What is Literature?

[Quark]

I think we've been awash with threads that rank or evaluate authors lately. When I skim recent posts, many of them come under headings like "Favorite Victorian Poet," "Top Eight Scandinavian Novelist," or "Objectively Speaking: Who is the Greatest Writer Ever?" This prompts numerous answers, but often they raise more questions than they answer:

A few years ago I tried to place each of Shakespeare's plays into seven categories of quality. Then I made another ranking Hemingway's. I have to admit that Hemingway only reached the third tier of my Shakespeare ranks.

Why seven categories? What gives a Shakespeare play quality? Why is Hemingway in the third tier? What are these tiers or categories?

Then, there's a vaguely worded defense:

I would personally choose Austen over Hardy for British prose due to her tight consistently across all of her works including Northanger Abbey.

"tight consistently?"

Next, disillusionment

I think the furthest we can get in a discussion is generally the standard "Ooh, that was lovely, he's soooo moving." etc.

Followed by anger

These lists are truly absurd and prove nothing but the tastes of those who participate

And the same post further down continues:

but what the hell:

1. Shakespeare
2. Dante
3. Milton
4. Blake
5. Homer

Acceptance

Then the process loops back and repeats. It might seem like I'm complaining about this, but really I like the threads and I've posted on a couple of them. They're usually entertaining, and sometimes you get good suggestions on which books or translations to read. At the same time, though, I share the disillusionment--and sometimes anger--of the posters later in the loop. It does appear sometimes that the conversation never gets past "Ooh, that was lovely, he's soooo moving." Posters frequently are hesitant to move past bland, imprecise, qualitative judgments of the classics. One might conclude that's because no one has any real insight to offer, and all they can comment on is their own particular taste. I don't think that's true, though. I think there's an obstacle in the way of the discussion that makes it impossible to post any conclusive evaluation. Often, people point to the confusion over the term "quality," but the problem isn't that we have no notion of "quality." It's that we have no notion of "literary." The meaning of the word "quality" changed based on its context. Automotive quality certainly is something different than literary quality, and a discussion of these terms is going to revolve around what an automobile should be and what literature should be--not what constitutes quality.

What is literature, then? Do we find it in themes, plot, language? Is it representational as Plato and Aristotle would have it? Does it draw attention to its own construction like Frye argues? What separates Jane Austen novels from Chick-Lit? Should we even make that distinction?

[JBI]

You are taking what I said out of context. I was implying that people here like to discuss ratings, and not texts. When people talk about poetry (which they don't seem to on these boards) they don't want to talk about the poems themselves, only the "ranking" of them and their poets. When people choose books to read for the book clubs, they choose the one they know the most about, or have already read, and then go straight to the ranking.

I think the problem here is that half the people here only read classics, or old books. Those books have already been evaluated, thereby making the judgment not to difficult, and when it comes down to it, it is quite easy to yell at a Harry Potter or a Twilight, but not so easy to say "I like the work of these contemporary poets, especially these poems, BECAUSE..."

Ironically the times I find on these boards when the most discussion of the texts themselves is going on, is when people ask for their homework to be done for them, or a more nuanced just give me an answer. Then people begin to debate, but again, only on old texts, and only to an extent.

Some texts are better than others, but really unless you are devaluing on these boards, such ranking discussions go nowhere.

[Quark]

You are taking what I said out of context.

I didn't mean to misrepresent you--hopefully I didn't. I only meant to show that threads that evaluate authors sometimes frustrate the participants. I thought your post worked in that context. You even say in your last post:

really unless you are devaluing on these boards, such ranking discussions go nowhere.

This seems generally in the spirit of the point I was making. Unfortunately, I couldn't include the explanation of your position because I was trying to keep my opening post short. When you say for example:

I was implying that people here like to discuss ratings, and not texts.

I completely agree and I'd like to spend more time talking about why that is, but it might obscure the particular point I was trying to make about how the threads make little progress.

it is quite easy to yell at a Harry Potter or a Twilight, but not so easy to say "I like the work of these contemporary poets, especially these poems, BECAUSE..."

Agreed, I'd like to see more conversation devoted to the "BECAUSE." My point is that the "BECAUSE" is going to involve some definition of what is literary and what is not.

I think the problem here is that half the people here only read classics, or old books.

I'm actually curious why that is, and it's part of why I started this thread. It seems like people are drawn to established classics, and I want to see how everyone distinguishes between those and lesser-known, perhaps peripheral works. What makes the old and much-evaluated stories literary?

When people talk about poetry (which they don't seem to on these boards) they don't want to talk about the poems themselves, only the "ranking" of them and their poets. When people choose books to read for the book clubs, they choose the one they know the most about, or have already read, and then go straight to the ranking.

I don't know the posters that well, so I'm a little reluctant to immediately agree with you, but this could be the case.

Ironically the times I find on these boards when the most discussion of the texts themselves is going on, is when people ask for their homework to be done for them, or a more nuanced just give me an answer. Then people begin to debate, but again, only on old texts, and only to an extent.

