Is literature a word or a meaning?

[cacian]

a meaning makes sense because is understood and therefore it can only be good
this as oppose to misunderstood which is not considered well.

a word spells many ideas that are good and bad

literature is trapped between the two

so what is literature?
a word
or a
meaning?

[Pike Bishop]

All words refer to other words for their own meaning and all words collaborate with other words to give other words meaning. "LIterature" is no different.

[cacian]

All words refer to other words for their own meaning and all words collaborate with other words to give other words meaning. "LIterature" is no different.

literature is a chain of meanings
that must come to one general meaning..

i think literature trains words to become meaningful
because a word
can be misunderstood because it carries specific hood upon it good or bad or a combination of the two
to get rid of bad words would be the ideal scenario for literature the ultimate role i would imagine
to me anyway.

[Pike Bishop]

i think literature trains words to become meaningful
because a word
can be misunderstood because it carries specific hood upon it good or bad or a combination of the two
to get rid of bad words would be the ideal scenario for literature the ultimate role i would imagine
to me anyway.
Many words and things train words to become meaningful, not just literature. And what does "specific hood upon it good or bad or a combination of the two mean"? That phrase isn't clear. And literature has many roles, not just an ultimate one; it's part of what makes literature so exceptional and important.

[cacian]

Many words and things train words to become meaningful, not just literature. And what does "specific hood upon it good or bad or a combination of the two mean"? That phrase isn't clear. And literature has many roles, not just an ultimate one; it's part of what makes literature so exceptional and important.

i personally believe writing improves a word so it becomes meaningful
once a word is created it carries a stigma or a format
some words are better then others
some words are offensive rude depressive which gives literature a different turn which deters it g from what is supposed to do and that is make sense to all intense and
purposes.
to read depends on it.

specific hood
means a word is a carrier of one meaning
which can be a good one
or
a bad one
other words carry both good and bad meanings

what literature proposes is to ensure an even balance of words that more or less merge towards the same idea or a meaning
a variety of words from good to bad to both is a challenge the mind it brings disaray or confusion to the thinking process
because words are not even.

in other words words ultimately over throw what literature wants to achieve they have the last word because they are to divergent
to associate.
they must associate so we can appreciate rather then depreciate.

[Pike Bishop]

No word is a carrier of one meaning; it's a linguistic impossibility. Also, what exactly is literature supposed to "do"? That is completely unclear. Also, literature is not supposed to bring an "even balance of words" and has never done so, except perhaps in bad poetry. And what exactly does literature "want to achieve"? That is also unclear. And finally, if words "ultimately over throw what literature wants to achieve," then everything you just wrote just did that. So, do you still want to stand by that incorrect supposition?

[Mohammad Ahmad]

It not just a word or meaning, it is full desire of the writer revealing deep emotion, otherwise it is the safe shell of the word which mostly has been put in a well matrix , and indeed it is the creativity

[Pike Bishop]

It not just a word or meaning, it is full desire of the writer revealing deep emotion, otherwise it is the safe shell of the word which mostly has been put in a well matrix , and indeed it is the creativity

Many things are the full dimension of the writer revealing deep emotion, not just literature. Also, many writers do not involve their full desire into their writing, and not all literature reveals deep emotion. So, if they don't and/or it doesn't, it's not just a "shell of the word which has been mostly put in a well matrix," whatever that means. So, your definition of literature is too narrow.

[cacian]

No word is a carrier of one meaning; it's a linguistic impossibility.
one word of its own on its has one single understanding.
a word creates one meaning when on it is own
and another when with others
in order to write we understands what each word means.
we would not chose to use it to write if we did not
that is what i mean.



Also, what exactly is literature supposed to "do"? That is completely unclear.

literature does so a word is.
literature magnifies a word it gives it a different aptitude




Also, literature is not supposed to bring an "even balance of words" and has never done so, except perhaps in bad poetry.

what is bad poetry?
where there is balance there is valence.


And what exactly does literature "want to achieve"?

achievement is success and success is meaningful because it leads to other good/better things.
literature that celebrates achievement is a literature that finally understands us
in order for it to do so the right amount and quality of words is required or essential


That is also unclear. And finally, if words "ultimately over throw what literature wants to achieve," then everything you just wrote just did that. So, do you still want to stand by that incorrect supposition?
by literature i mean stories or poetry
u merely interacting with you and by doing so i am instructed by a restricted amount of words to be able to do so.
the topic in which the debate is taking place dictates which words are to be used
so it is safe that it is not overthrown but carefully over prone.

