Defining literature?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Talking of literature this came up in a discussion:
What is the role of mainstream literature?
and
and is there such a thing a nonstream literature?

---

I think that this probably should be a different thread, but using modifiers such as "mainstream" and similar, is excellent with a word that is as broad as "literature".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

"Oral literature" is a commonly used phrase - 506,000 results on Google. Are you saying that Homer and the Pali Canon are not literature?

---

"Oral literature" is an oxymoron that is only used by people who don't think about what they say.

Homer's poems were in the oral tradition, but they also became literature when they were written down.

I am not familiar with the Pali Canon. If it is oral, then it is not literature. If it has been written down, then it is literature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

I posted a direct quote from the concise Oxford Englisgh Dictionary, you don't get more standard than that.

---

That is the problem with abridged dictionaries; they are not complete. I would suggest that you look at an unabridged dictionary that is more likely to have a complete definition.

Quote:

---

I admit I quoted a reduced definition, the one most approriate to what people in this forum are actually interested in. Your "formal" definition is also limited, and more, is off the point. And who cares about "directions for using a machine, marketing literature, ..." That's obviously not the sense in which "literature" is used in this forum.

---

People in this forum clearly are interested in thorough definitions, rather than incomplete of definitions. I am a reader of non-fiction as well as fiction, and apparently you want to restrict literature to fiction. In this forum literature is usually taken to mean that which has been written, and it is usually discussed as literature with some modifier.

If you wish to discuss, then discuss fiction. If you wish to discuss print advertisements, then discuss them; they are literature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

I can't help but feel that cacian, maybe, just maybe; might in the slightest way possible deter potential new members from joining.

---

What on earth do you mean? :sosp:
I did not know I had the keys to the forums I could lock anyone out who did not look right.
Really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

"Oral literature" is an oxymoron that is only used by people who don't think about what they say.

Homer's poems were in the oral tradition, but they also became literature when they were written down.

I am not familiar with the Pali Canon. If it is oral, then it is not literature. If it has been written down, then it is literature.

---

Actually oral literature is second to none because it is instinctive and requires skills and memory to remember what was said that was not written.
I think oral literature is very important because if anything it reinforces written literature. It is just another form of expression.
Putting a tag on aural literature could mean the cleaning up of improper or unwelcome usage of words the listener deems inappropriate.
I consider it to be a great mental exercise that makes a change from writing and improve the spoken language immensely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Actually oral literature is second to none because it is instinctive and requires skills and memory to remember what was said that was not written.
I think oral literature is very important because if anything it reinforces written literature. It is just another form of expression.
Putting a tag on aural literature could mean the cleaning up of improper or unwelcome usage of words the listener deems inappropriate.
I consider it to be a great mental exercise that makes a change from writing and improve the spoken language immensely.

---

I don't like having to repeat myself, but "oral literature" is an oxymoron. Literature is not oral; it is written. If something is in an oral tradition, then it is not literature, but it can become literature by being written down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

I'm not saying that political literature is beautiful but it's still literature.

---

The concise OED does give the definition "books etc. treating of a subject" - so you can have cookery literature, plumbing literature, and so on. But that sense contradicts the definition that suggests literature must be beautiful. So in any use of the term "literature" you must be clear which definition you are using, or get lost in contradiction. On this forum, surely, we are interested in beautiful writing, not the lowest political tracts or plumbing manuals.

Quote:

---

... [shopping lists] are pieces of writing worthy of study, hence literature.

---

There's nothing in the concise OED that suggests literature must be "worthy of study". What about light verse that is instantly understandable, but with no study needed to get delight from it?

I think in this forum (and most places!) it is taken as standard that by literature we mean "beautiful literature". If someone asked you what you are reading, and you said "literature" and then added "the plumbing manual" they would laugh, because in using the word "literature" people usually assume you mean "beautiful writing".

Of course "political literature " is a term that is used, but it is usually relating to diaries or autobiographies that have something beautiful about them (although irony is often used in sentences like "Works of 'political literature :)', like Tony Blair's diaries...")

A journalist might say, "There is quite a lot in the political literature about MPs cheating on expenses", and by that they mean anything from Hansard to diaries, I guess. But people only allow this "demotion from the beautiful" in specific contexts. When people use the word "literature" without context then beauty is assumed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

"Oral literature" is an oxymoron that is only used by people who don't think about what they say.

Homer's poems were in the oral tradition, but they also became literature when they were written down.

