Defining literature?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hal9000

...a standard dictionary definition [of literature]: "Creative writing of recognized artistic value," or, "the humanistic study of a body of literature."

---

What dictionary was that? The former definition ignores writing that hasn't yet been recognised. The latter is circular! How can you define literature by including the term "literature" in the definition?

My concise OED has: "writings whose value lies in beauty of form or emotional effect." This seems a good definition to me.

Quote:

---

Seems to me the crucial element in your question is to explore what is recognized as "artistic value" and why——that might take awhile.

---

The OED definition of "beauty" suggests that a piece of literature is a written work that aims to delight. As people differ in what delights them you can't say, for instance, that "Harry Potter isn't literature." You might say it doesn't delight you, so, for you, it is bad literature.

I think lyrics might or might not be literature. A song must aim to delight, but the delight might all be in the music. Think of songs that have nonsense lyrics "Dum diddy do dah dah,..." All the delight is really in the music there, it's not literature, is it? Then again, why not. I think I've cahnged my mind - any lyric, nonsense or otherwise, is literature if the author intended it to give delight.

I think works that are completely unknown are literature because the author aimed to give delight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

If you want words to mean exactly what you want, rather than what the rest of the world understands them to mean, then you will not communicate with the rest of the world.

Literature:
" from L. literatura/litteratura "learning, a writing, grammar," originally "writing formed with letters," from litera/littera "letter" (see letter (n.1))."
from:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=literature

---

Cacian's superb break down of "Literature" meaning "delightful art form" coincides with the exact definition I just quoted from the concise OED!

PeterL's definition is a uselessly formal definition not used by everyday people, and gets us nowhere.

A Sherlock Holmes tale is a work of literature because it gives delight, not because it's "writing formed with letters."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

My concise OED has: "writings whose value lies in beauty of form or emotional effect." This seems a good definition to me.

---

I don't agree with that. What about political literature? I doubt it is particularly beautiful or emotional but you can't say that it isn't literature. If we want a definition of literature beyond the literal one, I'd define it as "writing deemed to be worthy of study". It could be studied for any number of reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Interesting stuff thank you for the link.
I was going to ask about the 'animals communications' I did not know people would actually look at that.
It sounds fascinating.
As far as I know are not talkative but more intuitive.

---

Just as humans communicate in ways that do not employ words, animals do the same; although it appears that apes have something that is very close to spoken. But there is communication byt howls, scents, and other means. The whole subject is fascinating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

PeterL's definition is a uselessly formal definition not used by everyday people, and gets us nowhere.

---

I did not post my own definition. I posted definitions from standard dictionaries. If you want the word to mean something else, then you will have to wait for the world to change. The reduced definition that you posted ignores commercial literature, which is certainly literature; things like directions for using a machine, marketting lterature, political literature, etc.

Remember that language is useful only when it is understood by others. Your idiolect is not language to me.

Quote:

---

A Sherlock Holmes tale is a work of literature because it gives delight, not because it's "writing formed with letters."

---

Conan-Doyle's stories are literature because they are written. If they were oral, then they would not be literature.

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

Whatever dictionary definitions come up, literature is what we regard as worthwhile for discussion, not just for reading, which is what makes the Harry Potter debates interesting. It could also include political writing - I've seen The Prince referred to often - poetry, lyrics etc. They are considered by someone as worthwhile, though not necessarily delightful, to discuss.

The general definition of literature as writing is merely one definition. We all know what we mean when we refer to literature, and it's not just any old writing.

There is no way to define anything without using at least one undefined word. Quality definition keeps within context and uses the least possible number of undefined words.
People like Cacian don't have the power to cause people to leave the forum. They are just bothersome. Cacian reminds me of the guy in The Dirty Dozen who Lee Marvin has to assure that he was born for higher stuff and would never be understood by common people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Whatever dictionary definitions come up, literature is what we regard as worthwhile for discussion, not just for reading, which is what makes the Harry Potter debates interesting. It could also include political writing - I've seen The Prince referred to often - poetry, lyrics etc. They are considered by someone as worthwhile, though not necessarily delightful, to discuss.

The general definition of literature as writing is merely one definition. We all know what we mean when we refer to literature, and it's not just any old writing.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

I did not post my own definition. I posted definitions from standard dictionaries. If you want the word to mean something else, then you will have to wait for the world to change. The reduced definition that you posted ignores commercial literature, which is certainly literature; things like directions for using a machine, marketting lterature, political literature, etc.

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

I don't agree with that. What about political literature? I doubt it is particularly beautiful or emotional but you can't say that it isn't literature. If we want a definition of literature beyond the literal one, I'd define it as "writing deemed to be worthy of study". It could be studied for any number of reasons.

---

Some political writing might have literary qualities, the writing of J.S. Mill for instance. But you couldn't say that of the minutes of a political meeting could you? Are you trying to argue that Hansard is beautiful? (Maybe on occasion it is... but very rare ones!)

Ancient shopping lists are deemed to be worthy of study by historians and anthropologists. Is that literature?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Whatever dictionary definitions come up, literature is what we regard as worthwhile for discussion, not just for reading, which is what makes the Harry Potter debates interesting. It could also include political writing - I've seen The Prince referred to often - poetry, lyrics etc. They are considered by someone as worthwhile, though not necessarily delightful, to discuss.

The general definition of literature as writing is merely one definition. We all know what we mean when we refer to literature, and it's not just any old writing.

---

Come on, we can do better than "we all know what we mean", surely. The Concise OED manages to do better - *real* literature should delight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Conan-Doyle's stories are literature because they are written. If they were oral, then they would not be literature.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

Some political writing might have literary qualities, the writing of J.S. Mill for instance. But you couldn't say that of the minutes of a political meeting could you? Are you trying to argue that Hansard is beautiful? (Maybe on occasion it is... but very rare ones!)

---

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

Quote:

---

Ancient shopping lists are deemed to be worthy of study by historians and anthropologists. Is that literature?

---

Well, yes. You aren't going to study it for an English course but they are pieces of writing worthy of study, hence 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.