I'm not entirely sure how true this is. I agree that there's little discussion of contemporary literature, but there's a organized book club on LitNet dedicated to discuss of texts--not to mention the user-started threads like the DH Lawrence one and the Poe discussion. By the way, my signature links to a Chekhov discussion.

[LitNetIsGreat]

It’s an entertaining OP but I don’t really see what you are fishing for:

What is literature, then?

Anything written down originally, but it has become to be known as writing possessing quality or value, something of worth.

Do we find it in themes, plot, language?

Yes sometimes, sometimes not.

Is it representational as Plato and Aristotle would have it?

Don’t know.

Does it draw attention to its own construction like Frye argues?

Sometimes, sometimes not, it doesn't have to.

What separates Jane Austen novels from Chick-Lit?

Quality, and her tight consistency of course.

Should we even make that distinction?

I would, but it is up the individual in the end.

I'm not being awkward (well perhaps a little) but I fail to see the point in "what is literature?" To me that doesn't serve much purpose and takes us no closer in discussing the texts any more than "what's your favourite..." threads do.

[Quark]

I fail to see the point in "what is literature?" To me that doesn't serve much purpose and takes us no closer in discussing the texts any more than "what's your favourite..." threads do.

I think definitions of literature determine what we consider of literary quality. The question "what is literature" helps us talk about works then because it gives us criteria to use in evaluation. JS Mill, for example, defined poetry (he uses the word loosely to encompass much of what we would consider literary) as feeling which can "stir up the soul by mere sympathy with itself." This gave him a basis to judge Wordsworth and Shelley in "Two Kinds of Poetry" in way that is perhaps deeper than you would find in the "what's your favorite" threads. Mill preferred Shelley--and lyric poetry, in general--because it connects with the feeling that literature is supposed to convey.

I think this is the way we should try to evaluate writers. Rather than trying to start with their works and reverse engineer a definition of good literature, we should ask what is good literature and then determine which writers fit the definition.

[JBI]

I didn't mean to misrepresent you--hopefully I didn't. I only meant to show that threads that evaluate authors sometimes frustrate the participants. I thought your post worked in that context. You even say in your last post:



This seems generally in the spirit of the point I was making. Unfortunately, I couldn't include the explanation of your position because I was trying to keep my opening post short. When you say for example:



I completely agree and I'd like to spend more time talking about why that is, but it might obscure the particular point I was trying to make about how the threads make little progress.



Agreed, I'd like to see more conversation devoted to the "BECAUSE." My point is that the "BECAUSE" is going to involve some definition of what is literary and what is not.



I'm actually curious why that is, and it's part of why I started this thread. It seems like people are drawn to established classics, and I want to see how everyone distinguishes between those and lesser-known, perhaps peripheral works. What makes the old and much-evaluated stories literary?



I don't know the posters that well, so I'm a little reluctant to immediately agree with you, but this could be the case.



I'm not entirely sure how true this is. I agree that there's little discussion of contemporary literature, but there's a organized book club on LitNet dedicated to discuss of texts--not to mention the user-started threads like the DH Lawrence one and the Poe discussion. By the way, my signature links to a Chekhov discussion.

There, again you go in the wrong direction. You miss my point. Your point is to continue trying to analyze why works have such value, and why some works are better than others. The missing factor of course, is the Discussion Of the Works Themselves, as literature, and not merely a team on a scoreboard. You miss my point on moving away from tradition to the actual text itself - to understanding what certain works are saying.

The actual restatement of the value of canonical works is rather pointless, because their value has been set for centuries. A discussion of the works themselves though seem to lead elsewhere though - to actual criticism, to actual discussion, instead of the usual gushing.

[Quark]

There, again you go in the wrong direction. You miss my point.

Partially, that's because I didn't quote you for your point. I quoted you for the attitude you were conveying. You were expressing skepticism about the progress of the thread you were in, and that's what I was pointing to. Your explanation of your position is interesting, and worth consideration by itself, but it didn't fit with the point of this particular thread.

Your point is to continue trying to analyze why works have such value, and why some works are better than others. The missing factor of course, is the Discussion Of the Works Themselves, as literature, and not merely a team on a scoreboard. You miss my point on moving away from tradition to the actual text itself - to understanding what certain works are saying.

I mentioned some threads where they do analysis of particular works in my last post, and you might want to check them out. I myself started a Chekhov short story thread where we discussed individual stories and what they had to say. Now, though, I want to talk about literature in general, and I think I should be able to do that. I don't think all generalized discussions of literature are all gushy. You, yourself, often refer to Frye's Anatomy of Criticism which I think is an intelligent answer to just this question. I'm guessing that others might also have something intelligent to say as well.

[JBI]

Yes, and if you have read Frye, you would note he believes that the actual act of rating books is beneath the critic, and that they should note, and merely shine light on works.

[Quark]

Yes, and if you have read Frye, you would note he believes that the actual act of rating books is beneath the critic, and that they should note, and merely shine light on works.

Then let's talk about Frye. He argues that:

In literature, questions of fact or truth are subordinated to the primary literary aims of producing a structure of words for its own sake, and the sign-values of symbols are subordinated to their importance as a structure of interconnected motifs. Whenever we have an autonomous verbal structure of this kind, we have literature. Whenever this autonomous verbal structure is lacking, we have language.