[Pike Bishop]

one word of its own on its stands a chance of being understood
a word creates a meaning when on it is own
and another when with others
in order to write we understands what each word means.
we would not chose to use it to write if we did not
that is what i mean.

literature does so a word is.
literature magnifies a word it gives it a different aptitude

what is bad poetry?
where there is balance there is valence.

achievement is success and success is meaningful because it leads to other good/better things.
literature that celebrates achievement is a literature that finally understands us
in order for it to do so the right amount and quality of words is required or essential

by literature i mean stories poetry
u merely interacting with you and by doing so i am instructed by a restricted amount of words to be able to do so.
the topic in which the debate is taking place dictates which words are to be used
so it is safe that it is not overthrown but carefully over prone.

1.Your first paragraph did not counter in any way my assertion no word has one meaning.

2. Your second paragraph didn't say in any way what literature does. Literature doesn't just magnify words. It is the artistic arranging of many words; it doesn't "do" anything specific.

3. No, there is no balance of words in literature. If you think there is, then you need to give an example. And, while there may be chemistry in literature, there is no valence. You need to give an example of that, as well.

4. Your fourth paragraph didn't explain in any way what literature hopes to "achieve." Your saying "success" is not only untrue, it is also vague. So, you still need to explain what exactly literature wants to "achieve" and give an example of it.

5. Not all stories or poetry are "literature," otherwise we'd teach any random poem or short story, no matter what quality. And if our interaction were literature as well, then everything would be literature and nothing literature, so that won't work eiither.

[cacian]

ok let's try a different way to see if i can put it across better

take a painting
then
take a frame
lets say
both are reasonably appealing

which according to you makes what?
does the painting make the frame or is it the frame that makes the painting?

[Pike Bishop]

Neither that question, nor any sensible answer to it, says anything about what literature is...nor does it explain any of the shaky suppositions you made about literature. I suggest you actually support them with some reasoning and examples.

[cacian]

Neither that question, nor any sensible answer to it, says anything about what literature is...nor does it explain any of the shaky suppositions you made about literature. I suggest you actually support them with some reasoning and examples.

the analogy i put forward would help but never mind
i have given plenty of examples
literature is forever extending when a word is forever intending
and so suppositions are part of this extensions
a word that signifies a mood affects the way literature expresses itself
when there are as many bad words then there are good ones then literature is tied up between the two.
that is no way to be if one is in search of themselves because that is why ultimately we write.
to discover what we may become or where we maybe at.
literature is humanitarians it is the studies of human behaviour i believe.

[Pike Bishop]

the analogy i put forward would help but never mind
i have given plenty of examples
literature is forever extending when a word is forever intending
and so suppositions are part of this extensions
a word that signifies a mood affects the way literature expresses itself
when there are as many bad words then there are good ones then literature is tied up between the two.
that is no way to be if one is in search of themselves because that is why ultimately we write.
to discover what we may become or where we maybe at ,
literature is human related.

You haven't given any examples. Examples would be analyses of parts of actual literary texts supporting your claims. You haven't given a single one. And literature doesn't just forever extend a single word. You have to back that inaccurate claim up as well. Also, you have to lose this balance of words thing, there is no work of literature that does that either; until you can provide an example showing otherwise, that claim rings hollow as well.

I suggest you think a bit about the actual works of literature you are discussing, think if they support your claims, and then continue. Of course, you still have to provide textual examples for all your other claims as well.

[Ecurb]

Cacian,

You don't "have to" do anything you don't want to do, especially with regard to literature. Pike Bishop ("Gnostic Bishop" in disguise, perhaps?) has no authority (actual, intellectual or moral) to tell anyone he "has to" do something.

[Pike Bishop]

Ecurd is on my ignore list, Cacian, so I don't have to read his irascible, but adorable, posts. As I'm sure I missed nothing, I am still looking forward to your response.

