Defining literature?

[Yeroptok]

Sometimes I wonder what acctually defines literature. Is it the ability to stand the test of time, or is it just something written down with a deeper meaning?

Can lyrics be considered literature? What about works that are completely unknown? I can't seem to find a good definition on what literature really is, because in many ways a lot of things can be literature. One day the scribbles in my notebooks could become literature. Right now they really aren't but one day someone might find something in them that no one finds now.

I am just wondering what makes some writing on a page from mere words to literature.

[IWilKikU]

there are about 3 or 4 different threads on here right now that might help to answer your question. But even here on the forum there is a huge split in opinions on what is and isn't lit.

[star blue]

sometimes I wonder what they put in the bug juice.

sometimes it feels like the straw is slurping at the bottom of the cup.

sometimes I want to vomit.

[Stanislaw]

Blue needs a valium... but that is another story.

Any ways... I think literature is when a work means something to you personally, not just some form of entertainment, but something that sheds light on something for you, literature is really in the I of the beholder.

[hal9000]

Originally posted by Yeroptok
Sometimes I wonder what acctually defines literature. Is it the ability to stand the test of time, or is it just something written down with a deeper meaning?

Can lyrics be considered literature? What about works that are completely unknown? I can't seem to find a good definition on what literature really is, because in many ways a lot of things can be literature. One day the scribbles in my notebooks could become literature. Right now they really aren't but one day someone might find something in them that no one finds now.

I am just wondering what makes some writing on a page from mere words to literature.

Good question! Seems the answers would be enough to comprise a book if that hasn't already been done. But just for fun, let's start with a standard dictionary definition: "Creative writing of recognized artistic value," or, "the humanistic study of a body of literature."

Seems to me the crucial element in your question is to explore what is recognized as "artistic value" and why——that might take awhile.

Can lyrics be considered literature?

I would consider lyrics poetry within the world of literature.

What about works that are completely unknown?

All works known, were at one time unknown——and it is the cultural, social, and political forces that play a role in a particular work's publication: I think this is at the heart of the matter. Kafka, for example, was never published while alive. And if my memory serves me, Van Gough never sold a painting while alive. When artists die, some artists' work is invariably highlighted because their vision is beyond most of the artistic appreciating world.

One day the scribbles in my notebooks could become literature. Right now they really aren't but one day someone might find something in them that no one finds now.

How right you are! as memorialized in the lyrics of Paul Simon:

And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon god they made.
And the sign flashed out its warning,
In the words that it was forming.
And the signs said, The words of the prophets
are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls.
And whisper'd in the sounds of silence.

--The Sounds of Silence

I think all artistic expression is art-- even notebook doodling may be considered literature. The imposition of style and form is applied and superimposed by subjective values influenced by ephemeral trends or those excessively conventional and unimaginative provincial cultural mores having nothing to do with art, and everything to do with criticising or defining art. Art (including literature) is of the "Universal Mind" and knows no bounds.

[Castorp]

What do you think about this idea? In literature, the word is the experience. It is not a symbol of some external reality. The words on the page create the emotion in the reader. The art of the writer is to select the words that have internal rather than external significance.

[IrishCanadian]

I think that would constitute as a form or genre of lit. Seen strictly as literature compare (for your purpose Castorp) the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament to something like Mother Courage by Brecht. Each constitute as literature yet serve different purposes.
I think that hal9000 is correct. However, the word "literature" has so many modern implicatures as an adjective. When I see something like Bolt's A Man For All Seasons in the literature section I do not think twice-- but when I see an anthology of short stories from a local open literary compatition I wonder why it qualified to be literature. Indeed it is literature by hal's definition but the contemporary associations made with the word "literature" allow for a lot of subjective dissmisal.

[Castorp]

Good distinction, IrishCanadian. I was thinking of Proust and the startling revelations produced from the reader's own remembrance that are literally created by Proust's intricate sentences.

[BeingaBunny]

Literature is a word that you have to define for yourself. I think it is any writing that transcends its genre to become art. But what I think is good art is not what you think is good art.

Everyone, please define literature for yourself. Right here, right now.

This is about who we are.

[saggitariun]

literature is the mirror of the society .by this a poet can express his feelings n emotions in an ornamented way like
"it is raining "
a poet can say "the clouds are weeping".
but the fact is that the society reflects in the writings of the writer...the writer is the source of providing us the facts of his times.
or we may say
The body of written work produced by scholars or researchers in a given field: medical literature.

[dramasnot6]

must literature be of the written word? if it mirrors society can we include the visual and dramatic arts as literautre too? and what of crude, appaling pieces of wirting such as pornography? are those literature? i always thought literautre to carry a sophisticated tone, but then is it only written reflections of society that make up lit?no matter the content....
perhaps literature is writing containing perenial themes , so it lasts for times after the time it was written. hmmmmmm....
just something else to toss as eye of the beholder?

[Gromit]

Literature is anything that can be written with such indulgence that they never lift the pen/finger from page/keyboard. It is something that is remembered by at least the writer. if even the writer does not remember it, then it simply cannot be in their deepest thoughts, and will eventually rust away. But something that is remembered and becomes word art for years and years, that is pure literature.

[kelby_lake]

Literature is literally just text. If we're talking about Literature, I would say that it encompasses anything that is worthy of study. If there are worthwhile things to say about it (not that it's "bad" or "good"), it's literature.

[xtianfriborg13]

Interesting!

[TenderButtons]

I don't think this question is answerable. When asking this question, we can learn many interesting things about literature, but never get an actual answer. I think there are a lot of questions of this type, and it doesn't make the question less valuable.

[cacian]

Literature is like a vast ocean sea with plenty fish and waves to swim around.
Literature is a chain of thoughts on paper disjointed or chained and it is usually about the human condition.
Literature is the mirror to the soul that highlights the depthness of the human complexity and intricacy.
Literature is everything you want to know about an individual and if you can't see it there then well you just have to try again until you can.
So consider this my friend literature is you and you are literature.

