What is Literature??

:confused:A question which many thinkers, and philosopher tried to find an absolute answer....

What is literature?? When can we say about a work of art a "literary work"??? What are the principles or values to make a work or maybe an utterance "literal"??

Do literary works establish "culture"?? I mean is our culture determined by its "literary production"?? or "literary production" is affected by the power of culture??

Well, maybe we cannot define what "literature" is, since if you believe that there is no ultimate truth, so defining it will be possible... but let's give it a try:idea::idea:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.A

:confused:A question which many thinkers, and philosopher tried to find an absolute answer....

What is literature?? When can we say about a work of art a "literary work"??? What are the principles or values to make a work or maybe an utterance "literal"??

Do literary works establish "culture"?? I mean is our culture determined by its "literary production"?? or "literary production" is affected by the power of culture??

Well, maybe we cannot define what "literature" is, since if you believe that there is no ultimate truth, so defining it will be possible... but let's give it a try:idea::idea:

---

I appreciate your questioning mind. Literature is a broad and pervasive subject and it has a higher range than generally generally we take it to be. For any piece of writing can be literature. I want to broaden its scope to into other domains or disciplines, even to the extent of including economics and physics into literature. For instance even economic theories presented in a suitable style that interests us or touches our minds can be a piece of literature. Even the Malthusian theory of population could be a piece of literature. The origin of species by Charles Darwin is no less literature. Therefore it is really a hard job to define or confine pieces of literature within sets of theories.

Not to be too much of a spoilsport, but shouldn't this be in literature rather than philosophical literature?

Couple of good threads to check out:

http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=22078

http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=34470

Quote:

---

For instance even economic theories presented in a suitable style that interests us or touches our minds can be a piece of literature

---

Yes that's what I meant by my question...Thank you for your opinion... That's why I'm asking...coz it really matters to define what literature is...

The Atheist

Quote:

---

Not to be too much of a spoilsport, but shouldn't this be in literature rather than philosophical literature?

---

Actually I put it here, coz Foucault argued this in his What is an Author?
He asked what makes someone an author, and what is literature?? So I needed some answers....

Quote:

---

Couple of good threads to check out:

---

Thank you for these threads, they are interesting, but I think they might be of a different question from the one I need to know;) Thank you...

"What is literature?? When can we say about a work of art a "literary work"??? What are the principles or values to make a work or maybe an utterance "literal"??

Something being literal is different from something being literary; to what extent can a "literary work" be "literature"? Is "literature" in each and every case "art." It seems that the different meanings of literature are used in an interchangeable manner, and this can only lead to confusion. Are there not many different kinds, or types, of literature (or literary "production") that can be distinguished and discussed separately? And would not some kind of classification of examples help to understand these types, and perhaps lead us to avoid using one word for disparate instances?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.A

:confused:A question which many thinkers, and philosopher tried to find an absolute answer....

What is literature?? When can we say about a work of art a "literary work"??? What are the principles or values to make a work or maybe an utterance "literal"??

Do literary works establish "culture"?? I mean is our culture determined by its "literary production"?? or "literary production" is affected by the power of culture??

Well, maybe we cannot define what "literature" is, since if you believe that there is no ultimate truth, so defining it will be possible... but let's give it a try:idea::idea:

---

To echo Atheist, I do not want to sour your quest, but you are confusing two different queries:

Literature as a generic term, is a body of work in any field. There is scientific literature, medical literature, historical literature, and so the question is easily dispensed with.

Now, if you are parsing this to mean what is literature in terms of a genre, the simplest answer is, creative human expression, since you are including all forms--and no, literature does not establish culture, but reflects and preserves it, and creates readers who may become cultured, because culture is an intake of many arts: architecture, culinary, painting, sculpture, science, design, technology, geography, national identity.

When Jean Paul Sartre's What Is Literature? was published, critics called it a "literary maifesto." I haven't read it in its entirety (too many books, too little time, eh?), but what struck me was how Sartre was ever-aware of how the writer functions within society--and how literature is a product of society's political and philosophical parameters: "One does not write for slaves. The art of prose is bound up with the only regime in which prose has meaning--democracy. When one is theatened, the other is too."

Check this 'manifesto' out, if you can. Sartre answers questions like, "Why write?" and "For whom does one write?" concluding with the thought that "The world can do very well without literature. But it can do without man still better."

Ah, Sartre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.A

Actually I put it here, coz Foucault argued this in his What is an Author? He asked what makes someone an author, and what is literature?? So I needed some answer...

---

I am very interested in Foucault, but I have not read Author; would you be able to provide more context in terms of what his argument is?

Jozanny

Quote:

---

Literature as a generic term, is a body of work in any field. There is scientific literature, medical literature, historical literature, and so the question is easily dispensed with.

---

Quote:

---

literature does not establish culture, but reflects and preserves it, and creates readers who may become cultured

---

So here comes the confusion... if you say that there is scientific, medical, hitorical literature, then what's the use of a nation without a culture including these fields?? Since literature is not confined with only literary works, then it must be the main reason for a culture to be, right?? A nation without literature then could not have any memory in history, it might be even forgotten... Thank you for your reply... and concerning Foucault and his article; he discussed ideas about what is an author?? to whom he is writing? and what kinds of literature we have? and about its relation with culture.... I think it's somehow close in ideas to that of Sartre... I'll try also to read this...