[cacian]

Cacian,

You don't "have to" do anything you don't want to do, especially with regard to literature. Pike Bishop ("Gnostic Bishop" in disguise, perhaps?) has no authority (actual, intellectual or moral) to tell anyone he "has to" do something.

haha thank you Ecurb i think this topic may be a bit too much
literature is vast and i was only trying to approach taking words only to be one way to addressing it.
what do you think? any ideas haha :D


Neither that question, nor any sensible answer to it, says anything about what literature is...nor does it explain any of the shaky suppositions you made about literature. I suggest you actually support them with some reasoning and examples.

literature is what words are made of.
a word is synonymous to another because of literature
a word on its own is just that a dice with suggestive number of ways to use it
i suggests literature uses words to determine clarity and thus a word that could not offer that is made redundant.
for example as a swear word why use it when a different better could be used instead?


Ecurd is on my ignore list, Cacian, so I don't have to read his irascible, but adorable, posts. As I'm sure I missed nothing, I am still looking forward to your response.

thank you Pike Bishop and i am trying :)
do you use all words regardless what they mean?
I for example chose words carefully like i would chose a meal out of a menu carefully
words that i find offend i wont use.
do you do that?

[Pike Bishop]

Cacian, as to your penultimate post, of course you don't essentially have to do anything. Those who took that as my implication need to work on their reading skills; of course I already knew that...;)

You do, however, have to provide examples to support your unfounded suppositions and claims about literature. Otherwise, they just stand as your personal views on literature with no bearing on literature itself. So, as I said before, I do look forward to those examples. If you believe what you claim, you should be able to provide them.

As to your question, I use as many words as I need to communicate and/or articulate my ideas thoughtfully and/or stylistically.

[cacian]

Cacian, as to your penultimate post, of course you don't essentially have to do anything. Those who took that as my implication need to work on their reading skills; of course I already knew that...;)

You do, however, have to provide examples to support your unfounded suppositions and claims about literature. Otherwise, they just stand as your personal views on literature with no bearing on literature itself. So, as I said before, I do look forward to those examples. If you believe what you claim, you should be able to provide them.
i suppose i speculated and therefore more thinking is to be done.



As to your question, I use as many words as I need to communicate and/or articulate my ideas thoughtfully and/or stylistically.
are there any words you would not use on principle?

a piece of literature claims not only to be a piece of readable material but also to have a specific register
that if one sorts out words of one specific story for example should they match in terminology and phonology?
in other words do words specific to one story fall under the same tone/meaning/feeling/
are they for example all desirable ?

or to put bluntly it would be interesting to study the choice of words of a given story to compare the nature of words
it is just another way of looking at literature.

[Pike Bishop]

I don't use racist, misogynistic, or homophobia words. As to literature, it doesn't really make claims as much as it asserts itself as the particularly beautiful, sublime work of art that it is. As to your linguistic assertions about literary fiction, there are no texts that do what you claim. The only literature that comes close to doing so is imagist poetry, and even that isn't so semantically specific.

[Mohammad Ahmad]

Many things are the full dimension of the writer revealing deep emotion, not just literature. Also, many writers do not involve their full desire into their writing, and not all literature reveals deep emotion. So, if they don't and/or it doesn't, it's not just a "shell of the word which has been mostly put in a well matrix," whatever that means. So, your definition of literature is too narrow.

Thank you for your review….
I am not going to define literature in little short words.
I know that many things in human life and not only the literature can do some of pleasure and enjoyment as well as can persist and generate through deep emotion of humankind.
However, if we determine the type of writing and specifically with literature, we notice that literature precisely ensuing through the deep emotion of the writer not for example as dealing with a peace of systemic text.
Now do you satisfy that literature is word or meaning as the question suggests that literature is either word or meaning?

[Pike Bishop]

You said you weren't going to define literature in "little short words," then you went ahead and defined literature in little short words. I'm surprised the irony of that escaped you.

As to your question in dramatic red ink, I already answered it in my first post.

[Ecurb]

As to your question in dramatic red ink, I already answered it in my first post.

Mohammed probably has Pike on "ignore".


I don't use racist, misogynistic, or homophobia words. As to literature, it doesn't really make claims as much as it asserts itself as the particularly beautiful, sublime work of art that it is. .

Well, isn't that nice (to use one of Pike's favorite words). It reminds me of .... let me think.... a beautiful, sublime work of art!