[PeterL]

I don't think this question is answerable. When asking this question, we can learn many interesting things about literature, but never get an actual answer. I think there are a lot of questions of this type, and it doesn't make the question less valuable.

No, The reply a couple up is correct in its first sentence: "Literature is simply text." Nothing more and nothing less. Literature is that which has been written from the Enuma Elish to the directions of a package of frozen peas.

[cacian]

No, The reply a couple up is correct in its first sentence: "Literature is simply text." Nothing more and nothing less. Literature is that which has been written from the Enuma Elish to the directions of a package of frozen peas.

Well I am not sure I agree let's look at the word 'LITERATURE'

There is the first word there and that is: LITE meaning light or light from delightful.

ART form art

TURE as in COUTURE / form
So one can read it as a delightful art form.

[mjh]

I would highly recommend Thinking About Texts by Chris Hopkins. He addresses this question in a very accessibly way.

[WyattGwyon]

Complex concepts don't have definitions in the usual sense. Try to define "game," for example. There is no common element shared by all the activities and phenomena the term comprises. Likewise music. Likewise literature. Nevertheless, some find these kind of definition games stimulating and fruitful. I don't.

[cacian]

I would highly recommend Thinking About Texts by Chris Hopkins. He addresses this question in a very accessibly way.

Why think about text as such.
I thought the whole point of a text is to be self explanatory.


Complex concepts don't have definitions in the usual sense. Try to define "game," for example. There is no common element shared by all the activities and phenomena the term comprises. Likewise music. Likewise literature. Nevertheless, some find these kind of definition games stimulating and fruitful. I don't.

Literature is not complex what is complex is the human mind.
Game is an activity that is supposed to stimulate the mind into enjoyment.
It is another form of pleasure that we undertake together or solo because it makes us feel good.
It is an invention to occupy the mind when the mind is saturated with everyday life.
I think of Victorians and I think of games.
It was a very highly activity games. Card or pool was one or even tennis or crocket. It was the height of the fashion to be seen to be doing something however there was much to be desired when it came to conversation. Victorians spoke mainly about books when they did not talk about games. Very confined and very proper.

[PeterL]

Well I am not sure I agree let's look at the word 'LITERATURE'

There is the first word there and that is: LITE meaning light or light from delightful.

ART form art

TURE as in COUTURE / form
So one can read it as a delightful art form.

Whether you agree is of no consequence, because literature is that which is written.

By the way, your look at the parts of the words is not based on the derivartion of the word.


Complex concepts don't have definitions in the usual sense. Try to define "game," for example. There is no common element shared by all the activities and phenomena the term comprises. Likewise music. Likewise literature. Nevertheless, some find these kind of definition games stimulating and fruitful. I don't.

I don't think that he analogy of literature and games is a valid analogy, and literature is not a "complex concept". All literature has one simple connection: it is written. If you think that your comments about games are accurate, then they should show you that literature is very different.

[cacian]

Whether you agree is of no consequence, because literature is that which is written.

By the way, your look at the parts of the words is not based on the derivartion of the word.

Well it should do because a word should be written in the way it is imagined.

[PeterL]

Well it should do because a word should be written in the way it is imagined.

If you use your own idiolect, then you shouldn't expect anyone to understand you. Language is for communication, not for your own imagination.

[kelby_lake]

Well it should do because a word should be written in the way it is imagined.

It is, really. "Liter" is the writing and reading part- like "literacy". So it's things that are written. If we were to define what makes canonical literature- Literature with a capital L if you like- that would be a different question.

[cacian]

If you use your own idiolect, then you shouldn't expect anyone to understand you. Language is for communication, not for your own imagination.

Well that is where I think the issue is with stagnating contemporary literature i it leaves nothing to the imagination.
A bit like looking at a naked lady and calling her sexy. Let's face it she has no clothes on sexy is beside the point and overruled.
Literature is imagination otherwise we might as well read with our eyes clothes. I can just about imagine an entire book content just by looking at the cover or reading the title. I don't need to read it I can just tell by looking at it how scary is that.
A bit like the Sun newspaper you don't need to read it to know that there is a page three girl in it and the rest is shambolic waste of the English language.


It is, really. "Liter" is the writing and reading part- like "literacy". So it's things that are written. If we were to define what makes canonical literature- Literature with a capital L if you like- that would be a different question.

Hi Kelby you mean LITER as LETTERS
.
How do you mean by literature with capital L?

[PeterL]

Well that is where I think the issue is with stagnating contemporary literature i it leaves nothing to the imagination.
A bit like looking at a naked lady and calling her sexy. Let's face it she has no clothes on sexy is beside the point and overruled.
Literature is imagination otherwise we might as well read with our eyes clothes. I can just about imagine an entire book content just by looking at the cover or reading the title. I don't need to read it I can just tell by looking at it how scary is that.
A bit like the Sun newspaper you don't need to read it to know that there is a page three girl in it and the rest is shambolic waste of the English language.

Maybe I should have used simpler language.

If you want words to mean exactly what you want, rather than what the rest of the world understands them to mean, then you will not communicate with the rest of the world.

Literature:
" from L. literatura/litteratura "learning, a writing, grammar," originally "writing formed with letters," from litera/littera "letter" (see letter (n.1))."
from:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=literature

The formal definitions distinguish between literature in general and belle lettres, and there are good reasons for such a distinction.

If you think of literature as you have stated, then you might be interested in the science of semiotics, which is the science of signs used to convey meaning. The science was first developed by Charles S. Peirce about 1875. He just used human language, but since then people have also looked at semiotics in the communications of other animals. Semantics is a subcategory of semiotics.

And remember that written language is a different semiotic system from spoken language.

[Scheherazade]

It is also possible to argue that there is "rat" in "Lite-rat-ure".

And "lite-racy" is "light and racy".

Or maybe it is "liter-acy"; in which case it would be "ace style writing"?

[PeterL]

It is also possible to argue that there is "rat" in "Lite-rat-ure".

And "lite-racy" is "light and racy".

