Great Stories, Part 2: Agreeing on Great Stories

Hesiod, upset at his lack of future fame.

Recently I've been thinking about great stories. 
This is the 2nd of three posts on the topic.

There are many reasons why some stories are rated or regarded highly - in the form of a novel, film, or television episode. Maybe they're told in a unique voice, have an especially engaging plot, are set in an unusual time or place. But why are some more famous than others? Why do only some last? For an example - why are Homer's works famous but not Hesiod's, though from the same culture and time period?

Let's skip thoughts for a second.

In 1998, Modern Library released a list of the 100 Greatest Novels. The list was automatically challenged, leading to the Reader's List and Radcliffe's rival list.

So why was the list challenged?

For one, a number of critics noticed that it focused on North American and European writers. It neglected foreign, lesser-known greats. Others were bothered by the lack of female representation; and one went as far as calling the entire thing a "sales gimmick."

It's a tricky business, rating novels. If you took a public poll, Homer would be rated over Hesiod, simply because his works have resonated more with modern culture. If you asked a group of knowledgeable critics, there would be a squabble. One might even sit to the side in refusal, arguing the two writers were too different to compare. (Not even gonna mention the possibility that Homer was two different people.)

As the man who called the original ML list a "sales gimmick" asked: "How can you quantify something as quicksilver as literature?''

At the end of the day, I'd argue that the key to agreeing on great stories is taking an unbiased and intelligent view. A judge would have to be knowledgeable about each story's medium and its qualities, but couldn't be allowed to have favorites. As I'm sure you can tell, this is pretty impossible. 

Personally, I generally disregard novel lists like Modern Library's. Creating them is just too subjective. (Plus, I'll usually spot one of my favorites below one I hate, then I'll go ranting to anyone who'll listen about it.) Instead, I read what I've heard of - I nearly always go by word-of-mouth (or word-of-blogs, I suppose.)

Even with Shakespeare this applies: Everyone knows he's got to be the greatest worthsmith ever, yet I - someone who reads quite a bit - never stopped to give him a chance until quite recently. It was only my English teacher's enthusiasm for Romeo & Juliet that convinced me to really examine Shakespeare's work... and I'm very glad I did.

What's your opinion? Do you agree with the lists' rankings? Is it possible to "quantify something as quicksilver as literature"? What's your solution?