Defining literature?

[PeterL]

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?

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:

[Paulclem]

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.

[kelby_lake]

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."

[cacian]

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.

[mal4mac]

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.

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.

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!

[kelby_lake]

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.

[mal4mac]

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"?

[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>

[Scheherazade]

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>

[Delta40]

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).

[mal4mac]

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...)

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.

[Delta40]

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.

[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?

[mal4mac]

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...)

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.

[cacian]

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?