What is literature to you?

[Eupalinos]

To The Lighthouse and Finnegans Wake are both very light in the way characterization. Literature need not have either characters or plot.

Agreed. I can't see why we should privilege the creation of character over other attributes. Same with plotting, same with style. As readers we owe it to a major/aesthetically beautiful work to try to understand what it is asking of us and to then try to approximate that as best we can in our bringing-to-life of the text. There are many arrangements of words which one will find among the most meaningful experiences one can find in life, but those experiences like any depend on rising to the occasion. I don't want to falter (though of course I do often) in properly meeting an artwork on its terms by looking for characters I like or a style I think is great because I believe those things must be there. It is true most artworks I love have these elements, but usually in ways that transform my conception of the elements altogether.

[Hal]

Literature is really anything written down into some kind of narrative. So this would include everything from a boring memo from an HR department to Shakespeare. What is literary, is a different question. And, I think, a tougher one.

[mortalterror]

What is literature? I'd go with Aristotle and say it's cathartic stories, and with Plato who thought that the contemplation of beauty was elevating. What separates the good from the bad? The genius of the storyteller, his layers of meaning, appropriate themes and subject, the variety of invention, the extent to which they develop and mine an idea for all that it's worth, flow and pacing, good metaphors, clarity of communication, universal perennial appeal.

Yes literature is anything that is written well. And yes, genre fiction such as the titles the OP mentions are already being taught in schools.

[Ecurb]

Well CS Lewis also worked on "Dymer" until the age of almost 30 intending it to be a serious epic poem, and it reads like the work of a 15 year old who just discovered translated Ovid or Homer. Well, and he wrote a lot of simpleton theology when he realize he had no poetic ability. And then wrote children's books when he realize he couldn't write anything of theological weight. And then died after he realize he couldn't write good children's books.

So why does this essay matter?

The essay matters on its own merits (or fails to matter on its own demerits). Surely Lewis' abilities as a poet, a children's novelist, and a theologian are irrelevant to his ability as a literary critic and theorist. As far as I know, Harold Bloom (to name one famous academic "expert" on literature) has never written poems, children's novels, or theology. He's probably even worse than Lewis in these respects. Does that make Bloom's opinions even more irrelevant than Lewis's? Tolstoy despised Shakespeare and Beethoven. I suppose we must respect those opinions, because of Tolstoy's talents as a novelist.

I liked Lewis's children's novels (especially when I was a child, but I still like them), and I like his "theology" (which Lewis would claim is actually simple Christian apology rather than theology). Nonetheless, their merits are irrelevant to this discussion. I think some people in this thread (not me) think of "literature" as what Lewis would call "high-brow literature", and think that "low-brow literature" doesn't rise to the level of "literature". That's why I mentioned the essay. I disagree. All novels are "literature", regardless of their merits. At least one former literary scholar who was a Fellow at Oxford and Professor at Cambridge agrees with me, however badly he wrote poetry. I imagine that a great many academic experts on the subject of literature are even worse poets than Lewis.

Is Nikonani is suggesting that we all ignore his posts about literature or literary theory until he shows us some of his poetry?

[Clopin]

C's of Narnia are good. Stop being such a **** Nik.

[HCabret]

Literature is really anything written down into some kind of narrative. So this would include everything from a boring memo from an HR department to Shakespeare. What is literary, is a different question. And, I think, a tougher one.

Narrative is hardly a requirement for a work to be classified as literature. Many famous works of literature lack any sort narrative. Most forms of mainstream poetry lack narrative. An HR memo that tells a story: I like that.

[mortalterror]

Proper spelling is essential. Also, authors should punctuate properly (which eliminates Joyce and McCarthy, who refuse to use quotation marks). OK, maybe not.

C.S. Lewis wrote an interesting essay in which he denies the distinction between "high-brow" and "low-brow" literature. I don't have it with me right now, so I can't remember everything he said, but he goes on and on about the merits of "She" (be Rider-Haggard), and then illuminates some of its weaknesses. His point (agreeing, I think, with poetaster's) is that the only distinction between high-brow and low-brow literature is one of quality. For all the merits of "She" as an adventure story, it doesn't provide the reader with certain forms of entertainment -- including that of contemplating the issues raised in the book long after the reader has finished reading it.

