What Is Literature?

[The Unnamable]

There is already a thread titled ‘What Do You Consider Literature?’ but it tends to focus on which works should count as Literature and why. In other words, it assumes that we all agree about what Literature is and all that remains is to decide which works merit the title. How about a broader question? This site is called ‘The Literature Network’. My question therefore is, what is Literature?

[Nightshade]

Anything that is written and published in my opinion .According to my copy of the oxford dictionary among other things The realm of letters and words. While the penguin english dictionary says : 1. writings in prose or verseesp those having artistic value or merit , 2 the body of writings on a particular subject,3 Printed matter
I think Then you have differant types like the merit or "worthy" type and then all of the other printed stuff that is technically literature, but not in the common use.
:D

[beer good]

Interesting question, though I think it's almost as impossible to give a 100% correct answer to this as it is to the immortal question of "what is art?"

For reference, here's what the dictionary says:


1. The body of written works of a language, period, or culture.

2. Imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value: "Literature must be an analysis of experience and a synthesis of the findings into a unity" (Rebecca West).

3. The art or occupation of a literary writer.

4. The body of written work produced by scholars or researchers in a given field: medical literature.

5. Printed material: collected all the available literature on the subject.

6. Music All the compositions of a certain kind or for a specific instrument or ensemble: the symphonic literature.

The problem, as I see it, is drawing a line between "literature" and "everything ever written down from Shakespeare to shop signs" (which would be the first, much too broad, definition above). And that any time you start using words like "imaginative", "recognized", "artistic" or - one I'd use - "original", you get to the problem that those words always mean different things. "Imaginative" by whose standards? If I say Barbara Cartland lacks imagination, are her books then by definition not literature? "Recognized" by whom - the general public (as measured by sales figures), leading critics, the Booker Prize Committee, what?

Just some random thoughts. Looking forward to others' opinions...

Oh, and I'm not sure "published" can be a certain criterion either - is a writer's upcoming book not-literature until the second it hits bookstores, when it suddenly becomes literature? And published where - a lot of stuff is published on the web these days... which would make this post literature. In which case I should probably have put more thought into it for the sake of future generations. :D

[Nightshade]

True enough I didnt put published in in the begining but then it occured to me a telphone number is literature?? ! :eek2:
I guess it depends on how you use the word. Grammer and I dont get on so I cant remeber if its noun or what Im talking about but You have "literature" as in "study the literature on the matter". And "literature" as in "English literature exam". Its another case of the constraints of languge I understand the differance in my head just cant explain it.

[The Unnamable]

I guess it depends on how you use the word.
Okay, what is it in the context of this site?

[Nightshade]

Any written book/play/poem etc etc.
Err I guess technicaly reloigous books too, although written only applies to hem depending on your point of view. :D

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Here's my take on literature (in the context of this site).

Definition:

Literature is a subset of art, where that art is presented in the form of written language (or could possibly be - I include oral tradition here) and where the physical presentation of that written language is unimportant.

Reasoning / Explanation

By the last clause, I mean that I am excluding artworks such as Tracey Emin's tent or Picasso & Braque's newspaper collages, where the context of the words is as important as the words themselves. Put another way, don't judge a book (and it's worthiness to be classed as literature) by it's cover.

Of course, some written works (plays, poetry, screenplays) are meant to be spoken aloud but their inclusion, or otherwise, in the canon of literature is, I believe, independent of this. The words themselves matter, not the quality of the performers. Shakespeare is great art (in most people's opinion), even when performed by bored teenagers in a school play. The acting of the play is another form of art (performance); integrally connected to and dependant upon the words on the page but still separate.

There are, of course, grey areas. Can comics, assuming they are deemed to be art by whatever criteria we use, be classed as literature? And if so, what happens if the comic has no dialogue? (There was an extremely surreal 'comic' that made the news a few years ago that had black and white images without dialogue and with an impenetrable and ambiguous storyline. I really wish I could remember the artist/author's name - I think he was from Poland - anybody know?)