Or maybe it is "liter-acy"; in which case it would be "ace style writing"?

Yeah! I'll go for lite and racy.

[cacian]

Maybe I should have used simpler language.

If you want words to mean exactly what you want, rather than what the rest of the world understands them to mean, then you will not communicate with the rest of the world.

Literature:
" from L. literatura/litteratura "learning, a writing, grammar," originally "writing formed with letters," from litera/littera "letter" (see letter (n.1))."
from:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=literature

The formal definitions distinguish between literature in general and belle lettres, and there are good reasons for such a distinction.

If you think of literature as you have stated, then you might be interested in the science of semiotics, which is the science of signs used to convey meaning. The science was first developed by Charles S. Peirce about 1875. He just used human language, but since then people have also looked at semiotics in the communications of other animals. Semantics is a subcategory of semiotics.

And remember that written language is a different semiotic system from spoken language.

Interesting stuff thank you for the link.
I was going to ask about the 'animals communications' I did not know people would actually look at that.
It sounds fascinating.
As far as I know are not talkative but more intuitive.

[mal4mac]

...a standard dictionary definition [of literature]: "Creative writing of recognized artistic value," or, "the humanistic study of a body of literature."

What dictionary was that? The former definition ignores writing that hasn't yet been recognised. The latter is circular! How can you define literature by including the term "literature" in the definition?

My concise OED has: "writings whose value lies in beauty of form or emotional effect." This seems a good definition to me.



Seems to me the crucial element in your question is to explore what is recognized as "artistic value" and why——that might take awhile.


The OED definition of "beauty" suggests that a piece of literature is a written work that aims to delight. As people differ in what delights them you can't say, for instance, that "Harry Potter isn't literature." You might say it doesn't delight you, so, for you, it is bad literature.

I think lyrics might or might not be literature. A song must aim to delight, but the delight might all be in the music. Think of songs that have nonsense lyrics "Dum diddy do dah dah,..." All the delight is really in the music there, it's not literature, is it? Then again, why not. I think I've cahnged my mind - any lyric, nonsense or otherwise, is literature if the author intended it to give delight.

I think works that are completely unknown are literature because the author aimed to give delight.



If you want words to mean exactly what you want, rather than what the rest of the world understands them to mean, then you will not communicate with the rest of the world.

Literature:
" from L. literatura/litteratura "learning, a writing, grammar," originally "writing formed with letters," from litera/littera "letter" (see letter (n.1))."
from:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=literature



Cacian's superb break down of "Literature" meaning "delightful art form" coincides with the exact definition I just quoted from the concise OED!

PeterL's definition is a uselessly formal definition not used by everyday people, and gets us nowhere.

A Sherlock Holmes tale is a work of literature because it gives delight, not because it's "writing formed with letters."

[kelby_lake]

My concise OED has: "writings whose value lies in beauty of form or emotional effect." This seems a good definition to me.


I don't agree with that. What about political literature? I doubt it is particularly beautiful or emotional but you can't say that it isn't literature. If we want a definition of literature beyond the literal one, I'd define it as "writing deemed to be worthy of study". It could be studied for any number of reasons.

[PeterL]

Interesting stuff thank you for the link.
I was going to ask about the 'animals communications' I did not know people would actually look at that.
It sounds fascinating.
As far as I know are not talkative but more intuitive.

Just as humans communicate in ways that do not employ words, animals do the same; although it appears that apes have something that is very close to spoken. But there is communication byt howls, scents, and other means. The whole subject is fascinating.



PeterL's definition is a uselessly formal definition not used by everyday people, and gets us nowhere.

I did not post my own definition. I posted definitions from standard dictionaries. If you want the word to mean something else, then you will have to wait for the world to change. The reduced definition that you posted ignores commercial literature, which is certainly literature; things like directions for using a machine, marketting lterature, political literature, etc.

Remember that language is useful only when it is understood by others. Your idiolect is not language to me.


A Sherlock Holmes tale is a work of literature because it gives delight, not because it's "writing formed with letters."

Conan-Doyle's stories are literature because they are written. If they were oral, then they would not be literature.

[cacian]

Talking of literature this came up in a discussion:
What is the role of mainstream literature?
and
and is there such a thing a nonstream literature?

[Alexander III]

I can't help but feel that cacian, maybe, just maybe; might in the slightest way possible deter potential new members from joining.

[Paulclem]

Whatever dictionary definitions come up, literature is what we regard as worthwhile for discussion, not just for reading, which is what makes the Harry Potter debates interesting. It could also include political writing - I've seen The Prince referred to often - poetry, lyrics etc. They are considered by someone as worthwhile, though not necessarily delightful, to discuss.

The general definition of literature as writing is merely one definition. We all know what we mean when we refer to literature, and it's not just any old writing.

[cafolini]

There is no way to define anything without using at least one undefined word. Quality definition keeps within context and uses the least possible number of undefined words.
People like Cacian don't have the power to cause people to leave the forum. They are just bothersome. Cacian reminds me of the guy in The Dirty Dozen who Lee Marvin has to assure that he was born for higher stuff and would never be understood by common people.

[Emil Miller]

Whatever dictionary definitions come up, literature is what we regard as worthwhile for discussion, not just for reading, which is what makes the Harry Potter debates interesting. It could also include political writing - I've seen The Prince referred to often - poetry, lyrics etc. They are considered by someone as worthwhile, though not necessarily delightful, to discuss.

The general definition of literature as writing is merely one definition. We all know what we mean when we refer to literature, and it's not just any old writing.


Err.....??????????

[mal4mac]

I did not post my own definition. I posted definitions from standard dictionaries. If you want the word to mean something else, then you will have to wait for the world to change. The reduced definition that you posted ignores commercial literature, which is certainly literature; things like directions for using a machine, marketting lterature, political literature, etc.

I posted a direct quote from the concise Oxford Englisgh Dictionary, you don't get more standard than that.