I read the first half of "King Solomon's mines" a few years ago. Haggard had written that and "She" and they were listed as two of the best selling books of all time, so I decided to give it a try. The plot was fine enough, but the actual writing in terms of diction, grammar, rhetoric, was really lousy; so I stopped reading. I had the same experience with Jules Verne and H.G. Wells. The abstract of the stories sound fantastic, but I just wish they could have been written by someone with a better sense of style. It's too bad we have all this modern copyright red tape or they probably would have been. That was the whole genius of Shakespeare. He'd just steal a great plot and apply his poetic genius to it, making it better than the source material. Same thing with Bob Dylan: great lyricist but can't sing a lick. You hear his tunes covered by Hendrix or Baez and they are instantly four times as good. They are also some of the best things Hendrix or Baez produced too so everyone wins.

But I do have to agree with C.S. Lewis that the action genre tends to be like horror or sci-fi, profoundly underserved. There are a few great monoliths that attest to the profundity that the genre is capable of, but for every example of their kind there are a hundred more banal werewolf, sparkly vampire romance, alien, wasteland, zombie, spaceship stories. Of course, the "high brow" culture isn't doing us any favors by churning out endless stories about failed marriages, old people with Alzheimers who's kids don't love them anymore, the world as seen through the eyes of a retarded kid, or elaborate Victorian courtship rituals that mostly take place in salons and tea parties. So called "high art" has it's own egregious common offenses.

[mortalterror]

Well CS Lewis also worked on "Dymer" until the age of almost 30 intending it to be a serious epic poem, and it reads like the work of a 15 year old who just discovered translated Ovid or Homer. Well, and he wrote a lot of simpleton theology when he realize he had no poetic ability. And then wrote children's books when he realize he couldn't write anything of theological weight. And then died after he realize he couldn't write good children's books.

So why does this essay matter?

I quite like C.S. Lewis. I grew up on the "Chronicles of Narnia," and when I checked a few years ago the first book held up well. Also, while I haven't read "Dymer" I was recently reading his "Mere Christianity" and it was very insightful. It continues to be frequently read in the Christian community along with G.K. Chesterton's "Orthodoxy" as they explain the continued relevance of Christianity to the modern world. I also have a renewed respect for his literary insight and abilities as a medievalist after reading things like "A Preface to Paradise Lost," "The Allegory of Love," and "The Discarded Image." In terms of synthesizing complex ideas and explicating them for the layman, he's up there with Ezra Pound and his nonfiction works. "The Screwtape Letters" and "That Hideous Strength" continue to be popular nearly seventy years after he wrote them, which is a good measure of artistic merit.

[Nikonani]

C's of Narnia are good. Stop being such a **** Nik.

"Adult" has five letters, not four.

[Ecurb]

"Adult" has five letters, not four.

(Nikonani in another thread): James Joyce might be the first novelist to write in its mature form

I can see why you don't like Lewis's essay, Nikonani. "Adult", "mature", and "high-brow" may, with regard to novels, be closely related.

However, our first loves are no less intense and real than our last loves. Sometimes they are more intense. This applies to romance (with women) and Romance (novels and other books). When we were children, we spake as children -- but although we may learn to love books we wouldn't have loved as children, we need not "put aside childish things". I still love all the books I loved as a child, but I also love Ulysses.

By the way, Mortal, I think Lewis is an elegant writer (in terms of the diction, grammar and rhetoric you mention). I read the Narnia books to my son -- and nothing makes you appreciate elegant writing (or descry lousy writing) like reading books out loud. I also read much of Ulysses out loud, and it's an excellent out-loud-reading book, too (despite the lack of punctuation). Lewis mentioned "She" in his essay because it was both "low-brow" and one of his childhood favorites.

[JCamilo]

I read the first half of "King Solomon's mines" a few years ago. Haggard had written that and "She" and they were listed as two of the best selling books of all time, so I decided to give it a try. The plot was fine enough, but the actual writing in terms of diction, grammar, rhetoric, was really lousy; so I stopped reading. I had the same experience with Jules Verne and H.G. Wells. The abstract of the stories sound fantastic, but I just wish they could have been written by someone with a better sense of style. It's too bad we have all this modern copyright red tape or they probably would have been. That was the whole genius of Shakespeare. He'd just steal a great plot and apply his poetic genius to it, making it better than the source material. Same thing with Bob Dylan: great lyricist but can't sing a lick. You hear his tunes covered by Hendrix or Baez and they are instantly four times as good. They are also some of the best things Hendrix or Baez produced too so everyone wins.