[Pike Bishop]

Eblurb posted two posts after mine? I guess it's really true what Macbeth said about sound and fury, and where they come from...:)

[Mohammad Ahmad]

So, your definition of literature is too narrow.

again why you are bothered? whether i am gone ahead or or not, I am free to express about my opinion, I read your answer and of course my opinion is the same, words are illustrated according to their linguistic performance and subjected also to their semantics reference, yes I am somehow going to exclude something here or there but let it go now.
The thing which makes me somehow irritable is the question itself words and meaning, of course any literary job has words and meaning and without meaning it does not achieve its message and becomes dull, here and in this forum I noticed several poems written by some users tended to be just accumulated words although appear as dancing words but don't convey any idea

[Pike Bishop]

I'm not bothered and never said I was. This is a forum where people give opinions of other people's opinions. Apparently my giving my polite opinion of yours really bothered you, and it shouldn't have.

As to the rest of your first paragraph, It just didn't make sense. I assume English is not your first language; so, I appreciate your effort. However, you are going to have to edit your sentences into clearer, more grammatically correct sentences if you want people to understand you. I Have to say that applies to your second paragraph as well. I did, however, pick up that certain poems on this site made you irritable. All I can say with you is I partially sympathize; some of the poems show more confessional sincerity or flamboyant expressiveness than they do skill with with imagery, semantics, and metre. However, this isn't a professional site or a peer-reviewed poetry journal; it is a place for people to throw out their poetry without necessary worry about quality or tough criticism.

[cacian]

Eblurb posted two posts after mine? I guess it's really true what Macbeth said about sound and fury, and where they come from...:)

what did he say?


I don't use racist, misogynistic, or homophobia words. As to literature, it doesn't really make claims as much as it asserts itself as the particularly beautiful, sublime work of art that it is. As to your linguistic assertions about literary fiction, there are no texts that do what you claim. The only literature that comes close to doing so is imagist poetry, and even that isn't so semantically specific.

imagist poetry i don't get it
i think i saw once this ballet dancer type of movement trying to redefine poetry
i did not get i/ understand it because
because at the centre of an image is a compression which goes against impression the closer you get to an image the less sense it makes or the less comprehensible it becomes as you know

poetry to a meaning is a word with an impression
that the closer you get to it
the more comprehensive it becomes to be it

two very different things there.

i was just thinking
to each word a person
to every word there is a someone that represents it
and so
to a story more then a one person because many of us are involved because a story contains so many words.
would you agree?

[Pike Bishop]

You misunderstand imagist poetry. Because it typically eschews discursive description or conceptualization the closer its unburnished language and semantics get to an image, the more sense it makes and the more comprehensible it becomes. Also, your description of poetry well describes imagist poetry. Since the closer you "get" to a word, the more comprehensive its meaning becomes.

You should read William Carlos Williams' poem, "That is to Say" as a solid example of this dynamic in imagism.

[cacian]

You misunderstand imagist poetry. Because it typically eschews discursive description or conceptualization the closer its unburnished language and semantics get to an image, the more sense it makes and the more comprehensible it becomes. Also, your description of poetry well describes imagist poetry. Since the closer you "get" to a word, the more comprehensive its meaning becomes.

You should read William Carlos Williams' poem, "That is to Say" as a solid example of this dynamic in imagism.

why sir i understand poetry to be an impression not an image
an image is for art is it not?
to say:
i read poetry to see it
is like saying
i did not see it.
and that does not fit the definition of poetry
you see poetry for its words not the image

imagism
describes itself as clear sharp language
clarity of expression
but poetry is not about expressed
it is about impressions
because whilst we converse clearly
we do not quite the impression of what we are trying to be
poetry is the impression that gives us that meaning
it would be defeatest to express image using poetry
because would be denying art its role


i am read of it
that is to say
what do you think it is talking about?


