can literature promote violence?

[cacian]

in other words
can literature harm feelings they turn into a physical disrepute and even abuse of any nature?

[PeterL]

Yes.

Literature has been used in the past and the present to incite people to violence. There are many examples, but I cite just one Mein Kampf.

[North Star]

Certainly, and not least the religious sort. Even Zen Buddhists have promoted violence. Interpretation is crucial.

[cacian]

Certainly, and not least the religious sort. Even Zen Buddhists have promoted violence. Interpretation is crucial.

is it how to read or how to interpret?

[North Star]

is it how to read or how to interpret?
I certainly did not think of interpretation in [only] the sense of translating from one language to another, more like what one has to do when reading anything, not least anything you write. :)

[Ecurb]

Yes. Some posts right here on Litnet have (almost) induced me to rend my own garments.

[Ishmael]

Yes.

Literature has been used in the past and the present to incite people to violence. There are many examples, but I cite just one Mein Kampf.
I don't think Mein Kampf qualifies as literature. It isn't known for any particular art in its style or structure, so it's more like raving mad autobiography.

[Eiseabhal]

Yes it can. It would be daft to think it has no effect. Anything written is literature. But lots of things promote violence. Bad diets. Bad weather. Poverty. Films. Flashing Lights Etc etc. Maybe you mean encourage rather than cause. And then yes again. The Pike was a notable Italian poet who glorified violent political action. Sholokov was a middle-of-the-road author who idealized violence. Most fantasy writers seem to take great pleasure in chopping, disembowelling and mutilating. Maybe that's what the fellows who fly drones read.

[Ishmael]

Yes it can. It would be daft to think it has no effect. Anything written is literature. But lots of things promote violence. Bad diets. Bad weather. Poverty. Films. Flashing Lights Etc etc. Maybe you mean encourage rather than cause. And then yes again. The Pike was a notable Italian poet who glorified violent political action. Sholokov was a middle-of-the-road author who idealized violence. Most fantasy writers seem to take great pleasure in chopping, disembowelling and mutilating. Maybe that's what the fellows who fly drones read.
Anything written isn't literature. Literature is by definition: "written works (such as poems, plays, and novels) that are considered to be very good and to have lasting importance."

Your incorrect definition of the word would incorrectly make all of the following literature:

Instruction manuals
Grocery lists
Baseball box scores
Nfl rosters
Traffic signs
Maps

So, no, everything written isn't literature, but, as the official definition notes, high quality poems, plays, novels, short stories, and non-fiction are. As to what the people fly drones read, I'm sure they read many non-violent works. The works they read don't make them fly the drones, the orders from above do.

[Eiseabhal]

I am not into "official definitions" never have been. Mrs Beaton's Cookbook is definitely literature. The Book of the Horse that stands on my shelf is definitely literature. The Glasgow Cookery Book is definitely literature. The bohemians who write the "blurbs" for Innocent fruit smoothies are word-smiths who are producing a cultural artifact close to literature. I am not making claims about relative values but maps both good and bad are definitely literature containing a wealth of cultural information. I am quite happy to accept you have a different view. I accept a wider range.

[Ishmael]

I am not into "official definitions" never have been. Mrs Beaton's Cookbook is definitely literature. The Book of the Horse that stands on my shelf is definitely literature. The Glasgow Cookery Book is definitely literature. The bohemians who write the "blurbs" for Innocent fruit smoothies are word-smiths who are producing a cultural artifact close to literature. I am not making claims about relative values but maps both good and bad are definitely literature containing a wealth of cultural information. I am quite happy to accept you have a different view. I accept a wider range.

If you weren't into official definitions, you wouldn't have used the official definitions of the words "I," "am," "not," and "into" when using them in your first sentence. But, you did. So, you obviously are into official definitions and you observe them quite diligently.

And your just saying those books you mention are literature doesn't make them so. You don't get to say what is "definitely" literature. Using that logic, someone can say their stuffed animals are literature and you couldn't correct them. In fact, that definition would be as legitimate as yours. Luckily, the rest of the world does have standards and cookbooks, and grocery lists and other non literary things written aren't considered literature. Its' why cookbooks and grocery lists arent taught in literature courses.

So, you can stick to your made-up definition of literature and go on illogically considering grocery lists and stop signs to be literature. The fact you actually think grocery lists are literature is charming. The rest of us will properly stick to the actual definition and meaning of the word and apply it to poetry, novels, plays, and literary non-fiction. We accept a more appropriate range.