---

"Oral literature" is a useful shorthand for "Stories in the oral tradition that became literature." It's only an oxymoron if you are being overly pedantic. One of the delights of English is its wonderful flexibility.

Quote:

---

I am not familiar with the Pali Canon. If it is oral, then it is not literature. If it has been written down, then it is literature.

---

It has been written down, but I don't find it delightful, so its not literature. Like the plumbing manual it may be useful though; I think there's something in meditation... elegant plumbing for the mind...

Quote:

---

That is the problem with abridged dictionaries; they are not complete. I would suggest that you look at an unabridged dictionary that is more likely to have a complete definition.

---

They are just as useful as complete dictionaries for "modern, everyday matters" as they concentrate on "modern, common usage". Perhaps more so as they don't bog you down in archaic forms etc. (Notr that there's anything wrong with that! Archaic forms are very useful to those studying archaic literature... ) We aren't having na archaic conversation, so the concise OED is ideal for the matter at hand.

Quote:

---

I am a reader of non-fiction as well as fiction, and apparently you want to restrict literature to fiction.

---

No I don't. If the non-fiction delights then it is literature.

Quote:

---

If you wish to discuss, then discuss fiction. If you wish to discuss print advertisements, then discuss them; they are literature.

---

Adverts are an interesting one. I guess they do aim to delight, so they are literature. But they are a perverted form, because their main aim is not to delight, but to sell stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

It has been written down, but I don't find it delightful, so its not literature. Like the plumbing manual it may be useful though; I think there's something in meditation... elegant plumbing for the mind...

---

I find the idea that to you literature is just something that delights you rather odd and inexact. Does that mean that a pleasant girlfriend would be literature?

Quote:

---

They are just as useful as complete dictionaries for "modern, everyday matters" as they concentrate on "modern, common usage". Perhaps more so as they don't bog you down in archaic forms etc. (Notr that there's anything wrong with that! Archaic forms are very useful to those studying archaic literature... ) We aren't having na archaic conversation, so the concise OED is ideal for the matter at hand.

---

Part of a dictionary can be worse than no dictionary at all. If you want to use it, then remember that it is not complete.

I will keep in mind that you agree with Humpty-Dumpty:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
And you certainly don't care about Alice's reply:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

Err.....??????????

---

literature is what we regard as worthwhile for discussion, not just for reading, which is what makes the Harry Potter debates interesting.

In the sense that some people regard it as literature and some people don't. Thus we have a stonking good debate about it.

I dislike Jane Austen, it does not delight me, but I recognise it as literature because it is interesting, worthy of study and contributes to our stock of writing that inspires others and also delights some. That's why I disagree with Mal's definition as being too strict. I also disagree that the Pali cannon is not literature. It is worthy of study, provokes discussion, contributes ideas and does delight some in its practice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

The concise OED does give the definition "books etc. treating of a subject" - so you can have cookery literature, plumbing literature, and so on. But that sense contradicts the definition that suggests literature must be beautiful.

---

But that's just a pretentious statement that puts people off studying English and stifles any interesting debate. Is The 120 Days of Sodom beautiful? Is A Vindication of the Rights of Woman beautiful? Is Titus Andronicus beautiful?

The online OED defines it thus: written work valued for superior or lasting artistic merit. Basically, novels/poems/etc. that are very well-written, rather than being particularly lovely.

As Victor Hugo said: "The beautiful has but one type, the ugly has a thousand."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

But that's just a pretentious statement that puts people off studying English and stifles any interesting debate. Is The 120 Days of Sodom beautiful? Is A Vindication of the Rights of Woman beautiful? Is Titus Andronicus beautiful?

The online OED defines it thus: written work valued for superior or lasting artistic merit. Basically, novels/poems/etc. that are very well-written, rather than being particularly lovely.

As Victor Hugo said: "The beautiful has but one type, the ugly has a thousand."

---

Well I would have thought it was the other around
''beauty is by the thousands and ugly is one thing''
Human nature get bedazzled on a daily basis by billions of beautiful things there is , nature on its own is many beauties.
Ugliness is one type and that is we know it when we see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

I find the idea that to you literature is just something that delights you rather odd and inexact. Does that mean that a pleasant girlfriend would be literature?

---

No, I am taking it as given that writing is involved.

Quote:

---

Part of a dictionary can be worse than no dictionary at all. If you want to use it, then remember that it is not complete.

