Defining literature?

[mal4mac]

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.

COEDs definition of "beauty" is "1. ... combination of qualities... that delight..."

In the COED the distinct sense of a word are separated by semi-colons.

So distinct senses of "literature" are (7th ed. 1982, p.588):

1. "writing whose values lie in beauty of form or emotional effect"
2. "literary production"

These senses, obviously, contradict each other because a literary production may not be beautiful. The first definition explicitly says that literature is writing whose values lie in beauty of form or emotional effect - no caveats. You have to decide which definition of "literature" you are using in a specific context. Obviously, on this forum, we should (surely?) be taking definition 1. as the default definition.

Your definition 1., differs from mine:

1. written works esp. those whose value lies in beauty of language or in emotional effect

The "written works esp. those" is obviously a significant ammendment! What ed. of the COED did you use?

[Delta40]

9th ed 1995.

[cacian]

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?

I think we might be going besides our points which is this:
It is not about the literature it is about the ideas that make literature stand out.
A language is enhanced when the ideas are and not the other way around.

[PeterL]

No, I am taking it as given that writing is involved.

Neglecting to state exactly what you mean can lead to problems.

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.

You can think of it as you wish, but an abridged dictionary has been abridged, which means: to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail.

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!

That would work for Humpty Dumpty, but you should remember that rest of the world may be using a definition that was chopped from your abridged dictionary.

[kelby_lake]

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.

SPOILERS FOR TITUS ANDRONICUS AND TROILUS AND CRESSIDA

No, but your assertion that literature must be "beautiful" implies that there must be a loveliness there. Titus doesn't have a catharsis, really. The characters literally sit at a dinner table, turn to the person next to them and kill them. The ending, where Aaron and Tamora's bastard mixed race baby is held up as the future of Rome is far from beautiful. It is clever but it is frightening and morally dubious. Pandarus talking to the audience about bawds and diseases when poor Hector has just been killed is not beautiful. A novel may be well-written without being beautiful.

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.

Both of those are by definition literature, although I did not suggest that they are the type of literature we study in a literary context. People are put off studying literature because they feel that they should be delighted by every classic they read and then feel inferior when they don't organically feel this delight. The ability to appreciate literature does not come from some divine light that shines upon privileged individuals but by studying, comparing and developing an instinct for the components of a piece of writing that would make it worthy of study.

[cacian]

Since this is about literature I keep reading and coming across this expression:
An unorthodox way/fashion of writing.
What is orthodoxy in writing?

[mal4mac]

SPOILERS FOR TITUS ANDRONICUS AND TROILUS AND CRESSIDA

No, but your assertion that literature must be "beautiful" implies that there must be a loveliness there...

"In watching Titus Andronicus we come to understand – perhaps more than by looking at any other Shakespeare play – the nature of his genius: he gave an inner awareness to passions; cruelty ceased to be merely physical. Shakespeare discovered the moral hell. He discovered heaven as well. But he remained on earth." - Jan Kott

So he has a beautiful way of expressing the inner reality of the cruellest passions

People are put off studying literature because they feel that they should be delighted by every classic they read and then feel inferior when they don't organically feel this delight. The ability to appreciate literature does not come from some divine light that shines upon privileged individuals but by studying, comparing and developing an instinct for the components of a piece of writing that would make it worthy of study.

I haven't studied literature since GCSE O level, but I get delight from the majority of classics I read. Therefore I'm living proof that study beyond this level isn't necessary for getting great delight from the classics. (Note that English Literature GCSE didn't involve the study of shopping lists or the Communist Manifesto...)

.... but you should remember that rest of the world may be using a definition that was chopped from your abridged dictionary.

I don't think they are... why would the OED cut the most common use from their concise dictionary, when it is geared to give those definitions? In any case, it looks fine to me. So are the OED editors Humpty Dumptys? I see you didn't give the date or edition that you used. Are you just making it up? Why not engage with the argument instead of trying to insult people?

[PeterL]

I don't think they are... why would the OED cut the most common use from their concise dictionary, when it is geared to give those definitions? In any case, it looks fine to me. So are the OED editors Humpty Dumptys?

Yes, it appears that editors of the OED may be Humpty Dumpty's, but I can't be certain. You should keep in mind that editors sometimes edit to put forward a point of view. There are som many people in the world that ithere is certainly one who will agree with any madness that some madman dreams up, dcso you shouldn't be surprised that the editors of the OED made the same mistake that you did.

