Taxonomy chart for literature

[kev67]

Does anyone know of any taxonomy charts for literature? You know like there are family trees of different species of animals. For example, a red squirel is type of squirrel, which is a rodent, which is a mammal, which is a vertebrate, which is an animal, which is a multi-celled creature. You could follow other paths down from the top and arrive at an octopus, a toadstool or cyanobacteria. There are lots of ways of categorising books, for example, fiction or non-fiction, by genre, by age or language, whether is poetry, prose or a play. Where would graphic novels fit in? Where would instruction manuals fit in. The boundaries between the different arts is not always clear, or they can be combined. The boundaries between what is art, what is entertainment and what is record is not always very clear neither. Neither is the boundary between fiction and fact. Indeed, I would say that was a spectrum. I was wondering because some genres are quite specialised while others are not subdivided so much. There are numerous science-fiction subgenres, but most literary fiction is lumped together and often not even regarded as genre.

[luhsun]

dewey decimal classification or the newer library of congress classification ;-)
unlikely you could get a satisfying taxonomic division with good internal and external consistency .. so the artificial arbitrary dewey like divisions would have to do... my analogy is another attempt at classifying the other products of the mind... the american psychiatric association's dsm

[Poetaster]

Other than the dewey decimal system or the 'great western canon', I don't know of anything. Sorry.

[Calidore]

How's this?

http://www.jasperfforde.com/more/tn6map.html

[Nick Capozzoli]

Thanks for the clever and funny reference, Calidore, although it's more of a "geography" than a "taxonomy" of literature. Taxonomic classification involves organizing things in a branching pattern, usually taking the form of a tree. The classic example, as kev67 notes, is the taxonomy of living things.

Early biological taxonomists (going back to folks such as Aristotle and to the Old Testament writers) classified living things according to their physical features, such as whether or not they had cloven hoofs, had two or four legs, had scales, feathers, or fur, etc. This led Aristotle to classify man as "a biped without feathers."

Linnaeus came up with a very extensive taxonomy for plants that allowed botanists to classify and identify plants based on observations of their features. This was a hierarchical scheme that involved beginning with broad distinctions (such as whether or not the plant had seeds) and then making finer and finer distinctions.

Linnaeus did not know about organic evolution and his taxonomy was based solely on plant structure. The same was true for the pre-Darwin zoologist's animal taxonomies.

Modern biologists better understand the evolutionary relationships that underlie this "tree of life" taxonomy. It turns out that the Linnaean taxonomy was quite robust and in fact reflects, with some exceptions of course, the evolutionary relationships we've learned about since then. This was because the structural distinctions, for the most part, reflected differences in structure that were acquired through the process of evolution.

Back to kev67's question. I don't know if a "biological" type of taxonomy could be used to classify literature. To apply this sort of taxonomy would probably require that literature "evolved" in some way similar to how living things evolved.

"Literature" is a form of human language, and we know that human language is something that has evolved. We don't know much about its origins, but presumably oral language preceded written language. The word, "literature," implies written language, and not just any language used to communicate, but language with some special social intensity and significance, such as storytelling and ritual. Presumably the earlier forms were oral, and later became written.

You can go from there.

[kev67]

Here (http://www.1-900-870-6235.com/eLearning/LibraryMap.htm) is a tree for the Dewey system. It seems rather out-of-date and partial, especially along the literature branch.

[Nick Capozzoli]

kev67,

That Dewey "tree" is more of a geographic map describing book "subject matter" than the kind of biological taxonomy that you were asking about. It may work for libraries, but it is a somewhat artificial and arbitrary classification scheme, quite unlike the taxonomic schemes used by modern biologists. It's more like some of those much older schemes used by folks, like Aristotle, who sought to classify living things based on arbitrary characteristics that, it turns out, had little or nothing to do with the evolutionary relationships between living organisms.

I don't know whether or not such a "biological" taxonomy of literature can be constructed. But if it can, I'm pretty sure it would have to be based on considerations that I discussed in my earlier post.

[kev67]

kev67,

That Dewey "tree" is more of a geographic map describing book "subject matter" than the kind of biological taxonomy that you were asking about. It may work for libraries, but it is a somewhat artificial and arbitrary classification scheme, quite unlike the taxonomic schemes used by modern biologists. It's more like some of those much older schemes used by folks, like Aristotle, who sought to classify living things based on arbitrary characteristics that, it turns out, had little or nothing to do with the evolutionary relationships between living organisms.

I don't know whether or not such a "biological" taxonomy of literature can be constructed. But if it can, I'm pretty sure it would have to be based on considerations that I discussed in my earlier post.

Yes, I had not considered that literature has 'evolved', which is what a family tree of the animal kingdom implies. That would put the oral tradition at the top of the tree, such as folk tales, myths and sagas.
This is bordering on language studies (not languages per se), which is a very complex subject.

[Poetaster]

Surely the oral would be the trunk? Or the roots?

[kev67]

Surely the oral would be the trunk? Or the roots?


Taxonomy diagrams look upside down family trees.

[Spotted Fever]

haha no man island love it

[wreade1872]

How's this?

http://www.jasperfforde.com/more/tn6map.html

LoL thats an awesome map, not sure what to make of Mens Health being in the middle of the fantasy lands :thumbs_up .

[Eiseabhal]

I like the jasperfforde earthsea diagram of literature. I like Blyton's island. But where are the reefs and shallows?