I admit I quoted a reduced definition, the one most approriate to what people in this forum are actually interested in. Your "formal" definition is also limited, and more, is off the point. And who cares about "directions for using a machine, marketing literature, ..." That's obviously not the sense in which "literature" is used in this forum.


I don't agree with that. What about political literature? I doubt it is particularly beautiful or emotional but you can't say that it isn't literature. If we want a definition of literature beyond the literal one, I'd define it as "writing deemed to be worthy of study". It could be studied for any number of reasons.

Some political writing might have literary qualities, the writing of J.S. Mill for instance. But you couldn't say that of the minutes of a political meeting could you? Are you trying to argue that Hansard is beautiful? (Maybe on occasion it is... but very rare ones!)

Ancient shopping lists are deemed to be worthy of study by historians and anthropologists. Is that literature?


Whatever dictionary definitions come up, literature is what we regard as worthwhile for discussion, not just for reading, which is what makes the Harry Potter debates interesting. It could also include political writing - I've seen The Prince referred to often - poetry, lyrics etc. They are considered by someone as worthwhile, though not necessarily delightful, to discuss.

The general definition of literature as writing is merely one definition. We all know what we mean when we refer to literature, and it's not just any old writing.

Come on, we can do better than "we all know what we mean", surely. The Concise OED manages to do better - *real* literature should delight.



Conan-Doyle's stories are literature because they are written. If they were oral, then they would not be literature.

"Oral literature" is a commonly used phrase - 506,000 results on Google. Are you saying that Homer and the Pali Canon are not literature?

[kelby_lake]

Some political writing might have literary qualities, the writing of J.S. Mill for instance. But you couldn't say that of the minutes of a political meeting could you? Are you trying to argue that Hansard is beautiful? (Maybe on occasion it is... but very rare ones!)

I'm not saying that political literature is beautiful but it's still literature.


Ancient shopping lists are deemed to be worthy of study by historians and anthropologists. Is that literature?

Well, yes. You aren't going to study it for an English course but they are pieces of writing worthy of study, hence literature.

[PeterL]

Talking of literature this came up in a discussion:
What is the role of mainstream literature?
and
and is there such a thing a nonstream literature?

I think that this probably should be a different thread, but using modifiers such as "mainstream" and similar, is excellent with a word that is as broad as "literature".


"Oral literature" is a commonly used phrase - 506,000 results on Google. Are you saying that Homer and the Pali Canon are not literature?

"Oral literature" is an oxymoron that is only used by people who don't think about what they say.

Homer's poems were in the oral tradition, but they also became literature when they were written down.

I am not familiar with the Pali Canon. If it is oral, then it is not literature. If it has been written down, then it is literature.


I posted a direct quote from the concise Oxford Englisgh Dictionary, you don't get more standard than that.

That is the problem with abridged dictionaries; they are not complete. I would suggest that you look at an unabridged dictionary that is more likely to have a complete definition.


I admit I quoted a reduced definition, the one most approriate to what people in this forum are actually interested in. Your "formal" definition is also limited, and more, is off the point. And who cares about "directions for using a machine, marketing literature, ..." That's obviously not the sense in which "literature" is used in this forum.

People in this forum clearly are interested in thorough definitions, rather than incomplete of definitions. I am a reader of non-fiction as well as fiction, and apparently you want to restrict literature to fiction. In this forum literature is usually taken to mean that which has been written, and it is usually discussed as literature with some modifier.

If you wish to discuss, then discuss fiction. If you wish to discuss print advertisements, then discuss them; they are literature.

[cacian]

I can't help but feel that cacian, maybe, just maybe; might in the slightest way possible deter potential new members from joining.

What on earth do you mean? :sosp:
I did not know I had the keys to the forums I could lock anyone out who did not look right.
Really.


"Oral literature" is an oxymoron that is only used by people who don't think about what they say.

Homer's poems were in the oral tradition, but they also became literature when they were written down.

I am not familiar with the Pali Canon. If it is oral, then it is not literature. If it has been written down, then it is literature.

Actually oral literature is second to none because it is instinctive and requires skills and memory to remember what was said that was not written.
I think oral literature is very important because if anything it reinforces written literature. It is just another form of expression.
Putting a tag on aural literature could mean the cleaning up of improper or unwelcome usage of words the listener deems inappropriate.
I consider it to be a great mental exercise that makes a change from writing and improve the spoken language immensely.

[PeterL]

Actually oral literature is second to none because it is instinctive and requires skills and memory to remember what was said that was not written.
I think oral literature is very important because if anything it reinforces written literature. It is just another form of expression.
Putting a tag on aural literature could mean the cleaning up of improper or unwelcome usage of words the listener deems inappropriate.
I consider it to be a great mental exercise that makes a change from writing and improve the spoken language immensely.

I don't like having to repeat myself, but "oral literature" is an oxymoron. Literature is not oral; it is written. If something is in an oral tradition, then it is not literature, but it can become literature by being written down.

[mal4mac]

I'm not saying that political literature is beautiful but it's still literature.

The concise OED does give the definition "books etc. treating of a subject" - so you can have cookery literature, plumbing literature, and so on. But that sense contradicts the definition that suggests literature must be beautiful. So in any use of the term "literature" you must be clear which definition you are using, or get lost in contradiction. On this forum, surely, we are interested in beautiful writing, not the lowest political tracts or plumbing manuals.


... [shopping lists] are pieces of writing worthy of study, hence literature.

There's nothing in the concise OED that suggests literature must be "worthy of study". What about light verse that is instantly understandable, but with no study needed to get delight from it?

I think in this forum (and most places!) it is taken as standard that by literature we mean "beautiful literature". If someone asked you what you are reading, and you said "literature" and then added "the plumbing manual" they would laugh, because in using the word "literature" people usually assume you mean "beautiful writing".

Of course "political literature " is a term that is used, but it is usually relating to diaries or autobiographies that have something beautiful about them (although irony is often used in sentences like "Works of 'political literature :)', like Tony Blair's diaries...")