I have eaten
the plums
that were in
the icebox

and which
you were probably
saving
for breakfast

Forgive me
they were delicious
so sweet
and so cold



because the last line
so cold
we know it has been in the ice box
why repeat cold
that would be too telling
stating the obvious non?


a plum
is a summer fruit
normally a plum is kept
out not in the cold

is the image here is deceptive
it is not being true to reality

the piece is making something out to be
that is it not in real life
plum and breakfast?!

that is not my idea of breakfast

[Pike Bishop]

I'm sorry, I know you're trying to express yourself through free-form verse, but your first paragraph is just incoherent. I can say that poetry is not just an "impression;" that is inaccurate and reductive. It is most often much more--and sometimes even less-- than that.

And imagist poetry doesn't claim to be all poetry. It claims to be imagist poetry and it is about clear sharp language of expression. Are you really going to say William Carlos Williams, Ezra Pound, and Amy Lowell weren't poets, and they're poems aren't poetry? You'd face a tough battle there. There is also no definition of poetry saying it is solely about impressions and not expressions. If that were the case, we would be eliminating Walt Whitman, Sylvia Plath, Lord Byron, and Allen Ginsburg as poets as well. i don't think you want to do that.

As to the Williams poem; it wasn't talking about anything. Poems don't talk about things, they reveal and/or illuminate things and ideas through their artistic use of language. The dominant image in the poems was the plums.

[cacian]

[QUOTE=Pike Bishop;1291037]I'm sorry, I know you're trying to express yourself through free-form verse, but your first paragraph is just incoherent. I can say that poetry is not just an "impression;" that is inaccurate and reductive. It is most often much more--and sometimes even less-- than that.

sorry i did write incoherently
my keyboard slipped
i think it is fine now
what i am trying to say is this:

there is only one meaning to poetry and that is to make an impression so something
changes otherwise
writing is sedate
which is not the case


And imagist poetry doesn't claim to be all poetry. It claims to be imagist poetry
well then lets have black and white poetry
film noir springs to mind
i am not sure imagist is the right word
i know what an image is



and it is about clear sharp language of expression.

whilst the plums are at the center of this piece
the rest of the words around it do not make sense
i pointed out
the ice box
the cold
breakfast
these three words on their do not fit the concept of what a plum is or does.
it feels awkward because in my mind the image that it is trying to portray is not true



Are you really going to say William Carlos Williams, Ezra Pound, and Amy Lowell weren't poets, and they're poems aren't poetry? You'd face a tough battle there.
i would not it is not my place.
but it is mine when something does not sound right
then i will say so.
that is what reading is about,
logic is essential as far as comprehension is concerned.


There is also no definition of poetry saying it is solely about impressions and not expressions. If that were the case, we would be eliminating Walt Whitman, Sylvia Plath, Lord Byron, and Allen Ginsburg as poets as well. i don't think you want to do that.
you are absolutely right it is not my place nor do i qualify to such thing but
if and when i read then i will question the validity of what is being said.



As to the Williams poem; it wasn't talking about anything. Poems don't talk about things, they reveal and/or illuminate things and ideas through their artistic use of language. The dominant image in the poems was the plums.
the plum in this piece is the only thing/word that does not fit
because once it is removed from the content of the piece all the words left come together because they match or relate to each other.
hence the reason of this thread
when words are taken out of a story/out of context and studied according to their match or n a matching scale they should by order of logic fall into one semantic or another
those who stand out are those who don't fit.
the plum here is the perfect example of what i was trying to say all along.

[Pike Bishop]

Firstly, there is not only one meaning of poetry; your keep saying that untruth doesn't make it any truer. Secondly, poetry does much more than making impressions, so your definition fails as well.

As to imagist poetry, imagism is the right word since the poet's are preferencing the image itself over discursive descriptions and conceptions of it. Secondly, you mistake the imagist's intention to preference the image as the intention to express the objective definition of the image. Williams isn't trying to convey the actual essence of a plum, or what a plum may mean to you or others; he is trying to convey the image of the plum solely within the semantic context of the poem itself. Nothing you say in your semi-coherent final paragraph shows that isn't poetry.

Finally, I ask this out of curiosity and hopes for clarification. Have you ever taken a class in poetry and how to read it? I ask that because you are really making statements about poetry itself that have no foundation in what great poetry--or even lesser poetry--has shown itself to be. You are clearly willing to impose your purely subjective views on what your supposedly objective claims of what poetry is. I truly suggest you take such a class at your local college or on-line. It would give you a much better grasp of what poetry is, as well as a greater familiarity with the great poets who mostly define it.