The snag

Of course, the definition of art is a little trickier. The definition above proffers no attempt to define that slippery beast and I have no intention of trying here either.

My contention is merely that the two definitions are analagous. If it's art, is in written form, and complies with the provisos listed above, then it's literature. If it ain't art, then it can't be literature.

The PS

I originally wrote, "Literature is written art - pure and simple. Just don't ask me what art is!" Then I thought about it and the thing grew a bit. Sorry if I bored you.

[blp]

As a sometime poet who sometimes takes some care over how the poems are laid out, I think there may be other snags, Xamonas. While Picasso was collaging bits of newspapers, his friend Guillaume Apollinaire was writing poems among which were calligrams, poems written out so as to make a visual picture of the thing described. Before him, Mallarmé made similar experiments, laying out the lines like waves when writing about the sea for instance in a poem you can read here at ubuweb (http://www.ubu.com/historical/mallarme/mallarme.html). You'll also find work by conceptual artists that is neither prose nor poetry (a distinction I'm interested in ignoring too) and that, if you care to look, a concern for the appearance of text on the page (and off it) runs right through the history of twentieth century literature, taking in figures such as Duchamp, Robert Duncan, Robert Creeley, Kathy Acker, Dave Eggars and Language poets such as Lyn Hejinian. Even Brett Easton Ellis has said the question of the look of his pages is a concern in that whether to make the prose very dense or have a lot of white space around it is a strategic decision.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Good points blp (and thanks for the link). The grey areas are fairly wide (and in many cases, deliberatly created - don't artist just love 'blurring the lines' between one thing and another?) but I stand by the central premise - Literature = written art.

I suppose that, like a play being both literature & performance, the Apollinaire & Mallarmé pieces you mention are both literature & visual art, having elements of the two combined. I also glossed over the more obvious grey area of illustrations within a book - Alice in Wonderland is a perfect example.

Still, I don't think it's too bad a theory, expanded as it was from a throwaway comment. No more hole-ridden than most, I'd say.

[beer good]

Literature = written art.

Then, of course, there's the whole grey area of things that are published in written form but are not originally meant to be only in that form. For instance, I live in Sweden, and every year when the Nobel Prize starts rolling around, people debate whether it should/could be awarded to, say, Bob Dylan or Ingmar Bergman. The argument being that while they are not (normally) writers per se, their work has been published in book form and is read and enjoyed in that form by many people.

And even if it weren't, it was originally written - and it is, by most modern criteria, art. Thus, by your definition, it's literature.

I would personally argue that it is not literature because the writing is not the finished form, not the complete work - it's not originally meant to only be written or only be read.

Then again, the Academy has awarded the Nobel Prize for literature to playwrights twice in recent years, and the same argument could be made there.

BTW, the wordless comic you're speaking of - it's not Gon (http://gon.virtualglobe.de/) by any chance?

[Xamonas Chegwe]

A perfectly valid view, Beer. I don't claim my theory is necessarily the correct one. Just that it is a reasonable way of regarding literature. There are many other, equally reasonable, theories and I hope that we see some in this thread.

I would say that the verbal element of Dylan's songs and Bergman's screenplays are most definitely literature. I would have said that even before my little theory was half finished baking (a state that many would say it has never surpassed!)

And I'm sorry, it's not Gon. The book I was thinking of was much bleaker and in B&W. I seem to recall it had images of faceless men (creatures?) and lots of skyscrapers and debris. I never saw the whole thing, just a few selected frames in a Sunday magazine. Gon does look interesting though, thanks for posting.

[Scheherazade]

How about 'oral literature'? Beowolf was not literature until it was printed?

And where does 'fiction' come into play? Creativity? This is surely one thing which prevents us from calling London Phone Directory literature?

[beer good]

And where does 'fiction' come into play? Creativity? This is surely one thing which prevents us from calling London Phone Directory literature?

I'd say it doesn't. Because that also prevents us from calling e.g. "The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire" or "The Diary Of Anne Frank" literature.


I don't claim my theory is necessarily the correct one. Just that it is a reasonable way of regarding literature. There are many other, equally reasonable, theories and I hope that we see some in this thread.