It is called translation, Mortal. For example, I have a King Solomon's in portuguese translated by Eça de Queiroz, so it is much better, albeit i would say those adventure's tales from XIX century have their critical redemption with Stevenson, Melville, Kipling or Conrad and you have to admit they were a more "full package" than Haggard, albeit his character creation and visual description are great. H.G.Wells was better, but obviously he was improved by Borges who stolen some ideas from him. I do not the genres are that dismissed.

[Drkshadow03]

I haven't been on this board long, but the question of literature is one I've had a long time. What is literature? What seperates the good and bad?

People will invariably point to the classics that we read in school and college. Joyce, Hemmingway, Proust, Woolf. But there are so many different genres that seem to be left out. What of fantasy? Tolkien, Martin, and McKillip? What of science fiction? Clarke, Dick, and Asimov?

To me, literature is anything well written. The farther back in history you go, it seems the more specific the written word was allowed to be. At first mostly used for religion, epics like Gilgamesh, and the bible, we saw it branch out into realistic fiction, and stories of the world, as well as myth. Then fantasy and science fiction came, from the brothers Grimm, Jules Verne, and more, with the age of science and reason. Now, in this modern world, there seem to be tens and hundreds of genres, from those mentioned to Faerie, Steampunk, Urban, Supernatural, Grimdark, and more.

Are classics being written in all these new genres which more enlightened thinkers will teach in school in the coming decades? Perhaps books like Enders Game, or The Last Unicorn, just as To Kill A Mockingbird, and Lord of the Flies?

What say you all?

I want to point out that many of those books are being taught at the university level. I have a friend who teaches a class on Martin's work. Likewise, I've been to universities where Philip K. Dick's work were included in a class, and I even took a class on The Lord of the Rings when I was in school.

Why pick High Fantasy/Secondary World fantasy writers to represent fantasy rather than writers of slipstream, urban fantasy, Magic Realism, or New Weird?

[mortalterror]

Why pick High Fantasy/Secondary World fantasy writers to represent fantasy rather than writers of slipstream, urban fantasy, Magic Realism, or New Weird?

Indeed, why even pick those and not older classics to represent fantasy while we are at it (A Midsummer Nights Dream, Orlando Furioso, The Faerie Queen, Le Morte D'Arthur, The Well at the World's End, Phantastes, or Looking Backward)?

It is called translation, Mortal. For example, I have a King Solomon's in portuguese translated by Eça de Queiroz, so it is much better, albeit i would say those adventure's tales from XIX century have their critical redemption with Stevenson, Melville, Kipling or Conrad and you have to admit they were a more "full package" than Haggard, albeit his character creation and visual description are great. H.G.Wells was better, but obviously he was improved by Borges who stolen some ideas from him. I do not the genres are that dismissed.

It's possible that the style was improved by translation. Eca de Queiroz is a master after all, and I've heard of similar things happening with Proust and Dostoyevski.

Oh, and thanks for reminding me of Conrad, Stevenson, and Kipling. They'd slipped my mind. I was mostly just thinking of Dumas and Homer for the action genre. Probably safe to throw in Jack London and Walter Scott too.

[Margerma]

I have already mentioned in another thread, so I am afraid to repeat myself. For me literature is a mind food. I "starve" when I do not read for some time. I can forget names of the characters, plots, interesting quotes from the books which I had read, however by the same analogy with a food - I do not remember what I had for my dinner a week ago. Junk food/books can harm a body, when good quality stuff fills it with energy and keeps it healthy. So, in 2 words - literature is a food for mind.

[JCamilo]

Indeed, why even pick those and not older classics to represent fantasy while we are at it (A Midsummer Nights Dream, Orlando Furioso, The Faerie Queen, Le Morte D'Arthur, The Well at the World's End, Phantastes, or Looking Backward)?


It's possible that the style was improved by translation. Eca de Queiroz is a master after all, and I've heard of similar things happening with Proust and Dostoyevski.

Oh, and thanks for reminding me of Conrad, Stevenson, and Kipling. They'd slipped my mind. I was mostly just thinking of Dumas and Homer for the action genre. Probably safe to throw in Jack London and Walter Scott too.

Well, even if we consider horror, sci-fic (which for me are just a modern sub-genre of fantasy) we have quite a lot of high quality: Robert Browning, Volaire, Cyrano, Poe, Henry James, Schwoeb, Oscar Wilde, Chesterton, Borges, Garcia Marquez, Machado de Assis, Ambrose Bierce, Hawthorne, Kafka, Hoffman, Gogol, Pushkin, Goethe, Coleridge, Mary Shelley, Akutugawa, Andersen and a lot of others.