A journalist might say, "There is quite a lot in the political literature about MPs cheating on expenses", and by that they mean anything from Hansard to diaries, I guess. But people only allow this "demotion from the beautiful" in specific contexts. When people use the word "literature" without context then beauty is assumed.

[mal4mac]

"Oral literature" is an oxymoron that is only used by people who don't think about what they say.

Homer's poems were in the oral tradition, but they also became literature when they were written down.


"Oral literature" is a useful shorthand for "Stories in the oral tradition that became literature." It's only an oxymoron if you are being overly pedantic. One of the delights of English is its wonderful flexibility.




I am not familiar with the Pali Canon. If it is oral, then it is not literature. If it has been written down, then it is literature.



It has been written down, but I don't find it delightful, so its not literature. Like the plumbing manual it may be useful though; I think there's something in meditation... elegant plumbing for the mind...




That is the problem with abridged dictionaries; they are not complete. I would suggest that you look at an unabridged dictionary that is more likely to have a complete definition.


They are just as useful as complete dictionaries for "modern, everyday matters" as they concentrate on "modern, common usage". Perhaps more so as they don't bog you down in archaic forms etc. (Notr that there's anything wrong with that! Archaic forms are very useful to those studying archaic literature... ) We aren't having na archaic conversation, so the concise OED is ideal for the matter at hand.




I am a reader of non-fiction as well as fiction, and apparently you want to restrict literature to fiction.


No I don't. If the non-fiction delights then it is literature.



If you wish to discuss, then discuss fiction. If you wish to discuss print advertisements, then discuss them; they are literature.

Adverts are an interesting one. I guess they do aim to delight, so they are literature. But they are a perverted form, because their main aim is not to delight, but to sell stuff.

[PeterL]

It has been written down, but I don't find it delightful, so its not literature. Like the plumbing manual it may be useful though; I think there's something in meditation... elegant plumbing for the mind...


I find the idea that to you literature is just something that delights you rather odd and inexact. Does that mean that a pleasant girlfriend would be literature?




They are just as useful as complete dictionaries for "modern, everyday matters" as they concentrate on "modern, common usage". Perhaps more so as they don't bog you down in archaic forms etc. (Notr that there's anything wrong with that! Archaic forms are very useful to those studying archaic literature... ) We aren't having na archaic conversation, so the concise OED is ideal for the matter at hand.


Part of a dictionary can be worse than no dictionary at all. If you want to use it, then remember that it is not complete.

I will keep in mind that you agree with Humpty-Dumpty:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
And you certainly don't care about Alice's reply:

[Paulclem]

Err.....??????????

literature is what we regard as worthwhile for discussion, not just for reading, which is what makes the Harry Potter debates interesting.

In the sense that some people regard it as literature and some people don't. Thus we have a stonking good debate about it.

I dislike Jane Austen, it does not delight me, but I recognise it as literature because it is interesting, worthy of study and contributes to our stock of writing that inspires others and also delights some. That's why I disagree with Mal's definition as being too strict. I also disagree that the Pali cannon is not literature. It is worthy of study, provokes discussion, contributes ideas and does delight some in its practice.

[kelby_lake]

The concise OED does give the definition "books etc. treating of a subject" - so you can have cookery literature, plumbing literature, and so on. But that sense contradicts the definition that suggests literature must be beautiful.

But that's just a pretentious statement that puts people off studying English and stifles any interesting debate. Is The 120 Days of Sodom beautiful? Is A Vindication of the Rights of Woman beautiful? Is Titus Andronicus beautiful?

The online OED defines it thus: written work valued for superior or lasting artistic merit. Basically, novels/poems/etc. that are very well-written, rather than being particularly lovely.

As Victor Hugo said: "The beautiful has but one type, the ugly has a thousand."

[cacian]

But that's just a pretentious statement that puts people off studying English and stifles any interesting debate. Is The 120 Days of Sodom beautiful? Is A Vindication of the Rights of Woman beautiful? Is Titus Andronicus beautiful?

The online OED defines it thus: written work valued for superior or lasting artistic merit. Basically, novels/poems/etc. that are very well-written, rather than being particularly lovely.

As Victor Hugo said: "The beautiful has but one type, the ugly has a thousand."

Well I would have thought it was the other around
''beauty is by the thousands and ugly is one thing''
Human nature get bedazzled on a daily basis by billions of beautiful things there is , nature on its own is many beauties.
Ugliness is one type and that is we know it when we see it.

[mal4mac]

I find the idea that to you literature is just something that delights you rather odd and inexact. Does that mean that a pleasant girlfriend would be literature?

No, I am taking it as given that writing is involved.



Part of a dictionary can be worse than no dictionary at all. If you want to use it, then remember that it is not complete.


The Concise OED is not part of a dictionary, it is a dictionary. It says in the introduction, "The words, phrases, and meanings given are those current in the English of the present day." The full Oxford dictionary is for those "in search of a broader canvas of English words and their history." In this thread I'm assuming we are looking for modern definitions of "literature" so the Concise OED is pertinent.



I will keep in mind that you agree with Humpty-Dumpty:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."


I take it to mean what it says in my Concise OED; that definition "works" for me. I didn't write the COED so I certainly didn't choose the meaning!

[kelby_lake]

Well I would have thought it was the other around
''beauty is by the thousands and ugly is one thing''Human nature get bedazzled on a daily basis by billions of beautiful things there is , nature on its own is many beauties.
Ugliness is one type and that is we know it when we see it.

It's not about the amount of beautiful/ugly things- it's that beauty is predictable whereas ugliness is not.

[mal4mac]

I dislike Jane Austen, it does not delight me, but I recognise it as literature because it is interesting, worthy of study and contributes to our stock of writing that inspires others and also delights some. That's why I disagree with Mal's definition as being too strict. I also disagree that the Pali cannon is not literature. It is worthy of study, provokes discussion, contributes ideas and does delight some in its practice.

The novels of Jane Austen delight me, that's why they are literature. Ulysses doesn't delight me, but it does delight some people, so it is literature. If it delights some person it is literature.