Oh, neither do I, and so do I. If that sentence makes any sense. :D

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Was that question to me Schez? If so...

I mentioned oral literature right at the start of my original post. I include it.

Does fiction come into play? There's plenty of non-fiction reading posted on this site - Julius Caesar, Sun Tzu, Rousseau, Plato - Is this not literature? All I'm saying is, if it's art, it's literature (because of it's written nature). I make no judgement calls here on what is, or is not, art - and deliberately so - that's another thread altogether.

And creativity's role in literature is exactly the same as it's role in art. Is it an essential part of the latter? If so, it is an essential part of art. If not, it is not. Although, I think that all writing involves creativity - even the note to the milkman - to some degree.

If the question was not directed at me but was a general one, I apologise for butting in. But I hope you found my points interesting.

[Scheherazade]

My post was not directed at you personally, Xamonas, but it is nice to hear your reply to it! :p

I should also add that that was not my definition of literature... but merely some questions raised in my mind while reading the thread.

[subterranean]

Then, of course, there's the whole grey area of things that are published in written form but are not originally meant to be only in that form. For instance, I live in Sweden, and every year when the Nobel Prize starts rolling around, people debate whether it should/could be awarded to, say, Bob Dylan or Ingmar Bergman. The argument being that while they are not (normally) writers per se, their work has been published in book form and is read and enjoyed in that form by many people.


I'm thinking, perhaps those opinions rose because the definition of literature has expanded, which now (perhaps) included almost every form of creative writings and are recognized to have some artistic values.

[Virgil]

I guess all texts in some fashion, even a phone, is literature *choke, choke, choke as those words are written* but the real question is "what is art?"

[PeterL]

I had been thinking of posting to this question, but it would take a several of hours to write the the reply, and I'm not sure that it would be worth the trouble. The question of "What is Literature?" presupposes answers to several other questions, that would have to be answered first. One question is: What is writing? Another is: What is language? And another is : What is communication? And another is: What is thought? And another is: What is consciousness? And there are other related questions. All of these are good questions, but they all require extensive research and consideration. I have already done some of the research, and I have written parts of the answers to all of these questions, but I don't feel prepared to tackle them now.

[subterranean]

I guess all texts in some fashion, even a phone, is literature *choke, choke, choke as those words are written* but the real question is "what is art?"


Is that any real connection between art and literature? I mean my text books about peace and war are form of literatures, and I'm not sure whether the writing about world interdependency has somekind of sense of art in it.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

I asked this question to a friend today. He is a great bibliophile but an equally great technophobe, so he won't post himself; won't even buy a mobile phone, let alone a computer. His answer was simple but really lovely:

Literature is writing that makes you stop and go, "Aaaah!" every now and then.

I like his theory better than mine!

[Countess]

Excellent question! I have asked myself the exact same thing many times recently (thanks to Nicholas Sparks who, as I said, is the devil).

To me, literature is writing with artistic value. Not all writing has artistic value. In fact, some writing is decidedly crappy.

Now, commence debating the definition of "artistic value" or "artistic merit".

FWIW, "artist merit", for me, means it deals with the question of humanity in an enlightening way.

Now discuss the definition of "enlightening".

Bah, look it up. (--:

C

[subterranean]

Literature is writing that makes you stop and go, "Aaaah!" every now and then.

I like his theory better than mine!

So, I suppose that theory includes all kinds of manual books?! I see most people saying "aaah" or "A..ha" after reading one.
:)

[Xamonas Chegwe]

So, I suppose that theory includes all kinds of manual books?! I see most people saying "aaah" or "A..ha" after reading one.
:)

I wish I could convey in words the way he said Aaaah!

Imagine the syllable folded into a sigh, and mixed with both joy and tears.

Textbooks don't do that too often. :nod:

[Virgil]

Is that any real connection between art and literature? I mean my text books about peace and war are form of literatures, and I'm not sure whether the writing about world interdependency has somekind of sense of art in it.
Sub - I'm sorry if I'm not clear, but I think we're saying the same thing.

