how "literature" is defined

[bounty]

hi everyone...please bear with the little bit of reading im about to copy. it's edited but I hope is faithful to the originals I pulled off a games thread and it might give you good context for what i'll ask after you read it.

Pike Bishop: Are the Lord of the Rings and/or A Song of Ice and Fire literature, and, if so, why?

North Star: I haven't read the latter one(s), but of course they're literature - they aren't music or paintings, are they?

Pike Bishop: Actually, no they're not; they're fiction. If all fiction was literature--artistic, literary writing--then Romance novels would be studied as much in world universities as Shakespeare, Proust, and Dante. So, are those texts just fiction or are they literature?

Bounty: I think that's a narrow definition of literature I suspect many, if not most, of us wouldn't subscribe to.

Pike Bishop: It's not a narrow description, but it is open-ended…what would be your criticism of it and why?

Bounty: the generic definition of literature I am going by simply refers to written works valued for their expression and form. I would place "fiction" as a sub category of literature, which implies that "non-fiction" can qualify as literature also. to exclude something like lotr as literature speaks then to a judgment as to the quality of the work (it doesn't rise to the level of dante), as opposed to the nature of it (its still a written work valued for its expression, at least by some). if there is a definition other than that, its slightly esoteric and given that---if it follows then that there is a definition that restricts what counts as literature, it would be more "narrow" on its face.

Pike Bishop: There's not much of a difference between "artistic, literary" writing and "works valued for their expression and form." So, your definition isn't very different from mine. Works valued for their expression and form tend to be artistic and literary in their expression, although some realist writers and literary genre writers aren't particularly literary in their writing; their creative imaginings and structures compensate for that lack. However, just being valued for it's expression isn't enough, or else Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey would qualify...and they're not literature. And while I would never base my judgment on whether a work rises to the quality of Dante, quality is a factor, as it is in all art. Otherwise, using your broader description, One Direction and Justin Bieber's performances would be art because many people valued the expression.

So, my definition isn't narrow; it's accurate. And LOTR is not literature because there is nothing particularly artistic about the language, the structuring of the plot, or the innovation of the narrative. High quality fiction?...yes. Literature?...no. However, if you're willing to accept Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey as literature, and One Direction and Justin Bieber as art, then at least your overly-broad definition of literature is consistent.

so I think there are maybe two questions at hand that are related to each other.

if all fiction isn't literature, why isn't it, and what fiction would be considered literature?

and essentially then, what is literature?

[North Star]

Here's what the OED says:

1. Familiarity with letters or books; knowledge acquired from reading or studying books, esp. the principal classical texts associated with humane learning (see humane adj. 2); literary culture; learning, scholarship. Also: this as a branch of study. Now hist.
The only sense in Johnson (1755) and Todd (1818), although cf. quot. 1779 at sense 2.
2. The action or process of writing a book or literary work; literary ability or output; the activity or profession of an author or scholar; the realm of letters or books.
3.
a. The result or product of literary activity; written works considered collectively; a body of literary works produced in a particular country or period, or of a particular genre. Also: such a body of works as a subject of study or examination (freq. with modifying word specifying the language, period, etc., of literature studied).
b. Without defining word: written work valued for superior or lasting artistic merit.
4. (A body of) non-fictional books and writings published on a particular subject.
5. Printed matter of any kind; esp. leaflets, brochures, etc., used to advertise products or provide information and advice.

[Pike Bishop]

Firstly, Bounty, it is appropriate to ask someone before using their quotes to start a thread. I have no problem with my quotes representing me, but it would have been good form if you had asked. As to the OED, it gives an extremely broad definition of literature, with some of them applying to how literature is viewed in Western university literature departments, and some not. If the entirety of the definitions were accepted, then everything written would be literature, and nothing would be literature. Insurance pamphlets, bad romance novels, bad poetry, town records, and baseball recaps would all demand as much study as Shakespeare, Proust, Joyce, Dickinson, and Beckett. That's just not the case. Although the standards distinguishing literary and non-literary writing are hardly cemented or entirely consensual, there are functionally consensual standards deeming poetry, drama, literary fiction, and exceptionally written or innovative non-fiction literature worthy of study.

[Calidore]

Firstly, Bounty, it is appropriate to ask someone before using their quotes to start a thread. I have no problem with my quotes representing me, but it would have been good form if you had asked. As to the OED, it gives an extremely broad definition of literature, with some of them applying to how literature is viewed in Western university literature departments, and some not. If the entirety of the definitions were accepted, then everything written would be literature, and nothing would be literature. Insurance pamphlets, bad romance novels, bad poetry, town records, and baseball recaps would all demand as much study as Shakespeare, Proust, Joyce, Dickinson, and Beckett. That's just not the case. Although the standards distinguishing literary and non-literary writing are hardly cemented or entirely consensual, there are functionally consensual standards deeming poetry, drama, literary fiction, and exceptionally written or innovative non-fiction literature worthy of study.

