Defining literature?

Sometimes I wonder what acctually defines literature. Is it the ability to stand the test of time, or is it just something written down with a deeper meaning?

Can lyrics be considered literature? What about works that are completely unknown? I can't seem to find a good definition on what literature really is, because in many ways a lot of things can be literature. One day the scribbles in my notebooks could become literature. Right now they really aren't but one day someone might find something in them that no one finds now.

I am just wondering what makes some writing on a page from mere words to literature.

there are about 3 or 4 different threads on here right now that might help to answer your question. But even here on the forum there is a huge split in opinions on what is and isn't lit.

sometimes I wonder what they put in the bug juice.

sometimes it feels like the straw is slurping at the bottom of the cup.

sometimes I want to vomit.

Blue needs a valium... but that is another story.

Any ways... I think literature is when a work means something to you personally, not just some form of entertainment, but something that sheds light on something for you, literature is really in the I of the beholder.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Yeroptok
Sometimes I wonder what acctually defines literature. Is it the ability to stand the test of time, or is it just something written down with a deeper meaning?

Can lyrics be considered literature? What about works that are completely unknown? I can't seem to find a good definition on what literature really is, because in many ways a lot of things can be literature. One day the scribbles in my notebooks could become literature. Right now they really aren't but one day someone might find something in them that no one finds now.

I am just wondering what makes some writing on a page from mere words to literature.

---

Good question! Seems the answers would be enough to comprise a book if that hasn't already been done. But just for fun, let's start with a standard dictionary definition: "Creative writing of recognized artistic value," or, "the humanistic study of a body of literature."

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

Can lyrics be considered literature?

I would consider lyrics poetry within the world of literature.

What about works that are completely unknown?

All works known, were at one time unknown——and it is the cultural, social, and political forces that play a role in a particular work's publication: I think this is at the heart of the matter. Kafka, for example, was never published while alive. And if my memory serves me, Van Gough never sold a painting while alive. When artists die, some artists' work is invariably highlighted because their vision is beyond most of the artistic appreciating world.

One day the scribbles in my notebooks could become literature. Right now they really aren't but one day someone might find something in them that no one finds now.

How right you are! as memorialized in the lyrics of Paul Simon:

And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon god they made.
And the sign flashed out its warning,
In the words that it was forming.
And the signs said, The words of the prophets
are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls.
And whisper'd in the sounds of silence.

--The Sounds of Silence

I think all artistic expression is art-- even notebook doodling may be considered literature. The imposition of style and form is applied and superimposed by subjective values influenced by ephemeral trends or those excessively conventional and unimaginative provincial cultural mores having nothing to do with art, and everything to do with criticising or defining art. Art (including literature) is of the "Universal Mind" and knows no bounds.

What do you think about this idea? In literature, the word is the experience. It is not a symbol of some external reality. The words on the page create the emotion in the reader. The art of the writer is to select the words that have internal rather than external significance.

I think that would constitute as a form or genre of lit. Seen strictly as literature compare (for your purpose Castorp) the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament to something like Mother Courage by Brecht. Each constitute as literature yet serve different purposes.
I think that hal9000 is correct. However, the word "literature" has so many modern implicatures as an adjective. When I see something like Bolt's A Man For All Seasons in the literature section I do not think twice-- but when I see an anthology of short stories from a local open literary compatition I wonder why it qualified to be literature. Indeed it is literature by hal's definition but the contemporary associations made with the word "literature" allow for a lot of subjective dissmisal.

Good distinction, IrishCanadian. I was thinking of Proust and the startling revelations produced from the reader's own remembrance that are literally created by Proust's intricate sentences.

Literature is a word that you have to define for yourself. I think it is any writing that transcends its genre to become art. But what I think is good art is not what you think is good art.

Everyone, please define literature for yourself. Right here, right now.

