fast food however some of his books like Salem's Lot got me completely immersed in his world and even having creepy feelings because of how much I got into the story.
In the case of Lovecraft I recognize his prose abuses of adjectives and his stories are repetitive but despite those problems I happen to like many of them.
In the case of Rowling and the Harry Potter saga I am completely consciouss that her writing is not great and sometimes repetitive and what's worse is that there are lots of deus ex machina. Despite of that the world and characters she creates happen to get me entertained and I could reread those books easily despite all those problems.
So what do you think? Where should we trace the line between good and bad literature? I know that you'll tell me that whatever book that gives you pleasure is good but surely there are certain standards. There's a reason why Joyce, Tolstoi or Mark Twain are considered great literature. Is 50 shades of gray great literature just because many people seem to like it? I don't think so.
Source: reddit post