[blp]

Telephone, internet and other service companies sometimes call me up and offer to send me some of their 'literature'. The offer appears to be free. Now that I know all literature is writing with artistic merit, I realise I've been a fool and a philistine to turn them down.

[The Unnamable]

I find it interesting that there isn’t really any fundamental disagreement here. There are a few admissions that Literature is a difficult term to pin down and a few that do not distinguish between literature and Literature. All, however, seem to agree that whatever it is, it’s worthwhile and valuable in some way. If so, my next question is ‘why/how is it?’

Xamonas, you say that you hope to see many ‘reasonable theories’ in this thread. Apart from asking you what do you mean by ‘reasonable’, I’d like to ask if you consider it possible that the existence of many acceptable theories merely masks the fact that, by and large, “Literature is what gets taught.”? (Barthes)


Then again, the Academy has awarded the Nobel Prize for literature to playwrights twice in recent years, and the same argument could be made there.

beer good,
Doesn’t your view put Shakespeare in a difficult position? Isn’t what you say true for all drama and not just that produced by the recent Nobel Laureates? Personally, I would prefer to read Hamlet than watch it but many people have told me down the years that the truest experience of Shakespeare (whatever that means) is to be had during a live performance. Shakespeare wrote but you could argue that the finished form was the actual performance. It certainly wasn’t written to be read. Is Shakespeare not Literature?

Countess, your response highlights a theme that I had expected to emerge – the idea that Literature (or Art for that matter) is somehow ‘enlightening’. It’s not that I need to look up the word but that the idea is problematic to say the least.

Some of those Serbs being questioned at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia reveal some interesting pre-war occupations – one was a specialist in Shakespeare at Sarajevo University (http://www.un.org/icty/transe39/040927IT.htm). When Allied troops moved into the Death Camps, they captured commandants who had enjoyed unwinding after a long, hard day at the furnaces by reading a little Goethe or listening to a little Mozart. If Literature somehow makes us better people, why doesn’t it? Theodor Adorno argued that, “writing poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric” and Walter Benjamin said, “There is no cultural document that is not at the same time a record of barbarism.”

[beer good]

beer good,
Doesn’t your view put Shakespeare in a difficult position? Isn’t what you say true for all drama and not just that produced by the recent Nobel Laureates?

Well... um... when you put it that way, I guess it does. (You'll note that I purposely wrote that the same argument could be made.) Do I think Shakespeare is literature? Obviously. Can I point out exactly where something seizes to be literature and becomes something else? Nope.

One thought: could independence towards the original writer be a factor? Shakespeare, and many other playwrights, work just as well (possibly even better) hundreds of years after the death of the original writers and performers - just like people still read dead authors from Cervantes to Douglas Adams, their work stands on its own, being recreated by the one reading/performing it. On the other hand, were we to consider Dylan and Bergman (to continue with the same example) literature, it's just as much their respective performances we're thinking of. The text is not only relying on performance, but on a specific performance by a specific group of people. If I have never seen a Shakespeare play and just read it off the page, I could probably (with some experience of theater) stage it. If I've never heard "Blowin' In The Wind" and just read the words, I could never sing it.

Then again, I'm sure there's some very obvious exception to that as well... just thinking out loud.

[Sami]

I’d like to ask if you consider it possible that the existence of many acceptable theories merely masks the fact that, by and large, “Literature is what gets taught.”? (Barthes)

Some of the comments here highlight a connection between literature and power. This is important one, I think, for trying to get to a definition. Literature is obviously embedded in contexts and maybe one way of assessing it would be to judge the extent to which it reproduces power structures, or serves to challenge them (the pen is mightier than the sword after all?). This view calls into question an idea of literature or art as a “free space” that is separate from utility.

Maybe it’s worth thinking about the role of the word “author” and how it’s linked to authorize, authority, and authoritarian? Does this suggest that one part of literature’s definition is that it’s always a selective presentation of reality?

[Alex E Art]

Literature is totality of stories, narrated by people.

