how "literature" is defined

[bounty]

hi everyone...please bear with the little bit of reading im about to copy. it's edited but I hope is faithful to the originals I pulled off a games thread and it might give you good context for what i'll ask after you read it.


Pike Bishop: Are the Lord of the Rings and/or A Song of Ice and Fire literature, and, if so, why?

North Star: I haven't read the latter one(s), but of course they're literature - they aren't music or paintings, are they?

Pike Bishop: Actually, no they're not; they're fiction. If all fiction was literature--artistic, literary writing--then Romance novels would be studied as much in world universities as Shakespeare, Proust, and Dante. So, are those texts just fiction or are they literature?

Bounty: I think that's a narrow definition of literature I suspect many, if not most, of us wouldn't subscribe to.

Pike Bishop: It's not a narrow description, but it is open-ended…what would be your criticism of it and why?

Bounty: the generic definition of literature I am going by simply refers to written works valued for their expression and form. I would place "fiction" as a sub category of literature, which implies that "non-fiction" can qualify as literature also. to exclude something like lotr as literature speaks then to a judgment as to the quality of the work (it doesn't rise to the level of dante), as opposed to the nature of it (its still a written work valued for its expression, at least by some). if there is a definition other than that, its slightly esoteric and given that---if it follows then that there is a definition that restricts what counts as literature, it would be more "narrow" on its face.

Pike Bishop: There's not much of a difference between "artistic, literary" writing and "works valued for their expression and form." So, your definition isn't very different from mine. Works valued for their expression and form tend to be artistic and literary in their expression, although some realist writers and literary genre writers aren't particularly literary in their writing; their creative imaginings and structures compensate for that lack. However, just being valued for it's expression isn't enough, or else Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey would qualify...and they're not literature. And while I would never base my judgment on whether a work rises to the quality of Dante, quality is a factor, as it is in all art. Otherwise, using your broader description, One Direction and Justin Bieber's performances would be art because many people valued the expression.

So, my definition isn't narrow; it's accurate. And LOTR is not literature because there is nothing particularly artistic about the language, the structuring of the plot, or the innovation of the narrative. High quality fiction?...yes. Literature?...no. However, if you're willing to accept Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey as literature, and One Direction and Justin Bieber as art, then at least your overly-broad definition of literature is consistent.


so I think there are maybe two questions at hand that are related to each other.

if all fiction isn't literature, why isn't it, and what fiction would be considered literature?

and essentially then, what is literature?

[North Star]

Here's what the OED says:


1. Familiarity with letters or books; knowledge acquired from reading or studying books, esp. the principal classical texts associated with humane learning (see humane adj. 2); literary culture; learning, scholarship. Also: this as a branch of study. Now hist.
The only sense in Johnson (1755) and Todd (1818), although cf. quot. 1779 at sense 2.
2. The action or process of writing a book or literary work; literary ability or output; the activity or profession of an author or scholar; the realm of letters or books.
3.
a. The result or product of literary activity; written works considered collectively; a body of literary works produced in a particular country or period, or of a particular genre. Also: such a body of works as a subject of study or examination (freq. with modifying word specifying the language, period, etc., of literature studied).
b. Without defining word: written work valued for superior or lasting artistic merit.
4. (A body of) non-fictional books and writings published on a particular subject.
5. Printed matter of any kind; esp. leaflets, brochures, etc., used to advertise products or provide information and advice.

[Pike Bishop]

Firstly, Bounty, it is appropriate to ask someone before using their quotes to start a thread. I have no problem with my quotes representing me, but it would have been good form if you had asked. As to the OED, it gives an extremely broad definition of literature, with some of them applying to how literature is viewed in Western university literature departments, and some not. If the entirety of the definitions were accepted, then everything written would be literature, and nothing would be literature. Insurance pamphlets, bad romance novels, bad poetry, town records, and baseball recaps would all demand as much study as Shakespeare, Proust, Joyce, Dickinson, and Beckett. That's just not the case. Although the standards distinguishing literary and non-literary writing are hardly cemented or entirely consensual, there are functionally consensual standards deeming poetry, drama, literary fiction, and exceptionally written or innovative non-fiction literature worthy of study.