---

The Concise OED is not part of a dictionary, it is a dictionary. It says in the introduction, "The words, phrases, and meanings given are those current in the English of the present day." The full Oxford dictionary is for those "in search of a broader canvas of English words and their history." In this thread I'm assuming we are looking for modern definitions of "literature" so the Concise OED is pertinent.

Quote:

---

I will keep in mind that you agree with Humpty-Dumpty:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

---

I take it to mean what it says in my Concise OED; that definition "works" for me. I didn't write the COED so I certainly didn't choose the meaning!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Well I would have thought it was the other around
''beauty is by the thousands and ugly is one thing''Human nature get bedazzled on a daily basis by billions of beautiful things there is , nature on its own is many beauties.
Ugliness is one type and that is we know it when we see it.

---

It's not about the amount of beautiful/ugly things- it's that beauty is predictable whereas ugliness is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I dislike Jane Austen, it does not delight me, but I recognise it as literature because it is interesting, worthy of study and contributes to our stock of writing that inspires others and also delights some. That's why I disagree with Mal's definition as being too strict. I also disagree that the Pali cannon is not literature. It is worthy of study, provokes discussion, contributes ideas and does delight some in its practice.

---

The novels of Jane Austen delight me, that's why they are literature. Ulysses doesn't delight me, but it does delight some people, so it is literature. If it delights some person it is literature.

You don't get to recognise Jane Austen as literature or not... I somehow get an image of the Dalai Lama laughing compassionately at such an expression of ego - Paul gets to decide what's literature :) Then again I musn't speak for the Dalia Lama... just my image...

The plumbing manual "delights some in its practice", but it is not literature. The delight comes when you fix the tap, so its the practice that leads to delight. The Pali canon inspires meditation practice, and the delight comes from the meditation practice. The delight, in literature, has to come from the writing, not any practice it inspires.

I think we need a strict definition of "literature" or we just end up in declaring all writing to be literature. We need a word for delightful writing, don't we? Shouldn't that be "literature"?

lit·er·a·ture/ˈlit(ə)rəCHər/

Noun:

1. Written works, esp. those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit: "a great work of literature".
2. Books and writings published on a particular subject: "the literature on environmental epidemiology".

</smartass>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Audioman42

lit·er·a·ture/ˈlit(ə)rəCHər/

Noun:

1. Written works, esp. those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit: "a great work of literature".
2. Books and writings published on a particular subject: "the literature on environmental epidemiology".

</smartass>

---

Could you please cite the source of this information?

</2xsmartass>

Literature
1. written works esp. those whose value lies in beauty of language or in emotional effect.
2. the realm of letters.
3. the writings of a country or period.
4. literary production.
5. colloq. printed matter, leaflets, etc.
6. the material in print on a particular subject (there is a considerable literature on geraniums).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

But that's just a pretentious statement that puts people off studying English and stifles any interesting debate. Is The 120 Days of Sodom beautiful? Is A Vindication of the Rights of Woman beautiful? Is Titus Andronicus beautiful?

---

Titus Andronicus is beautiful in both form and emotional effect. Because it is a tragedy part of the delight comes from catharsis. You can't say it isn't delightful because the characters do really nasty things.

By suggesting that "shopping lists" and "political tracts" are literature, I suggest, you are more likely to put people off studying literature. People read shopping lists, and read Blair's drivel, and don't get much delight form the experience. They might hope to actually read something delightful if they study literature. (But maybe it's only a hope...)

Quote:

---

The online OED defines it thus: written work valued for superior or lasting artistic merit. Basically, novels/poems/etc. that are very well-written, rather than being particularly lovely.

---

This agrees with the Concise OED definition. To have artistic merit, a work must delight. The "superior or lasting" addition is useful. Can we say Harry Potter is literature? Even if it delights some kids, will the work last? Is it superior?

Did the online OED really say "very well-written, rather than being particularly lovely"? What's the full, exact quote? In any case, a work doesn't have to be "particularly lovely" to delight.

The definition of literature which I posted is from the COED hardback edition. Firstly is says nothing whatsoever that a work must delight in order to be considered literature but rather touches on beauty of language. Now if this delights the reader, wonderful but it is not a criterion. It's a subtle difference but worth mentioning.

As you can see, literature extends beyond the scope of beautiful language also.

i think authentic literature as an art is something in prose form that extends within the context of that historical moment achievements in ideas through language?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

But that's just a pretentious statement that puts people off studying English and stifles any interesting debate. Is The 120 Days of Sodom beautiful? Is A Vindication of the Rights of Woman beautiful? Is Titus Andronicus beautiful?