[The Unnamable]

Well... um... when you put it that way, I guess it does. (You'll note that I purposely wrote that the same argument could be made.)
Yes, I did notice that but still thought it worth asking.


Do I think Shakespeare is literature? Obviously. Can I point out exactly where something seizes to be literature and becomes something else? Nope.
This I find interesting. Why ‘obviously’? Is Shakespeare a touchstone by which we can measure Literature? If so, why?


One thought: could independence towards the original writer be a factor? Shakespeare, and many other playwrights, work just as well (possibly even better) hundreds of years after the death of the original writers and performers - just like people still read dead authors from Cervantes to Douglas Adams, their work stands on its own, being recreated by the one reading/performing it. On the other hand, were we to consider Dylan and Bergman (to continue with the same example) literature, it's just as much their respective performances we're thinking of. The text is not only relying on performance, but on a specific performance by a specific group of people. If I have never seen a Shakespeare play and just read it off the page, I could probably (with some experience of theater) stage it. If I've never heard "Blowin' In The Wind" and just read the words, I could never sing it.
That’s an interesting thought. It leaves me with more questions though. When people say they love ‘Hamlet’, do they mean the text in whatever edition they cherish or a particular performance of ‘Hamlet’ they once saw? I do know people for whom one particular performance is their whole experience of a play. The text is just a reminder of the performance. Is their Shakespeare not Literature?

As I said in a different thread, the Shakespeare of the 17th century is not the same as the Shakespeare of the 18th or the 19th and so on. The reason we still consider such writers relevant could be because they are but it could also be because we have continued to reinvent them to suit our own purposes. Surely, by definition, a text cannot be said to stand on its own if it needs to be recreated? If nothing else, it needs an audience of at least one.

As for Dylan, you wouldn’t have to sing it – you could just read it (as I often do with Shakespeare) or listen to someone else singing it (as I often do with Dylan). You might not then be able to judge it by exactly the same criteria as you would judge ‘conventional’ Literature but that might lead to a useful debate about exactly what criteria is being applied and why. So I’m back to the idea of ideology again (‘surprise, surprise’ thinks Virgil). But I don't really understand what you are saying - that you have to be able to stage a Shakespeare play yourself?

For what it's worth, much as I love both, I would give neither Bergman nor Dylan the Nobel Prize for Literature. The former would get Chemistry and the latter Physics. I hope they also don't care whether they get it or not.

[Scheherazade]

Telephone, internet and other service companies sometimes call me up and offer to send me some of their 'literature'. The offer appears to be free. Now that I know all literature is writing with artistic merit, I realise I've been a fool and a philistine to turn them down.Well, it is never too late to learn from one's mistakes... From now on, you can accept their offers or, even better, you can call back those whom you turned down in the past!

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Xamonas, you say that you hope to see many ‘reasonable theories’ in this thread. Apart from asking you what do you mean by ‘reasonable’, I’d like to ask if you consider it possible that the existence of many acceptable theories merely masks the fact that, by and large, “Literature is what gets taught.”? (Barthes)

By "reasonable" I merely meant well presented, interesting, personal points of view. I wasn't presuming to make value judgements as to their validity, accuracy or even sanity. Maybe it was a bad choice of words - "reasoned" may have been better.

I'm not sure about the Barthes quote. I can't seem to find it's original context anywhere. If he means, "...taught as literature.", I think he's got a point. But is every book that is worthy of being called Literature really taught somewhere? If a particular Shakespeare sonnet is never taught, is that one not Literature? Also, some very strange books turn up in Literature courses these days - including David Beckham's autobiography, according to the fount of all knowledge that is "The Sun". And does he mean, taught today, or taught ever?

Isn't it strange how a simple phrase can be open to so many interpretations - somebody ought to start a thread on the subject! ;)

Where is the quote from? I've got "Mythologies" kicking around somewhere but that's all the Barthes I know I'm afraid. If it's from there I'll try and find the passage.

[Virgil]

(the pen is mightier than the sword after all?).

Really? Would you prefer to be stabbed through with a sword or having some bad words written about you?