You don't get to recognise Jane Austen as literature or not... I somehow get an image of the Dalai Lama laughing compassionately at such an expression of ego - Paul gets to decide what's literature :) Then again I musn't speak for the Dalia Lama... just my image...

The plumbing manual "delights some in its practice", but it is not literature. The delight comes when you fix the tap, so its the practice that leads to delight. The Pali canon inspires meditation practice, and the delight comes from the meditation practice. The delight, in literature, has to come from the writing, not any practice it inspires.

I think we need a strict definition of "literature" or we just end up in declaring all writing to be literature. We need a word for delightful writing, don't we? Shouldn't that be "literature"?

[Audioman42]

lit·er·a·ture/ˈlit(ə)rəCHər/

Noun:

1. Written works, esp. those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit: "a great work of literature".
2. Books and writings published on a particular subject: "the literature on environmental epidemiology".

</smartass>

[Scheherazade]

lit·er·a·ture/ˈlit(ə)rəCHər/

Noun:

1. Written works, esp. those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit: "a great work of literature".
2. Books and writings published on a particular subject: "the literature on environmental epidemiology".

</smartass>Could you please cite the source of this information?

</2xsmartass>

[Delta40]

Literature
1. written works esp. those whose value lies in beauty of language or in emotional effect.
2. the realm of letters.
3. the writings of a country or period.
4. literary production.
5. colloq. printed matter, leaflets, etc.
6. the material in print on a particular subject (there is a considerable literature on geraniums).

[mal4mac]

But that's just a pretentious statement that puts people off studying English and stifles any interesting debate. Is The 120 Days of Sodom beautiful? Is A Vindication of the Rights of Woman beautiful? Is Titus Andronicus beautiful?

Titus Andronicus is beautiful in both form and emotional effect. Because it is a tragedy part of the delight comes from catharsis. You can't say it isn't delightful because the characters do really nasty things.

By suggesting that "shopping lists" and "political tracts" are literature, I suggest, you are more likely to put people off studying literature. People read shopping lists, and read Blair's drivel, and don't get much delight form the experience. They might hope to actually read something delightful if they study literature. (But maybe it's only a hope...)



The online OED defines it thus: written work valued for superior or lasting artistic merit. Basically, novels/poems/etc. that are very well-written, rather than being particularly lovely.

This agrees with the Concise OED definition. To have artistic merit, a work must delight. The "superior or lasting" addition is useful. Can we say Harry Potter is literature? Even if it delights some kids, will the work last? Is it superior?

Did the online OED really say "very well-written, rather than being particularly lovely"? What's the full, exact quote? In any case, a work doesn't have to be "particularly lovely" to delight.

[Delta40]

The definition of literature which I posted is from the COED hardback edition. Firstly is says nothing whatsoever that a work must delight in order to be considered literature but rather touches on beauty of language. Now if this delights the reader, wonderful but it is not a criterion. It's a subtle difference but worth mentioning.

As you can see, literature extends beyond the scope of beautiful language also.

[manuscript]

i think authentic literature as an art is something in prose form that extends within the context of that historical moment achievements in ideas through language?

[mal4mac]

But that's just a pretentious statement that puts people off studying English and stifles any interesting debate. Is The 120 Days of Sodom beautiful? Is A Vindication of the Rights of Woman beautiful? Is Titus Andronicus beautiful?

Titus Andronicus is beautiful in both form and emotional effect. Because it is a tragedy part of the delight comes from catharsis. You can't say it isn't delightful because the characters do really nasty things.

By suggesting that "shopping lists" and "political tracts" are literature, I suggest, you are more likely to put people off studying literature. People read shopping lists, and read Blair's drivel, and don't get much delight form the experience. They might hope to actually read something delightful if they study literature. (But maybe it's only a hope...)



The online OED defines it thus: written work valued for superior or lasting artistic merit. Basically, novels/poems/etc. that are very well-written, rather than being particularly lovely.

This agrees with the Concise OED definition. To have artistic merit, a work must delight. The "superior or lasting" addition is useful. Can we say Harry Potter is literature? Even if it delights some kids, will the work last? Is it superior?

Did the online OED really say "very well-written, rather than being particularly lovely"? What's the full, exact quote? In any case, a work doesn't have to be "particularly lovely" to delight.

[cacian]

literature is what we regard as worthwhile for discussion, not just for reading, which is what makes the Harry Potter debates interesting.

In the sense that some people regard it as literature and some people don't. Thus we have a stonking good debate about it.

I dislike Jane Austen, it does not delight me, but I recognise it as literature because it is interesting, worthy of study and contributes to our stock of writing that inspires others and also delights some. That's why I disagree with Mal's definition as being too strict. I also disagree that the Pali cannon is not literature. It is worthy of study, provokes discussion, contributes ideas and does delight some in its practice.

Paul would you agree that you do not need to like or appreciate literature for its books and stories to read it?
In order we don't have to like what we read all the time to read something?

[mal4mac]

Firstly is says nothing whatsoever that a work must delight in order to be considered literature but rather touches on beauty of language. Now if this delights the reader, wonderful but it is not a criterion. It's a subtle difference but worth mentioning.

COEDs definition of "beauty" is "1. ... combination of qualities... that delight..."

In the COED the distinct sense of a word are separated by semi-colons.

So distinct senses of "literature" are (7th ed. 1982, p.588):

1. "writing whose values lie in beauty of form or emotional effect"
2. "literary production"

These senses, obviously, contradict each other because a literary production may not be beautiful. The first definition explicitly says that literature is writing whose values lie in beauty of form or emotional effect - no caveats. You have to decide which definition of "literature" you are using in a specific context. Obviously, on this forum, we should (surely?) be taking definition 1. as the default definition.

Your definition 1., differs from mine:

1. written works esp. those whose value lies in beauty of language or in emotional effect

The "written works esp. those" is obviously a significant ammendment! What ed. of the COED did you use?

[Delta40]

9th ed 1995.