While literature (as yet undefined for this thread's purpose) does indeed reflect and preserve it, it may also influence culture and society. Some authors intentionally write novels, for example, to influence society (Upton Sinclair, Dickens) or to present philosophy (Orwell, Rand, Sartre).
A work of literature once published, takes on a life of its own independent of the author's intentions. As a document, it is subject to interpretations (and perhaps mis-interpretations) and these become active in the world. One can think of Humes awakening Kant from his dogmatic slumber, for example. Or Hitler's use of Also Sprach Zarathustra.

Below is a trial definition of literature. Perhaps refining it will help our understanding of the question.

Literature is a body of written works relating to a given topic or theme that can be understood as a 'conversation'.

Notes: 1) The requirement that the literature be written is included to insure that the original works retain their identities and hence remain (at least to some extent) distinct voices.
2) Literature can not consist of a work in a vacuum.
3) 'Topic' and 'theme' are undefined here. I am not sure that it needs to be spelled out.
4) I think the crucial aspect that creates the literature is the conversational one. This does not necessarily mean explicit references, but a shared awareness. Or, if you like, a tradition. There is a conversation metaphorically between the works, and also between the works and the readers.

Consider these cases:
1. An article in a newspaper reporting a fire downtown.
2. An editorial or book review in the Times.
3. A journal found after an author's death and subsequently published, or a discarded novel.
4. A box of notes found after the same author's death, put together, and then published.
5. A child's copybook in which handwriting was practiced.

Any definition should take into consideration our ability to determine if 1-5 (and I am sure the participants could add to this list) are literature or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgweed

Consider these cases:
1. An article in a newspaper reporting a fire downtown.
2. An editorial or book review in the Times.
3. A journal found after an author's death and subsequently published, or a discarded novel.
4. A box of notes found after the same author's death, put together, and then published.
5. A child's copybook in which handwriting was practiced.

Any definition should take into consideration our ability to determine if 1-5 (and I am sure the participants could add to this list) are literature or not.

---

The definition I proposed would probably claim 1 & 5 are not literature, 2 & 4 would be literature. The only problem would be 3, because it would depend on the contents if the journal.

An interesting question highlighted by 3 is whether publication is necessary for a work to be literature. I would argue for unpublished works to be part of literature insofar as they engage in a response to other works. I would further argue that even a discarded novel by virtue of its participation in the literary form of the novel, is part of the development of the form. I would also argue that publication is not necessary since it does not seem to me that size of the audience is a relevant factor in deciding whether something belongs to a literature. I would think only intrinsic factors would matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

The definition I proposed would probably claim 1 & 5 are not literature, 2 & 4 would be literature. The only problem would be 3, because it would depend on the contents if the journal.

An interesting question highlighted by 3 is whether publication is necessary for a work to be literature. I would argue for unpublished works to be part of literature insofar as they engage in a response to other works. I would further argue that even a discarded novel by virtue of its participation in the literary form of the novel, is part of the development of the form. I would also argue that publication is not necessary since it does not seem to me that size of the audience is a relevant factor in deciding whether something belongs to a literature. I would think only intrinsic factors would matter.

---

The question of the conversationality of literature is nagging me. I feel that it is a crucial element but I also feel dissatisfied with my approach here because it is not clear, either in the definition or in my own mind, whether an internal dialogue of a reader (or a writer engaging his tradition) is sufficient to qualify.

In addition to the perspective from a historical or social point of view once the text is written, perhaps one should also consider the original intention of the author to engage in literary dialogue (of a certain kind), and not solely as a phenomenon after the fact?

Every schoolboy knows what literature IS, and can identify it when he sees it, but arriving at a working definition makes us think of distinctions and subtleties that puts the original identification at hazard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgweed

In addition to the perspective from a historical or social point of view once the text is written, perhaps one should also consider the original intention of the author to engage in literary dialogue (of a certain kind), and not solely as a phenomenon after the fact?

Every schoolboy knows what literature IS, and can identify it when he sees it, but arriving at a working definition makes us think of distinctions and subtleties that puts the original identification at hazard.

---

I agree. Which is why I would include the discarded novel as literature. I would emphasize that the author need not consciously intend the work as part of a dialogue.

Literature is reflection of us, and also reflection of what we perceive of things of nature and society we are in. Literature is really a comprehensive expression of the horrors and beauties man live with. For life has both quotients side by side and these things wrap up man one after another endlessly. Such vistas and views man perceievs almost everyday coming across vagaries of life almost in every walk of life.

Literature is intoxication

Literature is a ghost world verbally invoked.

Literature is nature redefined or nature nurtured and groomed and man is taught to imitate it easily.

Literature is something that weaves dreams, and spins ideas and take us on the wings of fancy somewhere we otherwise never could have reached.