---

Titus Andronicus is beautiful in both form and emotional effect. Because it is a tragedy part of the delight comes from catharsis. You can't say it isn't delightful because the characters do really nasty things.

By suggesting that "shopping lists" and "political tracts" are literature, I suggest, you are more likely to put people off studying literature. People read shopping lists, and read Blair's drivel, and don't get much delight form the experience. They might hope to actually read something delightful if they study literature. (But maybe it's only a hope...)

Quote:

---

The online OED defines it thus: written work valued for superior or lasting artistic merit. Basically, novels/poems/etc. that are very well-written, rather than being particularly lovely.

---

This agrees with the Concise OED definition. To have artistic merit, a work must delight. The "superior or lasting" addition is useful. Can we say Harry Potter is literature? Even if it delights some kids, will the work last? Is it superior?

Did the online OED really say "very well-written, rather than being particularly lovely"? What's the full, exact quote? In any case, a work doesn't have to be "particularly lovely" to delight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

literature is what we regard as worthwhile for discussion, not just for reading, which is what makes the Harry Potter debates interesting.

In the sense that some people regard it as literature and some people don't. Thus we have a stonking good debate about it.

I dislike Jane Austen, it does not delight me, but I recognise it as literature because it is interesting, worthy of study and contributes to our stock of writing that inspires others and also delights some. That's why I disagree with Mal's definition as being too strict. I also disagree that the Pali cannon is not literature. It is worthy of study, provokes discussion, contributes ideas and does delight some in its practice.

---

Paul would you agree that you do not need to like or appreciate literature for its books and stories to read it?
In order we don't have to like what we read all the time to read something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

Firstly is says nothing whatsoever that a work must delight in order to be considered literature but rather touches on beauty of language. Now if this delights the reader, wonderful but it is not a criterion. It's a subtle difference but worth mentioning.

---

COEDs definition of "beauty" is "1. ... combination of qualities... that delight..."

In the COED the distinct sense of a word are separated by semi-colons.

So distinct senses of "literature" are (7th ed. 1982, p.588):

1. "writing whose values lie in beauty of form or emotional effect"
2. "literary production"

These senses, obviously, contradict each other because a literary production may not be beautiful. The first definition explicitly says that literature is writing whose values lie in beauty of form or emotional effect - no caveats. You have to decide which definition of "literature" you are using in a specific context. Obviously, on this forum, we should (surely?) be taking definition 1. as the default definition.

Your definition 1., differs from mine:

1. written works esp. those whose value lies in beauty of language or in emotional effect

The "written works esp. those" is obviously a significant ammendment! What ed. of the COED did you use?

9th ed 1995.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manuscript

i think authentic literature as an art is something in prose form that extends within the context of that historical moment achievements in ideas through language?

---

I think we might be going besides our points which is this:
It is not about the literature it is about the ideas that make literature stand out.
A language is enhanced when the ideas are and not the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

No, I am taking it as given that writing is involved.

---

Neglecting to state exactly what you mean can lead to problems.

Quote:

---

The Concise OED is not part of a dictionary, it is a dictionary. It says in the introduction, "The words, phrases, and meanings given are those current in the English of the present day." The full Oxford dictionary is for those "in search of a broader canvas of English words and their history." In this thread I'm assuming we are looking for modern definitions of "literature" so the Concise OED is pertinent.

---

You can think of it as you wish, but an abridged dictionary has been abridged, which means: to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail.

Quote:

---

I take it to mean what it says in my Concise OED; that definition "works" for me. I didn't write the COED so I certainly didn't choose the meaning!

---

That would work for Humpty Dumpty, but you should remember that rest of the world may be using a definition that was chopped from your abridged dictionary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

Did the online OED really say "very well-written, rather than being particularly lovely"? What's the full, exact quote? In any case, a work doesn't have to be "particularly lovely" to delight.

---

SPOILERS FOR TITUS ANDRONICUS AND TROILUS AND CRESSIDA

No, but your assertion that literature must be "beautiful" implies that there must be a loveliness there. Titus doesn't have a catharsis, really. The characters literally sit at a dinner table, turn to the person next to them and kill them. The ending, where Aaron and Tamora's bastard mixed race baby is held up as the future of Rome is far from beautiful. It is clever but it is frightening and morally dubious. Pandarus talking to the audience about bawds and diseases when poor Hector has just been killed is not beautiful. A novel may be well-written without being beautiful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

By suggesting that "shopping lists" and "political tracts" are literature, I suggest, you are more likely to put people off studying literature. People read shopping lists, and read Blair's drivel, and don't get much delight form the experience. They might hope to actually read something delightful if they study literature.

