A bit of an odd question- what makes a book "literature?"

[waryan]

Why is Brave New World generally associated with sipping coffee in a campus cafe while Card's "Ender's Game" is not?

I have always been very curious about this- I personally am not learned enough to know if there is a definite answer or not or what it would be, rather that some books give me a certain feeling of intellectualism while others don't- so think not of this as a criticism, but a sincere question.

Why are some books in the "Literature" section of the book store, while others are elsewhere?

Also, do any books come to mind that are in the sci-fi/fantasy/western/romance sections etc. that maybe you would make the argument that they should be in the literature section?

Thanks everyone for your feedback!:seeya:

[aquarium444]

My guess is that the publishers decide what authors they include in their series such as the Penguin classics, Dover classics, Signet classics, etc. Usually those books have come under critical review. They must make some form of contribution to the Humanities discipline.

[dfloyd]

they meet certain criteria such as universal theme, similes and metaphors which give the book a lyrical quality and make it enjoyable to read, and allusions which elevate the book to a certain standard(s) of society.

Sci-fi books which are generally found in the literature section include Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 and The Martian Chronicles and older works by H. G. Wells such as The Invisible Man and The War of the Worlds.

Literature in the western genre include The Prarie by Fenimore Cooper, Owen Wister's The Virginian, and, lately, a few of Cormac McCarthy's novels such as Blood Meridian.

[mal4mac]

Works that enter the canon of literature must have (almost) universal support from "the gatekeepers" of literature. Such gatekeepers are, in modern culture, centred on the university. Who else would you trust to keep this gate? The most admired (or noisy!) gatekeepers often 'get known' in wider culture -- e.g. critics like John Carey, Harold Bloom and Germaine Greer. But their canonical choices (Shakespeare, Dante, Wells...) have to have (almost) universal backing from all other literature professors in the universities. A work counts as literature if is of the highest 'aesthetic value', that is, if it generates vast amounts of pleasure in the reader. They are often 'intellectual' because intellectual pleasures can be great pleasures. Coffee may help to generate the required amounts of energy and concentration required... Writers like Card are so recent that either (i) the gatekeepers have not come to consensus (ii) Card is not very good...

[PeterL]

All books that contain writing are literature.

[The Comedian]

Oh, I'd say that the difference between an ordinary "book" and "literature" is a quality judgment. It's kind of like the difference between the grades of "A" and "C"; sure they're both grades, and they both pass you along. But "literature" and the "A" are of a higher quality than the others.

And, no, I'm not going to go all Zen and the of Motorcycle Maintenance on the "quality" issue at this point. I'm content with knowing that ideas of quality shift from culture to culture and that some elements of quality do seem to have a transcendence that rises above the fickle values of cultures both ethnic and temporal.

Like you, I'm not smart enough to draw any clear lines here around the literary from the non-literary. But I trust my mind and my guts enough to tell the difference.

[PeterL]

lit⋅er⋅a⋅ture
  /ˈlɪtərətʃər, -ˌtʃʊər, ˈlɪtrə-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lit-er-uh-cher, -choor, li-truh-] Show IPA
–noun
1. writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays.
2. the entire body of writings of a specific language, period, people, etc.: the literature of England.
3. the writings dealing with a particular subject: the literature of ornithology.
4. the profession of a writer or author.
5. literary work or production.
6. any kind of printed material, as circulars, leaflets, or handbills: literature describing company products.
7. Archaic. polite learning; literary culture; appreciation of letters and books.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literature

[applepie]

Oh, I'd say that the difference between an ordinary "book" and "literature" is a quality judgment. It's kind of like the difference between the grades of "A" and "C"; sure they're both grades, and they both pass you along. But "literature" and the "A" are of a higher quality than the others.


Well put :nod: Often books that are considered literature have more complex themes than mass market stories. Take Dan Brown as an example. His stories have break neck plots that can turn on a dime, but the overall themes of the book are not terribly deep. They're also becoming very predictable in that they sort of follow a formula. Now think of Lord of the Flies or something similar. The themes within the book are deeper and more integral to the story.

One thing that I do find interesting. Most of what we consider to be "classic" literature was basically the equivalent of our mass market books now. Take Shakespeare as a perfect example. His plays and poems were basically the standard of his time. There was not really anything more or less important or significant in his works than those of other play writes. What makes him famous and the others forgotten? His works happened to stand the test of time. His books were the most complete set of works found that had not been destroyed or simply fell apart with age.