This is a concise definition, but some might find it incomplete. What happens to content? Also, how does one measure this or even talk about it?

Frye might not be ranking here, but he's certainly drawing a line between what is literary and what is not. This is what I'm interested in.

[JCamilo]

Literature is what is writen with a message. That is all. It does not say anything about quality, fiction, poetry, etc.

I found amazing how in your original post your question is what define good literary art and not what is literature, which is your question.

[mortalterror]

Unfortunately, I couldn't include the explanation of your position because I was trying to keep my opening post short...I'd like to spend more time talking about why that is, but it might obscure the particular point I was trying to make

Really, I can sympathize; because that was why I didn't go into greater depth in my own passage you quoted above. The topic under discussion was neither Shakespeare nor Hemingway and I felt like a prolonged story about how I made my determinations would be distracting and tangential to the more serious point I was trying to make. Editing the quote as you do, and denying it a context makes me come off as a sort of glib buffoon. I don't mind that but I'd appreciate it if in the future you'd link back to what I said so people can see exactly how much of a glib buffoon I really am.

[prendrelemick]

Literature is what is writen with a message. That is all. It does not say anything about quality, fiction, poetry, etc.

I found amazing how in your original post your question is what define good literary art and not what is literature, which is your question.

Can it really be so simple? your defination is attractive because it is so simple. I remember writing pages and pages on this at school, but never got as close as you have.

[Joreads]

Maybe if people spent less time yelling at Harry Potter, Twilight and other books they don't consider worthy of reading the discussion on texts in other threads might take off. We are all different and what is Literature or worth reading and discussing to some of us will not suit everyone.

[Quark]

Literature is what is writen with a message. That is all. It does not say anything about quality, fiction, poetry, etc.

I found amazing how in your original post your question is what define good literary art and not what is literature, which is your question.

Some people do use the word literature to mean the entire corpus of writings. For example, I might say "Review the literature on this legal proceeding," and of course I don't mean to say that they should read literary art, but rather writing about that legal proceeding.

Literature has also come to mean literary art, though, and the words sometimes are used interchangeably, as I do here--and as the Frye quote above does as well.

Really, I can sympathize; because that was why I didn't go into greater depth in my own passage you quoted above. The topic under discussion was neither Shakespeare nor Hemingway and I felt like a prolonged story about how I made my determinations would be distracting and tangential to the more serious point I was trying to make.

Yes, I assumed you had more to say on the topic.

Editing the quote as you do, and denying it a context makes me come off as a sort of glib buffoon. I don't mind that but I'd appreciate it if in the future you'd link back to what I said

Here's most of your post (including the part of Stlukeguild you were replying to):

Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
I would argue that Dickinson is unquestionably one of the most brilliant poets... but she never even attempts anything that extends beyond a page. Checkov... Borges... Kafka... and even your beloved Hemingway are largely recognized for their short stories.

Most assuredly, the talent is there; but the ambition is lacking. Dickinson is as good at what she does as anybody. She piles up a mountain of little gems. Who has more? Still, even collectively, they cannot do what Pharsalia does. I'm a big believer in compression, in "less is more", but sometimes "more is more" too.

A few years ago I tried to place each of Shakespeare's plays into seven categories of quality. Then I made another ranking Hemingway's. I have to admit that Hemingway only reached the third tier of my Shakespeare ranks. He was the best writer of his time but he did not write the best books. He never goes for it, like say Tolstoy would. I do not like Tolstoy much but I appreciate what he was trying to do. Hemingway himself understood this fact. He wrote "If only Turgenev had written War and Peace." The best writers so rarely meet with the best subjects, styles, and themes. Fitzgerald is not as good a writer as Hemingway but he wrote the better book. I am not questioning the potential, or the talent of these writers. I am questioning how far they fulfilled that potential.

Artistically, I believe that the novel, the epic, the feature, the full length play, are the longest forms in their genres and the hardest to do well. Any author of any worth should recognize the potential of these forms, understand that they provide the greatest challenges and scope to show off his ability, and should compose in them.

the url is: http://www.online-literature.com/for...=31576&page=10

You're discussing what you called "big ventures," and why Hemingway might fall short of perfection. The idea was that he never was never as ambitious as Tolstoy, so he falls into the third category. What I was saying, though, is that your post leaves a lot to interpretation. Even understanding the context, we still have no idea what these categories are. I suppose since Hemingway isn't ambitious enough he wouldn't be in the first tier, but why the third? As I said to JBI, I could explain the context but it wouldn't change my point. I'm assuming you have good answers to these questions, but you're right that the discussion wouldn't allow you the space to fully explain. That was my point--not that you're a glib buffoon.

[JCamilo]

Some people do use the word literature to mean the entire corpus of writings. For example, I might say "Review the literature on this legal proceeding," and of course I don't mean to say that they should read literary art, but rather writing about that legal proceeding.

Literature has also come to mean literary art, though, and the words sometimes are used interchangeably, as I do here--and as the Frye quote above does as well.

The quote just say the same that I did with more words, but nothing else about quality. Also, definition of Art does not means quality either. There is art that are not good at all.