---

Both of those are by definition literature, although I did not suggest that they are the type of literature we study in a literary context. People are put off studying literature because they feel that they should be delighted by every classic they read and then feel inferior when they don't organically feel this delight. The ability to appreciate literature does not come from some divine light that shines upon privileged individuals but by studying, comparing and developing an instinct for the components of a piece of writing that would make it worthy of study.

Since this is about literature I keep reading and coming across this expression:
An unorthodox way/fashion of writing.
What is orthodoxy in writing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

SPOILERS FOR TITUS ANDRONICUS AND TROILUS AND CRESSIDA

No, but your assertion that literature must be "beautiful" implies that there must be a loveliness there...

---

"In watching Titus Andronicus we come to understand – perhaps more than by looking at any other Shakespeare play – the nature of his genius: he gave an inner awareness to passions; cruelty ceased to be merely physical. Shakespeare discovered the moral hell. He discovered heaven as well. But he remained on earth." - Jan Kott

So he has a beautiful way of expressing the inner reality of the cruellest passions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

People are put off studying literature because they feel that they should be delighted by every classic they read and then feel inferior when they don't organically feel this delight. The ability to appreciate literature does not come from some divine light that shines upon privileged individuals but by studying, comparing and developing an instinct for the components of a piece of writing that would make it worthy of study.

---

I haven't studied literature since GCSE O level, but I get delight from the majority of classics I read. Therefore I'm living proof that study beyond this level isn't necessary for getting great delight from the classics. (Note that English Literature GCSE didn't involve the study of shopping lists or the Communist Manifesto...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

.... but you should remember that rest of the world may be using a definition that was chopped from your abridged dictionary.

---

I don't think they are... why would the OED cut the most common use from their concise dictionary, when it is geared to give those definitions? In any case, it looks fine to me. So are the OED editors Humpty Dumptys? I see you didn't give the date or edition that you used. Are you just making it up? Why not engage with the argument instead of trying to insult people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

I don't think they are... why would the OED cut the most common use from their concise dictionary, when it is geared to give those definitions? In any case, it looks fine to me. So are the OED editors Humpty Dumptys?

---

Yes, it appears that editors of the OED may be Humpty Dumpty's, but I can't be certain. You should keep in mind that editors sometimes edit to put forward a point of view. There are som many people in the world that ithere is certainly one who will agree with any madness that some madman dreams up, dcso you shouldn't be surprised that the editors of the OED made the same mistake that you did.

Quote:

---

I see you didn't give the date or edition that you used. Are you just making it up?

---

Date and edition of what" If you mean HALice, then it makes no difference, because it is in the public domain, and this is a casual use, rather than academic, which would require a footnote.

Quote:

---

Why not engage with the argument instead of trying to insult people?

---

I have not attempted to insult anyone. I have simply pointed out that your definition was incorrect.

I will request that this thread be closed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

"In watching Titus Andronicus we come to understand – perhaps more than by looking at any other Shakespeare play – the nature of his genius: he gave an inner awareness to passions; cruelty ceased to be merely physical. Shakespeare discovered the moral hell. He discovered heaven as well. But he remained on earth." - Jan Kott

So he has a beautiful way of expressing the inner reality of the cruellest passions

---

I still fail to see how he expresses this moral hell- and I don't doubt that he discovered it and that was to influence his later plays- is particularly beautiful. The cruelty is mental but very obviously physical as well. The discovery of heaven arguably comes later. Lavinia certainly isn't as heavenly as she is made out to be.

Shakespeare in general has a beautiful way of expressing cruel passion, but not in Titus. And yet Titus is still a great play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

The novels of Jane Austen delight me, that's why they are literature. Ulysses doesn't delight me, but it does delight some people, so it is literature. If it delights some person it is literature.

You don't get to recognise Jane Austen as literature or not... I somehow get an image of the Dalai Lama laughing compassionately at such an expression of ego - Paul gets to decide what's literature :) Then again I musn't speak for the Dalia Lama... just my image...

The plumbing manual "delights some in its practice", but it is not literature. The delight comes when you fix the tap, so its the practice that leads to delight. The Pali canon inspires meditation practice, and the delight comes from the meditation practice. The delight, in literature, has to come from the writing, not any practice it inspires.