[Eiseabhal]

I begin to appreciate Ecurb. Co dhiu. The man of independent mind and all that. .. I think I might enlist Melvyn Bragg in the cause... only it ain't a cause.

[Ishmael]

I completely appreciate Ecurb but amusement has allayed those feelings. And thanks again for proving you are actually into official definitions as you again used them in your last entry.

[Calidore]

Here's what Merriam-Webster has to say:

*******

: written works (such as poems, plays, and novels) that are considered to be very good and to have lasting importance

: books, articles, etc., about a particular subject

: printed materials (such as booklets, leaflets, and brochures) that provide information about something
Full Definition
1
archaic :literary culture
2
:the production of literary work especially as an occupation
3
a (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>

:the aggregate of a usually specified type of musical compositions

*****

So while your definition, Ishmael, could be called the "primary* one, it's not the only official one. Eiseabhal's examples also work.

[Ishmael]

Eisenbahl's examples don't also work since nobody teaching or studying literature follows the archaic definitions you give or the ones he states.

However, since you support Eisenbahl's definitions as literature, you can tell me how these following things are literature and, being literature, should be taught in literature courses:

Instruction manuals
Grocery lists
Baseball box scores
Nfl rosters
Traffic signs
Maps

I look forward to your answers.


P.s. Considering what you consider literature, I hate to think what you have chosen as literature, yourself. I imagine you must have studied as many pamphlets and instruction manuals as you have literary novels or poetry.

[Calidore]

It's not just me, it's Merriam-Webster. Or are they less official because they don't exactly jibe with your pronouncements?

Literature courses teach works that fall under definition 3a. They do not pretend to teach everything embodied under all definitions, presumably because they imagine most people are capable of interpreting your examples above without Masters-level help. Or, in the case of instruction manuals, they can just ask their kids.

[Ishmael]

I made no pronouncements; I made the accurate statement about the archaic definitions....apparently they don't gibe with your pronouncements. However, your acknowledgment literature courses don't teach everything you and Eisenbahl claim is literature supports my argument. Thanks.

Also, you still claim to support Eisenbahl's definition of literature. So, if you actually do, you can still say how all of the following are literature and why and how they should be taught in literature courses:

Instruction manuals
Grocery lists
Baseball box scores
Nfl rosters
Traffic signs
Maps

If you truly support Eisenbahl's defintion, then you should be able to do so. If you can't and don't, you clearly do not support his definition. I'm hoping it's the latter. It would be truly sad if you spent as much time reading grocery lists and instruction manuals as literature as you did great novels, poetry, and plays.

[Eiseabhal]

I certainly did not intend to give you the impression that I spend hours perusing trivia (Apart from on here of course). There are certainly many trivial novels, poems and plays. I am not actually arguing with you. I simply call all written material literature regardless of its long term value. I don't doubt that it sounds better to call only writing of quality literature. For a brief while there I thought it was me against the world again (Good odds for a Scot) but here comes a white horseman called Calidore and someone cried Merriam-Webster (double-barreled no less). I would say that I rest my case but I am not really making a case - just expressing an opinion which is not only held by me. I don't think I'll add any more but I shall let you have the last word - should you feel the need.

[Calidore]

It would make a case with most people, but I was also confirming identity. Ishmael/Pike/Nick/etc., is there any actual purpose to constantly returning with exactly the same behavior that keeps getting you banned, or is your entire sorry purpose to simply keep attempting to poison an available well until it sonehow stops being fun?

[Ishmael]

I certainly did not intend to give you the impression that I spend hours perusing trivia (Apart from on here of course). There are certainly many trivial novels, poems and plays. I am not actually arguing with you. I simply call all written material literature regardless of its long term value. I don't doubt that it sounds better to call only writing of quality literature. For a brief while there I thought it was me against the world again (Good odds for a Scot) but here comes a white horseman called Calidore and someone cried Merriam-Webster (double-barreled no less). I would say that I rest my case but I am not really making a case - just expressing an opinion which is not only held by me. I don't think I'll add any more but I shall let you have the last word - should you feel the need.

I think it's lovely and adorable you consider Calidore your white horseman. However, as I well-showed, the archaic parts of the definition do not support your original "all-writing" definition. The fact you are now back-pedaling and saying there is a difference also support that. So, you were smart to not rest your case...since you had none.

As to what you read for literature, I still shudder. Anyone who claims anything written is literature will find instruction manuals and cookbooks to be as much literature as great novels, poetry, and plays. So, I now know you to be someone to ask for advice on excellent instruction manuals and grocery lists and not someone to ask about poetry, plays, and great novels. I'll ask someone who abides by the actual accurate, discerning definition of literature for that information.