I see you didn't give the date or edition that you used. Are you just making it up?

Date and edition of what" If you mean HALice, then it makes no difference, because it is in the public domain, and this is a casual use, rather than academic, which would require a footnote.

Why not engage with the argument instead of trying to insult people?

I have not attempted to insult anyone. I have simply pointed out that your definition was incorrect.

I will request that this thread be closed.

[kelby_lake]

"In watching Titus Andronicus we come to understand – perhaps more than by looking at any other Shakespeare play – the nature of his genius: he gave an inner awareness to passions; cruelty ceased to be merely physical. Shakespeare discovered the moral hell. He discovered heaven as well. But he remained on earth." - Jan Kott

So he has a beautiful way of expressing the inner reality of the cruellest passions

I still fail to see how he expresses this moral hell- and I don't doubt that he discovered it and that was to influence his later plays- is particularly beautiful. The cruelty is mental but very obviously physical as well. The discovery of heaven arguably comes later. Lavinia certainly isn't as heavenly as she is made out to be.

Shakespeare in general has a beautiful way of expressing cruel passion, but not in Titus. And yet Titus is still a great play.

[Paulclem]

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"?

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. Mine

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. Yours

I fail to see what the difference between these two are Mal.

Having said that, I do have a raging ego.

[kelby_lake]

I haven't studied literature since GCSE O level, but I get delight from the majority of classics I read. Therefore I'm living proof that study beyond this level isn't necessary for getting great delight from the classics. (Note that English Literature GCSE didn't involve the study of shopping lists or the Communist Manifesto...)

I don't know when you took your O-Level but it was a different style of education to modern GCSEs. Modern GCSEs partly study novels/plays because they are considered to be classics (like in the case of Shakespeare) but a lot of the time it's classics- generally twentieth century- that are perceived to have modern relevance or that make the student socially aware. For example, To Kill A Mockingbird is a very common text for GCSE. We don't study it because it's a beautiful novel (I think the writing style is fairly standard though some might disagree). We study it because of its study of racism and prejudice.

The study of English is moving towards study based on social and political views rather than questions of merit. Is there any work of postcolonial literature that is beautiful enough to be a classic regardless of its pedigree?

[Paulclem]

The word literature is used i a variety of ways, and so a precise definition may be moot - as has been demonstrated so far. For example, it would be correct for someone to say:

"Take your filthy literature with you" referring to a pornographic magazine, but it is not what we on this forum would refer to as literature, even though i tmay delight some.

Text seems to be used for writing that is not literature - such as the text of a poster, but you can study the text of literature - as it directly refers to the words of a book as well. Despite this flexibility of the language, when we discuss literature, I say again, we all know what we are referring to. As we can see, the dictionaries have flexible definitions.

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?

The only time I have read a book I didn't like - for example Emma by Jane "The Torturer" Austen- has been for a course I have been studying for. I really don't feel the need to read anything I don't like unless I have to study it. There's too little time to be bothered with it. Having said that, being forced to read stuff I wouldn't read normally has shown me what it is about the book and author that people like. I can appreciate that some masochists like Jane "The Torturer" Austen, and recognise it as a twisted form of literary enjoyment for some.

[Delta40]

I agree Paul. It seems to me some people want to take the definition and hack away the things they don't like and put what is left in a box and call it literature when the definition of literature is clearly broad enough to cover most things (much to the disgust of some) Defaulting to only one definition? How selective and convenient is that? Perhaps there is only one kind of man (the traditional patriarchal kind) and I should default to him and discard the rest because they don't actually qualify as men?

[Paulclem]

I agree Paul. It seems to me some people want to take the definition and hack away the things they don't like and put what is left in a box and call it literature when the definition of literature is clearly broad enough to cover most things (much to the disgust of some) Defaulting to only one definition? How selective and convenient is that? Perhaps there is only one kind of man (the traditional patriarchal kind) and I should default to him and discard the rest because they don't actually qualify as men?

Aye. Some people don't like uncertainty, but prefer the rod ... of the certain.

[kelby_lake]

Aye. Some people don't like uncertainty, but prefer the rod ... of the certain.

Hee hee...