No. Not good, even though it's important

[Dan]

Maybe I'm a philistine. Yes, original for its time. Probably amazing to an academic. Important but not good.

[Ken]

Perhaps by your measure.

[Jason]

"Good" is taken to mean different things by different people. Enjoyable, thought provoking, well executed, original, expressive, complex, direct, expansive, concise, funny, serious, well-regarded. These can all be things that a person means when they say "good." You might start a more interesting discussion if you give us some idea of what a good book is to you, and why you don't think this book qualifies.

[Marco]

A masterpiece. Moving. Amazing. You're right, Dan, It's not good, it's excellent :)

[Tom]

I'm a bit intrigued with what the original poster means by "not good". I myself love the book, and enjoy it on many levels. I don't really like the idea of "better" or "worse" literature, or putting down someone who is not into or dislikes a work that I find amazing.
The concept of "not good" is interesting, and perhaps quite valid in the sense of "good for x" or "Good at x", and that is something I'd be interested in hearing from the original poster. Proust is not good at giving you a rip-roaring tale, or an easy to follow plot line, or a milieu that is familiar and easily recognizable. Being obtuse, or difficult to follow , or recherche is not a mistake, and doesn't make it worse (or better!) than another type of book. This is a novel in which a line about asparagus is a veiled revelation about a pregnancy; that makes it "good at" doing that sort of thing, and "bad at" giving you a straightforward plot.
I have no interest in being argumentative; it is pointless and incorrect to accuse a reader of some inability to appreciate or understand the work. However, it may be helpful to point out that many of us believe that the way the book works is intentional, and not the result of failed execution (i.e. "bad"). I find it similar to those who believe that Melville just threw a bunch of facts about whaling into Moby Dick because he didn't want to waste his research. No, it's part of the point.
It's not a bad book, it's just bad at some of the things other books do.

[Jeff]

I found Swan's Way a consuming book, one that embraces one around the chest and constrains one's ability to breathe. There is so much to take in, one is gorged with the expansiveness of the details of the scenery, the description of the characters, and the events that the characters bring to the inevitable conclusion. The crushing rib hold transitions from a wrestling hold to a lover's embrace, and the story ends like a soft kiss.

[Kallie]

Perhaps you mean 'not entertaining.' Every sentence in Swann's Way requires focus, active reading and imagining because Proust did not resort to cliches and wrote every scene and characterization in great detail, and in his own poetic language.

[Melody]

Dan wrote: "Maybe I'm a philistine. Yes, original for its time. Probably amazing to an academic. Important but not good."

define good

[Ken]

probably he means "easy to read"

[Joann]

Read it again. Maybe now, maybe later.

[Melody]

read it always.