[cacian]

Firstly, there is not only one meaning of poetry; your keep saying that untruth doesn't make it any truer. Secondly, poetry does much more than making impressions, so your definition fails as well.

so you keep saying
do tell what others meanings or role are to poetry other then the one i suggested.


As to imagist poetry, imagism is the right word since the poet's are preferencing the image itself over discursive descriptions and conceptions of it. Secondly, you mistake the imagist's intention to preference the image as the intention to express the objective definition of the image. Williams isn't trying to convey the actual essence of a plum, or what a plum may mean to you or others; he is trying to convey the image of the plum solely within the semantic context of the poem itself. Nothing you say in your semi-coherent final paragraph shows that isn't poetry.

an image is something visible to the naked eye
it is therefore a reflection on something that is real or thereabouts
there is no point in describing an alien to be an image
when i have never seen one myself.
in this piece
the plum does not describe a concept it misleads it because whilst an image is a reflection
of something true
a camera could never take a picture that is not there
an image is equally the same especially when it is depicting something that is actually real
a plum.
in this piece
the word plum does not fit the rest of the words in the piece when taken out to be
rearranged in an order of logic or categories
such as
ice box
breakfast
cold
because in reality a plum is a fruit not a breakfast condiment that is kept cold.
and therefore
all the words in this piece may come together in harmony because there is link between
them
apart from the plum that does not for the reason i gave above.




Finally, I ask this out of curiosity and hopes for clarification. Have you ever taken a class in poetry and how to read it? I ask that because you are really making statements about poetry itself that have no foundation in what great poetry--or even lesser poetry--has shown itself to be. You are clearly willing to impose your purely subjective views on what your supposedly objective claims of what poetry is. I truly suggest you take such a class at your local college or on-line. It would give you a much better grasp of what poetry is, as well as a greater familiarity with the great poets who mostly define it.
i dont need to study poetry to read it.
if and when i read a piece and it feels wrong like this one then i will say it
that is my opinion.
scrutiny is a passion of mine especially when i am told this is what i have to read.

[Pike Bishop]

No, not "so I keep saying," so as the truth of the matter says. Poetry does not just mean "to make an impression so something changes." That is just your biased, unfounded supposition.
As to the definitions of poetry, here are the official definitions:

1
a : metrical writing : verse
b : the productions of a poet : poems
2
: writing that formulates a concentrated imaginative awareness of experience in language chosen and arranged to create a specific emotional response through meaning, sound, and rhythm
3
a : something likened to poetry especially in beauty of expression
b : poetic quality or aspect <the poetry of dance>

And here are some definitions from some poets:

Emily Dickinson

“If I read a book [and] it makes my whole body so cold no fire ever can warm me I know that is poetry. If I feel physically as if the top of my head were taken off, I know that is poetry. These are the only way I know it. Is there any other way?”

William Wordsworth

“I have said that poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings: it takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquillity: the emotion is contemplated till, by a species of reaction, the tranquillity gradually disappears, and an emotion, kindred to that which was before the subject of contemplation, is gradually produced, and does itself actually exist in the mind.”

Philip Larkin

“As a guiding principle I believe that every poem must be its own sole freshly created universe, and therefore have no belief n ‘tradition’ or a common myth-kitty or casual allusions in poems to other poems or poets, which last I find unpleasantly like the talk of literary understrappers letting you see they know the right people.”

So, as you can see, your definition of "poetry" hardly suffices. And no, you don't have to study poetry to read it. However, you do have to do so to read it well and informed of basic principles of Poetry and its aesthetics. You also have to study it to know how to well analyze excellent poems by brilliant poets like the Williams poem. Your semi-coherent, illogical, and aesthetically inappropriate "reading' of Williams' poem proves that.

Anyway, if you're just going to hold onto your same misguided notion of what poetry and words are, we have nothing left to discuss. So, good luck on your journey; I did try to help.

[cacian]

scrutiny is mutiny without the bounty
it is allowed amongst the rowdy that reads or write unloudly

there is a difference between describing something
and writing about it.
i appreciate that once an opinion if formed it maybe impossible to reform
but this thread is merely a discussion about literature and not a make your mind up time.
and so i appreciate your replies and posting they have been useful for me to think further.