Well, "everything written" does fit the one broad definition of literature, but Oxford's 3b is the one you're talking about, and I think the one up for discussion.

Don't agree with your opening statement, though. Posting a private message publicly, whether to start a thread or for any other reason, would be more than just bad form, but a public post is just that.

[Pike Bishop]

Calidore is on my ignore list, Bounty, so I can't read his posts. Feel free to jump in at any time though; I look forward to continuing.

[JCamilo]

Well, "everything written" does fit the one broad definition of literature, but Oxford's 3b is the one you're talking about, and I think the one up for discussion.
.

Obviously defining literature by what is the current critical aesthetical consensus is a shot off target. One Morning Moby Dick and Melville were just "fiction", considered at beast interesting sea adventures. Next morning he wakes and voillá, he is literature. That even come the point some of the plays of Shakespeare are literature and some aren't. Imagine, some literature are not literature because they belong to an specific literary genre. (The example of Tolkien is even false, as Tolkien studied in the academy. He may not be studied as Joyce or Dante, but he is).

Even more funny is the idea that, let's say, Dan Brown is not literature because judged according literary critery it fails to have quality. If it wasn't literature in first place, it does not make sense judging it as one at all. Sort like seeing saying a great pizza is not a good Wine because it is too dry.

[Calidore]

One Morning Moby Dick and Melville were just "fiction", considered at beast interesting sea adventures. Next morning he wakes and voillá, he is literature.

It's always nice to wake up to a promotion, isn't it?

(The example of Tolkien is even false, as Tolkien studied in the academy. He may not be studied as Joyce or Dante, but he is).

I'm not a huge fan of the LotR novels, but while I understand what Pike said elsewhere about (IIRC) Tolkien's unexceptional prose and plotting, the sheer amount of time and effort he spent giving his world the depth of a "real" place--i.e. inventing workable languages from scratch and generating thousands of years of detailed world history preceding the story just to give it a "lived-in" feel--has to count for something. I also wonder if the plotting that seems pedestrian now only does because of the gajillions of fantasy novels that followed Tolkien's lead, as opposed to in the '50s when they were first published.

[Pike Bishop]

All my ignorees are coming out. Jcamilo is on ignore, too, although I'm sure I didn't miss much. So, step in anytime, Bounty; you started this thread.

[JCamilo]

I'm not a huge fan of the LotR novels, but while I understand what Pike said elsewhere about (IIRC) Tolkien's unexceptional prose and plotting, the sheer amount of time and effort he spent giving his world the depth of a "real" place--i.e. inventing workable languages from scratch and generating thousands of years of detailed world history preceding the story just to give it a "lived-in" feel--has to count for something. I also wonder if the plotting that seems pedestrian now only does because of the gajillions of fantasy novels that followed Tolkien's lead, as opposed to in the '50s when they were first published.

Well, I enjoyed reading them, but yes, they are far from perfect. Yet, something he did right (I think his long descriptive texts may be awful for plotting and character development, but maybe, they were great to trigger imagination in an age that the visual is so important). I think the plot was problematic since his time, as it was a basic children novel that was expanded to include a fictional world/culture. But as you did, prose, plot, etc. We are talking about literature. So, literature it is.

[Calidore]

I'm afraid someone's going to have to tell Pike that we achieved consensus on Tolkien while he was busy ignoring us. He seems to be keeping busy anyway, though.

[bounty]

so Tolkien is "literature." I agree...and the whole argument started with my saying anything that segregated fiction from literature was somehow putting forth a narrower description of literature than most of us would agree on.

when you go from broad (all fiction is literature) to this (not all fiction is literature)---how that's not "narrower" beats the daylights out of me.

anyway, some point by point stuff...

pike bishop: If the entirety of the definitions were accepted, then everything written would be literature, and nothing would be literature.

no, everything would be literature, and some literature would be better (however we wanted to define that) literature than others. (get the idea yet that you are wanting to "narrow" the definition?)

pike bishop: Insurance pamphlets, bad romance novels, bad poetry, town records, and baseball recaps would all demand as much study as Shakespeare, Proust, Joyce, Dickinson, and Beckett.

this is an absurd notion. a thing does not get studied by virtue of it falling under the broad category of literature. its gets studied because it is literature that has an "artistic merit" we value and find worthy of study. there is bad or meaningless or questionable literature, and there is good or excellent literature.

pike bishop: That's just not the case.

exactly---its not the case because people say, for the purpose of academic study we are going to limit our focus to things with merit. thank you for making my point.

pike bishop: Although the standards distinguishing literary and non-literary writing are hardly cemented or entirely consensual, there are functionally consensual standards deeming poetry, drama, literary fiction, and exceptionally written or innovative non-fiction literature worthy of study.

i'll buy some of that...but theres nothing in what you've written that explains how something not worth of study somehow magically gets redefined as "not literature." and im not talking in this case about insurance pamphlets, but rather, pieces of writing you personally have found wanting in some fashion, like lotr. (get the idea again that you are wanting to "narrow" the definition?)

maybe for the course of the conversation you would do well to edit your ignore list? some folks specifically addressed your statements concerning Tolkien.