[blazeofglory]

A book will be a piece of literature only if it has something: a good style, a philosophy and much more than them it mus have the gravity some other cheap thrillers are devoid of. I call Shakespeare's dramas literary works, not James Hedly Chase's. Others may have different opinions. In fact there is no standard to measure perfectly which is literature and which is not. Many a time it is the readership that comes as a common denominator. General acceptance is another yardstick in point of time. Literary works endure straits of time. Today most of cheap novels or books or un-literary work evaporated and literary work remained and survived the saber teeth and nails of time. We have many books of literature written a thousand years ago but the books that were not literary are almost forgotten and maybe in some library and worms maybe feeding on them.

That said today the success of a book is mainly determined by the amount of readership the book enjoyed. Harry Potter is not necessarily a book of literature yet its massive readership or the number of copies it sold determined its value. So is Da Vinci Code of Brown, for even if this book has not earned literary acclaim it is still deemed a successful book.

[aquarium444]

You can decide for yourself as another way to differentiate and I don't think that it is very hard to see that there is a difference between the two. It doesn't mean that you can't read either, and the non literature was not bad at some point in time. If they do not have the depth in language use or plot that tells a full and broad story, it is a lesser work, but it remains for the reader to decide what they are going take the time to read and modern culture does not appear to be very strong so there is no more literature. We are just trying to stave off its destruction.

[stlukesguild]

All books that contain writing are literature.

That's just relativist nonsense. The phone book is not literature. The ledger books for a corporation are not literature. The instruction book for my new phone is not literature. Quite likely Dan Brown is not literature. The term "literature" assumes a creative or artistic writing. In general usage it also assumes a certain level of aesthetic or artistic achievement. Every person who writes may be a "writer"... but few go about declaring that they are the creators of "literature". The term "literature" suggests something akin to the term "classic" and as mal4mac suggests, literature (or classics) are something defined by the audience: the academics, the critics, the future generations of writers, and the not-so-common "common reader" (or passionate reader). Posting the dictionary definitions is just a play at semantics... ingenuous at best and quite likely a form of verbal Onanism. Yes, we all know that the term "literature" is bandied about freely (not unlike the term Art). I've just returned from meetings where several speakers began their session by announcing they would be "passing out some literature". But lets not mince words. We all know that this is not the definition of "literature" being referred to in the OP. We don't expect to be studying the assembly manual for a bicycle, the 2010 revised tax code, a teenager's journal, a conspiracy theorist's blog posts, or the latest volume in the Twilight series when we study "literature". The fact that those most involved do not always agree as to what is or is not "literature" does not denote that everything (or nothing) is literature, just as rare exceptions do not negate the rule.

[Jozanny]

Not to create an uproar, but to the OP: The majority of literary works are usually both didactic and diachronic, meaning that they have something to teach, or a particular worldview, with a symbolic frame of reference, and they can be studied over time. I know someone will come along and challenge didactic, and I myself may find it a simplified descriptor, but you really can't shrug it off, as most literary writers have something to say, and most suffer in order to get it said.

[stlukesguild]

JoZ!!:eek2: Please!!! Not the Romantic "suffering artist" stereotype!! Or as John Ciardi... the great Dante translator/poet put it:

“You don't have to suffer to be a poet; adolescence is enough suffering for anyone”:smilielol5:

[Jozanny]

JoZ!!:eek2: Please!!! Not the Romantic "suffering artist" stereotype!! Or as John Ciardi... the great Dante translator/poet put it:

“You don't have to suffer to be a poet; adolescence is enough suffering for anyone”:smilielol5:

Well geez! :beatdeadhorse5: Someone has to uphold the stereotype!:ladysman: ;)

[aquarium444]

Also, do any books come to mind that are in the sci-fi/fantasy/western/romance sections etc. that maybe you would make the argument that they should be in the literature section?

Thanks everyone for your feedback!:seeya:

I collect some Conan titles that don't appear to be literature, but I would read them instead, or when taking a break from some classic horror novel or short story.

I tried to look at one of Dickens books recently but it was too difficult to read. The language was obviously attractive, but it would be too much of a battle to try to understand, and it was not a horror. If it was a horror, than that might be different. I could spend years trying to read it.

[JCamilo]

All books that contain writing are literature.