[Calidore]

Firstly, Bounty, it is appropriate to ask someone before using their quotes to start a thread. I have no problem with my quotes representing me, but it would have been good form if you had asked. As to the OED, it gives an extremely broad definition of literature, with some of them applying to how literature is viewed in Western university literature departments, and some not. If the entirety of the definitions were accepted, then everything written would be literature, and nothing would be literature. Insurance pamphlets, bad romance novels, bad poetry, town records, and baseball recaps would all demand as much study as Shakespeare, Proust, Joyce, Dickinson, and Beckett. That's just not the case. Although the standards distinguishing literary and non-literary writing are hardly cemented or entirely consensual, there are functionally consensual standards deeming poetry, drama, literary fiction, and exceptionally written or innovative non-fiction literature worthy of study.

Well, "everything written" does fit the one broad definition of literature, but Oxford's 3b is the one you're talking about, and I think the one up for discussion.

Don't agree with your opening statement, though. Posting a private message publicly, whether to start a thread or for any other reason, would be more than just bad form, but a public post is just that.

[Pike Bishop]

Calidore is on my ignore list, Bounty, so I can't read his posts. Feel free to jump in at any time though; I look forward to continuing.

[JCamilo]

Well, "everything written" does fit the one broad definition of literature, but Oxford's 3b is the one you're talking about, and I think the one up for discussion.
.

Obviously defining literature by what is the current critical aesthetical consensus is a shot off target. One Morning Moby Dick and Melville were just "fiction", considered at beast interesting sea adventures. Next morning he wakes and voillá, he is literature. That even come the point some of the plays of Shakespeare are literature and some aren't. Imagine, some literature are not literature because they belong to an specific literary genre. (The example of Tolkien is even false, as Tolkien studied in the academy. He may not be studied as Joyce or Dante, but he is).

Even more funny is the idea that, let's say, Dan Brown is not literature because judged according literary critery it fails to have quality. If it wasn't literature in first place, it does not make sense judging it as one at all. Sort like seeing saying a great pizza is not a good Wine because it is too dry.

[Calidore]

One Morning Moby Dick and Melville were just "fiction", considered at beast interesting sea adventures. Next morning he wakes and voillá, he is literature.

It's always nice to wake up to a promotion, isn't it? :)


(The example of Tolkien is even false, as Tolkien studied in the academy. He may not be studied as Joyce or Dante, but he is).

I'm not a huge fan of the LotR novels, but while I understand what Pike said elsewhere about (IIRC) Tolkien's unexceptional prose and plotting, the sheer amount of time and effort he spent giving his world the depth of a "real" place--i.e. inventing workable languages from scratch and generating thousands of years of detailed world history preceding the story just to give it a "lived-in" feel--has to count for something. I also wonder if the plotting that seems pedestrian now only does because of the gajillions of fantasy novels that followed Tolkien's lead, as opposed to in the '50s when they were first published.

[Pike Bishop]

All my ignorees are coming out. Jcamilo is on ignore, too, although I'm sure I didn't miss much. So, step in anytime, Bounty; you started this thread.

[JCamilo]

I'm not a huge fan of the LotR novels, but while I understand what Pike said elsewhere about (IIRC) Tolkien's unexceptional prose and plotting, the sheer amount of time and effort he spent giving his world the depth of a "real" place--i.e. inventing workable languages from scratch and generating thousands of years of detailed world history preceding the story just to give it a "lived-in" feel--has to count for something. I also wonder if the plotting that seems pedestrian now only does because of the gajillions of fantasy novels that followed Tolkien's lead, as opposed to in the '50s when they were first published.

