Defining literature?

[cacian]

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.

[PeterL]

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.

[cacian]

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.

[mjh]

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

[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.

[cacian]

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.

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.

[PeterL]

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.

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.

[cacian]

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.

[PeterL]

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.

[kelby_lake]

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.

[cacian]

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.

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?

[PeterL]

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.

[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"?

[PeterL]

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.

[cacian]

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.