It would make a case with most people, but I was also confirming identity. Ishmael/Pike/Nick/etc., is there any actual purpose to constantly returning with exactly the same behavior that keeps getting you banned, or is your entire sorry purpose to simply keep attempting to poison an available well until it sonehow stops being fun?
I don't know to whom you refer. And my behavior has been as polite as yours. However, you just proved you can't show those things I mentioned to be literature, and you don't actually support Eiseabahl's definition...and he didn't make a case with you, either.

So, you're not quite the white knight he envisioned after all.

[ennison]

Cacian, the answer to your question is yes.

[Ecurb]

My repose was shattered by a knock on the door. I could see two conservatively dressed men outside. Uh oh! Jehovah's Witnesses! "I'm busy sleeping," I told them.

They were very polite. "We'd hate to disturb you," said the elder. "WE just want to show you our non-literature."

[Vota]

Literature does have a few definitions, so its hard to isolate it. I consider Stephen King's novels to be literature because I think he's a great writer and has tackled the human condition in his books. I Consider most books to be literature, and for that matter, many graphic novels are worthy of the title - such as The Dark Knight and The Watchmen.

Even childrens books are literature. Dr. Seuss books, The Indian in The Cupboard, The Chronicles of Narnia. I used to only consider books that have standing within The Western Canon as literature, but I've broadened my view of what constitutes literature as my pretentiousness has lessened. That said, road maps, grocery lists, blurbs on post cards, and Archie comics aren't what I would call literature.

[ennison]

Even children's books? I read a lot as a child (Much more than I do now) and I would say that even when I was reading stories aimed at a ten-year-old child (as well as adult biographies and histories etc.) I felt that literature aimed at children was often superior to texts aimed at adults. What I knew vaguely then I am certain about now.

[BartV90]

It certainly can, and has, as has been pointed out already. Depends on the type of text though. Propagandic and religious texts certainly can. However, a fictional novel isn't going to cause that. There is no audiovisual stimulant or interaction, like in games or films (not going into that discussion though as I personally don't believe that those media themselves have such influence on the average person), which could amplify violent tendencies. It's all about the purpose of the text, and also about the status of its author, whether literature can have such power.

[mortalterror]

Literature can definitely promote violence. Just about anything that's capable of arousing people's passions can promote violence. The more important question to ask is if literature is an important impetus or just a light tangential motivator or director. The main motivators of violence by far are money and sex.

It's sort of like asking if eating meat causes cancer. Well, everything can potentially cause cancer. Does eating meat cause cancer to anything like the degree that sunlight and cigarettes cause cancer? No. Is literature a variable in violent behavior? Yes. Is it a statistically significant variable? No.

[prendrelemick]

Mrs P's shopping lists have a depressive affect on me' - "while you're out can you just pick up a few things?"

I certainly hope it can promote violence, or peace or whatever. A quality of literature is that it gets into peoples head and affects them. However most of us don't act out our Literatary induced urges, we realize the real world has real consequences.

[Eiseabhal]

It can do anything. That means promoting thoughts and feelings of all kinds. Sometimes accidentally. But we don't of course always act on our thoughts or feelings. Second thoughts, alternative feelings or bad weather can intervene. Sometimes people think that is a big question (Perhaps it is) But there are so many other things in life that promote violence more immediately that I find it a bit pointless to focus for long on literature as an agent. Of course if someone kept throwing random novels by Sven Hassel at me, I might feel inclined to be very violent.

[Ecurb]

I once threw a heavy volume of Louis Untermeyer's "Modern American Poetry" at someone. Does that count?

[prendrelemick]

Im sure a copy of Beatrix Potter's Mrs Tiggywinkle wouldn't offend as much as Sven Hassel's Wheels of Terror.

Whereas being hit in the mush by a Hemings and Condell First Folio would be a kind of honour.

So we can say that the violence of literature depends upon the author, the content, the weight, the format (hardback or paperback,) the strengh, and the accuracy of the chucker.

[Eiseabhal]

Aha. Humour. Nothing like it. When I was in the service of my Queen and Country quite a lot of the squaddies with me read Hassel. I couldn't ever get my head round that. This war-glorifying Wehrmacht-lovin' porn scribbler was their chosen read. A man the like of which their fathers and grandfathers had had to stand up against. The complexities the complexities! Bloody baffling.

[prendrelemick]

^I was a fan of his, I read them all. Then I grew up, violence doesn't impress me at all.