Well, I enjoyed reading them, but yes, they are far from perfect. Yet, something he did right (I think his long descriptive texts may be awful for plotting and character development, but maybe, they were great to trigger imagination in an age that the visual is so important). I think the plot was problematic since his time, as it was a basic children novel that was expanded to include a fictional world/culture. But as you did, prose, plot, etc. We are talking about literature. So, literature it is.

[Calidore]

I'm afraid someone's going to have to tell Pike that we achieved consensus on Tolkien while he was busy ignoring us. He seems to be keeping busy anyway, though.

[bounty]

so Tolkien is "literature." I agree...and the whole argument started with my saying anything that segregated fiction from literature was somehow putting forth a narrower description of literature than most of us would agree on.

when you go from broad (all fiction is literature) to this (not all fiction is literature)---how that's not "narrower" beats the daylights out of me.

anyway, some point by point stuff...


pike bishop: If the entirety of the definitions were accepted, then everything written would be literature, and nothing would be literature.

no, everything would be literature, and some literature would be better (however we wanted to define that) literature than others. (get the idea yet that you are wanting to "narrow" the definition?)


pike bishop: Insurance pamphlets, bad romance novels, bad poetry, town records, and baseball recaps would all demand as much study as Shakespeare, Proust, Joyce, Dickinson, and Beckett.

this is an absurd notion. a thing does not get studied by virtue of it falling under the broad category of literature. its gets studied because it is literature that has an "artistic merit" we value and find worthy of study. there is bad or meaningless or questionable literature, and there is good or excellent literature.


pike bishop: That's just not the case.

exactly---its not the case because people say, for the purpose of academic study we are going to limit our focus to things with merit. thank you for making my point.


pike bishop: Although the standards distinguishing literary and non-literary writing are hardly cemented or entirely consensual, there are functionally consensual standards deeming poetry, drama, literary fiction, and exceptionally written or innovative non-fiction literature worthy of study.

i'll buy some of that...but theres nothing in what you've written that explains how something not worth of study somehow magically gets redefined as "not literature." and im not talking in this case about insurance pamphlets, but rather, pieces of writing you personally have found wanting in some fashion, like lotr. (get the idea again that you are wanting to "narrow" the definition?)

maybe for the course of the conversation you would do well to edit your ignore list? some folks specifically addressed your statements concerning Tolkien.

[JCamilo]

Let's just put this way, once Jorge Luis Borges was asked if his change of themes for his short stories, to more realistic and less fantastic was because he reckognized that realism was superior. Borges answer "wait, I haven't even decided which one is true."

[Pike Bishop]

so Tolkien is "literature." I agree...and the whole argument started with my saying anything that segregated fiction from literature was somehow putting forth a narrower description of literature than most of us would agree on.

when you go from broad (all fiction is literature) to this (not all fiction is literature)---how that's not "narrower" beats the daylights out of me.

anyway, some point by point stuff...
no, everything would be literature, and some literature would be better (however we wanted to define that) literature than others. (get the idea yet that you are wanting to "narrow" the definition?)

this is an absurd notion. a thing does not get studied by virtue of it falling under the broad category of literature. its gets studied because it is literature that has an "artistic merit" we value and find worthy of study. there is bad or meaningless or questionable literature, and there is good or excellent literature.

exactly---its not the case because people say, for the purpose of academic study we are going to limit our focus to things with merit. thank you for making my point.

i'll buy some of that...but theres nothing in what you've written that explains how something not worth of study somehow magically gets redefined as "not literature." and im not talking in this case about insurance pamphlets, but rather, pieces of writing you personally have found wanting in some fashion, like lotr. (get the idea again that you are wanting to "narrow" the definition?)

maybe for the course of the conversation you would do well to edit your ignore list? some folks specifically addressed your statements concerning Tolkien.
No, Tolkien's works are not literature. They don't meet the general, consensually held requirement for literary fiction: literary language, literary construction of plot, literary use of narrative, and/or profundity of theme and content. That's why they're not taught in most literary departments, except in Fantasy classes. And I never said my description of literature wasn't narrower than yours; I correctly said yours was too broad, and it is. And try to avoid cliches like "beats the daylights out of me;" it doesn't speak well of your abilities of articulation.