[cacian]

i think authentic literature as an art is something in prose form that extends within the context of that historical moment achievements in ideas through language?

I think we might be going besides our points which is this:
It is not about the literature it is about the ideas that make literature stand out.
A language is enhanced when the ideas are and not the other way around.

[PeterL]

No, I am taking it as given that writing is involved.

Neglecting to state exactly what you mean can lead to problems.


The Concise OED is not part of a dictionary, it is a dictionary. It says in the introduction, "The words, phrases, and meanings given are those current in the English of the present day." The full Oxford dictionary is for those "in search of a broader canvas of English words and their history." In this thread I'm assuming we are looking for modern definitions of "literature" so the Concise OED is pertinent.

You can think of it as you wish, but an abridged dictionary has been abridged, which means: to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail.



I take it to mean what it says in my Concise OED; that definition "works" for me. I didn't write the COED so I certainly didn't choose the meaning!

That would work for Humpty Dumpty, but you should remember that rest of the world may be using a definition that was chopped from your abridged dictionary.

[kelby_lake]

Did the online OED really say "very well-written, rather than being particularly lovely"? What's the full, exact quote? In any case, a work doesn't have to be "particularly lovely" to delight.

SPOILERS FOR TITUS ANDRONICUS AND TROILUS AND CRESSIDA

No, but your assertion that literature must be "beautiful" implies that there must be a loveliness there. Titus doesn't have a catharsis, really. The characters literally sit at a dinner table, turn to the person next to them and kill them. The ending, where Aaron and Tamora's bastard mixed race baby is held up as the future of Rome is far from beautiful. It is clever but it is frightening and morally dubious. Pandarus talking to the audience about bawds and diseases when poor Hector has just been killed is not beautiful. A novel may be well-written without being beautiful.



By suggesting that "shopping lists" and "political tracts" are literature, I suggest, you are more likely to put people off studying literature. People read shopping lists, and read Blair's drivel, and don't get much delight form the experience. They might hope to actually read something delightful if they study literature.


Both of those are by definition literature, although I did not suggest that they are the type of literature we study in a literary context. People are put off studying literature because they feel that they should be delighted by every classic they read and then feel inferior when they don't organically feel this delight. The ability to appreciate literature does not come from some divine light that shines upon privileged individuals but by studying, comparing and developing an instinct for the components of a piece of writing that would make it worthy of study.

[cacian]

Since this is about literature I keep reading and coming across this expression:
An unorthodox way/fashion of writing.
What is orthodoxy in writing?

[mal4mac]

SPOILERS FOR TITUS ANDRONICUS AND TROILUS AND CRESSIDA

No, but your assertion that literature must be "beautiful" implies that there must be a loveliness there...

"In watching Titus Andronicus we come to understand – perhaps more than by looking at any other Shakespeare play – the nature of his genius: he gave an inner awareness to passions; cruelty ceased to be merely physical. Shakespeare discovered the moral hell. He discovered heaven as well. But he remained on earth." - Jan Kott

So he has a beautiful way of expressing the inner reality of the cruellest passions


People are put off studying literature because they feel that they should be delighted by every classic they read and then feel inferior when they don't organically feel this delight. The ability to appreciate literature does not come from some divine light that shines upon privileged individuals but by studying, comparing and developing an instinct for the components of a piece of writing that would make it worthy of study.

I haven't studied literature since GCSE O level, but I get delight from the majority of classics I read. Therefore I'm living proof that study beyond this level isn't necessary for getting great delight from the classics. (Note that English Literature GCSE didn't involve the study of shopping lists or the Communist Manifesto...)


.... but you should remember that rest of the world may be using a definition that was chopped from your abridged dictionary.

I don't think they are... why would the OED cut the most common use from their concise dictionary, when it is geared to give those definitions? In any case, it looks fine to me. So are the OED editors Humpty Dumptys? I see you didn't give the date or edition that you used. Are you just making it up? Why not engage with the argument instead of trying to insult people?

[PeterL]

I don't think they are... why would the OED cut the most common use from their concise dictionary, when it is geared to give those definitions? In any case, it looks fine to me. So are the OED editors Humpty Dumptys?

Yes, it appears that editors of the OED may be Humpty Dumpty's, but I can't be certain. You should keep in mind that editors sometimes edit to put forward a point of view. There are som many people in the world that ithere is certainly one who will agree with any madness that some madman dreams up, dcso you shouldn't be surprised that the editors of the OED made the same mistake that you did.


I see you didn't give the date or edition that you used. Are you just making it up?

Date and edition of what" If you mean HALice, then it makes no difference, because it is in the public domain, and this is a casual use, rather than academic, which would require a footnote.


Why not engage with the argument instead of trying to insult people?

I have not attempted to insult anyone. I have simply pointed out that your definition was incorrect.

I will request that this thread be closed.

[kelby_lake]

"In watching Titus Andronicus we come to understand – perhaps more than by looking at any other Shakespeare play – the nature of his genius: he gave an inner awareness to passions; cruelty ceased to be merely physical. Shakespeare discovered the moral hell. He discovered heaven as well. But he remained on earth." - Jan Kott

So he has a beautiful way of expressing the inner reality of the cruellest passions

I still fail to see how he expresses this moral hell- and I don't doubt that he discovered it and that was to influence his later plays- is particularly beautiful. The cruelty is mental but very obviously physical as well. The discovery of heaven arguably comes later. Lavinia certainly isn't as heavenly as she is made out to be.

Shakespeare in general has a beautiful way of expressing cruel passion, but not in Titus. And yet Titus is still a great play.

[Paulclem]

The novels of Jane Austen delight me, that's why they are literature. Ulysses doesn't delight me, but it does delight some people, so it is literature. If it delights some person it is literature.

You don't get to recognise Jane Austen as literature or not... I somehow get an image of the Dalai Lama laughing compassionately at such an expression of ego - Paul gets to decide what's literature :) Then again I musn't speak for the Dalia Lama... just my image...