I think we need a strict definition of "literature" or we just end up in declaring all writing to be literature. We need a word for delightful writing, don't we? Shouldn't that be "literature"?

---

I dislike Jane Austen, it does not delight me, but I recognise it as literature because it is interesting, worthy of study and contributes to our stock of writing that inspires others and also delights some. Mine

The novels of Jane Austen delight me, that's why they are literature. Ulysses doesn't delight me, but it does delight some people, so it is literature. If it delights some person it is literature. Yours

I fail to see what the difference between these two are Mal.

Having said that, I do have a raging ego.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

I haven't studied literature since GCSE O level, but I get delight from the majority of classics I read. Therefore I'm living proof that study beyond this level isn't necessary for getting great delight from the classics. (Note that English Literature GCSE didn't involve the study of shopping lists or the Communist Manifesto...)

---

I don't know when you took your O-Level but it was a different style of education to modern GCSEs. Modern GCSEs partly study novels/plays because they are considered to be classics (like in the case of Shakespeare) but a lot of the time it's classics- generally twentieth century- that are perceived to have modern relevance or that make the student socially aware. For example, To Kill A Mockingbird is a very common text for GCSE. We don't study it because it's a beautiful novel (I think the writing style is fairly standard though some might disagree). We study it because of its study of racism and prejudice.

The study of English is moving towards study based on social and political views rather than questions of merit. Is there any work of postcolonial literature that is beautiful enough to be a classic regardless of its pedigree?

The word literature is used i a variety of ways, and so a precise definition may be moot - as has been demonstrated so far. For example, it would be correct for someone to say:

"Take your filthy literature with you" referring to a pornographic magazine, but it is not what we on this forum would refer to as literature, even though i tmay delight some.

Text seems to be used for writing that is not literature - such as the text of a poster, but you can study the text of literature - as it directly refers to the words of a book as well. Despite this flexibility of the language, when we discuss literature, I say again, we all know what we are referring to. As we can see, the dictionaries have flexible definitions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Paul would you agree that you do not need to like or appreciate literature for its books and stories to read it?
In order we don't have to like what we read all the time to read something?

---

The only time I have read a book I didn't like - for example Emma by Jane "The Torturer" Austen- has been for a course I have been studying for. I really don't feel the need to read anything I don't like unless I have to study it. There's too little time to be bothered with it. Having said that, being forced to read stuff I wouldn't read normally has shown me what it is about the book and author that people like. I can appreciate that some masochists like Jane "The Torturer" Austen, and recognise it as a twisted form of literary enjoyment for some.

I agree Paul. It seems to me some people want to take the definition and hack away the things they don't like and put what is left in a box and call it literature when the definition of literature is clearly broad enough to cover most things (much to the disgust of some) Defaulting to only one definition? How selective and convenient is that? Perhaps there is only one kind of man (the traditional patriarchal kind) and I should default to him and discard the rest because they don't actually qualify as men? :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

I agree Paul. It seems to me some people want to take the definition and hack away the things they don't like and put what is left in a box and call it literature when the definition of literature is clearly broad enough to cover most things (much to the disgust of some) Defaulting to only one definition? How selective and convenient is that? Perhaps there is only one kind of man (the traditional patriarchal kind) and I should default to him and discard the rest because they don't actually qualify as men? :lol:

---

Aye. Some people don't like uncertainty, but prefer the rod ... of the certain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Aye. Some people don't like uncertainty, but prefer the rod ... of the certain.

---

Hee hee... :D

~

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Off-topic/inflammatory posts will be removed without further notice.

~

Quote:

---

Aye. Some people don't like uncertainty, but prefer the rod ... of the certain.

---

I like uncertainty the one that does not interfere with my present certainties of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I dislike Jane Austen, it does not delight me, but I recognise it as literature because it is interesting, worthy of study and contributes to our stock of writing that inspires others and also delights some. Mine

The novels of Jane Austen delight me, that's why they are literature. Ulysses doesn't delight me, but it does delight some people, so it is literature. If it delights some person it is literature. Yours

I fail to see what the difference between these two are Mal.

---

Nor do I :) Apologies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

Nor do I :) Apologies.

---

None needed old chap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

I can't help but feel that cacian, maybe, just maybe; might in the slightest way possible deter potential new members from joining.

---

And old members from staying. The threads annoyed Mark and he left, and when he left I had less incentive to stay because there were fewer good posts to read. You have to mug through a swamp of non sequiturs and stream of consciousness questions to find anything worth spending your time on, it's irritating.