And if everything is literature than nothing is literature. The term becomes meaningless and pointless, even more than your definition of literature. And I never said things get studied because "it falls under the broad category of literature." What is absurd is your saying I did. You need to work on your reading of posts. And artistic merit is exactly what I said determined literature. However, unlike you, I'm able to define what I mean by that, as I did above. All you can say is "there is bad or meaningless literature," "and there is good or excellent literature," without giving any explanation of what constitutes those terms. Even my 9-year-old daughter can do better.

And your plucking "just not the case" from some quote of mine without giving the rest of the quote or the context is ridiculous. You clearly don't have familiarity with proper ways of using secondary texts. So, I made no point for you, which isn't surprising: nobody could "make" any of your fallacious points. They show a very poor grasp of literature and aesthetics.

Finally, you yourself said things get defined as literature. The only difference from your view is yours is magical and mine is based in established precepts of aesthetics. You actually said: "there is bad or meaningless or questionable literature, and there is good or excellent literature," without giving any standards or aesthetic principles to back them up. So, you magically redefined what literature is for yourself. I'm not surprised you miss the irony...;)


P.s. What exactly is your education in? I truly hope you didn't pay for an English degree that led to your erroneous conclusions above. And as to the ignored, they will stay so. Considering the qualities of their posts I read before I put them on ignore, I would hate to see their fallacious statements about J.R.R.

[Bartlebooth]

Could graphic novels ever be considered literature? I'm not sure if I've ever read a graphic novel that has met Pike's definition of literature, but I don't see any inherent reason why one couldn't incorporate "literary language, literary construction of plot," etc. Or is the graphic novel medium too different from traditional print literature that it doesn't really qualify?

Also, while this isn't about literature, this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgu76ql6FSo) seems to make an interesting argument for broader definitions for the medium of video games. I definitely see that there needs to be some distinction between what is and isn't literature, but couldn't having rigid standards shut out potentially valuable works from the conversation?

[Pike Bishop]

Absolutely. Graphic novels--and some comics--could be and are considered literature. The best ones have artistically constructed plots, psychologically complex characters, and/or astute aesthetic and social commentary. Many cultures, including medieval Europe, have included pictures in their literary construction.

Here are some Graphic Novels I would, and many literary scholars do, consider literature:

The Dark Knight Returns
Maus
The Killing Joke
The League of Extraordinary Gentleman
The Sandman Collection
Watchmen
A History of Violence

As to video games, they can and should be considered art, however, the definition of literature and literary narrative would have to be amended to allow for the interactive nature of video games. In other words, not every "telling" of the video game's story will be as literary as the next, if it can be literary at all. As to rigid standards, mine--which are shared by many others--aren't rigid and allow for continual amendment. However, there has to be some degree of rigidity in standards for literature or everything, including brochures and tax forms could be literature. I don't think you want that.



P.s. Final Fantasy VII has one of the greatest epic science fiction stories and plots ever. if any video game ever qualified as literature, it would be that one.

[Calidore]

Unfortunately, Pike's explanation of literary fiction as having "literary language, literary construction of plot, literary use of narrative, and/or profundity of theme and content" doesn't help much, as it's mostly using the word "literary" to define itself except for the last bit. I'd be interested in the "consensually held" definitions of the first three that don't actually involve the word "literary" and include examples.

Bartlebooth: No reason graphic novels couldn't be. If we agree on a definition of literature as simply having "superior or lasting artistic merit" per Oxford 3b above, that doesn't exclude any particular genre or form. Naturally, whether any existing graphic novel qualifies as literature is subjective, but that's the fun of discussion.