I know which I would prefer.

[The Unnamable]

Really? Would you prefer to be stabbed through with a sword or having some bad words written about you?

I know which I would prefer.

How about being stabbed through with a pen?

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Is there meant to be a space between "pen" and "is" in the quote? I was never quite sure. ;)

[Sami]

Is there meant to be a space between "pen" and "is" in the quote? I was never quite sure.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Hilarious! There you go I suppose – maybe other things have more influence over human action at the end of the day.

[The Unnamable]

By "reasonable" I merely meant well presented, interesting, personal points of view. I wasn't presuming to make value judgements as to their validity, accuracy or even sanity. Maybe it was a bad choice of words - "reasoned" may have been better.
I agree that ‘reasoned’ would be better but I wasn’t picking you up on an ambiguity, simply trying to point out that we immediately run into difficulties as soon as we introduce categories dependent on subjective judgment. I also assumed that you knew this at time, which I’m still sure you did.


I'm not sure about the Barthes quote. I can't seem to find it's original context anywhere. If he means, "...taught as literature.", I think he's got a point. But is every book that is worthy of being called Literature really taught somewhere? If a particular Shakespeare sonnet is never taught, is that one not Literature? Also, some very strange books turn up in Literature courses these days - including David Beckham's autobiography, according to the fount of all knowledge that is "The Sun". And does he mean, taught today, or taught ever?
I think he means that whatever the admittedly heterogeneous mass of people who constitute the Literary establishment consider Literature, is so. I think he is pointing out that such concepts as the ‘Literary Canon’ are as constructed along ideological lines as any others. Think about who decides what gets taught and why. Don't forget that in the UK, the government makes it a legal requirement that 14 year olds study a set Shakespeare text.



Isn't it strange how a simple phrase can be open to so many interpretations - somebody ought to start a thread on the subject! ;)
And a few who feel like finishing one. ;)


Where is the quote from? I've got "Mythologies" kicking around somewhere but that's all the Barthes I know I'm afraid. If it's from there I'll try and find the passage.
I don’t know – I think it’s a remark attributed to him by Eagleton. It sounds like the remark of a later Barthes than ‘Mythologies’.

[beer good]

Unnamable - lot of good points, most of which I agree with.


This I find interesting. Why ‘obviously’? Is Shakespeare a touchstone by which we can measure Literature? If so, why?
If I knew how to word that, I'd simply say so and kill this thread. I truly don't know, it's a very subjective answer - for ME, it's obvious. The best answer I can give is that if Shakespeare - one of the touchstones of Western written culture - is NOT literature, then there's not a hell of a lot that IS. Maybe I should simply have said "absolutely".


Surely, by definition, a text cannot be said to stand on its own if it needs to be recreated? If nothing else, it needs an audience of at least one.
No argument here. But...


As for Dylan, you wouldn’t have to sing it – you could just read it (as I often do with Shakespeare) or listen to someone else singing it (as I often do with Dylan).
You could - just like you could just read quotes at IMDB rather than actually watch a movie, or for that matter read the Cliff Notes to Hamlet rather than read Hamlet. Except you'd be missing something.

If we're talking music or film there are elements to the finished creation which cannot be sufficiently described in words; melody, tempo, timbre... or lighting, editing, all the subtle little things that a good actor does. A playwright (and, for that matter, a novelist) implicitly leaves this up to his/her reader - whether this is someone reading the plays at home or the director and actors of a stage play. A songwriter or a movie director do not, they've already added all this non-written information, which can at best be described by abstractions - and they've added it purposely as part of the work, the lyrics are not supposed to stand on their own. Dylan doesn't write to be read, he writes to be sung. Maybe Dylan was a bad example to start with, precisely because he is actually read by many. Are AC/DC's lyrics literature? Are the Ramones'? Are Paul McCartney's? Yelling "Yeah yeah yeah" makes for a great pop song, but read it off the page and it... well... kinda sucks.