That's just relativist nonsense. The phone book is not literature. The ledger books for a corporation are not literature. The instruction book for my new phone is not literature. Quite likely Dan Brown is not literature. The term "literature" assumes a creative or artistic writing. In general usage it also assumes a certain level of aesthetic or artistic achievement. Every person who writes may be a "writer"... but few go about declaring that they are the creators of "literature". The term "literature" suggests something akin to the term "classic" and as mal4mac suggests, literature (or classics) are something defined by the audience: the academics, the critics, the future generations of writers, and the not-so-common "common reader" (or passionate reader). Posting the dictionary definitions is just a play at semantics... ingenuous at best and quite likely a form of verbal Onanism. Yes, we all know that the term "literature" is bandied about freely (not unlike the term Art). I've just returned from meetings where several speakers began their session by announcing they would be "passing out some literature". But lets not mince words. We all know that this is not the definition of "literature" being referred to in the OP. We don't expect to be studying the assembly manual for a bicycle, the 2010 revised tax code, a teenager's journal, a conspiracy theorist's blog posts, or the latest volume in the Twilight series when we study "literature". The fact that those most involved do not always agree as to what is or is not "literature" does not denote that everything (or nothing) is literature, just as rare exceptions do not negate the rule.

But then, not saying Twilight or Dan Brown will do it, sometime the term literature is also relativist and works that are literature will be snuffed until the aesthetics merits of the work are reckonized.

Anyways, the OP is not talking about literature - the great one, and I can only judge the lack of merit of dan brown if I think he is bad literature, just like bad food still food - he is talking about marketing. The terms and organizations of a bookstore are not the same in the entire world, obey the market logic, they are atracting the consumer. It is not an academic defintion or anything, I can name all the main stores here have a place for Literature, Poetry and Short stories (and also for Philosophy) and I know this obey a selling logic, not intelectual.

[Katy North]

To answer the title question... timelessness and significance. If a book is timeless, it will eventually be considered literature; if its themes are still relevant and significant to people decades or centuries after its written, it will still be read and appreciated.

I firmly believe that Ender's Game will eventually be considered literature, though I'm not sure about the rest of Card's books. His book is beautifully written and I believe his statements about war, childhood, and technology will still be relevant many years from now.

[Vautrin]

Why are some books in the "Literature" section of the book store, while others are elsewhere?



Often, the success or the reception of a writer's work--like painters for instance--relies chiefly on the backing of critics during or after the writer's lifetime. Why are some painters revered and some forgotten? Sure, most of the painters that are household names deserve their place in history, but then again, why not the forgotten artists? After all, how would we even know the great ones had they never been favored by critics, gallery owners and other people with similar power throughout the art world at some point in time?

Aside from the politics involved, I think for a novel to be considered literature--before any critic, agent, or publisher ever sees it--the work has to be a) Well written by general standards (style aside), b) Challenging both in the ideas it presents and the characters it portrays (not just a walk in the park), c) Be memorable/unforgettable whether you hated or loved it, d) Makes you reflect on your own life and relationships (no matter how alien the world being described in the story may be), e) Be void of cliches, literary trends or cookie cutter characters, and f) Most importantly, has to have a "voice."

If the writer has no voice, the writing has no soul. By "voice" I mean the ability of the author to take command of the story and courageously, but not forcefully, make their presence known to the reader. This has to be achieved all while maintaining a delicate balancing act between stating the facts of the story and still managing to say something subjective and meaningful, which doesn't overshadow the events themselves. Also, the reader will always be able to discern whether or not the author took a risk and wrote from a real place within him/herself that is clearly distinguishable from just superficial or shallow thoughts and emotions. A novel without a voice; you might as well read objective articles in the local newspaper.

[kelby_lake]

One thing that I do find interesting. Most of what we consider to be "classic" literature was basically the equivalent of our mass market books now. Take Shakespeare as a perfect example. His plays and poems were basically the standard of his time. There was not really anything more or less important or significant in his works than those of other play writes. What makes him famous and the others forgotten? His works happened to stand the test of time. His books were the most complete set of works found that had not been destroyed or simply fell apart with age.

There's an argument that Marlowe might have beaten Shakespeare if he'd lived for longer. Yes, Shakey's works may have been populist (there's an argument in the Hamlet section whether Hamlet was just your typical revenge tragedy) but they are more sophisticated than some of the others. The ratio of low-brow to high-brow is more uneven in the earlier plays;The Taming of The Shrew could probably have been written by any of the others, but Julius Caesar? Hamlet?


Literature as a marketing term is basically any novels/poems/plays that can be marketed to academics; i.e. one could conceivably study them in an academic environment.