Ditto video games. The Japanese, especially, have treated video game stories seriously. As a result, we have games like Nier which uses the form to tell a story in layers that pack quite the cumulative wallop. Shadow of the Colossus is another good one with a fairy-tale feel.

[JCamilo]

Could graphic novels ever be considered literature? I'm not sure if I've ever read a graphic novel that has met Pike's definition of literature, but I don't see any inherent reason why one couldn't incorporate "literary language, literary construction of plot," etc. Or is the graphic novel medium too different from traditional print literature that it doesn't really qualify?

Also, while this isn't about literature, this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgu76ql6FSo) seems to make an interesting argument for broader definitions for the medium of video games. I definitely see that there needs to be some distinction between what is and isn't literature, but couldn't having rigid standards shut out potentially valuable works from the conversation?

Forget that insane definition the guy is giving. But why Graphic Novel is not literature? Cinema, Music and Drama are forms of art that also use literature (You can read movie scripts, lyrics, opera libretos, the plays and just you can read the graphic novels of only the texts). You do not call any of those literature, you reckon their "place", The same can be done with Graphic Novels, where literature is part of it, but calling it just "Literature" is forgetting a great deal of what the art is. They are literature and something else.

Obviously, Video-games are audio-visual experiences, closer to movies. Not all narratives/storytelling is literature - mostly, even the name oral literature is contested (because it basically mean oral-writen-words and also gives the idea orality was linked to writen culture when it was not) and cinema can be also about narratives.

[Bartlebooth]

Calidore, I'm not completely sure if I can agree with the Oxford 3b definition. It feels a bit too broad. If we used that, would there be any meaningful difference between calling something "literature" and "good storytelling?" I'm not completely sure where I see the boundaries of literature, but I feel that language should be an integral aspect of any work considered literature. With that requirement, maybe some particularly well-written video games could qualify as literature. I'm not familiar with Nier and Shadow of the Colossus, but maybe works like The Walking Dead, The Stanley Parable, and works of interactive fiction might count.

[Pike Bishop]

My lord, my two ignorees chimed in again in silence. They do enjoy following me around. Anyway, Bartlebooth, I thought I'd give you some examples of texts I and many other English/Literature scholars consider to be works of literature, works not usually considered to be so:

Breaking Bad
The Wire
Lost
The Sopranos
The Writings of Jacques Derrida
The philosophy of Soren Kierkegaard.
Many novels by Philip K. Dick
The lyrics of Bob Dylan's songs
The Exorcist
All the graphic novels I mentioned above.

So, as you can see, my--and others'--standards do allow for numerous mediums and numerous literary approaches, as long as they adhere to some or all of the standards themselves.


P.s. You're absolutely right about the O.E.D. definition being way too broad. If English and literature departments accepted its definition, I'd be teaching Twilight novels and Taylor Swift lyrics in my classes.

[Bartlebooth]

Thanks for the examples, Pike. I'll have to take a look at some of these when I have the time.

[JCamilo]

Calidore, I'm not completely sure if I can agree with the Oxford 3b definition. It feels a bit too broad. If we used that, would there be any meaningful difference between calling something "literature" and "good storytelling?" I'm not completely sure where I see the boundaries of literature, but I feel that language should be an integral aspect of any work considered literature. With that requirement, maybe some particularly well-written video games could qualify as literature. I'm not familiar with Nier and Shadow of the Colossus, but maybe works like The Walking Dead, The Stanley Parable, and works of interactive fiction might count.

A written text with good storytelling is literature, a movie with good storytelling is not (the text, script of the given movie is of course). The oxford definition is "b. Without defining word: written work valued for superior or lasting artistic merit.", not anything with artistic merit. Literature implies writing, you may have a broader universe for the definition ahead, but the starting point is the same, the written word.