This is about who we are.

literature is the mirror of the society .by this a poet can express his feelings n emotions in an ornamented way like
"it is raining "
a poet can say "the clouds are weeping".
but the fact is that the society reflects in the writings of the writer...the writer is the source of providing us the facts of his times.
or we may say
The body of written work produced by scholars or researchers in a given field: medical literature.

must literature be of the written word? if it mirrors society can we include the visual and dramatic arts as literautre too? and what of crude, appaling pieces of wirting such as pornography? are those literature? i always thought literautre to carry a sophisticated tone, but then is it only written reflections of society that make up lit?no matter the content....
perhaps literature is writing containing perenial themes , so it lasts for times after the time it was written. hmmmmmm....
just something else to toss as eye of the beholder?

Literature is anything that can be written with such indulgence that they never lift the pen/finger from page/keyboard. It is something that is remembered by at least the writer. if even the writer does not remember it, then it simply cannot be in their deepest thoughts, and will eventually rust away. But something that is remembered and becomes word art for years and years, that is pure literature.

Literature is literally just text. If we're talking about Literature, I would say that it encompasses anything that is worthy of study. If there are worthwhile things to say about it (not that it's "bad" or "good"), it's literature.

Interesting!

I don't think this question is answerable. When asking this question, we can learn many interesting things about literature, but never get an actual answer. I think there are a lot of questions of this type, and it doesn't make the question less valuable.

Literature is like a vast ocean sea with plenty fish and waves to swim around.
Literature is a chain of thoughts on paper disjointed or chained and it is usually about the human condition.
Literature is the mirror to the soul that highlights the depthness of the human complexity and intricacy.
Literature is everything you want to know about an individual and if you can't see it there then well you just have to try again until you can.
So consider this my friend literature is you and you are literature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TenderButtons

I don't think this question is answerable. When asking this question, we can learn many interesting things about literature, but never get an actual answer. I think there are a lot of questions of this type, and it doesn't make the question less valuable.

---

No, The reply a couple up is correct in its first sentence: "Literature is simply text." Nothing more and nothing less. Literature is that which has been written from the Enuma Elish to the directions of a package of frozen peas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

No, The reply a couple up is correct in its first sentence: "Literature is simply text." Nothing more and nothing less. Literature is that which has been written from the Enuma Elish to the directions of a package of frozen peas.

---

Well I am not sure I agree let's look at the word 'LITERATURE'

There is the first word there and that is: LITE meaning light or light from delightful.

ART form art

TURE as in COUTURE / form
So one can read it as a delightful art form.

I would highly recommend Thinking About Texts by Chris Hopkins. He addresses this question in a very accessibly way.

Complex concepts don't have definitions in the usual sense. Try to define "game," for example. There is no common element shared by all the activities and phenomena the term comprises. Likewise music. Likewise literature. Nevertheless, some find these kind of definition games stimulating and fruitful. I don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjh

I would highly recommend Thinking About Texts by Chris Hopkins. He addresses this question in a very accessibly way.

---

Why think about text as such.
I thought the whole point of a text is to be self explanatory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyattGwyon

Complex concepts don't have definitions in the usual sense. Try to define "game," for example. There is no common element shared by all the activities and phenomena the term comprises. Likewise music. Likewise literature. Nevertheless, some find these kind of definition games stimulating and fruitful. I don't.

---

Literature is not complex what is complex is the human mind.
Game is an activity that is supposed to stimulate the mind into enjoyment.
It is another form of pleasure that we undertake together or solo because it makes us feel good.
It is an invention to occupy the mind when the mind is saturated with everyday life.
I think of Victorians and I think of games.
It was a very highly activity games. Card or pool was one or even tennis or crocket. It was the height of the fashion to be seen to be doing something however there was much to be desired when it came to conversation. Victorians spoke mainly about books when they did not talk about games. Very confined and very proper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Well I am not sure I agree let's look at the word 'LITERATURE'

There is the first word there and that is: LITE meaning light or light from delightful.

ART form art

TURE as in COUTURE / form
So one can read it as a delightful art form.