[JCamilo]

Let's just put this way, once Jorge Luis Borges was asked if his change of themes for his short stories, to more realistic and less fantastic was because he reckognized that realism was superior. Borges answer "wait, I haven't even decided which one is true."

[Pike Bishop]

so Tolkien is "literature." I agree...and the whole argument started with my saying anything that segregated fiction from literature was somehow putting forth a narrower description of literature than most of us would agree on.

when you go from broad (all fiction is literature) to this (not all fiction is literature)---how that's not "narrower" beats the daylights out of me.

anyway, some point by point stuff...
no, everything would be literature, and some literature would be better (however we wanted to define that) literature than others. (get the idea yet that you are wanting to "narrow" the definition?)

this is an absurd notion. a thing does not get studied by virtue of it falling under the broad category of literature. its gets studied because it is literature that has an "artistic merit" we value and find worthy of study. there is bad or meaningless or questionable literature, and there is good or excellent literature.

exactly---its not the case because people say, for the purpose of academic study we are going to limit our focus to things with merit. thank you for making my point.

i'll buy some of that...but theres nothing in what you've written that explains how something not worth of study somehow magically gets redefined as "not literature." and im not talking in this case about insurance pamphlets, but rather, pieces of writing you personally have found wanting in some fashion, like lotr. (get the idea again that you are wanting to "narrow" the definition?)

maybe for the course of the conversation you would do well to edit your ignore list? some folks specifically addressed your statements concerning Tolkien.

No, Tolkien's works are not literature. They don't meet the general, consensually held requirement for literary fiction: literary language, literary construction of plot, literary use of narrative, and/or profundity of theme and content. That's why they're not taught in most literary departments, except in Fantasy classes. And I never said my description of literature wasn't narrower than yours; I correctly said yours was too broad, and it is. And try to avoid cliches like "beats the daylights out of me;" it doesn't speak well of your abilities of articulation.

And if everything is literature than nothing is literature. The term becomes meaningless and pointless, even more than your definition of literature. And I never said things get studied because "it falls under the broad category of literature." What is absurd is your saying I did. You need to work on your reading of posts. And artistic merit is exactly what I said determined literature. However, unlike you, I'm able to define what I mean by that, as I did above. All you can say is "there is bad or meaningless literature," "and there is good or excellent literature," without giving any explanation of what constitutes those terms. Even my 9-year-old daughter can do better.

And your plucking "just not the case" from some quote of mine without giving the rest of the quote or the context is ridiculous. You clearly don't have familiarity with proper ways of using secondary texts. So, I made no point for you, which isn't surprising: nobody could "make" any of your fallacious points. They show a very poor grasp of literature and aesthetics.

Finally, you yourself said things get defined as literature. The only difference from your view is yours is magical and mine is based in established precepts of aesthetics. You actually said: "there is bad or meaningless or questionable literature, and there is good or excellent literature," without giving any standards or aesthetic principles to back them up. So, you magically redefined what literature is for yourself. I'm not surprised you miss the irony...


P.s. What exactly is your education in? I truly hope you didn't pay for an English degree that led to your erroneous conclusions above. And as to the ignored, they will stay so. Considering the qualities of their posts I read before I put them on ignore, I would hate to see their fallacious statements about J.R.R.

[Bartlebooth]

Could graphic novels ever be considered literature? I'm not sure if I've ever read a graphic novel that has met Pike's definition of literature, but I don't see any inherent reason why one couldn't incorporate "literary language, literary construction of plot," etc. Or is the graphic novel medium too different from traditional print literature that it doesn't really qualify?

Also, while this isn't about literature, this video seems to make an interesting argument for broader definitions for the medium of video games. I definitely see that there needs to be some distinction between what is and isn't literature, but couldn't having rigid standards shut out potentially valuable works from the conversation?

[Pike Bishop]

Absolutely. Graphic novels--and some comics--could be and are considered literature. The best ones have artistically constructed plots, psychologically complex characters, and/or astute aesthetic and social commentary. Many cultures, including medieval Europe, have included pictures in their literary construction.

Here are some Graphic Novels I would, and many literary scholars do, consider literature:

The Dark Knight Returns
Maus
The Killing Joke
The League of Extraordinary Gentleman
The Sandman Collection
Watchmen
A History of Violence

As to video games, they can and should be considered art, however, the definition of literature and literary narrative would have to be amended to allow for the interactive nature of video games. In other words, not every "telling" of the video game's story will be as literary as the next, if it can be literary at all. As to rigid standards, mine--which are shared by many others--aren't rigid and allow for continual amendment. However, there has to be some degree of rigidity in standards for literature or everything, including brochures and tax forms could be literature. I don't think you want that.



P.s. Final Fantasy VII has one of the greatest epic science fiction stories and plots ever. if any video game ever qualified as literature, it would be that one.