[myrna22]

Good literature is good art. It has nothing to do with marketing or critics, not in the long run. A novel may become temporarily popular because of the publisher marketing it, because it's theme speaks to an audience of its time, etc. But those works that stand the test of time have nothing to do with someone promoting them. Take for example HEART OF DARKNESS. Why is it a great work of literature? Because it is evocative, it is a beautifully woven tapestry of ideas and images. The ideas are universal and archetypal and speak about and to humankind throughout the ages. The mastery of the artist, Conrad, cannot be denied. The same goes for something like PRIDE AND PREJUDICE. Again, nothing to do with marketing or critics. All to do with the artist's ability to speak to universal ideas about the human condition, and to do it with extreme finese and skill. A good or great work of literature has levels of meaning and the language, structure, character, setting, atmosphere and plot are all woven together in one unified expression.

[Drkshadow03]

Why is Brave New World generally associated with sipping coffee in a campus cafe while Card's "Ender's Game" is not?

I have always been very curious about this- I personally am not learned enough to know if there is a definite answer or not or what it would be, rather that some books give me a certain feeling of intellectualism while others don't- so think not of this as a criticism, but a sincere question.

Why are some books in the "Literature" section of the book store, while others are elsewhere?

Also, do any books come to mind that are in the sci-fi/fantasy/western/romance sections etc. that maybe you would make the argument that they should be in the literature section?

Thanks everyone for your feedback!:seeya:

Some members have addressed part of your question, but nobody bothered to answer your actual question about the literature section of a book store.

At the end of the day, the literature section of the book store is merely a marketing a tool and usually the area where fiction that doesn't fit into other areas end up. So for example, I've been into quite a few book stores that lack a horror section. These books always end up in the Literature Section, so you'll find Stephen King hobnobbing with Henry James in those books store's literature section. My sister has bought plenty of "trashy" books from the literature section of the book store that would be the furthest thing from Canonical book.

A lot of people have talked about the difference between Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury and The Heart of Darkness by Ursula LeGuin. However, nine times out of ten you'll find Bradbury's books and LeGuin's book shelved in the science fiction section, with the exception that occasionally Bradbury's books will be dual-shelved, with Fahrenheit 51 appearing in both the literature and Science fiction sections.

These sections don't really denote quality. They're merely marketing tools. There is plenty of great stuff to find in the science fiction section, just as there is plenty of derivative crap. The same with the literature section, which as I also pointed out varies from store to store.

[JCamilo]

Actually I did, but you just do not like me :D

[Drkshadow03]

Actually I did, but you just do not like me :D

Heh. So you did.

In truth, JCamilo, I don't dislike you.

[JCamilo]

I used a emoticon! This means I was being falacious! Not like Regina...

[Jeremydav]

The term "literature" assumes a creative or artistic writing. In general usage it also assumes a certain level of aesthetic or artistic achievement.

I disagree. Their is a considerable reason that nonfiction should be considered literature, especially if it somehow effects change. The writings of feminists in the 20th century, while not always creative, should certainly be deemed literature, no? I think that literature is writing intended for something of social or political importance. This is just opinion of course, but I don't think that it HAS to be artistic in the sense that I interpreted your post. Forgive me if I misjudged what you were saying, however. :)

[kelby_lake]

I disagree. Their is a considerable reason that nonfiction should be considered literature, especially if it somehow effects change. The writings of feminists in the 20th century, while not always creative, should certainly be deemed literature, no? I think that literature is writing intended for something of social or political importance. This is just opinion of course, but I don't think that it HAS to be artistic in the sense that I interpreted your post. Forgive me if I misjudged what you were saying, however. :)

But there generally is some sort of creativity even in important non-fiction political works.

[mal4mac]

Most of what we consider to be "classic" literature was basically the equivalent of our mass market books now. Take Shakespeare as a perfect example. His plays and poems were basically the standard of his time. There was not really anything more or less important or significant in his works than those of other play writes. What makes him famous and the others forgotten? His works happened to stand the test of time. His books were the most complete set of works found that had not been destroyed or simply fell apart with age.

Methinks you play the :biggrinjester:. But just in case the groundlings think you're serious I'll play the :professor: (hey no smiley!)

Much classic literature was not "mass market". Plato and Dante, for example.

Almost every major critic has considered Shakespeare's works to be more important and significant than any other literature. One of the amazing things about him is that his works have enough depth to satisfy the intellectual elite, and also enough "common appeal" to satisfy the groundlings. Try reading Romeo & Juliet closely. It's amazing how he modulates between robust jokes, philosophical observations of the highest order, and romantic poetry that has never been equalled.

Read him closely and you might see, or at least glimpse, what makes him famous and others forgotten.

There were vast libraries full of books by Shakespeare's time.

Trolls everywhere. Must be all those posts on Icelandic literature :) I'll not rise to the Dickens is too difficult Troll...