---

Whether you agree is of no consequence, because literature is that which is written.

By the way, your look at the parts of the words is not based on the derivartion of the word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyattGwyon

Complex concepts don't have definitions in the usual sense. Try to define "game," for example. There is no common element shared by all the activities and phenomena the term comprises. Likewise music. Likewise literature. Nevertheless, some find these kind of definition games stimulating and fruitful. I don't.

---

I don't think that he analogy of literature and games is a valid analogy, and literature is not a "complex concept". All literature has one simple connection: it is written. If you think that your comments about games are accurate, then they should show you that literature is very different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Whether you agree is of no consequence, because literature is that which is written.

By the way, your look at the parts of the words is not based on the derivartion of the word.

---

Well it should do because a word should be written in the way it is imagined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Well it should do because a word should be written in the way it is imagined.

---

If you use your own idiolect, then you shouldn't expect anyone to understand you. Language is for communication, not for your own imagination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Well it should do because a word should be written in the way it is imagined.

---

It is, really. "Liter" is the writing and reading part- like "literacy". So it's things that are written. If we were to define what makes canonical literature- Literature with a capital L if you like- that would be a different question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

If you use your own idiolect, then you shouldn't expect anyone to understand you. Language is for communication, not for your own imagination.

---

Well that is where I think the issue is with stagnating contemporary literature i it leaves nothing to the imagination.
A bit like looking at a naked lady and calling her sexy. Let's face it she has no clothes on sexy is beside the point and overruled.
Literature is imagination otherwise we might as well read with our eyes clothes. I can just about imagine an entire book content just by looking at the cover or reading the title. I don't need to read it I can just tell by looking at it how scary is that.
A bit like the Sun newspaper you don't need to read it to know that there is a page three girl in it and the rest is shambolic waste of the English language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

It is, really. "Liter" is the writing and reading part- like "literacy". So it's things that are written. If we were to define what makes canonical literature- Literature with a capital L if you like- that would be a different question.

---

Hi Kelby you mean LITER as LETTERS
.
How do you mean by literature with capital L?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Well that is where I think the issue is with stagnating contemporary literature i it leaves nothing to the imagination.
A bit like looking at a naked lady and calling her sexy. Let's face it she has no clothes on sexy is beside the point and overruled.
Literature is imagination otherwise we might as well read with our eyes clothes. I can just about imagine an entire book content just by looking at the cover or reading the title. I don't need to read it I can just tell by looking at it how scary is that.
A bit like the Sun newspaper you don't need to read it to know that there is a page three girl in it and the rest is shambolic waste of the English language.

---

Maybe I should have used simpler language.

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

The formal definitions distinguish between literature in general and belle lettres, and there are good reasons for such a distinction.

If you think of literature as you have stated, then you might be interested in the science of semiotics, which is the science of signs used to convey meaning. The science was first developed by Charles S. Peirce about 1875. He just used human language, but since then people have also looked at semiotics in the communications of other animals. Semantics is a subcategory of semiotics.

And remember that written language is a different semiotic system from spoken language.

It is also possible to argue that there is "rat" in "Lite-rat-ure".

And "lite-racy" is "light and racy".

Or maybe it is "liter-acy"; in which case it would be "ace style writing"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

It is also possible to argue that there is "rat" in "Lite-rat-ure".

And "lite-racy" is "light and racy".

Or maybe it is "liter-acy"; in which case it would be "ace style writing"?

---

Yeah! I'll go for lite and racy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Maybe I should have used simpler language.

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

The formal definitions distinguish between literature in general and belle lettres, and there are good reasons for such a distinction.

If you think of literature as you have stated, then you might be interested in the science of semiotics, which is the science of signs used to convey meaning. The science was first developed by Charles S. Peirce about 1875. He just used human language, but since then people have also looked at semiotics in the communications of other animals. Semantics is a subcategory of semiotics.

And remember that written language is a different semiotic system from spoken language.

---

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.

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.