(Of course, one might argue that musical notes and notations are written information and thus literature; but, apart from the fact that this is at best an abstraction of melody, that would mean that music IS literature, making John Coltrane the greatest novelist of late 50s/early 60s...)

I guess what I'm saying is that interpretation is the key; in music or film (and arguably in comics) the artist adds a second layer of his/her own interpretation of the text to the finished work. And then their collaborators (actors, editors, cowbell players) add a third. Etc. Playwrights and novelists (usually) don't. There is enough information in "Hamlet" to stage "Hamlet". There is not nearly enough information in the mere lyrics to "Highway To Hell" to cover "Highway To Hell". At the very least, you need to know the chords.


For what it's worth, much as I love both, I would give neither Bergman nor Dylan the Nobel Prize for Literature. The former would get Chemistry and the latter Physics. I hope they also don't care whether they get it or not.
:D I'm pretty sure they don't. Dylan has even said so, and Bergman has turned down most prizes he's won in the last years... My main beef with that discussion is that it often seems to imply that literature is a better art form than music and/or film. "Hey, Bob Dylan is such a good songwriter that he's almost like a real writer!" I consider them all to be great art (whatever that is) forms, but different. Though as this thread shows, exactly where that difference is... *scratches head*

[blp]

Well, it is never too late to learn from one's mistakes... From now on, you can accept their offers or, even better, you can call back those whom you turned down in the past!

But if only I could call them, Scher. Because I'd so like to be able to offer them some literature of my own. But no, they have my number, but they won't give me theirs.

[blp]

Unnamable, your point about what's taught in schools reminds me of an anecdote in The Conte book 'Unending Design' I mentioned elsewhere, where he talks about an allegedly comprehensive anthology of twentieth century poetry that was being given out as a set text in schools. All the poets he championed, including John Ashbery, were excluded. He also cited an example of a Christian poem being included - by implication, at the expense of the Marxists and formal experimenters he was writing about.

I gave up English at school after a year of A-level because I knew the answers to the questions I was being asked about it and I resented it [just realised how arrogant this sounds. Sorry. My marks were always good though]. The answers seemed quite clearly to me to be contained in the questions. Writing the essays was like filling out a form.

Contained in this is some kind of idea of literature and what it is - an idea of mine that I felt was implicitly under attack in the school system. 'Something not banal' is the closest I can get to saying what it is for now. Perhaps also 'something not ownable'.

'Give me peace
from property and prose'
- Lorine Neidecker

[kaka]

Originally posted by the Unnamble, mentioning a range of suggestions:

I think he means that whatever the admittedly heterogeneous mass of people who constitute the Literary establishment consider Literature, is so. I think he is pointing out that such concepts as the ‘Literary Canon’ are as constructed along ideological lines as any others.
_________

I fully agree that ideas of what does and doesn't constitute literature at any time in any culture are arbitrary.

Obviously, it's possible to go through a literary canon and identify some characteristics that recur and compile a list of typical features - but that's something less, much less, than a definition. From time to time works that would normally count as philosophy and history somehow find their way into the category of literature.

Some people have mentioned art and artistic merit, but it's worth remembering that these concepts are just as ambiguous as literature.

[The Unnamable]

Contained in this is some kind of idea of literature and what it is - an idea of mine that I felt was implicitly under attack in the school system. 'Something not banal' is the closest I can get to saying what it is for now. Perhaps also 'something not ownable'.
This last idea is one I find very interesting in the context of this Forum. Literature is many things to many people and ultimately all any of us here will really be able to say is what Literature is to us. Nevertheless, it is worth considering how Literature is constructed within society at large, how it is appropriated by different groups. This site is a commercial enterprise and here Literature is, I would argue, primarily a commodity. So the idea of what is acceptable/right/appropriate in literary terms will be significantly affected by the need to generate and maintain profits, while at the same time, of course, trying to conceal the fact that this is the case.

[The Unnamable]

I fully agree that ideas of what does and doesn't constitute literature at any time in any culture are arbitrary.
In one sense, it is arbitrary but in another, more important sense, it is not arbitrary at all but the result of competing ideological assumptions.