[Calidore]

Calidore, I'm not completely sure if I can agree with the Oxford 3b definition. It feels a bit too broad. If we used that, would there be any meaningful difference between calling something "literature" and "good storytelling?" I'm not completely sure where I see the boundaries of literature, but I feel that language should be an integral aspect of any work considered literature. With that requirement, maybe some particularly well-written video games could qualify as literature. I'm not familiar with Nier and Shadow of the Colossus, but maybe works like The Walking Dead, The Stanley Parable, and works of interactive fiction might count.

It is broad, but that's the definition. FWIW, the other standard dictionary, Merriam-Webster, has the following:

3a (1) : writings in prose or verse; especially : writings having excellence of form or expression and expressing ideas of permanent or universal interest (2) : an example of such writings <what came out, though rarely literature, was always a roaring good story — People>
b : the body of written works produced in a particular language, country, or age
c : the body of writings on a particular subject <scientific literature>
d : printed matter (as leaflets or circulars) <campaign literature>

They're essentially having to create an objective definition of a subjective quality, so it pretty much has to be loose.


A written text with good storytelling is literature, a movie with good storytelling is not (the text, script of the given movie is of course). The oxford definition is "b. Without defining word: written work valued for superior or lasting artistic merit.", not anything with artistic merit. Literature implies writing, you may have a broader universe for the definition ahead, but the starting point is the same, the written word.

Agreed. Literature doesn't just imply writing; the definitions specify writing. That's why I put forward those two games, which have exceptional stories at their cores.

[JCamilo]

It is broad, but that's the definition. FWIW, the other standard dictionary, Merriam-Webster, has the following:

3a (1) : writings in prose or verse; especially : writings having excellence of form or expression and expressing ideas of permanent or universal interest (2) : an example of such writings <what came out, though rarely literature, was always a roaring good story — People>
b : the body of written works produced in a particular language, country, or age
c : the body of writings on a particular subject <scientific literature>
d : printed matter (as leaflets or circulars) <campaign literature>

They're essentially having to create an objective definition of a subjective quality, so it pretty much has to be loose.

Let's not forget how dictionaries work: the narrow definitions, those secundary definitions, do not negate the broader, they are specific use of the word under given context. No one (I mean reasonable people) will ignore that Scientific Literature exists, That philosophic texts have been always called literature, that Forensics literature exists, History is literature, etc. After all, the nobel prize has given the award to Bertrand Russell and Churchill. Just the same, people will consider literary merit was meaning well written literature in oposite to badly writen literature (which means bad literature is literature.)


Agreed. Literature doesn't just imply writing; the definitions specify writing. That's why I put forward those two games, which have exceptional stories at their cores.

I do not know those games, but I have seen games with great narrative like Lionheart and Torment. I wouldn't call them just literature, i would call video games, because Movies or Oral stories do have great stories/narratives too, but we still credit them as an artistic manifestation own their own (or we should). Albeit it is irrelevant, artforms do not respect dictionaries.

[Lykren]

artforms do not respect dictionaries

Spot on.

[Pike Bishop]

Art forms don't respect anything; they're art forms. However, art forms can be effectively appreciated, analyzed, and even critiqued with words from dictionaries. And definitions used to value them like "literary," "Medieval," "Romantic," and "beautiful" can be--and often need to be---used in doing so. If you don't think so, Lykren, then every word you've written to do so about literature and music in this Forum has been a pointless waste of your time. I don't think you want to go there.

[Clopin]

Yeh but Lykren does think everything is pointless so what now tough guy?

[Lykren]

Lykren does think everything is pointless

Your erroneously saying so is both arrogant and rude. Many scholars--including me--would say that Lykren thinks many things have points. Your not knowing this clearly demonstrates that your understanding of Lykren's values is flawed and ridiculous, and in no way invalidates my correct statement that Lykren does not want to go there.

[Logos]

ok so, because numerous people in this thread have resorted to ad hominem, and it's strayed enough from the OP--which was problematic to start with because it's multiple quoting out of context--it's now closed.

If someone wants to start a new thread go ahead but please refrain from the above.

cheers,
your friendly and always helpful! moderator :)