The plumbing manual "delights some in its practice", but it is not literature. The delight comes when you fix the tap, so its the practice that leads to delight. The Pali canon inspires meditation practice, and the delight comes from the meditation practice. The delight, in literature, has to come from the writing, not any practice it inspires.

I think we need a strict definition of "literature" or we just end up in declaring all writing to be literature. We need a word for delightful writing, don't we? Shouldn't that be "literature"?

I dislike Jane Austen, it does not delight me, but I recognise it as literature because it is interesting, worthy of study and contributes to our stock of writing that inspires others and also delights some. Mine

The novels of Jane Austen delight me, that's why they are literature. Ulysses doesn't delight me, but it does delight some people, so it is literature. If it delights some person it is literature. Yours

I fail to see what the difference between these two are Mal.

Having said that, I do have a raging ego.

[kelby_lake]

I haven't studied literature since GCSE O level, but I get delight from the majority of classics I read. Therefore I'm living proof that study beyond this level isn't necessary for getting great delight from the classics. (Note that English Literature GCSE didn't involve the study of shopping lists or the Communist Manifesto...)

I don't know when you took your O-Level but it was a different style of education to modern GCSEs. Modern GCSEs partly study novels/plays because they are considered to be classics (like in the case of Shakespeare) but a lot of the time it's classics- generally twentieth century- that are perceived to have modern relevance or that make the student socially aware. For example, To Kill A Mockingbird is a very common text for GCSE. We don't study it because it's a beautiful novel (I think the writing style is fairly standard though some might disagree). We study it because of its study of racism and prejudice.

The study of English is moving towards study based on social and political views rather than questions of merit. Is there any work of postcolonial literature that is beautiful enough to be a classic regardless of its pedigree?

[Paulclem]

The word literature is used i a variety of ways, and so a precise definition may be moot - as has been demonstrated so far. For example, it would be correct for someone to say:

"Take your filthy literature with you" referring to a pornographic magazine, but it is not what we on this forum would refer to as literature, even though i tmay delight some.

Text seems to be used for writing that is not literature - such as the text of a poster, but you can study the text of literature - as it directly refers to the words of a book as well. Despite this flexibility of the language, when we discuss literature, I say again, we all know what we are referring to. As we can see, the dictionaries have flexible definitions.


Paul would you agree that you do not need to like or appreciate literature for its books and stories to read it?
In order we don't have to like what we read all the time to read something?

The only time I have read a book I didn't like - for example Emma by Jane "The Torturer" Austen- has been for a course I have been studying for. I really don't feel the need to read anything I don't like unless I have to study it. There's too little time to be bothered with it. Having said that, being forced to read stuff I wouldn't read normally has shown me what it is about the book and author that people like. I can appreciate that some masochists like Jane "The Torturer" Austen, and recognise it as a twisted form of literary enjoyment for some.

[Delta40]

I agree Paul. It seems to me some people want to take the definition and hack away the things they don't like and put what is left in a box and call it literature when the definition of literature is clearly broad enough to cover most things (much to the disgust of some) Defaulting to only one definition? How selective and convenient is that? Perhaps there is only one kind of man (the traditional patriarchal kind) and I should default to him and discard the rest because they don't actually qualify as men? :lol:

[Paulclem]

I agree Paul. It seems to me some people want to take the definition and hack away the things they don't like and put what is left in a box and call it literature when the definition of literature is clearly broad enough to cover most things (much to the disgust of some) Defaulting to only one definition? How selective and convenient is that? Perhaps there is only one kind of man (the traditional patriarchal kind) and I should default to him and discard the rest because they don't actually qualify as men? :lol:

Aye. Some people don't like uncertainty, but prefer the rod ... of the certain.

[kelby_lake]

Aye. Some people don't like uncertainty, but prefer the rod ... of the certain.

Hee hee... :D

[Scheherazade]

~

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Off-topic/inflammatory posts will be removed without further notice.

~

[cacian]

Aye. Some people don't like uncertainty, but prefer the rod ... of the certain.

I like uncertainty the one that does not interfere with my present certainties of course.

[mal4mac]

I dislike Jane Austen, it does not delight me, but I recognise it as literature because it is interesting, worthy of study and contributes to our stock of writing that inspires others and also delights some. Mine

The novels of Jane Austen delight me, that's why they are literature. Ulysses doesn't delight me, but it does delight some people, so it is literature. If it delights some person it is literature. Yours

I fail to see what the difference between these two are Mal.


Nor do I :) Apologies.

[Paulclem]

Nor do I :) Apologies.

None needed old chap.

[JuniperWoolf]

I can't help but feel that cacian, maybe, just maybe; might in the slightest way possible deter potential new members from joining.

And old members from staying. The threads annoyed Mark and he left, and when he left I had less incentive to stay because there were fewer good posts to read. You have to mug through a swamp of non sequiturs and stream of consciousness questions to find anything worth spending your time on, it's irritating.

[Delta40]

It's all about perspective really. What a wonderful opportunity Cacian is presenting you to develop better skills in dealing with irritation!

[manuscript]

cacian is one of the reasons i have stayed so far. i like his/her curiosity and willingness to explore any idea impartially and see where it goes, it seems fun and interesting and open-minded. she/he seems to have no conceit and i admire that greatly. i cant imagine him/her hurting even a fly.

[ralfyman]

Try the first part of Terry Eagleton's Literary Theory: An Introduction.

[mal4mac]

Try the first part of Terry Eagleton's Literary Theory: An Introduction.

So how does he define literature? Is he a resenter?

"Longinus would have said that pleasure is what the resenters have forgotten. Nietzsche would have called it pain; but he would have been thinking of the same experience upon the heights." - Harold Bloom, "The Western Canon", p.18.

[ralfyman]

So how does he define literature? Is he a resenter?

"Longinus would have said that pleasure is what the resenters have forgotten. Nietzsche would have called it pain; but he would have been thinking of the same experience upon the heights." - Harold Bloom, "The Western Canon", p.18.

He explains the different definitions of literature. You have to read the chapter to find out, although there are some summaries available online.